Revised Manual For Prosecutors: 2017 EDITION

REVISED MANUAL FOR
PROSECUTORS
2017 EDITION
VOLUME 1 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume II
FOREWORD xv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xvi
DEPARTMENT ORDER xix
CHAPTER I CRIMES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL

CODE AND SELECTED SPECIAL LAWS 1
TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY

AND THE LAW OF NATIONS 1
Article 114 Treason 1

Article 115 Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason 2
Article 116 Misprision of Treason 3
Article 117 Espionage 3
Article 118 Inciting to War and Giving Motives for
Motives for Reprisals 4
Article 119 Violation of Neutrality 5
Article 120 Correspondence with Hostile Country 5
Article 121 Flight to Enemy’s Country 6
Article 122 Piracy in General and Mutiny on the High
High Seas or in Philippine Waters 7
Article 123 Qualified Piracy 8
TITLE TWO CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL

LAW OF THE STATE 9
Article 124 Arbitrary Detention 9

Article 125 Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons
To the Proper Judicial Authorities 10
Article 126 Delaying Release 11
Article 127 Expulsion 12
Article 128 Violation of Domicile 12
Article 129 Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained
And Abuse in the Service of those Legally
Obtained 13
Article 130 Searching Domicile Without Witnesses 15
Article 131 Prohibition, Interruption and
Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings 16
i
Article 132 Interruption of Religious Worship 16
Article 133 Offending Religious Feelings 17
TITLE THREE CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER 18
Article 134 Rebellion or Insurrection – How

Committed 18
Article 134-A Coup D’Etat – How Committed 18
Article 135 Penalty for Rebellion or
Insurrection or Coup D’Etat 19
Article 136 Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Coup
D’Etat, Rebellion or Insurrection 21
Article 137 Disloyalty of Public Officers or Employees 22
Article 138 Inciting to Rebellion or Insurrection 22
Article 139 Sedition – How Committed 23
Article 140 Penalty for Sedition 24
Article 141 Conspiracy to Commit Sedition 24
Article 142 Inciting to Sedition 25
Article 143 Acts Tending to Prevent the Meeting of the
Assembly and Similar Bodies 26
Article 144 Disturbance of Proceedings 27
Article 145 Violation of Parliamentary Immunity 27
Article 146 Illegal Assemblies 28
Article 147 Illegal Associations 29
Article 148 Direct Assaults 30
Article 149 Indirect Assaults 32
Article 150 Disobedience to Summons Issued by the
National Assembly, its Committees or
Subcommittees, by the Constitutional
Commission, its Committees,
Subcommittees or Divisions 32
Article 151 Resistance and Disobedience to a Person
In Authority or the Agents of Such Person 33
Article 152 Persons in Authority and Agents of
Persons in Authority – Who Shall be Deemed
as Such 34
Article 153 Tumults & Other Disturbances of
Public Order – Tumultuous
Disturbance or Interruption Liable to Cause
Disturbance 35
Article 154 Unlawful Use of Means of Publication
And Unlawful Utterances 35
Article 155 Alarms and Scandals 36
Article 156 Delivering Prisoners From Jail 37
Article 157 Evasion of Service of Sentence 37
ii
ii
Article 158 Evasion of Service of Sentence on the
Occasion of Disorders, Conflagrations,
Earthquakes, or Other Calamities 38
Article 159 Other Cases of Evasion of Service of
Sentence 39
Article 160 Commission of Another Crime During the
Service of Penalty Imposed for Another
Previous Offense (Quasi-Recidivism) 39
TITLE FOUR CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST 40
Article 161 Counterfeiting the Great Seal of the

Government, Forging the Signature or
Stamp of the Chief Executive 40
Article 162 Using Forged Signature or Counterfeit
Seal or Stamp 40
Article 163 Making and Importing and Uttering
False Coins 41
Article 164 Mutilation of Coins – Importation and
Utterance of Mutilated Coins 41
Article 165 Selling of False or Mutilated Coin,
Without Connivance 42
Article 166 Forging Treasury or Bank Notes or
Other Documents Payable to Bearer;
Importing, and Uttering Such False or
Forged Notes and Documents 42
Article 167 Counterfeiting, Importing and
Uttering Instruments Not Payable to
Bearer 43
Article 168 Illegal Possession and Use of False
Treasury or Bank Notes and Other
Instruments of Credit 44
Article 169 How Forgery is Committed 45
Article 170 Falsification of Legislative Document 45
Article 171 Falsification by Public Officer,
Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastical
Minister 46
Article 172 Falsification by Private Individuals and
Use of Falsified Documents 50
Article 173 Falsification of Wireless, Cable,
Telegraph and Telephone Messages
And Use of Said Falsified Messages 52
Article 174 False Medical Certificates,
Certificates of Merit or Service, Etc. 54
iii
Article 175 Using False Certificates 54
Article 176 Manufacturing and Possession of
Instruments or Implements for
Falsification 55
Article 177 Usurpation of Authority or Official
Functions 55
Article 178 Using Fictitious Name and Concealing
True Name 56
Commonwealth Act No. 142, as amended by R.A. 6085,

“An Act Regulating the Use of Aliases” 57
Article 179 Illegal Use of Uniforms or Insignia 58

Article 180 False Testimony Against a Defendant 58
Article 181 False Testimony Favorable to the
Defendant 59
Article 182 False Testimony in Civil Cases 59
Article 183 False Testimony in Other Cases and
Perjury in Solemn Affirmation 60
Article 184 Offering False Testimony in Evidence 61
Article 185 Machinations in Public Auctions 61
Article 186 Monopolies and Combinations in
Restraint of Trade 62
Article 187 Importation and Disposition of Falsely
Marked Articles or Merchandise Made
Of Gold, Silver or Other Precious Metals
Or Their Alloys 64
TITLE FIVE CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND

OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS 66
Republic Act No. 9165, “The Comprehensive Dangerous

Drugs Act of 2002” 66
TITLE SIX CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS 69
Article 200 Grave Scandal 69

Article 201 Immoral Doctrines, Obscene Publications
And Exhibitions and Indecent Shows 69
Article 202 Vagrants and Prostitutes 70
iv
TITLE SEVEN CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS 71
Article 203 Who are Public Officers 71

Article 204 Knowingly Rendering Unjust
Judgement 71
Article 205 Judgement Rendered Though
Negligence 72
Article 206 Unjust Interlocutory Order 72
Article 207 Malicious Delay in the Administration
Of Justice 73
Article 208 Prosecution of Offenses; Negligence
And Tolerance 73
Article 209 Betrayal of Trust by an Attorney or
Solicitor-Revelation of Secrets 74
Article 210 Direct Bribery 75
Article 211 Indirect Bribery 76
Article 211-A Qualified Bribery 77
Article 212 Corruption of Public Officials 77
Article 213 Frauds Against the Public Treasury
And Similar Offenses 77
Article 214 Other Frauds 80
Article 215 Prohibited Transactions 80
Article 216 Possession of Prohibited Interest
By a Police Officer 81
Article 217 Malversation of Public Funds or
Property-Presumption of Malversation 81
Article 218 Failure of Accountable Officer to
Render Accounts 82
Article 219 Failure of a Responsible Public Officer
To Render Accounts Before Leaving the
Country 83
Article 220 Illegal Use of Public Funds or
Property 83
Article 221 Failure to Make Delivery of
Public Funds or Property 84
Article 222 Officers Included in the Preceding Provisions 85
Article 223 Conniving With or Consenting
To Evasion 85
Article 224 Evasion Through Negligence 86
Article 225 Escape of Prisoner Under the
Custody of a Person Not a Public Officer 87
Article 226 Removal, Concealment or
Destruction of Documents 87
v
Article 227 Officer Breaking Seal 89
Article 228 Opening of Closed Documents 89
Article 229 Revelation of Secrets by an Officer 90
Article 230 Public Officer Revealing Secrets of
Private Individual 91
Article 231 Open Disobedience 92
Article 232 Disobedience to Order of Superior
Officer When Said Order Was
Suspended by Inferior Officer 92
Article 233 Refusal of Assistance 93
Article 234 Refusal to Discharge Elective Office 94
Article 235 Maltreatment of Prisoners 94
Article 236 Anticipation of Duties of a Public Office 95
Article 237 Prolonging Performance of Duties
And Powers 95
Article 238 Abandonment of Office or Position 96
Article 239 Usurpation of Legislative Powers 96
Article 240 Usurpation of Executive Functions 97
Article 241 Usurpation of Judicial Functions 97
Article 242 Disobeying Request for
Disqualification 98
Article 243 Orders or Requests by Executive
Officers to Any Judicial Authority 99
Article 244 Unlawful Appointments 99
Article 245 Abuses Against Chastity 100
TITLE EIGHT CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS 102
Article 246 Parricide 102

Article 247 Death or Physical Injuries
Inflicted Under Exceptional
Circumstances 103
Article 248 Murder 104
Article 249 Homicide 106
Article 250 Penalty for Frustrated Parricide,
Murder, or Homicide 107
Article 251 Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray 107
Article 252 Physical Injuries Inflicted in a
Tumultuous Affray 109
Article 253 Giving Assistance to Suicide 109
Article 254 Discharge of Firearms 110
Article 255 Infanticide 110
Article 256 Intentional Abortion 111
vi
Article 257 Unintentional Abortion 112
Article 258 Abortion Practiced by the Woman
Herself or by Her Parents 112
Article 259 Abortion Practiced by a Physician or
Midwife in Dispensing of Abortives 113
Article 260 Responsibility of Participants in a Duel 114
Article 261 Challenging to a Duel 115
Article 262 Mutilation 115
Article 263 Serious Physical Injuries 116
Article 264 Administering Injurious Substance
Or Beverages 117
Article 265 Less Serious Physical Injuries 118
Article 266 Slight Physical Injuries and
Maltreatment 119
Article 266-A Rape 120
Article 266-B Penalties 122
Article 266-C Effect of Pardon 124
Article 266-D Presumptions 125
TITLE NINE CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY

AND SECURITY 126
Article 267 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal

Detention 126
Article 268 Slight Illegal Detention 127
Article 269 Unlawful Arrest 128
Article 270 Kidnapping and Failure to
Return a Minor 128
Article 271 Inducing a Minor to Abandon
His Home 129
Article 272 Slavery 129
Article 273 Exploitation of Child Labor 130
Article 274 Services Rendered Under Compulsion in
Payment of Debt 130
Article 275 Abandonment of Persons in Danger and
Abandonment of One’s Own Victim 131
Article 276 Abandoning a Minor 132
Article 277 Abandonment of Minor by Person
Entrusted with his Custody; Indifference
Of Parents 132
Article 278 Exploitation of Minors 133
Article 279 Additional Penalties for Other Offenses 135
Article 280 Qualified Trespass to Dwelling 135
Article 281 Other Forms of Trespass 136
vii
Article 282 Grave Threats 136
Article 283 Light Threats 137
Article 284 Bond for Good Behavior 138
Article 285 Other Light Threats 138
Article 286 Grave Coercions 138
Article 287 Light Coercions 139
Article 288 Other Similar Coercions (Compulsory
Purchase of Merchandise and Payment
Of Wages by Means of Tokens) 140
Article 289 Formation, Maintenance, and
Prohibition of Combination of
Capital or Labor Through Violence 142
Article 290 Discovering Secrets Through Seizure
Of Correspondence 142
Article 291 Revealing Secrets with Abuse of
Office 143
Article 292 Revelation of Industrial Secrets 143
TITLE TEN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY 144
Article 293 Who are Guilty of Robbery 144

Article 294 Robbery with Violence Against or
Intimidation of Persons 144
Article 295 Robbery with Physical Injuries,
Committed in an Uninhabited Place
By a Band or with the Use of Firearm
On a Street, Road or Alley 146
Article 296 Definition of a Band and Penalty
Incurred by the Members Thereof 147
Article 297 Attempted and Frustrated Robbery
Committed Under Certain
Circumstances 148
Article 298 Execution of Deeds by Means of
Violence or Intimidation 148
Article 299 Robbery in an Inhabited House or
Public Building or Edifice Devoted
To Worship 148
Article 300 Robbery in an Uninhabited Place
And by a Band 150
Article 301 What is an Inhabited House, Public
Building or Building Dedicated to
Religious Worship and Their
Dependencies 150
viii
Article 302 Robbery in an Uninhabited Place
Or in a Private Building 151
Article 303 Robbery of Cereals, Fruits, or
Firewood in an Uninhabited Place
Or Private Building 152
Article 304 Possession of Picklocks or Similar Tools 153
Article 305 False Keys 153
Article 306 Who are Brigands 154
Article 307 Aiding and Abetting a Band of Brigands 155
Article 308 Who Are Liable for Theft 156
Article 309 Penalties 157
Article 310 Qualified Theft 157
Article 311 Theft of the Property of the National
Library and National Museum 158
Article 312 Occupation of Real Property or
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property 159
Article 313 Altering Boundaries or Landmarks 160
Article 314 Fraudulent Insolvency 161
Article 315 Swindling (Estafa) 161
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, “An Act Penalizing the Making

or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient
Funds or Credit and For Other Purpose” 168
Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic

Act No. 10022, “Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995” 172
Article 316 Other Forms of Swindling 173

Article 317 Swindling a Minor 176
Article 318 Other Deceits 176
Article 319 Removal, Sale or Pledge of Mortgaged
Property 177
Article 327 Who are Liable for Malicious Mischief 179
Article 328 Special Cases of Malicious Mischief 179
Article 329 Other Mischiefs 180
Article 330 Damage and Obstruction to Means
Of Communication 180
Article 331 Destroying or Damaging Statues,
Public Monuments or Paintings 180
Article 332 Persons Exempt from Criminal Liability 181
ix
TITLE ELEVEN CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY 181
Article 333 Who are Guilty of Adultery 181

Article 334 Concubinage 182
Article 336 Acts of Lasciviousness 183
Article 337 Qualified Seduction 184
Article 338 Simple Seduction 185
Article 339 Acts of Lasciviousness with the
Consent of the Offended Party 186
Article 340 Corruption of Minors (as amended
by BP Blg. 92) 187
Article 341 White Slave Trade 187
Article 342 Forcible Abduction 188
Article 343 Consented Abduction 189
Article 344 Prosecution of the Crimes of Adultery,
Concubinage, Seduction, Abduction,
Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness 190
Article 345 Civil Liability of Persons Guilty of
Crimes Against Chastity 190
Article 346 Liability of Ascendants, Guardians
Teachers or Other Persons Entrusted
With the Custody of the Offended Party 191
TITLE TWELVE CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL

STATUS OF PERSONS 192
Article 347 Simulation of Births, Substitution of

One Child for Another, Concealment
Or Abandonment of a Legitimate Child 192
Article 348 Usurpation of Civil Status 193
Article 349 Bigamy 193
Article 350 Marriage Contracted Against Provisions
of Law (Illegal Marriage) 194
Article 351 Premature Marriages 194
Article 352 Performance of Illegal Marriage Ceremony 195
TITLE THIRTEEN CRIMES AGAINST HONOR 196
Article 353 Definition of Libel 196

Article 354 Requirement for Publicity 197
Republic Act No. 4200, “The Anti-Wire Tapping Act” 199

Article 355 Libel by Means of Writings or
Similar Means 200
x
Article 356 Threatening to Publish and Offer
To Prevent Such Publication
For a Compensation 200
Article 357 Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred to
In the Course of Official Proceedings 201
Republic Act No. 1477, “Exempting The Publisher,

Editor Or Reporter Of Any Publication From Revealing
The Source Of Published News Or Information
Obtained In Confidence” 202
Article 358 Slander 202

Article 359 Slander by Deed 203
Article 360 Persons Responsible for Libel 204
Article 361 Proof of Truth 204
Article 362 Libelous Remarks 205
Article 363 Incriminating Innocent Persons 206
Article 364 Intriguing Against Honor 206
TITLE FOURTEEN QUASI-OFFENSES 207
Article 365 Imprudence and Negligence 207
CHAPTER II PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR MOST

COMMON CRIMES 210
2.1 Murder 210

2.1.1 Murder, Homicide and Parricide 210
2.1.2 Frustrated or Attempted Murder,
Homicide and Parricide 211
2.2 Bouncing Checks Law 212
2.3 Grave Coercion 212
2.4 Grave Threats 212
2.5 Theft 212
2.6 Rape 213
2.7 Drugs 213
2.8 Illegal Recruitment 214
2.9 Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children (VAWC) Act of 2004 (R. A. No. 9262) 215
2.10 Estafa 216
xi
xi
2.11 Violation of the Anti-Piracy and
Anti-Highway Robbery Law
(P.D. No. 532) and Violation of the
Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612) 216
2.12 Violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law
(R.A. No. 6539) 216
2.13 Violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law
(P.D. No. 533) 216
2.14 Violation of Illegal Gambling Law
(P.D. No. 1602) 217
2.15 Illegal Possession of Firearms, Ammunitions
and Explosives (P.D. No. 1866, as amended
by R.A. No. 8294) 217
2.16 Violation of the Fisheries Code of the
Philippines (R.A. No. 8850, as amended by
R.A. No. 10654) 217
2.17 Violation of Blue, Brown and Green Laws 217
CHAPTER III UPDATES ON SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 218
Section 3.1 Trafficking in Persons: Republic Act

No. 9208, As Amended By Republic Act
No. 10364, Or The “Expanded Anti-
Trafficking in Persons Of 2012” 218
Section 3.2 Environmental Laws 237
3.2.1 Brown Laws 237
3.2.2 Green Laws 240
Section 3.3 Anti-Money Laundering Act 298
Section 3.4 Human Rights Violation 300
Section 3.5 Violation of The National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC) And Related Laws 319
Section 3.6 Cybercrimes 362
Section 3.7 Competition 440
CHAPTER IV MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURES 472
Section 4.1 Lookout Bulletin Order/Allow

Departure Order 472
4.1.1 Department Circular No. 41 dated
June 7, 2010 (Consolidated Rules and
Regulations Governing The Issuances
and Implementing Of Hold Departure
Orders, Watchlist Orders and Allow
Departure Orders) 474
xii
4.1.2 Immigration Lookout Bulletin Order 480
Section 4.2 Gender-Sensitive and Child Friendly
Approaches to Case Handling 482
CHAPTER V LEGAL WRITING 554
Section 5.1 Overview 554

Section 5.2 Two Stages Of Writing: Pre-Work
And Actual Writing 555
Section 5.3 Common Grammatical Errors 556
Section 5.4 Modern Legal Writing 560
Section 5.5 Common Prosecutorial Forms 564
CHAPTER VI VALUES AND ETHICS IN

PROSECUTION 568
Section 6.1 Overview 568

Section 6.2 Significant Sources Of Ethics
Laws/Rules For Public Prosecutors 568
Section 6.3 Common Ethical Issues Encountered
By Prosecutors 569
Section 6.4 Some Ethical Issues Unique
To Prosecutors 571
CHAPTER VII RELEVANT LAWS/ADMINISTRATIVE

ORDER 574
Section 7.1 Republic Act No. 6981

(Witness Protection Program) 574
(Board of Claims) 582
(Anti-Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearance Act of 2012) 586
(Philippine Act on Crimes Against
International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and
Other Crimes Against Humanity) 596
Section 7.5 Administrative Order No. 35
(Creating the Inter-Agency Committee on
Extra-Legal Killings, Enforced
Disappearances, Torture and Other
Grave Violations of the Right To Life
Liberty and Security of Persons) 615
xiii
xiv
FOREWORD
The National Prosecution Service (NPS) sits at the forefront of our country's criminal
justice system. Aside from its duty to investigate and prosecute cases involving
violation of penal laws, it is also mandated to ensure that the delivery of criminal
justice is effective, efficient and equitable. Thus, given these formidable tasks, our
prosecutors deserve to be provided with prudent guidance, support and necessary
work tools in order for them to fulfill their mandates. Moreover, it is equally
important that our prosecution offices observe uniform procedures as the
administration of justice impacts on the rights of people to equal protection of our
laws. And this Manual for Prosecutors is intended to benefit both — our
prosecutors, and the Filipino people.
After the 2008 Prosecutors' Manual was printed, a lot has changed in the arena of
criminal law and procedure - various special penal laws were enacted, new and
special procedures were issued, and various important jurisprudences had emerged.
It is fervently hoped that all these developments had been addressed in this 2017
Edition of the Manual, which now consists of three (3) separate volumes that are
meant to be a handy reference tool for our prosecutors. Volume I of this Manual
contains the basic principles of criminal procedure from inquest and preliminary
investigations, to petitions for review or appeals including petitions for certiorari, up
to the trial proper. Secondly, the entire Volume II contains the Elements of Crimes
under the Revised Penal Code and some special penal laws, including the important
discussions on some highly technical and emerging areas of criminal law. Finally,
relevant issuances of the Department in the recent past, and sample resolutions,
informations, forms and templates, among others, are included in Volume III.
I commend the Technical Working Group for accomplishing the daunting task of
updating and revising the Prosecutors' Manual. Their zealous dedication and diligent
efforts in the preparation of this significant work tool for our prosecutors are truly
laudable.
May this Manual serve as a constant reminder to all the officials and personnel of
the National Prosecution Service, and perhaps to all justice workers in the country
for that matter, of our mission to harmoniously work together towards a just and
peaceful society. And should this Manual fails at times to address some issues and
situations by reason of its peculiarity, we must remain steadfast on our faithful
compliance to the fundamentals of justice and the rule of law.
All together towards a better DOJ!

1 \
t
I'vvi6/
VITALIANO'N. UIRRE II
Secretary
xv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This 2017 Edition of the Revised Manual for Prosecutors is a product

of a series of consultations, write shops and validation workshops that
involved the assistance and participation of individuals and
institutions whose support and contributions are sincerely appreciated
and gratefully acknowledged.
First, to the following:
• The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement

Affairs of the Department of State (INL), U.S. Embassy, Manila,
headed by its Director, Brandon Hudspeth, and INL Program
Assistant Atty. Chudney Ngo, for providing funding support for
the production of this Manual;
• The International Development Law Organization (IDLO),

through its Senior Program Development Specialist, Mr. Ted Hill,
and IDLO’s Field Program Coordinator, Atty. Cathleen Caga-anan,
which served as INL’s institutional partner in this project;
• The American Bar Association-Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI),

IDLO’s implementing partner, headed by its Country Director, Mr.
Robert La Mont, and his team headed by Senior Program
Manager, Ms. Maria Jane Angela Isabel C. Odulio, and Senior
Legal Adviser, Ms. Genan Zilkha;
• Former Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano who originally

proposed this project;
• Former Prosecutor General Victor C. Sepulveda and Acting

Prosecutor General Jorge G. Catalan, Jr., who both lent invaluable
assistance and support to the completion of the project.
• The consultant-writers, Atty. Jude Romano, Criminal Law Expert;

Atty. Renato Lopez Jr., , Legal Ethics and Writing Forms Expert;
Atty. Patricia Sison Arroyo, Gender Specialist, Atty. Jose Jesus
Disini, Cybercrime Expert, Atty. Anthony A. Abad, Competition
Expert and Atty. Estela Valdez Sales, Tax Expert, who have greatly
contributed and shared their legal expertise to the successful
development of this Manual.
xvi
Second, to the following, whose active participation and perceptive
observations, suggestions, comments and valuable insights based on
their extensive experiences contributed significantly to the spirited and
fruitful discussions during the consultations and validation sessions
that brought to fore various issues:
• SDSP Richard Anthony D. Fadullon - DOJ Proper

• OIC-SDSP Emilie Fe M. Delos Santos - DOJ Proper
• SASP Elizabeth I. Santos - DOJ Proper
• SASP Deana P. Perez - DOJ Proper
• CP Mari Elvira B. Herrera - OCP- Antipolo City
• CP Ferdinand U. Valbuena - OCP- Caloocan City
• CP Marylin Cynthia Fatima M. Luang - OCP- Las Piñas City
• SACP Alex G. Bagaoisan - OCP- Makati City
• CT Rennet D. Evangelista - OCP- Malabon City
• SACP Elinore Aquino-Laluces - OCP-Mandaluyong City
• DCP Jessica Junsay-Ong - OCP- Manila
• CP Jason A. Amante - OCP -Marikina City
• CP Aileen Marie S. Gutierrez - OCP- Muntinlupa City
• CP Amerhassan C. Paudac - OCP- Parañaque City
• CP Jacinto G. Ang - OCP- Pasig City
• DCP Alfredo Agcaoili - OCP- Quezon City
• DCP Ireneo M. Quintano - OCP- San Juan City
• CP Lemuel B. Nobleza - OCP- Valenzuela City
• PP Raymond Jonathan B. Lledo - OPP- Rizal
• RP Nonnatus Caesar R. Rojas - ORP- Region I
• RP Rommel C. Baligod - ORP- Region II
• RP Jesus C. Simbulan - ORP- Region III
• SARP Josef Albert T. Comilang - ORP- Region IV
• RP Mary May B. De Leoz - ORP- Region V
• ARP Louie L. Doligosa - ORP- Region VI
• RP Fernando K. Gubalane - ORP- Region VII
• RP Irwin A. Maraya - ORP- Region VIII
• RP Peter L. Medalle - ORP- Region IX
• ARP Irene A. Meso - ORP- Region X
• RP Janet Grace D. Fabrero - ORP- Region XI
• DRP Barbara Mae Flores - ORP- Region XI
• RP Al P. Calica - ORP -Region XII
• RP John S. Magdaraog - ORP- Region XIII
• RP Ramy L. Guiling - ORP- ARMM
xvii
Third, to the various Provincial and City Prosecution Offices which
sent in their comments and suggestions for this Manual revision;
Director Ryan Thomas who contributed his ideas in the methodology;
Ms. Marilou Santos of the DOJ Library; Mr. Russel Trasmonte of the
DOJ-Management Information Services, for the cover design of this
Manual; and the law students-trainees who helped in the collation of
these inputs and did research work, namely: Mr. Francis Puno, Ms.
Jennifer Guinanao, Mr. Adrian M. Dela Cruz, Ms. Maria Victoria M.
Castillo, Ms. Kristina Lara and Ms. Angela Sharmaine Rosales.
Fourth, to the members of the Technical Working Group created

pursuant to Department Order No. 605 dated September 14, 2017
whose painstaking determination, dedication and enthusiasm powered
their team effort in consolidating all the materials; presenting the
matrices during the validation session; reviewing and conducting write
shop sessions and editing the final mock-ups of the three (3) volumes
until the completion of this Manual.
Finally, to Undersecretary Antonio T. Kho, Jr., for his guidance and

support to the Technical Working Group.
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
CHAPTER I
CRIMES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND

SELECTED SPECIAL LAWS
TITLE ONE - CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL

SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Art. 114. TREASON
Elements Jurisprudence
1. Offender is a Filipino citizen 1. Proof to determine whether

or resident alien; the accused is a Filipino
citizen:
2. There is a war in which the
Philippines is involved; a. Prison records;1
3. Offender either: b. Testimony of two witnesses

who know him to have
a. levies war against the been born in the
Government, or; Philippines of Filipino
parents.2
b. adheres to the enemies by
giving them aid or 2. Adherence to the enemy
comfort. means intent to betray. Aid or
comfort means an act that
strengthens the enemy in war
against the traitor’s country or
an act which tends to weaken
or weakens the power of the
traitor’s country to resist or to
attack the enemy.3
3. Adherence alone, without

giving the enemy aid or
comfort does not constitute
treason.4
1 People v. Martin, 86 Phil. 204; People v. Morales, 91 Phil. 445.

2 People v. Flavier, 89 Phil. 15.
3 Cramer v. U.S., 65 Sup. Ct.3.
4 People v. Tan, P.C., 42 O.G 1263.
Revised Manual for Prosecutors Volume 2 - 2017 Edition 1

4. Ways to prove Treason:
a. Testimony of at least two

witnesses, to the same
overt act (Two-Witness
Rule);
b. Confession of the accused

in open court.
Art. 115. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT

TREASON
How Committed Jurisprudence
1. Conspiracy to Commit 1. Two-Witness Rule does not

Treason- Committed in time apply to this crime because
of war, two or more persons this is a separate and distinct
come to an agreement to levy offense from that of treason.5
war against the government or
to adhere to the enemies and
to give them aid or comfort
and decide to commit it.
2. Proposal to Commit
Treason- Committed in time
of war when a person has
decided levy war against the
government or to adhere to
the enemies and give them aid
or comfort, proposes its
execution to some other
person or persons.
5 U.S. v. Bautista, 6 Phil. 581.
2 Revised Manual for Prosecutors Volume 2 - 2017 Edition

Art. 116. MISPRISION OF TREASON
1. The offender is a citizen of the 1. This crime is the exception to

Philippines; the rule that mere silence
does not make a person
2. That he has knowledge of any
criminally liable.6
conspiracy against the
Government;
3. The conspiracy is one to
commit treason;
4. That he conceals or does not
disclose and make known;
and the same as soon as
possible to the proper
authority.
Art. 117. ESPIONAGE

1. By entering without authority, 1. The foreign status of a Chinese

a warship, fort, or military or citizen, who was detained as a
naval establishment or political prisoner, does not
reservation to obtain any exclude him ipso facto from the
information, plan or other scope of Section 19,
data of confidential nature Commonwealth Act No. 682.
relative to the defense of the As stated by the Solicitor-
Philippines: General, he might be
prosecuted for espionage
a. That the offender enters (Commonwealth Act No. 616), a
any of the places crime not conditioned by the
mentioned therein; citizenship of the offender, and
considered as an offense
b. He has no authority against national security.7
therefore;
c. His purpose is to obtain
information, plans,
photographs or other data
6
U.S. v. Caballeros, 4 Phil. 350.
7
Santos v. Misa, G.R. No. L-319, March 28, 1946.

of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of
the Philippines.
2. By disclosing to the
representative of a foreign
nation, the contents of the
articles, data or information
referred to in the preceding
paragraph, which he had in
his possession by reason of
the public office he holds:
a. That the offender is a

public officer;
b. He has in his possession

the articles, data or
information referred to in
paragraph no. 1 of Art. 117
by reason of the public
office he holds;
c. He discloses their
contents to a
representative of a foreign
nation.
Art. 118. INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR

REPRISALS
1. If the unlawful or unauthorized
1. Offender performs unlawful or
acts of the accused provoke or
unauthorized acts;
give occasion for a war or
expose Filipino citizens to
2. Such acts provoke or give
reprisals, the crime is
occasion for:
committed regardless of his
intentions. The law considers
a. A war involving or liable
the effects produced by the acts
to involve the Philippines;
of the accused. Such acts might
or
disturb the friendly relations
that we have with a foreign
b. Expose Filipino citizens to
country and they are penalized

reprisals on their persons even if they constitute a mere
or property. imprudence.8
Art. 119.VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY

1. There is a war in which the 1. A nation or power which takes

Philippines is not involved; no part in a contest of arms
going on between others is
2. There is a regulation issued by referred to as neutral. There
competent authority for the must be regulation issued by
purpose of enforcing the competent authority for
neutrality; and the enforcement of neutrality.9
3. Offender violates such

regulation.
Art. 120. CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE

COUNTRY
1. That it is made in time of war 1. If the correspondence with an

in which the Philippines is enemy country or territory
involved; occupied by enemy troops has
been prohibited by the
2. The offender makes Government, the crime is
correspondence with the: committed even if the
correspondence or letter
a. Enemy country; or contains innocent matters
because of the possibility that
b. Territory occupied by some information useful to the
enemy troops; and enemy might be revealed
unwittingly.10
3. The correspondence is either:
a. Prohibited by the
government; or
b. Carried on in ciphers or
8
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Eighteenth Edition, Book Two, p. 28.
9
Ibid. p 29.
10
Ibid. p. 30.

conventional signs; or
c. If notice or information is
given to the enemy.
Circumstances qualifying the

offense: The following must
concur together:
1. The notice or information
might be useful to the enemy;
and
2. Offender intended to aid the

enemy.
ART 121. FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY

1. That there is a war in which 1. An alien resident in the country

the Philippines is involved; may be held liable since the
law does not say, “not being a
2. Offender owes allegiance to foreigner”. Hence, the
the government; allegiance contemplated in
this Article is either natural or
3. Offender attempts to flee or go
temporary allegiance. It
to the enemy country; and
should be noted that mere
4. Going to the enemy country is attempt to flee or go to the
prohibited by competent enemy country when
authority. prohibited by competent
authority consummates the
felony.11
11
Reyes, supra, p. 31.

Art. 122. PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY ON THE
HIGH SEAS OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS
PIRACY
1. Piracy is robbery or forcible
1. Vessel is on the high seas or depredation on the high seas,
“in Philippine waters”; without lawful authority and
done with animo furandi
2. Offenders are not members of (intent to steal) and in the
its complement or passengers spirit and intention of
of the vessel; and universal hostility.12
3. Offender: 2. In piracy, the persons who

attack a vessel or seize its
a. Attacks or seizes the cargo are strangers to said
vessel; or vessels; while in mutiny, they
are members of the crew or
b. Seizes the whole or part of passengers.13
the cargo of said vessel,
equipment or personal
belongings of its
complement or
passengers.
MUTINY – usually committed by

-
1. The other members of the

complement; or
2. The passengers of the vessel.
12 People v. Lol-lo et al., 43 Phil.19.

13
Ibid, p. 34.

ART. 123. QUALIFIED PIRACY
Qualifying Circumstances Jurisprudence
1. Whenever the offenders have 1. Article 122 of the Revised

seized the vessel by boarding Penal Code, before its
or firing upon the same; or amendment, provided that
piracy must be committed on
2. Whenever the pirates have the high seas by any person
abandoned their victims not a member of its
without means of saving complement nor a passenger
themselves; thereof. Upon its amendment
by Republic Act No. 7659, the
3. Whenever the crime is coverage of the pertinent
accompanied by murder, provision was widened to
homicide, physical injuries, or include offenses committed
rape. "in Philippine waters."14
Qualified Mutiny: When the

second or the third circumstance
accompanies the crime of mutiny
mentioned under Art. 122, mutiny
is then qualified. First
circumstance may not qualify the
crime of mutiny.
14
People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709 ,August 30, 2001.

TITLE TWO - CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL
LAWS OF THE STATE
Art. 124. ARBITRARY DETENTION
1. That the offender is a 1. Private individuals who

public officer or employee. conspired with public officers
in detaining certain policemen
2. That he detains a person; are guilty of arbitrary
detention. Even if the persons
3. The detention is without detained could move freely in
legal ground. and out their prison cell and
could take their meals outside
Legal grounds for detention the prison, nevertheless, if
of persons: they were under the
surveillance of the guards and
a. The commission of a they could not escape for fear
crime; of being apprehended again,
there would still be arbitrary
b. Violent insanity or other detention.15
ailment requiring
compulsory 2. Detention is the actual
confinement of the confinement of a person in an
patient in a hospital. enclosure or in any manner
detaining and depriving him of
Without legal grounds for his liberty.16
detention of persons:
3. A person is detained when he
a. He has not committed any is placed in confinement or
crime or at least there is no there is a restraint on his
reasonable ground for person.17
suspicion that he has
committed a crime; 4. The public officers liable for
Arbitrary Detention must be
b. He is not suffering from vested with authority to detain
violent insanity or any or order the detention of
other ailment requiring persons accused of a crime.
compulsory Such public officers are the
confinement in a hospital. policemen and other agents of
15 People v. Camerino, CA-G.R No. 14207-R.

16
People v. Gungon, G.R No. 119574, March 1, 1998.
17 U.S. v. Cabanag, 8 Phil. 64.

the law, the judges or
mayors.18
5. The deprivation of liberty must

be proved, just as the intent of
the accused to deprive the
victim of his liberty must also
be established by indubitable
proof.19
Art. 125. DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED

PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
1. Offender is a public officer or 1. Periods of time in Art. 125 also

employee; applies to arrests made by a
private person.20
2. He has detained a person for
some legal ground; and 2. When a judge is not available,
the arresting officer is duty-
3. That he fails to deliver such bound to release a detained
person to the proper judicial person if the maximum hours
authorities within: for detention provided under
Art. 125 of the Revised Penal
a. 12 hours for light Code has already expired.
penalties or their Failure to do so will result in a
equivalent; or violation of Art. 125.21
b. 18 hours for correctional 3. For the purpose of determining

penalties or their the criminal liability of an
equivalent; or officer detaining a person for
more than the time prescribed
c. 36 hours for afflictive by the Revised Penal Code, (a)
penalties or their the means of communication
equivalent. equivalent; or (b) the hour of
arrest equivalent; (c) other
circumstances such as the time
of surrender and the material
possibility for the fiscal to
18
Milo v. Salanga, G.R. No. L-37007, July 20, 1987.
19 People v. Bernal, G.R. No. 113685, June 19, 1997.
20 People v. Sali et al., C.A., 50 O.G 5676.
21 Albior v. Anguis, A.M. No. P-01-1472, June 26, 2003.

make the investigation and file
in time the necessary
information, must be taken
into consideration.22
4. Article 125 of the Revised

Penal Code is intended to
prevent any abuse resulting
from confining a person
without informing him of his
offense and without
permitting him to go on bail.23
More so, specifically, it
punishes public officials or
employees who shall detain
any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver
such person to the proper
judicial authorities within the
periods prescribed by law.24
Art. 126. DELAYING RELEASE
1. That the offender is a public 1. The public officers who are
officer or employee; most likely to commit the
offense penalized in Article 126
2. That there is a judicial or are the wardens and peace
executive order for the officers temporarily in charge
release of a prisoner or of the custody of prisoners or
detention prisoner, or that detained persons.25
there is a proceeding upon a
petition for the liberation of
such person; and
3. That the offender without

good reason delays either:
a. The service of the notice

of such order to the
prisoner; or
22
Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila, 80 Phil. 861.
23
Laurel v. Misa, 76 Phil. 372.
24 Agbay v. Hon. Deputy Ombudsman, G.R. No. 134503 (July 2, 1999).
25

b. The performance of such
judicial or executive order
for the release of the
prisoner; or
c. The proceedings upon a

petition for the release of
such person.
Art. 127. EXPULSION

Acts Punishable Jurisprudence
1. By expelling a person from 1. Only the court by a final

the Philippines; or judgment can order a person to
change his residence.26
2. By compelling a person to
change his residence.
Elements:
a. That the offender is a

public officer or employee;
b. That he expels any person

from the Philippines, or
compels a person to
change his residence; and
c. That the offender is not

authorized to do so by law.
Art. 128. VIOLATION. OF DOMICILE
1. By entering any dwelling 1. To constitute a violation of

against the will of the owner domicile, the entrance by the
thereof; or public officer or employee must
be against the will of the owner
2. By searching papers or other of the dwelling, which
effects found therein presupposes opposition or
26
Villavicencio, et al. v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778.

without the previous prohibition by said owner,
consent of such owner; or whether express or implied.27
3. By refusing to leave the 2. When one voluntarily submits

premises, after having to a search or consents to have
surreptitiously entered said it made upon his person or
dwelling and after having premises, he is precluded from
been required to leave the later complaining thereof. The
same. right to be secure from
unreasonable search may, like
Common Elements: every right, be waived and such
waiver may be made either
1. That the offender is public expressly or impliedly.28
officer or employee.
3. A peace officer without search
2. That he is not authorized by warrant cannot lawfully enter
judicial order to enter the the dwelling against the will of
dwelling and/or to make a the owner, even if he knew that
search for papers and for someone in the dwelling is
other effects. having unlawful possession of
opium.29
Qualifying circumstances:
1. If committed at nighttime;
or
2. If any papers or effects, not

constituting evidence of a
crime are not returned
immediately after a search is
made by the offender.
Art. 129. SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY

OBTAINED AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE
LEGALLY OBTAINED
1. Procuring a search warrant 1. A search warrant shall not issue

without just cause: except upon probable cause in
connection with one specific
27
People v. Luis Sane, C.A., 40 O.G., Supp. 5,113.
28
People v. Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221.
29
McLurg v. Brenton, 123 Iowa, 368, cited in dissenting opinion in Moncado v. People, 80 Phil. 25.

a. That the offender is a offense to be determined
public officer or personally by the judge after
employee; examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant
b. That he procures a search and the witnesses he may
warrant; produce, and particularly
describing the place to be
c. That there is no just searched and the things to be
cause. seized which may be anywhere
in the Philippines.30
2. Exceeding his authority or
by using unnecessary 2. If there is competent evidence
severity in executing a to establish probable cause of
search warrant legally the commission of a given
procured. crime by the party against
whom the warrant is intended,
then there is no reason why the
applicant should not comply
with the constitutional
requirements. If he has no such
evidence, then it is not possible
for the judge to find that there
is a probable cause; hence, no
justification for the issuance of
the warrant. The only possible
explanation for the issuance in
that case is the necessity of
fishing for evidence of the
commission of a crime. Such a
fishing expedition is indicative
of the absence of evidence to
establish a probable cause.31
3. The true test of lack of just

cause is whether the affidavit
filed in support of the
application for search warrant
has been drawn in such a
manner that perjury could be
charged thereon and affiant be
held liable for damages caused.
The oath required must refer to
the truth of the facts within the
30 Sec. 4, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

31 Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383.

personal knowledge of the
applicant for search warrant or
his witnesses, not of the facts
"reported to me by a person
whom I consider to be
reliable".32
4. Peace officers are authorized to

make arrests without warrant
for breaches of the peace
committed in their presence,
and may enter the house of an
offender for such purpose,
provided the unlawful conduct
is such as to affect the public
peace.33
Art. 130. SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT

WITNESSES
1. That the offender is a public 1. The search of a house, room or

officer or employee; any other premise shall be
made only in the presence of
2. That he searches the the lawful occupant thereof or
domicile, papers or other any member of his family or in
belongings of any person; the absence of the latter, in the
presence of two (2) witnesses of
3. That he is armed with a sufficient age and discretion
search warrant legally residing in the same locality.
procured; and This requirement is mandatory
to ensure regularity in the
4. That the owner, or any execution of the search
member of his family, or two warrant.34
witnesses residing in the
same locality, are not
present.
32
Alvarez v. Court, et al., 64 Phil. 33.
33 U.S. v. Vallejo, et al., 11 Phil 193.
34
People v. Gesmundo, G.R. No. 89373, March 9, 1993.
Art. 131. PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
1. Prohibiting, interrupting or 1. The right to freedom of speech

dissolving without legal and to peacefully assemble,
ground the holding of a though guaranteed by our
peaceful meeting; Constitution, is not absolute, for
it may be regulated in order that
2. Hindering any person from it may not be "injurious to the
joining any lawful association equal enjoyment of others
or from attending any of its having equal rights, nor
meetings; injurious to the right of the
community or society," and this
3. Prohibiting or hindering any power may be exercised under
person from addressing, the "police power" of the state,
either alone or together with which is the power to prescribe
others, any petition to the regulations to promote the good
authorities for the correction order or safety and general
of abuses or redress of welfare of the people.35
grievances.
2. When the meeting to be held is
Common Elements: not peaceful, there is legal
ground for prohibiting it.36
1. That the offender is a public
officer. 3. There is no legal ground to
prohibit the holding of a
2. That he performs any of the meeting when the danger
acts mentioned above. apprehended is not imminent
and the evil to be prevented is
not a serious one.37
Art. 132. INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
1. That the offender is a public 1. The act of the barrio lieutenant

officer or employee; in making a threat on the life of
the priest should the latter
2. That religious ceremonies or
persist on hearing mass, which,
manifestations of any religion
35
Ignacio, et al. v. Ela, 99 Phil. 347.
36
Evangelista v. Earnshaw, 57 Phil 255.
37 Primicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71.

are about to take place or are in fact, did not push through, is
going on. guilty of violation of Art. 132.38
3. That the offender prevents or

disturbs the same.
Qualifying circumstances:
• If the act is committed with
threats and violence, the
crime is qualified as the
penalty is increased.
Art. 133. OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS

1. That the acts complained of 1. The acts must be directed against

were performed: religious practice or dogma or
ritual for the purpose of ridicule,
a. In a place devoted to as mocking or scoffing at or
religious worship (not attempting to damage an object
necessary that there is a of religious veneration.39
religious worship); or
2. Offense to feelings is judged
b. During the celebration from complainant's point of
of any religious view.40
ceremony.
2. That the acts must be

notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful.
38 People v. Mejica, CA-G.R. No. 12980-R.

39
People v. Baes, 68 Phil. 203.
40 Reyes, supra, p. 82..

TITLE THREE - CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Art. 134. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION – HOW
COMMITTED
1. That there be:  1. The crime of rebellion or of

inciting it is by nature a crime of
a. Public uprising; and  masses, of a multitude. It is a
b. Taking up of arms vast movement of men and a
against the Government. complex net of intrigues and
2. That the purpose of the plots.41
uprising or movement is
either- 2. In rebellion or insurrection, the
Revised Penal Code expressly
a. To remove from the declares that there must be a
allegiance to said public uprising and the taking
Government or its laws; up of arms.42
i. The territory of the 3. Purpose43of the uprising must be

Philippines, or any shown.
part thereof; or
4. As provided in the Human
ii. Anybody of land, naval
Security Act of 2007, a person
or other armed forces;
who commits an act punishable
or
as rebellion or insurrection,
thereby sowing and creating a
b. To deprive the Chief
condition of widespread and
Executive or Congress,
extraordinary fear and panic
wholly or partially, of
among the populace, in order to
any of their powers or
coerce the government to give in
prerogatives.
to an unlawful demand shall be
guilty of the crime of terrorism.
Art. 134-A. COUP D’ETAT – HOW COMMITTED

1. That the offender is a person 1. The crime of coup d’etat may be
41 People v. Almazan, CA., 37 O.G. 1932.

42 Carino v. People, 7 SCRA 900.
43 U.S v. Constantino, et al., 2 Phil 693.

or persons belonging to committed with or without
military or police or holding civilian participation.44
any public office or
employment;
2. That it is committed by means

of a swift attack,
accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy,
or stealth;
3. That the attack is directed

against duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of
the Philippines or any
military camp, or
installation, communication
networks, public utilities or
other facilities needed for the
exercise and continued
possession of power; and
4. That the purpose of the attack

is to seize or diminish state
power.
Art. 135. PENALTY FOR REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION OR COUP D’ETAT
Persons Liable Jurisprudence
1. The leaders – 1. Acts committed in furtherance

of rebellion are absorbed in
i. Any person who: rebellion.45
a. Promotes;
b. Maintains; or 2. Public officer must take active
c. Heads a rebellion or part to be liable; mere silence or
insurrection; or omission not punishable in
rebellion.46
ii. Any person who:
a. Leads;
b. Directs; or
44
45
People v. Dasig, G.R No. 100231.
46 U.S. v. Ravidas, et al. 4 Phil.273.

c. Commands others to
undertake a coup
d’état.
2. The participants –
i. Any person who:

a. Participates; or
b. Executes the
commands of others
in rebellion, or
insurrection.
ii. Any person in the

government
service who:
a. Participates; or
b. Executes the
directions or
commands of others
in undertaking a coup
d’état.
iii. Any person not

in the government
service who -
a. Participates;
b. Supports;
c. Finances;
d. Abets; or
e. Aids in undertaking a
coup d’état.
• The crime of coup d’etat

may be committed with or
without civilian
participation.

Art. 136. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
COUP D’ETAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Crimes Defined and
Jurisprudence
Penalized -
Conspiracy to commit 1. Persons merely agreeing and

rebellion. - When two or more deciding among themselves to
persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms
rise publicly and take arms against the Government for the
against the Government for any purposes mentioned in Art. 134,
of the purposes of rebellion and without actually rising publicly
decide to commit it. and taking arms against the
Government, or those merely
Proposal to commit proposing the commission of
rebellion. - When the person said acts to other persons
who has decided to rise publicly without actually performing
and take arms against the those overt acts under Art. 134,
Government for any of the are already subject to
purposes of rebellion proposes punishment.47
its execution to some other
person or persons. 2. No conspiracy when there is no
agreement and no decision to
commit rebellion.48
47 People v. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90.

48
U.S v. Figueras, et al., 2 Phil. 491.

Art. 137. DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES
1. Failing to resist a rebellion by 1. The crime of disloyalty of public
all means in their power; officers presupposes the
existence of rebellion by other
2. Continuing to discharge the persons. There must be rebellion
duties of their office under the to be resisted or, at least, the
control of the rebels; or place is under the control of the
rebels. 49
3. Accepting appointment to
office under the rebels.
• The public officer or

employee who performs any
of the acts of disloyalty
should not be in conspiracy
with the rebels; otherwise,
he will be guilty of rebellion,
not merely disloyalty,
because in conspiracy, the
act of one is the act of all.
Art. 138. INCITING TO REBELLION OR

INSURRECTION
1. That the offender does not 1. The crime of rebellion should

take up arms or is not in not be actually committed by
open hostility against the the persons to whom they are
Government; incited. If they commit the
rebellion because of the
2. That he incites others to the inciting, the proponent or the
execution of any of the acts one inciting becomes a
of rebellion; and principal by inducement in the
3. That the inciting is done by crime of rebellion, provided
means of speeches, that the requisites of paragraph
proclamations, writings, No. 2 of Art. 17 of the Revised
Penal Code are present.50
49
Reyes, supra. p. 101.
50
Ibid., p. 102.

emblems, banners or other
representations tending to
the same end.
Art. 139. SEDITION – HOW COMMITTED

1. That the offenders rise: 1. Sedition, is the raising of

a. Publicly; and commotions or disturbances in
b. Tumultuously; the State.51
2. That they employ force, 2. The primary objective of

intimidation, or other means sedition is a violation of the
outside of legal methods; public peace or at least such a
course of measures as evidently
3. That the offenders employ engenders it.52
any of those means to attain
any of the following objects: 3. What distinguishes sedition
from rebellion is the object or
a. To prevent the purpose of the uprising.53
promulgation or
execution of any law or
the holding of any
popular election;
b. To prevent the National

Government or any
provincial or municipal
government or any public
officer from freely
exercising its or his
functions, or prevent the
execution of any
administrative order;
c. To inflict any act of hate

or revenge upon the
person or property of any
public officer or
employee;
51 People v. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64.

52
People v. Perez, 45 Phil. 599.
53 League v. People, 73 Phil. 155.

d. To commit, for any
political or social end, any
act of hate or revenge
against private persons or
any social class; and
e. To despoil, for any

political or social end, any
person, municipality or
province, or the National
Government of all its
property or any part
thereof.
Art. 140. PENALTY FOR SEDITION
Persons Liable -
1. The leader of the sedition; and
2. Other persons participating in the sedition.
Art. 141. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION

1. Two (2) or more persons 1. An agreement and a decision to

come to an agreement and attain an object of sedition
decision to rise publicly and without any agreement to rise
tumultuously to attain any of publicly and tumultuously is not
the objects of sedition; conspiracy to commit sedition.
Such an agreement and decision
2. They decide to commit it. may constitute a conspiracy to
commit direct assault of the first
form (Art. 148) which is not a
felony.54
54
Reyes, supra, p.109.
Art. 142. INCITING TO SEDITION
1. Inciting others to commit 1. It is not inciting to sedition

sedition by means of when it is not proved that the
speeches, proclamations, defendant incited the people to
writings, emblems cartoons, rise publicly and tumultuously
banners, or other in order to attain any of the
representations tending to the ends mentioned in Art. 139.55
same end:
2. The legislature has authority to
a. That the offender does not forbid the advocacy of a
take direct part in the doctrine designed and intended
crime of sedition; to overthrow the Government
without waiting until there is a
b. That he incites others to present and immediate danger
the accomplishment of any of the success of the plan
of the acts which constitute advocated. If the State were
sedition; compelled to wait until the
apprehended danger became
c. That the inciting is done by certain, then its right to protect
means of speeches, itself would come into being
proclamations, writings, simultaneously with the
emblems, cartoons, overthrow of the Government,
banners, or other when there would be neither
representations tending to prosecuting officers nor courts
the same end. for the enforcement of the
law.56
2. Uttering seditious words or
speeches which tend to
disturb the public peace;
3. Writing, publishing, or
circulating scurrilous libels
against the Government or
any of its duly constituted
authorities;
4. Knowingly concealing such

evil practices.
55
People v. Arrogante, 39 O.G. 1974.
56
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652.
Acts under Nos. 2 & 3 are
punishable when:
1. They tend to disturb or

obstruct any lawful officer in
executing the functions of his
office;
2. They tend to instigate others

to cabal and meet together for
unlawful purposes;
3. They suggest or incite

rebellious conspiracies or
riots; or
4. They lead or tend to stir up

the people against the lawful
authorities or disturb the
peace of the community, and
the safety and or of the
Government.
Art. 143. ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING

OF THE ASSEMBLY AND SIMILAR BODIES
1. That there be a projected or 1. Any stranger, even if he be the

actual meeting of the National municipal president himself or
Assembly or any of its the chief of the municipal
committees or sub- council presided over by the
committees, constitutional vice-president and he has no
committees or divisions right to dissolve it through
thereof, or of any provincial violence under the pretext of
board or city or municipal lack of notice to some members
council or board. of the council, which was not
apparent, but required an
2. That the offender who may be investigation before it could be
any person prevents such determined.57
meeting by force or fraud.
57
People v. Alipit, 44 Phil. 910.

Art. 144. DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
1. That there be a meeting of 1. The complaint for disturbance of

Congress or any of its proceedings may be filed by a
committees or sub- member of a legislative body. It
committees, constitutional may not be prosecuted de officio.
commissions or committees Hence, it may be commenced
or divisions thereof, or any upon the written complaint of a
provincial board or city or member of the Municipal Board
municipal council or board; the proceedings of which were
disturbed or interrupted
2. That the offender does any of although such member was not
the following acts: authorized by the rules or a
resolution of the Board.58
a. He disturbs any of such
meetings; 2. One who disturbs the
proceedings of the National
b. He behaves while in the Assembly may also be punished
presence of any such for contempt by the Assembly.59
bodies in such a manner as
to interrupt its proceedings
or to impair the respect
due it.
Art. 145. VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY

IMMUNITY
1. Using force, intimidation, 1. Parliamentary immunity does

threats, or frauds to prevent not protect members of the
any member from: National Assembly from
responsibility before the
a. Attending the meetings of legislative body itself.60
Congress or any of its
subcommittees,
commissions or divisions
thereof, or from
committees or
58
People v. Lapid, 59 O.G. 4059.
59 Lopez v. De los Reyes, 55 Phil. 170.
60
Osmeña, J.R v. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863.
constitutional committees;
b. Expressing his opinions; or
c. Casting his vote.
2. Arresting or searching any

member while Congress is in
session, except in cases
where such member has
committed a crime
punishable under the Code
by a penalty higher than
prision mayor.
Art. 146. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES

Forms of Illegal Assemblies Jurisprudence
1. Any meeting attended by 1. The persons merely present at

armed persons for the the meeting must have a
purpose of committing any of common intent to commit the
the crimes punishable under felony of illegal assembly. The
the Code: absence of such intent may
exempt the person present from
a. That there is a meeting, criminal liability. Thus, if a
gathering or group of person happens to be present at
persons, whether in a fixed an illegal assembly out of
place or moving; curiosity, he is not liable.61
b. That the meeting is

attended by armed
persons;
c. That the purpose of the

meeting is to commit any
of the crimes punishable
under the Code.
2. Any meeting in which the

audience, whether armed or
not, is incited to the
commission of the crime of
61

treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition, or
assault upon a person in
authority:
a. That there is a meeting, a

gathering or group of
persons, whether in a fixed
place or moving;
b. That the audiences,

whether armed or not, is
incited to the commission
of the crime of treason,
rebellion or insurrection,
sedition or direct assault.
ART 147. ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS

1. Founders, directors and 1. The Lapiang Sakdalista was

president of the association; declared an illegal association
by the Court of Appeals, because
2. Mere members of the it was organized for the purpose
association. of overthrowing the government
by force of arms, which is
Illegal associations are rebellion, a crime punishable
associations totally or under the Revised Penal Code.62
partially organized for:
1. The purpose of committing

any of the crimes punishable
under the Code; or
2. Some purpose contrary to
public morals.
62
People v. Ramos, 40 O.G. 2305.
ART 148. DIRECT ASSAULTS
1. Without public uprising, by 1. When the force employed on

employing force or the agent of a person in
intimidation for the authority is of a serious
attainment of any of the character, indicating deter-
purposes enumerated in mination to defy the law and
defining the crimes of its representative, the crime
sedition & rebellion: committed.
a. That the offender 2. The force employed need not

employs force or be serious when the offended
intimidation; party is a person in authority.
b. That the aim of the 3. The intimidation or resistance

offender is to attain any must be serious whether the
of the purposes of the offended party is an agent only
crime of rebellion or any or he is a person in authority.
of the objects of the crime
of sedition; The following are agents of
persons in authority:
c. That there is no public
uprising. a. Policeman
b. Municipal Treasurer
2. Without public uprising, by c. Postmaster
attacking, by employing d. Rural Policeman
force or by seriously e. Agents of the BIR
intimidating or by seriously f. Malacanang confidential
resisting any person in agent
authority or agent of a g. Barangay Chief Tanod.63
person in authority, while
engaged in the performance 4. There is self-defense in direct
of official duties, or on the assault. When a person in
occasion of such authority or his agent is the
performance: one who provokes and attacks
another person, the latter is
a. That the offender: entitled to defend himself and
cannot be held liable for
i. Makes an attack; assault or resistance nor for
63
Reyes, supra, pp.136-137.
ii. Employs force; physical injuries, because he
iii. Makes a serious acts in legitimate defense.64
intimidation; or
iv. Makes a serious 5. The crime of slight physical
resistance. injuries is absorbed in direct
assault.65
b. That the person assaulted
is a person in authority or 6. Weapon includes not only
his agent; firearms and sharp or cutting
instruments but also stones,
c. That at the time of the clubs, and any other object
assault the person in with which some physical
authority or his agent is injury may be inflicted.66
engaged in the actual
performance of official
duties, or That he is
assaulted by reason of the
past performance of his
official duties;
d. That the offender knows

that the one he is
assaulting is a person in
authority or his agent in
the exercise of his duties;
e. That there is no public

uprising.
Direct Assault is qualified:
1. When the assault is

committed with a weapon;
2. When the offender is a
public officer or employee;
or
3. When the offender lays
hands upon a person in
authority.
64
People v. Carado, CA-GR No. 12778-R.
65
People v. Acierto, 57 Phil. 614.
66 Reyes, supra,.p 146 citing 1 Viada 203.

Art. 149. INDIRECT ASSAULTS
1. That a person in authority or 1. A private person who comes to

an agent of the person in the rescue of an authority or his
authority is the victim of any agent; or who uses force or
of the forms of direct assault intimidation upon such person
defined in Art. 148; under the circumstances is
guilty of indirect assault.67
2. That a person comes to the
aid of the person in authority
or his agent; and
3. That the offender makes use

of force or intimidation upon
such person coming to the
aid of the person in authority
or his agent.
Art. 150. DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, ITS COMMITTEES OR
SUBCOMMITTEES, BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSION, ITS COMMITTEES, SUBCOMMITTEES
OR DIVISIONS
1. Refusing, without legal 1. The power of inquiry – with
excuse, to obey summons of process to enforce it – is an
Congress, or any commission essential and appropriate
or committee chairman or auxiliary to the legislative
member authorized to functions. Experience has
summon witnesses; shown that mere requests for
certain information are often
unavailing and also that
2. Refusing to be sworn or
information which is
placed under affirmation
volunteered is not always
while before such legislative
accurate or complete; so, some
or constitutional body or
means of compulsion is
official;
67

essential to obtain what is
3. Refusing to answer any legal needed. 68
inquiry or to produce any
books, papers, documents,
or records in his possession,
when required by them to do
so in the exercise of their
functions;
4. Restraining another from

attending as a witness in
such legislative or
constitutional body;
5. Inducing disobedience to
summons or refusal to be
sworn by any such body or
official.
Art. 151. RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A

PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENTS OF SUCH
PERSON
Resistance and serious 1. The juridical conception of

disobedience (par.1): this crime consists in a
failure to comply with orders
1. That a person in authority or directly issued by the authorities
an agent of a person in in the exercise of their official
authority is engaged in the duties. Failure to comply with
performance of official duty or legal provisions of a general
gives a lawful order to the character, or with judicial
offender; decisions merely declaratory of
rights or obligations.69
2. That the offender resists or
seriously disobeys such 2. The accused must have
person in authority or his knowledge that the person
agent; and arresting him is a peace
officer.70
3. That the act of the offender is
68
Arnault v. Nazareno et al., 87 Phil. 29.
69
U.S. v. Ramayrat, 22 Phil. 183.
70
U.S. v. Bautista, 31 Phil. 308.
not included in the provisions
of Arts. 148-150.
Simple disobedience
(par.2):
1. That an agent of a person in

authority is engaged in the
performance of official duty
or gives a lawful order to the
offender;
2. That the offender disobeys
such agent of the person in
authority; and
3. That such disobedience is
not of a serious nature.
Art. 152. PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF

PERSONS IN AUTHORITY – WHO SHALL BE DEEMED
AS SUCH
1. Person in authority- Any 1. The following are persons in

person directly vested with authority:
jurisdiction, whether as an
individual or as a member of a. The municipal mayor
some court or governmental b. Division superintendent of
corporation, board schools
commission. c. Public and private school
teachers
2. Agent of Person in d. Professors of private colleges
Authority- Any person and universities
who, by direct provision of e. Teacher-nurse
law or by election or by f. President of sanitary division
appointment by competent g. Justice of peace
authority, is charged with the h. Municipal councilor
maintenance of public order i. Barrio captain and barangay
and the protection and chairman71
security of life and property.
71

Art. 153. TUMULTS & OTHER DISTURBANCES OF
PUBLIC ORDER – TUMULTUOUS DISTURBANCE OR
INTERRUPTION LIABLE TO CAUSE DISTURBANCE
1. Causing any serious 1. If the act of disturbing or

disturbance in a public place, interrupting a meeting or
office or establishment; religious worship is committed
by a private individual, or even
2. Interrupting or disturbing
by a public officer but he is a
public performances,
participant in the meeting or
functions or gatherings, or
religious worship which he
peaceful meetings, if the act is
disturbs or interrupts, Article
not included in Arts. 131 and
153, not Article 131 or Article
132;
132, is applicable.72
3. Making an outcry tending to
incite rebellion or sedition in
any meeting, association or
public place;
4. Displaying placards or
emblems which provoke a
disturbance of public order in
such place;
5. Burying with pomp the body
of a person who has been
legally executed.
Art. 154. UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF

PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES
1. Publishing or causing to be 1. It is not necessary that the

published as news any false publication of the false news
news which may endanger the actually caused public disorder
public order, or cause damage or caused damage to the interest
to the interest or credit of the or credit of the State. The mere
State; possibility of causing such
danger or damage is sufficient.73
72
Ibid. p. 161.
73
2. Encouraging disobedience to
the law or to the constituted
authorities or by praising,
justifying or extolling any act
punished by law, by the same
means or by words, utterances
or speeches;
3. Maliciously publishing or
causing to be published any
official resolution or
document without authority,
or before they have been
published officially;
4. Printing, publishing or
distributing (or causing the
same) books, pamphlets,
periodicals, or leaflets which
do not bear the real printer’s
name or which are classified
as anonymous.
Art. 155. ALARMS AND SCANDALS

1. Discharging any firearm, 1. Charivari includes a medley of

rocket, firecracker, or other discordant voices, a mock
explosive within any town or serenade of discordant noises
public place, which produces made on kettles, tins, horns, etc.,
alarm or danger; designed to annoy and insult.
The reason for punishing
2. Instigating or taking an instigating or taking active part
active part in any charivari in charivari and other disorderly
or other disorderly meeting meeting is to prevent more
offensive to another or serious disorders.74
prejudicial to public
tranquility;
3. Disturbing the public peace

while wandering about at
night or while engaged in
74
Ibid., p. 165.
any other nocturnal
amusements;
4. Causing any disturbance or

scandal in public places
while intoxicated or
otherwise, provided Art. 153
is not applicable.
Art. 156. DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL

1. That there is a person 1. The guard of the jail, who is off

confined in a jail or penal duty, may be held liable for
establishment; delivering prisoner from jail.75
2. That the offender removes

such person, or helps the
escape of such person.
Art. 157. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

1. That the offender is a convict 1. If the accused escaped while the

by final judgment; sentence of conviction was
under appeal, he is not liable
2. That he is serving his under Art. 157, the judgment not
sentence, which consists in having become final, and this is
deprivation of liberty; and true even if his appeal was later
dismissed because he had
3. That he evades the service of escaped. To be liable under Sec.
his sentence by escaping 157, the sentence must be by
during the term of his reason of final judgement.76
sentence.
75 People v. Del Barrio, O.G. 3908.

76
Curiano v. Court of First Instance, G.R. L-8104.
Art. 158. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE
OCCASION OF DISORDERS, CONFLAGRATIONS,
EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER CALAMITIES
1. That the offender is a convict 1. The prisoner who did not escape
by final judgment, and is from his place of confinement
confined in a penal during the war is not entitled to
institution; a special allowance of one-fifth
deduction of the period of his
2. That there is disorder, sentence.77
resulting from:
a. Conflagration,
b. Earthquake,
c. Explosion,
d. Similar catastrophe,
e. Mutiny in which he has
not participated;
3. That the offender leaves the

penal institution where he is
confined, on the occasion of
such disorder or during the
mutiny; and
4. That the offender fails to give

himself up to the authorities
within 48 hours following the
issuance of a proclamation
by the Chief Executive
announcing the passing away
of such calamity.
77
Fortuno v. Director of Prisons, 80 Phil. 178.

Art. 159. OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE
Elements of the Offense
of Violation of Jurisprudence
Conditional Pardon
1. That the offender was a 1. A conditional pardon is a

convict; contract between the Chief
Executive, who grants the
2. That he was granted a pardon, and the convict, who
conditional pardon by the accepts it. Since it is a contract,
Chief Executive; and the pardoned convict is bound to
fulfill its conditions and accept all
3. That he violated any of the its consequences, not as he
conditions of such pardon. chooses, but according to its
strict terms.78
2. The condition imposed upon the

prisoner that he should not
commit another crime, extends
to offenses punished by special
laws, like illegal voting under
the Election Law.79
Art. 160. COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING

THE SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER
PREVIOUS OFFENSE (QUASI-RECIDIVISM)
1. That the offender was already 1. The first crime for which the
convicted by final judgment. offender is serving sentence need
not be a felony.80
2. That he committed a new
felony before beginning to 2. The new offense need not be of
serve such sentence or while different character from that of
serving the same. the former offense.81
78 People v. Pontillas, 65 Phil. 659.

79
People v. Coral, 74 Phil. 357.
80
People v. Peralta et al., 3 SCRA 213.
81 People v. Yabut, 58 Phil. 499.

TITLE FOUR - CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Art. 161. COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE
GOVERNMENT, FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR
STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
1. For the Great Seal of the 1. The act punishable, among

Government of the others, is counterfeiting or
Philippines; making an imitation of the
signature of the Chief Executive
2. Forging the signature of the
on what is made to appear as an
President;
official document of the
3. Forging the stamp of the Republic of the Philippines.82
President.
Art. 162. USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR

COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
1. That the seal of the 1. The offender under this Article
Republic was counter- should not be the forger,
feited, or the signature or otherwise, he will be penalized
stamp of the Chief under Article 161.83
Executive was forged by
another person;
2. That the offender knew of
the counterfeiting or
forgery;
3. That he used the
counterfeit seal or forged
signature or stamp.
82
83
Reyes, supra., p. 189.

Art. 163. MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING
FALSE COINS
1. That there be false or 1. There is counterfeiting when a

counterfeited coins; spurious coin is made. There
must be an imitation of the
2. That the offender either peculiar design of a genuine
made, imported or uttered coin.84
such coins;
3. That in case of uttering

such false or counterfeited
coins, he connived with
the counterfeiters or
importers.
Art. 164. MUTILATION OF COINS – IMPORTATION

AND UTTERANCE OF MUTILATED COINS
1. Mutilating coins of the 1. Mutilation is to diminish by

legal currency, with the ingenuous means the metal in
intent to damage or to the coin. One who mutilates a
defraud another; coin does not do so for the sake
of mutilating, but to take
2. Importing or uttering such advantage of the metal
mutilated coins, with the abstracted; he appropriates a
further requirement that part of the metal of the coin.
there must be connivance Hence, the coin diminishes in
with the mutilator or intrinsic value. One who utters
importer in case of said mutilated coin receives its
uttering. legal value, much more than its
intrinsic value.85
84
U.S. v. Basco, 6 Phil 110.
85
People vs. Tin Ching Ting, G.R. No. L-4620.

Art. 165. SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN,
WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
1. Possession of coin, 1. Possession of or uttering false

counterfeited or mutilated coin does not require that the
by another with intent to counterfeited coin is legal
utter the same knowing tender.86
that it is false or mutilated;
2. The possession prohibited in
2. Actually uttering false or Article 165 of the Revised Penal
mutilated coin, knowing it Code is possession in general,
to be false or mutilated. that is, not only actual, physical
possession, but also constructive
possession or the subjection of
the thing to one's control.87
3. The accused must have

knowledge of the fact that the
coin is false.88
Art. 166. FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR

OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER;
IMPORTING, AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR
FORGED NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
Acts Penalized Jurisprudence
1. Forging or falsification of 1. Uttering forged bill must be with

treasury or bank notes or connivance to constitute a
other documents payable violation of Art. 166.89
to bearer;
2. Importation of the such
false or forged obligations
or notes;
86
Ibid., p. 194
87 People v. Umali, CA 46 O.G. 2648.
88
People v. Go Po, G.R No. 42697.
89 People v. Valencia, et al., 59 Phil 42.

3. Uttering the same in
connivance with forgers or
importers.
Art. 167. COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING AND

UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO
BEARER
1. That there be an 1. Forgery of currency is punished

instrument payable to so as to maintain the integrity of
order or other document the currency and thus insure the
of credit not payable to credit standing of the
bearer; government and prevent the
imposition on the public and the
2. That the offender either government of worthless notes
forged, imported or or obligations.90
uttered such instrument;
and 2. Connivance is not required in
uttering if the utterer is the
3. That in case of uttering he forger.91
connived with the
importer or forger.
90
People v. Galano, C.A, 54 O.G. 5897.
91 People v. Orqueza, 14 C.A. Rep. 730.

Art. 168. ILLEGAL POSSESION AND USE OF FALSE
TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER
INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT
1. That any treasury or bank 1. To prove that a bank note is
note or certificate or other forged, evidence must be
obligation and securities presented that the number which
payable to bearer or any the questioned bank note bears
instrument payable to order does not check with the genuine
or other document of credit one issued with the same
not payable to bearer is number.92
forged or falsified by
another; 2. The accused must have
knowledge of the forged character
2. The offender knows that any of the note.93
of these instruments is
forged or falsified; and 3. A person in possession of falsified
document and who makes use of
3. That he performs any of the same is presumed to be
these acts: material author of falsification.94
a. Using any of such forged

or falsified instruments;
or
b. Possession with intent to

use, any of the forged or
falsified documents.
92
People v. Barraquia, 76 Phil. 490.
93
U.S. v. De Leon, et al., 4 Phil 496.
94 People v. Sendaydiego, 82 SCRA 120.

Art. 169. HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED
1. By giving to a treasury or 1. This provision contemplates not

bank note or any only the situations of a spurious,
instrument payable to false or fake document but also
bearer or to order the the situations involving originally
appearance of a true and true and genuine documents
genuine document; which have been withdrawn or
demonetized, or have outlived
2. By erasing, substituting, their usefulness. 95
counterfeiting, or altering
by any means the figures, 2. The possession of genuine trea-
letters, words or signs sury notes of the Philippines any
therein. of "the figures, letters, words or
signs contained" in which had
been erased and/or altered, with
knowledge of such erasure and
alteration, and with the intent to
use such notes, as they were used
by petitioner herein and his co-
defendants in the manner
adverted to above, is
punishable.96
Art. 170. FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE

DOCUMENT
1. That there be a bill, 1. The falsification under this Article

resolution or ordinance is committed by altering a
enacted by or approved or legislative document, which
pending approval by either presupposes that the bill,
House of the Legislature or resolution, or ordinance altered
any provincial board or must be genuine. Besides, the bill,
municipal council; resolution, or ordinance is
“enacted or approved or pending
2. The offender alters the approval” by the National
same; Assembly or any provincial board
95
People v. Galano, C.A., 54 O.G. 5899.
96
Rosario v. People, G.R. No. L-16806, December 22, 1961.

or municipal council. A fabricated
3. That he has no proper or simulated legislative document
authority therefor; and is not covered by this Article. 97
4. That alteration changed the

meaning of the document.
Art. 171. FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER,

EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTICAL
MINISTER
1. That the offender is a 1. A municipal president who

public officer, employee or falsified an inscription in the
notary public; register of births kept by, under
the charge of, the municipal
2. That he takes advantage of secretary who issued a certified
his official position when: copy of such false inscription is
not guilty under this Article.
a. He has the duty to Although he is a public officer,
make or prepare or the falsification committed by
otherwise to intervene him was upon an act, certificate
in the preparation of or instrument, the issuance of
the document; or which does not pertain to his
b. He has the official office and, therefore, it was
custody of the without abuse of his office.98
document which he
falsifies; 2. The simulation of a public or
official document, done in such a
3. The offender falsifies a manner as to easily lead to error
document; and as to its authenticity, constitutes
the crime of falsification. It is not
4. In case the offender is an essential that the falsification
ecclesiastical minister, the shall have been made in a real
act of falsification is public or official document.99
committed with respect to
any record or document, 3. The mere drawing up of a false
the falsification of which document is not sufficient to
may affect the civil status of constitute the crime in question.
persons. The signature, handwriting or
97
98
U.S. v. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376.
99
U.S. v. Corral, 15 Phil. 383.

mark of another person must be
Different Modes of signed or made by the offender,
Falsifying a Document: without authority to do so. It is
necessary that an attempt be
1. Counterfeiting or imitating made to imitate the writing,
(feigning) any hand- signature, or mark of the person
writing, signature or whose name is signed.100
rubric;
4. It is sufficient that there is an
a. That there be an intent to intent to imitate, an attempt to
imitate or an attempt to imitate, and that the two
imitate: signatures, the genuine and the
false, bear sufficient resemblance
b. The two signatures or to each other as to be likely to
handwriting, the deceive an ordinary person
genuine and the forged receiving or dealing with the
bear some resemblance instrument.101
to each other;
5. The crime of falsification is
2. Causing it to appear that consummated when it is
persons have participated in purported that the documents
an act or proceeding; submitted are original copies of
valid, deliberated and approved
Requisites: resolutions when no such
documents exist and no
a. That the offender caused proceedings regarding them ever
it to appear in a took place as established by the
document that a person prosecution. It is sufficient that
or persons participated the documents are given the
in an act or proceeding; appearance of, or made to appear
similar to the official form. 102
b. That such persons did
not in fact so participate 6. There is no falsification by one
in the act or proceeding. who acted in good faith.103
3. Attributing to persons who 7. The alteration must affect the

have participated in any act integrity or change the effects of
or proceeding statements the document.104
other than those in fact
100
U.S. v. Paraiso, 1 Phil. 66.
101
U.S. v. Rampas, 26 Phil. 189..
102
Regidor, Jr, and Zapatos v. People and the Sandiganbayan , G.R. Nos. 166086-92, February 13,
2009.
103
U.S. v. San Jose, 7 Phil. 604.
104
People v. Pacana, 47 Phil. 48.

made by them;
Requisites:
a. That a person or persons

participated in an act or
proceeding;
b. That such person or

persons made state-
ments in that act or
proceeding;
c. That the offender in

making a document,
attributed to such person,
statements other than
those in fact made by
such person.
4. Making untruthful
statements in a narration of
facts;
Requisites:
a. That the offender makes

in a document state-
ments in a narration of
facts;
b. That he has the legal

obligation to disclose the
truth of the facts narrated
by him;
c. That the facts narrated by

the offender are
absolutely false;
d. That the perversion of

truth in the narration of
facts was made with the
wrongful intent of
injuring a third person.
5. Altering true dates;

6. Making alteration or
intercalation in a genuine
document which changes
its meaning;
Requisites:
a. That there be an
alteration or
intercalation (insertion)
on a document;
b. That it was made on a
genuine document;
c. That the alteration and
intercalation has
changed the meaning of
the document;
d. That the change made
the document speak
something false.
7. Issuing in an authenticated
form a document
purporting to be a copy of
an original document when
no such original exists, or
including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the
genuine original;
8. Intercalating any
instrument or note relative
to the issuance in a
protocol, registry or official
book.

Art. 172. FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
1. Falsification of public, 1. In the falsification of public or

official or commercial official documents, whether by
document by a private public officials or by private
individual; persons, it is unnecessary that
there be present the idea of gain
Requisites: or the intent to injure a third
person, for the reason that, in
a. The offender is a private contradistinction to private
individual or a public documents, the principal thing
officer or employee who punished is the violation of the
did not take advantage of public faith and the destruction of
his official position; the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed.105
b. That he committed any of
the acts of falsification
2. The rule is that if a person had in
enumerated in Art.171;
his possession a falsified
c. That the falsification was document and be made use of it
committed in a public or (uttered it), taking advantage of it
official or commercial and profiting thereby, the
document. presumption is that he is the
material author of the
2. Falsification of private falsification. This is especially true
document by any person; if the use or uttering of the forged
documents was so closely
Requisites: connected in time with the forgery
that the user or possessor may be
a. That the offender proven to have the capacity of
committed any of the acts committing the forgery, or to have
of falsification except close connection with the forgers,
those in par. 7, and therefore, had complicity in
enumerated in Art.171; the forgery.106
b. That the falsification was 3. The possessor of a falsified
committed in a private document is presumed to be the
document; author of the falsification.107
105
People v. Pacana, 47 Phil. 56.
106
People v. Sendaydiego, G.R. No. L-33253, January 20, 1978.
107
Spouses Villamar v. People, G.R. No. 178652, December 8, 2010.

c. That the falsification 4. If the one who used the falsified
caused damage to a third document is the same person who
party or at least the falsified it, the crime is only
falsification was falsification and the use of the
committed with the intent same is not a separate crime.108
to cause damage.
5. The user of the falsified document
3. Use of falsified documents; is deemed the author of the
falsification if (a) the use was so
a. Introducing in a judicial closely connected in time with
proceeding: the falsification; and (b) the user
had the capacity of falsifying the
i. That the offender document.109
knew that the
document was
falsified by another
person;
ii. That the false

document was
embraced in Art. 171
or in any subdivision
No.1 or 2 of Art. 172;
iii. That he introduced

said document in
evidence in any
judicial proceeding.
b. Use in any other

transaction:
i. That the offender

knew that the
document was
falsified by another
person;
ii. That the false

document was
embraced in Art. 171
108
109
U.S. v. Castillo, 6 Phil. 453.

or in any of
subdivision No. 1 or
2 of Art. 172;
iii. That he used such

document (not in
judicial proceeding);
iv. That the use of the

false document
caused damage to
another or at least it
was used with intent
to cause damage.
ART 173. FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE,

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES AND USE
OF SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES
1. Uttering fictitious wireless, 1. The public officer, to be liable,

telegraph, or telephone must be engaged in the service of
messages; sending or receiving wireless,
cable, telegraph or telephone
a. The offender is an officer message.110
or employee of the
Government or an 2. The accused, a telegraph ope-
officer or employee of a rator, was guilty of falsify-cation
private corporation, of telegraph messages when he
engaged in the service of received two telegrams for
sending or receiving transmission and reduced the
wireless, cable or number of words of the telegraph
telephone message; messages by twelve and eight
words, respectively, without
b. That the offender having been authorized to do so
commits any of the by the sender. The accused then
following acts: pocketed the differences in the
prices charged in the sums of
➢ Uttering fictitious P0.72 and P0.48, respectively. 111
wireless, cable,
3.
110
111
U.S. v. Romero, 17 Phil. 76.

telegraph or
telephone message; 3. A private individual cannot
commit the crime of falsification
➢ Falsifying wireless, of telegraphic dispatches by
cable, telegraph or direct participation, unless he is
telephone message. an employee of a corporation
engaged in the business of
2. Falsifying wireless, sending or receiving wireless,
telegraph or telephone telegraph or telephone messages.
messages; But a private individual can be
held criminally liable as principal
3. Use of falsified messages; by inducement in the falsification
of telegraph dispatches or
a. That the accused knew telephone messages. But if he
that wireless, cable, knowingly uses any falsified
telegraph or telephone telegraph, wireless or telephone
message was falsified by messages to the prejudice of a
any person specified in third person, or with intent to
1st paragraph of cause such prejudice, it is not
Art.173; necessary that he be connected
with such corporation. 112
b. That the accused used
such falsified dispatch;
c. That the use of the

falsified dispatch
resulted in the prejudice
of a third party, or that
the use thereof was with
the intent to cause such
prejudice.
112
Ibid. pp. 243-244.

Art. 174. FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, FALSE
CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE, ETC.
1. Physician or surgeon who, 1. The fact that the defendant did,

in connection with the in one of the certificates in an
practice of profession application for an examination
issued a false certificate;   to the Civil Service Board, and,
in that part thereof containing
2. Public officer who issued a recommendations of the
false certificate of merit or applicant, subscribe the name
service, good conduct or of a person, the latter neither
similar circumstances; having subscribed nor written
the contents thereof, same not
3. Private individual who being true in some respects, is
falsified a certificate falling neither falsification nor attempt
in the classes mentioned in of falsification of a public
Nos. 1 and 2.   instrument, but merely a
falsification of a certificate of
merit.113
2. Certificate of residence for

voting purposes is certificate of
“similar circumstances.”114
Art. 175. USING FALSE CERTIFICATES

Elements
1. That a physician or surgeon had issued a false medical, or a public

officer had issued a false certificate of merit or service, good
conduct, or similar circumstances, or a private person had
falsified any of said certificates;
2. That the offender knew that the certificate was false; and
3. That he used the same.  
113
People vs. Michelena, 4 Phil. 492.
114
U.S. v. Deloso, 11 Phil. 180.

Art. 176. MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF
INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR
FALSIFICATION
1. Making or introducing into 1. In order to secure a conviction

the Philippines any stamps, under the 2nd paragraph of Art.
dies, marks, or other 176, it is not necessary that the
instruments or implements implements confiscated from a
for counterfeiting; complete set for counterfeiting, it
being enough that they may be
2. Possessing with intent to employed by themselves or
use the instruments or together with other implements
implements for counter- to commit the crime of
feiting or falsification made counterfeiting or falsification.115
in or introduced into the
Philippines by another
person.
Art. 177. USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL

FUNCTIONS
1. By knowingly and falsely 1. False representation may be

representing oneself to be shown by acts. It is not necessary
an officer, agent or that the offender should falsely
representative of the represent himself to be an officer,
Philippine Government or agent or representative of any
any foreign document;   department or agency of the
government. Thus, even in the
2. By performing any act absence of evidence that the
pertaining to a person in accused represented himself as a
authority or public officer police officer, his acts in blowing
of the government under his whistle, stopping buses and
the pretense of official ordering drivers to step down
position and without their passenger vehicles and
authority.   produce their driver’s licenses,
sufficiently establish his
culpability for the crime of
115
People v. Santiago, et al., C.A. 48 O.G. 4401.

usurpation of official functions
under Art. 177.116
2. Art. 177 punishes usurpation of

authority or official functions of
any officer of any foreign
government.117
Art. 178. USING FICTIOUS NAME AND CONCEALING

TRUE NAME
Using Fictitious Name: 1. If the purpose is for causing

damage, it must be damage to
1. That the offender uses a public interest. If it is damage to
name other than his real private interest, the crime
name;   will be estafa under Art. 315,
subdivision 2, par. (a).118
2. That he uses that fictitious
name publicly; and 2. Distinction between use of
  fictitious name and concealing
3. That the purpose of the true name:
offender is—
a. In the use of fictitious name,
a. To conceal a crime;   the element of publicity
b. To evade the ex- must be present; in
ecution of a judg- concealing true name and
ment; or other personal
c. To cause damage to circumstances, that element
public interest. is not necessary.
Concealing True Name: b. The purpose in use of

fictitious name is any of
1. That the offender those three enumerated; in
concealing true name it is
conceals:  
merely to conceal identity.119
a. His true name; 
b. All other personal
116 People v. Reyes, C.A., 70 O.G. 7801.

117
118
Ibid. p. 255.
119

circumstances;  
2. That the purpose is only

to conceal his identity.
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 142, AS AMENDED, BY
R.A 6085, “AN ACT REGULATING THE USE OF
ALIASES”
General Rule Jurisprudence
No person shall use any 1. The use of a fictitious name or a

name different from the one different name belonging to
with which he was registered another person in a single
at birth in the office of the instance without any sign or
local civil registry, or with indication that the user intends
which he was registered in to be known by this name in
the Bureau of Immigration addition to his real name from
upon entry, or such that day forth does not fall
substitute name as may have within the prohibition contained
been authorized by a in C.A. No. 142 as amended, by
competent court. R.A. No. 6085.120
Exception: 2. Aside from the name “Ong Hick

Lian,” appellee is using the alias
As pseudonym solely for “Julian Ong”. There is no
literary, cinema, television, evidence that appellee has been
radio or other entertainment baptized with “Ong Hick Lian,”
purposes and in athletic appellee is using the alias
events where the use of “Julian Ong”. There is no
pseudonym is a normally evidence that appellee has been
accepted practice. baptized with the later name or
that he has been known by it
since childhood, or that the
court has authorized the use
thereof. Appellee has, therefore,
committed a violation of the
Anti-Alias Law.121
120
Ursua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112170, April 10, 1996.
121
Hock Lian v. Republic, 17 SCRA 188.

Art. 179. ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS OR INSIGNIA
1. That the offender makes 1. To bring a culprit within the

use of insignia, uniform or coverage of Art. 179 on the illegal
dress; and use of uniforms and insignia, an
exact imitation of a uniform is
2. That the insignia, uniform
unnecessary. A colorable
or dress pertains to an
resemblance calcu-lated to
office not held by the
deceive the common run of
offender or to a class of
people – not those thoroughly
person of which he is not a
familiar with every detail or
member; and
accessory thereof- is sufficient.122
3. That said insignia, uniform
or dress is used publicly
and improperly.
Art. 180. FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A

DEFENDANT
That there be a criminal 1. The witness who gave false

proceeding;   testimony is liable even if his
testimony was not considered
1. That the offender testifies by the court. The reason is that
falsely under oath against since the law punishes the false
the defendant therein;   witness even if the defendant in
the principal case is acquitted,
2. That the offender who it would seem that the law
gives false testimony intends to punish the mere
knows that it is false; and giving of false testimony.123
 
3. That the defendant against
whom the false testimony
is given is either acquitted
or convicted in a final
judgment.  
122 People v. Romero, C.A., 58 O.G. 4402.

123

Art. 181. FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO THE
DEFENDANT
Person Liable Jurisprudence
1. Any person who gives a 1. While false testimony in favor or

false testimony in favor of an accused may be less
the defendant in a criminal obnoxious than false testimony
case. against him, both forms of false
are equally repugnant to the
2. Conviction or acquittal of orderly administration of
defendant in principal case justice, and deserve to be
is not necessary. rigorously repressed.124
2. A witness who falsely testified

that he neither saw nor was
present at the killing of the
deceased is guilty of false
testimony because by not
testifying for the prosecution, he
favored the accused.125
Art. 182. FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES

1. That the testimony must 1. The testimony given in the civil

be given in a civil case; case must be false.126
 
2. That the testimony must 2. Falsity of testimony must first
relate to the issues be established.127
presented in said case;  
3. That the testimony must

be false;  
4. That the testimony must

be given by the defendant
knowing it to be false; and
124
People v. Reyes, C.A., 48 O.G. 1837.
125
Ibid., p. 263.
126
People v. Collantes, C.A., 37 O.G. 1804.
127 Ark Travel v. Hon. Abogar, G.R No. 137010, December 8, ,2003.

5. That the testimony must
be malicious and given
with an intent to affect the
issues presented in said
case.
ART 183. FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND
PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
1. That the accused made a 1. A material matter is the main

statement under oath or fact which is the subject of the
executed an affidavit upon inquiry, or any circumstance
a material matter;   which tends to prove that fact,
or any fact or circumstance
2. That the statement or which tends to corroborate or
affidavit was made before a strengthen the testimony
competent officer, relative to the subject of
authorized to receive and inquiry, or which legitimately
administer oath; affects the credit of any witness
who testifies.128
3. That in that statement or
affidavit, the accused made 2. No perjury if sworn statement is
a willful and deliberate not material to the principal
assertion of falsehood; and matter under investigation.129
4. That the sworn statement or 3. Good faith or lack of malice is a

affidavit containing the defense in perjury.130
falsity is required by the
law. 4. Subornation of perjury is
committed by a person who
knowingly and willfully
procures another to swear
falsely and the witness
suborned does testify under
circumstances rendering him
guilty of perjury.131
128
U.S. v. Estrana, 16 Phil. 520.
129 U.S v. Jurado, 31 Phil. 491.
130 People v. Abaya, 74 Phil. 49.
131 U.S. vs. Ballena, 18 Phil. 382.

Art. 184. OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN
EVIDENCE
1. That the offender offered 1. This Article contemplates of a

in evidence a false witness case where a person, without
or testimony;   inducing another, but knowing
him to be a false witness,
2. That he knew the witness presented him, and the latter
or testimony was false; testified in a judicial or official
and proceeding.132
3. That the offer was made in

a judicial or official
proceeding.
Art. 185. MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS

1. Soliciting any gift or 1. It is not required that the person

promise as a making the proposal actually
consideration for refrains from taking part in any
refraining from taking public auction. It is
part in the public auction; consummated by mere
solicitation of gift or promise as
Requisites: consideration for not bidding.
If the person to whom the
a. That there be a public solicitation is made agrees to
auction; pay or gives the gift or makes a
promise, then he will be a
b. That the accused solicited principal in the crime. His act
any gift or a promise from will be similar to the second
any of the bidders; way of committing the crime.133
c. That such gift or promise

was the consideration for
his refraining from taking
part in that public auction;
and
132
133
Ibid, p. 278.

d. That the accused had the
intent to cause the
reduction of the price of
the thing auctioned.  
2. Attempting to cause
bidders to stay away
from an auction by
threats, gifts, promises or
any artifice;
Requisites:
a. That there be a public

auction;  
b. That the accused

attempted to cause the
buyers to stay away from
that public auction;
c. That it was done by

threats, gifts, promises or
any other artifice; and
d. That the accused had the

intent to cause the
reduction of the price of
the thing.  
Art. 186. MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN

RESTRAINT OF TRADE
1. Combination to prevent 1. If the offense affects any food

free competition in the substance or other article of
market. prime necessity, it is sufficient
that the initial steps have been
- By entering into any taken toward carrying out the
contract or agreement or purposes of combination.134
134

taking part in any
conspiracy or combination 2. By express provision of Art. 186,
in the form of a trust or the president and each one of
otherwise, in restraint of the directors or managers of the
trade or commerce or to corporation or association shall
prevent by artificial means be held as principals.135 But they
free competition in the are liable only when they (a)
market. knowingly permitted, or (b)
failed to prevent the
2. Monopoly to restrain free commission of such offenses.136
competition in the market.
- By monopolizing any
merchandise or object of
trade or commerce, or by
combining with any other
person or persons to
monopolize said
merchandise or object in
order to alter the prices
thereof by spreading false
rumors or making use of
any other artifice to
restrain free competition
in the market.
3. Making transactions pre-

judicial to lawful
commerce or to increase
the market price of
merchandise.
The person liable is the:
a. Manufacturer;  
b. Producer; 
c. Processor; or  
d. Importer of any
merchandise or object
of commerce.
135
People v. Torres, C.A. 51 O.G. 6280.
136
Ibid.

The crime is committed
by:
a. Combining; 
b. Conspiring; or  
c. Agreeing with any
person.  
The purpose is:
a. To make transactions
prejudicial to lawful
commerce; or  
b. To increase the market

price of any
merchandise  or object
of commerce manu-
factured, produced,
processed, assembled
or imported into the
Philippines.
Art. 187. IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF

FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR MERCHANDISE
MADE OF GOLD, SILVER OR OTHER PRECIOUS
METALS OR THEIR ALLOYS
1. That the offender imports, 1. Since one of the acts penalized

sells or disposes of any of in Art. 187 is knowingly
those articles or importing misbranded articles
merchandise; made of gold, silver, etc. which
includes possession thereof
2. That the stamps, brands or after importing the same, it is
marks of those articles or not necessary that they be sold
merchandise fail to and the public actually deceived.
indicate the actual fitness But there must be evidence

or quality of said metals or showing that the articles were
alloys; and imported.137
3. That the offender knows

that the stamps, brands or
marks fail to indicate the
actual fitness or quality of
the metals or alloys.
Articles of Merchandise
involved:
a. Gold
b. Silver
c. Other precious metals
d. Their alloys
137

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE, “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,” REPEALED THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLES 188 AND 189 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH.
TITLE FIVE - CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND
OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
Articles 190, 191, 192 and 193 of the Revised Penal Code were repealed
by Republic Act No. 6425, known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972”
which took effect on March 30, 1972, as amended by P.D. No. 1683 and
further amended by R. A. No. 7659.
Republic Act No. 9165, known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act of 2002” which took effect on July 4, 2002, repealed Republic Act
No. 6425 and amended by R.A. No. 7659.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 – “The Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”
1. Importation of dangerous drugs 1. R.A. 9165 and its subsequent

and/or controlled precursors implementing Rules and
and essential chemicals; Regulations sanction
substantial compliance with
2. Sales, trading, administration,
the procedure to establish a
dispensation, delivery,
chain of custody, as long as
distribution and transportation
the integrity and evidentiary
of dangerous drugs and/or
value of the seized items are
controlled precursors and
properly preserved by the
essential chemicals;
apprehending
3. Maintenance of a dangerous drug team/officer.138
den, dive or resort;
2. The identity of the dangerous
4. Being employees or visitors of a drugs should be established
dangerous drug den, dive or beyond doubt by showing
resort; that the items offered in
court were the same
5. Manufacture of dangerous drugs
138
People v. Llanita, G.R.No. 189817, October 3, 2012.

and/or controlled precursors substances brought during
and essential chemicals; the buy-bust operation.139
6. Illegal chemical diversion of 3. It is settled that in

controlled precursors and prosecutions for illegal sale
essential chemicals; of dangerous drug, not only
must the essential elements
7. Manufacture or delivery of of the offense be proved
equipment, instrument, beyond reasonable doubt,
apparatus and other but likewise the identity of
paraphernalia for dangerous the prohibited drug. The
drugs and/or controlled dangerous drug itself
precursors and essential constitutes the corpus
chemicals delicti of the offense and
the fact of its existence is
8. Possession of dangerous drugs; vital to a judgment of
conviction.140
9. Possession of equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other 4. Chain of custody
paraphernalia for dangerous establishes the identity of
drugs; the subject substance.141 It
requires that testimony be
10. Possession of dangerous drugs presented about every link
during parties, social gathe-rings in the chain, from the
or meetings; moment the item is seized
up to the time it is offered
11. Possession of equipment, in evidence.142 When
instrument, apparatus and other nagging doubts persist on
paraphernalia for dangerous whether the item
drugs during parties, social confiscated is the same
gatherings or meetings; specimen examined and
established to be
12. Use of dangerous drugs; prohibited drug,143 there
can be no crime of illegal
13. Cultivation or culture of plants
possession of a prohibited
classified as dangerous drugs or
drug.144
are sources thereof;
14. Failure to maintain and keep 5. What is imperative is “the
original records of transactions preservation of the
139
People v. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015.
140
People v. Enumerable, G.R. No 207993, January 21, 2015.
141
People v. Barba, 593 SCRA 711 [2009].
142
People v. Habana, G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010.
143
Valdez v. People, 538 SCRA 611[2007].
144
People v. Gariana, G.r. No. 184761, September 8, 2010.

on dangerous drugs and/or integrity and the evidential
controlled precursors and value of the seized items as
essential chemicals; the same would be utilized
in the determination of the
15. Unnecessary prescription of guilt or innocence of the
dangerous drugs; accused.145
16. Unlawful prescription of

dangerous drugs.
145
People v .Feliciano et al., G.R. No. 190179, October 20, 2010.

TITLE SIX - CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
NOTE: The provisions of Articles 15-199 of the Revised

Penal Code, as amended, as well as those of Presidential
Decree Nos. 483 (betting, game-fixing or point-shaving
and machinations in sport contests) and 449
(Cockfighting Law) which are inconsistent with
Presidential Decree No. 1602, are repealed.
Art. 200. GRAVE SCANDAL
1. That the offender performs an act 1. The acts punishable by

or acts; this Article are those
which by their publicity
2. That such act or acts be highly and character can cause
scandalous as offending against public scandal among the
decency or good customs; and person witnessing them,
besides being contrary to
3. That the highly scandalous morals and good
conduct is not expressly falling customs.146
within any article of this Code;
2. The acts must be
4. That the act or acts complained of performed in a public
be committed in a public place or place or within the public
within the public knowledge or knowledge or view.147
view.
Art. 201. IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS AND INDECENT
SHOWS
1. Those who shall publicly expound 1. The test of obscenity is
or proclaim doctrines openly and whether the tendency of
contrary to public morals; the matter charged as
obscene, is to deprave or
2. The authors of obscene literature, corrupt those whose minds
published with their knowledge in are open to such immoral
any form; the editors publishing influences, and into whose
146
People v. Dumlao, et al., C.A., 38 O.G. 3715.
147
U.S. v. Samaniego, 16 Phil. 663.

such literature; and the owners, hands such a publication
operating the establishment or may fall and also whether
selling the same; or not such publication or
act shocks the ordinary and
3. Those who, in theaters, fairs, common sense of men as
cinematographs or any other an indecency.148
place, exhibit indecent or immoral
shows which are proscribed or are 2. As regards such pictures,
contrary to morals, good customs, the proper test is whether
established policies, lawful orders, the motive of the picture,
decrees and edicts; and as indicated by it, is pure or
impure; or whether it is
4. Those who shall sell, give away, or naturally calculated to
exhibit films, prints, engravings, excite impure imagi-
sculpture or literature which are nations.149
offensive to morals.  
Art. 202. VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES
1. Any person having no apparent 1. Loitering around saloons
means of subsistence, who has the and gambling houses is
physical ability to work and who vagrancy only when there
neglects to apply himself to some is evidence of absence of
lawful calling; visible means of support.150
2. Any person found loitering about 2. A maintainer of a house of

public or semi-public buildings or prostitution may be
places or tramping or about the considered a vagrant within
country or the streets without the meaning of the
visible means of support; provision: Any idle or
dissolute person who
3. Any person who, not being lodges in houses of ill-
included in the provisions of other fame.151
articles of this Code, shall be found
loitering in any inhabited or
uninhabited place belonging to
another without any lawful or
justifiable purpose;
4. Prostitutes.  
148 U.S. v. Kottinger, 45 Phil. 352.

149
People v. Serrano, CA-G.R. No. 5566-R.
150
U.S. v. Hart et al., 26 Phi. 149.
151
People v. Mirabien, 50 Phil. 499.

TITLE SEVEN - CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS
Art. 203. WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS
Requisites Jurisprudence
To be a public officer, one
1. This Article includes all
must be:
persons “who by direct
provision of law, popular
1. Taking part in the performance
election or appointment by
of public functions in the
competent authority, shall
Government or performing in
take part in the performance
said Government or in any of its
of public functions in the
branches public duties as an
Philippines Government, or
employee, agent or subordinate
shall preform in said
official, of any rank or class; and
government or any of its
branches, public duties as
2. That his authority to take part in
an employee, agent or
the performance of public
subordinate official or any
functions or to perform public
rank or class”.152
duties must be:
2. One appointed as laborer in
a. By direct provision of the
the government is not a
law;
public officer. But his
b. By popular election; or temporary performance of
public functions makes him
c. By appointment by a public officer.153
competent authority.  
Art. 204. KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST
JUDGEMENT
1. That the offender is a judge;   1. It must be shown beyond

doubt that the judgment is
2. That he renders a judgment in a unjust in the sense that it is
case submitted to him for contrary to law and not
decision;   supported by the evidence,
and that the same was made
3. That the judgment is unjust; with conscious and
152
Maniego v. People, 88, Phil. 494.
153
Ibid.

and  deliberate intent to do an
injustice.154
4. That the judge knows that his
judgment is unjust.   2. In order that a judge may be
held liable for knowingly
rendering an unjust
judgment, it must be shown
beyond doubt that the
judgment is unjust in the
sense that it is contrary to
law or is not supported by
the evidence, and that the
same was made with
conscious and deliberate
intent to do an injustice.155
Art. 205. JUDGEMENT RENDERED THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE
1. That the offender is a judge; 1. Mere error of judgment

  cannot serve as basis for a
2. That he renders a judgment in a charge of knowingly
case submitted to him for rendering an unjust
decision;   judgment, where there is no
proof or even allegation of
3. That the judgment is manifestly bad faith, or ill-motive, or
unjust; and improper consideration.156
4. That it is due to his inexcusable

negligence or ignorance.  
Art. 206. UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

1. That the offender is a judge;   1. The test in determining

whether an order or
2. That he performs any of the judgment is interlocutory or
following acts: final is: “Does lt leave
154
Sta. Maria v. UBay, 87 SCRA 179.
155
Ibid.
156
Yaranon v. Judge Rubio, 66 SCRA 67.

something to be done in the
a. Knowingly renders unjust trial court with respect to the
interlocutory order or merits of the case? If it does,
decree; or it is interlocutory; if it does
not, it is final.”157
b. Renders a manifestly unjust
interlocutory order or decree
through inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.  
Art. 207. MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
1. That the offender is a judge; 1. Mere delay without malice in

holding trials or rendering
2. That there is a proceeding in judgments does not
court; necessarily bring the judge
within the operation of the
3. That he delays the law. 158
administration of justice;  
4. That the delay is malicious, that

is, the delay is caused by the
judge with deliberate intent to
inflict damage on either party
in the case.
Art. 208. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE

AND TOLERANCE
1. By maliciously refraining from 1. The title of this Article uses

instituting prosecution against the word “negligence” which
violators of the law; should not be understood
merely as lack of foresight or
2. By maliciously tolerating the skill. The word “negligence”
commission of offenses. simply means “neglect of the
157
Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Maynila Railroad Company v. Yard Crew Union et al., 109
Phil. 1143.
158

duties of his office by
Elements of Dereliction of maliciously failing to move
Duty in the Prosecution of the prosecution and
Offenses: punishment of the
delinquent.” Malice is an
a. That the offender is a public important element in this
officer who has a duty to cause article.159
the prosecution of, or to
prosecute offenses; 2. There must be a duty on the
part of the public officer to
b. That knowing the commission prosecute or to move the
of the crime, he does not cause prosecution of the
the prosecution of the criminal offender.160
or knowing that a crime is
about to be committed he
tolerates its commission; and
c. That the offender acts with
malice and deliberate intent to
favor the violator of the law.  
Art. 209. BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR

SOLICITOR- REVELATION OF SECRETS
1. Causing damage to his client, 1. A procurador judicial is a

either: person who had some
practical knowledge of law
a. By any malicious breach of and procedure but not a
professional duty; or lawyer, and was permitted
to represent a party in a case
b. Inexcusable negligence or before an inferior court. 161
ignorance; 
2. Revealing any of the secrets of

his client learned by him in his
professional capacity;
3. Undertaking the defense of the

opposing party in the same case
159
U.S. v. Mendoza, 23 Phil. 194.
160
Ibid.
161
Reyes, supra., p. 384.

without the consent of his first
client after having undertaken
the defense of said first client or
after having received
confidential information from
said client.
Art. 210. DIRECT BRIBERY

1. By agreeing to perform, or by 1. Gift or present need not be

performing in consideration of actually received by the
any offer, promise, gift or public officer, as an accepted
present, an act constituting a offer or promise of gift is
crime, in connection with the sufficient.162
performance of official duties;
2. The thing offered or accepted
2. By accepting a gift in may be money, property,
consideration of the execution services or anything else of
of an act which does not value. It must be of some
constitute a crime, in value, but any value is
connection with the sufficient.163
performance of his official
duty; 3. The act which the public
officer agrees to perform
4. By agreeing to refrain, or by must connected with the
refraining, from doing performance of official
something which it is his duties.164 The act need not,
official duty to do, in however, be statutory duty; it
consideration of a gift or is sufficient if the action to be
promise. affected by the bribe be part
of established procedure of a
Common Elements: governmental agency.165
a. That the offender be a 4. A public officer who agrees

public officer; to refrain from doing his
official duty in consideration
b. That the offender accepts an of a sum of money.166
162
Ibid. p. 387.
163
Ibid. p. 388. .
164
U.S. v. Valdehueza, 4 Phil. 470.
165
Ibid.. p. 389.,
166
People v. Marco, 12 C.A. Rep. 377.

offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by
himself or through another;
c. That such offer or promise
be accepted, or gift or
present received by the
public officer –
i. With a view to
committing some crime;
or  
ii. In consideration of the

execution of an act
which does not
constitute a crime, but
the act must be unjust;
or
iii. To refrain from doing

something which it is his
official duty to do; 
5. That the act which the offender
agrees to perform, or which he
executes be connected with the
duties.
Art. 211. INDIRECT BRIBERY

1. That the offender is a public 1. A public officer should not

officer; accept any gift offered to him
because such gift is offered in
2. That he accepts gifts; and
anticipation of future favor
3. That the said gifts are offered to from him. Such gift received
him by reason of his office. now will in the future corrupt
him or make him omit the
duty.167
167

Art. 211-A. QUALIFIED BRIBERY
Elements
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he accepts gifts; and
3. That the said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
Art. 212. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
1. That the offender makes, offers 1. This Article punishes the

or promises or gives gifts or person who made the offer or
presents to a public officer; and promise or gave the gift, even
if the gift was demanded by
2. That the offers or promises are the public officer and the
made or the gifts or presents offer was not made
given to a public officer, under voluntarily prior to the said
circumstances that will make demand by the public
the public officer liable for officer.168
direct bribery or indirect
bribery.
Art. 213. FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY

AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
1. By entering into an agreement 1. The offender must have the

with any interested party or duty as public officer to deal
speculator or making use of any with any person with regard
other scheme, to defraud the to furnishing supplies, the
Government, in dealing with making of contracts, or the
any person with regard to adjustment or settlement of
furnishing supplies, the making accounts relating to public
of contracts, or the adjustment property or funds.169
or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or 2. The crime of frauds against
funds; public treasury is
168
169
Ibid. p. 418.
consummated by merely
2. By demanding, directly or entering into an agreement
indirectly, the payment of sums with any interested party or
different from or larger than speculator or by merely
those authorized by law, in the making use of any other
collection of taxes, licenses, fees, scheme to defraud the
and other imposts; Government.170
3. By failing voluntarily to issue a

3. Mere demand for an amount
receipt, as provided by law, for
larger than or different
any sum of money collected by
from that fixed by law is
him officially, in the collection
sufficient to consummate
of taxes, licenses, fees and other
the crime.171
imposts;
4. By collecting or receiving,
directly or indirectly, by way of
payment or otherwise, things or
objects of a nature different
from that provided by law, in
the collection of taxes, licenses,
fees and other imposts.
Elements of Frauds against

public treasury (Par. 1):
a. That the offender be a public

officer;
b. That he should have taken

advantage of his office, that is,
he intervened in the
transaction in his official
capacity;
c. That he entered into an

agreement with any interested
party or speculator or made use
of any other scheme with
regard to:
i. Furnishing supplies;
170
Ibid.
171
Ibid. p. 419.

ii. The making of contracts;
iii. The adjustment or
settlement of accounts
relating to public property
or funds;
d. That the accused had intent to

defraud the Government.
Elements of illegal exactions

(Pars. 2-4):
1. The offender is a public officer

entrusted with the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees and other
imposts;
2. He is guilty of any of the

following acts or omissions:
a. Demanding, directly or
indirectly, the payment of
sums different from or
larger than those
authorized by law; or
b. Failing voluntarily to issue

a receipt, as provided by
law, for any sum of money
collected by him/her
officially; or
c. Collecting or receiving,
directly or indirectly, by
way of payment or
otherwise, things or objects
of a nature different from
that provided by law.

Art. 214. OTHER FRAUDS
1. That the offender is a public 1. The cases falling under this

officer; Article are cognizable by the
Regional Trial Court
2. That he takes advantage of his regardless of the amount or
official position; and penalty involved, because the
municipal trial courts have
3. That he commits any of the no jurisdiction to impose the
frauds or deceits enumerated in penalty of disqualification.
Arts. 315 to 318 (estafa, other Under this article, the
forms of swindling, swindling a penalty of disqualification is
minor, and other deceits). imposed as a principal
penalty.172
Art. 215. PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
1. That the offender is an 1. It is sufficient under this

appointive public officer; article that the appointive
officer has an interest in any
2. That he becomes interested, transaction of exchange or
directly or indirectly, in any speculation such as buying
transaction of exchange or and selling stocks,
speculation; commodities, land, etc.
hoping to take advantage of
3. That the transaction takes place an expected rise or fall in
within the territory subject to price.173
his jurisdiction; and
4. That he becomes interested in

the transaction during his
incumbency.
172
173
Ibid. p. 422.

Art. 216. POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST BY
A POLICE OFFICER
1. Public officer who, directly or 1. A municipal mayor who took

indirectly, became interested in direct part in the lease of the
any contract or business in municipal fishponds to
which it was his official duty to himself may be held liable
intervene. under the first paragraph of
Art. 216, it being his official
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private duty to intervene in behalf of
accountants who, in like the municipality in the
manner, took part in any contract of lease of the
contract or transaction fishponds.174
connected with the estate or
property in the appraisal,
distribution or adjudication of
which they had acted.
3. Guardians and executors with

respect to the property
belonging to their wards or the
estate.
Art. 217. MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR

PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION
1. By appropriating public funds 1. That the person accused is a

or property; mere clerk and not a bonded
officer is of no legal
2. By taking or misappropriating consequence. The vital fact is
the same; that he is an employee of, or
in some way connected with,
3. By consenting, or through the government and that, in
abandonment or negligence, the course of his
permitting any other person to employment, he receives
take such public funds or money or property belonging
property; to the government for which
he is bound to account. It is
4. By being otherwise guilty of the nature of the duties, not
174
U.S. v. Udarbe, 28 Phil. 382.

the misappropriation or the relatively important name
malversation of such funds or given to the office, which is
property. the controlling factor in
determining whether or not
Common Elements: the accused is an accountable
public officer.175
1. That the offender be a public
2. The failure of a public officer
officer;
to have duly forthcoming any
public funds or property with
2. That he had custody or control
which he is chargeable, upon
of funds or property by reason
demand by any duly
of the duties of his office;
authorized officer, shall be
prima facie evidence that he
3. That those funds or property
has put such missing funds or
were public funds or property
property to personal uses.
for which he was accountable;
Thus, the failure or inability
of the accused who was in
4. That he appropriated, took,
custody of public funds to
misappropriated or consented,
refund the shortage upon
or through abandonment or
demand by the duly
negligence, permitted another
authorized offices constitutes
person to take them.
prima facie evidence of mal-
versation, notwith-standing
the fact that such demand
had been merely made
verbally.176
3. The return of the funds
malversed is only mitigating
circumstance, not
exempting.177
Art. 218. FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO

RENDER ACCOUNTS
1. That the offender is a public 1. The reason for this article is

officer, whether in the service or that the law does not so much
separated there from; contemplate, the possibility
of malversation as the need
2. That he must be an accountable of enforcing by a penal
175
U.S v. Velasquez, 32 Phil. 157.
176
U.S. v. Kalingo, 46 Phil. 651.
177
U.S. v. Velasquez, 72 Phil. 98.

officer for public funds or provision the performance of
property; the duty incumbent upon
every public employee who
3. That he is required by law or handles government funds to
regulation to render accounts to render an account of all he
the Commission on Audit, or to receives or has in his charge
a provincial auditor; and by reason of his
employment.178
4. That he fails to do so for a
period of two months after such
accounts should be rendered.
Art. 219. FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC

OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING
THE COUNTRY
1. That the offender is a public 1. The act of leaving the country

officer; must be unauthorized or not
permitted by law.179
2. That he must be an accountable
officer for public funds or
property; and
3. That he must have unlawfully

left (or be on the point of
leaving) the Philippines without
securing from the Commission
on Audit a certificate showing
that his accounts have been
finally settled.
Art. 220. ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY
1. That the offender is a public 1. The public funds or property

officer; must be appropriated by law
or ordinance for a particular
2. That there is a public fund or purpose.180
178
U.S. v. Saberon, 19 Phil. 391.
179
Reyes, supra. 443.
180
Ibid., p. 444.

property under his
administration; and 2. To constitute the crime
charged, there must be a
3. That such public fund or diversion of the funds from
property has been appropriated the purpose for which they
by law or ordinance; and had been originally
appropriated by law or
4. That he applies the same to a ordinance.181
public use other than that for
which such fund or property has
been appropriated by law or
ordinance.
Art. 221. FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC

FUNDS OR PROPERTY
1. By failing to make payment by 1. Under No. 2 (Refusal to make

a public officer who is under delivery of property), the
obligation to make such refusal must be malicious.
payment from Government Thus, a stenographer of the
funds in his possession provincial board who retains
in his possession the
Elements of Failure To Make stenographic notes taken by
Payment: him for the purpose of
transcribing the same does
a. Public officer has not commit a violation of this
government funds in his article.182
possession;
b. He is under obligation to
make payment from such
funds; and
c. He fails to make the

payment, maliciously.
2. By refusing to make delivery

by a public officer who has
been ordered by competent
authority to deliver any
181
People v. Montemayor et al. G.R. No. L-17449, August 30, 1962.
182
People v. Jubila, C.A.. 38 O.G. 1796.

property in his custody or
under his administration.
Art. 222. OFFICERS INCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING

PROVISIONS
Persons Liable under
Articles 217 to 221 Jurisprudence
1. Private individuals who, in any 1. The purpose of this article is

capacity whatever, have charge to extend the provisions of
of any national, provincial or the Code on malversation to
municipal funds, revenue or private individuals.183
property;
2. To be accountable, the private
2. Administrator or depository of individual must have charge
funds or property, attached, of any national, provincial or
seized, or deposited by public municipal funds, revenues
authority, even if such property or property.184
belongs to a private individual.
Art. 223. CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO

EVASION
1. That the offender is a public 1. There is real and actual

officer; evasion of service of a
sentence when the custodian
2. That he had in his custody or permits the prisoner to
charge, a prisoner, either obtain a relaxation of his
detention prisoner or prisoner imprison-ment and to escape
by final judgment; the punishment of being
deprived of his liberty, thus,
3. That such prisoner escaped making the penalty
from his custody; and ineffectual, although the
convict may not have fled.185
4. That he was in connivance
with the prisoner in the latter’s 2. The mayor is guilty under this
escape. article if he utilized the
183
People v. Escalante, C.A., 49 O.G. 4397.
184
Go v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, September 3, 2007.
185
U.S. v. Bandino, 29 Phil. 459.

prisoner’s services for
Classes of prisoners involved: domestic chores in his house,
including that of working as
1. If the fugitive has been a cook.186
sentenced by final judgment to
any penalty. 3. The petitioner further con-
tends that he cannot be
2. If the fugitive is held only as convicted because there was
detention prisoner for any crime no connivance between him
or violation of law or municipal and the prisoner. In support
ordinance. of his claim, he cites the case
of Alberto v. dela Cruz, (98
SCRA 406). The citation,
however, is erroneous. It
creates the impression that
for one to be held liable
under Art. 224, there must
be a showing that he first
connived with the prisoner.
This was not the ruling in
said case. Conniving or
consenting to evasion is a
distinct crime under Art. 223
of the Revised Penal Code.187
Art. 224. EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
1. That the offender is a public 1. It is the duty of any police

officer; officer having custody of a
prisoner to take necessary
2. That he is charged with the precautions to assure the
conveyance or custody of a absence of any means of
prisoner, either detention escape. A failure to
prisoner or prisoner by final undertake these precautions
judgment; and will make his act one of
definite laxity or negligence
3. That such prisoner escapes amounting to deliberate non-
through his negligence. performance of duty. His
tolerance of arrangements
whereby the prisoner and her
companions could plan and
186
People v. Evangelista, C.A. 38 O.G. 158.
187
Rodillas vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-58652, May 20, 1988

make good her escape should
have aroused the suspicion of
a person of ordinary
prudence.188
Art. 225. ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE

CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER
1. That the offender is a private 1. This article is not applicable if

person; a private person was the one
who made the arrest and he
2. That the conveyance or custody consented to the escape of
of a prisoner or person under the person he arrested.189
arrest is confided to him;
3. That the prisoner or person

under arrest escapes; and
4. That the offender consents to

the escape of the prisoner or
person under arrest, or that the
escape takes place through his
negligence.
Art. 226. REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT OR

DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1. That the offender be a public 1. Whether during or after office

officer; hours, if the removal by a
public officer of any official
2. That he abstracts, destroys or document from its usual
conceals documents or papers; place of safe-keeping is for an
illicit purpose, such as to
3. That the said documents or tamper with or to otherwise
papers should have been profit by it, or to do in
entrusted to such public officer connection therewith an act
188
Ibid.
189

by reason of his office; and which would constitute a
breach of trust in his official
4. That damage, whether serious care thereof, the crime of
or not, to a third party or to the infidelity in the custody of
public interest should have public documents is
been caused. committed.190
2. The crime of removal of public

document in breach of official
trust is consummated upon
its removal or secreting away
from its usual place in the
office and after the offender
had gone out and locked the
door, it being immaterial
whether he has or has not
actually accomplished the
illicit purpose for which he
removed said document.191
190
Manzanaris v. People, G.R. No. L-64750, January 30, 1984.
191
Kataniag v. People, 74 Phil. 45.

Art. 227. OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
1. That the offender is a public
1. It is the breaking of seals, not
officer;
the opening of a closed
envelope, which is punished
2. That he is charged with the
under this article. The
custody of papers or property;
opening of public papers by
breaking seals should be done
3. That these papers or property
only by the proper authority.
are sealed by proper authority;
Hence, the public officer
and
liable under this article must
be the one who breaks the
4. That he breaks the seals or
seals without authority to do
permits them to be broken.
so.192
2. Where documents are sealed

by competent authorities, it is
evident that the purpose
thereof is to insure their
preservation. It is sufficient
that the seal is broken, even if
the contents are not
tampered with. This Article
does not require that there be
damage caused or that there
be intent to cause damage.193
Art. 228. OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS

1. That the offender is a public 1. Closed documents must be

officer; entrusted to the custody of
the accused by reason of his
2. That any closed papers, office.194
documents, or objects are
entrusted to his custody;
192
193
Ibid..
194
People v. Lineses, C.A. 40 O.G. Supp. 14, 4773.

3. That he opens or permits to be
opened said closed papers,
documents, or objects; and
4. That he does not have the

proper authority.
Art. 229. REVELATION OF SECRETS BY AN OFFICER

1. By revealing any secrets known 1. Examples of secrets revealed

to the offending public officer by by public officer:
reason of his official capacity.
a. Peace officers who
Elements: published instructions
received by them for the
a. That the offender is a public arrest of the culprit,
officer; thereby enabling him to
escape and resulting in the
b. That he knows of a secret by failure of the law and
reason of his official authority.
capacity;
b. Provincial fiscal who
c. That he reveals such secret revealed the records of all
without authority or investigation conducted by
justifiable reasons; and him to the defendant who
thereby learned of the
d. That damage, great or small, evidence of the
be caused to public interest. prosecution.195
2. By delivering wrongfully papers
or copies of papers of which he
may have charge and which
should not be published.
Elements:
a. That the offender is a public

officer;
b. That he has charge of

papers;
195
Ibid., p. 465.

c. That those papers should not
be published; and
d. That he delivers those

papers or copies thereof to a
third person;
i. That the delivery is

wrongful; and
ii. That damage be caused to

public interest.
Art. 230. PUBLIC OFFICER REVEALING SECRETS OF
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
1. That the offender is a public 1. Revelation to one person is

officer; sufficient, for public
revelation is not required.196
2. That he knows of the secrets of
a private individual by reason of 2. It is not necessary that
his office; and damage is suffered by the
3. That he reveals such secrets private individual. The
without authority or justifiable reason for this provision is to
reason. uphold faith and trust in
public service.197
196
197
Ibid.

Art. 231. OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
1. That the offender is a judicial or 1. Examples of open dis-

executive officer; obedience:
2. That there is a judgment, a. A municipal mayor who

decision or order of a superior openly refuses to deliver
authority; to the mayor, after having
been repeatedly requested
3. That such judgment, decision to do so, the keys of the
or order was made within the doors of the municipal
scope of the jurisdiction of the building and the seal
superior authority and issued under his custody.
with all legal formalities; and
b. Mandamus by Supreme
4. That the offender without any Court ordering lower
legal justification openly court to receive certain
refuses to execute the said evidence. If the lower
judgment, decision or order, court refuses to obey said
which he is duty bound to obey. judicial order, there is a
violation of this article.198
Art. 232. DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF SUPERIOR

OFFICER WHEN SAID ORDER WAS SUSPENDED BY
INFERIOR OFFICER
1. That the offender is a public 1. The law has taken into

officer; account that a superior
officer may sometimes err,
2. That an order is issued by his and that orders issued by
superior for execution; him may proceed from a
mistaken judgment. For this
3. That he has for any reason reason, it entitles a
suspended the execution of such subordinate to suspend in
order; such cases the order issued,
to submit his reason to his
4. That his superior disapproves superior in order that the
the suspension of the execution latter may give them proper
198
Ibid., p. 468.

of the order; and weight, if they are entitled to
any. So far, there is no crime.
5. That the offender disobeys But if the superior
his/her superior despite the disapproves the suspension
disapproval of the suspension. of his order and reiterates it
to his subordinate, the latter
must obey it at once and the
refusal to do so constitutes
contempt, for by his
resistance and refusal to do
so, he undertakes to dictate
to his superior.199
Art. 233. REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE

1. That the offender is a public 1. A chief of police who flatly

officer; and insolently refuses to
serve summons of a
2. That a competent authority provincial fiscal, after having
demands from the offender that been duly requested to do so
he lends his cooperation by the latter officer, is guilty
towards the administration of of a violation of this
justice or other public service; article.200
and
2. Refusal of a government
3. That the offender fails to do so employee to obey the
maliciously. supbpoena of the fiscal to
attend the preliminary
investigation of his superior
charged with falsification is
punished under this
article.201
199
Ibid, p. 468-469.
200
People v. Castro, G.R. No. 19273.
201
People v. Vallena, G.R. No. 1990.

ART 234. REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE
1. That the offender is elected by 1. The reason of this article is

popular election to a public that once an individual is
office; elected to an office by the will
of the people, the discharge
2. That he refuses to be sworn in
of the duties of said office
or to discharge the duties of
becomes a matter of duty, not
said office; and
only a right.202
3. That there is no legal motive
for such refusal to be sworn in
or to discharge the duties of
said office.
Art. 235. MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS

1. That the offender is a public 1. The mayor is not liable for

officer or employee; maltreatment of prisoner if
the latter is in the custody of
2. That he has under his charge a the police. Art. 235
prisoner convicted by final contemplates actual charge of
judgment or a detention the prisoner, not one which is
prisoner; so merely by legal fiction.203
3. That he maltreats such prisoner 2. If the jailer inflicted physical

in either of the following injuries on the prisoner
manners: because of personal grudge
against the prisoner, the
a. By overdoing himself in the jailer is liable for physical
correction handling of a injuries only.204 Art. 235 was
prisoner or detention not applied because there was
prisoner under his charge no clear evidence that the
either: maltreatment was for the
purpose of extorting
i. By the imposition of confession or information.205
202
Ibid, p. 470.
203
People v. Javier, C.A., 54 O.G. 6622.
204 Ibid.
205
People v. Oliva, G.R. No. L-6033.

punishments not
authorized by the
regulations, or
ii. By inflicting such
punishments (those
authorized) in a cruel
and humiliating manner;
or
b. By maltreating such
prisoner to extort a
confession or to obtain
some information from the
prisoner.
Art. 236. ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICE
Elements
1. That the offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment,

either by election or appointment;
2. That the law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or

should first give a bond;
3. That he assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such

office; and
4. That he has not taken his oath of office and/or given the bond
required by law.
Art. 237. PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES
AND POWERS
1. A public officer who has been

1. That the offender is holding a
suspended, separated,
public office;
declared overaged, or
2. That the period provided by law, dismissed cannot continue to
regulations or special provisions perform the duties of his
for holding such office, has office.206
already expired; and
206

3. That he continues to exercise the
duties and powers of such office.
Art. 238. ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION

1. That the offender is a public 1. A public officer cannot

officer; abandon his office before his
resignation is accepted,
2. That he formally resigns from otherwise the officer is
his position; subject to this article. The
final or conclusive act of a
3. That his resignation has not yet resignation is the notice of
been accepted; and acceptance. The incumbent
official would not be in a
4. That he abandons his office to position to determine the
the detriment of the public acceptance of his
service. resignation unless he had
been duly notified
Qualifying Circumstance – if therefor.207
the abandonment of the office has
for its purpose to evade the
discharge of the duties of
preventing, prosecuting or
punishing any of the crimes falling
within Title 1 and Chapter 1, Title 3
of Book 2 of this Code.
Art. 239. USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

1. That the offender is an executive 1. While it is true that the

or judicial officer; President wields executive
and administrative powers
2. That he:
and participate in rule
a. Makes general rules or making through delegated
regulations beyond the scope legislative authority,
of his authority or; however, Congress cannot
abdicate its legislative powers
b. Attempts to repeal a law or; and delegate them, unless the
207
Republic of the Phiippines , as represented by the Department of Trade and Industry v. Singun,
G.R. No. 149356, March 14, 2008.

c. Suspends the execution Constitution and the law so
thereof. grant.208
Art. 240. USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

1. That the offender is a judge; 1. A councilor who assumes a

power pertaining to the
2. That he: mayor or obstructs him in
the lawful exercise of his
a. Assumes a pertaining power is not liable under
power to the executive Art. 240, because only a
authorities; or judge can commit
usurpation of executive
b. Obstructs the executive functions. The councilor is
authorities in the lawful liable under Article 177 of
exercise of their powers. the Code, if he assumes the
power of the mayor.209
Art. 241. USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS

1. That the offender is an officer 1. Mayor is guilty under this

of the executivebranch of the article if he investigates a
Government; case while justice of the peace
is in the municipality.210
2. That he:  
2. The purpose is to maintain
a. Assumes judicial powers; or the separation and inde-
b. Obstructs the execution of pendence of the three
any order ordecision departments of the
rendered by any judge government and to keep the
within his jurisdiction.   three branches within the
legitimate confines of their
respective jurisdictions and
the officers thereof within the
208
Kilusang Mayo Uno v. The Director General, National Development Authority, G.R. No. 167798,
April 19, 2006, and Bayan Muna Representatives v. Ermita, G.R. No. 167930, April 19, 2006.
209 People v. Hilvano, 99 Phil. 655.
210 People vs. Valdehuesa, G.R. No. 17720.

scope of their lawful
authority.211
Art. 242. DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR
DISQUALIFICATION
1. That the offender is a public 1. The disobedient public of-ficer

officer; is liable even if the
jurisdictional question is
2. That a proceeding is pending
resolved by the proper
before such public officer;
authority is in his favor.212
3. That there is a question
brought before the proper
authority regarding his
jurisdiction, which is not yet
decided;
4. That he has been lawfully
required to refrain from
continuing the proceeding; and
5. That he continues the
proceeding.
211 Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139.

212

Art. 243. ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
1. That the offender is an 1. The purpose of this provision

executive officer; is to maintain the
independence of the judiciary,
2. That he addresses any order or that is, to be free and secure
suggestion to any judicial from executive dictations.
authority; and Courts cannot, under their
duty to their creator, the
3. That the order or suggestion sovereign power, permit
relates to any case or business themselves to be subordinated
coming within the exclusive to any person or official to
jurisdiction of the courts of which their creator did not
justice. itself subordinate them.213
Art. 244. UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
1. That the offender is a public 1. Appointments of noneligible

officer; continue only for such period
not exceeding three months
2. That he nominates or appoints as may be necessary to make
a person to a public office; appointment through
certification of eligible, and in
3. That such person lacks the no case, shall extend beyond
legal qualifications therefore; thirty days from receipt by
and the chief of the bureau or
office of the Commissioner's
4. That the offender knows that certification of eligible".214
his nominee or appointee lacks
the qualification at the time he
made the nomination or
appointment.
213
Borromeo v. Mariano, 41 Phil. 322.
Ferrer vs. Hon. De Leon, et al., 109 Phil. 202, citing Section 682 of the Revised Administrative
214
Code.

Art. 245. ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
1. By soliciting or making
1. The word “solicit” means to
immoral or indecent advances
propose earnestly and
to a woman interested in the
persistently something
matters pending before the
unchaste and immoral to a
offending officer for decision,
woman.215
or with respect to which he is
required to submit a report to
2. The crime is consummated
or consult with a superior
by mere proposal because it
officer.
is sufficient that there is
soliciting of making immoral
or indecent advances to the
woman. It is not necessary
to a woman under the
that the woman solicited
offender’s custody.
should have yielded to the
solicitation of the
offender.216
to the wife, daughter, sister or
3. Proof of solicitation is not
relative within the same degree
necessary when there is
by affinity of any person in the
sexual intercourse.217
custody of the offending
warden or officer.
Common Elements:
a. That the offender is a public

officer;
b. That he solicits or makes

immoral or indecent advances to
a woman;
c. That such woman must be:
i. Interested in matters pending

before the offender for
decision, or with respect to
215
216
Ibid, .
217 U.S. vs. Morelos, 29 Phil. 572.

which he is required to submit
a report to or consult with a
superior officer; or
ii. Under the custody of the
offender who is a warden or
other public officer directly
charged with the care and
custody of prisoners or
persons under arrest; or
iii. The wife, daughter, sister or
relative within the same
degree by affinity of the
person in the custody of the
offender.
Note: The mother of the person in

the custody of the offender is not
included.

TITLE EIGHT - CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Art. 246. PARRICIDE

1. That a person is killed; 1. The accused killed the woman

with whom he lived maritally
2. That the deceased is killed and their daughter. It was held
by the accused; and that there being no clear
evidence of marriage between
3. That the deceased is the the accused and the woman, he
father, mother, or child, was liable for homicide only and
whether legitimate or for parricide for killing his
illegitimate, or a legitimate daughter.218
other ascendant or other
descendant, or the legitimate 2. Wife of victim cannot be convicted
spouse, of the accused. of parricide if charged only with
murder. However, relationship
must be considered aggravating
Note: The child should not be
even if not alleged in the
less than three (3) days old;
information.219
otherwise, the crime is
infanticide (Art. 255).
3. The husband, who, while
struggling for the possession of
the gun with his children,
without intent to kill anyone,
pulled the trigger of the gun
which exploded and hit his wife
who was approaching them, is
guilty of parricide through
reckless imprudence.220
4. A stranger who cooperates and

takes part in the commission of
the crime of parricide, is not
guilty of parricide but only
homicide or murder, as the case
may be.221
218 People v. Berang, 69 Phil. 83.

219
People v. Jumawan, 116 SCRA 739.
220
People v. Recote, 96 Phil. 980.
221 People v. Patricio, 46 Phil. 875; People vs. Echaluce, G.R. No. L-29776 (August 27, 1975).

5. It has been settled that the
commission of parricide is
punished more severely than
homicide since human beings are
expected to love and support
those who are closest to them.222
Art. 247. DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED

UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Requisites Jurisprudence
1. That a legally married person 1. Since Art. 247 does not charge a
or a parent surprises his distinct crime, the accused
spouse or his daughter, the charged with killing his wife's
latter under 18 years of age paramour, cannot enter into a
and living with him, in the conditional plea of guilty and be
act of committing sexual sentenced immediately to
intercourse with another destierro. The court must receive
person; evidence on the circumstances
surrounding the killing.223
2. That he kills any or both of
them, or inflicts upon any or 2. For a husband to be justified, it is
both of them any serious not necessary that he sees the
physical injury, in the act or carnal act being committed by his
immediately thereafter; and wife with his own eyes. It is
enough that he surprises the
3. That he has not promoted or under such circumstances as to
facilitated the prostitution of show reasonably that the carnal
his spouse or daughter, or act is being committed or has just
that he has not consented to been committed.224
the infidelity of others.
3.The law, when the circumstances
provided by this Article are
present, considers the spouse or
parent as acting in a justified
burst of passion.225
222 Manulat, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 190892 (August 17, 2015).
223
People v. Sabilul, 49 O.G. 2743.
224
Concurring opinion of Moran in People v. Gonzales, 69 Phil. 66 citing U.S. v. Alano, 32 Phil.
381; U.S. v. Feliciano, 36 Phil. 753.
225
People v. Gonzales, 69 Phil. 66.

4. The killing should have been
actually motivated by the same
blind impulse, and must not have
been influenced by external
factors. The killing must be the
direct by-product of the
accused's rage.226
Art. 248. MURDER
Jurisprudence
Definition of Murder – is Rules for the application of the
the unlawful killing of any circumstances which qualify the
person which is not parricide killing to murder:
or infanticide, provided that
any of the following 1. That murder will exist with only
circumstances is present: one of the circumstances
described in Art. 248.227 When
1. With treachery, taking more than one of said
advantage of superior circumstances are present, the
strength, with the aid of others must be considered as
armed men, or employs generic aggravating
means to weaken the circumstances.228
defense, or of means or
persons to insure or 2. That when the other
afford impunity;   circumstances are absorbed or
included in one qualifying
2. In consideration of a circumstance, they cannot be
price, reward or promise; considered as generic aggravating.
  Thus, if treachery is chosen to
3. By means of inundation, qualify the crime, the others are
fire, poison, shipwreck, not generic aggravating
stranding of a vessel, circumstances because they are
derailment or assault included in the qualifying
upon a railroad, fall of an circumstance of treachery.229
airship, by means of
motor vehicles, or with 3. That any of the qualifying
the use of any other circumstances enumerated in Art.
means involving great 248 must be alleged in the
waste and ruin; information.230
226
People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735.
227
U.S. v. Labai, 17 Phil. 240.
228 People v. Dueno, 90 SCRA 23.
229 People v. Sespene, et al., 102 Phil. 199.
230 U.S. v. Campo, 23 Phil. 369.

4. On occasion of any 4. The essence of treachery is that the
calamities enumerated in attack comes without a warning
the preceding paragraph, and in a swift, deliberate and
or of an earthquake, unexpected manner, affording the
eruption of a volcano, hapless, unarmed and
destructive cyclone, unsuspecting victim no chance to
epidemic, or any other resist or escape.231
public calamity;  
5. The circumstance of evident
5. With evident pre- premeditation is present and
meditation; or qualifies the killing of a person to
murder when the prosecution
6. With cruelty, by proves (a) the time when the
deliberately and In- offender determined (conceived)
humanly augmenting the to kill his victim; (b) an act of the
suffering of the victim, or offender manifestly indicating that
outraging or scoffing at he clung to his determination to
his person or corpse. (As kill his victim; and (c) a sufficient
amended by RA No. 7659) lapse of time (at least three hours)
between the determination and
Elements: the execution of the killing.232
a. That a person was

killed;
b. That the accused
killed him;  
c. That the killing was
attended by any of the
qualifying
circumstances
mentioned in Art.
248; and 
d. That the killing is not
parricide or
infanticide.
231
People v. Albarido, G.R. No. 102367 (October 25, 2001) , citing People v. Francisco, G.R. No.
130490 (June 19, 2000).
232
People v. Leano, C.A. 36 O.G. 1120; People v. Causi, G. R. No. L-16498.

Art. 249. HOMICIDE
Jurisprudence
Definition of Homicide – 1. When death resulted, even if there

is the unlawful killing of any is no intent to kill, the crime is
person, which is neither homicide, not merely physical
parricide, murder, not injuries, because with respect to
infanticide. crimes of personal violence, the
penal law looks particularly to the
Elements: material results following the
unlawful act and holds the
1. That a person was killed; aggressor responsible for all the
consequences thereof.233
2. That the accused killed
him without any justifying 2. Even if there is no intent to kill, the
circumstance; crime is Homicide because with
respect to crimes of personal
3. That the accused had the violence, the penal law looks
intention to kill, which is particularly to the material results
presumed; and following the unlawful act and
holds the aggressor responsible for
4. That the killing was not all the consequences thereof.234
attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances 3. The fact that the victim would have
of murder, or by that of lived had he received appropriate
parricide or infanticide. medical attention is immaterial.
Hence, the refusal of the deceased
to be operated on does not relieve
the offender of the criminal
liability for his death.235
4. Corpus delicti, in modern sense of

the term, means the actual
commission of the crime
charged.236 Corpus delicti means
that a crime was actually
perpetrated, and does not refer to
the body of the murdered person.
237
233 U.S. v. Gloria, 3 Phil. 333.

234 Wacoy v. People, G.R. No. 213792 (June 22, 2015).
235
People v. Sto. Domingo, C.A. G.R. No. 3783; People v. Flores, C.A. G.R. No. 3567.
236
People v. Madrid, 88 Phil.1 cited in People v. Yee, C.A. 52 O.G. 4298.
237
People v. Bungay, G.R. L-18308, April 30, 1966.

Art. 250. PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE,
MURDER, OR HOMICIDE
Courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose upon the person
guilty of the frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide, defined
and penalized in the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree
than that which should be imposed under the provisions of Article 50.
Courts, considering the facts of the case, may likewise reduce by one
degree the penalty which under Article 51 should be imposed for an
attempt to commit any of such crimes.
Illustration:
Where the defendant had good reason to be jealous of his wife and
attempted to kill her under the influence of resulting passion, the
accused may be given the benefit of this article.238
In case of frustrated murder, in view of the nature of the wounds

inflicted upon the injured party which were cured in less than one
month, the accused may be given the benefit of a reduction of the
corresponding penalty.239
Art. 251. DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY

1. That there be several 1. When there was confusion in the

persons; fight and the person who inflicted
the wounds could not be identified,
2. That they did not compose the crime is death caused in a
groups organized for the tumultuous affray.240
common purpose of
assaulting and attacking 2. After a free-for-all fight, one of the
each other reciprocally; participants died the next day.
There was no convincing evidence
3. That these several persons that it was the knife which the
quarreled and assaulted accused wielded upon the body of
one another in a confused the deceased that precisely caused
and tumultuous manner;   any of the three stab wounds in the
238
U.S. v. Villanueva, 2 Phil. 62;
239
U.S. v. Poblete, 10 Phil. 582.
240
People v. Bandojo, G.R. No. 44588, IV L.J., 934.

body of the deceased. All the
4. That someone was killed wounds sustained by the deceased
in the course of the affray; were inflicted by protagonists not
the composing groups. It was held
5. That it cannot be that the accused, having used
ascertained who actually violence upon the person of the
killed the deceased; and   deceased in wielding the knife, was
liable under the second paragraph
6. That the person or of Art. 251.241
persons who inflicted
serious physical injuries or
who used violence can be
identified.
Persons liable:
a. The person or persons

who inflicted the
serious physical
injuries are liable.
b. If it is not known who

inflicted the serious
physical injuries on
the deceased – ALL
the persons who used
violence upon the
person of the victim
are liable, but with
lesser liability.
241
People v. Dacanay, CA-G.R. No. 15655-R.

Art. 252. PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED
INFLICTED IN A
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY280
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
1. That there is a 1. When a person is killed in the

tumultuous affray as course of the affray, and the one
referred to in Art. 251; who inflicted serious physical
injuries is known, Art. 252 is not
2. That a participant or applicable to those who used
some participants thereof violence, because that article
suffer serious physical applies when in a tumultuous
injuries or physical affray, only serious physical injuries
injuries of a less serious or physical injuries of a less serious
nature only; nature are inflicted.242
3. That the person res-

ponsible therefor cannot
be identified; and
4. That all those who appear

to have used violence
upon the person of the
offended party are
known.
Art. 253. GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE

1. By assisting another to 1. A person who attempts to commit

commit suicide, whether suicide is not criminally liable
the suicide is because society has always
consummated or not; considered a person who attempts
to kill himself as an unfortunate
2. By lending his assistance being, a wretched person more
to another to commit deserving of pity rather than
suicide to the extent of of penalty.243
doing the killing himself.
242
243
Ibid.supra, pp. 515.

Art. 254. DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
1. That the offender 1. The mere assertion of the offended

discharges a firearm party that the shot was directed at
against or at another the place in his house where he
person; and was, is not sufficient proof that the
shot was aimed or fired at him. It
2. That the offender has no is essential for the prosecution to
intention to kill that prove in a positive way that the
person. discharge of the firearm was
directed precisely against the
offended party.244
Art. 255. INFANTICIDE

Jurisprudence
Definition of Infanticide – 1. In the crime of infanticide, it is

is the killing of any child less necessary that the child be born
than three days of age, whether alive and be viable, that is,
the killer is the parent or capable of independent existence.
grandparent, any other relative However, even if the child who
of the child, or a stranger. was expelled prematurely and
deliberately were alive at birth,
Elements: the offense is abortion due to the
fact that a fetus with an
1. That a child was killed; intrauterine life of 6 months is
not viable. In the present case, the
2. That the deceased child unborn fetus was also killed when
was less than three days the appellant stabbed the victim
(72 hours) of age; and several times.245
3. That the accused killed the

said child.
244
People v. Cupin, C.A. 40 O.G. Supp. 11,12.
245
People v. Paycana, Jr., G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008.

Art. 256. INTENTIONAL ABORTION
Jurisprudence
Definition of Abortion – is 1. Mere boxing on the stomach,

the willful killing of the foetus taken together with the
in the uterus, or the violent immediate strangling of the
expulsion of the foetus from victim in a fight, is not sufficient
the maternal womb which proof to show an intent to cause
results in the death of the an abortion. In fact, appellant
foetus. must have merely intended to kill
the victim but not necessarily to
Elements: cause an abortion.246
1. That there is a pregnant

woman;
2. That violence is exerted, or

drugs or beverages
administered, or that the
accused otherwise acts
upon such pregnant
woman;
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
expelled there from; and
4. That the abortion is

intended.
Ways of Committing
Intentional Abortion:
1. By using any violence

upon the person of the
pregnant woman;
246
People v. Salufrania, G.R. No. L-50884, March 30, 1988.

2. By acting, without using
violence and without the
consent of the woman, by
administering drugs or
beverages upon such
pregnant woman without
her consent;
3. By acting, with the consent

of the pregnant woman, by
administering drugs or
beverages.
Art. 257. UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION

1. That there is a pregnant 1. The accused who struck a woman

woman; three months pregnant on her hip
with a bottle, causing hemorrhage
2. That violence is used upon and miscarriage was held guilty of
such pregnant woman unintentional abortion.247
without intending an
abortion;
3. That the violence is

intentionally exerted; and
4. That as a result of the

violence, the fetus dies,
either in the womb or after
having been expelled there
from.
Art. 258. ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN

HERSELF OR BY HER PARENTS
1. That there is a pregnant 1. The woman is liable under this

woman who has suffered an Article either (a) when she shall
abortion; practice an abortion upon herself;
247
U.S. v. Jeffrey, G.R. No. L-5597.

or (b) when she shall consent that
2. That the abortion is any other person should do so.248
intended; and
2. Only the woman or any of her
3. That the abortion is caused parents is liable under Article 258
by – if the purpose of the latter is to
conceal her dishonor.249
a. The pregnant woman
herself;
b. Any other person, with

her consent; or
c. Any of her parents, with

her consent, for the
purpose of concealing
her dishonor.  
Art. 259. ABORTION PRACTICED BY A PHYSICIAN OR

MIDWIFE IN DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES
1. That there is a pregnant 1. Physicians and midwives who

woman who has suffered an cause or assist in causing
abortion; abortion are more severely
punished because they incur a
2. That the abortion is
heavier guilt in making use of
intended;
their knowledge for the
3. That the offender, who destruction of human life, where
must be a physician or it should be used only for its
midwife, causes, or assists preservation.250
in causing the abortion; and
2. If the abortion is produced by a
4. That said physician or physician to save the life of the
midwife takes advantage of mother, there is no liability. This
his scientific knowledge or is known as therapeutic
skill. abortion. But abortion without
medical necessity to warrant it is
punishable even without the
248
249
Ibid.
250
Ibid., p. 529.

As to Pharmacists, the consent of the woman or her
Elements are: husband.251
1. That the offender is a

pharmacist;
2. That there is no proper

prescription from a
physician; and
3. That the offender

dispenses any abortive.
Art. 260. RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN A

DUEL
1. By killing one’s adversary 1. The general principle is that when

in a duel;   there is intent to kill, the inflicting
of physical injuries is either
2. By inflicting upon such attempted or frustrated homicide.
adversary physical The penalty for duel, when a
injuries; and   person kills his adversary, is the
same as that for homicide,
3. By making a combat because when death results, the
although no physical intent to kill is conclusively
injuries have been presumed When there is an
inflicted. agreement to fight to the death,
there is intent to kill on the part of
Persons liable: the combatants. However, the
Code disregards the intent to kill
1. The person who killed or in considering the penalty for duel
inflicted physical injuries when only physical injuries are
upon his adversary or both inflicted upon the adversary.252
combatants in any other
case, as principals.
2. The seconds, as
accomplices.
251
Geluz v. Court of Appeals, 2 SCRA801.
252
Art. 261. CHALLENGING TO A DUEL
1. By challenging another to 1. A challenge to fight, without

a duel; contemplating a duel, is not
challenging to a duel. The person
2. By inciting another to give
making the challenge must have
or accept a challenge to a
in mind a formal combat to be
duel; and
concerted between him and the
3. By scoffing or decrying one challenged in the presence of
another publicly for having two or more seconds.253
refused to accept a
challenge to fight a duel.
Persons liable:
1. Challenger
2. Instigators
Art. 262. MUTILATION

Kinds of Mutilation Jurisprudence
1. By intentionally mutilating 1. The term “mutilation” means the

another by depriving him, lopping or the clipping off of some
either totally or partially, part of the body. The putting out of
of some essential organ for an eye does not fall under this
reproduction (or definition. Thus, when a robber
“castration”). stabbed a woman in one eye, and
as a result of the wound inflicted,
Elements: she lost the use of the eye, there is
no mutilation.254
a. That there be
castration, that is, 2. In this present petition, the bilateral
mutilation of organs vasectomy done on the victim
necessary for could not have amounted to the
generation, such as crime of mutilation as defined and
penis or ovarium; punished under Article 262,
paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal
253
Ibid., p. 532.
254
U.S. v. Bogel, G.R. No. 2957.

b. That the mutilation is Code. And no criminal culpability
caused purposely and could be foisted on to respondent,
deliberately, that is, to the urologist, who performed the
deprive the offended procedure, much less the other
party of some essential respondents.255
organ for reproduction.
2. By intentionally making
other mutilation, that is,
by lopping or clipping off
any part of the body of
the offended party, other
than the essential organ
for reproduction, to
deprive him of that part
of the body (or
“mayhem”).
Art. 263. SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

1. By wounding;  What are Serious Physical

Injuries –
2. By beating;
  1. When the injured person
3. By assaulting; becomes insane, imbecile,
impotent or blind in
4. By administering injurious consequence of the physical
substance. injuries inflicted;
Requisites Of Deformity: 2. When the injured person –
a. Physical ugliness;   a. Loses the use of speech or the

power to hear or to smell, or
b. Permanent and definite loses an eye, a hand, a foot, an
abnormality; and arm, or a leg;  
c. Must be conspicuous and b. Loses the use of any such

visible. member; or
c. Becomes incapacitated for the

work in which he was
255
Aguirre v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008.

Qualifying Circumstances: therefore habitually engaged,
in consequence of the physical
a. Offense committed injuries inflicted.  
against persons
enumerated in the crime 3. When the person injured –
of parricide;
a. Becomes deformed, or 
b. With the attendance of
circumstance which b. Loses any other member of
qualify the crime to his body, or
murder.
c. Loses the use thereof, or
 
d. Becomes ill or incapacitated
for the performance of the
work in which he was
habitually engaged for more
than 90 days, in
consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted.
4. When the injured person

becomes ill or inca-pacitated for
labor for more than 30 days (but
must not be more than 90 days),
as a result of the physical
injuries inflicted.256
Art. 264. ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES

OR BEVERAGES
1. The offender inflicted upon 1. The infliction of injuries by

another any serious physical throwing mordant chemicals or
injury; poisons on the face or upon the
body is not contemplated in this
2. That it was done by article because that is not
knowingly administering to “administering” injurious
him any injurious substances substance or beverage.257
or beverages or by taking
advantage of his weakness of
256
257
U.S. v. Chiong Songco, G.R. No. L-6503.

mind or credulity; and
3. That had no intent to kill.
Art. 265. LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

Matters to be noted - Jurisprudence
1. The offended party is 1. The law includes two subdivisions,

incapacitated for labor for dealing with (1) the inability for
10 days or more but not work, and (2) the necessity for
more than 30 days, or medical attendance. So that
needs attendance for the although the wound required
same period; medical attendance for only two
days; yet if the injured party was
2. The physical injuries must prevented from attending to his
not be those described in ordinary labor for a period of
the preceding articles.   twenty-nine days, the physical
injuries are denominated less
Qualified Less Serious serious.258
Physical Injuries:
2. Her injury comes under the
1. A fine not exceeding provisions of Art. 265, inasmuch as
P500, in addition to she was treated for only 13 days,
arresto mayor, shall be and there is no evidence that she
imposed for less serious was given further medical
physical injuries when: attendance, granting that it took
more than 13 days for the fracture
a. There is manifest to heal. She was not incapacitated
intent to insult or for the performance of the work in
offend the injured which she was habitually
person; or   engaged.259
b. There are circum-

stances adding
ignominy to the
offense.  
2. A higher penalty is
imposed when the victim
is either:
258
U.S. v. Trinidad, 4 Phil. 152; People v. Olavides, C.A., 40 O.G., Supp. 4, 8.
259
People v. Anastacio, C.A., 55 O.G. 5047.

a. The offender’s parent,
ascendant, guardian,
curator or teacher; or
b. Persons of rank or
persons in authority,
provided the crime is
not direct assault.  
Art. 266. SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND

MALTREATMENT
Kinds Jurisprudence
1. Physical injuries which 1. In the absence of evidence to show

incapacitated the actual injury, as when the
offended party from one deceased died of other causes and
to nine days, or required there is no evidence as to how
medical attendance many days the deceased lived
during the same period; after the injury, the crime is only
slight physical injuries, it
2. Physical injuries which appearing that the wounds
did not prevent the inflicted by the accused could not
offended party from have caused death.260
engaging in his habitual
work or which did not 2. Any physical violence which does
require medical not produce injury, such as
attendance; slapping the face of the offended
party, without causing a dishonor
3. Ill-treatment of another shall be liable for slight physical
by deed without causing injury by ill-treatment.261
any injury.
260
People v. Amarao, et al., C.A., 36 O.G. 3462.
261

Art. 266-A. RAPE
1. By a man who shall have 1. That the accused-appellant who is

carnal knowledge of a only 15 years old and 2 months,
woman under any of the acted with discernment when he
following circumstances: raped the victim is demonstrated
by the following surrounding
a. Through force, threat circumstances: (1) the victim was a
or intimidation; helpless minor (13 years old); (2)
accused-appellant secured the
b. When the offended consummation of the offense with
party is deprived of a weapon; (3) he satisfied his lust
reason or otherwise by penetrating the victim from
unconscious; behind; and (4) he threatened the
victim not to report what
c. By means of fraudulent happened. Taking all these facts
machinations or grave into consideration, accused-
abuse of authority; appellant clearly knew of what he
  did was wrong.262
d. When the offended
party is under twelve 2. The prime consideration in the
(12) years of age or is prosecution of rape is the victim’s
demented, even testimony, not necessarily the
though none of the medical findings; a medical
circumstances examination of the victim is not
mentioned above be indispensable in a prosecution for
present.   rape.263
Elements: 3. In rape committed by a close kin,

such as the victim's father,
a. That the offender is a stepfather, uncle, or the common-
man;   law spouse of her mother, it is not
necessary that actual force or
b. That the offender had intimidation be employed; moral
carnal knowledge of a influence or ascendancy takes the
woman; place of violence or intimidation.264
c. That such act is 4. The testimony of the offended
262 People v. Barrido, G.R. No. 200157, August 31, 2016.

263 People v. Suarez, 746 SCRA 202.
264
People v. Gacusan, G.R. No. 207776, April 26, 2017.

accomplished under any party most often is the only one
of the following available to prove directly the
circumstances:   commission of rape;
corroboration by other
1. By using force or eyewitnesses is seldom available.
intimidation; or In fact, the presence of such
eyewitnesses would, in certain
2. When the woman is cases, place a serious doubt as to
deprived of reason or the possibility of its commission.
otherwise unconscious; The testimony, however, must be
or conclusive, logical and
probable.265
3. By means of fraudulent
machination or grave 5. For the consummation of the
abuse of authority, or crime of rape, it is not essential
that there be a complete
4. When the woman is penetration of the female organ;
under 12 years of age or neither is it essential that there be
demented.   a rupture of the hymen. It is
enough that the labia of the
2. By any person who, under female organ was penetrated. The
any of the circumstances slightest penetration of the labia
mentioned in paragraph 1 consummates the crime of
hereof, shall commit an rape.266
act of sexual assault by
inserting his penis into 6. The fact that the offended party
another person’s mouth or may have been of an unchaste
anal orifice of another character constitutes no defense
person, or any instrument in a charge of rape, provided that
or object, into the genital the illicit relations were
or anal orifice of another committed with force and
person. violence, etc. 267
Elements: 7. Where the offended party is less

than twelve years of age, rape is
a. That the offender committed although she
commits an act of sexual consented to the sexual act.268
assault;  
8. Sexual intercourse with a nine-
b. That the act of sexual year girl is rape.269
265
People vs. Landicho, C.A., 43 O.G. 3767.
266 People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980.
267
People v. Blanco , 46 Phil. 113.
268
People v. Villamor, C.A. 37 O.G. 947; People v. Conencia, C.A. 51 O.G. 844.
269
People v. Peido, C.A. 44 O.G. 2764.

assault is committed by 9. Rape is committed even if the girl
any of the following is under 12 years is a prostitute.270
means:
i. By inserting his penis

into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice;
ii. By inserting any

instrument or object
into the genital or anal
orifice of another
person  
iii. That the act of sexual

assault is
accomplished under
any of the
circumstances
enumerated under the
first act of committing
rape.
Statutory Rape: Rape is

committed when the girl is
under 12 years of age.
Note: The law does not

consider consent voluntary as
the offended party under 12
years old cannot have a will of
her own.
Art. 266-B. PENALTIES
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed in the

following circumstances:
1. Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon

of by two or more persons;
2. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
270
People v. Perez, C.A. 37 O.G. 1762.

become insane;
3. When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by

reason or on the occasion thereof.
The death penalty shall be imposed when by reason or on the occasion

of the rape, homicide is committed.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is

committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
1. When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a

parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse
of the parent of the victim;  
2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military

authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;  
3. When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, or

any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of
consanguinity;  
4. When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious

vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the
offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;  
5. When the victim is a child below 7 years old;
6. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with HIV/AIDS or any

other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is
transmitted to the victim;  
7. When committed by any member of the AFP or paramilitary units

thereof of the PNP or any law enforcement agency or penal
institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to
facilitate the commission of the crime;  
8. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has

suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;  
9. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at

the time of the commission of the crime;
10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional

disorder and/or physical disability of the offended party at the time
of the commission of the crime.
The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed when rape is committed

under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article.
The penalty of prision mayor to reclusion temporal shall be imposed

whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by
two or more persons.
The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed when by reason or

on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane.
The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetual shall be

imposed when the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion thereof.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed when by reason or

on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed.
The penalty of reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is

committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances
mentioned in this Article.
Art. 266-C. EFFECT OF PARDON
The subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.  
If the offender is the legal husband, the subsequent forgiveness by the

wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty, provided, that the crime shall not be extinguished or the
penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
It is only in crimes against chastity that pardon/forgiveness by the

offended party shall bar the prosecution of the offense committed i.e.
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness. Since rape is no longer a
crime against chastity but is now a crime against persons, the provision
that “subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty” is the exception to the
rule that forgiveness by the offended party shall not extinguish the
penal action in crimes against persons. 271
271
Reyes, supra, p. 572-573.

ARTICLE 266-D. PRESUMPTIONS
Evidence which may be accepted in the prosecution of
rape
1. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape
in any degree from the offended party; or
2. Where the offended party is so situated as to render him incapable

of giving his consent.

TITLE NINE - CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY
AND SECURITY
Art. 267. KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION
1. That the offender is a private 1. The essential element or act

individual; which makes the offense
ofkidnapping is the
2. That he kidnaps or detains ano- deprivation of an offended
ther, or in any other manner party's liberty under any of
deprives the latter of his liberty; the four instances
enumerated in Article 267,
3. That the act of detention or paragraph 1, of the Revised
kidnapping must be illegal; and Penal Code, the illegal
  detention of the victim for
4. That in the commission of the more than five days (now,
offense, any of the following three days) being one of the
circumstances is present:   instances.272
2. For there to be kidnapping, it

a. That the kidnapping or
is enough that the victim is
detention lasts for more than
restrained from going home.
3 days; or
Because of her tender age,
and because she did not
b. That it is by committed
know her way back home,
simulating public authority;
she was then and there
or
deprived of her liberty. This
is irrespective of the length
c. That any serious physical
of time that she stayed in
injuries are inflicted upon
such a situation. It has been
the person kidnapped or
repeatedly held that if the
detained or threats to kill
victim is a minor, the
him are made; or
duration of his detention is
immaterial.273
d. That the person kidnapped
or detained is a minor,
3. The illegality of the
female, or a public officer.
detention punished by
Article 267 consists in such
detention not ordered by a
272
People vs. Suarez, et al., 82 Phil. 484.
273
People v. Jacalne, G.R. No. 168552, October 3, 2011.

The maximum penalty shall be competent authority or not
death: permitted by law. For that
reason, the fact that a boy
a. If the purpose is to extort was apprehended and
ransom; detained for over eight
hours, with his hands and
b. When the victim is killed or feet bound to a post, without
dies a consequence of the just cause, on suspicion that
detention; he was an incendiarist, has
been held to constitute
c. When the victim is raped; or illegal detention.274
d. When the victim is subjected

to torture or dehumanizing
act.
Art. 268. SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
1. That the offender is a private 1. The same penalty is incurred

individual; by anyone who furnished
the place for the
2. That he kidnaps or detains perpetration of the crime.
another, or in any manner His participation is raised
deprives him of his liberty; to that of a real co-
principal. But if the
3. That the act of kidnapping or cooperation of the
detention is illegal; and accomplice is by an act or
acts other than furnishing
4. That the committed crime is the place for the
without the attendance of any of perpetration of the crime,
the circumstances enumerated the penalty should be one
attendance in Art. 267. degree lower than that
provided for the crime of
Mitigating circumstance slight illegal detention.275
applies in the following
circumstances:
1. Offender voluntarily releases

the person so kidnapped or
detained within three days from
the commencement of the
274
U.S. v. Mendoza, 8 Phil. 468.
275

detention;
2. Without having attained the

purpose intended;
3. Before the institution of

criminal proceedings against
him.
Art. 269. UNLAWFUL ARREST

1. That the offender arrests or 1. The fact that the accused

detains another person; immediately conducted the
complaining witness to the
2. That the purpose of the offender municipal jail takes the
is to deliver him to the proper offense out of the article for
authorities; and illegal detention and brings
it within Art. 269.276
3. That the arrest or detention is
not authorized by law, or there 2. The motive of the offender
is no reasonable ground is controlling; if his purpose
therefor. is to deliver him to the
proper authorities, it is still
unlawful arrest. But absence
of this motive may be shown
by the length of time the
victim is detained.277
Art. 270. KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A
MINOR
1. That the offender is entrusted 1. What is punished is the

with the custody of a minor deliberate failure of the
person (less than 18 years old) custodian of the minor to
restore the later to his parents
2. That he deliberately fails to or guardian.278
restore the said minor to his
276
U.S. vs. Fontanilla, 11 Phil. 233.
277
Ibid. p. 591.
278
Reyes, supra, pp. 592..

parents or guardians. 2. The essential element is that
the offender is entrusted with
the custody of the minor.
What is punished in
kidnapping a minor under
Article 270 is the deliberate
failure of the offender having
the custody of the minor to
restore him to his parents or
guardian.279
Art. 271. INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS
HOME
1. That a minor (less than 18 years 1. Where the father and mo-
old) is living in the home of his ther are living separately,
parents or guardian or the person and the custody of their
entrusted with his custody;   minor child has been given
to one of them, the other
2. That the offender induces said parent who kidnaps such
minor to abandon such home. minor child from the one
having the lawful custody of
said child or induces such
minor to leave his home is
liable.280
Art. 272. SLAVERY

1. That the offender purchases, 1. The employment or custody

sells, kidnaps or detains a of a minor with the consent
human being;   of the parent or guardian
although against the child’s
2. That the purpose of the offender own cannot be considered
is to enslave such human being. involuntary servitude.281
 
279
Ibid. p. 593.
280
Ibid., p. 596.
281
U.S. v. Cabanag, 8 Phil. 64

2. Where it is proven that the
Qualifying circumstance: When defendant was obliged to
the purpose of the offender is to render service in plaintiff’s
assign the offended party to some house as a servant without
immoral traffic. remuneration whatever and
to remain there so long as
she has not paid her debt,
there is slaver.282
Art. 273. EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR

1. That the offender retains a 1. The existence of an

minor in his service; indebtedness constitutes no
legal justification for
2. That it is against the will of the holding a person and
minor; and depriving him of his
freedom to live where he
3. That it is under pretext of wills.283
reimbursing himself of a debt
incurred by an ascendant,
guardian or person entrusted
with the custody of such minor.
Art. 274. SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION

IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
1. That the offender compels a 1. This article, like Art. 273,

debtor to work for him, either as punishes a form of slavery.
household servant or farm Note that this article does
laborer; not distinguish whether the
victim is a minor or not.
2. That it is against the debtor’s
Under this article, the debtor
will; and
himself is the one compelled
to work for the offender.284
3. That the purpose is to require or
enforce the payment of a debt.
282 Reyes v. Alojado, G.R. No. L-5671

283 Caunca v. Salazar, 82 Phil. 851.
284

Art. 275. ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
AND ABANDONMENT OF ONE’S OWN VICTIM
1. By failing to render assistance to 1. Mere suspicions and

any person whom the offender speculations that the victim
finds in an uninhabited place could have lived had
wounded or in danger of dying petitioner stopped can
when he can render such never be the basis of a
assistance without detriment to conviction in a criminal
himself, unless such omission case. 285
shall constitute a more serious
offense.
Elements:
a. The place is uninhabited;
 
b. The accused found there a
person wounded or
in danger of dying;
c. The accused can
render assistance without
detriment to himself; and
d. The accused fails to render

assistance.
2. By failing to help or render
assistance to another whom the
offender has accidentally
wounded or injured.
By failing to deliver a child, under

seven years of age whom the
offender has found abandoned, to
the authorities or to his family, or by
failing to take him to a safe place.
285
Gaid v. People, G. R. No. 171636, April 7, 2009.

Art. 276. ABANDONING A MINOR
1. That the offender has the 1. Abandonment of a minor, to

custody of a child;   be punishable, must be
committed willfully or
2. That the child is under seven consciously, or at least it
years of age;  must be result of a
voluntary, conscious and
3. That he abandons such child; free act or omission. Even in
and   cases where said crimes are
committed through mere
4. That he has no intent to kill the imprudence, the person who
child when the latter is commits them, under said
abandoned. circumstances, must be in
the full enjoyment of his
mental faculties, or must be
conscious of his acts, in
order that he may be held
liable.286
Art. 277. ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON
ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF
PARENTS
1. By delivering a minor to a public 1. This article contemplates

institution or other persons cases in which the father or
without the consent of the one mother, having the means,
who entrusted such minor to the deliberately fails to give to
care of the offender or, in the their children the education
absence of that one, without the which their station in life
consent of the proper requires and financial
authorities; condition permits.287
2. By neglecting his (offender's) 2. Thus, when the accused had

children by not giving them the to go to another province
education which their station in where he was able to earn a
life requires and financial living and his wife and
condition permits;   children refused to go with
286
People v. Bandian, G.R. No. 4186.
287
People v. Francisco, 51 O.G. 1941.

Elements of abandonment of him there, said accused is
minor by one charged with the not liable for abandoning his
rearing or education of said family and neglecting his
minor: children.288
1. That the offender has charge of

the rearing or education of a
minor;
2. That he delivers said minor to a

public institution or other
persons; 
3. That the one who entrusted

such child to the offender has
not consented to such act; or if
the one who entrusted such
child to the offender is absent,
the proper authorities have not
consented to it.
Elements of indifference of
parents:
1. That the offender is a parent.  
2. That he neglects his children by

not giving them education; and
3. That his station in life requires

such education and his financial
condition permits it.
Art. 278. EXPLOITATION OF MINORS

1. By causing any boy or girl under 1. The exploitation of the minor

16 years of age to perform any must be of such nature as to
dangerous feat of balancing, endanger his life or safety in
physical strength or contortion, order to constitute the
the offender being any person. offense described in this
article.289
288
People v. Miraflores, C.A.-G.R. No. 43384, V.L.J. 328.
289
Reyes, supra, p. 608..

 
2. By employing children under 16 2. If the delivery of the child to
years of age who are not the any person following any of
children or descendants of the the callings of acrobat,
offender in exhibitions of gymnast, rope-walker, diver,
acrobat, gymnast, rope- walker, wild-animal tamer or circus
diver, or wild-animal tamer, the manager or to any habitual
offender being an acrobat, etc., vagrant or beggar is made in
or circus manager or person consideration of any price,
engaged in a similar calling. compensation or promise,
  the penalty is higher.290
3. By employing any descendant
under 12 years of age in
dangerous exhibitions
enumerated in the next
preceding paragraph, the
offender being engaged in any of
the said callings.  
4. By delivering a child under 16

years of age gratuitously to any
person following any of the
callings enumerated in
paragraph 2, or to any habitual
vagrant or beggar, the offender
being an ascendant, guardian,
teacher or person entrusted in
any capacity with the care of
such child.
5. By inducing any child under 16

years of age to abandon the
home of its ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers
to follow any person engaged in
any of the callings mentioned in
paragraph 2 or to accompany
any habitual vagrant or beggar,
the offender being any person.
290
Ibid.

Art. 279. ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR OTHER
OFFENSES
Imposition of the penalties prescribed in the preceding articles (Arts.

275-278) shall not prevent the imposition upon the same person of the
penalty provided for any other felonies defined and punished under the
Code.
Art. 280. QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING

1. That the offender is a private 1. There is trespass to dwelling.

person; Express prohibition is not
necessary, because prohibition
2. That he enters the dwelling of in this case is presumed,
another; considering the time, the fact
that the door was closed and
3. That such entrance is against the fact that the daughter was
the latter’s will. sleeping and the offended
party was in the market.291
Cases to which the provision
of this article is NOT 2. What is intended to be pro-
applicable: tected and preserved by the
law is the privacy of one’s
1. If the entrance to another’s dwelling and, except in those
dwelling is made for the cases enumerated in the third
purpose of preventing some paragraph of Article 280 of the
serious harm to himself, the Revised Penal Code, criminal
occupants of the dwelling or intent inheres in the
a third person. unwelcome visit of a
trespasser.292
2. The purpose is to render
some service to humanity or
justice.
3. The place where entrance is

made is a café, tavern, inn
and other public house,
while the same are open.
291 People v. Clemente, C.A.-G.R. No. 43907.

292
People v. Almeda et al., 75 Phil. 477-479.

Art. 281. OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS
1. That the offender enters the 1. Entering a warehouse may be

closed premises or the fenced trespass under this article
estate of another; because the warehouse is a
closed premise; and if it is
2. That the entrance is made uninhabited, prohibition is
while either of them is manifest and no permission is
uninhabited;   given, the entrance into the
same is other form of
3. That the prohibition to enter trespass.293
be manifest; and  
4. That the trespasser has not

secured the permission of the
owner or the caretaker thereof.
Art. 282. GRAVE THREATS

Where the offender attained 1. The accused sent a letter to an

his purpose: old woman, threatening her
with death or the burning of her
1. That the offender threatens house unless she gave him
another person with the Php500, which she must
infliction upon the latter’s deposit in the place indicated to
person, honor or property, her in the letter. When arrested
or upon that of the latter’s and searched, the accused had
family, of any wrong;   in his pocketbook an envelope
on which was written the name
2. That such wrong amounts to of the offended party. It was
a crime; held that the accused was guilty
of grave threats.294
3. That there is a demand for
money or that any other 2. Where the accused threatened
condition is imposed, even to bury alive the two victims, if
though not unlawful; and they would not give the Php50
  demanded from each of them,
293 Reyes, supra, p. 616.

294 U.S. v. De la Cruz, 28 Phil. 279.

4. That the offender attains his the accused were held guilty of
purpose. two distinct offense of grave
  threats even if the money was
Grave Threats NOT subject not delivered. The crime of
to a condition: grave threats is consummated
as soon as the threat comes to
1. That the offender threatens the knowledge of the person
another person with the threatened.295
infliction upon the latter’s
person, honor, or property,
or upon that of the latter’s
family, of any wrong;
2. That such wrong amounts to

a crime;
3. That the threat is not subject

to a condition.  
Art. 283. LIGHT THREATS

1. That the offender makes a 1. Within this provision would fall

threat to commit a wrong; many cases of blackmailing,
  that is, the unlawful extortion of
2. That the wrong does not money by an appeal to the fear
constitute a crime; of the victim, or by threats of
accusation or exposure.296
3. That there is a demand for
money or that other
condition is imposed even
though not unlawful; and
4. That the offender has

attained his purpose or, that
he has not attained his
purpose.
295
People v. Villanueva et al., C.A. 48 O.G. 1376.
296
Reyes, supra, pp. 625.

Art. 284. BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR
A person is required to give bail bond -
1. When he threatens another under the circumstances mentioned in

Art. 282 (Grave Threats).
2. When he threatens another under the circumstances mentioned in

Art. 283 (Light Threats).
Art. 285. OTHER LIGHT THREATS

1. Threatening another with a 1. In a heated argument between

weapon, or drawing such him and the offended party, the
weapon in quarrel, unless it accused said that he would cut
be in lawful self-defense; her to pieces, making aggressive
gestures and trying to attack her
2. Orally threatening another, in with a bolo. The accused was
the heat of anger, with some guilty of other light threats
harm constituting a crime, under par. 2, Art. 285.297
without persisting in the idea
involved in his threat;
3. Orally threatening to do
another any harm not
constituting a felony.
Art. 286. GRAVE COERCIONS

1. That a person prevented 1. When the offended party, who

another from doing was in the house of the accused
something not prohibited by for three days as servant
law, or by compelling him to therein, had the freedom of the
do something against his will, house and left it at times to visit
be it right or wrong;   her mother, but it was shown
that she was compelled against
2. That the prevention or her will to leave her mother's
compulsion be effected by house and go with the accused
297
People v. Padayhag, 36 O.G. 3265.

violence, threats or to the latter's house, there is
intimidation; and coercion, not illegal
detention.298
3. That the person that
restrained the will and liberty 2. In grave coercion, the act of
of another has no right to do preventing by force must be
so, or in other words, that the made at the time the offended
restraint is not made under party was doing or about to do
authority of law or in the the act to be prevented. If the
exercise of any lawful right. act was already done when
violence is exerted, the crime is
Two Ways of Committing unjust vexation.299
Grave Coercion:
3. When the complainant is in the
1. By preventing another, by actual possession of a thing,
means of violence, threats or even if he has no right to that
intimidation, from doing possession, compelling him by
something not prohibited by means of violence to give up
law. the possession, even by the
owner himself, is grave
2. By compelling another, by coercion.300
means of violence, threats or
intimidation, to do something
against his will, whether it be
right or wrong.
Art. 287. LIGHT COERCIONS

1. That the offender must be a 1. Taking possession of the thing
creditor; belonging to the debtor,
through deceit and
2. That he seizes anything misrepresentation, for the
belonging to his debtor; purpose of applying the same to
the payment of the debt, is
3. That the seizure of the thing unjust vexation under the
be accomplished by means of second paragraph of Article
violence or a display of 287.301
material force producing
intimidation; and
298 U.S. v. Quevengco, 2 Phil. 412.

299
People v. Madrid, C.A. 53 O.G. 711.
300
U.S. v. Mena, 11 Phil. 543.
301
People v. Reyes, 98 Phil. 646.

4. That the purpose of the
offender is to apply the same
to the payment of the debt.
Unjust Vexation - Includes any 1. The paramount question to be

human conduct which, although considered, in determining
not productive of some physical whether the crime of unjust
or material harm would, however, vexation is committed, is
unjustly annoy or vex an innocent whether the offender's act
person. caused annoyance, irritation,
vexation, torment, distress or
disturbance to the mind of the
person to whom it is directed.302
Art. 288. OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS

(COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE AND
PAYMENT OF WAGES BY MEANS OF TOKENS)
1. By forcing or compelling, directly 1. Compelling an employee to

or indirectly, or knowingly purchase merchandise or
permitting the forcing or commodities of the employer,
compelling of the laborer or or compelling him to receive
employee of the offender to tokens or objects in payment
purchase merchandise or of his wages are punishable
commodities of any kind from under this Article.303
him.
Elements:
a. That the offender is any

person, agent or officer of
any association or
corporation;
b. That he or such firm or

corporation has employed
laborers or employees; and
302 People v. Gozum, C.A., 54 O.G. 7409.

303

c. That he forces or compels,
directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permits to be
forced or compelled, any of
his/its laborers or employees
to purchase merchandise or
commodities of any kind
from him, or from said firm
or corporation.
2. By paying the wages due his

laborer or employee by means
of tokens or objects other than
the legal tender currency of the
Philippines, unless expressly
requested by such laborer or
employee.
Elements:
a. That the offender pays the

wages due a laborer or
employee employed by him
by means of tokens or
objects;
b. That those tokens or

objects are other than the
legal tender currency of the
Philippines; and
c. That such employee or

laborer does not expressly
request that he be paid by
means of tokens or objects.

Art.
Art. 289.289. FORMATION,
FORMATION, MAINTENANCE,AND
MAINTENANCE, AND PROHIBITION
PROHIBITION
OF COMBINATION OF OF
COMBINATION
CAPITAL OR OF CAPITAL
LABOR OR
THROUGH
VIOLENCE
LABOR OR THREATS
THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS
1. That the offender employs 1. The act should not constitute a

violence or threats, in such a more serious offense in
degree as to compel or force the accordance with the
laborers or employers in the provisions of this Code. If
free and legal exercise of their death or some serious
industry or work; and physical injuries are caused in
an effort to curtail the
2. That the purpose is to organize, exercise of the rights of the
maintain or prevent coalitions laborers and employers, the
of capital or labor, strike of act should be punished in
laborers or lockout of accordance with the other
employers. provisions of the Code.304
Art. 290. DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH

SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
1. That the offender is a private 1. The crime defined in Article

individual or even a public 290 requires that the act of
officer not in the exercise of his seizure be impelled by a
official function; desire to discover the secrets
of another and that the
2. That he seizes the papers or accused is informed of the
letters of another; contents of papers or
letters.305
3. That the purpose is to discover
the secrets of such other person;
and  
4. That the offender is informed of
the contents of the papers or
letters seized.
304
Reyes, supra, 646.
305
Peole v. Singh, C.A. 40 O.G. Supp. 5, 35.

Art. 291. REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF
OFFICE
1. That the offender is a 1. The secrets must have come

manager, employee or to their knowledge by
servant; reason of their office or
position and it makes no
2. That he learns the secrets of difference that a secret was
his principal or master in such communicated by the
capacity; and principal or master to the
employee or servant.306
3. That he reveals such secrets.
Art. 292. REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL SECRETS

1. That the offender is a person 1. Article 292 does not state

in charge, employee or the time of the revelation of
workman of a manufacturing the industrial secrets.
or industrial establishment; Therefore, the employee or
workman who revealed the
2. That the manufacturing or secrets of the industry of his
industrial establishment has a employer, after he had been
secret of the industry which dismissed or separated from
the offender has learned; the establishment, may be
held liable under this
3. That the offender reveals such Article. What is important is
secrets; and that he was an employee or
workman of the
4. That prejudice is caused to manufacturing or industrial
the owner. establishment when he
learned the secrets.307
306
307
Ibid.,p. 652.

TITLE TEN - CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Art. 293. WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY
That there be – 1. The intent to gain, being an

internal act, cannot be
1. Personal property;
established by direct evidence,
2. Belonging to another;   except in case of confession by
the accused. It must, therefore,
3. Unlawful taking of that be deduced from the
property;   circumstances surrounding the
4. That the taking must be with commission of the offense. As a
general rule, however, the
intent to gain; and  
unlawful taking of personal
5. That there is violence against property belonging to another
or intimidation of any person, involves intent to gain on the
or  force upon anything. part of the offender.308
Classification of Robbery:
a. Robbery with violence

against, or intimidation of
persons (Arts. 294, 297 and
298).
b. Robbery by use of force upon

things (Arts. 299 and 302).
Art. 294. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS
1. When by reason or on occasion 1. Where the original design

of the robbery (taking of comprehends robbery and
personal property belonging to homicide is perpetrated by
another with intent to gain), the reason or on occasion of the
crime of homicide is committed; consummation of the
former, the crime
308
People v. Sia Teb Ban, 54 Phil. 52.

2. When the robbery is committed is robbery with
accompanied by rape or homicide.309
intentional mutilation or arson;
2. When the taking of personal
3. When by reason or on occasion property of a woman is an
of such robbery, any of the independent act following
physical injuries resulting in defendant’s failure to
insanity, imbecility, impotency consummate the rape, there
or blindness is inflicted; are two distinct crimes
committed: attempted rape
4. When by reason or on occasion and theft.310
of robbery, any of the physical
injuries resulting in the loss of
the use of speech or the power to
hear or to smell, or the loss of an
eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a
leg or the loss of the use of any
such member or incapacity for
the work in which the injured
person is theretofore habitually
engaged is inflicted;
5. If the violence or intimidation

employed in the commission of
the robbery is carried to a
degree clearly unnecessary for
the commission of the crime;
6. When in the course of its

execution, the offender shall
have inflicted upon any person
not responsible for the
commission of the robbery any
of the physical injuries in
consequence of which the
person injured becomes
deformed or loses any other
member of his body or loses the
use thereof or becomes ill or
incapacitated for the
performance of the work in
which he is habitually engaged
309
People v. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67.
310
People v. Buena, C.A. 52 O.G. 4698.

for more than 90 days or the
person injured becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more
than 30 days;
7. If the violence employed by the

offender does not cause any of
the serious physical injuries
defined in Art. 263, or if the
offender employs intimidation
only.
Art. 295. ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES,

COMMITTED IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE BY A BAND
OR WITH THE USE OF FIREARM ON A STREET, ROAD
OR ALLEY
Qualified Robbery with 1. Article 295 is inapplicable to

Violence Against or robbery with homicide,
Intimidation of Persons: rape, intentional mutilation,
and lesions graves resulting
If any of the offenses defined in in insanity, imbecility,
Article 294 (3)(4)(5) is committed: impotency or blindness.311
1. In an uninhabited place; or
2. By a band; or
3. By attacking a moving train,

street car, motor vehicle, or
airship; or
4. By entering the passengers’

compartments in a train, or in
any manner taking the
passengers by or surprise in
their respective conveyances or
On a street, road, highway, or alley,

and the intimidation is made with
use of firearms, the offender shall be
311
People v Salip Manla, 30 SCRA 389.

punished by the maximum period or
the proper penalties prescribed in
Art. 294.
Art. 296. DEFINITION OF A BAND AND PENALTY
INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS THEREOF
Outline Jurisprudence
1. When at least four armed 1. Article 296 provides that

malefactors take part in the when more than three armed
commission of a robbery, it is malefactors take part in the
deemed committed by a band; commission of robbery, it
shall be deemed to have been
2. When any of the arms used in committed by a band. At
the commission of robbery is not least four armed persons
licensed, the penalty upon all must take part in the
malefactors shall be the commission of the
maximum of the corresponding robbery.312
penalty provided by law without
prejudice to the criminal liability
for illegal possession of
firearms.
3. Any member of a band who was

present at the commission of a
robbery by the band, shall be
punished as principal of any
assaults committed by the band,
unless it be shown that he
attempted to prevent the same.  
Requisites for liability for the

acts of the other members of
the band:
1. He was a member of the band;
2. He was present at the

commission of a robbery by
that band;
3. The other members of that

band committed an assault;
312

and
4. He did not attempt to prevent

the assault.
Art. 297. ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY
COMMITTED UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES
When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery, a

homicide is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty
under the provisions of this Code.
Art. 298. EXECUTION OF DEEDS BY MEANS

OF VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION
1. That the offender has intent to1. 1. Article 298 is not applicable if
defraud another; the document is void.313
2. That the offender compels him

to sign, execute, or deliver any
public instrument or document;
and
3. That the compulsion is by

means of violence or
intimidation.
Art. 299. ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR

PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED TO
WORSHIP
Robbery with force upon 1. Where the defendant

things under subdivision (a): entered through the
1. The offender entered:  window of a public high
school building and took
313
Ibid. p. 701.

from the building two
a. An inhabited house,  microscopes, he was guilty
b. A public building or  of robbery under the first
paragraph of Article
c. An edifice devoted to 299.314
religious worship  
2. The entrance was effected by

any of the following means:
a. Through an opening not

intended for entrance or
egress;
b. By breaking any wall, roof,
floor, door, or window;  
c. By using picklocks or similar
tools; or
d. By using any fictitious name
or pretending the exercise of
public authority.
3. That once inside the building,

the offender took personal
property belonging to another
with intent to gain.
Robbery with force upon

things under subdivision (b):
a. Offender is inside a dwelling

house, public building or
edifice devoted to religious
worship, regardless of the
circumstances under which he
entered it;
b. The offender takes personal

property belonging to another
with intent to gain under any of
the following circum-stances:
314
U.S. v. Acacio, 37 Phil. 70.

i. By the breaking of in-ternal
doors, wardrobes, chests, or
any other kind of sealed
furniture or receptacle; or
ii. By taking such furniture or

objects away to be broken
open outside the place of the
robbery
Art. 300. ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND

BY A BAND
Robbery with Force Upon Things (Art. 299) is qualified when
committed in an uninhabited place and by a band (Art. 300), as
distinguished from Qualified Robbery with Violence or Intimidation of
Persons (Art. 295) which is committed in an uninhabited place or by a
band.
The fact that the robbery with force upon things in inhabited house or
public building or edifice devoted to religious worship was committed
in an uninhabited place and by a band must be alleged in the
information to qualify the offense.315
Art. 301. WHAT IS AN INHABITED HOUSE, PUBLIC
BUILDING OR BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES
Jurisprudence
Dependencies of an inhabited 1. The place where the robbery was
house, public building or building committed was not a
dedicated to religious worship are dependency of a public
all interior courts, corrals, building because the
warehouses, granaries or enclosed storeroom where the property
places . taken was kept does not seem
to be a structure contiguous to
Requisites: the building. 316
1. Contiguous to the building or 2. A small store located on the

edifice; ground floor of the house,
belonging to the owner of the
2. Having an interior entrance store, is a dependency of the
315
316
People v. Puzon et al., C.A. 48 O.G. 4878.

connected therewith; and house because the house and
the store form one single
3. Which form part of the whole. whole, there being no partition
between them and that the
inmates in going to the main
stairway have to enter the
store which has a door.317
Art. 302. ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR

IN A PRIVATE BUILDING
1. That the offender entered an 1. Entrance through an opening

uninhabited place or a not intended for entrance or
building which was not a egress, or after breaking a
dwelling house, not a public wall, roof, floor, door or
building, or not an edifice window, or through the use of
devoted to religious worship;  false keys, picklocks, or other
similar tools is not necessary,
2. That any of the following if there is breaking of
circumstances was present: wardrobe, chest, or sealed or
closed furniture or receptacle,
a. The entrance was effected or removal thereof to be
through an opening not broken open elsewhere.318
intended for entrance or
egress;   2. The servant of the owner of an
oil mill who takes away the key
b. A wall, roof, floor, or of the warehouse and hands it
outside door or window to another who, in turn opens
was broken; the warehouse with that key
and steals and takes away oil
c. The entrance was effected from the warehouse, is guilty
through the use of false of robbery in an uninhabited
keys, picklocks or other house as principal by
similar tools; conspiracy.319
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, 3. If the store is used as a dwelling

or any sealed or closed of one or more persons, the
furniture or receptacle robbery committed therein
was broken; or   would be considered as
317
U.S. v. Ventura et al., 39 Phil. 523.
318
People v. Adorno, C.A. 40 O.G. 567 cited under Art. 299.

e. A closed or sealed committed in an inhabited
receptacle was removed, house under Article 299.320
even if the same be
broken open elsewhere;   4. If the store is located on the
ground floor of the house
3. That with intent to gain, the belonging to the owner of the
offender took there from store, having an interior
personal property belonging entrance connected therewith,
to another. it is a dependency of an
inhabited house and the
robbery committed therein is
punished under the last
paragraph of Article 299.321
5. If the store was not actually

occupied at the time of the
robbery and was not used as a
dwelling, since the owner lived
in a separate house, the
robbery committed therein is
punished under Article 302."
Neither was the place where
the store is located owned by
the government. It was
actually just a stall rented by
Valderosa from a private
person. Hence, the applicable
provision in this case is Article
302.322
Art. 303. ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS, OR
FIREWOOD IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE
BUILDING
Penalty Jurisprudence
Penalty is one degree lower when 1. Palay (the local name for unhull
cereals, fruits, or firewood are rice) is “cereal” and is included
taken in Robbery with force upon in the term “semilla
things as described in Arts. 299 alimenticia” used in the
and 302 of this Code. Spanish text of the Revised
Penal Code, as it is grain in its
original state and, under
320
People v. Suarez, G.R. No. L-6431.
321
U.S. v. Tapan, 20 Phil. 211.
322 Marquez et al. v. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 3, 2012.

proper conditions, can and will
germinate into the plant that
produces it. The offense
charged in the case at bar,
therefore, properly comes
under Article 303 of the
Revised Penal Code and within
the original jurisdiction of the
Justice of the Peace Court.323
Art. 304. POSSESSION OF PICKLOCKS OR SIMILAR

TOOLS
1. That the offender has in his 1. It is not necessary that the

possession picklocks or similar picklocks or similar tools are
tools;   actually used to commit
robbery.324
2. That such picklocks or similar
tools are specially adopted to 2. Since picking of locks is one
the commission of robbery; way to gain entrance to
and commit robbery, a picklock
is per se specially adapted to
3. That the offender does not the commission of robbery.
have lawful cause for such The description in the
possession. information of a picklock as
"specially adapted to the
commission of robbery" is
therefore unnecessary for its
sufficiency. Notwithstanding
the omission of such
superfluous description,
therefore, the charge of the
offense of illegal possession of
a picklock is valid.325
Art. 305. FALSE KEYS

Deem to Include the Following:
1. Tools not mentioned in the next preceding article;
323
People v. Rada et al., 3 SCRA 880.
324
Ibid. p. 723.
325 People v. Lopez, G.R. No. L-18766, May 20, 1965.

2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock
forcibly opened by the offender.
Art. 306. WHO ARE BRIGANDS
There is Brigandage when – 1. Brigandage may be com-mitted

without the use of firearms.
1. There be at least four armed The term “armed” as used in
persons; the first paragraph of Article
  306 covers arms and weapons
2. They formed a band of in general, not necessarily
robbers; firearms. 326
3. The purpose is any of the 2. The main object in enacting this

following: law is to prevent the formation
of such band, in fact, the heart
a. To commit robbery in a of the offense consists in the
highway; or   formation of the band by four
or more persons conspiring
b. To kidnap persons for the together for the purpose of
purpose of extortion or to robbery in the highway, or
obtain ransom; or kidnapping persons for
extortion or to obtain ransoms,
c. To attain by means of force or for any other purpose to be
or violence any other attained by means of force and
purpose violence, and such formation is
sufficient to constitute a
Presumption of law as to violence of the law. 327
brigandage: All are presumed
to be highway robbers or 3. When the armed band, previous
brigands, if any of them carry to kidnapping and taking
unlicensed firearm. personal property of the
offended party, had kidnapped
The only things to prove are: and looted other persons on
two other occasions, the band
a. That there is an organization was held to be that of brigands
of more than three armed and liable for brigandage.328
persons forming a band of
326
People v. De la Rosa et al. C.A. 49 O.G. 2863.
327
U.S. v. Decusin et al. 2 Phil. 536
328
People v. Laporeda et al., 44 O.G. 1816.

robbers;
b. That the purpose of the band

is any of those enumerated in
Art. 306;  
c. That they went upon the

highway or roamed upon the
country for that purpose;  
d. That the accused is a

member of such band.
Art. 307. AIDING AND ABETTING A BAND OF

BRIGANDS
1. That there is a band of 1. It shall be presumed that the

brigands; person performing any of the
acts provided in this Article has
2. That the offender knows the performed them knowingly,
band to be of brigands; and unless the contrary is proven.329
3. That the offender does any of

the following acts:
a. That he aids, abets, or

protects such band of
brigands;
b. That he gives them

information on the
movements of the police
or other peace officers of
the government; or
c. That he acquires or
receives property taken by
such brigands.
329
1
Art. 308. WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT
1. That there be taking of 1. The theft was consummated

personal property;   when the culprits were able to
take possession of the thing
2. That said property belongs to taken by them. It is not an
another;   indispensable element of theft
that the thief carry, more or
3. That the taking be done with less, far away, the thing taken
intent to gain;   by him from its owner.330
2. There is “taking” even if the

4. That the taking be done
offender received the thing
without the consent of the
from the offended party.331
owner; and
3. A joy ride in an auto-mobile
5. That the taking be
taken without the consent of
accomplished without the use
its owner constitutes “taking
of violence against or
with intent to gain” because
intimidation of persons or
“by using things, we derive
force upon things.  
from them utility,
satisfaction, enjoyment, and
Theft is likewise committed pleasure, or what amounts to
by: the same thing, real gain”.332
1. Any person who, having found 4. When a person has in his
lost property, shall fail to possession, part of the
deliver the same to the local recently stolen property, he is
authorities or to its owner.   presumed to be the thief of all
in the absence of satisfactory
2. Any person who, after having explanation of his possession.
maliciously damaged the 333
property of another, shall
remove or make use of the 5. As long as the accused knew or
fruits or object of the damage had reason to know that the
caused by him;   property was lost, it was his
duty to turn it over to the
330 People v. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563.

331 People v. Roxas, C.A. O.G. 716.
332 People v. Fernandez, C. A. 38 O.G. 985.
333
U.S. v. Ungal, 37 Phil. 835.

3. Any person who shall enter authorities, regardless of
an enclosed estate or a field whether or not he knew who
where trespass is forbidden was the owner of the lost
or which belongs to another property. The Revised Penal
and without the consent of Code does not require
its owner; shall hunt or fish knowledge of the owner of the
upon the same or shall lost property. 334
gather fruits, cereals, or
other forest or farm
products.
Art. 309. PENALTIES
Basis of penalty in theft:
1. The value of the thing stolen, and in some cases;
2. The value and the nature of the property taken; or  
3. The circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit to commit

the crime.
Art. 310. QUALIFIED THEFT
1. If theft is committed by a 1. The truck driver who took

domestic servant; and sold part of the gasoline
requisitioned for the use of
2. If committed with grave abuse the truck by its owner,
of confidence; through said driver, is guilty
of qualified theft of the
3. If the property stolen is- gasoline taken.335
a. motor vehicle; 2. The accused who smuggled

b. mail matter; or radio tubes from a signal
c. large cattle; depot where he was working
as a radio technician and, as
4. If the property stolen consists such, had access to the place
of coconuts taken from the where various items
premises of plantation; essential for repair and
334
People v. Panotes et al., C.A. 36 O.G. 1008; People v. Silverio, C.A. 43 O.G. 2205.
335
People v. Batoon, C.A. 55 O.G. 1388.

maintenance of radios were
5. If the property stolen is taken kept, and sold radios, is
from a fishpond or fishery; guilty of qualified theft.336
6. If property is taken on the 3. Security guards who steal

occasion of fire, earthquake, from a bonded warehouse
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or where they are hired to
any other calamity, vehicular watch commit the crime of
accident or civil disturbance. qualified theft (with grave
abuse of confidence) even
Common Elements: though they are hired and
paid by the warehousing
1. Taking of personal property; firm and not by the owner
of the goods stolen.337
2. That the said property belongs
to another;   4. Grave abuse of confidence,
as an element of Qualified
3. That the said taking be done Theft, "must be the result of
with intent to gain;   the relation by reason of
dependence, guar-dianship,
4. That it be done without the or vigilance, between the
owner’s consent;   appellant and the offended
party that might create a
high degree of confidence
5. That it be accomplished
between them which the
without the use of violence or
appellant abused."338
intimidation against persons,
nor of force upon things;  
6. That it be done through the

above circumstances.
Art. 311. THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
NATIONAL LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM
Theft of property on National Library and Museum has a fixed penalty

regardless of its value. But if the crime is committed with grave abuse
of confidence, the penalty for qualified theft shall be imposed.
336
People v. Jimenez, C.A. G.R. No. 12094R.
337
People v. Regamit, C.A. 72 O.G. 119.
338
Ringor v. People, G.R. No. 198904, December 11, 2013.

Art. 312. OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR
USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
1. That the offender takes 1. The accused who had lost the
possession of any real property case in a cadastral proceeding,
or usurps any real rights in took possession of the land
property; adjudicated in favor of the
offended party and harvested
2. That the real property or real the palay, by means of threats
rights belong to another;   and intimidation is guilty of
usurpation of real right under
3. That violence against or Article 312.339
intimidation of persons is used
by the offender in occupying 2. Article 312 may also be
real property or usurping real considered as defining and
property or usurping real right penalizing the single, special
in property; and indivisible crime of
occupation of real property or
4. That there is intent to gain. usurpation of real rights in
property by means of violence
Acts Punishable: against or intimidation of
persons. It is likewise not a
1. By taking possession of any complex crime as defined
real property belonging to under Article 48. However,
another by means of violence while Article 294 provides a
against or intimidation of single penalty for each class of
persons. crime therein defined, Article
312 provides a single, albeit
2. By usurping any real rights in two-tiered, penalty consisting
property belonging to another of a principal penalty, which
by means of violence against is that incurred for the acts of
or intimidation of persons. violence, and an additional
penalty of fine based on the
value of the gain obtained by
the accused. This is clear from
the clause "in addition to the
penalty incurred for the acts
of violence executed by him."
For want of a better term, the
additional penalty may be
339
People v. Calleja, C.A. G.R. 43375.

designated as an incremental
penalty.
What Article 312 means then

is that when the occupation of
real property is committed by
means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, the
accused may be prosecuted
under an information for the
violation thereof, and not for
a separate crime involving
violence or intimidation. But,
whenever, appropriate, he
may be sentenced to suffer the
penalty for the acts of violence
and to pay a fine based on the
value of the gain obtained.340
Art. 313. ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARK

1. That there be boundary marks 1. Mere alteration of the

or monuments of towns, boundary marks or
provinces, or estates, or any monuments intended to
other marks intended to designate the boundaries of
designate the boundaries of the towns province or estate is
same; and   punishable. Fraudulent
intent is not necessary for
2. That the offender alters said the crime to exist. The
boundary marks. offense consists in carrying
out a felonious intent to
usurp realty, and this intent
must be established as the
moral element before the
penalty fixed in Article 313
can be applied.341
2. The word alter has a general

and indefinite meaning. Any
340
People v. Hon. Alfeche, G.R.No. 102070, July 23, 1992.
341

alteration of boundary marks
is enough to constitute the
material element of the
crime. Destruction of stone
monument or taking it to
another place, or removing a
fence, is altering.342
Art. 314. FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY

1. That the offender is a debtor, 1. Fraudulent Insolvency does

that is, he has obligations due not mean that the offender is
and demandable; insolvent. A debtor who has
transferred his property to
2. That he absconds with his another place beyond the
property; and reach of the creditors has
been found to be guilty of
3. That there be prejudice to his Fraudulent Insolvency.343
creditors.
Art. 315. SWINDLING (ESTAFA)
Par. 1 - With Unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
General Elements Jurisprudence
1. That the accused defrauded 1.Regardless of whether

another by- petitioner is charged or
convicted under either par. 1
a. Abuse of confidence; or (b) or par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of
b. by means of deceit; and the Revised Penal Code, he
would still be guilty of estafa
2. That damage or prejudice because damage and deceit,
capable of pecuniary estimation which are essential elements of
is caused to the offended party the crime, have been
or third person. established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. False
How committed: pretenses or fraudulent acts
were committed prior to or
a. With unfaithfulness or abuse simultaneous with the
342
Ibid.
343
Dee v. People, G.R. No. 136785, September 27, 2000.

of confidence; commission of the fraud by
falsely pretending to possess
b. By means of false pretenses or property. In this case, false
fraudulent acts; or pretenses or fraudulent acts
were employed prior to or
c. Through fraudulent means. simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud by
falsely pretending to possess
the 1997 Nissan Pathfinder,
where damage and deceit have
been established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.344
Par. 1 (a) - By altering the substance, quantity, or
quality of anything of value which the offender shall
deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though
such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal
consideration.
1. That the offender has an 1. Under this subsection, the
onerous obligation to deliver obligation to deliver already
something of value; existed, and the offender, on
making the delivery, has
2. That he alters its substance, altered the substance,
quantity or quality; and quantity or quality of the
thing delivered. 345
3. That damage or prejudice is
caused to another. 2. Where a person sold to
another 1,000 tins on the
assurance that they
contained opium, when, in
fact, only 16 tins contained
opium while the other
contained only molasses, the
crime of estafa under this
subsection was committed
because there was an
alteration of the substance –
from opium, which he
promised to deliver, to
344
Sim v. C.A. G.R. No. 159280, May 18, 2004.
345
People v. Gansai, C.A. 61 O.G. 3603.

molasses which was actually
delivered.346
Par. 1 (b) – By misappropriating or converting to the
prejudice of another, money, goods or any other
personal property 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, even though such obligation be
totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying
having received such money, goods, or other property.
1. That money, goods, or other 1. Money, goods or other

personal property be received personal property must be
by the offender in trust, or on received by the offender
commission, or for under certain kind of
administration, or under any transaction transferring
other obligation involving the juridical possession to
duty to make delivery of, or to him.347 Juridical possession
return, the same; means a possession which
gives the transferee a right
2. That there be mis- over the thing which the
appropriation or conversion of transferee may set up even
such money or property by the against the owner.348
offender, or denial on his part
of such receipt; 2. Conversion by the importer
of the goods covered by a
3. That such misappropriation trust receipt constitutes
or conversion or denial is to estafa through mis-
the prejudice of another; and appropriation under Article
315 (b) of the Revised Penal
4. That there is demand made by Code.349
the offender party to the
offender.
346
People v. Manansala et al., 58 Phil. 796.
347
348
People v. Noveno et al. C.A. 46 O.G. 1637.
349
People v. Chai Ho, 53 Phil. 874.

3
Par. 1 (c) - By taking undue advantage of the signature
of the offended party in blank, and by writing any
document above such signature in blank, to the
prejudice of the offended party or any third person.
1. That the paper with the 1. Under Article 315, 1 (c), estafa
signature of the offended party is committed by taking
be in blank; undue advantage of the
signature of the offended
2. That the offended party should party in blank, and by
have delivered it to the writing any document above
offender; such signature in blank, to
the prejudice of the offended
3. That above the signature of the party or any third person. In
offended party a document is this case, accused admitted
written by the offender without typing the Deed of
authority to do so; and Assignment over petitioner’s
signature in blank.
4. That the document so written Thereafter, accused used the
creates a liability of, or causes Deed of Assignment to
damage to the offended party transfer the ownership of the
or any third person. Property from petitioner to
him. Petitioner claims that
she was prejudiced by virtue
of the Deed of Assignment.
Considering these
circumstances, there is
probable cause to hold
accused liable for estafa by
falsification of public
document.350
Par. 2 – By means of any of the following false

pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
1. That there must be false 1. The offender must be able to
350
Ang v. Lucero et al., G.R. No. 143169, January 21, 2005.

pretense, fraudulent act or obtain something from the
fraudulent means; offended party because of the
false pretense, that is, without
2. That such false pretense, act or which the offended party
fraudulent means must be would not have parted with it.
made or executed prior to or This being a form of estafa by
simultaneously with the means of deceit, the false
commission of fraud; pretense should be the
efficient cause of the
3. That the offended party must defraudation and, hence, it
have relied on the false should be made either prior
pretense, fraudulent act, or to, or simultaneously with, the
fraudulent means, that is, he act of fraud.351
was induced to part with his
money or property because of 2. In this case, accused mis-
fraudulent means; and represented and falsely
pretended that she had the
4. That as a result thereof, the capacity to deploy petitioner
offended party suffered for employment in Taiwan.
damage. The misrepresentation was
made prior to complainant’s
payment to accused of
Php120,000.00. Accused
committed deceit by
representing that she could
secure petitioner with
employment in Taiwan, the
primary consideration that
induced the latter to part with
her money. Petitioner was led
to believe by accused that she
possessed the power and
qualifications to provide
petitioner with employment
abroad, when, in fact, she was
not licensed or authorized to
do so. Plainly, accused is
guilty of estafa.352
351
352
Sy v. People, G.R. No 183879, April 14, 2010.

Par. 2 (a) – By using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.
1. By using fictitious name; 1. There is use of fictitious

name when a person uses a
2. By falsely pretending to name other than his real
possess – name. Thus, when a person
found a pawnshop ticket in
a. Power, the name of another and,
b. Influence, using the name of that other
c. Qualifications, person, redeemed the
d. Property, jewelry mentioned therein,
e. Credit, he committed estafa by
f. Agency, using a fictitious name.353
g. Business or imaginary
transactions; 2. The accused committed
estafa under this
3. By means of other similar subsection when he
deceits. pretended to be a magician
endowed with power to
discover hidden treasures
and led the offended party
to believe that under his
house was a jar containing
articles of great value. To
obtain that jar, it was
necessary for the offended
party to give him money
for the purchase of a
certain substance and old
gold coins to be used in
extracting the hidden
treasure. After receiving
the money, the accused left
and never returned.354
353
People v. Yusay, 50 Phil. 598.
354
People v. Scott, 62 Phil. 555.

Par. 2 (b) - By altering, the quality, fineness or weight
of anything pertaining to his art or business
The estafa by altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything

pertaining to his art or business may be illustrated in the case of a
jeweler who, for instance, defrauded a person who had delivered to
him a diamond and piece of gold to be made into ring by changing the
stone with one of lower quality.355
Par. 2 (c) - By pretending to have bribed any

Government employee, without prejudice to the action
for calumny which the offended party may proper to
bring against the offender.
This is committed by any person who would ask money from another
for the alleged purpose of bribing a government employee, when in
truth and, in fact, the offended intended to convert the money to his
own personal use and benefit. Thus, a person who obtains money from
another by falsely pretending that with that money he will bribe the
doctor in charge of the physical examination of the offended party so
as to declare him unfair for compulsory service in the Army, is guilty of
estafa under this paragraph.356
Par. 2 (d), as amended by R.A. No. 4855 - By postdating

a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation
when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the
check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his
check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from
the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has
been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall
be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false
pretense or fraudulent act.
1. That the offender postdated a 1. The mere fact that the drawer
check, or issued a check in had insufficient or no funds
355
356
Ibid, p. 823.

payment of an obligation; and in the bank to cover the
check at the time he
2. That such postdating or issuing postdated or issued a check
a check was done when the is sufficient to make liable
offender had no funds in the for estafa.357
bank, or his funds deposited
therein were not sufficient to 2. While there are times in
cover the amount of the check . business transactions when
one is justified in stopping
payment of checks issued by
him, if checks were issued
by defendant and he
received money for them
and stopped payment and
did not return the money
and if, at the time the check
was issued, he had the
intention of stopping
payment, he is guilty of
estafa. 358
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22, “An Act Penalizing the

Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without
Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes”
How Violated Jurisprudence
1. By making or drawing and 1. The gravamen of B.P. Blg. 22

issuing any check to apply on is the issuance of a check,
account or for value, knowing not the non-payment of an
at the time of issue that he obligation.359
does not have sufficient funds
in or credit with the drawee 2. B.P. Blg. 22 does not make a
bank for the payment of such distinction as to whether the
check in full upon its bad check is issued in
presentment, which check is payment of an obligation or
subsequently dishonored by to merely guarantee an
the drawee bank for obligation. 360
insufficiency of funds or credit
357
358
U.S. v. Poe, 39 Phil. 466.
359
Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323.
360
Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160.

or would have been 3. While indeed Section 2 of
dishonored for the same B.P Blg. 22 does not state
reason had not the drawer, that the notice of dishonor
without any valid reason, be in writing, taken in
ordered the bank to stop conjunction, however, with
payment. Section 3 of the law i.e. that
where there are no sufficient
Elements: funds in or credit with such
drawee bank, such fact shall
a. That the person makes or always be explicitly stated in
draws and issues any check; the notice of dishonor or
refusal. A mere oral notice
b. That the check is made or or demand to pay would
drawn and issued to apply on appear to be insufficient for
account or for value; conviction under the law. 361
c. That the person who make or

draws and issues the check
knows at the time of issue
that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full
upon its presentment; and
d. That the check is sub-

sequently dis-honored by
the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or
credit, or would have been
dishonored for the same
reason had not the drawer,
without any valid reason
ordered the bank to stop
payment.
2. Having sufficient funds in or

credit with the drawee bank
when he makes or draws and
issues a check, by failing to keep
sufficient funds or to maintain a
credit to cover the full amount
361
Domagsang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139292, December 5, 2000.

of the check if presented within
a period of ninety (90) days
from the date appearing
thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank.
Elements
a. That a person has sufficient

funds in or credit with the
drawee bank when he
makes or draws and issues
a check;
b. That he fails to keep

sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover
the full amount of the
check if presented within a
period of 90 days from the
date appearing thereon;
and
c. That the check is dishonored

by the drawee bank.
Par. 2 (e) - By obtaining any food, refreshment or

accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding
house, lodging house, or apartment house and the like
without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the
proprietor or manager thereof, or by obtaining credit
at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging
house, or apartment house by the use of any false
pretense or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing
any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house
after obtaining credit, food, refreshment, or
accommodation therein without paying for his food,
refreshment, or accommodation.
1. By obtaining food, refreshment, 1. The accused stayed as a

or accommodation at a hotel, paying guest at the hotel
inn, restaurant, boarding house, and surreptitiously left the

lodging house or apartment hotel, leaving his worthless
house without paying therefor, baggage in the hotel and
with intent to defraud the without paying his account.
proprietor or manager thereof; He was convicted of
estafa.362
2. By obtaining credit at any of said
establishments by the use of any
false pretense; or
3. By abandoning or surreptitiously
removing any part of his baggage
from any of said establishments
after obtaining credit, food,
refreshment or accommodation
therein, without paying therefor.
Par. 3 – Through any of the following fraudulent

means:
Par. 3 (a) – By inducing another, by means of deceit, to
sign any document.
1. That the offender induced the 1. While a person was de-tained

offended party to sign a and anxious to obtain
document; liberty, the accused induced
him through fraud and
2. That deceit be employed to deceit to sign what was
make him sign the document; represented to him to be a
mortgage deed of his land
3. That the offended party for the purpose of securing
personally signed the the payment of attorney’s
document; and fees, whereas the
instrument was really an
4. That prejudice be caused. absolute conveyance of the
property.363
4
362
People v. Amala, C.A.G.R. No. 6936-R.
363
U.S. v. Berry. 6 Phil. 370.

5
Par. 3 (b) – By resorting to some fraudulent practice
to insure success in a gambling game.
Some moments before the cockfight, the accused removed the gaff
from one of the gamecocks and replaced it in an entirely different
manner from that in which it was before, without the knowledge and
consent of the owner. In that manner, the gamecock was fixed, it
could not inflict mortal wounds on and kill its opponent. As a result,
the owner lost his bet.364
Par. 3 (c) - By removing, concealing or destroying, in

whole or in part, any court record, office files,
documents or any other property.
1. That there be court record, 1. Destruction of promissory

office files, documents or any note given back to the
other property; maker to be replaced with a
new one to renew the loan,
2. That the offender remover, without making a new
concealed or destroyed any of promissory note is estafa
them; and because by destroying the
old one, the offended party
3. That the offender thad intent was dispossessed of the
to defraud another. evidence of a debt. 365
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042, as amended by R.A.

No.10022 - “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995”
Illegal Recruitment – Any act of canvassing, enlisting, hiring, or

procuring workers, including referring contract services, promising
or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not,
when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
Any such non-licensee or non- holder of authority who, for a fee,
364
U.S. v. Ner, 18 Phil. 534.
365
U.S. v. Kilayko, 31 Phil. 371.

offers and promises employment abroad to two or more persons shall
be deemed so engaged in illegal recruitment.
Economic Sabotage:
1. Illegal recruitment by syndicate – committed by a group of

three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another.
2. Large Recruitment against three (3) or more persons.
Art. 316. OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING 

Persons liable Jurisprudence
1. Any person who, pretending 1. Art. 316, No. 1 penalizes

to be the owner of any real only a person who
property, shall convey, sell, pretends to be the owner
encumber or mortgage the and not one who claims to
same. be the owner. Where the
accused claims to be the
a. That the thing be owner of a parcel of land,
immovable, such as a parcel and especially where his
of land or a building;  ownership is evidenced by
a Certificate of Title, it
b. That the offender who is not cannot be said that he
the owner of said property pretended to be the owner
should represent that he is thereof, even if his
the owner thereof; ownership is defective and
he may be compelled to
c. That the offender should return the property to the
have executed an act of person found to be the
ownership (selling, leasing, owner of the property. 366
encumbering or mortgaging
the real property);   2. The offended party must
have been deceived, that
d. That the act be made to the is, he would not have
prejudice of the owner or a granted the loan had he
third person. known that the property
366
People v. Adriatico, 15 C.A. Rep. 1002.

  was already encum-
2. Any person who, knowing that bered.367
real property is encumbered,
shall dispose of the same 3. The accused pawned his
although such encumbrance be watch to the complainant.
not recorded. Later, pretending to have
the money for redeeming
a. That the thing disposed of the watch, the accused
be real property;   asked the offended party
to give him the watch.
b. That the offender knew that Once in possession of it, he
the real property was carried it away without
encumbered, whether the paying the loan for which
encumbrance is recorded or it was given to the
not; offended party as
security.368
c. That there must be express
representation by the
offender that the real
property is free from
encumbrance;
d. That the act of disposing of

the real property be made to
the damage of another.
3. The owner of any personal

property who shall wrongfully
take it from its lawful
possessor, to the prejudice of
the latter or any third person.
a. That the offender is the

owner of personal property;
 
b. That said personal property
is in the lawful possession
of another;  
c. That the offender
367
People v. Galasim, G.R. No. L-14577.
368
People v. Fajardo, 49 Phil. 206.

wrongfully takes it from its
lawful possessor; (if from
unlawful possessor, Article
429 of the Civil Code
applies)  
d. That prejudice is thereby

caused to the possessor or
third person.  
4. Any person who, to the

prejudice of another, shall
execute any fictitious
contract.
5. Any person who shall accept

any compensation for services
not rendered or for labor not
performed.
6. Any person who shall sell,

mortgage or encumber real
property with which the
offender guaranteed the
fulfillment of his obligation as
surety.
a. That the offender is a surety

in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action;  
b. That he guaranteed the

fulfillment of such
obligation with his real
property or properties;
c. That he sells, mortgages, or,

in any manner encumbers
said real property;
d. That such sale, mortgage or

encumbrance is:
1. Without express authority

from the court; or

2.Made before the
cancellation of his bond;
or
3. Before being relieved

from the obligation
contracted by him.
Art. 317. SWINDLING A MINOR

1. That the offender takes 1. The act of causing a minor

advantage of the inexperience to sign a receipt for
or emotions or feelings of a Php480.00 when as a
minor; matter of fact, the minor
received P400.00 only,
2. That he induces such minor to coupled with the
assume an obligation, or to give circumstances that the
release, or to execute a transfer minor was fugitive from the
of any property right;   house of his parents and
was very badly in need of
3. That the consideration is some money was sufficient to
loan of money, credit, or other constitute estafa under this
personal property; (if real Article.369
property, Article 318 applies;
minor cannot convey real Note: Actual proof of deceit or
property without judicial misrepresentation is not
authority) essential, as it is sufficient that
the offender takes advantage
4. That the transaction is to the of the inexperience or
detriment of such minor. emotions of the minor.
Art. 318. OTHER DECEITS

1. By defrauding or damaging 1. A person who presents

another by any other deceit himself to another to serve
not mentioned in the as domestic helper and
preceding articles; obtains money in advance
369

2. By interpreting dreams, by and later, on some pretext,
making forecasts, by telling leaves the service is guilty
fortunes, or by taking of estafa under this
advantage of the credulity of Article.370
the public in any other similar
manner, for profit or gain.
Art. 319. REMOVAL, SALE OR PLEDGE OF
MORTGAGED PROPERTY
1. By knowingly removing any 1. The object of the penal

personal property mortgaged provisions of this Article is
under the Chattel Mortgage Law to give the necessary
to any province or city other sanction to the provision of
than the one in which it was the statute in the interest of
located at the time of execution the public at large so that in
of the mortgage, without the all cases wherein loans are
written consent of the made and secured under
mortgagee or his executors, the terms of the statute, the
administrators or assigns: mortgage debtors may be
deterred from the violation
2. By selling or pledging personal of its provisions and the
property already pledged, or any mortgage creditors may be
part thereof, under the terms of protected against loss or
the Chattel Mortgage Law, inconvenience resulting
without the consent of the from the wrongful removal
mortgagee written on the back or sale of the mortgaged
of the mortgage and noted on property.371
the record thereof in the office
of the register of deeds of the 2. If the chattel mortgage does
province where such property is not contain an affidavit of
located. good faith and is not
registered, it is void and
Elements of knowingly cannot be the basis of a
removing mortgaged personal criminal prosecution under
property: this Article.372
a. That personal property is

mortgaged under Chattel
370
People v. Panlileo, G.R. No. 35536.
371
U.S. v. Kilayko, 32 Phil. 619.
372
People v. Vda. de Agoncillo, C.A. 50 O.G. 4884.

Mortgage Law;  
b. That the offender knows that

such property is so
mortgaged;  
c. That he removes such

mortgaged personal property
to any province or city other
than the one in which it was
located at the time of the
execution of the mortgage;  
d. That the removal is

permanent; and
e. That there is no written

consent of mortgagee,
executors, administrators or
assigns to such removal.  
Elements of selling or pledging

personal property already
pledged:
a. Personal property is pledged

under Chattel Mortgage Law; 
b. Offender, who is the

mortgagor, sells or pledges
the same property or any part
thereof; and 
c. No consent of mortgagee
written on the back of the
mortgage and noted on the
record thereof in the Office of
the Register of Deeds.
 
6

7
Arts. 320-326-B ARE REPEALED OR AMENDED BY
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1613
The Laws on Arson in Force Today are P.D. No. 1613

and Article 320, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The
provisions of P.D. No. 1613 which are inconsistent
with R.A. No. 7659 (such as Section 2 of P.D. No. 1613)
are deemed repealed.
Art. 327. WHO ARE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF
1. That the deliberately offender 1. Killing the cow of another as

caused to the damage property an act of revenge is
of another; malicious mischief. 373
2. That such act does not

constitute arson or other
crimes involving destruction;
and
3. That the act of damaging

another’s property be
committed merely for the sake
of damaging it.
Art. 328. SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
When Qualified- Jurisprudence
1. Cause damage to obstruct the 1. The poisonous substance may

performance of public be used to kill large cattle or
functions;   other animals of the
offended party. The
2. Use poisonous or corrosive corrosive substance may be
substances;   used to cause rust on a
machine to destroy property
373
People v. Valiente et al., C.A. G.R. No. 9442-R.

3. Spread any infection or through the action of
contagion among cattle;   chemicals.374
4. Cause damage to the property

of the National Museum or
National Library, or to any
archive or registry,
waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other
thing used in common by the
public.  
Art. 329. OTHER MISCHIEFS
Mischiefs not included in the next preceding article and are punished
according to the value of damage caused.
Art. 330. DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS

OF COMMUNICATION
1. Any person who shall damage 1. The object of the offender

any railway, telegraph or in this Article is merely to
telephone lines. cause damage. This Article
is not applicable when the
Qualifying circumstance: telegraph or telephone
Damage shall result in the lines do not pertain to
derailment of cars collision or railways.375
other accident
Art. 331. DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES,

PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS
Persons Liable
1. Any person who shall destroy or damage statues or any other

useful or ornamental public monuments.  
374
Reyes, supra. p. 893.
375

2. Any person who shall destroy or damage any useful or
ornamental painting of a public nature.
Art. 332. PERSONS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL

LIABILITY
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity on

the same line.
 
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have
passed to the possession of another.
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers in law and sisters in law, if

living together.  
Crimes Involved in the Exemption:
a. Theft 
b. Swindling 
c. Malicious mischief
Stepfather, adopted father, natural children, concubine, paramour

included as ascendants by affinity.376
TITLE ELEVEN - CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY

Art. 333. WHO ARE GUILTY OF ADULTERY
1. That the woman is married; 1. Carnal knowledge may be

  proved by circumstantial
2. That she has sexual evidence. 377
intercourse with a man not
her husband; and  2. The crime of adultery is an
instantaneous crime which is
3. That as regards the man with consummated and completed
whom she has sexual at the moment of the carnal
intercourse, he must know union. Each sexual intercourse
376
People v. Alvares, 52 Phil. 65.
377
U.S. v. Legaspi et al., 14 Phil. 38.

her to be married. constitutes a crime of adultery.
378
3. The gist of the crime of adultery

is the danger of introducing
spurious heirs into the family,
where the rights of the real
heirs may be impaired and a
man may be charged with the
maintenance of a family not his
own. 379
Art. 334. CONCUBINAGE

1. That the man must be married; 1. It is only when the mistress is

kept elsewhere (outside of the
2. That he committed any of the conjugal dwelling) that
following acts: “scandalous circumstances”
become an element of the
a. Keeping a mistress in the crime.380
conjugal  dwelling
(mistress must live therein 2. Where a married man and a
as such);   woman began their illicit
relations in 1937 and went to
b. Having sexual intercourse Naga where they dwelt together
under scandalous as husband and wife in the
circumstances with a house of one Alfonsa Toledo,
woman who is not his wife occupying one room in which
(proof of actual sexual they slept alone. It was held
relations not required as that his association with his co-
long as it can be inferred); accused is sufficient to
constitute a cohabitation within
c. Cohabiting with her in any the meaning of the law even
other place (as husband disregarding proofs of actual
and wife); and  sexual intercourse.381
378
People v. Zapata and Bondoc, 88 Phil. 688.
379
U.S. v. Mata, 18 Phil. 490.
380
U.S. v. Macabagbag et al., 31 Phil. 257.
381
Ocampo v. People, 72 Phil. 268.

3. As regards the woman, she
must know him to be
married.  
ARTICLE 335 has been repealed by REPUBLIC ACT NO.

8353, otherwise known as the “ANTI-RAPE LAW OF
1997” which took effect on OCTOBER 22, 1997.
Art. 336. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

1. That the offender commits 1. Compelling a girl to dance

any act of lasciviousness or naked before a group of men is
lewdness; an act of lasciviousness, even if
the dominant motive is
2. That the act of t is committed revenge, for her failure to pay
against a person of either sex; a debt.382
and
2. Kissing and embracing a
3. That it is done under any of woman against her will are
the following circumstances: acts of lasciviousness when
prompted by lust or lewd
a. By using force or design.383
intimidation;
  3. Placing a man’s private parts
b. When the offended party over a girl’s genital organ is an
is deprived of reason or act of lasciviousness.384
otherwise unconscious;  
4. In cases of acts of lasci-
c. By means of fraudulent viousness, it is not necessary
machination or grave that the intimidation or
abuse of authority;   physical force be irresistible, it
being sufficient that some
d. When the offended party violence or moral compulsion,
is under 12 years of age or equivalent to intimidation,
annuls or subdues the free
is demented.  
382
U.S. v. Bailoses, 2 Phil. 49.
383
People v. Mendoza, C.A. G.R. No. 14882-R.
384
U.S. v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145; People v. Domondon, C.A. 34 O.G. 1977.

exercise of the will of the
offended party.385
Art. 337. QUALIFIED SEDUCTION

Classes Jurisprudence
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 1. Domestic is distinct from a

years and under 18 years of age house servant. Because of the
by persons who abuse their intimacy and confidence
authority or the confidence existing among various
reposed.   members of a household,
opportunities for committing
2. Seduction of a sister by her seduction are more
brother or descendant by her frequent. 386
ascendant, regardless of her age

and reputation. 2. The term “domestic”
includes all those persons
Elements of Qualified Seduction residing with the family and
of a Virgin: who are members of the
same household, regardless
a. That the offended party is a of the fact that their
virgin;   residence may only be
temporary or that they may
b. She must be over 12 and under be paying for their board or
18 years of age;   lodging.387  
c. That the offender had sexual 3. The fact that the girl gave her
intercourse with her; and consent to the sexual
intercourse is no defense.
d. That there is abuse of authority,
confidence or relationship on 4. The seduction of a sister or
the part of the offender. descendant is known as
incest.
The following are the
OFFENDERS:
1. Those who abused their authority:
a. Persons in public authority
385
El Pueblo de Filipinas v. Pugay, C.A. 60 O.G. 211.
386
People v. Samillano, 56 SCRA 573.

b. Guardian  
c. Teacher  
d. Person who, in any capacity
is entrusted with the
education or custody of the
woman seduced
2. Those who abused confidence

reposed in them:
a. Priest 
b. House servant
c. Domestic
3. Those who abused their

relationship:
a. Brother who seduced his

sister  
b. Ascendant who seduced his
descendant  
Art. 338. SIMPLE SEDUCTION
1. That the offended party is over 1. Where the accused
12 and under 18 years of age;   endeavored to seduce the
girl and failing in the
2. That she must be of good attempt, he procured the
reputation, single or widow; performance of a fictitious
marriage ceremony and
3. That the offender has sexual thereafter, had sexual
intercourse with her; intercourse with her.388
4. That it is committed by means 2. The loss of virginity during

of deceit. the minority of the offended
party consummated the
offense, and the virginity of
a woman cannot be lost
twice. Hence, the carnal
relations had after the
complainant was over 18
388
U.S v. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109.

years does not constitute a
continuation of the offense
begun when she was under
18 years of age.389
3. The purpose of the statute

making seduction a crime is
not to punish illicit
intercourse but to punish
the seducer who by means
of a promise of marriage,
destroys the chastity of an
unmarried female of
previous chaste character,
and who thus draws her
aside from the path of virtue
and rectitude and then fails
and refuses to fulfill his
promise, a character
despicable in the eyes of
every decent, honorable
man.390
Art. 339. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE

CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
1. That the offender commits acts 1. The offended woman may
of lasciviousness or lewdness;  have consented to the acts
of lasciviousness being
2. That the acts are committed performed by the offender
upon a woman who is a virgin on her person, but the
or single or a widow of good consent is obtained by
reputation, under 18 years of abuse of authority,
age but over 12 years, or a confidence or relationship,
sister or descendant regardless or by means of deceit.391
of her reputation or age; and  
3. That the offender accomplishes
the acts by abuse of authority,
389
People v. Bautista, 12 O.G. 2405.
390
People v. Iman, 62 Phil. 92.
391

confidence, relationship or
deceit. 
Art. 340. CORRUPTION OF MINORS (as amended by

BP Blg. 92)
1. Any person who shall promote 1. What the law punishes is the
or facilitate the prostitution or act of a pimp who facilitates
corruption of persons under the corruption of, and not
age to satisfy the lust of the performance of unchaste
another. acts upon, the minor. A mere
proposal will consummate
the offense.392
ARTICLE 341. WHITE SLAVE TRADE

Acts Penalized Jurisprudence
1. Engaging in the business of 1. Once it is proved that the

prostitution; accused enlisted the services
of women for the purpose of
2. Profiting by prostitution; prostitution, he is criminally
liable even if there is no
3. Enlisting the services of proof that he shared in the
women for the purpose of profit. And even if there is no
prostitution. proof that he enlisted the
services of women for the
purpose of prostitution, he
would still be liable
criminally if he shared in the
income of the prostitutes.393
2. The presence of the
maintainer or manager of a
house of ill-repute at the
time of a raid or an arrest or
while the illicit traffic is
being conducted Is not a
condition to a criminal
392
Ibid,.p. 935.
393
People v. Nuevas, 76 Phil. 276.

prosecution against such
maintainer or manager.394
3. One who engaged the
services of a woman
ostensibly as a maid but in
reality, for purposes of
prostitution and who, in fact,
dedicated her to such
immoral purposes for profit,
is guilty of white slave
trade.395
Art. 342. FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
1. That the person abducted is a 1. Article 342 mentions “any

woman; regardless of her age, woman” as the victim of the
civil status, or reputation; crime of forcible abduction.
The forcible taking away of a
2. That the abduction is against married woman, the offender
her will; and having lewd designs, is
penalized under Article 342.
3. That the abduction is with lewd As in rape, the civil status, the
design.   age, and the reputation of the
woman are immaterial.396
Crimes against Chastity where
age and reputation of the 2. The taking away of the
victim are immaterial: woman is against her will,
when force or intimidation is
1. Rape; used by the offender. Thus,
where the accused forcibly
2. Acts of lasciviousness against dragged and carried a girl
the will of the offended party from the store she was
or against a sister or tending and took her to a
descendant; waiting carretela while she
3. Qualified Seduction of sister or resisted and cried for help
descendant; and, once inside the vehicle,
ordered the driver to speed
4. Forcible Abduction away, and in the carretela, the
accused forcibly embraced
394
People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 12875-R.
395
People v. Isidro, C.A. 51 O.G. 215.
396
People v. Torres et al., 62 Phil. 942.

and handled her against her
will, the taking away of the
girl with lewd designs was
against her will.397
Art. 343. CONSENTED ABDUCTION

1. That the offended party must 1. The virginity referred to this

be a virgin; Article is not to be
understood in so material a
2. That she must be over 12 and sense as to exclude the idea
under 18 years if age;   of abduction of a virtuous
woman of good reputation.
3. That the taking away of the Thus, even if the accused had
offended party must be with sexual intercourse with the
her consent, after solicitation girl before they eloped, there
or cajolery from the offender; is still a case of consented
and  abduction.398 But when the
offended party had carnal
4. That the taking away of the knowledge with other men,
offended party must be with the chaste character of the
lewd design. girl is open to question.399
2. If the offended party is un-

der 12 years of age, the crime
committed is forcible
abduction, even if the girl
agrees to the elopement. 400
3. The offended girl, 15 years

old, was on her way to her
aunt’s house to spend a few
days there. Through
cunning, and possibly by
deceit and cajolery, the
accused succeed in
persuading the girl to go with
397
People v. Castillo et al., 76 Phil. 839.
398
U.S. v. Casten, 34 Phil. 808.
399
U.S. v. Suan, 27 Phil. 12.
400

him to a place in order to
enjoy her and satisfy his
carnal lust.401
Art. 344. PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMES OF
ADULTERY, CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION,
ABDUCTION, RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
1. Adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon the complaint

signed by the offended spouse.
2. Seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness must be prosecuted

upon the complaint signed by the: (a) offended party; (b) her
parents; (c) grandparents; or (d) guardians.
If a minor or incapacitated and refuses to file either of the

next succeeding persons may file:
a. Either of the parents;  

b. Either of the grandparents whether paternal or maternal side;
c. Legal or judicial guardians;  
d. The State, as parens patriae when the offended party dies or
becomes incapacitated before she could file the complaint and
she has no known parents, grandparents or guardians.
Art. 345. CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS GUILTY OF

CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Persons who are guilty of rape, seduction or abduction shall also be

sentenced:
a. To indemnify the offended woman;

b. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent
him from doing so;
c. In every case, support offspring.
EXCEPT:
1. In adultery and concubinage since only a natural child may be

acknowledged;
401
People v. Ignacio, C.A. 44 O.G. 2291.

2. Where either the offended party or the accused is married;
3. When paternity cannot be determined as in multiple rape; and
4. Other instances where the law should prevent the offender from
doing so.
Art. 346. LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS, GUARDIANS,

TEACHERS, OR OTHER PERSONS ENTRUSTED WITH
THE CUSTODY OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
Persons who cooperate as accomplices but are punished as principals

in rape, seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, acts of
lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party, corruption of
minors, white slave trade:
a. Ascendants,
b. Guardians,
c. Curators, teachers, and 
d. Any person, who cooperates as accomplice with abuse of
authority or confidential relationship.

9
TITLE TWELVE - CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL
STATUS OF PERSONS
Art. 347. SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF
ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, CONCEALMENT OR
ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD
1. Simulation of births; 1. The commission of any of the

acts defined in Article 347,
2. Substitution of one child for must have for its object, the
another; creation of a false civil status.
The purpose is to cause the
3. Concealing or abandoning any loss of any trace as to the
legitimate child with intent to filiation of the child. The
cause such child to lose its civil child, whose birth the woman
status: feigns, loses its civil status in
the family of the woman who
Requisites: has really given its birth and
acquires through fraud,
a. The child must be another status to which it has
legitimate; no right. The same may be
said with reference to the
b. The offender conceals or substitution of one child for
abandons such child; and another.402
c. The offender has the intent 2. The simulation of birth takes

to cause such child to lose place when the woman
its civil status. pretends to be pregnant
when, in fact, she is not, and
on the day of the supposed
delivery, takes the child of
another as her own. In this
case, the woman introduces a
stranger in the family and
defrauds the legitimate heirs.
The woman who simulates
birth and the one who
furnishes the child are both
responsible as principals.403
402
403
Ibid.

Art. 348. USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
Usurping the civil status of another 1. The crime is committed when

is committed by assuming the a person represents himself to
filiation, or the parental or conjugal be another and assumes the
rights of another with intent to filiation or the parental or
enjoy the rights arising from the conjugal rights of such
civil status of the latter. another person.
Qualified if the purpose is to

defraud offended parties and heirs.
Art. 349. BIGAMY

1. That the offender is legally 1. One who contracted a

married; subsequent marriage before
the declaration of
2. That the marriage has not been presumptive death of the
dissolved or, in case the spouse absent spouse is guilty of
is absent, the absent spouse bigamy.404
could not yet be presumed
dead according to the Civil 2. If the witness vouched for the
Code; capacity of either of the
contracting parties, knowing
3. That he contracts a second that one of the parties was
marriage or subsequent already married, he is liable
marriage; and as accomplice. But if the
witness merely attested to
4. That the second or subsequent the marriage ceremony and
marriage has all the essential did not vouch nor assert
requisites for validity. anything as to the personal
condition of the contracting
parties, he is not liable.405
404
People v. Dungao, G.R. No. 34330.
405
U.S. v. Gaoiran, 17 Phil. 404.

Art. 350. MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST
PROVISIONS OF LAWS (Illegal Marriage)
1. That the offender contracted 1. The accused is guilty of this

marriage; and   Article when he contracted
marriage knowing that he did
2. That he knew at the time that: not secure a marriage license
which is one of the
a. The requirements of the law requirements of the law.406
were not complied with; or 
b. The marriage was in
disregard of a legal
impediment.  
Qualified if either of the contracting

party obtains the consent of the
other by means of violence,
intimidation or fraud.
Art. 351. PREMATURE MARRIAGES

1. A widow who married within 1. If the ordinary duration of the

301 days from the date of the pregnancy of the woman is
death of her husband, or before nine months and some days,
having delivered if she is a tardy birth is not an
pregnant at the time of his death. impossibility. The law in
  fixing the said 301 days (10
2. A woman whose marriage having months) admits the
been annulled or dissolved, possibility that a woman may
married before delivery or before be in pregnancy for more
expiration of the period of 301 than nine months. This
days after the date of legal provision is intended to
separation.   prevent confusion in
connection with filiation and
paternity, in as much as the
widow might have conceived
406
People v. Peralta, C.A. G.R. No. 13130-R.

and become pregnant by her
late husband.407
Art. 352. PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE
CEREMONY
Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil

authorities who shall perform or authorize any legal ceremony shall be
punished under the Marriage Law.
Art. 352 presupposes that the priest or minister or civil authority is

authorized to solemnize marriages. If the accused is not authorized to
solemnize marriage and he performs an illegal marriage ceremony, he is
liable under Art. 177 (usurpation of authority or public function).
407
U.S. v. Dulay, 10 Phil. 305.

TITLE THIRTEEN - CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Art. 353. DEFINITION OF LIBEL
1. That there must be an 1. The enjoyment of a private

imputation of a crime, or a vice reputation is as much a
or defect, real or imaginary, or constitutional right as the
any act, omission, condition, possession of life, liberty or
status or circumstance;   property. It is one of those
rights necessary to human
2. That the imputation must be society that underlie the
made publicly;   whole scheme of civilization.
The law recognizes the value
3. That it must be malicious;   of such reputation and
imposes upon him who
4. That the imputation must be attacks, by slanderous
directed at a natural person or a words or libelous
juridical person, or one who is publications, the liability to
make full compensation for
dead; and 
the damages done.408
5. That the imputation must tend 2. A charge is sufficient if the
to cause the dishonor, discredit,
words are calculated to
or contempt of the person induce the hearers to
defamed. suppose and understand
that the person against
whom they were uttered was
guilty of certain offenses, or
are sufficient to impeach the
honesty, virtue or
reputation, or to hold him
up to public ridicule.409
3. Sending to the wife, a

letter-defamatory of her
husband, is sufficient
publication.410 Writing a
408
Worcester v. Ocampo, 22 Phil. 42.
409
US v. O’Connell, 37 Phil. 767.
410
U.S. v. Ubnana, 1 Phil. 471.

letter to another person
other than the person
defamed is sufficient to
constitute publication, for
the person to whom the
letter is addressed is a third
person in relation to its
writer and the person
defamed therein.411
Note: The person defamed is

the husband, and the wife is the
third person to whom
publication is made.
Art. 354. REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,

even if it be true. The presumption is rebutted if it is shown by
the accused that –
1. The defamatory imputation is true, in case the law allows proof of

the truth of the imputation (see Art. 361);  
2. It is published with good intention; and 
3. There is justifiable motive for making it.  
MALICE is not presumed in the following cases involving

qualifiedly privileged communication:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the

performance of any legal, moral or social duty.  
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other proceedings which are
not of confidential nature or of any statement, report, or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by
public officers in the exercise of their functions.
411
Orfanel v.People, 30 SCRA 819.

Reason for the doctrine of privileged communication: It is
based upon the recognition of the fact that the right of the individual to
enjoy immunity from the publication of untruthful charges derogatory
to his character is not absolute and must at times yield to the superior
necessity of subjecting to investigation the conduct of persons charged
with wrongdoing. In order to accomplish this purpose and to permit
private persons having or in good faith, believing themselves to have
knowledge of such wrongdoing, to perform the legal, moral, or social
duty, without restraining them by the fear that an error may subject
them to punishment for defamation, the doctrine of qualified privilege
has been evolved.412
Two (2) Kinds of Privileged Communication:
1. Absolute Privileged Communication
Requisites:
a. 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 upheld;
b. That the communication is addressed to an officer or a board,

or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter; and
c. That the statements in the communication are made in good

faith and without malice.
2. Conditional or Qualified Communication
Requisites:
a. That it is fair and true report of a judicial, legislative, or other

official proceedings which are not of a confidential nature, or
of a statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings,
or of any other act performed by a public officer in the
exercise of his functions;
b. That it is made in good faith; and 
c. That it is without any comments or remarks.
412
U.S. v. Bustos et al. 37 Phil. 731; U.S. v. Canete et al. 38 Phil. 253.

MALICE in fact – how proved: The existence of malice in fact may
be shown by extrinsic evidence that the defendant bore a grudge against
the offended party, or that there was rivalry or ill-feeling between them
which existed at the date of publication of the defamatory imputation, or
that the defendant had an intention to injure the reputation of the
offended party as shown by the words used and the circumstances
attending the publication of the defamatory imputation.
Republic Act No. 4200, “The Anti-Wire Tapping Act”

(June 19, 1965)
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication or spoken word:
1. To tap any wire or cable, or
2. By using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,

intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a
device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictagraph or
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however
otherwise described.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the

act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence:
1. To knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or

any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of
this Acct in the manner prohibited by this law; or
2. To replay the same for any other person or persons; or
3. To communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing;

or
4. To furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to

any other person.
Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence
in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in
section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.

Art. 355. LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITINGS OR SIMILAR
MEANS
By means of: 1. The information alleges that

the utterances of the
a. Writing defamatory words
b. Printing complained of had been
c. Lithography made in the television
d. Engraving program. Libel was
e. Radio committed by a means
f. Phonograph similar to those mentioned
g. Painting in Article 355, among which,
h. Theatrical exhibitions are “radio, phonograph x x x
i. Cinematographic exhibitions theatrical exhibition,
j. Or any similar means cinematographic exhibition,
or any similar means.” While
the medium of television is
not expressly mentioned
among the means specified
in the law, it easily qualifies
under the general provision
“or any similar means.”413
Art. 356. THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO
PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A
COMPENSATION
1. By threatening another to 1. Blackmail may be defined

publish a libel concerning him, as any unlawful extortion of
or his parents, spouse, child, or money by threats of
other members of his family; accusation or exposure. Two
words are expressive of the
2. By offering to prevent the crime-hush money.414
publication of such libel for
compensation, or money 2. The accused threatened to
consideration. publish in a weekly
periodical, certain letters,
413
People v. Casten et al, C.A. G. R. No. 07924-CR.
414 U.S. v. Eguia et al., 38 Phil. 857.

amorous in nature, written
by a married woman and
addressed by her to a man,
not her husband, unless she
paid Php4,000.00 to
them.415
Art. 357. PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS
REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS
1. That the offender is a reporter,
editor, or manager of a 1. The provisions of Article 357
newspaper daily or magazine; constitute the so-called “Gag
Law.” Newspaper reports on
2. That he publishes facts cases pertaining to adultery,
connected with the private life of divorce, issues about the
another; and legitimacy of children, etc.
will necessarily be barred
3. That such facts are offensive to from publication. 416
the honor, virtue and reputation
of said person. 2. A suit for alimony refers to
the private life of a person,
This article requires two things to but it is not offensive to the
constitute a violation of the honor of such person. 417
prohibition:
3. While pending trial of a case,
a. That the article published the local weekly edited by
contains facts connected with the accused published the
the private life of an complaint verbatim,
individual; and including the defamatory
expressions against a priest,
b. That such facts are offensive that is, the latter is a savage;
to the honor, virtue and carabao; had a concubine;
reputation of said person. and collected alms for
himself, not for the town.
These two requisites must concur. If The Court ruled that the
one of them is not present, there is accused is held liable for this
no violation of Article 357. Article. Had the offended
415
Ibid.
416
417
Ibid.

party been a person holding
a public office and the acts
imputed had relation to the
discharge of his official
duties, the situation would
be different.418
Republic Act No. 1477, “Exempting the Publisher, Editor
or Reporter Of Any Publication From Revealing the
Source of Published News Or Information Obtained in
Confidence”
A newspaper reporter cannot be compelled to reveal the source of the

news report he made, unless the Court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the
state.
While the news story about the alleged leakage of bar examination
questions affects the interest of the State, it does nto involve the security
of the State.419
Art. 358. SLANDER 

Kinds of Oral Defamation Jurisprudence
1. Simple slander 1. The gravity of the oral

defamation depends on: (a)
2. Grave slander, when it is of a the expressions used; (b)
serious and insulting nature personal relations of the
accused and the offended
party; and (c) circumstances
surrounding the case.420
2. The social standing and the

position of the offended party
are also taken into account.
Thus, it was held that the
slander was grave because
the offended party had held
previously the office of
418
People v. Dino, C.A.G.R. No. 8822.
419
People v. Parazo, 82 Phil. 230.
420
People v. Jaring, C.A. 40 O.G. 3683.

Congressman, Governor, and
Senator and was then a
candidate for Vice-
President.421 
3. Words uttered in the heat of

anger or when passions are
running high, and not taken
seriously by the offended
party, although they are
clearly serious oral
defamation under ordinary
circumstances, constitute
only slight oral
defamation.422
4. The word “puta” alleged to

have been uttered by the
defendant in referring to the
offended party does not
necessarily connote the crime
of prostitution, as defined in
Article 202 of the Revised
Penal Code.423
Art. 359. SLANDER BY DEED

1. That the offender performs any 1. The act of slapping a Catholic

act not included in any other priest before a large
crime against honor;   congregation while
officiating at a solemn
2. That such act is performed in religious ceremony invested
the presence of other persons; with sacerdotal dignity
constitutes slander by
3. That such act cast dishonor, deed.424
421
People v. Boiser, C.A. 53 O.G. 2202.
422
People v. Doronila, C.A. 40 O.G. Supp. 11, 231.
423
People v. Atienza, G.R. No. L-19857.
424
People v. Nosce, 60 Phil. 895.

discredit, or contempt upon the
offended party. 2. A street fight may give rise to
slander by deed, if the
Slander by Deed is of two intention of the defendant in
kinds: engaging the complainant to
a fight is to insult and bring
1. Simple slander by deed;   his opponent into contempt
in the eyes of the public.425
2. Grave slander by deed, that is,
which is of a serious nature.
Art. 360. PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL

1. The person who publishes, 1. The editor of a daily

exhibits or causes the newspaper, magazine or
publication or exhibition of any serial publication is liable
defamation in writing or similar for the defamations
means; contained therein to the
same extent as if he were
2. The author or editor of a book or the author thereof.426
pamphlet;
2. Lack of participation in the
3. The editor or business manager preparation of libelous
of a daily newspaper magazine articles does not shield the
or serial publication; and persons responsible for libel
from liability.427
4. The owner of the printing plant
which publishes a libelous article
with his consent and all other
persons who in any way
participate in or have connection
with its publication.
Art. 361. PROOF OF TRUTH
Admissible in any of the 1. The proof of the truth of

following: the accusation cannot be
425
U.S. v. Kanleon, 6 Phil. 489.
426
People v. Bailo et al., C.A. 37 O.G. 2373.
427
Tulfo v. People, G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008.

made to rest upon mere
1. When the act or omission hearsay, rumors or suspicion.
imputed constitutes a crime It must rest upon positive,
regardless of whether the direct evidence upon which a
offended party is a private definite finding may be made
individual or a public officer.   by the Court. 428 But probable
cause for belief in the truth of
2. When the offended party is a the statement is sufficient. 429
Government employee, even if
the imputation does not
constitute a crime, provided it is
related to the discharge of his
official duties.
Art. 362. LIBELOUS REMARKS

Jurisprudence
Libelous remarks or comments 1. The author or the editor of a

connected with the matter privileged publication who distorts,
under the provisions of Art. 354, if mutilates or discolors the
made with malice, shall not exempt official proceedings reported
the author thereof nor the editor or by him, or add comments
managing editor of a newspaper thereon to cast aspersion on
from criminal liability. the character of the parties
concerned is guilty of libel,
notwithstanding the fact that
the defamatory matter is
published in connection with
a privileged matter.430
428
U.S. v. Sotto, 38 Phil. 666.
429
430
Dorr v. U.S., 11 Phil. 706.

Art. 363. INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSONS
1. That the offender performs an 1. This article is limited to acts

act;   of “planting” evidence and
the like, which do not in
2. That by such act he directly themselves constitute false
incriminates or imputes to an prosecutions but tend
innocent person the commission directly to cause false
of a crime; and  prosecutions.431
3. That such act does not constitute

perjury.
Art. 364. INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR

Committed by any person who shall 1. Intriguing against honor is

make any intrigue which has for its any scheme or plot
principal purpose to blemish the designed to blemish the
honor or reputation of another reputation of a person by
person. means which consist of some
trickery. It is akin to slander by
This refers to such intrigues against deed, in that the offender does
a person’s honor or reputation which not avail directly of written or
are not otherwise punished under spoken words, pictures or
other articles of this Code. caricatures to ridicule his
victim but of some ingenious,
crafty and secret plot,
producing the same effect.432
431
People v. Rivera, 59 Phil. 236.
432
People v. Fontanilla, 56 O.G. 1931.

TITLE FOURTEEN - QUASI-OFFENSES
Art. 365. IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
1. By committing through reckless 1. For firing a warning shot in

imprudence any act which, had it the air without the least
been intentional, would intention of causing injury to
constitute a grave or less grave anyone, but without taking
felony or light felony; the necessary precaution
demanded by the
2. By committing through simple circumstances as to time and
imprudence or negligence an act place, and, in the process, hit
which would otherwise constitute and killed a bystander, the
a grave or less serious felony;   accused, who is a policeman,
is liable under Article 365 of
3. By causing damage to the the Revised Penal Code for
property of another through homicide through reckless
reckless imprudence or simple imprudence.433
imprudence or negligence;  
2. In accordance with the
4. By causing through simple doctrine of “Last Clear
imprudence or negligence some Chance”, the contributory
wrong which, if done maliciously, negligence of the party
would have constituted a light injured will not defeat the
felony. action if it be shown that the
accused might, by the
Reckless Imprudence – consists exercise of reasonable care
in voluntarily but without malice, and prudence, have avoided
doing or failing to do an act from the consequences of the
which material damage results by negligence of the injured
reason of inexcusable lack of party.434
precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform such 3. The fact that another truck
act, taking into consideration his was parked on the wrong
employment or occupation, degree of side of the road bears no
intelligence, physical condition and influence to relieve the
other circumstances regarding accused from criminal
persons, time and place. liability, because despite that
433
People v. Cusi, C.A. 68 O.G. 2777.
434
People v. Quinones, C.A. 44 O.G. 1520.

Elements of Reckless admitted fact, the accused
Imprudence: had time and opportunity to
avoid the mishap if he had
1. That the offender does or fails to been sufficiently careful and
do an act; cautious. 435
2. That the doing of or the failure to
4. The act of a motorist in
do that act is voluntary;
attempting to pass a car in
3. That it be without malice;  front of him at a moment
when another vehicle is
4. That material damage results; approaching constitutes
and gross negligence and renders
5. That there is inexcusable lack of him liable for any damage
precaution on the part of the resulting from said act. The
person performing or failing to “Emergency” rule cannot be
perform such act taking into applied to exempt him from
consideration – liability, because there is
proof of negligence on his
a. Employment or occupation;   part. 436
b. Degree of intelligence,
5. The allegations in the
physical condition; and 
information that the accused
c. Other circumstances acted with reckless
regarding persons, time and imprudence and negligence
place. in diagnosing and treating
the deceased, knowing that
Simple Imprudence – consists in she did not possess the
the lack of precaution displayed in necessary technical
those cases in which the damage knowledge or skill to do so,
impending to be caused is not thus, causing his death,
immediate nor the danger clearly sufficiently charge the crime
manifest. of homicide through reckless
imprudence, since ordinary
Elements of Simple diligence counsels her not to
Imprudence: tamper with human life by
trying to treat a sick man.437
1. That there is lack of precaution
on the part of the offender;  
2. That the damage impending to be
435
People v. Lopez, C.A. 44 O.G. 584.
436
People v. Santos et al., C.A. 44 O.G. 1289.
437
People v. Vda. de Golez, 108 Phil. 855.

caused is not immediate nor the
danger clearly manifest.
Note: Failing to lend help is a

qualifying circumstance except Sec.
55 of RA 4136, the driver can leave
his vehicle without aiding the victims
if:
1. He is in imminent danger of
being harmed; 
2. He wants to report to the nearest
officer of the law; or  
3. He desires to summon a
physician or a nurse for medical
assistance to the injured.

CHAPTER II
PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR MOST COMMON CRIMES
2.1 Murder 1.Testimony of eyewitness who

saw the incident/killing, to
identify the accused as the
perpetrator;
2. Death certificate or, in its
absence, testimony of witness
who will testify on the death
of the victim;
3. Testimony of doctor who
conducted the post mortem
examination; and
4. Weapon used.
2.1.1 Murder, Homicide 1. Certified true/machine copy

and Parricide of the certificate of death of
the victim;
2. Police Report;
3. Certificate of post-mortem
examination, if readily
available; and
4. Marriage certificate in
parricide cases.
Treachery:
1. Testimony of witness/es who

will testify:
a. On the time and manner
of the attack;
b. The weapon used;
c. Condition of the victim
(e.g., sleeping);
d. Identify the accused as the
perpetrator;
2. Testimony of a doctor to
describe the injuries;
3. Testimony of the police
investigator to testify on
recovered object evidence, if

any.
Evident Premeditation:
1. Testimony of witness/es
who will testify:
a. On the incident or
killing;
b. On previous incidents
between the accused
and the victim, if any;
c. On the planning of the
killing, if any;
d. Showing the lapse of
time from the time he
witnessed or heard
the threat or previous
altercation between the
accused and the victim;
and
2. Testimony of doctor to
describe the injuries.
2.1.2 Frustrated or Attempted

Murder, Homicide and 1. Medical certificate of the
Parricide complaining witness showing
the nature or extent of the
injury and duration of
healing;
2. Certification or statement as
to duration of the treatment
or medical attendance;
3. Certificate or statement as to
duration of incapacity for
work; and
4. Marriage certificate in
frustrated or attempted
parricide cases.

2.2 Bouncing Checks Law 1. Returned/dishonored check
with stamp Drawn Against
Insufficient Funds (DAIF) or
Closed Account;
2. Bank certificate stating
closed account or lack of
funds;
3. Demand letter, notice of
dishonor, proof of receipt of
notice of dishonor; and
4. Testimony of payee that the
accused issued the check for
value; and identification of
the accused.
2.3 Grave Coercion 1. Testimony of the

complaining witness and
corroborating witness.
2.4 Grave Threats 1. Testimony of the victim

and/or his family member
threatened;
2. If threat was made through a
letter, SMS or social network
– letter, screen shot of the text
or post on the social network;
3. Object evidence like black
ribbon, polo barong,
mourning pin, bullet, etc.;
4. Testimony or evidence
identifying the accused as the
perpetrator.
.
2.5 Theft
1. Testimony of the victim to
testify about (1) how the item
was stolen; (2) the value of
the item; (3) how it was
recovered (i.e. from the
pawnshop);
2. Proof of ownership like
receipts; photo of victim in

possession of the item;
3. Testimony of a witness,
preferably the police
investigator, that there was
no forced entry.
2.6 Rape 1. Testimony of the victim who

will testify on the
circumstances and identify
the accused as the
perpetrator;
2. Testimony of the doctor;
3. Medico-legal report;
4. Photographs of the injury, if
any;
5. Torn clothing, sperm, blood,
DNA, if available.
For Statutory Rape:

a. Birth Certificate or, if not
available, other relevant
documents like baptismal
certificate, school records,
dental records, psychiatric
evaluation report or a
certificate from a
developmental pediatrician
if 18 years old but mental
capacity is below 12 years;
b. Testimony of the doctor.
2.7 Drugs 1. Testimony of the police officer

or poseur buyer, in case of
sale;
2. Inventory list of confiscated
drug;
3. Request for examination of
the confiscated drug;
4. Chemists report;
5. Chain of custody form
originating from the police
and the crime laboratory;
6. Photograph of the accused
taken during the inventory

together with the other
witnesses (preferably photos
of the accused with the seized
drugs; photos of witnesses
signing the inventory of seized
drugs and other items; photo
of the items with markings;
photo of the accused with the
arresting officer; and
7. The drug itself.
Different links that the

prosecution must establish to
preserve the identity and
integrity of seized drugs:
1. The seizure and marking of

the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
2. The turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
3. The turnover by the
investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory
examination; and
4. The turnover and sub-
mission of the marked illegal
drug seized by the forensic
chemist to the court.438
2.8 Illegal Recruitment 1. Certification from Philippine

Overseas Employment
Administration that accused
has no license to engage in
recruitment;
2. Testimony of the victim or
witness testifying that the
accused engaged in
438 People vs. Dacuma, 750 SCRA 65 (2015).

recruitment;
3. Receipt for payment of
recruitment fee;
advertisement for recruitment
address; office;
4. Pictures, e-mail offers;
website
2.9 Anti-Violence Against 1. Birth certificate, marriage

Women and Their certificate, baptismal cer-
Children (VAWC) Act tificate, school records;
of 2004 (R.A. No. 2. Testimony of victims, other
9262) witness; photos of the victim
and the accused;
3. Psychological report or
medical reports;
Violation of RA 9262 (VAWC):
a. Marriage contract/
certificate; or
b. Affidavit/evidence of
“dating relationship”, if
applicable; and
c. Barangay protection order
(BPO), if any.
In case where the

victim/offender is a minor,
the inquest prosecutor shall
require the submission of the
following:
a. Birth certificate; or
b. Dental chart accompanied
by a certification from the
dentist; or
c. Affidavits of any of the
parent/disinterested
parties;
d. Certificate of discernment
from the DSWD in cases
covered by RA 9344 (“The
Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act”).

2.10 Estafa 1. Testimony of the victim and
corroborating testimony;
2. E-mail, texts, social media
postings;
3. Contract, checks, trust
receipts;
4. Demand letter/proof of
demand; proof of receipt of
the demand letter.
2.11 Violation of the Anti- 1. A list/inventory of the

Piracy and Anti- articles and items subject of
Highway Robbery Law the offense; and
(PD 532) and Violation 2. Statement of their respective
of the Anti-Fencing Law values.
(PD 1612)
2.12 Violation of the Anti- 1. Machine copy of the

Carnapping Law (RA certificate of motor vehicle
6539) registration;
2. Machine copy of the current
official receipt of payment of
the registration fees of the
subject motor vehicle;
3. Photograph of the vehicle, if
readily available;
4. Certification from the Traffic
Management Group/Land
Transportation Office; and
5. Other evidence of ownership.
2.13. Violation of the Anti- 1. Machine copy of the cattle

Cattle Rustling Law (PD certificate of registration;
533) and
2. Photograph of the cattle, if
available.

2.14 Violation of Illegal 1. Gambling paraphernalia;
Gambling Law (PD 2. Photograph of the gambling
1602) paraphernalia, if any; and
3. Cash money, if any.
2.15 Illegal Possession of 1. Chemistry report duly

Firearms, signed by the forensic
Ammunitions and chemist; and
Explosives (P.D. 1866, 2. Photograph of the
as amended by RA explosives, if readily
8294) available; and
3. Ballistics report, if readily
available.
2.16 Violation of the 1. Photograph of the

Fisheries Code of the confiscated fish, if readily
Philippines (R.A. No. available;
8850, as amended by 2. Photograph of fishing
R.A. No. 10654) paraphernalia, if any; and
3. Certification from the
Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources.
2.17 Violation of Blue, 1. Mission Order, if any;

Brown and Green 2. Sworn Statements in
Laws question and answer form of
the arresting officers and
witnesses;
3. Pictures : locally showing the
scene of the crime.

CHAPTER III
UPDATES ON SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
Section 3.1. TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS: REPUBLIC ACT

NO. 9208, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10364, OR
THE EXPANDED ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF
2012.
A. Applicable Law
The primary domestic law that punishes human trafficking is

Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, or
the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.
B. Definition of Trafficking in Persons
Conceptually, trafficking in persons as defined under Section 3 of

Republic Act No. 9208, as amended, consists of three elements: the
act, means, and purpose:
a) Act (what is done)

1. Recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt
of persons
b) Means (how it is done)

1. With or without the victim’s consent or knowledge
2. Within or across national borders
3. By means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position,
taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the
giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another person
c) Purpose (why it is done)

1. For the purpose of exploitation
2. Which includes, at a minimum, the exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation,
forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or
sale of organs.
When the victim of trafficking is a child, the means become

irrelevant. The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring,
adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when
the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative
purposes shall also be considered as trafficking in persons even if it

does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding
paragraph.
Punishable Acts Under R.A. 9208 as amended by R.A. 10364
a. Acts of Trafficking in Persons, Sec. 4

b. Attempted Trafficking in Persons, Sec. 4-A
c. Acting as Accomplice, Sec. 4-B
d. Acting as Accessories, Sec. 4-C
e. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons, Sec. 5
f. Qualified Trafficking in Persons, Sec. 6
g. Use of Trafficked Persons, Sec. 11
h. Violation of Confidentiality, Sec. 7
C. Acts of Trafficking in Persons (Sec. 4)
It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any

of the following acts of trafficking in persons:
a) Trafficking for prostitution, pornography or sexual

exploitation
Sec. 4(a) - To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer, transport,

transfer, maintain, harbor, or receive a person by any means,
including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation;
Sec. 4(d) - To undertake or organize tours and travel plans

consisting of tourism packages or activities for the purpose of
utilizing and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or
sexual exploitation;
Sec. 4(e) - To maintain or hire a person to engage in

prostitution or pornography;
b) Trafficking for labor exploitation
Sec. 4(j) - To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, obtain,

maintain, offer, hire, provide or receive a person by means
defined in Section 3 of this Act for purposes of forced labor,
slavery, debt bondage and involuntary servitude, including a
scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person either:

(1) To believe that if the person did not perform such labor or
services, he or she or another person would suffer serious
harm or physical restraint; or
(2) To abuse or threaten the use of law or the legal processes;
c) Trafficking through marriage
Sec. 4(b) - To introduce or match for money, profit, or material,

economic or other consideration, any person or, as provided for
under Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign
national, for marriage in exchange for the purpose of acquiring,
buying, offering, selling or trading him to engage in prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
Sec. 4(c) - To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the

purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or trading them to
engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
d) Trafficking through adoption
Sec. 4(f) - To adopt persons by any form of consideration for

exploitative purposes or to facilitate the same for purposes of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
Sec. 4(g) - To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the

purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
e) Trafficking for removal or sale of organs
Sec. 4(h) - To recruit, hire, adopt, transport, transfer, obtain,

harbor, maintain, provide, offer, receive or abduct a person, by
means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence, coercion,
or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said
person;
f) Trafficking of children
Sec. 4(i) - To recruit, transport, obtain, transfer, harbor, maintain,

offer, hire, provide, receive or adopt a child to engage in armed
activities in the Philippines or abroad;

Sec. 4(k) - To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain, transfer,
maintain, hire, offer, provide, adopt or receive a child for purposes
of exploitation or trading them, including but not limited to, the
act of baring and/or selling a child for any consideration or for
barter for purposes of exploitation. Trafficking for purposes of
exploitation of children shall include:
1. All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, involuntary

servitude, debt bondage and forced labor, including
recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
2. The use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for

the production of pornography, or for pornographic
performances;
3. The use, procuring or offering of a child for the production

and trafficking of drugs; and
4. The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal activities or

work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is
carried out, is likely to harm their health, safety or morals;
and
g) Organizing or directing others to commit acts of

trafficking
Sec. 4(l) - To organize or direct other persons to commit the

offenses defined as acts of trafficking under this Act.
PENALTY FOR ACTS OF TRAFFICKING, SEC.

10(A):
Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and a fine of not less

than One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) but not more
than Two Million Pesos (Php2,000,000.00)
D. Attempted Trafficking in Persons (Sec. 4-A)
1. Elements of Attempted Trafficking
a. Where there are acts to initiate the commission of a trafficking

offense;
b. But the offender failed to or did not execute all the elements of the

crime;
i. by accident, or
ii. by reason of some cause other than voluntary desistance.
2. Attempted trafficking of children
In cases where the victim is a child, any of the following acts shall also
be deemed as attempted trafficking in persons:
a. Facilitating the travel of a child who travels alone to a foreign

country or territory without valid reason therefor and without the
required clearance or permit from the Department of Social
Welfare and Development, or a written permit or justification
from the child’s parent or legal guardian;
b. Executing, for a consideration, an affidavit of consent or a written

consent for adoption;
c. Recruiting a woman to bear a child for the purpose of selling the

child;
d. Simulating a birth for the purpose of selling the child; and
e. Soliciting a child and acquiring the custody thereof through any

means from among hospitals, clinics, nurseries, daycare centers,
refugee or evacuation centers, and low-income families, for the
purpose of selling the child.
PENALTY FOR ATTEMPTED TRAFFICKING,

SEC. 10(B):
Imprisonment of fifteen (15) years and a fine of not less than

Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) but not
more than One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00)
E. Acting as Accomplice (Sec. 4-B)
Whoever knowingly aids, abets, cooperates in the execution of the

offense by previous or simultaneous acts defined in this Act shall be
punished in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(c) of this
Act.

PENALTY FOR ACCOMPLICES, SEC. 10(C):

Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) but not
more than One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00)
F. Acting as Accessory (Sec. 4-C)
Whoever has the knowledge of the commission of the crime, and

without having participated therein, either as principal or as
accomplices, takes part in its commission in any of the following
manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the

effects of the crime;
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or effects or

instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
3. By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal

of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his or her
public functions or is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime.
PENALTY FOR ACCESSORIES, SEC. 10(D):
Imprisonment of fifteen (15) years and a fine of not less

than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00)
but not more than One Million Pesos
(Php1,000,000.00)
G. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons (Sec. 5)
The following acts which promote or facilitate trafficking in persons,

shall be unlawful:
1. Leasing, sub-leasing or allowing the use of premises
Sec. 5(a) - To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used

any house, building or establishment for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons.
2. Producing, printing, issuing or distributing unissued,

tampered or fake documents
Sec. 5(b) - To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued,

tampered or fake counseling certificates, registration stickers,
overseas employment certificates or other certificates of any
government agency which issues these certificates, decals and
such other markers as proof of compliance with government
regulatory and pre-departure requirements for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons.
3. Engaging in propaganda activities to promote

trafficking
Sec. 5(c) - To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or

cause the advertisement, publication, printing, broadcasting or
distribution by any means, including the use of information
technology and the internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any
propaganda material that promotes trafficking in persons.
4. Assisting in misrepresentation or fraud in acquiring

clearances and exit documents
Sec. 5(d) - To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud

for purposes of facilitating the acquisition of clearances and
necessary exit documents from government agencies that are
mandated to provide pre-departure registration and services for
departing persons for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons.
5. Facilitating the exit and entry of persons
Sec. 5(e) - To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of

persons from/to the country at international and local airports,
territorial boundaries and seaports who are in possession of
unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons.
6. Preventing or restricting movement or seeking redress
Sec. 5(f) - To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel

documents, or personal documents or belongings of trafficked
persons in furtherance of trafficking or to prevent them from
leaving the country or seeking redress from the government or
appropriate agencies.

Sec. 5(i) - To destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate or possess, or
attempt to destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate or possess, any
actual or purported passport or other travel, immigration or
working permit or document, or any other actual or purported
government identification, of any person in order to prevent or
restrict, or attempt to prevent or restrict, without lawful authority,
the person’s liberty to move or travel in order to maintain the
labor or services of that person.
7. Benefiting from or making use of services of persons

trafficked for labor exploitation
Sec. 5(g) - To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or

make use of, the labor or services of a person held to a condition
of involuntary servitude, forced labor, or slavery.
8. Tampering with a witness or evidence
Sec. 5(h) - To tamper with, destroy, or cause the destruction of

evidence, or to influence or attempt to influence witnesses, in an
investigation or prosecution of a case under this Act.
9. Abuse of office
Sec. 5(j) - To utilize his or her office to impede the investigation,

prosecution or execution of lawful orders in a case under this Act.
PENALTY FOR ACTS THAT PROMOTE

TRAFFICKING, SEC. 10(D):

Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more
than One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00)
H. Qualified Trafficking in Persons
If any of the following circumstances is present, the Acts of Trafficking in

Persons penalized under Section 4 shall be considered as qualified
trafficking:
1. When the trafficked person is a child;
2. When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043,

otherwise known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said

adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
3. When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale.

Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with
one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
4. When the offender is a spouse, an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian

or a person who exercises authority over the trafficked person or when
the offense is committed by a public officer or employee;
5. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with

any member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
6. When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement

agencies;
7. When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the

offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted
with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS);
8. When the offender commits one or more violations of Section 4 over a

period of sixty (60) or more days, whether those days are continuous
or not; and
9. When the offender directs or through another manages the trafficking

victim in carrying out the exploitative purpose of trafficking.
PENALTY FOR QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING,

SEC. 10(D):
Life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two Million

Pesos (Php2,000,000.00) but not more than Five Million
Pesos (Php5,000,000.00)
I. Use of Trafficked Persons (Sec. 11)
Any person who buys or engages the services of a trafficked person for
prostitution shall be penalized for Use of Trafficked Persons.

PENALTY FOR USE OF TRAFFICKED PERSONS,
SEC. 10(D):
a) Prision Correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor or

six (6) years to twelve (12) years imprisonment and a fine of not
less than Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) but not more
than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00): Provided,
however, That the following acts shall be exempted thereto:
1. If an offense under paragraph (a) involves sexual intercourse

or lascivious conduct with a child, the penalty shall be
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua or seventeen (17) years to forty (40) years
imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more than One
Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00);
2. If an offense under paragraph (a) involves carnal knowledge

of, or sexual intercourse with, a male or female trafficking
victim and also involves the use of force or intimidation, to a
victim deprived of reason or to an unconscious victim, or a
victim under twelve (12) years of age, instead of the penalty
prescribed in the subparagraph above the penalty shall be a
fine of not less than One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) but
not more than Five Million Pesos (Php5,000,000.00) and
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua or forty (40) years
imprisonment with no possibility of parole;
If a person violating paragraph (a) of this section knows the
person that provided prostitution services is in fact a victim of
trafficking, the offender shall not be likewise penalized under
this section but under Section 10 as a person violating Section
4.
If in committing such an offense, the offender also knows a
qualifying circumstance of trafficking, the offender shall be
penalized under Section 10 for qualified trafficking. If in
vilolating this section the offender also violates Section 4, the
offender shall be penalized under Section 10 and, if
applicable, for qualified trafficking instead of under this
section.
b) Deportation. – If a foreigner commits any offense described by

paragraph (1) or (2) of this section or violates any pertinent
provision of this Act as an accomplice or accessory to, or by
attempting any such offense, he or she shall be immediately
deported after serving his or her sentence and be barred
permanently from entering the country; and
c) Public Official. – If the offender is a public official, he or she shall

be dismissed from service and shall suffer perpetual absolute
disqualification to hold public, office, in addition to any
imprisonment or fine received pursuant to any other provision of
this Act.

J. Violation of Confidentiality (Sec. 10)
It shall be unlawful for any of the following persons to cause publicity of

the name, personal circumstances, or any information tending to establish
the identity of the trafficked person:
1. Any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed

materials,
2. Announcer or producer in case of television and radio,
3. Producer and director of a film in case of the movie industry, or
4. Any person utilizing tri-media facilities or electronic information
technology.
Exception: When the trafficked person in a written statement duly

notarized knowingly, voluntarily and willingly waives said
confidentiality.
PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY,

SEC. 10(F):
Imprisonment of six (6) years and a fine of not less than Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more
than One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00)
K. Law Enforcement and Evidentiary Matters in Trafficking in

Persons Cases
See Manual on Law Enforcement and Prosecution of Trafficking in

Persons Cases published by the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking
and USAID.
L. Other Relevant Laws
In addition to prosecuting under R.A. 9208, other cases may be filed

against those suspected of committing trafficking depending on the
circumstances.
“When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two
different offenses, a prosecution under one will not bar a prosecution
under the other. The constitutional right against double jeopardy only
applies to risk of punishment twice for the same offense, or for an act

punished by a law and an ordinance. The prohibition on double jeopardy
does not apply to an act or series of acts constituting different offenses.” 439
Among the other possible charges are for violation of the following laws:
1. Republic Act No. 6955, Mail Order Bride Law

2. Republic Act No. 7170, Organ Donation Act
3. Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Act
4. Republic Act No. 8043, Inter-Country Adoption Act
5. Republic Act No. 8239, Philippine Passport Act
6. Republic Act No 9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001
7. Republic Act No. 9775, or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009
8. Republic Act No. 9262, Anti-Violence Against Women and their
Children Act
9. Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, or
the Amended Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
10. Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
M. Overcoming Barriers to a Successful Prosecution of

Trafficking Cases
1. Common barriers and issues
a. Affidavit of Desistance
DOJ Circular No. 57, s. 2010:
“Cases involving such violations shall not be dismissed on the

mere account of Affidavit of Desistance executed by either the
victim/s or their parents or legal guardians, especially where
there is other evidence to establish probable cause. All,
therefore, are directed to relentlessly prosecute the offenders
and vigorously oppose and/or manifest strong objections to
motions for dismissal despite the desistance of the victim/s or
their parents or legal guardians; neither shall a motion to
dismiss on account of such desistance be initiated by the
prosecution.”
b. Entrapment v. Instigation
439
People v. Jadja Jarma Lalli, et. al., G.R. No. 195419 (October 12, 2011).

“Time and again, this court has discussed the difference
between entrapment and instigation.” In Chang v.
People, this court explained that:
“There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and

schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while
in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation
when the accused is induced to commit the crime. The
difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the
criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates
from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to
commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law
officer conceives the commission of the crime and
suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it
into execution.
Accused contends that using the subjective test, she was

clearly instigated by the police to commit the offense. She
denied being a pimp and claimed that she earned her living as
a laundrywoman. On this argument, we agree with the finding
of the Court of Appeals:
[I]t was the accused-appellant who commenced the
transaction with PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso by calling their
attention on whether they wanted girls for that evening, and
when the officers responded, it was the accused-appellant who
told them to wait while she would fetch the girls for their
perusal.
This shows that accused was predisposed to commit the

offense because she initiated the transaction. As testified by
PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo, accused called out their
attention by saying “Chicks mo dong?” If accused had no
predisposition to commit the offense, then she most likely
would not have asked PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo if they
wanted girls.
The entrapment would still be valid using the objective test.

The police merely proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in
Barangay Kamagayan. It was accused who asked them
whether they wanted girls. There was no illicit inducement on
the part of the police for the accused to commit the crime.
xxx
A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an

entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has

no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good
police work. However the police carry out its entrapment
operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not
been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the
wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is of
the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.
This flexibility is even more important in cases involving
trafficking of persons. The urgency of rescuing the victims
may at times require immediate but deliberate action on the
part of the law enforcers.”440
“Hirang argued that he was merely instigated to commit the

offense, but even such defense deserves scant consideration.
It has been established by the prosecution that Hirang has
been engaged in the illegal activities leading young women to
prostitution, and the police officers merely employed means
for his capture. Trafficking of women was his habitual trade;
he was merely entrapped by authorities. Entrapment is an
acceptable means to capture a wrongdoer. In People v.
Bartolome, the Court distinguished between entrapment and
instigation, as it explained:
“Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into

the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute
him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of
such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing
a lawbreaker. Thus, in instigation, officers of the law or their
agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into
committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not
commit and has no intention of committing. But in
entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the
offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law
enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the
criminal by employing ruses and schemes; thus, the accused
cannot justify his or her conduct. In instigation, where law
enforcers act as co-principals, the accused will have to be
acquitted. But entrapment cannot bar prosecution and
conviction. As has been said, instigation is a "trap for the
unwary innocent" while entrapment is a "trap for the unwary
criminal."
440 People v. Casio, G.R. No. 211465 (December 3, 2014).

In this case, it was established during trial that Hirang had
been recruiting and deploying young girls for customers in the
sex trade. The IJM personnel approached him for girls
precisely because of his illicit activities. Also, Hirang was not
first approached for prostitutes by police or government
authorities, but by investigators of IJM, which is a non-profit
and non-governmental organization. IJM only sought
coordination with the police officers after Hirang, Sarmiento
and Villagracia had determined to meet on June 27, 2007 for
the transaction with the purported Korean customers. Clearly,
there could be no instigation by officers, as barred by law, to
speak of.”441
c. Defense of non-ownership of the establishment raised during

inquest or preliminary investigation
“On separate dates, members of the Regional Anti-Human

Trafficking Task Force (RAHTTF) of the Philippine National
Police (PNP), namely, PO2 Lyman N. Arsiia (PO2 Arsua) and
PO2 Napoleon A. Talingting, Jr. (PO2 Talingting, Jr.), among
others, conducted surveillance operations at Jaguar KTV Bar
(Jaguar) in Cebu City, and observed that its customers paid
P6,000.00 in exchange for sexual intercourse with guest
relations officers (GROs), or P10,000.00 as "bar fine" if they
were taken out of the establishment. In the course of their
surveillance, they learned that: (a) petitioners were the
owners of Jaguar; (b) a certain "Tico" acted as overall
manager; and (c) a certain "Ann" welcomed customers and
offered them GROs.
xxx
In defense, Vinson denied ownership of Jaguar and asserted

that he had sold his rights and interests therein to one Charles
Theodore Rivera pursuant to a Deed of Assignment dated
December 14, 2009 (December 14, 2009 Deed of
Assignment). Not being the manager nor owner of Jaguar,
therefore, he had no control and supervision over the AAA
Group, with whom he denied acquaintance. Similarly, Benny
claimed that he was neither the owner nor manager of Jaguar
and was not even present during the raid. He raised "mistake
in identity" as defense, stressing that he was not the same
441 People v. Hirang, G.R. No. 223528 (January 11, 2017).

person identified by the AAA Group in their respective
affidavits.
xxx
Accordingly, a judge may dismiss the case for lack of probable

cause only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on record
plainly fails to establish probable cause - that is when the
records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established
facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements
of the crime charged.
Applying the standard set forth in Santos-Dio, the evidence

on record herein does not reveal the unmistakable and clear-
cut absence of probable cause against petitioners. Instead, a
punctilious examination thereof shows that the prosecution
was able to establish a prima facie case against petitioners for
violation of Sections 4 (a) and (e) in relation to Sections 6 (a)
and (c) of RA 9208. As it appears from the records,
petitioners recruited and hired the AAA Group and,
consequently, maintained them under their employ in Jaguar
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. In view of this,
probable cause exists to issue warrants for their arrest.
Moreover, the Court notes that the defenses raised by
petitioners, particularly their disclaimer that they are no
longer the owners of the establishment where the sex workers
were rescued, are evidentiary in nature - matters which are
best threshed out in a full-blown trial. Thus, the proper course
of action on the part of the RTC was not to dismiss the case
but to proceed to trial. Unfortunately, and as the CA aptly
observed, the RTC arrogated upon itself the task of dwelling
on factual and evidentiary matters upon which it eventually
anchored the dismissal of the case. Consequently, grave abuse
of discretion was correctly imputed by the CA against the RTC
for its action.”442
d. Defense that establishment has rules prohibiting flirting or

engaging in indecent activities with customers --
“The complainants categorically testified that they were hired

as GROs and tasked to entertain customers to the extent of
even having sexual intercourse with them, and being paid
commissions for said services. The bar was likewise designed
442 Young and Young v. People, G.R. No. 213910 (February 3, 2016).

with a stage where the GROs were made to dance in
provocative outfits. It had a VIP room where the customers
could caress and grope the girls, and a Super VIP room where
they could completely satisfy their lust. Even if the claims
regarding the rules prohibiting flirting and lascivious conduct
between the GROs and the customers were true, the same
would still not absolve accused-appellants from any liability.
Said rules were merely posted as meaningless warnings and
were never really intended to be implemented, as evidenced
by the fact that said prohibited acts had actually been
committed, tolerated, and perpetuated at Kiray.
Even assuming that their main task was to serve as waitresses,

the evidence would show that Reyos and Huat did more than
just serve food and beverages to the customers. As Baso
claimed, they even offered to bring him and his team to the
Super VIP room and they actually received the amount paid
for the "additional service”.
Therefore, the courts below aptly found that there was

sufficient evidence that accused-appellants were indeed
engaged in the recruitment of young women for the purpose
of prostitution or sexual exploitation.” 443
e. Minor victim knew or consented to the trafficking
“Accused claims that AAA admitted engaging in prostitution

even before May 2, 2008. She concludes that AAA was
predisposed to having sex with “customers” for money. For
liability under our law, this argument is irrelevant. As defined
under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, trafficking in
persons can still be committed even if the victim gives
consent.
xxx
The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the

coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by
perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of
coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor’s consent is not
given out of his or her own free will.”444
443 People v. Spouses Ybanez, et al., G.R. No. 220461 (August 24, 2016).
444
People v. Casio, supra.

f. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses
“Hirang still sought an acquittal by claiming that the

prosecution witnesses' testimonies were conflicting and
improbable. Such alleged inconsistencies pertained to the
supposed participation of Ka Lolet in the recruitment of the
victims, how the IJM agents came to personally know of
Hirang, and other incidents that involved prior surveillance
and the entrapment operation itself. It is evident, however,
that the supposed inconsistencies in the witnesses'
testimonies pertained to minor details that, in any case, could
not negate Hirang's unlawful activity and violation of R.A. No.
9208. Moreover, the Court has ruled time and again that
factual findings of the trial court, its assessment of the
credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their
testimonies and the conclusions based on these factual
findings are to be given the highest respect. As a rule, the
Court will not weigh anew the evidence already passed on by
the trial court and affirmed by the CA.” 445
“Both Aringoy and Lalli, in their respective Appeal Briefs,

assail the testimony of Lolita due to its alleged inconsistency
on immaterial facts, such as the status of Lolita's grandfather,
the name of the village she was in, the date she was brought to
Labuan, Malaysia, and the like. In a long line of cases, the
Court has ruled that inconsistencies pointed out by the
accused in the testimony of prosecution witnesses relating to
minor details do not destroy the credibility of witnesses. On
the contrary, they indicate that the witnesses were telling the
truth and not previously rehearsed.”446
Good practices and strategies in the various stages of the

criminal procedure:
1. Case build-up
a. Act immediately on reports of suspected trafficking.

b. Be vigilant in detecting possible trafficking activities in transport
hubs.
c. Use covert inquiries and surveillance to verify and uncover
445
People v. Hirang, supra.
446 People v. Lalli, G.R. No. 195419 (October 12, 2011).

trafficking activities.
d. Use a hidden camera/recording device during surveillance.
e. Secure and cover entry and exit points to target locations during
the raid or entrapment operation. Ensure that victims are not
further exploited in the conduct of an intervention.
f. Conduct rescue and entrapment operations in coordination with
social workers.
g. Include female law enforcers in the conduct of rescue or other
forms of law enforcement intervention.
h. Inform the rescued victims that they are victims.
i. Work with media in evidence gathering when appropriate.
Inquest, Preliminary Investigation and Trial
1. Protect and assist the victims.

2. Rely on the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness when
appropriate.
3. Present the evidence from victims early.
4. Take advantage of applications for bail to help hasten the
proceedings.
5. Enter into plea bargaining early in the proceedings when
appropriate.
6. Persist in the prosecution despite the desistance of victims or their
refusal to cooperate.
7. Harness the proactive involvement of special prosecutors.
8. Strengthen cooperation between public and private prosecutors.
Taken from Lessons Learned from the Successful Prosecution

of Human Trafficking Cases in the Philippines published by
Visayan Forum Foundation, Inc.
N. Guidelines on the Protection of the Rights of Trafficked

Women and Children
1. See the Philippine Guidelines on the Protection of the Rights of

Trafficked Women published by the Philippine Commission on
Women and the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking (2013).
2. See also The Philippine Guidelines for the Protection of Trafficked

Children published by the Inter-Agency Council against Trafficking
with technical and financial assistance from UNICEF, Cooperazione
Italiana, and Stop Child Trafficking (2008).

Section 3.2. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
POINTERS:
It is suggested that the confiscated forest/wood products under court

litigation should be allowed for disposal to save their economic value.
Conformably, a motion should be made with the court for an appropriate
ruling such that the confiscated forest/wood products be sold as soon as
their presentation as evidence is completed. The proceeds thereof will be
deposited/held in escrow for collection by the prevailing party.
The prosecutor should, before the confiscated forest/wood products are

sold, cause the photographing of the same. Photographs should be
certified at the back thereof by the DENR officer and appended to the
record of the case.
For repeat violators of Sec. 77 (Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber

or other forest products without license), such fact should be alleged as an
aggravating circumstance in the information considering that penalties for
such violation are those provided for under Articles 309 and 310 of the
Revised Penal Code. Thus, applying Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code
and the ruling of the Supreme Court in People vs. Martin S. Simon, GR
No. 93028 (July 29, 1994), 234 SCRA 555, such circumstance of
recidivism or reiteracion should be alleged.
The prosecutor should also consider the outcome of the administrative

adjudication proceedings for violation of Sec. 77 in determining probable
cause. The prosecutor may request for additional evidence obtained
during administrative adjudication proceedings.
3.2.1. BROWN LAWS
A. PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY (PRESIDENTIAL

DECREE 1151)
B. PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1586)
C. PHILIPPINE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1999 (RA 8749)
POINTER - It should be noted that an order from the Pollution

Adjudication Board (PAB) directing the filing of a criminal case is a
condition precedent.

D. PHILIPPINE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 2004 (RA 9275)
Evidence Required:
1. Results of laboratory analysis of samples collected (a) analyzed

within the period described in order to protect the integrity of the
findings; and (b) duly signed by the analyst and the head of the
laboratory division.
2. In cases involving the commission of other prohibited acts under

Sec. 27, the complaint-affidavit should be accompanied by the
following documents:
a. Affidavit of witnesses as to the commission of the prohibited

act;
b. Affidavit containing the admission made, if any, by the person

complained of;
c. Proof of service of Notices of Violation (NOVs) and/or

Invitations for Technical Conference; and
d. Photographs and other documents that would establish the

accuracy and veracity of the statements made in the report.
E. ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT (RA

9003)
POINTER- The applicable procedures in criminal prosecution for

violation of RA 9003 is Rule XIX (Administrative and Enforcement
Procedures) of DAO No. 2001-34 (IRR of RA 9003).
F. TOXIC SUBSTANCES & HAZARDOUS& NUCLEAR WASTES

CONTROL ACT OF 1990 (RA 6969)
Evidence Required:
1. Waste Transport Record (DAO No. 2004-36)
a. Generator information (includes the classification and quantity of

each hazardous waste, methods of treating hazardous waste,
methods of treating hazardous waste, special instruction)
b. Transporter information (information about the common carrier)

c. Results of sampling (laboratory analyses) signed by chemists from
the DENR-EMB or DENR-accredited laboratories.
d. Report on the inspection and monitoring of premises prepared by

the proper authorities (EMB-Regional Office and signed by the
Regional Director).
2. People’s Small Scale Mining Act (R.A. No. 7076)
a. Technical or office generated reports, testimonial evidence of the

concerned office personnel, and pertinent testimonies of other
persons in the community, as sufficient bases for the finding of
probable cause for the purpose of filing and prosecuting the case
even in the absence (usually intentional) of the accused.
G. PHILIPPINE MINING ACT OF 1995 (R.A. NO. 7942)
Evidence Required:
1. For violation of Sec. 103 (Theft of Minerals), the following

documents should be attached to the complaint:
a. Sworn statement of the apprehending/arresting officer (MGB

Form No. 12-2);
b. Affidavits of witnesses, if any (MGB Form No. 12-3);
c. Copy of the seizure receipt;
d. Photographs showing the minerals/mineral products seized
including the tools, equipment and conveyance used in the
commission of the offense; and
e. Other supporting papers/evidences as the court may require.
POINTERS:
a. For violation of Sec. 102 (Illegal Exploration), it should be

made clear that the “consent” of officials of the local
government unit, particularly the barangay captains and
mayors, and tribal chieftains is not a defense.
b. Claim owners or MPSA holders found to have extracted
minerals outside their mining areas should be charged with
violation of Sec. 110 (Other Violations) instead of Sec. 103
(Theft of Minerals) since they should not be treated similarly
with those who have no contract or permit at all.
c. Documents purporting to be business permits attached as
annexes to counter-affidavits should not be given any weight
in the determination of whether or not the respondent has
valid mining permits.

d. Investigation reports prepared by the Regional Office of the
MGB should be accorded greater significance as these enjoy
the presumption of regularity.
Sec. 104 (Destruction of Mining Structures), 105 (Mines

Arson) and 106 (Willful Damage to a Mine) would be
applicable if the motive for the commission of the prohibited
acts is plain extortion. If perpetrated by insurgent groups in
furtherance of their goal to overthrow or destabilize the
government, then rebellion or sedition, as the case maybe,
would be the more appropriate charge. Also, if all the three
offenses are committed in a single occasion, Sec. 105 should
absorb the acts described in the two other Sections.
Sec. 110 (Other Violations) should include violations of the

following provisions of the Mining Act: Secs. 54 (Mineral
Trading Registration); 55 (Mineral Processing Permit), 64
(Mine Labor); 65 (Mine Supervision); and 74 (Right to
Possess Explosives). Additionally, violations of certain
provisions of the IRR of the Mining Act (DAO No. 96-40, as
amended), particularly Secs. 172 and 179, refer to the penal
provisions of the Mining Act.
3.2.2 GREEN LAWS
A. THE FORESTRY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

(PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 705)
Evidence Required:
1. For the first and second modes of violation of Sec. 77 (Cutting,

gathering and/or collecting timber or other forest products
without license), the following pieces of evidence are crucial:
a. Affidavit of the apprehending officer;

b. Proof that the accused failed to show cutting license or permit
when apprehended and asked to present the authority to cut;
c. Survey of area using Land Classification maps as reference to
show whether the prohibited act was done inside forest land,
alienable or disposable land or private land (Close traverse
duly conducted by a CENRO Survey Officer);
d. The logs, timber, flitches or lumber that were apprehended;
e. Conveyance, equipment, machineries, implements or tools, if
any;
f. Identity and affidavit of apprehended violators.

2. For violation of Sec. 78 (Unlawful occupation or destruction of
forest lands and grazing lands):
a. Proof of failure to present license agreement, lease, license or

permit to enter and occupy forest land or grazing lands when
accosted;
b. Affidavit of the investigating forest officer
c. Survey maps of area occupied and destroyed using Land
Classification map or reference to prove that the area is inside
forest land or grazing land;
d. Inventory and tally sheet, stand and stock table of timber or
forest products destroyed and the corresponding forest
charges to be used as basis in imposing penalty;
e. Damaged forest land due to indiscriminate setting on fire of
forest land by the violator;
f. Damaged grazing land due to indiscriminate cutting of trees
and other vegetation by the violator;
g. Damaged forest land due to indiscriminate setting on fire of
grazing land by the violator.
The following documents are likewise useful:
a. Proof of failure to present license agreement, lease, license or

permit to occupy grazing land when apprehended;
b. Proof that the violator introduced within occupied areas
domestic plants other than natural vegetation or trees or other
vegetation;
c. Possession by the violator at the time of the apprehension of
instruments, equipment and tools such as power saws, hand
saws, bolos and digging tools such as shovels, grub hoes,
rakes, etc.;
d. Fallen trees, logs, lumber, flitches and other woody parts of
damaged vegetation; and
e. Construction of shelter of light materials within the area or
site of occupation or kaingin.
3. For violation of Sec. 80 (Pasturing Livestock), the following are

required:
a. Investigation report of the forest officer showing failure of the

accused to present authority to graze livestock;
b. Survey map of the area utilized for unauthorized grazing;
c. Inventory of livestock grazed.

4. For violation of Sec. 82 (Survey by Unauthorized Persons), the
following are important:
a. Implements and instruments used in the survey of the area

involved;
b. Survey report and sketch plan of the surveyed area by the
investigating officer;
c. Land Classification Map showing that the area is classified as
forest land.
5. For violation of Sec. 88 (Sale of Wood Products), the following are

important:
a. The logs, lumber or forest products subject of the sale;

b. Scale Report;
c. Sales Invoice.
B. THE CHAINSAW ACT OF 2002 (RA 9175)
Evidence Required
1. To establish the offense of selling, purchasing, re-selling,

transferring, distributing or possessing a chain saw without a
proper permit:
a. Chain saw;
b. Deed of Sale, Sales Invoice, Official Receipt, Deed of
Assignment, and other pertinent documents;
c. Invalid or expired Certificate of Registration;
d. Affidavit of the apprehending/investigating officer.
2. To establish the offense of unlawful importation or manufacturing

of chain saw:
a. Chain saw;
b. Import documents;
c. Certification from the DENR Registering Office that the
importer or manufacturer has no permit;
d. Affidavit of apprehending/investigating officer; Prosecutors
should be made aware that there is also an administrative
adjudication aspect, following DAO No. 97-32.

C. THE NATIONAL INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREAS
SYSTEM (RA NO. 7586)
D. THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ACT (RA 8371)
E. THE LAW ON THE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION

OF NATIONAL CAVES AND CAVE RESOURCES (RA
9072)
F. THE LAW ON THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION

OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES (RA 9147)
Evidence Required
1. Prosecution of violators of Sec. 27, particularly the killing of

wildlife:
a. Certificate from the DENR or Protected Areas and Wildlife

Bureau (PAWB) that the animal is a wildlife; and
b. Necropsy report from a veterinarian.
2. On inflicting injury:
a. Certification from the DENR or PAWB that the animal is a

wildlife; and
b. Certification from a licensed veterinarian that the concerned
wildlife, after the infliction of the injury, is no longer capable
to utilize its reproductive system.
3. Dumping of waste products detrimental to wildlife:
a. Certification from a licensed veterinarian that the dumped

waste products are detrimental to the life of the wildlife found
or living in the area; and
b. Certification from the DENR that the place where the wastes
were dumped is a critical habitat in accordance with the
NIPAS Act, or designated as such in accordance with Sec. 25
of RA 9147.
4. Trading of wildlife:
a. Certification from the DENR as to the classification of the

concerned wildlife; and
b. Certification from the DENR that no permit was given to

violator for the concerned activity.

5. Transporting of wildlife:

b. Certification from the DENR that no corresponding permit
was given to the violator for the concerned activity.
6. Maltreating and/or inflicting other injuries not covered by the

preceding paragraph:

b. Affidavit of a witness who saw the act of maltreatment or

inflicting injury to wildlife.
7. Squatting or otherwise occupying any portion of the critical habitat:
a. Certification from the DENR or PAWB that the place where

the concerned act is done is within a critical habitat in
accordance with RA 7586 or the NIPAS Act or designated as
such in accordance with Sec. 23 of RA 9147.
8. Mineral exploration and/or extraction, burning, logging, and

quarrying:
a. Certification from the DENR or PAWB that the place where

the concerned act is done is within a critical habitat in
accordance with RA 7586 or the NIPAS Act or designated as
such in accordance with Sec. 23 of RA 9147.
9. Introduction, re-introduction, or re-stocking of wildlife resources:
a. Certification from the DENR that no permit was given to the

10. Collecting, hunting, or possessing wildlife, their by-products and

derivatives:

b. Certification from DENR that no permit was given to the


11. Gathering or destroying of active nests, nest trees, host plants, and
the like:
a. Certification from DENR as to the classification of the

b. Certification from the DENR that no permit was given to the

Prohibited Acts Under RA 8550 as amended by RA 10654
OFFENSES ELEMENTS CRIMINAL ADMINIS-

OF THE LIABILITY TRATIVE
OFFENSE LIABILITY
Section 86 (a). - 1. A person Who are Who are liable?
liable?
Unauthorized - Captures, The boat captain and
Fishing— - Gathers, or The boat the three (3) highest
Capturing, - Causes to captain and officers of the
Gathering, or capture or the three (3) commercial fishing
causing to Capture gather highest vessel and the owner
or Gather fish, fry officers of the or operator-
or fingerlings of - Fish comercial
any fishery species fishing vessel 1. Confiscation of
- Fry, or
or fishery products - catch and gear; and
- Fingerlings of
without license or any fishery
1.Imprisonme 2. Administrative
permit from the species or
nt: six (6) fine of five (5) times
Department or fishery
months; and the value of the catch
LGU. products; or the amount
Exception: 2.Confiscation indicated below,
2. Said person
of catch and whichever is higher:
has no license
-Fishing for daily gear; and
or permit from (1) Fifty thousand
food sustenance or
the DA-BFAR 3. Fine which pesos
for leisure which is
or LGU. is twice the (Php50,000.00) to
not for comercial,
occu-pation or amount of the One hundred
live-lihood administra- thousand pesos
purposes. tive fine. (Php100,000.00) for
small scale comercial
fishing;
Prima Facie (2) One hundred fifty
presumption: thousand pesos
(Php150,000.00) to
1. The discovery of Five hundred
any person in

OFFENSE LIABILITY
possession of a thousand pesos

fishing gear or (Php500,00.00) for
operating a fishing medium-scale
vessel in a fishing comercial fishing;
area where he has and
no license or The prima facie
permit shall (3) One million
presumption
constitute a prima pesos
will not apply
facie presumption (Php1,000,000.00)
if:
that the person is to Five million pesos
engaged in un- 1. The gear of (Php5,000,000.00)
authorized fishing. the vessel is for large-scale
not engaged in commercial fishing.
fishing or
deployed, or
2. In cases of
BFAR
authorized and
supervised sea
and net trials.
Section 86 (b). - 1.The Who are Who are liable?

commercial liable?
Unauthorized fishing vessel is The boat captain and
Fishing—Fishing in the act of The boat the three (3) highest
by commercial fishing; captain and officers of the
fishing vessels in the three (3) commercial fishing
municipal waters. 2. The fishing highest vessel and the owner
is done within officers of the or operator -
municipal commercial
waters. fishing vessel 1. Confiscation of
- catch and gear, and
2. Administrative
fine of five (5) times
the value of the catch
1. Imprison- or the amount
ment of six indicated below,
(6) months; whichever is higher:
and
(1) Fifty thousand
2.Confiscation pesos
of catch and (Php50,000.00) to
gear; and One hundred
thousand pesos
3. Twice the
(Php100,000.00) for

OFFENSE LIABILITY
amount of the small-scale
administra- commercial fishing;
tive fine.
(2) One hundred fifty
thousand pesos
(Php150,000.00) to
Five hundred
thousand pesos (Php
500,000.00) for
medium-scale
commercial fishing;
and
(3) One million
pesos
(Php1,000,000.00)
to Five million pesos
(Php5,000,000.00)
for large-scale
commercial fishing.
Section 86 (c). - 1. A person 1. Administrative

engages in fine equivalent to
Unauthorized commercial twice the value of
Fishing— fishing; catch or Five
Commercial thousand pesos
2. Said person (Php5,000.00),
fishing in
is not listed in whichever is higher;
municipal waters
the registry of and
by person not
municipal
listed in the
fisher folk; 2. Confiscation of the
registry of muni-
catch and fishing
cipal fisher folk. 3. The fishing gear:
is done in
municipal Provided, That if the
waters. offender fails to pay
the fine, he shall
render com-munity
service.
Section 87.- 1. A person - 1. Imprison- 1. Administrative

ment of six fine of Five hundred
Unauthorized a. Exploits, (6) months; thousand pesos
occupies, pro- (Php500,000.00) to

OFFENSE LIABILITY
Fisheries Activities duces, breeds and One million pesos
or culture fish, (Php1,000,000.00)
fry or finger- 2. A fine
lings of any equivalent to 2. The dismantling
fishery species twice the or removal of the
Prima facie or fishery amount of the structure at the
presumption: products; or administrativ expense of the
e fine; offender;
The discovery of b. Construct
any person and operate
engaging in any of fish corrals, 3. The dis- 3. Rehabilitation of
the above activities fish traps, fish mantling or the area affected by
without a lease, pens and fish removal of the the activity; and
license or permit cages or structure at
shall constitute & fishponds; the expense of 4.Confiscation of
prima facie the offender; stocks.
presumption that 2. Said person
the person is has no license, 4.The re-
engaged in lease or permit. habilitation of
unauthorized the area
fisheries activity. affected by
the activity
and
confiscation
of stocks.
Section 88 (a) - 1. A person is Who are Who are liable?

Failure to secure fishing in the liable?
fishing permit high seas, in The owner, operator,
prior to engaging the territorial The three (3) and the three (3)
in distant water seas, highest highest officers of
fishing. archipelagic officers of the the commercial
waters, or commercial fishing vessel -
Exclusive fishing vessel-
Prima Facie Economic
presumption: Zones of other 1. Confiscation of the
states; 1. Imprison- catch and gear;
The discovery of ment of six
any person in (6) months; 2. Administrative
2. Said person
possession of a and fine equivalent to
is using a
fishing gear or five (5) times the
Philippine
operating a fishing 2. Fine equi- value of the catch or
flagged fishing

OFFENSE LIABILITY
vessel in the vessel; valent to twice the amount indicated
abovementioned the amount of below, whichever is
areas without a 3. Said person the adminis- higher:
fishing permit did not secure trative fine,
from the prior fishing and (1) Two million pesos
Department or permit from (Php2,000,000.00)
authorization from the Depart- 3. Confisca- to Nine million pesos
the coastal state ment and tion of catch (Php9,000,000.00)
shall constitute a authorization and gear. for small-scale
prima facie from the commercial fishing;
presumption that coastal state.
the person is in
violation of this (2) Ten million pesos
(Php10,000,000.00)
provision.
to Fifteen million
Section 88 (b).- 1. A comercial pesos
Commission of fishing vessel (Php15,000,000.00)
acts by a com- commits an for medium-scale
mercial fishing act; commercial fishing;
vessel that are in and;
contravention of 2. Said act is in
the terms and contravention (3) Sixteen million
conditions stated of the terms pesos
in the fishing and conditions (Php16,000,000.00)
permit or as may in its fishing to Twenty million
be promulgated by permit or as pesos
the Depart-ment. promulgated (Php20,000,000.00)
by the DA- for large-scale
BFAR. commercial fishing
vessels less than
seven hundred fifty
(750) gross tons, and
Twenty-five million
pesos
(Php25,000,000.00)
to Forty-five million
pesos
(Php45,000,000.00)
for large-scale
commercial fishing
vessels seven
hundred fifty (750)
gross tons or more.
Section 89. (a) – 1. A person is Who are Who are liable?
Unreported engaged in

OFFENSE LIABILITY
Fishing fishing liable? The owner or
within waters of activities; operator of the
national The three (3) municipal or
jurisdiction. 2. Said fishing highest commercial fishing
is done within officers of the vessel and the three
waters of commercial (3) highest officers of
national fishing vessel the commercial
jurisdiction; - fishing vessel -
3. Said person 1. Imprison- 1. Administrative
failed to report ment of six fine equivalent to the
or misreported (6) months; value of the catch or
said fishing and the amount indicated
activities to the below, whichever is
Department in 2. A fine
higher:
contravention equivalent to
of national twice the (1) Five thousand
laws and amount of the pesos (Php5,000.00)
regulations of administrativ for municipal
the e fine, and fishing: Provided,
Philippines; or That if the offender
3.confiscation
fails to pay the fine,
4. Said person of catch and
he shall render com-
failed to gear.
munity service;
comply with
the reportorial (2) One hundred
requirements thousand pesos
in Section 38 of (Php100,000.00) for
this Code. small-scale
commercial fishing;
(3) Two hundred
thousand pesos
(Php200,000.00) for
medium-scale
commercial fishing;
and
(4) Five hundred
thousand pesos
(Php500,000.00) for
large-scale
commercial fishing.
Section 89. (b) - 1. A person is Who are Who are liable?

Unreported engaged in

OFFENSE LIABILITY
Fishing fishing liable? The owner, operator,

in waters beyond activities; and the three (3)
the national The three (3) highest officers of
jurisdiction 2. Said fishing highest the commercial
is done in the officers of the fishing vessel -
area of commercial
competence of fishing vessel- 1. Administrative
a relevant fine equivalent to
RFMO; 1.Imprisonme five (5) times the
nt of six (6) value of the catch or
3. Said person months; and the amount indicated
failed to report below, whichever is
or misreported 2. Fine equi-
higher:
said fishing valent to twice
activities in the amount of (1) Two million pesos
contravention the adminis- (Php2,000,000.00)
of the reporting trative fine; to Nine million pesos
procedures of and (Php9,000,000.00)
that for small-scale
3. Confisca-
organization commercial fishing;
tion of catch
and further
and gear. (2) Ten million pesos
elaborated by
regulations (Php10,000,000.00)
promulgated to Fifteen million
by the Depart- pesos
ment, or (Php15,000,000.00)
for medium-scale
4. Said person commercial fishing;
failed to and
comply with
the reportorial (3) Sixteen million
requirements pesos
in Section 38 of (Php16,000,000.00)
this Code. to Twenty million
pesos
(Php20,000,000.00)
for large-scale
commercial fishing
vessels less than
seven hundred fifty
Twenty-five million
pesos
(Php25,000,000.00)
pesos

OFFENSE LIABILITY
(Php45,000,000.00)
for large-scale
commercial fishing
vessels seven
hundred fifty (750)
gross tons or more.
Section 90. – 1. A vessel is Who are Who are liable?

Unregulated engaged in liable?
Fishing fishing The owner, operator,
within waters of activities; The three (3) of the municipal or
national highest commercial fishing
jurisdiction officers of the vessel and the three
2. Said fishing
commercial (3) highest officers of
is done within
fishing vessel the commercial
waters of
- fishing vessel -
national
jurisdiction; 1. Imprison- 1. Confiscation of
ment of six catch and gear; and
3. Said vessel is (6) months;
without and 2. Administrative
nationality; fine equivalent to the
2. Fine equi- value of the catch or
valent to twice amount indicated
4. Said vessel is the amount of below, whichever is
operated by the adminis- higher:
Filipino and/or trative fines,
Filipino and (1) Five thousand
corporation. pesos
3. Confisca- (Php5,000.00)) for
tion of catch municipal fishing:
and gear. Provided, That if the
offender fails to pay
the fine, he shall
render community
service;
(2) One hundred

thousand pesos
(Php100,000.00) for
small-scale
commercial fishing;
(3) Two hundred

OFFENSE LIABILITY
thousand pesos
(Php200,000.00) for
medium-scale
commercial fishing;
and
(4) Five hundred
thousand pesos
(Php500,000.00) for
large-scale
commercial fishing.
Section 90. – 1. A vessel is Who are Who are liable?

Unregulated engaged in liable?
Fishing fishing the owner, operator,
within waters activities; The three (3) and the three (3)
beyond national highest highest officers of
jurisdiction officers of the the commercial
2. Said fishing
commercial fishing vessel -
activities are
fishing vessel
done in waters 1. Confiscation of
-
beyond catch and gear, and
national 1. Imprison- an 2. Administra-tive
jurisdiction; ment of six fine equivalent to
(6) months; five (5) times the
3. Said vessel is and value of the catch or
anyone of the the amount indicated
following: 2. Fine below, whichever is
equivalent to higher:
twice the
(a.) The vessel amount of the (1) Two million pesos
is without administra- (Php2,000,000.00)
nationality but tive fines; to Nine million pesos
operated by (Php9,000,000.00)
Filipino and/or 3. Confisca- for small-scale
Filipino tion of catch commercial fishing;
corporation; or and gear.
(2) Ten million pesos
(b) The vessel (Php10,000,000.00)
is a Philippine to Fifteen million
flagged fishing pesos
vessel (Php15,000,000.00)
operating in for medium-scale
areas managed commercial fishing;
by RFMOs to and
which the

OFFENSE LIABILITY
Philippines is (3) Sixteen million

not a party; pesos
(Php16,000,000.00)
(c) The vessel to Twenty million
is a Philippine pesos
(Php20,000,000.00)
flagged fishing
for large-scale
vessel
commercial fishing.
operating in
vessels less than
areas or fish
seven hundred fifty
stocks where
there are no
Twenty-five million
applicable
pesos
conservation
(Php25,000,000.00)
and manage-
ment
pesos
measures.
(Php45;000,000.00)
for large-scale
commercial fishing
vessels seven
hundred fifty (750)
gross tons or more.
Section 91. - 1. A foreign 1. Fine of One Fine of Six hundred

Poaching in person, million two thousand US dollars
Philippine Waters. corporation or hundred (US$600,000.00) to
entity is thousand US One million US
engaged in dollars dollars
fishing or is (US$1,200,00 (US$1,000,000.00)
operating a 0.00), or its or its equivalent in
fishing vessel; equivalent in Philippine currency.
Philippine
2. The fishing currency;
or operation is
2.Confiscation
in Philippine
of catch,
waters.
fishing
equipment
and fishing
vessel.
If the offender
is caught

OFFENSE LIABILITY
within
internal
waters:
1. An
additional
penalty of
imprisonment
of six (6)
months and
one (1) day to
two (2) years
and two (2)
months shall
be imposed;
2. If
apprehended
for the second
time within
internal
waters, the
offender shall
be punished
with
imprisonment
of three (3)
years and a
fine of Two
million four
hundred
thousand US
dollars
(US$2,400,00
0.00) or its
equivalent in
Philippine
currency:
No foreign
person shall
be deported
without the
payment of
the imposed

OFFENSE LIABILITY
judicial
and/or
administrativ
e fines and
service of
sentence, if
any.
Section 92 (a). - 1. A person 1.Imprisonme 1. Confiscation of

catches, takes, nt from five catch including those
Fishing Through gathers or (5) to ten (10) not caught illegally if
Explosives, causes to be years; co-mingled with
Noxious or caught, taken those caught
Poisonous or gathered 2.Confiscation illegally;
Substance, or fish or any of catch,
Electricity. fishery species; including 2. Confiscation of
those not gear, explosives and
Prima facie caught noxious or poisonous
2. Any of said
evidence: illegally if co- substances, or
activities is
done in mingled with electrofishing
1. The discovery of
Philippine those caught devices and
dynamite, other
waters; illegally; paraphernalia and
explosives and
gear;
chemical 3.Confiscation
compounds which 3. Any of said
of gear, 3. Administrative
contain activities is
explosives fine equivalent to
combustible done with the
and noxious five (5) times the
elements, or use of:
or poisonous value of the catch or
noxious or - explosives,
substances, or the amount of fine
poisonous - noxious or
electrofishing indicated below
substances, or poisonous
devices and whichever is higher:
equipment or substance such
paraphernalia
device for as sodium (1) Thirty thousand
, gear; and
electrofishing in cyanide; pesos
any fishing vessel; 4. Payment of (Php30,000.00) for
4. Said fine municipal fishing;
2. The discovery of materials or equivalent to
the above in the substances kill, twice the (2) Three hundred
possession of any stupefy, disable amount of the thousand pesos
fisher folk, or render adminis- (Php300,000.00) for
operator, fishing unconscious trative fine, small-scale
boat official; or fish or fishery without commercial fishing;
species. prejudice to
3. The discovery in (3) One million five
the filing of
any fishing vessel hundred thousand
separate
of fish caught or pesos

OFFENSE LIABILITY
killed with the use criminal cases (Php1,500,000.00)

of explosives, when the use for medium scale
noxious or of the same commercial fishing;
poisonous result to and
substances, or by physical
electricity. injury or loss (4) Three million
of human life. pesos
(Php3,000,000.00)
For the actual for large scale
use of commercial fishing.
electrofishing
devices for
illegal fishing:
1.Imprisonme
nt of six (6)
months; and
2. Fine of
Five thousand
pesos
(Php5,000.00
).
Section 92(b). - 1. A person 1. Imprison- 1. Confiscation of
possesses ment from six catch, gear; and
Possession of explosives and (6) months to
Explosives, 2. Administrative
noxious or two (2) years;
Noxious or fine equivalent to
poisonous and
Poisonous five (5) times the
substances;
Substances for 2.Fine value of the catch or
illegal fishing. 2. Said equivalent to the amount indicated
possession is twice the below whichever is
for illegal amount of the higher:
fishing. administra- (1) Ten thousand,
tive fine; and pesos
3.Confiscation (Php10,000.00) for
of catch and municipal fishing;
gear. (2) One hundred
thousand pesos
(Php100,000.00) for
small-scale
commercial fishing;
(3) Five hundred

OFFENSE LIABILITY
thousand pesos
(Php500,000.00) for
medium scale
commercial fishing;
and
(4) One million
pesos
(Php1,000,000.00)
for large scale
commercial fishing.
Section 93. - 1. A person is Who is liable? Who is liable?
engaged in
Use of Fine Mesh fishing; Captain or Owner, operator,
Net. master captain or master
2. He is using fisherman in fisherman in case of
Exceptions: net with mesh case of commercial fishing
smaller than commercial vessel, or the
Allowed through a
that fishing vessel, municipal fisher folk
specific gear
determined by or the -
license or permit:
the municipal
Department. fisher folk - 1. Confiscation of
1. If the net is used
the catch;
to catch:
2. Confiscation of
(a)Padas
Fine Mesh Net 1. Imprison- fishing gear, and
(Siganidae),
- net with mesh ment of six
bangusfry 3. Administrative
size of less than (6) months to
(Chanoschanos), fine equivalent to
three two (2) years;
sugpofry three (3) times the
centimeters (3 and
(Penaeidae), value of the catch or
cm.) measured
banak fry 2.Fine the value indicated
between two
(Mugilidae), glass equivalent to below, whichever is
(2) opposite
eels and elvers twice the higher:
knots of a full
(Anguilidae) and administra-
mesh when
such other tive fine; and (1) Twenty thousand
stretched or as
immature species pesos
otherwise
for culture 3.Confiscation (Php20,000.00) for
determined by
purposes; of catch and municipal fishing:
the appropriate
gear. Provided, That if the
(b)Aquarium/orna government
municipal fisher folk
mental animals; agency.
and he shall render
community service;
(c) Other species
already mature (2) Fifty thousand

OFFENSE LIABILITY
such as, but not pesos

limited to, (Php50,000.00) for
alamang (Acetes small-scale
spp.), tabios commercial fishing;
(Pandacapygmea),
sinarapan (3) One hundred
(Mistichthysluzon thousand pesos
ensis), dilis (Php100,000.00) for
(Engraulidae), and medium-scale
snails(Ampularial commercial fishing;
uzonica and
(4) Two hundred
Vivipora spp.),
thousand pesos
2. In cases of ring (Php200,000.00) for
nets, purse seines large-scale
for sardines, commercial fishing.
mackerels and
scads, and
bagnets, wherein
the mesh size is 1.9
centimeters(17
knots), measured
between two
opposite knots of a
full mesh when
stretched:
provided,
however, that the
operator is
required to take
measures to
ensure that no
juvenile will be
caught.
Section 94. - 1. A person is 1. Imprison- 1. Confiscation of

Fishing in fishing in a ment of six catch and fishing
Overexploited fishery (6) months gears; and
Fishery management and one (1)
Management area (FMA); day to six (6) 2. Administrative
Areas. years; and fine equivalent to the
2. Said FMA is value indicated
declared as 2. Fine of Five below:
overexploited. hundred
thousand (1) Three (3) times

OFFENSE LIABILITY
pesos the value of catch or
(Php500,000. Twenty thousand
00) to Five pesos
million pesos (Php20,000.00),
(Php5,000,00 whichever is higher,
0.00); and for municipal
fishing: Provided,
3.Confiscation
That if the offender
of the catch
and fishing
he shall render
equipment
community service;
used; and
(2) Five (5) times the
4.Cancellation
value of catch or One
of fishing
hundred thousand
permit or
pesos
license.
(Php100,000.00),
whichever is higher,
for small-scale
commercial fishing;
value of catch or
Three hundred
thousand pesos
(Php300,000.00),
for medium-scale
commercial fishing;
value of catch or Five
hundred thousand
pesos
(P500,000.00),
for large-scale
commercial fishing.
Section 95. - Use 1. A person is 1. Imprison- Who are liable?

of Active Gear in engaged in ment of two
the Municipal fishing in a (2) years to The owner, operator,
Waters, Bays and municipal six (6) years; boat captain and
Other Fishery water, bay, or and master fisherman of
Management fishery the vessel, or the
2. Fine chief executive

OFFENSE LIABILITY
Areas. management equivalent to officer in a

area; twice the corporation, or the
The following administra- managing partner in
gears are not 2. Said person tive fine; a partnership -
covered by the is using active
prohibition: fishing gears as 3.Confiscation 1. Confiscation of the
defined in this and forfeiture catch and fishing
1) Gill nets, other Code. of fishing gear gears; and
than bottom-set and catch.
gill nets, not more 2. Fine three (3)
than 500 meters in times the value of the
length per boat catch or the value
used by registered indicated below,
municipal fisher whichever is higher:
folk, which shall
be regulated by the (1) Twenty thousand
LGU; pesos
(Php20,000.00) for
2) "Sudsud" or municipal fishing:
push net used to Provided, That if the
catch Acetes sp. offender fails to pay
"alamang" and the fine, he shall
Stolephorus sp. render community
"dilis,"which is service;
operated by a
registered (2) Fifty thousand
municipal fisher pesos
folk/fisher folk (Php50,000.00) for
cooperative or small-scale
association, either commercial fishing;
manually or by the
(3) One hundred
use of a registered
thousand pesos
and licensed
(Php100,000.00) for
municipal
medium-scale
motorized boat
commercial fishing;
with single piston
and
engine of not more
than sixteen (16) (4) Five hundred
horsepower, thousand pesos
during approved (Php500,000.00) for
fishing season for large-scale
the species, and commercial fishing.
covered by a
management plan
duly approved by

OFFENSE LIABILITY
the LGU
3) Active gears
such as purse
seine or
''pangulong", ring
net or "taksay" and
such other gears
that do not touch
the sea bottom,
used by small and
medium
commercial
fishing vessels
authorized by the
LGU pursuant to
Section 18 of RA
8550 and
pertinent rules, to
fish in the10.1 to
15 km. of
municipal waters
only, as reckoned
from the general
coastline.
Section 96. (a) - 1. A person or Who are Who are liable?

Ban on Coral corporation liable?
Exploitation and The owner/operator
Exportation. - Gathers; the boat of the fishing
- Possesses; captain, vessel/s, boat
- Commercially master captain, master
transports; fisherman, fisherman, and
- Sells; or and recruiter recruiter or
- Exports. or organizer organizer of fish
of fish workers -
…. ordinary, workers -
1. Administrative
semi-precious
1. Imprison- fine equivalent to
and precious
ment from ten eight (8) times the
corals, whether
(10) years to value of the corals
raw or in
twenty (20) gathered, possessed,
processed
years; and commercially
form;
transported, sold, or
2. Fine exported, or the
2. Said acts are

OFFENSE LIABILITY
not done for equivalent to amount of Five

research twice the hundred thousand
purposes. administra- pesos
tive fine; and (Php500,000.00) to
Ten million pesos
Section 96. (b) - 1. A person, 3. Forfeiture (Php10,000,000.00)
Damage to coral corporation or of the subject , whichever is higher;
reefs entity performs corals; and
an activity; 4. Payment of 2. Forfeiture of the
the cost of subject corals;
2. Said activity restoration of
damages the the damaged 3. Payment of the
coral reefs. coral reefs compensation for the
based on restoration of the
available damaged corals
studies and as reefs.
determined by
the
Department.
Section 97 (a). - 1. A person, Who are Who are liable?

Ban on Muro-Ami natural or liable?
Other Methods juridical, is The owner, operator,
and Gear engaged in The boat boat captain, master
Destructive to fishing; captain, fisherman, and
Coral Reefs and master recruiter or
Other Marine 2. Said fishing fisherman, organizer of fish
Habitat. involves the and recruiter workers -
use of gear or or organizer
* The following method that of fish 1. Fine equivalent to
fishing gears/ destroys coral workers- five (5) times the
methods and their reefs, seagrass value of the fish
variations are beds, and other 1. Imprison- caught or Two
considered fishery marine ment of two million pesos
destructive to life habitat; or (2) years to (Php2,000,000.00),
coral reefs, ten (10) years; whichever is higher;
seagrass, seabeds, 3. Said fishing and and
and other fishery uses “muro-
ami and any of 2. Fine 2. Confiscation of
marine life
its variation, equivalent to catch and gear.
habitat:
and such twice the
amount of the * For the fish
(a) Muro-ami and similar gears
administra- workers who serve as
Kayakas; and and methods
tive fine. pounders
that require
(b) Danish Seine diving, other

OFFENSE LIABILITY
and modified physical or 1. Fine of Twenty

Danish Sei mechanical thousand pesos
acts to pound (Php20,000.00); or
the coral reefs
and other 2. Community
habitat to service in case of
entrap, gather failure to pay the
or catch fish fine.
and other
fishery species.
Section 97(b). - 1. A person, 1. Imprison- 1. Fine of Five

Gathering, natural or ment from million pesos
possession, juridical two (2) years (Php5,000,000.00)
commercially gathers, to ten (10) or five (5) times the
transporting, possesses, years; and value of the coral
selling or commercially rocks, sand, or silica
exporting coral transports, 2. Fine gathered, possessed,
sand, coral sells or exports equivalent to commercially
fragments, coral some twice the transported, sold, or
rocks, silica and substances; administra- exported, whichever
any other tive fine; is higher, and
substances which 2. Said confiscation of the
3.
make up any substances are substance.
Confiscation
marine habitat. coral sand,
of catch or
coral
substances
fragments,
and
coral
equipment or
rocks, silica,
gear used.
and any other
substances
which make up
any marine
habitat.
Section 98. -Illegal 1. A person is 1. Imprison- 1. FIne of Twenty
Use of Superlights engaged in ment from six thousand pesos
or Fishing Light fishing; (6) months to (Php20,000.00) per
Attractor. two (2) years; superlight or fishing
2. Said fishing and light attractor,;and
involves the
use of 2. Fine of 2. Confiscation of
superlight in Forty catch, superlight or
municipal thousand fishing light attractor
waters; or pesos and gears:
(Php40,000.0

OFFENSE LIABILITY
3. Said fishing 0) per * If the offender is a

involves the superlight or municipal fisher folk,
use of fishing fishing light he may render
light attractor attractor; and community service
in municipal in lieu of fine.
waters, using 3. Confis-
candlelight cation of
power or catch, super-
intensity light or
beyond the fishing light
standards set attractor and
by the Depart- gears:
ment; or
*If the
4. Said fishing offender is a
involves the municipal
use of super- fisher folk, he
light or fishing may render
light attractor community
outside muni- service in lieu
cipal waters in of fine or
violation of the imprison-
rules ment.
promulgated
by the Depart-
ment.
*The following
are the rules on
superlight out-
side municipal
water:
a. Small-scale
commercial
fishingboats
(3.1 to 20 GT)
20 KW per
vessel
b.Medium-
scale
commercial
fishing boats
(20.1 to 150

OFFENSE LIABILITY
GT) 36 KW per
vessel
c. Large-scale
commercial
fishing boats
(more than 150
GT) 40 KW
per vessel
(FAO 204 s. of
2000, the
implementatio
n of which is
suspended for
18 months
from the
effectivity of
the IRR
pursuant to
Rule 44.1, in
order to
conduct a
scientific study
as basis for the
review thereof)
Section 99. – 1. A person 1. Base fine of 1. Fine equivalent to

Conversion of converts Eighty the ecological value
Mangroves. mangroves; thousand of a hectare of
pesos mangrove based on
Exceptions: 2. Said (Php80,000.0 available studies; or
conversion is 0) and a fine
1) Areas covered for fishpond or 2. Fine of Ten
equivalent to
by Fishpond Lease any other million
the
Agree-ments purpose. pesos(Php10,000,00
administra-
(FLA), 0.00) per hectare,
tive penalties;
AquasilvicultureSt whichever is higher.
and
ewardship Con-
tract (ASC) or 2. Imprison- *If the area requires
Gratuitous Per-mit ment of six rehabilitation or
and other tenurial (6) months restoration as
instruments; and one (1) determined by the
day to twelve Department:
2) Private property
(12) years:
not classified as 1. Restoration or

OFFENSE LIABILITY
mangrove forest; *If the area payment for the

and requires restoration of the
rehabilita-tion damaged area.
3) Development or restoration
activities duly as determined
covered and by the court:
approved by
competent 1. Restoration
authorities. or payment
for the
restoration of
the damage.
2. Environ-
mental
damages
computed at
Five hundred
thousand
pesos
(P500,000.00)
per hectare
per year until
the area is
restored.

Fishing During engaged in ment of six catch and gear; and
Closed Season. fishing; (6) months
and one (1) 2. Administrative
2. Said fishing day to six (6) fine of:
is done during years;
closed season. (1) Three times the
2. Confisca- value of the catch or
tion of catch Twenty thousand
and gear; and pesos
(Php20,000.00) for
3. Fine twice municipal fishing,
the amount of whichever is higher:
the Provided, That if the
administrativ offender fails to pay
e fine; and the fine, community
service shall be
4. Cancella- rendered;
tion of license
(2) Five times the

OFFENSE LIABILITY
or permit. value of the catch or

One hundred
thousand pesos
(Php100,000.00),
whichever is higher
for small-scale
commercial fishing;
(3) Five times the
value of catch or
Three hundred
thousand pesos
(Php300,000.00),
whichever is higher
for medium-scale
commercial fishing;
and
(4) Five times the
value of catch or Five
hundred thousand
pesos
(Php500,000.00),
whichever is higher
for large-scale
commercial fishing.

Fishing in Marine engaged in ment of two catch and gear; and
Protected Areas, fishing; (2) years to
Fishery Reserves, six (6) years; 2. Fine of twice the
Refuge and 2. Said fishing and value of the catch or
Sanctuaries. is done in the amount indicated
marine 2. Fine twice below, whichever is
protected the amount of higher:
areas, fishery the
reserves, administra- (1) Twenty thousand
refuge, or fish tive fine; pesos
sanctuaries; (Php20,000.00) for
3. Confisca- municipal fishing:
3. Said areas tion of catch Provided, That if the
are declared as and gear, and offender fails to pay
such by the the fine, community
Department or 4. Cancel- service shall be
the LGUs. lation of rendered;
license or

OFFENSE LIABILITY
permit. (2) Two hundred
thousand pesos
(Php200,000.00) for
small-scale
commercial fishing;
(3) Six hundred
thousand pesos
(Php600,000.00) for
medium-scale
commercial fishing;
and
(4) One million
pesos
(Php1,000,000.00)
for large-scale
commercial fishing.
Section 102 (a). – 1. A person 1. Imprison- 1. Fine equivalent to

Fishing or Taking fishes, takes, ment of five times (5) times
of Rare, catches, twelve (12) the value of the
Threatened or gathers, sells, years and one species or Five
Endangered purchases, (1) day to hundred thousand
Species. (Appendix possesses, twenty (20) pesos
I Cites) transports, years; and (Php500,000.00) to
exports, Five million pesos
forwards or 2. Fine equi- (Php5,000,000.00),
ships out valent to twice whichever is higher;
aquatic species, the and
including their administra-
parts and tive fine; and 2. Forfeiture of the
derivatives; species.
3. Forfeiture
2. Said species of the species;
are listed in and
Appendix I of
4. Cancel-
the Convention
lation of
on the Inter-
fishing
national Trade
permit.
in Endangered
Species of Wild
Flora and
Fauna

OFFENSE LIABILITY
(CITES); or
3. Said species
are categorized
as threatened
by the Inter-
national Union
for
Conservation
of Nature and
Natural Re-
sources (IUCN)
and deter-
mined as such
by the
Department.
Section 102 (b). - 1. A person 1. Imprison- 1. Fine equivalent to

Fishing or Taking fishes, takes, ment of five three (3) times the
of Rare, catches, (5) to eight value of the species
Threatened or gathers, sells, (8) years; and or Three hundred
Endangered purchases, thousand pesos
Species. possesses, 2. Fine equi- (Php300,000.00) to
(Appendices II and transports, valent to twice Three million pesos
III of Cites) exports, the adminis- (Php3,000,000.00),
forwards or trative fine; whichever is higher;
Exception: ships out and and
aquatic species,
1. Taking or 3. Forfeiture 2. Forfeiture of the
including their
fishing of these of the species. species.
parts and
species from the
derivatives;
wild for scientific,
research, or 2. Said species
conservation are listed in
breeding CITES
simultaneous with Appendices II
commercial and III;
breeding.
3. There are
scientific
assessments
that show that
population of
the said species
in the wild

OFFENSE LIABILITY
cannot remain
viable under
pressure of
collection and
trade:
Section 102 (c) – 1. A person 1. Imprison- 1. Fine equivalent to

gathers, takes, ment of five three (3) times the
Fishing or Taking possesses, (5) toc eight value of the species
of Rare, transports, (8) years; and or Three hundred
Threatened or exports, thousand pesos
Endangered forwards or 2. A fine (Php300,000.00) to
Species. (captive ships out equivalent to Three million pesos
bred species that captive-bred three (3) (Php3,000,000.00),
were transplanted species, times the whichever is higher;
to the wild) including their value of the and
parts and species or
derivatives; Three million 2. Forfeiture of the
pesos species.
2. These (Php3,000,00
captive-bred 0.00)whichev
species were er is higher;
formerly and
transplanted to
the wild. 3. Forfeiture
of the species.
If by a vessel
manned by
more than
two (2)
persons, the
captain,
master, and
two highest
ranking
officers of the
vessel
involved in
the fishing or
taking of such
protected
marine life
shall be

OFFENSE LIABILITY
presumed to
have
committed
the prohibited
act.
Section 103.- 1. A person is 1. Imprison- 1. Fine equivalent to

Capture of Sabalo in the act of ment of six five (5) times the
and Other catching, (6) months value of the sabalo,
Breeders/Spawner gathering, and one (1) other breeders, or
s. capturing or day to eight spawners gathered
possessing; (8) years; and or captured, or Five
hundred thousand
2. The object of 2. Fine pesos
any of the said equivalent to (Php500,000.00),
acts is mature twice the whichever is higher;
milkfish or amount of the and
sabalo and administra-
other breeders tive fine; and 2. Forfeiture of catch
or spawners of and gear.
other fishery 3. Forfeiture
species as of catch and
determined by fishing
the equipment
Department. used; and
4. Suspesion
or revocation
of license.
Section 104. – 1. A person is 1. Imprison- 1. Administrative

Exportation of engaged in ment of eight fine equivalent to
Breeders, exportation; (8) years to three (3) times the
Spawners, Eggs or ten (10) years; value of the
Fry. 2. The objects breeders, spawners,
of the said act 2. Confis- eggs, or fry exported
Exception: are breeders, cation of or One hundred
spawners or breeders, thousand pesos
Exportation of viable or live spawners, (Php100,000.00) to
hatchery-bred or eggs or fry eggs or fry; Five hundred
captive-bred intended for thousand pesos
breeder, spawner, breeding, 3. fine equi-
(Php500,000.00),
egg or fry, propagation or valent to twice
whichever is higher;
provided the culture the amount of

OFFENSE LIABILITY
exporter complies purposes. the 2. Confiscation of
with the following administra- breeders, spawners,
requirements: tive fine; eggs or fry;
(a) Registration of 4. revocation 3. Suspension or
the hatchery or of the fishing revocation of license
captive breeding license, for commercial
facility; and/or fishing and/or
suspension or registration as
(b) Registration of revocation of exporter.
exporter with DA- registration as
BFAR; exporter.
(c) Issuance of
health certificate
as may be required
by the importing
country;
(d) Issuance of
export commodity
clearance; and
(e) Clearance of
the outgoing
commodity at the
border inspection.
* There is There is full
presumption of cooperation if
connivance or upon five (5)
conspiracy to days from
violate between receipt of a
the company and written request
shipper, if the by the DA-
shipping or BFAR, the
forwarding following
company fails to documents
fully cooperate in covering the
the investigation transactions
conducted. are submitted:
(a) Cargo
booking
advice;
(b) Master

OFFENSE LIABILITY
airway bill
(MAWB) or
transfer
manifest;
(c) Articles of
Incorporation/
Partnership or
DTI
registration;
(d) Copy of the
latest General
Information
Sheet/Financia
l Statement of
the
corporation;
(e) Latest
address of
exporter on
record;
(f) Copy of
latest
statement of
account of the
exporter;
(g) List of
employees of
exporter on
record;
(h) Contact
numbers of
exporter on
record; and
(i) A written
undertaking of
the owner of
the shipping or
forwarding
company to

OFFENSE LIABILITY
provide other
assistance,
which may
include among
others, the
appearance of
any officer of
the company
during the
investigation
process.
Section 105. - 1. A person is 1. Eight (8) 1. Administrative

Importation or engaged in the years of fine of five (5) times
Exportation of importation or imprison- the value of the
Fish or Fishery exportation of ment; and species or Three
Species. fish or fishery hundred thousand
species; 2. Fine of pesos
twice the (Php300,000.00) to
2. Said acts are administra- Five hundred
(Note: there is in violation of tive fine; thousand pesos
presumption of this Code. (Php500,000.00),
conspiracy or 3. Forfeiture
whichever is higher;
connivance similar (Note: Con- and/or
and
to Section 104 ditions of full destruction of
above) cooperation are the species. 2. Forfeiture and/or
similar to destruction of the
Section 104 species.
above.)
The offenders
shall be
banned from
being
members or
stockholders
of companies
currently
engaged in
fisheries or
companies to
be created in
the future, the
guidelines for
which shall be
promulgated
by the

OFFENSE LIABILITY
Department.

Violation of engaged in ment of six catch and fishing
Harvest Control fishing; (6) months gear;
Rules. and one (1)
2. Said fishing day to six (6) 2. Revocation of
is done in years; and license; and
violation of
harvest control 2. Fine twice 3. Fine of:
rules as the adminis-
(1) Three times the
determined by trative fine;
value of the catch or
the and
Twenty thousand
Department.
3. Confisca- pesos
tion of catch (Php20,000.00) for
and fishing municipal fishing,
gear; and whichever is higher:
Provided, That if the
4. Revocation offender fails to pay
of license. the fine, community
service shall be
rendered;
(2) Five times the
One hundred
thousand pesos
(Php100,000.00)
whichever is higher
for small-scale
commercial fishing;
(3) Five times the
One million pesos
(Php1,000,000.00),
whichever is higher
for medium-scale
commercial fishing;
and
(4) Five times the
Five million pesos
(Php5,000,000.00),

OFFENSE LIABILITY
for large-scale
commercial fishing.
Section 107. – 1. A person is 1. Imprison- 1. Fine of Three

Aquatic Pollution. engaged in an ment of six hundred thousand
— Aquatic activity; (6) years and pesos
pollution, as one (1) day to (Php300,000.00) to
defined in this 2. Said activity twelve (12) Five hundred
Code shall be results into years; and thousand pesos
unlawful. deleterious (Php500,000.00);
effects as to 2. Fine twice and
harm living the amount of
and non-living the 2. An additional fine
aquatic administrativ of Fifteen thousand
resources; or e fine; and pesos
(Php15,000.00) per
3. Said activity 3. Additional day until the
poses potential fine of Fifteen violation ceases and
and/or real thousand the fines are paid;
hazard to pesos
human health; (Php15,000.0 3. The imposition of
or 0) per day cease and desist
until the order, closure or
4. Said activity violation suspension of the
hinders the ceases and the development,
conduct of fines are paid; construction or
aquatic facility, or cessation
activities, such 4. The of operations, or
as fishing and imposition of disconnection of
navigation; or cease and water supply.
desist order,
5. Said activity closure or
constitutes suspension of
dumping/dispo the *The order may be
sal of waste development, issued ex parte
and other construction pending resolution
marine litters, or facility, or of the case.
or cessation of
operations, or
6. Said activity
disconnec-
constitutes
tion of water
discharge of
supply.
petroleum, or
residual *The order
products of may be issued

OFFENSE LIABILITY
petroleum or ex parte
carbonaceous pending
materials/subs resolution of
tances, and the case.
other
radioactive,
noxious or
harmful liquid,
gaseous or
solid
substances,
from any
water, land or
air transport or
other human-
made
structure;
Section 108. - 1. A comer-cial Who are Who are liable?

Failure to Comply fishing vessel is liable?
with Minimum engaged in Owner and captain
Safety Standards. fishing; Owner and of a commercial
captain of a fishing vessel -
2. Its owner commercial
and captain fail fishing vessel 1. Fine of One
to exhibit or - hundred thousand
show proof of pesos
compliance 1. Imprison- (Php100,000.00);
with safety ment from and
standards, one (1) month
and one (1) 2. Suspension or
upon demand
day to six (6) cancellation of
by proper
months; and permit or license;
authorities;
and
2. Fine of
3. The safety 3. Impoundment of
twice the
standards are the vessel until the
amount of the
the standards safety standard has
administra-
provided in RA been complied with.
tive fine,
8550 as
amended or in 3. Suspension
the regulation or
to be pro- cancellation
mulgated by of permit or
DA-BFAR in license and
coordination

OFFENSE LIABILITY
with MARINA, 4. Impound-

NTC, PCG and ment of the
other vessel until
concerned the safety
agencies standard has
been
complied
with.
Section 109. – 1. A person is Who is liable? Who is liable?

Failure to Submit engaged in
a Yearly Report on fishpond, fish Owner and The owner of the
All Fishponds, pen or fish cage operator of fishpond, fish pen or
Fish Pens and Fish operation; fishponds, fish cage -
Cages. fish pens and
2. Said person
fish cages - 1. Fine of Five
fails to submit
an annual thousand pesos
report to the 1. Fine that is (Php5,000.00) per
Department twice the unreported hectare.
pursuant to amount of the
Section 57 of administra- 2. In case the
this Code. tive fine. fishpond is covered
by FLA, non-
submission of a
report for two (2)
consecutive years
shall result to its
cancellation.
Section 110. – 1. A person 1. Imprison- 1. Fine equivalent to

Gathering and gathers, takes, ment from the value of the
Marketing of Shell sells, transfers, one (1) month species or Fifty
Fishes or Other possesses, and one (1) thousand pesos
Aquatic Species. commercially day to six (6) (Php50,000.00),
transports, ex- months; and whichever is higher;
ports, forwards and
or ships out 2. Fine equi-
shell fish or valent to twice 2. Confiscation of the
other aquatic the amount of same; and
species; the
administra- 3. Cancellation of
2. Said species tive fine; and permit or license
shall be imposed

OFFENSE LIABILITY
are sexually 3. Cancel- upon the offender.

mature shell lation of the
fishes or other permit or
aquatic species license.
identified by
the
Department; or
3. Said shell
fishes or other
aquatic species
are below the
minimum size
prescribed for
the species; or
4. Said shell
fishes or other
aquatic species
are above the
maximum
quantities
prescribed for
the species.
Section 111. – 1. A person is 1. Imprison- 1. Fine of Two

Obstruction to engaged in an ment from hundred thousand
Navigation or Flow activity; one (1) month pesos
or Ebb of Tide in and one (1) (Php200,000.00);
any Stream, River, 2. Said activity day to six (6) and
Lake or Bay. causes months; and
obstruction to 2. Dismantling of the
navigation or 2. Fine of obstruction, fish
flow or ebb of twice the corrals/traps, fish
Exception: tide. amount of the pens or fish cages at
administra- the expense of the
Existing fisheries
tive fine; offender.
structures not
prohibited by law 3. Confis-
are not con- cation of
sidered as stocks; and
obstruction to
navigation and 4.
Dismantling

OFFENSE LIABILITY
free flow of water. of the
obstruction,
fish
corrals/traps,
fish pens or
fish cages at
the expense of
the violator.
Section 112. 1. A person is 1. Imprison- 1. Fine of Ten

Noncompliance engaged in the ment of three thousand pesos
with Good breeding and (3) years; and (Php10,000.00) to
Aquaculture farming of fish One hundred
Practices. and other 2. Fine of thousand pesos
fishery species; twice the (Php100,000.00)
amount of the per day until the
2. Said administra- violation ceases and
activities do tive fine. the fines are paid.
not comply
with good
aquaculture
practices and
the guidelines
for environ-
mentally-
sound design
promulgated
by the
Department; or
3. Said
activities
violate the
standards set
by the Depart-
ment;
4. The non-
compliance or
the violation
resulted into
any of the
following:
(a) 50%
mortality of the

OFFENSE LIABILITY
cultured fish
stocks of an
aquaculture
zone
comprised of
several
contiguous
farms owned
by different
individuals;
(b) Poisoning
of wild fish
population;
(c) Widespread
contamination
of pests and
diseases; or,
(d) Aquatic
pollution as
defined under
this Code.
Section 113(a). – 1. The person Who is liable? Who is liable?

Commercial owns or
Fishing Vessel operates a The owner The owner or
Operators commercial and operator operator of a
Employing fishing vessel; of the comer- commercial fishing
Unlicensed Fisher cial fishing vessel employing
folk, Fish worker 2. Said person vessel - unlicensed fisher
or Crew. employs fisher folk or fish worker or
folk, fish 1. Fine with crew -
Exception: worker or twice the
crew; amount of the 1. Fine of Four
All crew on board administra- thousand pesos
a commercial 3. Said fisher tive fine; and (Php4,000.00) for
fishing vessel shall folk, fish each unlicensed
be required a worker or crew 2. Suspension fisher folk or fish
Fisherman's has no Fisher- or cancel- worker or crew; and
License, except man’s License. lation of
the: license. 2. Suspension or
revocation of license

OFFENSE LIABILITY
(a) Captain or Note: The for commercial

Master; presentation of fishing.
an official
(b) Cook, unless he receipt
is also involved in covering a
fishing; completed
application for
(c) Crew declared
renewal of a
in the manifest,
Fisherman's
unless he is also
License and a
involved in
certification
fishing; and
from the DA-
(d) Non-crew BFAR that the
passengers renewal is
declared in the being
manifest. processed shall
be accepted as
proof to negate
liability under
this section.
Section 11 (b). – 1. The entity is Who is liable? Who is liable?

Philippine Flagged a Philippine
Commercial flagged fishing The owner The owner and
Fishing Vessel vessel; and operator operator of the
Operators of the distant water fishing
Engaged in 2. Said vessel is commercial vessel
Distant water engaged in distant water
distant water fishing vessel 1. Fine of Forty
fishing Employing
fishing; - thousand pesos
Unlicensed Fisher
(Php40,000.00) for
folk, Fish worker
3. Said vessel 1. Fine with each unlicensed
or Crew.
employs fisher twice the fisher folk, fish
Exception: folk, fish amount of the worker or crew; and
worker or crew. administra-
All crew on board tive fine and 2. Suspension or
a commercial 4. Said fisher cancellation of
fishing vessel shall folk, fish 2. Suspen- license.
be required a worker or crew sion or
Fisherman's has no cancellation
License, except Fisherman’s of license.
the: License.
(a) Captain or
Master;
Note: The

OFFENSE LIABILITY
(b) Cook, unless he presentation of

is also involved in an official
fishing; receipt
covering a
(c) Crew declared completed
in the manifest, application for
unless he is also renewal of a
involved in Fisherman's
fishing; and License and a
certification
(d) Non-crew
from the DA-
passengers
BFAR that the
declared in the
renewal is
manifest.
being
processed shall
be accepted as
proof to negate
liability under
this section.

OFFENSE LIABILITY
Section 114. – 1. A person is 1. Imprison- 1. Fine of One
Obstruction of engaged in an ment of seven hundred fifty
Defined Migration activity; (7) years to thousand pesos
Paths. twelve (12) (Php150,000.00) to
2. Said activity years; and Five hundred
causes thousand pesos
obstruction of 2. Fine of (Php500,000.00);
any defined twice the
migration path amount of the 2. Dismantling of the
of ana- administra- obstruction at the
dromous, cata- tive fine; expense of the
dromous and offender; and
other mig- 3. Dismant-
ratory species ling of the 3. Suspension or
provided in obstruction at revocation of the
FAO No. 217, the expense of permit or license.
Series of 2001, the offender;
and other and
migratory
4. Suspension
passages that
or revocation
may later on be
of the permit
declared or
or license.
identified.
Section 115. – 1. A person is a 1. Imprison- 1. Cancellation of

Obstruction to fishing vessel ment from six license or permit and
Fishery Law owner, master (6) months to
Enforcement or operator or two (2) years; 2. Fine of One
Officer. any other and million pesos
person acting (Php1,000,000.00)
Note: on behalf of 2. Fine twice for fishing vessels
any fishing the amount of operating in
1. Fishery law the adminis- Philippine waters or
vessel;
enforcement trative fine; Two million pesos
officer, authorized 2. Said person and (Php2,000,000.00)
inspector or assaults, for fishing vessels
observer, a resists, 3. Cancel- operating beyond
deputized fish intimidates, lation of Philippine waters.
warden of the harasses, license or
LGU, or any seriously permit.
lawfully boarding interferes with,
government or unduly

OFFENSE LIABILITY
officers only refer obstructs or
to properly delays a fishery
appointed and law
authorized officer enforcement
by competent officer,
authorities, authorized
properly identified inspector or
as an officer by observer, the
wearing the proper deputized fish
uniform and/or by warden of the
possessing an LGU, or any
identification card lawfully-
indicating his boarding
appointment and government
authorization. officers;
2. Said officers 3. Said fishery
should observe the law enforce-
proper boarding ment officer,
and inspection authorized
procedures as inspector or
provided in the observer, the
approved manual deputized fish
of operations. warden of the
LGU, or any
lawfully-
boarding
government
officers are in
the exercise of
their duties.
Section 116. (a) – 1. The entity is 1. Imprison- 1. Fine of Five

Non-compliance a Philippine ment of one hundred thousand
with Fisheries distant water (1) month and pesos
Observer fishing vessel; one (1) day to (Php500,000.00);
Coverage. (distant six (6) and
water fishing) 2. Said entity months; and
sails without a 2. Forfeiture of the
fisheries 2. Fine of catch and gear.
observer on twice the
amount of the

OFFENSE LIABILITY
board; adminis-
trative fine;
3. The presence and
of the fisheries
observer is 3. Confis-
required by cation of
RFMO catch;
conservation
and 4. Suspension
management or cancel-
measures. lation of
license.
Section 116 (b). – 1. The entity is 1. Imprison- 1. Fine of Five

Non-compliance a commercial ment of one hundred thousand
with Fisheries fishing vessel; (1) month and pesos
Observer one (1) day to (Php500,000.00);
Coverage. (non- 2. Said vessel six (6) and
distant water sails without a months; and
fishing) fisheries 2. Forfeiture of the
observer; 2. Fine of catch and gear.
twice the
amount of the
adminis-
trative fine,
3. Confis-
cation of
catch, and
4. Suspen-
sion or
cancellation
of license.
Section 117. –Non- 1. The entity is Failure to comply

compliance with a foreign with the 24-hour
Port State fishing vessel; period:
Measures.
2. Said fishing 1. Denial of
vessel is permission to enter
granted entry; or use of port
facilities; and
3. Said fishing
vessel fails to 2. The vessel may be

OFFENSE LIABILITY
provide a catch subject to onboard
report; and/or inspection and/or
impoundment.
4. It fails to
comply with
other rules on
port state
measures;
5. Said
measures are
promulgated
by the
Department in
coordination
with port state
authorities.
Section 118. – 1. A person is 1. Imprison- 1. Confiscation of

Failure to Comply engaged in ment of six catch; and
with Rules and fishing; (6) months;
Regulations on and 2. Suspension or
Conservation and 2. Said person cancellation of
Management fails to comply 2. Fine twice license or permit;
Measures. with the amount of and
conservation the
and manage- administra- 3. Fine of twice the
ment measures tive fine; and value of the catch or
adopted and the amount indicated
rules and 3. Confis- below whichever is
regulations cation of the higher:
promulgated catch; and
(1) Twenty thousand
by the Depart-
4. Suspension pesos
ment;
or cancel- (Php20,000.00) for
3. Said mea- lation of municipal fishing or
sures, rules license. community service
and regulations in case of failure to
are adopted pay the fine;
pursuant to
(2) One million
international
pesos
conventions,
(Php1,000,000.00)
RFMO
for small-scale
resolutions and
commercial fishing;
laws of coastal
states where

OFFENSE LIABILITY
Philippine (3) Two million five

vessels fish. hundred thousand
pesos
(Php2,500,000.00),
for medium-scale
commercial fishing;
and
(4) Five million
pesos
(Php5,000,000.00),
for large-scale
commercial fishing.
Section 119. – 1. The entity is Who is liable? Who is liable?

a municipal,
Non-compliance commercial or Master or any The fishing vessel
with Vessel distant water other person owner, master or any
Monitoring fishing vessel; acting on other person acting
Measures. behalf of the on behalf of the
2. It fails to vessel owner - vessel owner -
comply with
the vessel 1. Imprison- 1. Confiscation of
monitoring ment of six catch;
measures; or (6) months to
two (2) years; 2. Suspension or
3. Said vessel and revocation of the
intentionally license; and
tampers with, 2. Fine twice
the amount of 3. Fine equivalent to
switches off or
the adminis- twice the value of the
disables the
trative fine; catch or the amount
vessel
indicated below,
monitoring
3. Confis- whichever is higher:
system;
cation of
catch; and (1) Ten thousand
4. The vessel
pesos
monitoring
4. Suspension (Php10,000.00) for
measures were
or revocation municipal fishing or
promulgated
of the license. community service
by the
in case of failure to
Department in
pay the fine;
coordination
with the LGUs. (2) Two hundred
fifty thousand pesos
Note: for
(Php250,000.00) for
vessels

OFFENSE LIABILITY
operating in small-scale
Philippine commercial fishing;
waters, only
the catcher (3) Five hundred
vessel shall be thousand pesos
covered by this (Php500,000.00) for
requirement. medium-scale
commercial fishing;
and
(4) Two million five
hundred thousand
pesos
(Php2,500,000.00)
for large-scale
commercial fishing.
* In case of violation
committed in waters
beyond national
jurisdiction, the
administrative fine
shall be equivalent to
five times the value
of the catch or twice
the amount indicated
above, whichever is
higher.
Section 120. – 1. A person 1. Imprison- Fine of:

constructs, ment from
Constructing, imports fishing one (1) month (1) Fifty thousand
Importing or vessels or and one (1) pesos
Converting gears, or day to six (6) (Php50,000.00) for
Fishing Vessels or converts other months; and small-scale
Gears Without vessels into commercial fishing;
Permit from the fishing vessels; 2. Fine of
Department. twice the (2) Five hundred
2. Said acts amount of the thousand pesos
were done adminis- (Php500,000.00) for
without permit trative fine. medium-scale
from the commercial fishing;
Department. and
(3) Two million five
hundred thousand

OFFENSE LIABILITY
pesos
(Php2,500,000.00)
for large-scale
commercial fishing.
Section 121. –Use 1. A person is 1. Fine from 1. Fine from Two

of Unlicensed engaged in Four hundred hundred thousand
Gear. commercial thousand pesos
fishing; pesos (Php200,000.00) to
(Php400,000. Five hundred
2. Said person 00) to One thousand pesos
uses a fishing million pesos (Php500,000.00)
gear or method (Php1,000,00 per gear depending
without license 0.00) on the seriousness of
from the depending on the violation.
Department. the
seriousness of
the violation.
Note: Official
receipts
covering an
application for
renewal of gear
license and a
certification
from the DA-
BFAR that the
gear license is
undergoing
renewal shall
be accepted as
proof of
renewal of
license pending
issuance of the
gear license.
Section 122. – 1. A person is 1. Imprison- 1. Confiscation of

Falsifying, Con- engaged in ment from catch and
cealing or Tam- fishing; two (2) years
pering with Vessel to six (6) 2. Suspension or
Markings, Identity 2. Said person years; and cancellation of
or Registration. falsifies, con- license and
ceals vessel 2. Fine equi-
identity or lack valent to twice

OFFENSE LIABILITY
of registration; the amount of 3. Fine of:

or the adminis-
trative fine; (1) Ten thousand
3. Said person and pesos
tampers with (Php10,000.00) for
the vessel 3. Confis- municipal fishing or
markings, cation of community service
identity or catch, and in case of failure to
registration. pay the fine;
4. Suspension
or can- (2) One hundred
cellation of thousand pesos
license. (Php100,000.00) for
small-scale
commercial fishing;
(3) One million
pesos
(Php1,000,000.00)
for medium-scale
commercial fishing;
and
(4) Five million
pesos
(Php5,000,000.00)
for large-scale
commercial fishing.
In case of violation
by distant water
fishing vessels, the
administrative fine
shall be twice the
amount indicated
above.
Section 123. – 1. A person 1. Imprison- 1. Suspension or

Concealing, commits a ment from cancellation of
Tampering or violation of five (5) years license; and
Disposing of fishery law, to ten (10)
Evidence Relating rules and years; and 2. Administrative
to an Investigation regulations; fine of:
of a Violation. 2. Fine equi-
2. The valent to twice (1) Ten thousand
authorities are the pesos

OFFENSE LIABILITY
conducting administra- (Php10,000.00) for

investigation tive fine; and municipal fishing or
on the said community service
violation; 3. Suspension in case of failure to
or can- pay the fine;
3. The offender cellation of
conceals, the license. (2) One hundred
tampers or thousand pesos
disposes (Php100,000.00) for
evidence small-scale
relating to the commercial fishing;
said
investigation. (3) One million
pesos
(Php1,000,000.00)
for medium-scale
commercial fishing;
and
(4) Five million
pesos
(Php5,000,000.00)
for large-scale com-
mercial fishing.
In case of violation
by distant water
fishing vessels, the
administrative fine
shall be twice the
amount indicated
above.
Section 124. – 1. A person 1. Imprison- 1. Fine of Two

Non-compliance imports, ment of six hundred thousand
with the Require- introduces, or (6) years to pesos
ments for the breeds, foreign (12) years; (Php200,000.00) to
Introduction of or exotic and Six million pesos
Foreign or Exotic aquatic (Php6,000,000.00);
Aquatic Species. species; 2. Fine from and
Four hundred
2. Said thousand 2. Confiscation and
activities are pesos destruction of the
done without (Php400,000. foreign or exotic
the conduct of 00) to Twelve species.
risk analysis million pesos

OFFENSE LIABILITY
and prior (Php * Should the species
approval of the 12,000,000.00) become invasive and
Department. ; result to predation of
native aquatic biota,
3. Confis-
loss of income or
cation of
damage to the
foreign or
habitat, the offender
exotic species;
shall bear the costs
and
of containment,
4. Costs for eradication and/or
containment, restoration.
eradication or
restoration.
Section 125. 1. A person is 1. imprison- 1. Fine of Fifty

Failure to Comply engaged in ment from six thousand pesos
with Standards fishery trade (6) months to (Php50,000.00) to
and Trade-Related and two (2) years Two million pesos
Measures. transactions; and (Php2,000,000.00),
depending on the
2. Said person 2. Fine from seriousness, extent
fails to comply One hundred and volume of trade
with standards thousand associated with the
for weights, pesos violation,
volume, quality (Php100,000.
and other 00) to Four 2. Confiscation of the
requirements million pesos shipment or fishery
for all fishery (Php4,000,00 products; and
transactions 0.00)
and trade and depending on 3. Suspension or
trade-related the revocation of
measures; seriousness, registration or
extent and license.
3. Said volume of
measures are trade
prescribed by associated
the with the
Department. violation;
3. Confis-
cation of the
shipment or
fishery

OFFENSE LIABILITY
products; and
4. Suspension
or revocation
of registration
or license.
Section 126. – 1. A person 1. Imprison- 1. Fine of Fifty

Possessing, ships, ment from six thousand pesos
Dealing in or commercially (6) months to (Php50,000.00) to
Disposing Illegally transports, two (2) years; Two hundred
Caught or Taken offers for sale, and thousand pesos
Fish. sells, imports, (Php200,000.00) or
exports, or has 2. Fine of five (5) times the
custody, eight (8) value of fish or
control, or times the species, whichever is
Exception: value of the
possession of, higher; and
or deals in or in species or
Acts undertaken to
any manner from One 2. Confiscation of the
dispose
disposes of any hundred same.
confiscated fish
fish or species; thousand
following seizure
pesos
or confiscation in
2. Said fish or (Php100,000.
accordance with
species were 00) to Five
existing rules.
caught, taken hundred
or retained in thousand
violation of this pesos
Prima facie Code. (Php500,000.
presumption of 00),
knowledge that the whichever is
fish or species are higher; and
illegally caught:
3.Confiscation
1. The discovery of of the fish or
any fish or species fishery
caught with the products; and
use of explosives The following
or noxious or are the 4.Suspension
poisonous instances when or revocation
substances. a prima facie of registration
presumption of or license.
knowledge
applies:
(a)Completion
of the training

OFFENSE LIABILITY
by the
offender;
(b)Failure to
complete the
training for an
unjustifiable
cause; or,
(c) Failure to
attend despite
due notice.
Section 127. – 1. A person 1. Imprison-

Unauthorized discloses data ment of six
Disclosure of from the vessel (6) months
Sensitive monitoring and one day
Technical system or to six (6)
Information. vessel years; and
monitoring
Exceptions: The measure and 2. Removal
following other related from office;
instances are data arising and
authorized therefrom,
disclosure, 3. Forfeiture
including all
provided, the of all
other data
affected party is retirement
referred to in
informed: benefits,
Section 155 of
where
this Code;
1. When officially applicable.
requested by a 2. Said dis-
government closure is not
agency to be used authorized.
as evidence for the
prosecution of
fishery or other
offenses;
2. When requested
by the flag, coastal
or port state for its
own investigation
or traceability; and
3. Other analogous

OFFENSE LIABILITY
circumstances.
Section 128. – 1. A person 1. Fine of One

violates fishery hundred thousand
Other Violations. administrative pesos
orders or (Php100,000.00) to
regulations or Five million pesos
any provisions (Php5,000,000.00),
thereof; depending on the
socioeconomic
2. Said impact and
administrative seriousness of the
orders or violation, volume
regulations are and value of the
promulgated fisheries product,
by the damage to the
Department. environment due to
the violation, and the
habituality of the
offender.
Escalation Clause. The fines herein prescribed shall be

- It shall be increased by at least ten percent (10%)
applied when 2 every three (3) years to compensate
conditions concur: for inflation and to maintain the
BSP determination deterrent function of such fines.
of inflation for
past 3 years and
existing fines are
no longer
deterrent (Rule
129.1 of IRR)

Section 3.3. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT
A. GENERAL RULES
1. Any proceeding relating to money laundering and the

unlawful activity shall be given precedence over the
prosecution of an offense or violation under the Anti-Money
Laundering Act (AMLA) (RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194)
without prejudice to the application ex-parte by the Anti-
Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to the Court of Appeals
for a freeze order with respect to the monetary instrument or
property involved therein and resort to other remedies
provided under the AMLA, the Rules of Court and other
pertinent laws and Rules.
2. Trial for the money laundering offense shall proceed in

accordance with the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
3. Knowledge of the offender that any monetary instrument or

property represents, involves or relates to the proceeds of an
unlawful activity or that any monetary instrument or property
is required and may be established by direct evidence or
inferred from the attendant circumstances.
B. DUTIES OF THE PROSECUTOR
1. Upon receipt of the complaint filed by the AMLC pursuant to

Sec. 7 (4) of the AMLA, the prosecutor shall conduct the
requisite preliminary investigation;
2. When there is a finding of probable cause to engender a well-

founded belief that a money laundering offense has been
committed, recommend for the filing of an Information before
the Regional Trial Court;
3. Once the filing of an Information in court has been approved

by the head of office, prepare for the trial for the money
laundering offense in close coordination with the AMLC
official who file the complaint.
4. During the trial of the case, prove by evidence beyond

reasonable doubt all elements of every money laundering
offense under Sec. 4 of the AMLA, including the element of

knowledge that the monetary instrument or property
represents, involves or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful
activity.447
No element of the unlawful activity, however, including the

identity of the perpetrators and the details of the actual
commission of the unlawful activity, need be established by
proof beyond reasonable doubt since the elements of the
offense of money laundering are separate and distinct from
the elements of the felony or offense constituting the unlawful
activity.448
447 Rule 6.6. of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A.
No. 9194.
448 Rule 6.7, Ibid.

Section 3.4. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION
I. GENERAL
A. Structure
This special section on human rights will start by presenting a

summative checklist to guide a public prosecutor in dealing with cases
of human rights violations – what the requisites are for their
successful prosecution and the alternative or cumulative legal
remedies that can be availed of.
The first part of this section will identify the particular human rights
violation in focus, then proceed to outline how the Public Prosecutor
can deal with it using available remedies in substantive and
procedural criminal law.
The second part of this section will identify generic remedies available
under substantive law that may be resorted to and employed in the
process of seeking redress to human rights violations. However, since
these provisions are few and perform only a largely compensatory
function, we have to turn to the larger field of substantive and
procedural criminal law to be able to fully address the consequences of
the violation and provide the victim with the full coterie of remedies
designed to vindicate the rights violated.
B. Checklist
1. STEP ONE. How do you know that a human rights

violation has been committed?
a. LOOK AT THE LEGAL BASIS. The enumeration of civil and

political rights and liberties can be found in the Constitution’s
Bill of Rights and the Civil Code’s Article 32.
• If the violator is an agent of the State, then the Bill of

Rights is more applicable, because the limitations set
forth therein are addressed to the exercise of
governmental powers and prerogatives.
• For private parties violating human rights, Article 32 will

be more appropriate.
b. LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. One of the

more basic characteristics of human rights is that they are of
such fundamental character that anyone can readily

acknowledge their inherence in every human person; as such,
anyone can also readily recognize when a violation thereof has
been committed. Some of the defining character of human
rights violations are:
• They involve a wanton violation of the integrity

of the human person’s body.
For example, physical injuries inflicted on a person are

undoubtedly on a lower plane compared to acts of torture
where the intent to inflict pain is supplanted by the intent
to cause intense physical suffering, trauma, and agony
beyond the limits of human tolerance. Anyone can readily
recognize the difference in the quality of evil that impels a
person who merely intends to injure and a person who
takes advantage of the fragility and limits of what the
human body can take in order to totally subdue the will of
another.
• They involve an infliction of intense

psychological anguish, emotional suffering,
and moral helplessness.
For example, families of victims of enforced

disappearance had to contend with the lifelong agony of
not knowing what became of their loved ones, and not
even having the opportunity to give them a decent burial.
This kind of suffering adds an entirely new layer of evil to
what would otherwise be a plain case of deprivation of life
and liberty. Deliberately withholding information
regarding the whereabouts of a person involuntarily
disappeared makes the loss of a loved one assume an
entirely different dimension.
• They deviate from universally-accepted

minimum standards of treatment of every
human person.
Society may be divided in the issue of the imposition of

the death penalty in the criminal justice system, but
everyone will agree that nobody deserves to die in an
excruciatingly painful manner; and the relatives of the
dead should have the opportunity to bury their dead with
dignity. When a wrongful act deprives a human person of
what is due him/ her according to the minimum
standards inherently ingrained in everyone’s sense of

humanity, then there is an assault against fundamental
human rights.
2. STEP TWO. How do you prove that there has been a

human rights violation?
• Medico-legal reports (for physical trauma)

• Autopsy reports (for causes of death and internal/external
injuries sustained immediately prior to, or contemporaneous
with, the point of death)
• Psychiatric and psychological evaluations (for mental,
emotional, and psychological trauma on the part of the victim
and his/ her relatives)
• Affidavits of witnesses (focusing on the circumstances that
would qualify an act as a human rights violation, as discussed
above)
3. STEP THREE. What do you do about it? Determine

whether –
a. The Human Rights Violation Is Continually Being
Perpetrated.
For example:
• in the case of a person involuntarily disappeared and whose

fate and whereabouts are still unknown; or
• in the case of a person whose life or liberty is under threat by
reason of his/ her political beliefs; or
• in the case of a person currently under the custody of State
authorities under circumstances that would warrant a well-
engendered fear of his/ her being subjected to torture or other
forms of suffering.
In these cases, the urgent need is to gather information regarding

the condition or whereabouts of the person, so that the
appropriate remedy can be availed of:
• avail of the right of visitation of, and conference with, counsel

that is granted to every detainee or person under custodial
investigation. Torture or other forms of persecution can
speedily be discovered and addressed through this means.
• utilize inquest proceedings so that violations of human rights
can already be disclosed early on.

• bring to the attention of the court actual knowledge, or well-
founded suspicion of torture or other forms of human rights
violations. The courts, under Administrative Matter No. MTJ
90-4001 have the positive duty to “proceed with caution”
during trial whenever allegations of violations of the
fundamental rights of the accused are brought to their
attention.
• gather information through the usual channels of inquiry,

taking into account whether or not information being sought
is:
1. open to public access, or

2. privileged, or
3. withheld from the public by reason of national security,
etc.
• if this fails, or if information leading to the location of a

person or ascertainment of his/ her condition is privileged or
classified, then avail of the Writ of Habeas Data, mindful of
the satisfaction of the requisites regarding:
1. proper parties,
2. required allegations, and
3. remedies prayed for.
• If information-gathering discloses the whereabouts of a

person, or if such is already known at the outset, or if the
source of the threat to one’s life or liberty has been clearly
determined, then an aggrieved party can:
1. Compel officials having custody of the person to bring

such person to court so that his/ her condition can be
examined and his/ her detention can be justified through
a Writ of Habeas Corpus; or
2. Compel the State to extend such protection as may be

adequate to safeguard his/ her rights through a Writ of
Amparo.

b. The Human Rights Violation Has Already Been
Perpetrated.
For example:
• In the case of a person who has already been subjected to

torture; or
• In the case of a person who was involuntarily disappeared and

subsequently found to have been killed through “salvaging”;
or
• In the case of persons who were forced to leave their homes en

masse through intimidation and violence.
In these cases, the paramount remedy is to seek redress for the

violation that has already been committed. This can be done through:
• REMEDIES THAT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZE HUMAN

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. Although there are only few legal
remedies that specifically tackle and address human rights
violations, they are nonetheless effective because they directly
acknowledge the existence of a wrongful act that may be
classified as a human rights violation. The primary objective
of these measures is indemnification for the resulting
damages arising from the violation. These are:
1. Action for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code;

2. Claims under the Victim Compensation Act;
3. In cases of torture or death of a suspected terrorist, an
action for criminal liability of a State official having
custody over the suspected terrorist under Sec. 25 of the
Human Security Act.
• REMEDIES THAT INDIRECTLY RECOGNIZE

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. These are ordinary
criminal actions involving felonies that may be considered
the closest equivalents of the human rights violations
discussed in this Manual. These human rights violations -
– torture, enforced disappearances, extralegal killings,
and involuntary displacement – are yet to be legislated as
felonies or crimes in themselves. However, this does not
mean that these violations cannot be prosecuted; they can
and should be prosecuted, only they have to be couched in

existing criminal law terms, provided all their elements
are obtaining.
For example:
1. The component felonies that may be equated to torture like
maltreatment of prisoners, serious physical injuries,
administration of injurious substance, mutilation, etc.
2. Equivalent felonies to enforced disappearance like arbitrary

detention and kidnapping.
3. Felonies parallel to involuntary displacement like grave

coercion and expulsion.
4. STEP FOUR. Is there a way forward?
a. MAKE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AKIN TO

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. The perpetration of
felonies in a manner that qualifies them to human rights
violations is an act that deserves condemnation.
The proposition that perpetrators of such acts must be subjected

to graver penalties finds intuitive validity in the consciousness of
well-meaning individuals. However, penal laws do not operate in
that manner. Laws must be enacted to punish particular crimes,
impose heavier penalties, or add to the exclusive list of
aggravating circumstances in the Revised Penal Code; without
them, there will be a violation of due process. This will not
preclude, however, the commencement of the practice among
prosecutors and where human rights violations are recognized at
the outset, acknowledged accordingly in the Information, and
equated when possible to existing aggravating circumstances.
For example:
• Nocturnal abductions (during which impunity is more or less

secure) preparatory to enforced disappearances can be
considered aggravated by “nocturnity”.
• Involuntary displacements undertaken during the height of

armed conflict hostilities can be considered aggravated when
“committed on the occasion of a calamity or misfortune”.
• “Liquidations” and other “salvagings” on account of political

persecution, which often lead to extralegal killings, should be

considered clearly as products of “evident premeditation”
because the plan and mode of such attacks are almost always
contemplated ahead of time.
• If torture is conducted with the victim’s hands and feet tied

(or where the victim is physically restrained in any manner),
or where the victim was forcibly drugged, and if such torture
is conducted by numerous people in succession or
simultaneously, would aggravate the felony by “taking
advantage of superior strength” and “with means employed to
weaken the defense”.
The prevalent practice of “salvagings” conducted in a swift

manner, under circumstances where the victim will be caught
unaware and unable to defend him, is evidentiary of
“alevosia”.
• Murder involving physical and psychological torture (e.g.,

forcing the victim to ingest human excreta, torturing the
victim while naked, electrocution of the genitalia) can
rightfully be classified as aggravated by “ignominy” and/ or
“cruelty”.
The ideal, of course, is for “violation of human rights” to

somehow find its way to the exclusive list of aggravating
circumstances in the Revised Penal Code. However, while
such proposition still awaits legislative adoption, it has been
shown that there are ways by which the prosecutor can
interject human rights violations in the consideration of the
nature of the felony and the gravity of the imposable penalty.
b. THE FACT THAT HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS HAVE

BEEN COMMITTED SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE
INFORMATION. An Information that is complete and correct in
substance and in form will not be invalidated simply because it
supplied other information apart from that usually seen in such
processes. It is a vindication of human rights violations where
they are acknowledged and recognized in the Information, for
then the courts can be better apprised of the exact quality of evil
that attended the commission of the felony, beyond its essential
elements.
Consider the following:
“That on or about the 8th day of April, 2008, in the

Municipality of Donsol, Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said defendants,
JOSEFO MERCADO and DEIMOS PERICLES, and
CRISPULO JUAN DE DIOS, conspiring, confederating and
mutually aiding each other, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously tortured and killed VICENTE
TONGOL through infliction of severe blows by a blunt object
to the head, electrocution of the genitals, tearing off of the
finger-nails, and drowning, with treachery, known
premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and means
employed to weaken the defense, and as a result thereof, said
VICENTE TONGOL slowly suffered intense physical and
psychological trauma until his death.”
“CONTRARY TO LAW.
“Donsol, Sorsogon, Philippines, April 8, 2008.”
While the above Information recites all the essential elements of

murder, it also went further to allege other facts that clearly paint
the accurate picture of the felony – that is, through the violation of
the fundamental human right not to be subjected to torture and
other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. In those cases
where the judge is given enough latitude to pronounce the proper
penalty to be imposed (as in the case of the application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law), these facts can and should be given
adequate consideration.
II. Prosecuting Cases of Torture
A. Background
Definition
Torture is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as the “infliction of

intense pain to body or mind for purposes of punishment, or to
extract a confession or information, or for sadistic pleasure.”
Torture, when committed, represents a direct and blatant
violation of a person’s human right not to be subjected to cruel,
inhuman, or degrading punishment, as well as to any physical or
psychological means that vitiate the free will. These human rights
are enshrined in the Bill of Rights.449
449 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 12, pars. 2, 3 and 4; Sec. 19, pars. 1 and 2.

B. Dealing with torture under substantive law
1. Unconstitutionality
First thing that a prosecutor must bear in mind is that torture

is unconstitutional. Article III, Sec. 12 (2), of the 1987
Constitution provides that “no torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means, which vitiate the free will
shall be used against [a person under investigation]. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
Also, Article III, Sec. 19, of the 1987 Constitution provides that
“the employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.”
It being unconstitutional, cases of torture are of overriding

and compelling significance. The State, acting through its
agents, more particularly the prosecutor, has an interest in
seeing to it that allegations of torture are verified as early as
possible.
2. Direct criminal prosecution for Maltreatment of

Prisoners (Article 235, Revised Penal Code)
a. Legal basis
Under the Revised Penal Code, the prosecutor may proceed

against perpetrators of torture directly. The most parallel
provision related to torture is Maltreatment of Prisoners. A
victim, if tortured while under custody of public officers as a
prisoner, can file a criminal action under Article 235, which
punishes a public officer who maltreats a prisoner either for
the purpose of extracting a confession or who oversteps the
bounds of his authority over a prisoner on his custody either
by inflicting punishments not prescribed by regulations or by
inflicting pre-scribed punishments but in a cruel or
humiliating manner. For cases of torture committed against
persons under investigation, this is the most direct remedy.

3. Separate and simultaneous criminal actions.
If the victim of torture is not a prisoner or where the alleged

perpetrators are unidentified (in which case their status as
public officials cannot be established), then torture can be
proceeded against on a piecemeal basis. All the acts
constituting torture and all acts committed in the course of
the act of torture can be prosecuted simultaneously. Based on
common experience, torture oftentimes involves the infliction
of physical and psychological suffering on the victim through
various acts designed to break the victim’s will and spirit so
that he would accede to the demands of the torturers. As such,
torture can be prosecuted by filing any or all of the following
actions, provided that the requisite elements of the following
offenses have concurred:
a. Mutilation (Art. 262, Revised Penal Code)
b. Serious, Less Serious, or Slight Physical Injuries

(Art. 263, 265, and 266, Revised Penal Code)
c. Administering Injurious Substances or

Beverages (Art. 264, Revised Penal Code)
d. Rape (Art. 266, Revised Penal Code)
e. Acts of Lasciviousness (Art. 336, Revised Penal

Code)
f. Kidnapping and Illegal Detention
g. Grave Threats (Art. 282, Revised Penal Code)
h. Grave Coercion (Art. 286, Revised Penal Code)
i. Attempted or Frustrated Murder or Homicide

(Art. 250, RPC)
j. Murder (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code) or

Homicide(Art. 249, RPC)
In all these cases, however, the prosecution of torture takes

a more circuitous route, not to mention the fact that it
would be harder to meet the quantum of evidence required
to sustain a conviction on all grounds taken individually. It
would, however, be better to institute these actions in

vindication of the rights of the victim rather than allow the
act of torture to go unpunished and not to pursue it in lieu
of the “main” action in the case (e.g., the victim is charged
with the crime of theft but was tortured while in detention –
chances are the defense will just concentrate on proving
innocence of the accused in the crime of theft without
pursuing administrative and criminal cases in relation to
the perpetration of torture on the accused).
4. Prosecution under the Human Security Act (RA

9372)
Under the Human Security Act, the following acts shall not be
employed during the investigation/interrogation of a person
detained for the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism:
• Threat
• Intimidation
• Coercion
• Acts which will inflict any form of physical pain or
torment, or mental, moral, or psychological pressure, or
which shall vitiate the detained person’s free will
If the above acts were shown to have been committed, the

evidence obtained from said detained person resulting
from such threat, intimidation, or coercion, or from such
inflicted physical pain or torment, or mental, moral, or
psychological pressure, shall be, in its entirety, absolutely
not admissible and usable as evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation,
inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.
More importantly, the person or persons proven to have

committed the above acts will be penalized under Sec. 25
of the Human Security Act in this wise:
a. Any person or persons who use threat, intimidation, or

coercion, or who inflict physical pain or torment, or
mental, moral, or psychological pressure, which shall
vitiate the free-will of a charged or suspected person
under investigation and interrogation for the crime of
terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism
shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of
twelve years and one day to twenty years of
imprisonment.

b. When death or serious permanent disability of said
detained person occurs as a consequence of the use of
such threat, intimidation, or coercion, or as a
consequence of the infliction on him of such physical pain
or torment, or as a consequence of the infliction on him of
such mental, moral, or psychological pressure, the penalty
shall be twelve years and one day to twenty years of
imprisonment.
5. Resort to the generic remedies for human rights

violations
Since the act of torture, as discussed above, may take the form
or include punishable acts like illegal or arbitrary detention;
unjust imprisonment or detention; or the infliction of various
physical, emotional, or psychological injuries, then torture as
a consequence can be made a ground for a claim under the
Victim Compensation Act (RA 7309), as well as an
independent action for damages under Article 32 of the Civil
Code, particularly on the ground of violation of the freedom
against cruel and unusual punishment and the freedom from
arbitrary or illegal detention.
C. Dealing with torture under procedural law
1. Inadmissibility in evidence under the Constitution
Under the 1987 Constitution (Article III, Sec. 12 (3)), one of

the most paramount procedural rule that the prosecutor
should remember is that any confession or admission
obtained from a person under investigation through torture
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. This principle
of the Constitution partakes of a Rule of Exclusion that, in
contemplation of the Rules of Court (particularly the Rules on
Evidence).
The prosecutor must be prudent enough to confer with the

client in confidence and in a manner and within an
atmosphere that would inspire trust so that the possibility of
such confession or admission being obtained through torture
can be eliminated with certainty. Oftentimes, the case of the
prosecution can rise and fall with the admission into evidence
of the defendant’s admission or confession. It is therefore
imperative that torture be ruled out in such cases to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.

2. Detection of torture at the inquest stage
Letter of Instruction 621 (series of 1977) provides for a

procedural mechanism by which torture can be prevented
very early in the prosecution process. Sec. 6 (e) thereof
pronounces that one of the functions of the inquest procedure
is to determine if maltreatment or other forms of torture have
been committed on the person arrested and to institute the
necessary charges, if any.
Clearly, the Prosecutor tasked to determine the legality of a

warrantless arrest and the propriety of keeping an accused
under detention also has the responsibility of seeing to it that
the process of arrest and custodial investigation (which
commences immediately at the point of arrest) is not vitiated
by acts of torture and other forms of maltreatment. The
Prosecutor must ascertain this by posing questions to the
accused under such circumstances as to render the query
effective; it cannot be undertaken in a manner that would
defeat the intention of the law (e.g., in the presence of
arresting officers from which an accused claiming torture can
reasonably fear retaliation).
If torture is already detected at this stage, and supposing

probable cause for the legality of the arrest rests solely upon a
confession extracted through it, then the Prosecutor acting as
inquest officer can immediately abort the prosecution process,
or overrule the plea for continued detention, or make a
recommendation finding lack of probable cause, on the
ground that a confession extracted through torture or acts
tantamount to it is inadmissible in evidence. This is without
prejudice to the institution of proper actions to proceed
against the perpetrators of torture.
3. Treatment of torture at the trial stage
a. Administrative Matter No. MTJ 90-4001 (July 14, 1995)
What if torture, up until the point where the case goes to

trial, remains undetected? Or if torture has been resorted
to only at that point most proximate to the trial date
where the accused is set to testify and must therefore be
intimidated?

Allegations of torture at the point of trial are still
primarily the responsibility of the lawyer to verify and act
upon accordingly. The continuation of the trial of the case
for which the person stands accused is not a bar to the
institution of administrative or criminal actions against
persons guilty of perpetrating torture. However, if
allegations of torture have been brought to fore during the
trial stage or, indeed, in open court at the trial itself, an
obligation is also imposed on the judge to proceed with
the trial with extra caution to “prevent the constitutional
guarantees [against torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will] from being reduced to futile platitudes”. This much
is mandated by Administrative Matter No. MTJ 90-4001
(July 14, 1995).
What does “extra caution” entail? This would entail the

judge’s taking an active role in the ascertainment of the
veracity of the claim of torture or in the assurance that
statements given in open court were not the result of
torture, even if no claim to that effect was raised.
Whenever an admission or confession is introduced in
evidence, the judge should personally satisfy himself that
such were voluntarily given and not extracted through
force or intimidation.
b. People v. Castro (GR No. L-17465 [August 31, 1964])
In the 1964 criminal case of People v. Castro, the

Supreme Court imposed upon judges and prosecutors, to
whom persons accused are brought for swearing to the
truth of their statements, the obligation to adopt the
practice of having confessants physically and thoroughly
examined by independent and qualified doctors before
administering the oath, even if it is not requested by the
accused.
The judge is enjoined to assume an active role in the

detection of torture, so much so that he/ she is expected
not only to address allegations of torture, or ascertain the
absence thereof whenever a confession or ad-mission is
introduced in evidence. The judge, in general terms, is
enjoined to make findings of fact regarding the presence
or absence of previous acts of torture perpetrated upon
the accused through overt and searching inquiry. In doing

so, the judge must take into account the fact that an
accused who goes to court for trial and who expects to be
returned to the same detention place under the custody of
the same detention officers is very unlikely to volunteer
information of torture or maltreatment.
It is therefore the duty of the judge to examine the candor

of the accused and look for tell-tale signs of torture even if
no allegation of such was made. In addition, the judge
must not confine him with mere physical manifestations
evidencing or indicating the possibility of torture.
c. People v. Chaw Yaw Shun G.R. L-19590 (April 25, 1968)
In Chaw Yaw Shun, the Supreme Court acknowledged

that the mere absence of external injury in the confessor’s
body does not destroy or rule out any claim of
maltreatment by the use of other scientific modes or
forms of torture. Vigilance, therefore, should be exercised
by the judge in ascertaining that torture was not
committed, whether or not such commission resulted in
physical injuries that are easily detected.
III. Prosecuting Cases Of Enforced Disappearance
A. Background
On the occasion of the Supreme Court’s promulgation of the

historic Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the High Court had
opportunity to expound on what “enforced disappearances” mean.
According to the Court, adopting the definition advanced by the
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons Against Enforced
Disappearance, there is a case of enforced disappearance when the
following characteristics concur:
1. An arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government

official or organized groups or private individuals acting with
the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government;
2. The refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of

the person concerned;
3. Or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which

places such per-sons outside the protection of the law
(Declaration on the Protection of All Persons Against

Enforced Disappearance. UN GAOR 47/ 133, 18 December
1992, Third Preambular Clause).
Enforced disappearances, however, are per se unfamiliar

creatures in the legal terrain of the Philippine criminal justice
system. There is no such crime found in our statute books. Does it
mean to say, then, that prosecutors faced with such a case are left
with no resort in law to vindicate the rights of the victims? How
does an agent of the criminal justice system go about employing
the ordinary mechanisms of redress provided in law to deal with
an extraordinary case like enforced disappearance?
B. Remedies available under ordinary actions
1. Availment of generic remedies for human rights

violations
a. Cases of enforced disappearance represent a violation of a

person’s:
1. Right to liberty and security,
2. Right not to be subjected to enforced disappearance, a

right recognized by international human rights
instruments, and
3. Right not to be subjected to unlawful or arbitrary

detention.
b. As such, the generic remedies for human rights violations

as discussed earlier in this manual can be availed of.
Victims of enforced disappearance can seek compensation
against perpetrators by way of an action for damages
under Article 32 of the Civil Code and from the Board of
Claims of the Department of Justice under the Victim
Compensation Act.
2. Criminal actions
a. Actions under the Revised Penal Code can be brought

against persons responsible for enforced disappearances.
Depending on the satisfaction of the requisite elements
constituting each felony, the following actions (with the
following elements) may be filed against the responsible
person or persons for acts that they have committed
directly or on the occasion of the enforced disappearance.

1. Arbitrary Detention (Art. 124, RPC)
Elements:
a. Offender is a public officer or employee;
b. He detains a person;
c. The detention is without legal grounds. For this

purpose, “without legal ground” means either:
i. No crime was committed by the detained; or
ii. There is no violent insanity of the detained

person; or
iii. The person detained has no ailment which

requires compulsory confinement in a hospital.
2. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention (Art.

267, Revised Penal Code)
Elements:
a. Offender is a private individual;
b. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other

manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
c. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
d. In the commission of the offense, any of the following

circumstances is present:
i. The kidnapping lasts for more than 3 days;
ii. It is committed simulating public authority;
iii. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon

the person kidnapped or detained or threats to
kill him are made; or
iv. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor,

female, or a public officer.

e. In addition, when the following qualifying
circumstances are present when the felony is
committed, the highest imposable penalty shall be
imposed:
i. Purpose is to extort ransom;
ii. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence

of the detention;
iii. When the victim is raped;
iv. When victim is subjected to torture of

dehumanizing acts.
C. Remedies available for information gathering
1. Rationale
The first and most pragmatic step in dealing with a case of

enforced disappearance is information-gathering. A defining
characteristic of enforced disappearance is the sudden abduction
of a person (either under the guise of an ostensibly lawful arrest or
through machinations designed to carry out the abduction without
witnesses and with impunity) under circumstances that would
incapacitate that person’s family or loved ones from knowing
where to look for him/ her afterwards. The incapacity can be
brought about by factors such as the deliberate assumption of
anonymity of his/ her abductors (through removal of identifying
nameplates/ insignias of home units, etc.), deliberate non-
disclosure of his/ her detention place, or the cutting off of all
means of communication to and from the abducted person.
Since the family or loved ones of the disappeared person would

not know where to look, it becomes a challenge to avail of the
usual remedies under the law which lays down certain threshold
information at the outset as a precondition to the availment
thereof – issues of territorial jurisdiction, to whom court
processes will be served, etc. The first step is therefore to gather as
much information as one can so that the victim’s family or loved
ones can institute the necessary action and avail of the necessary
remedy more effectively.
2. Right to information; extent thereof

The right to information is a right recognized by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights when it provides: “Everyone has the
right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers”450
The Constitution also provides: “The right of the people to

information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Access to official records and to documents and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law”451
The incorporation of the right to information in legal instruments

and documents only goes to prove that it is infused with a public
policy dimension and enjoys the full recognition and protection of
the law. The right is primarily predicated on the inherent
entitlement of the people to be vanguards of governance, to be
cognizant of matters that their elected leaders are undertaking.
The democratic institutions of the country would be rendered
infirm if the people cannot be given the power to hold their
leaders accountable through mechanisms of transparency put in
place by the laws.
On a smaller scale, however, the right to information can also be

invoked not only for purposes of political governance but also as a
safeguard against official abuse. Pertinent to cases of enforced
disappearance, the almost plenary right to information can be
employed to compel access to and disclosure of official data that
can be helpful in the location of a person involuntarily
disappeared. This can include access to official police blotters and
military records, as well as records of commitment of persons to
detention facilities. Owing to the broad and sweeping language of
the constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to information,
access to official records, especially those that would aid in the
resolution of cases of enforced disappearance, is the general rule,
and any limitation thereto can only be imposed by direct legal
prescription.
450 U.N. GAOR 217 A (III), 10 December 1948, Art. 19.

451
1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 7.

Section 3.5. Violation Of The National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC) and Related Laws
I. POINTERS IN THE PROSECUTION OF TAX CASES
1. The prosecutor shall interview tax investigators and witnesses

to gain an overall understanding of the nature of the dispute,
the facts giving rise to and surrounding the dispute.
2. The prosecutor shall acquire additional information from

witnesses which may not have been related to him by the
investigator.452
3. The prosecutor shall find out whether the witness (informant,

asset, etc.) has any interest on the outcome of the action; and
4. The prosecutor shall endeavor to find out other circumstances

that may affect the competency and credibility of the
witnesses.453
5. The prosecutor shall determine, as far as practicable, what

laws and jurisprudence are applicable in the case and how
they are applicable to the set of facts as relayed by the
investigator and witnesses.
6. The prosecutor shall create a theory of the case which is

defined as the framework for the presentation of the facts and
law, (Trial Preparation, David Broad, p. 2) or a comprehensive
and orderly mental arrangement of principles and facts,
conceived and constructed for the purpose of securing a
judgment or decree of a court in favor of a litigant. 454
7. In the preparation of the witnesses, it is improper for

prosecutors to “coach” a witness respecting the evidence
which he or she will give. However, it is important that
prosecutors understand and appreciate fully the nature of the
evidence in tax cases which the witness will give on the issues.
452
Goldstein Trial Technique, p.226.
453
Elliot, “The Work of the Advocate”, p.6.
454 ELiiot, 1 General Practice, Section 39.

8. The prosecutor shall prepare the trial brief pursuant to DOJ
Department Circular No. 47, s. 2000.
9. In organizing the exhibits, the prosecutor shall, if possible,

put them in a clear book. The original should be on one side
and the photocopy on the other.
II. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL CASES
The initiation of a criminal action involving violations of the National

Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and other laws enforced by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR) must bear the authority/approval of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
All criminal actions wherein the amount of taxes and fees involved is
One Million pesos (Php1,000,000.00) or more shall be filed before
the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction.
A. Prosecution of Criminal Actions
The prosecution of violations of the National Internal Revenue

Code (NIRC) or related laws may be conducted by the duly
deputized legal officers of the BIR under the direct control and
supervision of the public prosecutor.
B. Bail
The recommended bail shall be in accordance with the DOJ Bail

Bond Guide.
C. Pre-trial
The parties may not be allowed to compromise the criminal

liability or submit the case to mediation, arbitration or other
mode of alternative dispute resolution.
III. COMMON TAX OFFENSES (UNDER THE NIRC)
A. Sec. 254. Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax.
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or

defeat any tax imposed under this Code or the payment thereof
shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, upon
conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not less than Thirty

Thousand Pesos (Php30,000) but not more than One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php100,000) and suffer imprisonment of not
less than two (2) years but not more four (4) years: Provided, that
the conviction or acquittal obtained under this section shall not be
a bar to the filing of a civil suit for the collection of taxes.
1. Elements of Sec. 254:
a. A tax imposed under the Tax Code;

b. A person, natural or juridical, is liable to pay that tax; and
c. Such person willfully attempts in any manner to evade or
defeat payment of any tax imposed under the NIRC or the
payment thereof.
2. Tax evasion connotes the integration of three factors:
a. The end to be achieved, i.e., the payment of less than that

known by the taxpayer to be legally due, or the non-
payment of tax when it is shown that a tax is due;
b. An accompanying state of mind which is described as

being “evil,” in “bad faith,” “willful,” or “deliberate and
not accidental;” and a course of action or failure of action
which is unlawful. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.
Estate of Benigno Toda, Jr. GR No. 147188 [September
14, 2004]
3. Documentary Evidence Required:
a. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Certificate of

Registration, Articles of Incorporation & By-Laws or
Articles of Partnership (in case of a corporation);
b. Corporate documents showing signature/participation in

the conduct of business;
c. General Information Sheet showing the identity of the

corporate officers as enumerated in Sec. 253 (d):
c.1. Partner
c.2. President
c.3. General Manager
c.4. Branch Manager
c.5. Treasurer
c.6. Officer-In-Charge
c.7. Employees responsible for the violation;

d. Tax Return of the taxpayer;
e. BIR registration (Integrated Tax System [ITS]/RDO

certification) to show that the person is a registered
taxpayer;
f. Deeds of Conveyance & Certificate Authorizing

Registration (in case of One-Time Transaction [ONETT]);
g. Contracts;
h. Mayor’s Permit;
i. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) registration (if

sole proprietorship);
j. Proof of income received or documents to show source of

income;
k. Any other documents showing participation/-involvement

of other persons in the commission of the offense;
l. Third Party Certification (original or if unavailable,

certified true copy);
m. Certification from the district, region or ITS showing

existence or non-existence of return;
n. Fraudulent Scheme:
n.1. In case of ONETT, 2 or more Deeds of Conveyance;
n.2. Using dummy/ies;
n.3. Using fake Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR)

to commit tax evasion;
o. Badges of Fraud:
o.1. Intentional and substantial understatement of

taxable income as shown in the returns, financial
statements, balance sheet, or deeds of conveyance
showing receipt of income (under declaration of
income);

o.2. Intentional and substantial overstatement (over-
claiming) of deductions or exemptions as shown in
returns, financial statements, balance sheets,
invoices;
o.3. Any act or recurrence of the foregoing or similar

circumstances (Vitug, citing Collector vs. Reyes);
o.4. Recurrence of failure to perform legal obligation, i.e.,

obligation to file return, pay tax, withhold tax, remit
tax, supply correct and ac-curate information, refund
excess taxes withheld on compensation;
o.5. Making it appear that one has filed a return or

actually filing a return and subsequently withdraws
the same after securing the official receiving seal or
stamp;
o.6. Securing or use of multiple or different TINs;
o.7. In case of ONETT, price/consideration in the deed

inconsistent with return or the CAR, use of falsified
CAR to transfer property;
o.8. Other schemes to prove intent to evade tax;
o.9. Computation showing substantial under-declaration

or substantial overstatement as stated in:
Sec. 248. Civil Penalties. – (B) In case of willful neglect to file

the return within the period prescribed by this Code or by
rules and regulations, or in case a false or fraudulent return is
willfully made, the penalty to be imposed shall be fifty percent
(50%) of the tax or of the deficiency tax, in case any payment
has been made on the basis of such return before the
discovery of the falsity or fraud: Provided, that a substantial
under declaration of taxable sales, receipts or in-come, or a
substantial overstatement or deductions, as determined by the
Commissioner pursuant to the rules and regulations to be
promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, shall constitute
prima facie evidence of a false or fraudulent return: Provided,
further, That failure to report sales, receipts or income in an
amount exceeding thirty percent (30%) of that declared per
return, and a claim of deductions in an amount exceeding
30% of actual deductions, shall render the taxpayer liable for

substantial under declaration of sales, receipts or income or
for overstatement of deductions, as mentioned herein.
B. Sec. 255. Failure to File Return, Supply Correct and

Accurate Information, Pay Tax Withheld and Remit Tax
and Refund Excess Taxes Withheld on Compensation.
Any person required under this Code or by rules and regulations

promulgated thereunder to pay any tax make a return, keep any
record, or supply correct and accurate information, who willfully
fails to pay such tax, make such return, keep such record, or
supply correct and accurate information, or withhold or remit
taxes withheld, or refund excess taxes withheld on compensation,
at the time or times required by law or rules and regulations shall,
in addition to other penalties provided by law, upon conviction
thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than Ten Thousand
Pesos (Php10,000) and suffer imprisonment of not less than one
(1) year but not more than ten (10) years.
Any person who attempts to make it appear for any reason that he
or another has in fact filed a return or statement, or actually files a
return or statement and subsequently withdraws the same return
or statement after securing the official receiving seal or stamp of
receipt of internal revenue office wherein the same was actually
filed shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not
less than Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000) but not more than
Twenty thousand pesos (Php20,000) and suffer imprisonment of
not less than one (1) year but not more than three (3) years.
a. A person is required under the Tax Code, or by rules and

regulations, to pay any tax, make a return, keep any record,
or supply correct and accurate information;
b. At the time or times required by law or rules and

regulations;
c. Such person willfully fails to make such return, keep such

record, or supply such correct and accurate information, or
withhold or remit taxes withheld, or refund excess taxes
withheld on compensation; and
d. As a result, such person failed to pay the correct tax.

a. SEC Certificate of Registration, Articles of Incorporation &

By-Laws or Articles of Partnership (in case of a
partnership)
b. Corporate documents showing signature/participation in

the conduct of business

c.1. Partner
c.2. President
c.4. Branch Manager
c.5. Treasurer
c.7. Eemployees responsible for the violation
d. Tax Return of the taxpayer
e. BIR registration (Integrated Tax System [ITS]/RDO

taxpayer
f. Deeds of conveyance & Certificate of Authorizing

Registration (in case of One-Time Transaction [ONETT])
g. Contracts
h. Mayor’s permit to show that business is in operation
i. DTI registration (if sole proprietorship)
j. DTI or SEC records to show existence of business

operation
k. Proof of income received or documents to show source of

income
l. Any other documents showing participation/involvement

of other persons in the commission of the offense

m. Notice of Informal Conference
n. Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)
o. Formal Letter of Demand & Final Assessment Notice

(FAN)
p. Pro-forma Protest, if there’s any
q. Certification from Collection and Enforcement Division

(CED) of no payment
r. Tax Return
s. Third Party Information (certification) to show income
t. Other proof that income is received
u. First/Second/Final request for presentation of books of

accounts /accounting records
v. RDO Certification of no return filed
w. Certificate of creditable withholding tax
x. Certification from government agencies and/or private

entities to show income
y. Financial statements
z. Alpha List from district, Withholding Tax Division or

Large Taxpayer Service
aa. Computation of tax liability
3. Expenditure Method/Net Worth Method
• Requirement of opening net worth

• Revenue Audit Memorandum Order No. 1-2000
4. RPC Provision on Malversation in relation to Willful

Failure to Remit
“Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property. –

Presumption of Malversation. – Any public officer who, by reason

of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or
property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or
misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public
funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty
of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property
xxx xxx xxx”
a. The provisions of Art. 217 shall apply to:
a.1. Private individuals who, in any capacity whatsoever, have

charge of national, provincial or municipal funds,
revenues or property; and
a.2. Any administrator or depository of funds or property

attached, sized or deposited by public authority.
b. Elements of Art. 217:
b.1. Offender is an accountable public officer;
b.2 That he had the custody or control of funds or property by

reason of the duties of his office;
b.3. That those funds or property were public funds or

declared by law with public character; and
b.4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or

consented or, through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them.
5. Art. 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private individuals

who in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular (now
national), provincial, or municipal funds, revenues, or property or
to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached,
seized, or deposited by public authority, even if such property
belongs to a private individual -
• Tax Code Provisions on Willful Failure to Remit in relation to

RPC Provision on Malversation;
• Secs. 58 and 81.

C. Sec. 257 (B)(8) – Knowingly Uses Fake Certificate
Authorizing Registration
Sec. 257. Penal Liability for Making False Entries, Records or

Reports, or Using Falsified or Fake Accountable Forms.
(B) Any person who:

xxx
(8) Willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any

tax imposed under this Code, or knowingly uses fake or
falsified revenue official receipts, Letters of Authority,
certificates authorizing registration, Tax Credit Certificates,
Tax Debit Memoranda and other accountable forms shall,
upon conviction for each act or omission, be punished by a
fine not less than Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000) but not
more than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000) and
suffer imprisonment of not less than two (2) years but not
more than six (6) years.
1. Elements of Sec. 257 (B)(8):
a. Any person, natural or juridical; and
b. He knowingly uses fake or falsified revenue official

receipts, Letters of Authority, certificates authorizing
registration, Tax Credit Certificates, Tax Debit
Memoranda and other accountable forms.
a. SEC Certificate of Registration, Articles of

Incorporation & By-Laws or Articles of Partnership
(in case of a corporation);
b. Corporate documents showing signature/
participation in the conduct of business;
c. General Information Sheet showing the identity of
the corporate officers as enumerated in Sec. 253 (d):
c.1. Partner
c.2. President
c.4. Branch Manager
c.5. Treasurer Manager

c.7. employees responsible for the violation
d. Tax Return of the taxpayer

e. BIR registration (Integrated Tax System (ITS/RDO
taxpayer
f. Deeds of Conveyance & Certificate Authorizing
Registration (in case of One-Time Transaction
[ONETT]) Contracts
g. Mayor’s permit to show that business is in operation
h. DTI registration (if single proprietorship)
i. DTI or SEC records to show existence of
business/operation
j. Proof of income received or documents to show
sources of income
k. Any other documents showing participation/
involve-ment of other persons in the commission of
the offense (conspirators)
l. Revenue official receipts
m. Letter of Authority
n. Certificate Authorizing Registration
o. Tax credit Certificates
q. Tax Debit Memoranda and other accountable forms
r. Certification from district, region, ITS as to
authenticity of tax forms
s. Register of Deeds documents
t. Deeds of Conveyance
u. Contracts
v. Other documents to show that there was a
fraudulent scheme adopted to produce or use a
falsified CAR or other forms.
3. Revised Penal Code Provision on Falsification in

relation to Sec. 257 (B)(8) of the NIRC
Art.172. Falsification by private individuals and

use of falsified documents.- The penalty of prison
correctional in its medium and maximum periods and a
fine of not more than Five Thousand Pesos (Php5,000)
shall be imposed upon:
Any private individual who shall commit any of the

falsifications enumerated in the next proceeding article in
any public or official document of letter of exchange or
any other kind of commercial document; and

xxx xxx xxx
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in

any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or
who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any
of the false documents in the next preceding article or in
any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be
punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
a. Elements of Paragraph 1 (Falsification of

Public, Official or Commercial Document by a
Private Individual):
a.1. That the offender is a private individual or a

public officer or employee who did not take
advantages of his official position;
a.2. That he committed any of the acts of falsifications

enumerated in Art. 171; and
a.3. That the falsification was committed in a public

or official or commercial document.
b. Elements of the Last Paragraph (Use of

Falsified Document):
b.1. That the offender knew that a document was

falsified by another person;
b.2. That the false document is embraced in Art. 171

or in any of the subdivision No. 1 or 2 of Art. 172;
b.3. That he used such document ( not in judicial

proceedings); and
b.4. That the use of the false document caused

damage to another or least, it was with intent to
cause such damage.
• Note (p. 247, RPC by Luis B. Reyes):
If the one who used the falsified document is

the same person who falsified it, the crime is
only falsification and the use of the same is
not a separate crime.

The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of the
falsification, if (1) the use was so connected in time with the
falsification, and (2) the user had the capacity of falsifying the
document
D. Sec. 258. Unlawful Pursuit of Business.
Any person who carries on any business for which an annual

registration fee is imposed without paying the tax (fee) as required by
law shall, upon conviction for each act or omission, be punished by a
fine of not less than Five Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00) but not more
than Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000) and suffer imprisonment
of not less than six (6) months but not more than two (2) years;
Provided, that in the case of a person engaged in the business of
distilling, rectifying, repacking, compounding or manufacturing any
article subject to excise tax, he shall, upon conviction for each act or
omission, be punished by confinement of not less than Thirty
Thousand Pesos (Php30,000) but not more than Fifty Thousand
Pesos (Php50,000) and suffer imprisonment of not less than two (2)
years but not more than four (4) years.
a. A person, natural or juridical, carries on any business for

which an annual registration fee is imposed; and
b. Such person did not pay the required annual registration fee.
a. SEC Certificate of Registration, Articles of Incorporation &

By-Laws or Articles of Partnership (in case of a partnership)
b. Corporate documents showing signature/participation in the
conduct of business
c.1. Partner
c.2. President
c.4. Teasurer
c.5. Branch Manager
c.6. Treasurer
c.8. Employees responsible for the violation
d. Deeds of Conveyance & Certification Authorizing Registration

(in case of One Time Transaction [ONETT])

e. Contracts
f. Mayor’s permit to show that business is in operation
g. DTI registration (if sole proprietorship)
h. DTI or SEC records to show existence of business/operation
i. Proof of income received or documents to show source of
income
j. Any other documents showing participation/ involvement of
other persons in the commission of the offense
k. Certification form district, region, ITS that person conducting
business is not a registered taxpayer or that no payment of
annual registration fee has been made
l. Third Party Information
m. Proof of conduct of business
n. Ocular Inspection
o. Certification from Collection and Enforcement Division
p. No official receipt registered with the BIR
q. Related Tax Code Provision: Sec: 236
E. Sec. 267. Declaration under Penalties of Perjury.
Any declaration, return and other statement required under this

Code, shall in lieu of an oath, contain a writ-ten statement that
they are made under the penalties of perjury. Any person who
willfully files a declaration, return or statement containing
information which is not true and correct as to every material
matter shall, upon conviction, be subject to the penalties
prescribed for perjury under the Revised Penal Code.
a. Elements of Sec. 267:
• There is a declaration, return and other statement

required under this Code, which, in lieu of an oath,
contains a written statement that they are made under the
penalties of perjury;
• Any person, natural or juridical, willfully files a
declaration, return or statement containing information
which is not true and correct; and
• Such untrue or incorrect statement/s is/are a material
matter/s.
b. Documentary Evidence Required:
• SEC Certificate of Registration, Articles of Incorporation

& By-laws or
• Articles of Partnership (in case of a corporation)

• General Information Sheet showing the identity of the
b.1. Partner
b.2. President
b.3. General Manager
b.4. Treasurer
b.5. Branch Manager
b.6. Treasurer
b.7. Officer-In-Charge
b.8. Employees responsible for the violation
• Deeds of Conveyance & Certification Authorizing

Registration (in case of One Time Transaction [ONETT])
• Contracts
• DTI registration (if sole proprietorship)
• Tax Return
• Proof of income
• Certificate from district, region, ITS
• Financial Statements
• Third Party Information
F. Sec. 236 (J), last par.- Securing More Than One TIN
Sec. 236. Registration Requirements. (J) Supplying a

‘Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).- Any person required
under the authority of this Code to make, render or file a return,
statement or other document shall be supplied with or assigned a
Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) which he shall indicate in such
return, statement or document filed with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue for his proper identification for tax purposes, and which he
shall indicate in certain documents,
xxx xxx xxx
Only one Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) shall be assigned to a

taxpayer. Any person who shall secure more than one Taxpayer
Identification Number shall be criminally liable under the provision of
Sec. 275 on Violation of Other Provisions of this Code or Regulations
in General.
Sec. 275. Violation of Other Provisions of this Code or Rules and

Regulations in General. – Any person who violates any provision of
this Code or any rule or regulation promulgated by the Department of
Finance, for which no specific penalty is provided by law shall, upon
conviction for each act or omission, be punished by a fine of not more

than One Thousand Pesos (Php1,000) or suffer imprisonment of not
more than six (6) months, or both.
a. Elements of Sec. 236 (J):
• Any person, natural or juridical, is a registered taxpayer

• Such person was assigned a TIN; and
• Such person secured another TIN.
b. Documentary Evidence Required:
• RDO Certification to show that taxpayer is registered with the

BIR with the TIN assigned
• Certification from ITS of the TIN being used/assigned
• Certification from ITS of another TIN secured
• Documents to show other TIN/s secured
G. Sec. 266 – Failure to Obey Summons
Sec. 266. Failure to Obey Summons. - Any person who, being

duly summoned to appear to testify, or to appear and produce books
of accounts, records, memoranda or other papers, or to furnish
information as required under the pertinent provisions of this Code,
neglects to appear or to produce such books of accounts, records,
memoranda or other papers, or to furnish such information, shall,
upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than Five Thousand
Pesos (Php5,000) but not more than Ten Thousand Pesos
(Php10,000) and suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but
not more than two (2) years.
H. Non-compliance under Oplan Kandado (Revenue

Memorandum Nos. 3-2009 and 43 – 2009)
In order to prevent continued non-compliance with essential

requirements enumerated under the operations “Oplan Kandado”
such as, the issuance of receipts, filing of returns, declaration of
taxable transactions, taxpayer registration, and paying the correct
amount of taxes as mandated by the norms/standards or their
particular industry or line of business, the BIR is empowered to have
the option of filing a case against the taxpayer under the RATE
program.

IV. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE IN ESTABLISHING INTENT
AND WILLFULNESS IN TAX CASES
Intent/Willfulness in Criminal Law
• Mens Rea - Mental element of the offense that accompanies the

criminal act.
• Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – “the act does not make a
person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.”
• Intent/willfulness is generally equated with malice, especially as

regards crimes under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
It has been said that while the word “willful” sometimes means
little more than intentionally or designedly, yet it is more
frequently understood to extend a little further and approximate
the idea of the milder kind of legal malice; that is, it signifies an
evil intent without justifiable excuse. In one case it was said to
mean, as employed in a statute in contemplation, “wantonly” or
“causelessly;” in another, “without reasonable grounds to believe
the thing lawful.” And Shaw, C. J., once said that ordinarily in a
statute it means “not merely `voluntarily’ but with a bad purpose;
in other words, corruptly.” In English and the American statutes
defining crimes, “malice,” “malicious,” “maliciously,” and “malice
aforethought” are words indicating intent, more purely technical
than “willful” or willfully,” but “the difference between them is not
great;” the word “malice” not often being understood to require
general malevolence toward a particular individual, and signifying
rather the intent from our legal justification.455
Generally, malice or intent is deemed irrelevant in special penal

laws as the latter are considered mala prohibita. Nevertheless, if
specific intent is required, the same must be proved.
• Intent/Willfulness as an element of certain violations of the NIRC.
• Sec. 254. Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax. – “Any person who

willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax
455 U.S. vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272 (March 19, 1910); 15 Phil. 488.

imposed under this Code or the payment thereof shall xxx be
punished xxx”
• Sec. 255. Failure to File Return, Supply Correct and Accurate

Information, Pay Tax, Withhold and Remit Tax and Refund
Excess Taxes Withheld on Compensation. – “Any person required
under this Code or by rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder to pay any tax, make a return, keep any record, or
supply correct and accurate information, who willfully fails to pay
such tax, make a such return, keep such record, or supply such
correct and accurate information, or withhold or remit taxes
withheld, or refund excess taxes withheld on compensation, at the
time or times required by law or rules and regulations, shall xxx
be punished xxx”
• Sec. 257. Penal Liability for Making False Entries, Records or

Reports, or Using Falsified or Fake Accountable Forms
c.1. Willfully falsifies any report or statement bearing on any

examination or audit; xxx
c.2. Willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax

imposed.
xxx
1. Philippine Jurisprudence on Intent/Willfulness in Tax

Cases
Supreme Court Decisions
a. Aznar vs. CTA, GR No. L-20569 (23 August 1974); 58 SCRA 519
a.1. While this is not a criminal case, the Supreme Court had an
opportunity to discuss what constitutes fraudulent intent.
The petitioner was questioning the assessment of deficiency
tax and imposition of surcharge. There was a substantial
difference found between the amounts of net income on the
face of the returns as filed by petitioner in the years 1946 to
1951 and the net income as determined by the inventory
method utilized by respondents for the same years.
a.2. The Supreme Court ruled:
“Such a basis [inventory method] for determining the

existence of fraud (intent to evade payment of tax) suffers
from an inherent flaw when applied to this case. x x x [I]t was

not only Mr. Matias H. Aznar who committed mistakes in his
report of his income but alsothe respondent Commissioner
of Internal Revenue who committed mistakes in his use of
the inventory method to determine the petitioner’s tax
liability. The mistakes committed by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue which also involve very substantial
amounts were also repeated yearly, and yet we cannot
presume therefrom the existence of any taint of official fraud.
From the above exposition of facts, we cannot but

emphatically reiterate the well-established doctrine that
fraud cannot be presumed but must be proven. As a corollary
thereto, we can also state that fraudulent intent could
not be deduced from mistakes however frequent
they may be, especially if such mistakes emanate
from erroneous entries or erroneous classification
of items in accounting methods utilized for
determination of tax liabilities. The predecessor of the
petitioner undoubtedly filed his income tax returns for the
years 1946 to 1951 and those tax returns were prepared for
him by his accountant and employees. It also appears that
petitioner in his lifetime and during the investigation of his
tax liabilities cooperated readily with the B.I.R. and there is
no indication in the record of any act of bad faith committed
by him.
The lower court’s conclusion regarding the existence of

fraudulent intent to evade payment of taxes was based
merely on a presumption and not on evidence establishing a
willful filing of false and fraudulent returns so as to warrant
the imposition of the fraud penalty. The fraud contemplated
by law is actual and not constructive. It must be intentional
fraud, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately done
or resorted to in order to induce another to give up some
legal right. Negligence, whether slight or gross, is not
equivalent to the fraud with intent to evade the tax
contemplated by the law. It must amount to
intentional wrong-doing with the sole object of
avoiding the tax. It necessarily follows that a mere
mistake can-not be considered as fraudulent intent,
and if both petitioner and respondent Commissioner of
Internal Revenue committed mistakes in making entries in
the returns and in the assessment, respectively, under the
inventory method of determining tax liability, it would be
unfair to treat the mistakes of the petitioner as tainted with

fraud and those of the respondent as made in good faith.”
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
b. Ungab vs. Cusi, G.R. No. L-41919-24 (30 May 1980)
b.1. This is a criminal case for filing a fraudulent tax return,

failure to render a true and complete return and engaging in
business without first paying the annual fixed or privilege
tax. However, the case did not discuss the guilt or innocence
of the accused, but tackled the authority of the prosecutor
and the jurisdiction of the court.
b.2. The following are the relevant pronouncements of the SC on

intent and willfulness:
“The contention is made, and is here rejected, that an

assessment of the deficiency tax due is necessary before the
taxpayer can be prosecuted criminally for the charges
preferred. The crime is com-plete when the violator has, as in
this case, knowingly and willfully filed fraudulent returns
with intent to evade and defeat a part or all of the tax.” An
assessment of a deficiency is not necessary to a criminal
prosecution for willful attempt to defeat and evade the
income tax. A crime is complete when the violator has
knowingly and willfully filed a fraudulent return with intent
to evade and defeat the tax. The perpetration of the
crime is grounded upon knowledge on the part of
the taxpayer that he has made an inaccurate return,
and the government’s failure to discover the error and
promptly to assess has no connections with the commission
of the crime.” (citing Merten’s Law of Federal Income
Taxation, Vol. 10, Sec. 55A.05, p. 21. [Underscoring and
emphasis supplied])
c. CIR vs. Javier, G.R. No. 78953 (July 31, 1991); 199 SCRA 824
c.1. Again, this is not a criminal case. The controversy basically

revolves around the assessment of deficiency tax and
imposition of surcharge.
The taxpayer was the recipient of some money from abroad

which he presumed to be a gift but the amount was actually
erroneously remitted to his account. In his income tax return,
the taxpayer put a footnote stating the above and the fact that
the amount is now subject to litigation.

c.2. The SC cited the ruling in the Aznar case as regards fraud and
held: “In the case at bar, there was no actual and intentional
fraud through willful and deliberate misleading of the
government agency concerned, the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, headed by the herein petitioner. The government
was not induced to give up some legal right and place itself at
a disadvantage so as to prevent its lawful agents from proper
assessment of tax liabilities because Javier did not conceal
anything. Error or mistake of law is not fraud. The petitioner’s
zealousness to collect taxes from the unearned windfall to
Javier is highly commendable. Unfortunately, the imposition
of the fraud penalty in this case is not justified by the extant
facts.
Javier may be guilty of swindling charges, perhaps even for

greed by spending most of the money he received, but the
records lack a clear showing of fraud committed
because he did not conceal the fact that he had
received an amount of money although it was a
“subject of litigation.” (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
d. CIR vs. CA, G.R. No. 119322 (June 4, 1996); 257 SCRA 200
d.1. A criminal case was filed against Fortune Tobacco

(“Fortune”) for alleged fraudulent tax evasion for supposed
non-payment of the correct amount of income tax, ad
valorem tax and value-added tax for the year 1992. The
fraudulent scheme allegedly adopted by Fortune consisted of
making fictitious and simulated sales of Fortune’s cigarette
products to non-existing individuals and to entities
incorporated and existing only for the purpose of such
fictitious sales by declaring registered wholesale prices with
the BIR lower than Fortune’s actual wholesale prices, which
are required for determination of Fortune’s correct income
and tax liabilities. Fortune sought the injunction of the
preliminary investigation.
d.2. The SC held:
“Willful” means “pre-meditated; malicious; done

with intent, or with bad motive or purpose, or with
indifference to the natural consequence x x x.”
“Fraud” in its general sense, “is deemed to comprise anything
calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty,

trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to
another, or by which undue and unconscionable advantage
taken of another.
Fraud cannot be presumed. If there was fraud or willful

attempt to evade payment of ad valorem taxes by private
respondents through the manipulation of the registered
wholesale price of cigarettes, it must have been with the
connivance of cooperation of certain BIR officials and
employees who supervised and monitored Fortune’s
production activities to see to it that the correct taxes were
paid. But there is no allegation, much less evidence, of BIR
personnel’s malfeasance.” (Emphasis supplied.)
d.3. The Supreme Court further clarified the ruling in Ungab vs.
Cusi, to wit:
“In plain words, for criminal prosecution to proceed before

assessment, there must be a prima facie showing of a willful
attempt to evade taxes. There was a willful attempt to evade
tax in Ungab because of the taxpayer’s failure to declare in
his income tax return his income derived from banana
saplings. In the mind of the trial court and the Court of
Appeals, Fortune’s situation is quite apart factually
since the registered wholesale price of the goods,
approved by the BIR, is presumed to be the actual
wholesale price, therefore, not fraudulent and unless
and until the BIR has made a final determination of what is
supposed to be the correct taxes, the taxpayer should not be
placed in the crucible of criminal prosecution.”
(Underscoring and emphasis supplied.)
e. Rogelio A. Tan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 218380 and

218382, (June 13, 2016); Rogelio A. Tan v. People of the
Philippines, CTA EB Crim Nos. 022 and 023 (May 28, 2015);
People of the Philippines v. Rogelio A. Tan, CTA Crim Case Nos.
O-064 and O-065 (June 27, 2012)
e.1. As the President and General Manager of Jadewell Parking

Systems Corp., the accused was found guilty for violations of
Sec. 255 of the NIRC, for willfully supplying incorrect
information in the ITR, which resulted in undeclared gross
profit/income for the years 2002 and 2003.
e.2. The accused, as president, should at the very least have been
aware of who is authorized to sign Jadewell's income tax

returns and other tax filings. Accused, as president and
general manager of Jadewell, could not even explain how a
certain Via Aguas was able to sign some tax returns and
payment forms, despite the allegation of the defense that
said Via Aguas is not an employee of Jadewell. Accused also
submitted, into evidence, income tax returns, which were
unsigned. Knowing all these, accused did not even inquire as
to whether Jadewell's income tax returns were being
properly filed and whether the information contained therein
is true and accurate.
e.3. "Deliberate avoidance" or "omission" leads the court to

conclude that the supply of false and incorrect information
was willful and done with the knowledge of the accused.
f. Gloria V. Kintanar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196340

(March 7, 2012); People of the Philippines vs. Gloria V. Kintanar,
CTA EB Crim No. 006 (December 3, 2010); People of the
Philippines v. Gloria V. Kintanar, CTA Crim Case No. O-033 and
O-034 (August 26, 2009)
f.1. The accused was found guilty of violations of Sec. 255 of the
NIRC for failure to make or file Income Tax Returns for years
2000 and 2001, despite several notices sent by the BIR.
f.2. As a businesswoman, she should have taken ordinary care of

her tax duties and obligations and she should know that their
ITRs should be filed, and she should have made sure that
their ITRs were filed. She cannot just left entirely to her
husband the filing of her ITRs. Petitioner cannot find solace
on her claim that her husband hired an accountant, who was
tasked to handle the filing and payment of their tax
obligations. This allegation was a bare testimony of
petitioner's husband, and yields nothing, but mere
uncorroborated statements.
f.3. Mere reliance on another person in preparing, filing, and

paying income taxes is not a justification for failure to file the
right information on income taxes. “Willful blindness” is
defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “deliberate avoidance of
knowledge of a crime, especially by failing to make a
reasonable inquiry about suspected wrongdoing, despite
being aware that it is highly probable.” A “willful act” is
described as one done intentionally, knowingly, and
purposely, without justifiable excuse.

f.4. We take note that the NIRC of 1997 is a special law. It is well
settled that any violation of a special law is considered mala
prohibita. Being so, except for the requirement in Section
255 that the omission be willful, proof of criminal intent to
commit such viola.
2. Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Decisions
a. Pascual and Dragon vs. CIR, CTA Case No. 3045 (December
29, 1986)
a.1. The case focuses on the propriety of the assessment of

deficiency taxes and the imposition of surcharge and is
not actually a criminal case. Nonetheless, the CTA had the
opportunity to discuss what constitutes willful neglect in
the filing of returns and payment of taxes, as follows:
“To our mind, there was willful neglect to file the

corporate in-come tax returns required by law on the part
of petitioners because, as borne out by the records, both
petitioners Mariano P. Pascual and Renato P. Dragon did
not file separate individual income tax returns for 1968
reporting their respective share of the profits realized by
them in said year from their real estate transactions. (p.
28, Bureau of Internal Revenue records.) If petitioners
did not even bother to report their share of the profits
derived by them from their buying and selling
transactions, why should they take the trouble of filing
corporate income tax return for their partnership? But
assuming that for the year 1968 petitioners were not yet
aware that they are taxable as an unregistered partnership
subject to corporate income tax, they could at least have
filed their separate individual income tax returns for this
year. It seems clear therefore that there was
intentional wrongdoing with the object of
avoiding the tax on the part of petitioners.”
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
b. Sevilla, Son, Ruben Tiu, Ben Tiu and Jerry Tiu vs. CIR, CTA
Case No. 6211
(October 4, 2004)
b.1. This is likewise not a criminal case and is actually a suit

questioning the assessment of deficiency capital gains
tax. Deeds of Assignment of shares were compared with
capital gains tax returns.

b.2. The CTA ruled:
“Clearly from the foregoing, there was an overstatement

of the acquisition cost in the sum of P53,685,000.00 for
which the capital gains tax due thereon was not paid by
the petitioners. Because of the deliberate
overstatement of the cost of acquisition of the
subject shares of stocks by the petitioners, the tax base
was lessened which ultimately led to a lower capital gains
tax due. In other words, when petitioners
intentionally overstated the cost of acquisition of
the said shares in their capital gains tax returns,
they willfully evaded the payment of correct
taxes thereby denying or depriv-ing the
government the right to collect the exact taxes
due from petitioners’ stock transactions.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that except for the
objection that the Deeds of Assignment were not best
evidence nor secondary evidence, petitioners failed to
rebut the al-legation of overstatement of the cost of
acquisition in the capital gains tax return. Petitioners
during the investigation and during the trial of the case
did not present evidence to justify their declaration of
the cost of acquisition in the capital gains tax returns
filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue.” (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied.)
c. People vs. Mallari, CTA Crim. Case Nos. A-1 & A-2
(September 4, 2006)
c.1. This is a criminal case for failure to pay deficiency

income tax and value added tax.
c.2. According to the CTA:
“The Supreme Court had ruled that the word willful in a

statute means ‘not merely voluntary but with a bad
purpose; in other words, corruptly’ and that a voluntary
act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act.
Having as premises the knowledge of the accused-
appellant that there are assessment notices issued against
him (the existence of which was admitted by the accused
during the hearing held on December 7, 2000 32) which

were proven to have been sent by registered mail (Exhibit
“J”); that he received the Warrant of Distraint and Levy
(Exhibit “K”) and the Demand Letter (Exhibit “D”)
demanding payment of the deficiency taxes stated in the
assessment notices; and the fact that he admitted that he
ignored the demand for payment of the deficiency taxes,
there is no other conclusion that can be drawn except that
the accused-appellant willfully did not pay his
deficiency tax liabilities. Furthermore, accused-
appellant’s admission that he paid P50,000 to two BIR
Regional District Office employees to settle his tax
liabilities without asking for any receipt reveals a
conscious effort to evade his 1993 tax liabilities. The act
of bribing the BIR employees constitutes an overt
act on the part of accused-appellant that showed
his deliberate and willful refusal to pay his
deficiency tax liabilities to the government. He
resorted to bribery instead of fulfilling his legal obligation
of paying his deficiency taxes.” (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.)
d. People of the Philippines vs. Joel C. Mendez, CTA Crim Case

No. O-013 and O-015 (January 5, 2011)
d.1. Refusal or failure to verify compliance with tax obligation

constitutes "willful blindness".
d.2. In this case, even if the allegations of the accused were

true, his failure to examine his income tax return for
2003 and verify whether the same contains correct and
accurate information would still render the commission
of the offense charged willful.
e. People of the Philippines vs. Joel C. Mendez, CTA Crim Case

No. O-014 (February 10, 2016)
e.1. To have conviction for willful failure to file an ITR, the

prosecution must establish that accused was cognizant of
his obligation, and yet voluntarily, knowingly, and
intentionally failed to do so.
e.2 The accused is highly literate with business acumen and

cannot feign ignorance of his obligation. His failure to
take any action despite several notices and opportunities
granted is a clear indication of his intent to defraud the
Government.

f. People of the Philippines vs. Judy Anne Santos y Lumagui,
CTA Crim Case No. O-012 (January 16, 2012)
f.1. Failure to supply correct and accurate information in the

income tax return must be willful to warrant conviction.
f.2. This is a criminal case for violation of Sec. 255 of the

NIRC - for filing a false and fraudulent Income Tax
Return ("lTR") for taxable year 2002. The offense being
attributed to the accused is willful failure to supply
correct and accurate information, which resulted to an
income tax deficiency.
f.3. The element of willful failure to supply correct and

accurate information must be fully established as a
positive act or state of mind. It cannot be presumed nor
attributed to mere inadvertent or negligent acts.
g. Benjamin G. Kintanar v. People of the Philippines, CTA EB

Crim No. O-012 (May 7, 2012)
g.1. Failure to ensure his proper compliance to file a return is

by itself a sin of omission tantamount to a willful non-
filing of a return.
g.2. The Court considers petitioner-accused's complete

reliance on his supposed accountant to file his required
ITRs, as a willful act to delegate the performance of his
legal duty to said accountant, tantamount to "deliberate
ignorance" or "conscious avoidance" on his part to
ensure the filing of his required income tax returns.
Consequently, as said accountant clearly failed to
perform her supposed duties, petitioner-accused must
bear the legal consequences arising from such omission.
h. People of the Philippines v. Wong Yan Tak, Geralyn Bobier,

and Pic ‘n Pac Mart, Inc., CTA Crim Case No. O-090 (October
17, 2012)
h.1. While it is true that a corporation has a personality

separate and distinct from the persons/ stockholders
composing it, the accused herein is being held liable in
his capacity as President of the corporation.

h.2. In this case, the Court finds the overall actions of the
accused fits the said definition. Willfulness connotes the
existence of "knowledge'' and "voluntariness"; viz., the
taxpayer is aware or knows its tax liability but voluntarily
and intentionally refuses to pay.
h.3. Accused wants the Court to believe that from the day that
he finalized the sale of the convenience store to Goldhill
Holdings Philippines, Inc., he no longer had any ties with
the business, and that the sale also terminated his
relationship with Pic N' Pac Mart, Inc. Accused also
claims that he was unaware of any of the transactions
and investigations until a Warrant of Arrest was issued
against him.
h.4. Given this circumstance, the Court can surmise that there
was some type of avoidance in receiving the prior notices
in order to maintain his claim that he was not informed
of the proceedings. Thus, accused was fully aware of
what was happening during the entire period, but was
willfully avoiding his duty to comply with his legal
liabilities.
h.5. Willfulness involves the mental state of the offender, and

as seen throughout the entire proceeding and the
submissions of the parties, accused willfully refused to
pay the tax liabilities of Pic N' Pac Mart, Inc. which he, as
President, was responsible for.
i. People of the Philippines v. Macario Lim Gaw, Jr., CTA Crim

Nos. O-206 and O-207, and CTA Case No. 8503 (January 3,
2013)
i.1. There is no rigid rule or fixed formula by which it can be

determined with finality whether property sold by a
taxpayer was held primarily for sale to customers in the
ordinary course of his trade or business or whether it was
sold as a capital asset. Being allegedly an astute
businessman and supposedly well-versed in real estate
transactions does not necessarily prove or show that
accused resorted, or would resort, to fraud by
deliberately misclassifying the subject properties.
i.2. It should be stated that the intention to minimize taxes,
when used in the context of fraud, must be proved to
exist by clear and convincing evidence amounting to

more than mere preponderance, and cannot be justified
by a mere speculation. This is because fraud is never
lightly to be presumed. Fraud is never imputed and the
courts never sustain findings of fraud upon
circumstances, which, at the most, create only suspicion.
3. Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision

a. People vs. Imelda Marcos, Crim. Case Nos. Q-91-24382-83,
91-24388-89, and 91-24392 (April 20, 2007)
a.1. Several criminal cases were filed against respondent for:
• Failure to pay income tax;

• Failure to give a written notice of death;
• Failure to pay estate taxes;
• Failure to file income and estate tax returns
a.2. The court took judicial notice of the fact that the
Marcoses were forcibly evicted from the country and
brought to Hawaii in 1986, leaving most of their personal
and real properties under the possession and control of
the government.
a.3. The RTC held:
“As the defense contended, the Marcoses were totally

isolated from the rest of the world. They were not
afforded means of communication and transportation
and were not allowed to receive visitors. Thus, it was
really impossible for the accused to have complied with
the requirement of filing and paying any of her tax
obligations. Likewise, even though she wanted to do so,
their sudden departure from the country prevented the
accused from bringing her personal record and
documents with which she could assess or determine her
income for the year 1985 to prepare her income tax
return. Consequently, failing on the part of the
prosecution to substantiate through competent evidence
that accused Mrs. Imelda Marcos willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously neglected to file and pay [an] income tax
return for [the] year 1985, she could not be held
criminally liable.
The Court finds merit in the argument that the failure on

the part of the accused to file the estate tax return and to

pay the estate tax is not willful. Although accused may
have failed to comply with what is required by law,
accused should be exempted from criminal liability as
she was prevented to do so due to an insuperable cause
made by no less than the government, i.e., as early as
February 1986, accused and her family were forcibly
placed on exile in Honolulu, Hawaii until November
1991, when they returned to the country; the properties
of President Marcos were sequestered and placed under
the control and possession of the government after which
forfeiture proceedings were filed before the
Sandiganbayan Court.
True, as pointed out by the defense, why would the

government require accused to comply with her
obligations when it had taken away the very means by
which she could comply with the requirements of the
law? Logically, a legal heir who does not possess a
knowledge or information regarding the total value of
the estate of the decedent would not dare execute a
return “under oath” under pain of criminal liability. In
the same manner, it is error to expect that accused would
pay the tax due on the estate of her late husband during
the alleged time under which she was made to pay when
she had no records in her possession and control with
which she could assess the gross value of the late
president at the time of his death and the deductions
allowed from the gross estate to determine the estate tax
liability.
On the whole, underscoring the finding of the Court that

accused’s failure to comply with her tax obligation was
due to causes beyond her control, there is no doubt that
the element of “willfulness” for crimes involving the
violation of the National Internal Revenue Code, as
alleged in the Information in these five (5) criminal com-
plaints, is lacking. In short, the prosecution’s evidence
did not pass the test of moral certainty that there was
“willful disobedience” on the part of the accused with
the intention to evade and defeat the tax.”
(Underscoring supplied.)
• Challenges in Proving Intent and Willfulness in Tax

Cases
• Willfulness is a state of mind

• Willfulness is determined by a subjective standard
• “The element of willfulness is often the most difficult element

to prove in an evasion case. Absent an admission or
confession, which is seldom available, or accomplice
testimony, willfulness is rarely subject to direct proof
and must generally be inferred from the defendant’s
acts or conduct.” [U.S. Criminal Tax Manual 8.06[2]]
• Proof of Willfulness in U.S. Jurisprudence
• Proof of Willfulness – Failure to File Returns [US Criminal

Tax Manual 10.04[5] [a]]
Willfulness is suggested by a pattern of failing to file for

consecutive years in which returns should have been filed.
United States v. Greenlee, 517 F.2d 899, 903 (3d Cir. 1975).
This may include years prior or subsequent to the prosecution
period. United States v. Upton, 799 F.2d 432, 433 (8th Cir.
1986); United States v. Farris, 517 F.2d 226, 229 (7th Cir.
1975).
Willfulness may be shown by disregarding IRS warning

letters, and filing contradictory forms. United States v.
Shivers, 788 F.2d 1046, 1048 (5th Cir. 1986).
There is also an element of common sense in establishing

willfulness in a failure to file case.
Thus, willfulness can be shown by such factors as: the

background of the defendant; the filing of returns in prior
years, United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 588 (7th Cir.
1995); United States v. Hauert, 40 F.3d 197, 199 (7th Cir.
1994); United States v. Birkenstock, 823 F.2d 1026, 1028 (7th
Cir. 1987); United States v. Bohrer, 807 F.2d 159, 161 (10th
Cir. 1986) United States v. Shivers, 788 F.2d 1046, 1048 (5th
Cir. 1986); that the defendant was a college graduate with
accounting knowledge; that the defendant was familiar with
books and records and operated a busi-ness, United States v.
Segal, 867 F.2d 1173, 1179 (8th Cir. 1989); that the defendant
earned a large gross income, Bohrer, 807 F.2d at 161. See also
United States v. MacLeod, 436 F.2d 947, 949 (8th Cir. 1971)
United States v. Ostendorff, 371 F.2d 729, 731 (4th Cir. 1967).

Evidence that a defendant had filed returns in other years
when he claimed refunds while there was a substantial tax due
for the years he failed to file is relevant evidence and more
than enough to establish willfulness. (Garguilo, 554 F.2d at
62).
• Proof of Willfulness – Attempt to Evade or Defeat

Tax [US Criminal Tax Manual 8.06[2]]
In the leading case of Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 499
(1943), the Supreme Court, “by way of illustration and not by
way of limitation,” set forth the following as examples of
conduct from which willfulness may be inferred:
“[K]eeping a double set of books, making false entries or

alterations, or false invoices or documents, destruction of
books or records, concealment of assets or covering up
sources of income, handling of one’s affairs to avoid making
the records usual in transactions of the kind, and any conduct,
the likely effect of which would be to mislead or to conceal.”
b. Examples of Proof of Willfulness – Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax
b.1. Willfulness may be inferred from evidence of a consistent

pattern of underreporting large amounts of income.
United States v. Kim, 884 F.2d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 1989)
(evidence of willfulness was sufficient where taxpayer failed
to report $182,601 of income over three years); United
States v. Kryzske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1019-20 (6th Cir. 1988)
(willfulness found where taxpayer failed to file complete tax
returns over a four-year period and underreported his
income by $940.50 for one of those years); United States v.
Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150, 1157 (10th Cir. 1999); see also United
States v. Klausner, 80 F.3d 55, 63 (2d Cir. 1996); United
States v. Skalicky, 615 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1980); United
States v. Larson, 612 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir. 1980); United
States v. Gardner, 611 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1980).
b.2. Failure to supply an accountant with accurate and complete

information.
United States v. Samara, 643 F.2d 701, 703 (l0th Cir.

1981)(taxpayer kept receipt books for cash received but did
not supply them to accountant, thus concealing cash
receipts); see also United States v. Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150,

1157 (10th Cir.1999); United States v. Brimberry, 961 F.2d
1286, 1290 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Chesson, 933
F.2d 298, 305 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Michaud, 860
F.2d 495, 500 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v. Meyer, 808
F.2d 1304, 1306 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Ashfield,
735 F.2d 101, 107 (3d Cir. 1984); United States v. Conforte,
624 F.2d 869 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Scher, 476
F.2d 319 (7th Cir. 1973).
b.3. Taxpayer who relies on others to keep his records and

prepare his tax returns may not withhold information from
those persons relative to taxable events and then escape
criminal responsibility for the resulting false returns.
United States v. Simonelli, 237 F.3d 19, 30 (1st Cir. 2001);

United States v. O’Keefe, 825 F.2d 314, 318 (11th Cir. 1987);
United States v. Garavaglia, 566 F.2d 1056 (6th Cir. 1977).
b.4. False statements to agents; false exculpatory statements,

whether made by a defendant or instigated by him.
United States v. Chesson, 933 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1991);
United States v. Frederickson, 846 F.2d 517, 520-21 (8th Cir.
1988)
(Taxpayer falsely stated that she did not receive income from
other employees who worked in her massage parlor and that
she deposited most of her income in the bank); United States
v. Walsh, 627 F.2d 88 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v.
Tager, 481 F.2d 97, 100 (10th Cir. 1973); United States v.
Callanan, 450 F.2d 145, 150 (4th Cir. 1971); United States v.
Jett, 352 F.2d 179, 182 (6th Cir. 1965); see also United States
v. Klausner, 80 F.3d 55, 63 (2d Cir. 1996); United States v.
Pistante, 453 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v.
Adonis, 221 F.2d 717, 719 (3d Cir. 1955).
b.5. Keeping a double set of books. United States v. Daniels, 617

F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1980).
b.6. Hiding, destroying, throwing away, or “losing” books and

records.
United States v. Walker, 896 F.2d 295, 300 (8th Cir. 1990)
(Tax-payers hid records and assets in an attempt to conceal
them from the IRS). See United States v. Chesson, 933 F.2d
298, 304-05 (5th Cir. 1991) (taxpayer altered and destroyed

invoices after undergoing a civil audit for underreporting
income); United States v. Pistante, 453 F.2d 412 (9th Cir.
1971); United States v. Holovachka, 314 F.2d 345, 357 (7th
Cir. 1963); Gariepy v. United States, 189 F.2d 459, 463 (6th
Cir. 1951).
b.7. Making or using false documents, false entries in books and

records, false invoices, and the like.
United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 236 (4th Cir. 1997);
United States v. Chesson, 933 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1991);
(defendants submitted false invoices to their family company
so that the company would treat their personal expenses as
business expenses).
b.8. Destruction of invoices to customers. United States v.

Garavaglia, 566 F.2d 1056, 1059 (6th Cir. 1977).
b.9. Nominees – Placing property or a business in the name of

another.
United States v. Daniel, 956 F.2d 540 (6th Cir. 1992); United
States v. Peterson, 338 F.2d 595, 597 (7th Cir. 1964); United
States v. Woodner, 317 F.2d 649, 651 (2d Cir. 1963); Banks
v. United States, 204 F.2d 666, 672 (8th Cir. 1953), vacated
and remanded, 348 U.S. 905 (1955), reaff’d, 223 F.2d 884
(8th Cir. 1955).
b.10. Extensive use of currency or cashier’s checks.
United States v. Daniel, 956 F.2d 540 (6th Cir. 1992)

(defendant used cash extensively, immediately converted
checks to cash, and paid employees and insurance policies
in cash); United States v. Holovachka, 314 F.2d 345, 358
(7th Cir. 1963); Schuermann v. United States, 174 F.2d 397,
398 (8th Cir. 1949).
b.11. Spending large amounts of cash which could not be

reconciled with the amount of income reported.
United States v. Simonelli, 237 F.3d 19, 30 (1st Cir. 2001);

United States v. Olbres, 61 F.3d 967, 971 (1st Cir. 1995);
United States v. Kim, 884 F.2d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 1989); or
engaging in surreptitious cash transactions, United States v.
Skalicky, 615 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1980). See also United

States v. Holladay, 566 F.2d 1018, 1020 (5th Cir. 1978)
United States v. Mortimer, 343 F.2d 500, 503 (7th Cir.
1965) (money orders and cashier’s checks).
b.12. Use of bank accounts held under fictitious names.
United States v. Ratner,464 F.2d 101, 105 (9th Cir. 1972);

Elwert v. United States, 231 F.2d 928 (9th Cir. 1956); cf.
United States v. White, 417 F.2d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 1969).
b.13. Checks cashed and the currency deposited in an out-of-town

bank account.
United States v. White, 417 F.2d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 1969).
b.14. Unorthodox accounting practices with deceptive results.
United States v. Slutsky, 487 F.2d 832, 834 (2d Cir. 1973);
United States v. Waller, 468 F.2d 327, 329 (5th Cir. 1972).
b.15. Repetitious omissions of items of income, e.g., income

from various sources not reported.
(over a two-year period taxpayer failed to report interest
income totaling $20,476);United States v. Tager, 479 F.2d
120, 122 (10th Cir. 1973); Sherwin v. United States, 320
F.2d 137, 141 (9th Cir. 1963).
b.16. Prior and subsequent similar acts reasonably close to

the prosecution years.
United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825, 836-837 (6th

Cir. 2001); Matthews v. United States, 407 F.2d 1371,
1381 (5th Cir. 1969); United States v. Johnson, 386 F.2d
630 (3d Cir. 1967); United States v. Magnus, 365 F.2d
1007 (2d Cir. 1966); United States v. Alker, 260 F.2d 135
(3d Cir. 1958); cf. Fed. R. Evid. Rule 404(b).
b.17. Alias used on gambling trip -- relevant to an intent to

evade taxes.
United States v. Catalano, 491 F.2d 268, 273 (2d Cir.

1974).

b.18. The defendant’s attitude toward the reporting and
payment of taxes generally.
United States v. Hogan, 861 F.2d 312 (1st Cir. 1988);

United States v. Stein, 437 F.2d 775 (7th Cir. 1971);
United States v. O’Connor, 433 F.2d 752, 754 (1st Cir.
1970); United States v. Taylor, 305 F.2d 183, 185 (4th Cir.
1962).
b.19. Background and experience of defendant. General

educational background and experience of defendant can
be considered as bearing on defendant’s ability to form
willful intent.
United States v. Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150, 1157-1158 (10th

Cir.1999) (willfulness inferred from defendant’s expertise
in accounting via her busi-ness degree and her work
experience as comptroller of a company); United States v.
Klausner, 80 F.3d 55, 63 (2d Cir. 1996) (defendant’s
background as a CPA, and extensive business experience
including that as a professional tax preparer); United
States v. Smith, 890 F.2d 711, 715 (5th Cir. 1989) (de-
fendant’s background as an entrepreneur probative of
willfulness); United States v. Segal, 867 F.2d 1173, 1179
(8th Cir. 1989) (defendant was a suc-cessful and
sophisticated businessman); United States v. Rischard,
471 F.2d 105, 108 (8th Cir. 1973); (See United States v.
Diamond, 788 F.2d 1025 (4th Cir. 1986); United States v.
MacKenzie, 777 F.2d 811, 818 [2d Cir. 1985]).
(Willfulness inferred from the fact that each defendant had

a college degree, one in economics and the other in
business).
b.20. Offer to bribe government agent.
Barcott v. United States, 169 F.2d 929, 931-32 (9th Cir.

1948) (attempt to bribe revenue agent).
b.21. Use of false names and surreptitious reliance on the use of

cash.
United States v. Walsh, 627 F.2d 88, 92 (7th Cir. 1980);

United States v. Holladay, 566 F.2d 1018, 1020 (5th Cir.
1978).

b.22. Backdating documents, such as receipts, contracts, and the
like, to gain a tax advantage.
United States v. Drape, 668 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1982); United
States v. Crum, 529 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir. 1976); United
States v. O’Keefe, 825 F.2d 314 (llth Cir. 1987).
b.23. Illegal sources of income.
United States v. Palmer, 809 F.2d 1504, 1505-06 (llth Cir.

1987) (sale of narcotics).
V. OTHER RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE
SUPREME COURT CASES
Assessment in a Criminal Proceeding
This case applied the doctrine in the case of Ungab v. Cusi that an
assessment is not required in criminal prosecution for tax evasion. It
must be noted, however, that although an assessment is not necessary
in the prosecution of a criminal case, it is essential in the collection of
the civil liability.
a. Lucas G. Adamson v. CTA and CIR, G.R. No. 120935 (May 21,
2009); CIR vs. CTA and Lucas G. Adamson et al., G.R. No.
124557 (May 21, 2009)
a.1. When fraudulent tax returns are involved, a criminal

proceeding in court after the collection of such tax may begin
without assessment.
Formal Amendments
In this case, the Court found that the amendments sought by the
prosecution would not adversely affect any substantial right of the
accused. What is prohibited is the substantial amendment after the
accused has been arraigned.
a. Dr. Joel C. Mendez v. People of the Philippines and CTA, G.R. No.
179962 (June 11, 2014)
a.1. Amendments that do not charge another offense or do not

alter the prosecution's theory of the case are considered
merely as formal amendments.

Probable Cause
This case emphasized that the determination of probable cause does

not require actual or absolute certainty, nor clear and convincing
evidence of guilt; it only requires reasonable belief or probability
that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the accused.
a. BIR v. CTA, Spouses Antonio Villan Manly, and Ruby Ong Manly,
G.R. No. 197590 (November 24, 2014)
a.1. Court found that there is probable cause to indict respondents

if it is shown that tax is due from them.
a.2. The case stems from the failure of the spouses to submit
documentary evidence to substantiate the source of their
cash purchases despite the declared modest income. Thus,
the government is allowed to resort to all evidence or
resources available to determine a taxpayer’s income and to
use methods to reconstruct his income.
a.3. A method commonly used by the government is the

expenditure method, which is a method of reconstructing a
taxpayer’s income by deducting the aggregate yearly
expenditures from the declared yearly income. The theory of
this method is that when the amount of the money that a
taxpayer spends during a given year exceeds his reported or
declared income and the source of such money is
unexplained, it may be inferred that such expenditures
represent unreported or undeclared income.
a.4. The amount of tax due and the method used in determining
the tax liability were clearly explained. The revenue officers
likewise showed that the under-declaration exceeded 30% of
the reported or declared income. Respondent spouses’
defense that they had sufficient savings to purchase the
properties remains self-serving at this point since they have
not yet presented any evidence to support this.

COURT OF TAX APPEALS
Assessment in a Criminal Proceeding
An assessment is not needed for the prosecution of criminal cases.

However, an assessment is necessary in the civil action for the
collection of tax.
a. People of the Philippines vs. Joel C. Mendez, CTA Crim Case No.
O-013 and O-015 (January 5, 2011)
a.1. An assessment of the tax before there can be a criminal

prosecution is not necessary. Whereas, in case of a civil
action for collection of the tax, the assessment procedures
provided by the NIRC of 1997, as amended, should be
complied with.
b. People of the Philippines vs. Joel C. Mendez, CTA Crim Case No.
O-014 (February 10, 2016)
b.1. While an assessment of the tax before there can be a criminal

prosecution is not necessary, a civil action for collection of
the tax requires that the assessment procedures be complied
with. In the instant case, the prosecution did not present any
assessment by the Commissioner. What was presented was
only the computation of alleged deficiency tax prepared by
RO Alexander D. Martinez. Thus, there can be no basis for
the imposition of civil liability against accused.
Proof of Notice
It is important for the prosecutor to show proof of notice to the

taxpayer being charged in order to prove that the accused was the
author of the crime and thus, criminally liable for willfully failing to
pay his tax liability.
a. People of the Philippines vs. Ruperto P. Rodriguez, CTA Crim No.

O-028 (July 12, 2011)
a.1. The prosecution has the primordial duty not only to prove
that a tax is due, but also to establish that the accused
“willfully fails” to pay the tax due. To be able to impute
knowledge of the corporate obligation to pay the tax to the
employee, there must be a clear showing that he was duly

notified of the assessments properly issued against the
corporation.
b. People of the Philippines v. Joseph Typingco, CTA Crim Case No.

O-114 (May 16, 2012)
b.1 When the prosecution’s evidence fails to prove the accused’s

authorship of the crime of which he stands accused, it is the
Court’s duty and the accused’s right to proclaim his
innocence. The Court found that the prosecution failed to
prove that the accused received the FAN and the PAN, that
the accused is the president of the corporation, and that he
willfully failed to pay the tax.
c. People of the Philippines vs. Gina Rohra y Amarnani, CTA Crim

Case No. 0-142, (March 13, 2013)
c.1 Before one is prosecuted for willful attempt to evade or

defeat any tax under Sections 253 and 255 of the Tax Code,
the fact that a tax is due must first be proved. In the absence
of evidence that accused was assessed in accordance with law
and that she had been duly notified and was aware of the
subject assessment, the accusation that she willfully failed to
pay the deficiency tax must fail.
d. People of the Philippines vs. Victorio A. Ocampo, CTA Crim Case

No. 0-260 (August 5, 2013)
d.1 The institution of proceeding for preliminary investigation

against the accused interrupts the period of prescription. The
crime of failure to pay tax under Section 255 of the NIRC
cannot be considered willful as to constitute a voluntary and
intentional infraction of the law if the accused is not aware of
the existence of and the obligation to pay.
The Approval by Commissioner of Internal Revenue is

Necessary to Prosecute
It was emphasized in this case the necessity of the Commissioner’s

approval in the filing of a criminal case against the taxpayer.
a. People of the Philippines v. Tess S. Valeriano, CTA EB Crim Case

No. 010 (November 18, 2011)

a.1 Failure to submit proof of approval by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR) for filing of the criminal case against
the taxpayer warrants dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Payment of Docket Fees is Mandatory for Appeal
This case emphasized the importance of paying docket fees in order to

proceed with an appeal.
a. People of the Philippines v. Macario Lim Gaw, Jr., CTA Crim Nos.
O-206 and O-207 and CTA Case No. 8503 (March 1, 2013)
a.1. The payment of docket fees within the prescribed period for
taking an appeal is mandatory for the perfection of an
appeal.
Corporate Officer’s Liability
The following cases dealt with the liability of the officers of the
corporation when the corporation is being accused of tax liability.
a. People of the Philippines v. Wong Yan Tak, CTA EB Crim Case No.
O-024 (December 18, 2013)
a.1. An accused is not liable for the civil liability for unpaid taxes
of the corporate taxpayer.
Proper Allegation in the Information as to Tax Liability
It is important to allege in the Information that the amount claimed is

at least One Million (Php1,000,000.00) Pesos in order to vest
jurisdiction, as was shown in this case.
a. People of the Philippines v. Gerardo C. Teves, CTA Crim Case No.

0-299 (November 16, 2015)
b. There is a necessity to allege in the Information that the principal

amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed is at least One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) to vest
jurisdiction with the CTA.
b.1. President
b.2. General Manager
b.3. Treasurer
b.4. Branch Manager
b.5. Treasurer

b.6. Officer-In-Charge
b.7. Employees responsible for the violation
c. Deeds of Conveyance & Certification Authorizing Registration (in

case of One Time Transaction [ONETT])
d. Contracts
e. DTI registration (if sole proprietorship)
f. Tax Return
g. Proof of income
h. Certificate from district, region, ITS
i. Financial Statements
j. Third Party Information
Sec. 236 (J), last par.- Securing More Than One TIN
Sec. 236. Registration Requirements. (J) Supplying a

‘Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).- Any person required
under the authority of this Code to make, render or file a return, statement
or other document shall be supplied with or assigned a Taxpayer
Identification Number (TIN) which he shall indicate in such return,
statement or document filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue for his
proper identification for tax purposes, and which he shall indicate in
certain documents, xxx
xxx xxx xxx
Only one Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) shall be assigned to a

taxpayer. Any person who shall secure more than one Taxpayer
Identification Number shall be criminally liable under the provision of
Sec. 275 on Violation of Other Provisions of this Code or Regulations in
General.
Sec. 275. Violation of Other Provisions of this Code or Rules

and Regulations in General. – Any person who violates any provision
of this Code or any rule or regulation promulgated by the Department of
Finance, for which no specific penalty is provided by law shall, upon
conviction for each act or omission, be punished by a fine of not more than
One Thousand Pesos (Php1,000) or suffer imprisonment of not more than
six (6) months, or both.

1. Elements of Sec. 236 (J):
a. Any person, natural or juridical, is a registered taxpayer;

b. Such a person was assigned a TIN; and
c. Such person was assigned a TIN.
a. RDO Certification to show that taxpayer is registered with the BIR

with the TIN assigned;
b. Certification from ITS of the TIN being used/assigned;
c. Certification from ITS of another TIN secured;
d. Documents to show other TIN/s secured.

Section 3.6. CYBERCRIMES
1. Defined Terms. All terms used in this Section are defined as

follows:
1.1. Access refers to the instruction, communication with, storing

data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise making use of any
resources of a computer system or communication network; 456
1.1.1. Comments:
1.1.1.1. According to the Explanatory Note457: "‘Access'

comprises the entering of the whole or any part of a
computer system (hardware, components, stored data
of the system installed, directories, traffic and content
related data). However, it does not include the mere
sending of an e-mail message or file to that system.
'Access' includes the entering of another computer
system, where it is connected via public
telecommunication networks, or to a computer
system on the same network, such as a LAN (local
area network) or Intranet within an organization. The
method of communication (e.g. from a distance,
including via wireless links or at a close range) does
not matter."
1.1.1.2. It therefore appears that, without entry into a system,

there would be no access to it. A person who is
guessing a password in order to enter the webmail of
another can then be said to have failed to “access”
that webmail. Under those circumstances, the
accused may not be prosecuted for Illegal Access but
perhaps for Attempted Illegal Access.
1.2. Act refers to Republic Act No. 10175 or the “Cybercrime

Prevention Act of 2012”;458
1.2.1. Alteration refers to the modification or change, in form
456
Definition taken from Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of R.A. No. 10175, or the “Cybercrime
Prevention Act “(hereafter ‘CPA’).
457 Taken from the Convention on Cybercrime - Explanatory Report - [2001] COETSER 8 (23
November 2001) (hereafter ‘Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime’), Par. 46.
458 Definition taken from Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of R.A. No.10175 (hereafter ‘IRR’).

or in substance, of existing computer data or a
program;459
1.3. Central Authority refers to the Department of Justice

(hereafter “DOJ”) – Office of Cybercrime;460
1.4. Child Pornography refers to the unlawful or prohibited acts

defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the “Anti-
Child Pornography Act of 2009”, committed through a computer
system: Provided, that the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1)
degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775;461
1.5. Collection refers to gathering and receiving information; 462
1.6. Communication refers to the transmission of information

through information and communication technology (ICT)
media, including voice, video and other forms of data;463
1.7. Competent Authority refers to either the Cybercrime

Investigation and Coordinating Center, or the DOJ – Office of
Cybercrime, as the case may be;464
1.8. Computer refers to an electronic, magnetic, optical,

electrochemical, or other data processing or communications
device, or grouping of such devices, capable of performing
logical, arithmetic, routing or storage functions, and which
includes any storage facility or equipment or communications
facility or equipment directly related to or operating in
conjunction with such device. It covers any type of computer
device, including devices with data processing capabilities like
mobile phones, smart phones, computer networks and other
devices connected to the internet; 465
1.8.1. Comments:
1.8.1.1. A “computer” under the Act encompasses more
459 Sec. 3(b) of CPA.

460 Ibid, IRR.
461 Sec. 3(e), IRR.
462 Sec. 3 (f), IRR.
463 Sec. 3(f) of CPA.
464 Sec. 3(h), IRR.
465 Sec. 3(i), IRR

than just a desktop or laptop computer. It
includes mobile devices, such as phones, tablets,
Android, and IOS devices. A broader view may
also encompass single use devices such as
remote controls, calculators, or storage devices
like USB thumb drives.
1.8.1.2. It should also be noted that, as we progress

towards the so-called internet-of-things,
ordinary household devices and items will be
embedded with small computers that will allow
them to communicate via the internet. Such
devices will include refrigerators that can report
their contents (with relevant information such as
expiration dates) and house lights that are
controlled by the homeowner remotely via the
internet. It is therefore advisable to be more
open-minded and consider that the term
“computer” may refer to items that are not
traditionally associated with computers.
1.9. Computer data refers to any representation of facts,

information, or concepts in a form suitable for processing in a
computer system, including a program suitable for causing a
computer system to perform a function, and includes electronic
documents and/or electronic data messages whether stored in
local computer systems or online;466
1.9.1. Comments:
1.9.1.1. The definition of what constitutes Computer Data

comes from the International Organization for
Standardization and was meant to cover any form
of data that is in a form that can be readily used or
processed by computers;
“The definition of computer data builds upon the

ISO-definition of data. This definition contains the
terms ‘suitable for processing’. This means that data
is put in such a form that it can be directly
processed by the computer system. In order to
make clear that data in this Convention has to be
466 Sec. 3(j), IRR

understood as data in electronic or other directly
processable form, the notion ‘computer data’ is
introduced. Computer data that is automatically
processed may be the target of one of the criminal
offences defined in this Convention as well as the
object of the application of one of the investigative
measures defined by this Convention.”467
1.9.1.2. The last phrase, “regardless whether or not the data

is directly readable and intelligible” however, means
that even data that is not in a human-readable
format is covered by the term “data.” At the lowest
level, this may refer to information represented in
binary form – a series of ones and zeroes which
only make sense to computers.
1.10. Computer program refers to a set of instructions

executed by the computer to achieve the intended
results;468
1.11. Computer system refers to any device or group of

interconnected or related devices, one or more of which,
pursuant to a program, perform automated processing of
data. It covers any type of device with data processing
capabilities, including, but not limited to, computers and
mobile phones. The device consisting of hardware and
software may include input, output, and storage
components, which may stand alone or be connected to a
network or other similar devices. Computer system also
includes computer data storage devices or media; 469
1.12. Content Data refers to the communication content of the

communication, the meaning or purport of the
communication, or the message or information being
conveyed by the communication, other than traffic data.470
1.13. Critical infrastructure refers to the computer systems,

and/or networks, whether physical or virtual, and/or the
computer programs, computer data and/or traffic data that
467 Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Par. 25.

468 Sec. 3(k), IRR.
469 Sec. 3(l), IRR.
470 Sec. 3(m), IRR.

are so vital to this country that the incapacity or
destruction of, or interference with, such system and assets
would have a debilitating impact on security, national or
economic security, national public health and safety, or any
combination of those matters;471
1.14. Cyber refers to a computer or a computer network, the

electronic medium in which online communication takes
place;472
1.15. Cybercrimes are those punishable acts defined in the

“Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012” (definition supplied);
1.16. Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools, policies,

risk management approaches, actions, trainings, best
practices, assurances, and technologies that can be used to
protect the cyber environment, and the organization and
user’s assets;473
1.17. Cybersex refers to the willful engagement, maintenance,

control or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious
exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid
of a computer system, for favor or consideration; 474
1.18. Database refers to a representation of information,

knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being
prepared, processed or stored, or have been prepared,
processed or stored in a formalized manner, and which are
intended for use in a computer system;475
1.19. Digital evidence refers to digital information that may

be used as evidence in a case. The gathering of the digital
information may be carried out by confiscation of the
storage media (data carrier), the tapping or monitoring of
network traffic, or the making of digital copies (e.g.,
forensic images, file copies, etc.), of the data held;476
471
Sec. 3(n), IRR.
472 Sec. 3(r), IRR.
473 Sec. 3(o), IRR.
474 Sec. 3(q), IRR.
475 Sec. 3(s), IRR.
476 Sec. 3(t), IRR.

1.20. Electronic evidence refers to evidence, the use of which
is sanctioned by existing rules of evidence, in ascertaining
in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of
fact, which evidence is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically; 477
1.21. Explanatory report refers to the Convention on

Cybercrime - Explanatory Report (definition supplied);
1.22. Forensics refers to the application of investigative and

analytical techniques that conform to evidentiary
standards and that are used in, or appropriate for, a court
of law or other legal context;478
1.23. Forensic image, also known as a forensic copy, refers to

an exact bit-by-bit copy of a data carrier, including slack,
unallocated space, and unused space. There are forensic
tools available for making these images. Most tools
produce information, like a hash value, to ensure the
integrity of the image;479
1.24. Hash value refers to the mathematical algorithm

produced against digital information (a file, a physical disk
or a logical disk) thereby creating a “digital fingerprint” or
“digital DNA” for that information. It is a one-way
algorithm and thus it is not possible to change digital
evidence without changing the corresponding hash
values;480
1.25. Identifying information refers to any name or number

that may be used alone, or in conjunction with, any other
information to identify any specific individual, including
any of the following:
i. Name, date of birth, driver’s license number, passport

number, or tax identification number;
ii. Unique biometric data, such as fingerprint or other

unique physical representation;
477 Sec. 3(u), IRR.

478
Sec. 3(v), IRR.
479 Sec. 3(w), IRR.
480 Sec. 3(x), IRR.

iii. Unique electronic identification number, address or
routing code; and
iv. Telecommunication identifying information or access

device.481
1.25.1. Comments:
1.25.1.1. “Identifying information” has a clear overlap with

the term “personal information” under the Data
Privacy Act except that in “personal information”
the identity of the data subject is apparent or can
be ascertained from the information itself. For
example, if the information consists of a Personnel
Data Sheet which shows both the name and the
SSS number of the data subject, then the SSS
number can be considered “personal information.”
This also means that if the SSS number is isolated
and found in a list of SSS numbers with a
corresponding code (such as an employee
numbering system known only to the employer),
then it can be said that the SSS number is no
longer “personal information” under the Data
Privacy Act because the identity of the data subject
or individual is not apparent from the list.
1.25.1.2. However, the Data Privacy Act has an exception. If

the list of numbers can be “decoded” by an entity
such that it can identify the individual, then as to
that entity, the list is “personal information.” In
other words, the list of SSS numbers together with
the employee numbers is not personal information
as to everyone except the employer who can
determine the identity of the person to whom the
SSS number refers.
1.25.1.3. “Identifying information” under the Act, however,

takes an even broader view. The term includes any
data that can, in conjunction with other
information, identify the person. In other words,
although the list of SSS numbers is unintelligible
to everyone (except the employer), it still qualifies
481 Sec. 3(y),IRR.

as “identifying information” insofar as the Act is
concerned.
1.25.1.4. The net effect of this departure is that the crime of

Identity Theft in the Act is far broader than any of
the offenses defined in the Data Privacy Act. As to
the list mentioned above, a charge under the Data
Privacy Act can only be lodged against the
employer (who has the ability to decode the same)
but under the Act, any person can be charged with
Identity Theft – including those who cannot
ascertain the identity of the individuals.
1.25.1.5. This means that Identity Theft under the Act can
be used against a call center agent who steals only
credit card numbers without knowing who owns
them. Since the credit card numbers don’t qualify
as “personal information” under the Data Privacy
Act, then they cannot be used to charge the
individual with offenses under that law.
1.26. Information and communication technology

system refers to a system intended for, and capable of,
generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise
processing electronic data messages or electronic
documents, and includes the computer system or other
similar device by or in which data is recorded or stored, and
any procedures related to the recording or storage of
electronic data message or electronic document; 482
1.27. Interception refers to the listening to, or recording,

monitoring or surveillance of, the content of
communications, including procurement of the content of
data, either directly through access and use of a computer
system, or indirectly through the use of electronic
eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the same time that the
communication is occurring;483
1.28. Internet content host refers to a person who hosts or

who proposes to host internet content in the Philippines;484
482
Sec. 3(z), IRR.
483Sec. 3(aa), IRR.
484Sec. 3(bb), IRR.

1.29. Law enforcement authorities refer to the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine National
Police (PNP) under Section 10 of the Act;485
1.30. National Cybersecurity Plan refers to a comprehensive

plan of actions designed to improve the security and
enhance cyber resilience of infrastructures and services. It is
a top-down approach to cybersecurity that contains broad
policy statements and establishes a set of national objectives
and priorities that should be achieved within a specific
timeframe;
1.31. Original author refers to the person who created, or is

the origin of, the assailed electronic statement or post using
a computer system;486
1.32. Preservation refers to the keeping of data that already

exists in a stored form, protected from anything that would
cause its current quality or condition to change or
deteriorate. It is the activity that keeps that stored data
secure and safe;487
1.33. Service provider refers to:
i. Any public or private entity that provides users with its

service with the ability to communicate by means of a
computer system; and
ii. Any other entity that processes or stores computer data

on behalf of such communication service or users of such
service.488
1.34. Subscriber’s information refers to any information

contained in the form of computer data, or any other form
that is held by a service provider, relating to subscribers of
its services, other than traffic or content data, and by which
any of the following can be established:
i. The type of communication service used, the technical
485
Sec. 3(cc), IRR.
486 Sec. 3(dd), IRR.
487 Sec. 3(ee), IRR.
488 Sec. 3(ff), IRR.

provisions taken thereto and the period of service;
ii. The subscriber’s identity, postal or geographic address,

telephone and other access number, any assigned
network address, billing and payment information that
are available on the basis of the service agreement or
arrangement; or,
iii. Any other available information on the site of the
installation of communication equipment that is
available on the basis of the service agreement or
arrangement.489
1.35. Traffic Data or Non-Content Data refers to any

computer data, other than the content of the
communication, including, but not limited to the
communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size,
duration, or type of underlying service;490 and
1.36. Without Right refers to either 1) conduct undertaken

without or in excess of authority; or 2) conduct not covered
by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders,
justifications, or relevant principles under the law. 491
1.36.1. Comments:
1.36.1.1. The phrase “without right” was not defined in

the Budapest Convention in order to allow State
parties to apply their own interpretations or
jurisprudence on the concept. According to the
Explanatory Report:
The expression "without right" derives its

meaning from the context in which it is used.
Thus, without restricting how Parties may
implement the concept in their domestic law, it
may refer to conduct undertaken without
authority (whether legislative, executive,
administrative, judicial, contractual or
consensual) or conduct that is otherwise not
489 Sec. 3(gg), IRR.

490
Sec. 3(hh), IRR.
491 Sec. 3(ii), IRR.

covered by established legal defenses, excuses,
justifications or relevant principles under
domestic law.492
1.36.1.2. The determination of whether or not conduct is

done without right depends on the source of
authority. It may derive from ownership,
contract, or even impliedly, such as the rights
granted to users in publicly-accessible
computers.
1.36.1.2.1. The owner of a computer system

would naturally have an unrestricted
right of access over his computer
system as a function of the rights of
ownership. However, granting
exclusive rights of use to others, such
as through lease, can remove or
restrict the rights of the owner.
1.36.1.2.2. Contract may also be a source of

authority, such as in the Terms of Use
for a website or network. A contract
may also refer to an employment
agreement, or rules imposed by an
employer, as to the use of computer
resources by employees. Of course, if
the owner of a system engages another
to purposely access a system (e.g.,
penetration testing), then such access
is with right and cannot become the
basis for a criminal prosecution.
1.36.1.2.3. Moreover, there is no criminalization

for accessing a computer system that
permits free and open access by the
public, as such access is “with right.”
Legal concepts such as implied
consent, waiver, or even estoppel can
theoretically be used as defenses since
they establish the right of the accused
vis-à-vis the computer system.
492
Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Par. 38.

1.36.1.2.3.1. The right or authority to access
may also be implied from the
nature of the computer system
or from common and reasonable
commercial practices, thus, in
the Explanatory Note: “The
maintenance of a public website
implies consent by the website
owner that it can be accessed by
any other web-user. The
application of standard tools
provided for in the commonly
applied communication
protocols and programs, is not
in itself ‘without right’, in
particular where the rightholder
of the accessed system can be
considered to have accepted its
application, e.g., in the case of
‘cookies’ by not rejecting the
initial installment or not
removing it.”493
1.36.1.2.3.2. Consequently, the use of a

shared computer necessarily
implies that all users have the
right to access shared resources.
1.36.1.3. The question of whether or not conduct was

done without right does not depend on whether
or not the owner or administrator of a computer
system used adequate defense measures, like
password protection or encryption. The granting
of right to access cannot beimplied from the
mere negligence of the owner or administrator to
secure the computer system.
1.36.1.4. Even conduct undertaken in excess of authority

is done without right. For example, if a person
had initially been authorized to access a
computer system, for example, a publicly
available website, if that person violates the
493 Ibid.

website’s Terms of Use without logging out, he
would, from that point onwards, be acting in
excess of authority. Since his access is without
right, he is liable for Illegal Access. Another
common example is a former employee whose
access to the employer’s computer systems have
not been changed since his departure. Any
access thereafter (even though technically
permitted) is considered without right.
1.36.1.5. Right may also flow from established legal

defenses such as Justifying and Exempting
Circumstances under the Revised Penal Code.
1.36.1.5.1. For example, a person who mistakenly logs

on to another person’s social media page
(when for example, the latter forgot to log
out) and gains access by mistake is exempt
from criminal liability. This is analogous to
the Exempting Circumstance of Accident.
However, the moment that the person
knows, or should have known under the
circumstances that he has no right of access,
he must immediately desist from such access
by logging out; otherwise, he would be liable
for Illegal Access.
1.36.1.5.2. Self-defense as justification for Illegal Access

must be evaluated on a case-to-case basis
considering the classic elements of Unlawful
Aggression, Reasonable Necessity of Means,
and Lack of Sufficient Provocation.
1.36.1.5.3. Traditionally, cybersecurity measures follow

a defensive approach. Tools such as anti-
virus kits, spyware detectors, encryption,
password protection, and firewalls focus on
either making it more difficult for intruders
to access a computer system, or, should they
gain access, detect and eliminate them.
Recently, however, there are cybersecurity
experts who offer "active defense" or "strike-
back" technology and techniques, which
include methods to “hack back” against
cyber criminals, identify them or shut down
their own systems. On the one hand, passive

defenses reduce the likelihood of gain for the
attacker, but their ability to protect the
defender is limited. The perceived risk
among hackers is low since it is difficult to
identify them. This may cultivate a sense of
impunity in cybercriminals.494 On the other
hand, it is difficult to justify “hacking back”
well after the cybercriminal had gained
illegal access, as by then, the Unlawful
Aggression had already seized. Even if the
“hacking back” was done while the
cyberattack was taking place, there is still
the question of whether or not such conduct
can be considered as reasonably necessary
means. The prosecutor should be careful
when confronted with a claim of self-defense
in cybercrime cases, and must make a
distinction between active defense as self-
defense or vigilante justice.
2. Cybercrimes under The Cybercrime Prevention Act
SEC. 4(A) OFFENSES AGAINST THE CONFIDENTIALITY,

INTEGRITY AND AVAILABILITY OF COMPUTER DATA AND
SYSTEMS
2.1. Illegal Access – The access to the whole or any part of a

computer system without right.
2.1.1. Elements:
i. That the offender accesses the whole or any part of a

ii. That the offender accessed the same without right.
2.1.2. Penalty – Prision mayor or a fine of at least Two

Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00) up to a
maximum amount commensurate to the damage
incurred, or both.
494Anderson, R., Lum, B., & Walha, B. (December 11, 2005), “Offense vs. Defense”. Retrieved May
23, 2017,from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4918/ c5cf455fe22af1e342edfcf640d3b83687af.pdf

2.1.3. Bail – One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos
(Php120,000.00). If committed against critical
infrastructure, it is Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php200,000.00).
2.1.4. Notes:
2.1.4.1. Illegal Access is commonly thought of as hacking,

which may be defined as the act of unlawfully
accessing a computer system through technical means.
However, the crime of Illegal Access is broader because
it covers any form of access without right including
non-technical means by which to gain access.
2.1.4.1.1. This is supported by the broad definition of

access which includes making use of any
resources of a computer system or
communication network.
2.1.4.1.2. For example, someone may have used social

engineering techniques or deception to
convince a computer system administrator to
show him the computer screen. The moment
that the offender looks at the information on
the screen, he is already making use of the
resources of the computer system, which
constitutes Access. Since this is done without
right, he is committing Illegal Access.
2.1.4.1.3. Thus, a person who had surreptitiously

obtained the password of another, and uses
that password to enter a computer system
belonging to another without right, commits
the crime of Illegal Access.
2.1.4.2. The crime of Illegal Access is consummated at the

moment of access. As long as the offender enters
the whole or part of a computer system without
right, he commits Illegal Access, even if he takes
nothing, modifies nothing or does nothing else in
the computer system. According to the Explanatory
Report:
“‘Access’ comprises the entering of the whole or any

part of a computer system (hardware, components,
stored data of the system installed, directories,

traffic and content related data). However, it does
not include the mere sending of an e-mail message
or file to that system. ‘Access’ includes the entering
of another computer system, where it is connected
via public telecommunication networks, or to a
computer system on the same network, such as a
LAN (local area network) or Intranet within an
organisation. The method of communication (e.g.
from a distance, including via wireless links or at a
close range) does not matter.”495
2.1.4.3. Illegal Access is consummated at the moment of

access. Each instance that the offender enters the
whole or part of a computer system without right
constitutes a separate count of Illegal Access. Thus,
an offender who gains access without right on
separate occasions will be liable for as many counts
as the number of times he gained access.
2.1.4.3.1. In addition, Illegal Access is committed

when an offender accesses part of a
computer system without right. Thus, it
is possible that even if an offender makes
use of the resources of just a single
computer system, he could be liable for
multiple counts of Illegal Access, as when
he accesses one part of the computer
system, then moves on to access another
part. Each file and folder is a separate
part of the computer system. The
offender may be committing Illegal
Access for each and every file or folder he
views or changes.
2.1.4.3.2. However, multiple acts of illegal access

may form a single count of Illegal Access
as a continuous crime, which is defined
by the Court in Gamboa v. Court of
Appeals496 as "a single crime consisting of
a series of acts arising from a single
criminal resolution or intent not
495
Par. 46 ibid.
496
G.R. No. L-41054 (November 28, 1975).

susceptible of division. For Cuello Calon,
when the actor, there being unity of
purpose and of right violated, commits
diverse acts, each of which, although of a
delictual character, merely constitutes a
partial execution of a single particular
delict, such concurrence or delictual acts
is called a ‘delito continuado.’" In order
that it may exist, there should be
"plurality of acts performed separately
during a period of time; unity of penal
provision infringed upon or violated and
unity of criminal intent and purpose,
which means that two or more violations
of the same penal provision are united in
one and the same intent leading to the
perpetration of the same criminal
purpose or aim.”
2.1.4.3.3. Thus, if a person gained access to another

person’s email account, normally, each
individual email he opens and reads is a
separate act of illegal access. However,
these acts may be subsumed into one
count of Illegal Access depending on the
offender’s criminal intent, if for example,
he simply wants to discover the identities
of the victim’s contacts.
2.1.4.4. Illegal Access is not an offense that is necessarily

included in the crimes of Illegal Interception, Data
Interference, and System Interference.
2.1.4.4.1. In many instances, Illegal Access is not

the offender’s main purpose, but it is
merely a step towards committing other
crimes, such as the input, alteration, or
deletion of data without right, among
others.
2.1.4.4.2. However, Illegal Interception, Data

Interference, and System Interference
may be committed even without
accessing the targeted computer system.
For example, an offender may bombard a
server with more emails than it can

handle. This is known as a DDoS attack,
which constitutes System Interference
even though the offender merely sent
emails to the target; he did not actually
gain access.
2.1.4.4.3. Thus, it can be seen that access is not an

essential element of Illegal Interception,
Data Interference, System Interference,
etc. The other Cybercrimes do not
necessarily include the crime of Illegal
Access. This is in keeping with the Rule
120, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court:
“Section 5. When an offense

includes or is included in another. — An
offense charged necessarily includes the
offense proved when some of the
essential elements or ingredients of the
former, as alleged in the complaint or
information, constitute the latter. And an
offense charged is necessarily included in
the offense proved, when the essential
ingredients of the former constitute or
form a part of those constituting the
latter.”
2.1.4.4.4. Thus, when an offender commits Illegal

Access as a means to commit another
cybercrime, he should be charged with at
least one count of the former in addition
to one count of the latter.
2.2. Illegal Interception – The interception made by technical

means without right of any non-public transmission of
computer data to, from, or within a computer system
including electromagnetic emissions from a computer
system carrying such computer data.
2.2.1. Elements:
i. That the offender intercepted computer data;
ii. That the computer data was transmitted to, from, or within a
computer system, through a non-public means including
electromagnetic emissions;

iii. That the interception was done through technical means; and
iv. That the interception was done without right.
2.2.2. Penalty – Prision mayor or a fine of at least Two Hundred

Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00) up to a maximum amount
commensurate to the damage incurred, or both.

(Php120,000.00). If committed against critical infrastructure
it is Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00).
2.2.4. Notes:
2.2.4.1. This is analogous to the traditional crime of

Wiretapping in that both seek to protect the right of
privacy in communications. Both offenses
contemplate the use of technology to intercept
communications, that is, “by technical means” in
Illegal Interception, and by “tapping any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or arrangement”
under Republic Act No. 4200, the Anti-Wiretapping
Law. There are, however, a few differences between
the two offenses:
2.2.4.1.1. The Anti-Wiretapping Law punishes even
non-participants who “knowingly possess
any tape record, wire record, disc record, or
any other such record, or copies thereof, of
any communication or spoken word”. In
contrast, only the person who actually
intercepted the non-public transmission of
computer data is liable for Illegal
Interception. (However, the person who
keeps records of the computer data illegally
intercepted may be liable for Aiding and
Abetting, depending on the circumstances).
2.2.4.1.2. Wiretapping necessarily contemplates
communications between at least two
persons. Illegal Interception contemplates
any non-public transmission of computer
data to, from, or within a computer system.
It is not necessary that there be a recipient of
the computer data, since the transmission
may happen in just one computer. Computer
data is any representation of facts,

information, or concepts in a form suitable
for processing in a computer system.
Computer data does not have to be human-
readable.
2.2.4.2. According to the Explanatory Report: “The offence

applies to "non-public" transmissions of computer
data. The term "non-public" qualifies the nature of
the transmission (communication) process and not
the nature of the data transmitted. The data
communicated may be publicly available information,
but the parties wish to communicate confidentially.
Or data may be kept secret for commercial purposes
until the service is paid, as in Pay-TV. Therefore, the
term "non-public" does not per se exclude
communications via public networks.”497
2.2.4.3. Further: “The communication in the form of

transmission of computer data can take place inside a
single computer system (flowing from CPU to screen
or printer, for example), between two computer
systems belonging to the same person, two computers
communicating with one another, or a computer and
a person (e.g., through the keyboard)”498
2.2.4.4. Finally: “Interception by ‘technical means’ relates to
listening to, monitoring or surveillance of the content
of communications, to the procuring of the content of
data either directly, through access and use of the
computer system, or indirectly, through the use of
electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices.
Interception may also involve recording. Technical
means includes technical devices fixed to
transmission lines as well as devices to collect and
record wireless communications. They may include
the use of software, passwords and codes.” 499
2.2.4.4.1. By way of exception, if a person happens to learn
of another person’s non-public computer data
(such as his login credentials to a computer
system) by actually seeing the latter type these,
497
Explanatory Report on the Budapest Convention, p. 10.
498
Ibid.
499 Ibid.

there is no crime of Illegal Interception as no
technical means were involved.
2.2.4.4.2. A “key logger” is an example of a technical means
of interception. A key logger is capable of
capturing and recording data during input
through a terminal, as when a person types his
username and password to access a network.
“Spyware” is another example. Spyware is
software that aims to gather information about a
person or organization without their knowledge,
and that may either send such information to
another entity without the consumer's consent, or
that asserts control over a device without the
consumer's knowledge.500
2.2.4.4.3. Electromagnetic waves or energy may be emitted

by a computer during its operation. Such
emissions are not considered as data per se.
However, data can be reconstructed from such
emissions. Therefore, the interception of data
from electromagnetic emissions from a computer
system is included as an offense under this
provision.
2.3. Data Interference — The intentional or reckless

alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of
computer data, electronic document, or electronic data
message, without right, including the introduction or
transmission of viruses.
2.3.1. Elements:
i. That the offender altered, damaged, deleted or caused

the deterioration of computer data, an electronic
document, or an electronic data message;
ii. That the said act/s were committed either

intentionally or recklessly; and
iii. That the said act/s were committed without right.
500
Ibid.

maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred,
or both.

infrastructure it is Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php200,000.00).
2.3.4. Notes:
2.3.4.1. The aim of this provision is to provide computer data

and computer programs with protection against
intentional infliction of damage, similar to that
enjoyed by corporeal objects. The integrity and the
proper functioning or use of stored computer data or
computer programs are the protected legal interest
here.501
2.3.4.2. “The above acts are only punishable if committed

‘without right.’ Common activities inherent in the
design of networks or common operating or
commercial practices, such as, for example, for the
testing or protection of the security of a computer
system authorized by the owner or operator, or the
reconfiguration of a computer’s operating system that
takes place when the operator of a system acquires
new software (e.g., software permitting access to the
Internet that disables similar, previously installed
programs), are with right and therefore are not
criminalized by this article. The modification of traffic
data for the purpose of facilitating anonymous
communications (e.g., the activities of anonymous
remailer systems), or the modification of data for the
purpose of secure communications (e.g. encryption),
should in principle be considered a legitimate
protection of privacy and, therefore, be considered as
being undertaken with right.”502
501 Ibid.
502 Ibid.

2.3.4.3. Data Interference (as well as Illegal Access and
System Interference) overlaps with Hacking as
defined in the E-Commerce Act of 2002, Republic Act
No. 8792, which includes the introduction of
computer viruses and the like. Prosecuting under the
E-Commerce Act is preferable given the higher
penalties involved, i.e., Prision Mayor in the
Cybercrime Prevention Act compared to six (6)
months to three (3) years in the E-Commerce Act.
Also, the E-Commerce Act requires that the crime of
hacking be consummated while a mere attempt is
punishable under the Act.
2.3.4.4. Damage is not an essential element of Data

Interference. For example, “hacktivists,” which is a
portmanteau of the words “hacker” and “activist,”
have been known to hack and deface government
websites, altering words and images on the front page
to make a political statement. Even if no important
information is lost in the process, the mere fact that
the “hacktivists” intentionally alter computer data
without right would make them liable for Data
Interference.
2.3.4.5. I LOVE YOU, sometimes referred to as Love Bug or

Love Letter, was a computer worm that attacked tens
of millions of Windows personal computers when it
started spreading as an email message with the
subject line "I LOVE YOU" and the attachment
"LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.txt.vbs". The latter file
extension (in this case, 'VBS' – a type of interpreted
file) was most often hidden by default on Windows
computers of the time, leading unwitting users to
think it was a normal text file. Opening the
attachment activated the Visual Basic script. The
worm damaged the local machine, overwriting
random types of files (including Office files, image
files, and audio files; however, after overwriting MP3
files the virus would hide the file), and sending a copy
of itself to all addresses in the Windows Address Book
used by Microsoft Outlook.
2.3.4.6. Another example is the ransomware called

WanaCryptor 2.0, or WannaCry, which was the
weapon used in May 2017 in a large-scale cyber-
attack affecting more than 150 countries.

Ransomware is a type of malware that restricts file
and system access by encrypting data. The
perpetrators then demand payment in exchange for
decrypting the data and restoring access.
2.4. System Interference — The intentional alteration or

reckless hindering or interference with the functioning
of a computer or computer network by inputting,
transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering
or suppressing computer data or program, electronic
document, or electronic data message, without right or
authority, including the introduction or transmission of
viruses.
2.4.1. Elements:
i. That the offender either intentionally altered or recklessly

hindered or interfered with the functioning of a computer
or computer network;
ii. That the said acts were done by inputting, transmitting,

damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing
computer data or program, electronic document, or
electronic data message, or through the transmission of
viruses; and
iii. That the said acts were done without right or authority.

incurred, or both.

(Php200,000.00).
2.4.4. Notes:
2.4.4.1. This provision aims to criminalize the intentional

hindering of the lawful use of computer systems,
including telecommunications facilities, by using or
influencing computer data. The protected legal
interest is the interest of operators and users of

computer or telecommunication systems in being
able to have these systems function properly. 503
2.4.4.2. “The hindering must be ‘without right’. Common

activities inherent in the design of networks, or
common operational or commercial practices are
with right. These include, for example, the testing of
the security of a computer system, or its protection,
authorized by its owner or operator, or the
reconfiguration of a computer’s operating system
that takes place when the operator of a system
installs new software that disables similar,
previously installed programs.”
2.4.4.3. A common example of an act constituting System

Interference is a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. A
DoS attack causes a computer system, usually a
website, to collapse under the sheer volume of traffic
directed towards it, flooding its bandwidth or
resources. A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS)
attack happens when multiple systems, which are
usually compromised or infected by malware, are
used to target a single computer system in a DoS
attack.
2.4.4.4. System interference specifically includes the

introduction or transmission of viruses. A virus is a
kind of malicious software (“malware”) with the
ability replicate itself by infecting other computer
programs. It normally spreads when the infected file
is copied or executed, usually without the knowledge
and consent of the victim, with detrimental effects
on the computer system like causing system failure,
wasting computer resources, corrupting data,
increasing maintenance costs, etc.504
2.5. Misuse of Devices
(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation,

distribution, or otherwise making available, without
right, of:
503 Ibid.
504
Ibid.

(aa) A device, including a computer program,
designed or adapted primarily for the purpose
of committing any of the offenses under this
Act; or
(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar

data by which the whole or any part of a
computer system is capable of being accessed
with intent that it be used for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under this Act.
(ii) The possession of an item referred to in

paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with intent to use
said devices for the purpose of committing any of
the offenses under this section.
2.5.1. Elements of Par. (5)(i)(aa)
i. That there was use, production, sale, procurement,

importation, distribution, or otherwise making
available of a device, which includes a computer
program;
ii. That such device was designed or adapted primarily

for the purpose of committing any of the offenses
under the Cybercrime Prevention Act; and
iii. That such use, production, sale, procurement,

available of such device was without right.
2.5.2. Elements of Par. (5)(i)(bb)
i. That there was use, production, sale, procurement,

available of a computer password, access code, or
similar data;
ii. That such computer password, access code, or similar

data allows the whole or any part of a computer
system capable of being accessed;
iii. That the use, production, sale, procurement,

available of such computer password, access code, or
similar data is with intent that be used for purpose of

committing an offense; and
iv. That such offense is an offense under the Cybercrime

Prevention Act.
2.5.3. Elements of Par. (5)(ii)
i. That there was possession of:
a. A device, including a computer program,

designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under the
Cybercrime Prevention Act; or
b. A computer password, access code, or similar

data by which the whole or any part of a computer
system is capable of being accessed.
ii. That the possession of such item is with the intent to

use said device to commit an offense; and
iii. That such offense is punishable under Section 4 of the

Cybercrime Prevention Act.
2.5.4. Penalty – Prision mayor or a fine of not more than

Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) or
both. If committed against critical infrastructure, the
penalty of reclusion temporal or a fine of at least Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) up to
incurred, or both, shall be imposed.

(Php200,000.00).
2.5.6. Notes in general:
2.5.6.1. This provision establishes a separate and

independent criminal offense for the intentional
commission of specific illegal acts through the use
of certain devices or access data. An offender
under this provision often requires the
acquisition and use of means of access (“hacker

tools”). Thus, if left unchecked, criminal elements
may establish and rely upon a black market to
acquire such tools.505
2.5.6.2. This Cybercrime Act requires that the act be

committed intentionally and without right.
According to the Convention on Cybercrime, in
order to prevent overcriminalization—where the
production of devices and use of the same for
legitimate purposes, e.g. to counter-attacks
against computer systems would trigger the
application of the provision—further elements are
added to restrict the offence. Apart from the
general intent requirement, there must be the
specific (i.e. direct) intent that the device is used
for the purpose of committing any of the offenses
established in the Act.506
2.5.6.3. This provision may be divided into four offenses.

Par. (5)(i)(aa) refers to the use, production, sale,
procurement, importation, distribution, or
otherwise making available of a device, while Par.
(5)(i)(bb) refers to the use, production, sale,
procurement, importation, distribution, or
otherwise making available of computer data. Par.
(5)(ii) punishes two separate offenses, one for the
possession of a device for the purpose of
committing any offense under Section 4 of the
Act, and another for the possession of computer
password, access code, or similar data for the
same purpose.
2.5.6.4. For offenses under Par. (5)(i)(aa) and Par.

(5)(i)(bb), the moment that the device or data, as
the case may be, is used, produced, procured,
imported, distributed, or otherwise made
available is when the offenses under the said
provisions are considered consummated. Under
Par. (5)(ii), the offenses therein are consummated
at the moment the offender possesses the device
or data enumerated therein without right.

506
Ibid., Par. 76.

2.5.6.5. When the provision speaks of devices “designed
or adapted primarily for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under the
[Cybercrime Prevention] Act,” it does not require
that the device be designed exclusively for the
purpose of committing a cybercrime offense—it
only requires that the device be objectively
designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses in the Act. In
other words, “dual-use” devices—devices
designed for legitimate purposes and yet end up
being appropriated for criminal purposes—are
excluded from the application of this provision:
“The drafters debated at length whether the

devices should be restricted to those which are
designed exclusively or specifically for
committing offences, thereby excluding dual-use
devices. This was considered to be too narrow. It
could lead to insurmountable difficulties of proof
in criminal proceedings, rendering the provision
practically inapplicable or only applicable in rare
instances. The alternative to include all devices
even if they are legally produced and distributed
was also rejected. Only the subjective element of
the intent of committing a computer offence
would then be decisive for imposing a
punishment, an approach which in the area of
money counterfeiting also has not been adopted.
As a reasonable compromise the Convention
restricts its scope to cases where the devices are
objectively designed, or adapted, primarily for the
purpose of committing an offence. This alone will
usually exclude dual-use devices.”507
2.5.6.6. Under the IRR, there shall be no criminal liability

under this provision where “the use, production,
sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or
possession of computer devices or data referred
to in [this section] is for the authorized testing of
a computer system.”508 Therefore, the use,
507 Ibid., Par.73.

508
Rule 2, Sec. 4(A)(5) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations, R.A. No. 10175.

production, sale, procurement, distribution, or
possession of the devices or data referred to in
this section will not trigger criminal liability if the
same shall be for the authorized testing of a
computer system.
2.5.6.6.1. Notably, this provision is present only

in the IRR and not in Republic Act No.
10175. It was a substantial
reproduction of Art. 6, par. 2 of the
Budapest Convention on Cybercrime,
which states that:
“This article shall not be interpreted as

imposing criminal liability where the
production, sale, procurement for use,
import, distribution or otherwise
making available or possession referred
to in paragraph 1 of this article is not
for the purpose of committing an
offence established in accordance with
Articles 2 through 5 of this Convention,
such as for the authorised testing or
protection of a computer system.”509
Even without explicitly providing for

the “authorized testing exception,” the
Convention states that this is already
covered by the expression “without
right.”510 The word “authorized” in
“authorized testing” clearly means that
the person or entity conducting the test
has been granted the right to do so. A
good example of this would be the use
of test-devices ("cracking-devices") and
network analysis devices designed by
the industry to control the reliability of
their information technology products
or to test the system security that are
produced for legitimate purposes.
509
Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.

These would be considered to be “with
right”.511
2.5.6.7. Notes for Par. (5)(i)(aa)
2.5.6.7.1. The use of a computer worm (“worm”)

would trigger the application of Par.
(5)(i)(aa). A worm is a self-replicating
computer program designed to penetrate
an operating system with the intent of
spreading malicious code which would, if
used, result in system interference.
Considering that worms are usually
designed to cause harm to a computer
network, sending one via a file attachment
to an unsuspecting computer user would
make the person who sent the worm liable
under the aforementioned provision.
2.5.6.8. Notes for Par. (5)(i)(bb)
2.5.6.8.1. A disgruntled system administrator who,

immediately after having his employment
terminated, makes available the
password for his account prior to its
deactivation is an example of an offender
under Par. (5)(i)(bb). The system
administrator, at the moment his
employment was terminated, lost the
right to make use of the password to his
account, even if the same had yet to be
deactivated. His continued possession of
the password cannot be equated with
authority, as he had lost the right to make
use of the same when his employment
was terminated.
2.5.6.9. Notes for Par. (5)(ii)
2.5.6.9.1. Possession of a single device or a single

piece of data under Par. (5)(ii) is enough
to make the offender criminally liable.
511 Ibid.

Considering that intent to commit an
offense under Sec. 4 of the is an element
under Par. (5)(ii), the lack of a minimum
number of devices or pieces of data to be
possessed seems to suggest that such
number may be an indicator of intent.
Using the number of devices or pieces of
data possessed to determine intent is
supported by the Court’s ruling in
Epifanio v. People512, which said that
“intent to kill may be proved by evidence
of x x x the nature of number of weapons
used in the commission of the crime x x
x.”
2.5.6.9.2. Possession under Par. (5)(ii) is similar to

possession of instruments or implements
for falsification under Art. 176 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended. In both
cases, intent is an essential element. This
is unlike Art. 304 of the Revised Penal
Code, which punishes the mere
possession of picklocks and similar tools
regardless of intent.
2.6. Cyber-Squatting
Cyber-squatting – The acquisition of a domain name over

the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy
reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if
such a domain name is:
(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing

trademark registered with the appropriate government
agency at the time of the domain name registration;
(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person

other than the registrant, in case of a personal name;
and
(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property

interests in it.
512
G.R. No. 157057 (June 26, 2007).

2.6.1. Elements:
i. That there was acquisition of a domain name over the

internet;
ii. That such acquisition was in bad faith to profit, mislead,

destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering
the domain name;
iii. That the domain name is:
a. Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing

trademark registered with the appropriate
government agency at the time of the domain name
registration; or
b. Identical or in any way similar with the name of a

person other than the trademark registrant where the
trademark is the registrant’s personal name; and
iv. That the domain name is acquired without right or with

intellectual property interests in it.
2.6.1.1. Penalty – Prision mayor or a fine of at least

Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php200,000.00) up to a maximum amount
commensurate to the damage incurred, or
both. If committed against critical
infrastructure, the penalty of reclusion
temporal or a fine of at least Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) up to a
maximum amount commensurate to the
damage incurred, or both.
2.6.1.2. Bail – One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos

(Php120,000.00). If committed against
critical infrastructure, it is Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00).
2.6.1.3. Notes:
2.6.1.3.1. This provision on cyber-squatting was

not reproduced from a similar provision
in the Convention. This is a new
provision of the Act.

2.6.1.3.1.1. The provision on cyber-squatting is
meant to prevent persons from
registering names of well-known
organizations and individuals, with
the intent of selling them back to the
companies, misleading others,
destroying the goodwill and
reputation earned by these
organizations and individuals, or,
for one reason or another, depriving
these organizations and individuals
from registering what is rightfully
theirs. Without this provision, the
cyber-squatters may hold hostage
the trademarks and names of well-
known organizations and
individuals.
2.6.1.3.2. Note that the offense punishes the

“acquisition” of a domain name. While
the term is not defined in the law, it is
suggested that it encompasses the
various ways a domain name may be
“acquired” under the law. As a general
rule, a domain name may be acquired in
two ways: (i) original registration from a
domain name registry, or (ii) transfer
from an existing registrant.513 The crime
of cybersquatting therefore includes
domains acquired in both situations.
2.6.1.3.3. Despite the use of the conjunction "and"

in the phrase "to profit, mislead, destroy
reputation, and deprive," an offender
under this provision need not intend to
achieve all the aforementioned
purposes. The list is obviously intended
to expound on the concept of “bad faith.”
Since this provision seeks to protect
organizations and individuals from the
513
A domain name may also be acquired through involuntary transfer such as those pursuant to
court orders or determination by arbitration bodies under domain name dispute resolution policies
adopted by domain name registries.

harm caused by the registration of their
trademarks and names, it is enough that
the offender seeks only to achieve one of
these purposes to establish “bad faith.”
In any case, an offender who achieves
any of these purposes will cause harm to
the organization or individual.
2.6.1.3.4. The use of the conjunction "and" between

sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of this
provision leads to some confusion
because it suggests that all of the
elements in (i), (ii), and (iii) must exist.
This is untrue. Subparagraphs (i) and
(ii) refer to the domain name subject of
the offense. Subparagraph (i) requires
the domain name to be “confusingly
similar” to a registered trademark while
subparagraph (ii) refers to a special
situation where the domain name is also
a personal name. In other words,
subparagraphs (i) and (ii) can only be
taken together in cases where the
registered domain is that of the personal
name of the trademark owner. It is clear
that the offense contemplates two
situations:
2.6.1.3.4.1. Situation 1: A domain name

confusingly similar to a registered
mark. In this situation, the offender
acquires a domain name confusingly
similar to a registered mark.
2.6.1.3.4.2. Situation 2: A domain name similar

to the personal name which is a
registered mark. This situation
applies when an individual registers
his personal name as a trademark.
When the offender acquires a domain
name similar to such registered
mark, then it satisfies this element.
2.6.1.3.5. From the above, the element that the

domain name was "acquired without
right or with intellectual property

interests in it" is independent of
subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and is a
requirement or element in both cases.
In other words, the offender has no
intellectual property interests or rights
to the domain name.
2.6.1.3.5.1. The above also suggests that if the

accused has some intellectual
property interests or some legal
rights to the domain name, then
this negates a finding of
cybersquatting. For example, if
someone named Rudy Fernandez
(but not the famous actor)
registers Rudy Fernandez.PH, he
can defend against cyber-
squatting on the ground that he
has a right to register his own
name.
2.6.1.3.5.2. An example can be found in

Jollibee Foods Corporation v.
Graham Chrystman, UDRP Case
No. 95561, where an arbitrator
concluded that since Mr.
Chrystman’s wife is named
Jollibee, then there was no
cybersquatting that occurred when
he registered the domain
Jollibee.com.514
2.6.1.3.6. An example of an act of cyber-

squatting would be one committed
by Mike Rowe515, when he created a
website named MikeRoweSoft.com,
which was phonetically similar to
Microsoft.com. While the domain
he registered did contain his name,
the phonetic resemblance to
Microsoft's trademarked corporate
514 The decision is available at http://www.udrpsearch.com/naf/95561 last visited June 8, 2017.

515 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft last visited June 8, 2017.

name did not sit well with the
technology company, prompting
them to avail of legal remedies. Note
that while Mike Rowe would have
rights to his name, the addition of
the word “soft” to the domain name
is a clear attempt to mimic the
Microsoft name phonetically. It is
unlikely that Mike Rowe has any
intellectual property rights to the
mark Mike Rowe Soft. The phonetic
resemblance also indicates that
there was an intention to mislead
internet users. The case eventually
settled.
SEC. 4(B) COMPUTER-RELATED OFFENSES
2.7. (1) Computer-related Forgery. —
(i) The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer

data without right resulting in inauthentic data with
the intent that it be considered or acted upon for
legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless
whether or not the data is directly readable and
intelligible; or
(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data which is

the product of computer-related forgery as defined
herein, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent
or dishonest design.
2.7.1. Elements of (b)(1)(i):
i. That the offender inputted, altered, or deleted any computer

data;
ii. That the inputting, altering, or deleting resulted in

inauthentic data;
iii. That the inputting, altering, or deleting was done without

right; and
iv. That the inauthentic data was intended to be acted upon for
legal purposes as if it were authentic.


(Php120,000.00).
2.7.4. Notes:
2.7.4.1. Clearly, the act of inputting, altering, or deleting the data

under the circumstances above leads to the
consummation of the offense. No other act from any
person is required. Neither is there a need that any harm
was suffered or damage caused.
2.7.4.2. The crucial element is the intention that the forged

document be acted upon for a legal purpose. Clearly, if
there is no intention that the forged computer data be
acted upon for a “legal purpose,” then the crime is not
committed. According to the Explanatory Report, the
term “legal purpose” refers to “legal transactions and
documents which are legally relevant.” 516
2.7.4.2.1. For example, affixing a digital signature to an

electronic loan application is legally relevant.
2.7.4.2.2. If a skilled photo editor takes an official photograph

of the President from the government’s website and
edits it as part of a parody done for a political
campaign, then it is clear that the data was not altered
for a legal purpose but as part of the exercise of
political rights. Thus, the photo editor cannot be held
liable under this provision since the act was not done
for a “legal purpose.”
2.7.4.2.3. As can be gleaned from the framers of the Budapest

Convention on Cybercrime, Computer-related
Forgery is similar to the crime of Falsification found
in Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code. And
because of the double liability under Sections 6 and 7
of the Act, a person charged with Computer-related
Forgery may also fact prosecution under the Revised

Penal Code. For example, if a person uses photo
editing software and a printer to create a forged
physical document (e.g., birth certificate) for the
purpose of getting a job, then the crime may also be
charged under Sec. 6 in relation to Art. 171 of the
Revised Penal Code.
2.7.4.3. The purpose of this article is to create a parallel offense to

the forgery of tangible documents. It aims to fill the gaps
in criminal law related to traditional forgery, which
requires visual readability of statements, or declarations
embodied in a document and which does not apply to
electronically stored data. Manipulations of such data
with evidentiary value may have the same serious
consequences as traditional acts of forgery if a third party
is thereby misled. Computer-related forgery involves
unauthorized creating or altering stored data so that they
acquire a different evidentiary value in the course of legal
transactions, which relies on the authenticity of
information contained in the data, is subject to a
deception. The protected legal interest is the security and
reliability of electronic data, which may have
consequences for legal relations.517
2.7.4.4. Examples:
2.7.4.4.1. A programmer gains access to the database of a

bank in order to make it appear that he has no
outstanding liabilities. He does this in order to
support his loan application.
2.7.4.4.2. A programmer gains access to the Philippine

Statistics Authority database and alters data to
make it appear that he is not yet married so that
when he applies for a Certificate of No Marriage
(CENOMAR) in the same office, he will be given
one.
2.7.5. Elements for (b)(1)(ii):
i. That the offender used computer data;
517 Ibid., Par. 81.

ii. That the offender knew that such computer data is a
product of Computer-related forgery as defined under
4(b)1(i); and
iii. That the offender used such computer data in order to

perpetuate a fraudulent or dishonest design.


(Php120,000.00).
2.7.8. Notes:
2.7.8.1. This offense is similar to Art. 172 of the Revised Penal

Code, which punishes the use of knowingly falsified
documents.
2.7.8.2. A programmer uses an access card, knowing that the

same was created through Computer-related forgery into
the security system of an airport in order to gain access to
the airport’s luggage handling facility to steal the property
of weary passengers.
2.8. Computer-related Fraud. — The unauthorized input,

alteration, or deletion of computer data or program or
interference in the functioning of a computer system,
causing damage thereby with fraudulent intent: Provided,
that if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty
imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.
2.8.1. Elements:
i. That there is an unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of

computer data or program or interference in the functioning
of a computer system; and
ii. That the said acts were done with fraudulent intent; and
iii. That the said acts caused damage provided that if no damage
has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1)
degree lower.


(Php120,000.00).
2.8.4. Notes:
2.8.4.1. The Convention’s provision on Computer-related fraud is

similar to the one in the Act. The Convention requires that
fraud be committed intentionally and without right,
causing loss of property to another person by any input,
alteration, deletion or suppression of computer data; or
any interference with the functioning of a computer
system.518 It also requires that the aforementioned acts
are performed with fraudulent or dishonest intent of
procuring, without right, an economic benefit.
2.8.4.2. However, in the case of the Act, Computer-related Fraud

does not require damage. In fact, the Act says if no
damage is done, the penalty is lower. Unfortunately, this
creates a clear overlap with Computer-related Forgery
because the punishable acts are exactly the same in both,
namely: the unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of
computer data.519 With regard to the element of
fraudulent intent found in Computer-related Fraud, the
same element can be equated with the phrase “with the
intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal
purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not
the data is directly readable and intelligible” found in
Computer-related Forgery.
2.8.4.3. The overlap means that the offender may be charged

under either law. Note that a charge under Computer-
related Forgery carries a higher penalty than one for
Computer-related Fraud where no damage is caused. The
accused can argue, however, that, given the overlap, the
Act should be interpreted liberally in favor of the
Ibid., Par. 39.

518
The word “unauthorized” was used in Computer-related Fraud while the phrase “without right”
519
was used in Computer-related Forgery. For all intents and purposes, they are equivalent.

accused520 such that the provision with the lower charge
should be applied.
2.8.4.4. Examples:
2.8.4.4.1. A programmer gains access to the computer system of

the Metrorail Transit ticketing system and puts
credits on his card so that he may ride the train for
free. Note that this also violates the Access Devices
Regulation Act521 of 1998 and could perhaps call for
an independent prosecution under Sections 6 and 7 of
the Act.
2.8.4.4.2. A programmer gains access to a website that offers

voucher codes to its customers who may present them
for substantial discounts. He creates false vouchers so
that he can go to restaurants and shop for free.
2.9. Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional

acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or
deletion of identifying information belonging to another,
whether natural or juridical, without right: Provided, That
if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable
shall be one (1) degree lower.
2.9.1. Elements:
i. That the offender acquired, used, misused, transferred,

possessed, altered, or deleted identifying information;
ii. That these acts were committed intentionally and without

right;
iii. That the identifying information did not belong to the

offender but to a natural or juridical person; and
iv. Damage is caused, or if no damage has been caused, the
penalty is one degree lower.
520 See People v. Ladjaalam, G.R. No. 136149-51 (September 19, 2000).
521
R.A. No. 8484 (1998).


(Php120,000.00).
2.9.4. Notes:
2.9.4.1. Please see the discussion on the definition of

“identifying information”, above.
2.9.4.2. The classical case of identity theft involves the act of

impersonating another in order to obtain benefits.
Note however, that the acts punishable above
include not only the use of the identifying
information but also their mere acquisition or
possession of the same. These would ordinarily be
considered predicate acts but they are punished in
the Act.
2.9.4.3. Also, note the use of the word “or” to separate the
acts constituting the offense. This suggests that
criminal liability attaches at every stage of the
“identity theft” from acquisition, possession,
alteration and use, such that a single event of
“identity theft” may attract multiple counts of
Computer-related Identity Theft under the Act.
2.9.4.4. The constitutionality of this provision was

challenged on the basis that the language could cover
the legitimate activities of investigative journalists:
2.9.4.4.1.1. “…petitioners fear that Section 4(b)(3) violates
the freedom of the press in that journalists
would be hindered from accessing the
unrestricted user account of a person in the
news to secure information about him that
could be published. But this is not the essence
of identity theft that the law seeks to prohibit
and punish. Evidently, the theft of identity
information must be intended for an
illegitimate purpose. Moreover, acquiring and

disseminating information made public by the
user himself cannot be regarded as a form of
theft.”522
2.9.4.5. In defense of the validity of the provision, the

Supreme Court noted the absence of one of the core
elements of theft viz. intent to gain. The High Court
said that, in the case of journalists, they are
committing the acts for the purpose of fulfilling a
civic or professional duty, thus there is no intent to
gain.523
2.9.4.6. There is some doubt as to whether this is a cyber-

crime or not because the language adopted in the Act
is not limited to acts done through the use of
information communications technology (ICT). As a
guide to interpretation, the title of the Act and the
title of the section itself suggest that the crime can
only be committed through ICT. Under the rules on
statutory construction, the title of the Act is
indicative of legislative intent.524 On that basis, the
acts have to be done through ICT. However,
analyzing the title can only be resorted to when there
exists any doubt as to how the provision shall be
interpreted.525
2.9.4.7. The object of Computer-related Identity Theft is

identifying information belonging to another.
Typically, this would refer to personal information
belonging to an individual, since identity theft is
arguably a violation of one’s privacy rights.
Certainly, juridical persons do not enjoy privacy
rights. However, because the Act includes
identifying information belonging to juridical
persons, this suggests that the Act is referring to
databases of identifying information that the
juridical person is holding as an asset. For example,
if someone steals an electronic customer database
522 Disini et. al., vs. The Secretary of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 203335 (February 11, 2014).
523
Ibid.
524 Central Capiz Corp. v. Ramirez, G.R. L-16197, March 12, 1920. See also Ebarle v. Sucaldito, G.R. No.
L-33628 (December 29, 1987).

525 Ibid.

belonging to a corporation, then the offender may be
charged with Computer-related Identity Theft.
2.9.4.8. “Identifying information” as used in this provision,

shares key similarities with the concepts of “personal
information” and “sensitive personal information”
under the Data Privacy Act526 (DPA). Under the
DPA, personal information refers to information
from which the identity of an individual is apparent,
or could reasonably and directly ascertained by the
entity holding such information.527 Sensitive
personal information, on the other hand, pertains to
personal information about an individual’s marital
status, age, health, education, genetic, or sexual life,
among other things.
2.9.4.9. Thus, Computer-related Identity Theft which

involves identifying information that would also be
considered sensitive personal information (e.g.,
unique biometric data) may also be in violation of
Sec. 13 of the DPA, which prohibits the processing of
sensitive personal information.
2.9.4.10. This provision overlaps with Sec. 25 of the DPA,

which punishes the unauthorized processing of
personal information and sensitive personal
information. This is significant because the DPA in
Section 33, provides “Any combination or series of
acts as defined in Sections 25 to 32 shall make the
person subject to imprisonment ranging from three
years to six years and a fine of not less than One
Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) but not more than
Five Million Pesos (Php5,000,000.00).” Sec. 4(C)
CONTENT-RELATED OFFENSES
2.10. Cybersex – The willful engagement, maintenance,

control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any
lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual
activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor
or consideration.
526 R.A. No. 10173 (2012).

527
Ibid., Sec. 3(g).

2.10.1. Elements:
i. That there was a willful engagement, maintenance,

control, or operation of any lascivious exhibition of
sexual organs or sexual activity;
ii. That acts were committed directly or indirectly;
iii. That such lascivious exhibition was with the aid of a
iv. That such lascivious exhibition was for favor or
consideration.
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00), but not
exceeding One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00), or both.
(Php120,000.00).
2.10.4. Notes:
2.10.4.1. This provision was not taken from the Convention.
This is a new provision in the Cybercrime
Prevention Act.
2.10.4.2. The decisive factor in determining the existence of
cybersex punishable by law is if the cybersex is
being done for favor or consideration, as evidenced
by elements (2) and (4). What the provision seeks
to punish is cyber prostitution, white slave trade,
and pornography for favor and consideration,
which includes interactive prostitution and
pornography, i.e. by webcam.528 According to the
Supreme Court in the Disini case, the law does not
seek to penalize a “private showing x x x between
and among two private persons x x x although that
may be a form of obscenity to some.” 529 Therefore,
cybersex between husband and wife or consenting
adults shall not be punishable under this provision.
2.10.4.3. For cybersex to be committed, it is necessary that,
among other things, the willful engagement,
maintenance, control, or operation of any lascivious
conduct was done for favor or consideration. These
528 Disini, supra.

529
Bicameral Conference Committee on R.A. No. 10175, pp. 5-6.

elements suggest that it is the “supplier” of such
lascivious conduct and not the “purchaser” who is
penalized by the provision.
2.10.4.4. While the provision does not seek to punish
cybersex between consenting adults, it should be
noted that the Supreme Court has recognized the
State’s power to “regulate materials that serve no
other purpose than satisfy the market for violence,
lust, or pornography.”530 To further clarify this
point, the Court, in Disini v. Secretary of Justice 531,
made the following pronouncement:
“Private property, if containing pornographic
materials, may be forfeited and destroyed.
Likewise, engaging in sexual acts privately
through internet connection, perceived by some
as a right, has to be balanced with the mandate
of the State to eradicate white slavery and the
exploitation of women.”
2.10.4.5. Under the IRR, if the subject matter of the cybersex

is a child, Section 4(c)(2) of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act, which deals with child
pornography, shall punish such cybersex. 532
Notably, this was not provided for in Republic Act
No. 10175.
2.10.4.6. Additionally, also under the IRR, when the
maintenance, control, or operation of cybersex is
also punishable under Republic Act No. 9208
(“Anti-Trafficking in persons Act of 2003”), as
amended, a prosecution under the Cybercrime
Prevention Act shall be without prejudice to any
liability under the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
or special laws, including Republic Act No. 9208,
consistent with Sec. 8 of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10175. 533 This
provision is not specifically provided for in Republic
Act No. 10175, as it is present only in its IRR.
530
People v. Nogales, G.R. No. 191080 (November 21, 2011), 660 SCRA 475.
531 See note 518.
532 Rule 2, Sec. 5(2) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations, R.A. No. 10175.
533 Ibid.

Pornography under Republic Act No. 9208 is
perhaps the closest provision, which may come
within the operation of the Act. Under Republic Act
No. 9208, pornography is defined as:
“x x x any representation, through publication,

exhibition, cinematography, indecent shows,
information technology, or by whatever means,
of a person engaged in real or simulated explicit
sexual activities or any representation of the
sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual
purposes.”534
The definition above mentions “exhibition,” which

is also mentioned in the definition of cybersex
under the Act, when it refers to ”lascivious
exhibition.” Therefore, it would be reasonable to
conclude that pornography under Republic Act No.
9208 is contemplated by the concept of cybersex
under the Act.
2.10.4.7. An example of cybersex that may be punishable

under the law would pay-per-view sex shows
conducted in so-called “cybersex hot spots.” These
cybersex hot spots are often located in internet
cafes, which serve as fronts for cybersex operations.
The lascivious exhibition is usually done on a pay-
per-view basis, i.e., the viewer must pay the
performer or the person managing the cybersex den
before he is allowed to view the lascivious
exhibition.
2.11. Child pornography - The unlawful or prohibited acts
defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the
Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through
a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be
imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided
for in Republic Act No. 9775.
2.11.1. Elements:
534
Ibid., Sec. 3(h).

2.11.1.1. The offender must have committed any of the unlawful or
prohibited acts defined under Republic Act No. 9775:
2.11.1.1.1. To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a

child to perform in the creation or production of any
form of child pornography;
2.11.1.1.2. To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form

of child pornography;
2.11.1.1.3. To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast,

advertise, promote, export or import any form of
child pornography;
2.11.1.1.4. To possess any form of child pornography with the

intent to sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast:
Provided, That possession of three or more articles
of child pornography of the same form shall be
prima facie evidence of the intent to sell, distribute,
publish or broadcast;
2.11.1.1.5. To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a

venue for the commission of prohibited acts as, but
not limited to, dens, private rooms, cubicles,
cinemas, houses or in establishments purporting to
be a legitimate business;
2.11.1.1.6. For film distributors, theaters and tele-

communication companies, by themselves or in
cooperation with other entities, to distribute any
form of child pornography;
2.11.1.1.7. For a parent, legal guardian or person having

custody or control of a child to knowingly permit the
child to engage, participate or assist in any form of
child pornography;
2.11.1.1.8. To engage in the luring or grooming of a child;
2.11.1.1.9. To engage in pandering of any form of child

pornography;
2.11.1.1.10. To willfully access any form of child pornography;

2.11.1.1.11. To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts
stated in this section. Conspiracy to commit any
form of child pornography shall be committed when
two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of any of the said
prohibited acts and decide to commit it;
2.11.1.1.12. To possess any form of child pornography;
2.11.1.1.13. Syndicated Child Pornography;
2.11.1.1.14. Willfully and knowingly failing to comply with the

duties of an Internet Service Provider;
2.11.1.1.15. Willfully and knowingly falling to comply with the

responsibility of the mall owner/operator and owner
or lessor of other business establishments, including
photo developers, Information technology
professionals, credit card companies and banks;
2.11.1.1.16. Willfully and knowingly failing to comply with the

duties of an Internet Content Host; and
2.11.1.1.17. Violation of Confidentiality.
2.11.1.2. That any of the unlawful or prohibited acts defined under

Republic Act No. 9775 was committed through a computer
system.
2.11.2. Penalty:
2.11.2.1.1. To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to

perform in the creation or production of any form of child
pornography; - Reclusion temporal in its maximum period
and a fine of not less than One Million Pesos
(Php1,000,000.00) but not more than Two Million Pesos
(Php2,000,000.00);
2.11.2.1.2. To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of child

(Php2,000,000.00);

advertise, promote, export or import any form of child
(Php2,000,000.00);
2.11.2.1.4. To possess any form of child pornography with the intent to

sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided. That
possession of three (3) or more articles of child
pornography of the same form shall be prima facie evidence
of the intent to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast; -
Reclusion temporal in its medium period and a fine of not
less than Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand pesos
(Php750,000.00) but not more than One Million Pesos
(Php1,000,000.00);
2.11.2.1.5. To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue for

the commission of prohibited acts as, but not limited to,
dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in
establishments purporting to be a legitimate business; -
less than Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php1,000,000.00);
2.11.2.1.6. For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication

companies, by themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child pornography; -
less than Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php1,000,000.00);
2.11.2.1.7. For a parent, legal guardian or person having custody or

control of a child to knowingly permit the child to engage,
participate or assist in any form of child pornography; -
Reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine of not
less than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00)
but not more than Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php700,000.00);
2.11.2.1.8. To engage in the luring or grooming of a child; - Prision

mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than
Three Hundred Thousand pesos (Php300,000.00) but not

more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php500,000.00);
2.11.2.1.9. To engage in pandering of any form of child pornography; -

Prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of not less
than Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00) but
not more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php500,000.00);
2.11.2.1.10. To willfully access any form of child pornography; - Prision

correcional in its maximum period and a fine of not less
than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00) but
not more than Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php
300,000.00);
2.11.2.1.11. To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated in

this section. Conspiracy to commit any form of child
pornography shall be committed when two (2) or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of any of the said prohibited acts and decide to commit it; -
Prision correcional in its maximum period and a fine of
not less than One Hundred Thousand pesos
(Php100,000.00) but not more than Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (Php250,000.00);
2.11.2.1.12. To possess any form of child pornography; and – Arresto

mayor in its minimum period and a fine of not less than
Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) but not more than
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00);
2.11.2.1.13. Syndicated Child Pornography. – Reclusion Perpetua and

a fine of not less than Two Million Pesos
(Php2,000,000.00);
2.11.2.1.14. Willfully and knowingly failing to comply with the duties of

an Internet Service Provider; - a fine of not less than Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more
than One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) for the first
offense. In the case of a subsequent offense, the penalty
shall be a fine of not less than One Million Pesos
(Php2,000.000.00) and revocation of its license to
operate;

responsibility of the mall owner/operator and owner or

lessor of other business establishments, including photo
developers, Information technology professionals, credit
card companies and banks; - a fine of not less than One
Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) but not more than Two
Million Pesos (Php2,000,000.00) for the first offense. In
the case of a subsequent offense, the penalty shall be a
fine of not less than Two Million Pesos
(Php2,000,000.00) but not more than Three Million
Pesos (Php3,000.000.00) and revocation of its license to
operate and immediate closure of the establishment;
2.11.2.1.16. Willfully and knowingly failing to comply with the duties

of an Internet Content Host; and - Prision correcional in
its medium period and a fine of not less than One Million
Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) but not more than Two Million
Pesos (Php2,000,000.00) for the first offense. In the
case of a subsequent offense, the penalty shall be a fine
of not less than Two Million Pesos (Php2,000,000.00)
but not more than Three Million Pesos
(Php3,000.000.00) and revocation of its license to
operate and immediate closure of the establishment;
2.11.2.1.17. Violation of Confidentiality. - Arresto mayor in its

minimum period and a fine of not less than One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) but not
more than Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php300,000.00).
2.11.2.2. Bail
2.11.2.2.1. To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child

to perform in the creation or production of any form of
child pornography; - Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php200,000.00);
2.11.2.2.2. To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of

child pornography; - Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php200,000.00);

advertise, promote, export or import any form of child
pornography; - Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php200,000.00);
2.11.2.2.4. To possess any form of child pornography with the intent

to sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided. That

possession of three (3) or more articles of child
pornography of the same form shall be prima facie
evidence of the intent to sell, distribute, publish or
broadcast; - Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php200,000.00);
2.11.2.2.5. To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue

for the commission of prohibited acts as, but not limited
to, dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in
establishments purporting to be a legitimate business; -
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00);
2.11.2.2.6. For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication

companies, by themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child pornography; -
2.11.2.2.7. For a parent, legal guardian or person having custody or

control of a child to knowingly permit the child to engage,
participate or assist in any form of child pornography; -
2.11.2.2.8. To engage in the luring or grooming of a child; - One

Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php120,000.00);
2.11.2.2.9. To engage in pandering of any form of child pornography;

- One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos
(Php120,000.00);
2.11.2.2.10. To willfully access any form of child pornography; - Sixty

2.11.2.2.11. To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated in

this section. Conspiracy to commit any form of child
pornography shall be committed when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of any of the said prohibited acts and decide to commit it; -
Sixty Thousand Pesos (Php60,000.00);
2.11.2.2.12. To possess any form of child pornography; and - Twenty

2.11.2.2.13. Syndicated Child Pornography. - No bail.

an Internet Service Provider; - Bail not required.

responsibility of the mall owner/operator and owner or
lessor of other business establishments, including photo
developers, Information technology professionals, credit
card companies and banks; - Bail not required.

an Internet Content Host; and - Sixty Thousand Pesos
(Php60,000.00);
2.11.2.2.17. Violation of Confidentiality. - Twenty Thousand Pesos

(Php20,000.00).
2.11.2.3. Notes:
2.11.2.3.1. In the case of Disini535, the Court said that this provision
expands the scope of Republic Act No. 9775 by covering
identical activities in cyberspace, and that, in theory, the
government is not prevented from invoking the Republic
Act No. 9775 when prosecuting persons who commit child
pornography using a computer system. In fact, the
definition of child pornography in the aforementioned law
already embraces the use of "electronic, mechanical,
digital, optical, magnetic or any other means."
2.11.2.3.2. It should be noted that “Syndicated Child Pornography,”

“Willfully and knowingly failing to comply with the duties
of an Internet Service Provider,” “Willfully and knowingly
falling to comply with the responsibility of the mall
owner/operator and owner or lessor of other business
establishments, including photo developers, Information
technology professionals, credit card companies and
banks,” “Willfully and knowingly failing to comply with
the duties of an Internet Content Host,” and Violation of
Confidentiality are not among unlawful or prohibited acts
under Sec. 4 of Republic Act No. 9775. While it may be
argued that the reference to “unlawful or prohibited acts
defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775” refer to
those acts enumerated in Sec. 4 thereof, it is more logical
to consider the aforementioned acts as among those
referred to by this provision. These acts, while not
enumerated under Sec. 4 of Republic Act No. 9775, are
535
See note 517.

equally punished by the same. Notably, Department
Circular No. 020, dated 30 March 2015, which pertains to
the Guidelines on Bail for Cybercrime Offenses.
2.11.2.3.3. Section 5 of the Act, which penalizes aiding and abetting,

cannot be applied to the provision on child pornography
under the said law.
2.11.2.3.4. This provision, as it essentially supplements Republic Act

No. 9775, expands on the definition of child pornography
under the Convention. Thus, child pornography under the
Cybercrime Prevention Act is much broader than under
the convention. It should be noted, however, that while
the Convention considers pornographic material which
features “a person appearing to be a minor engaged in
sexually explicit conduct,” 536 child pornography under
Republic Act No. 9775 and the Cybercrime Prevention Act
must feature a child who is “below eighteen (18) years of
age or over, but is unable to fully take care of himself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or condition.” 537
SEC. 5. OTHER OFFENSES
AIDING AND ABETTING CYBERCRIMES
The following acts shall also constitute offenses.
2.12. Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of

Cybercrime - Any person who willfully abets or
aids in the commission of any of the offenses
enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
2.12.1. Penalty – Imprisonment one degree lower than that of

the prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine of at least
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) but not
exceeding Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php500,000.00) or both;
2.12.2. Notes:
536
Convention on Cybercrime, Article 9(2).
537
R.A. No. 9775, Sec. 3(a).

2.12.2.1. As it pertains to the concept of “aiding or abetting” in
the context of this provision, this offense is
committed when a person aids another to commit an
offense under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, with
the person aiding fully intent on having the said
crime committed.538 In view of this definition, an
Internet Service Provider, whose network was used
by a group of hackers to infect multiple computers
with viruses, shall be considered as aiding or
abetting a cybercrime.
2.12.2.2. In the case of Disini539 the Supreme Court declared

that this provision may be applied with respect to the
following provisions:
“But the crime of aiding or abetting the

commission of cybercrimes under Section 5
should be permitted to apply to Section 4(a)(1) on
Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal
Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data
Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System
Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of
Devices, Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting,
Section 4(b)(1) on Computer-related Forgery,
Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud,
Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity
Theft, and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of
these offenses borders on the exercise of the
freedom of expression.”
However, it should be noted that this

pronouncement by the Supreme Court is non-
exclusionary. At the end of the paragraph, the Court
noted that “none of these offenses borders on the
exercise of the freedom of expression.” Thus, this
pronouncement should be interpreted to mean that
the application of this provision of the offenses
enumerated by the court would not go against
freedom of speech and expression. With the
exception of certain items that have been struck
down as unconstitutional by the Court, all other

539
See note 14.

provisions in the Act may still be invoked in
conjunction with this provision should the situation
call for it.
ATTEMPTED CYBERCRIMES
2.13. Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person

who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses
enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
2.13.1. Penalty – Imprisonment one (1) degree lower than that of

the prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine of at least One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) but not exceeding
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) or both.
2.13.2. Notes:
2.13.2.1. Much like the offense of aiding or abetting, the

application of this provision is triggered when the attempt
to commit the cybercrime offense is committed
intentionally.540
2.13.2.2. In the case of Disini541, the Supreme Court cited an

example which would trigger this provision:
“A hacker may for instance have done all that is

necessary to illegally access another party’s computer
system but the security employed by the system’s
lawful owner could frustrate his effort. Another
hacker may have gained access to usernames and
passwords of others but fail to use these because the
system supervisor is alerted.”
The above examples cited by the Supreme Court actually

describe a frustrated crime as understood in the Revised
Penal Code. In the above examples, the hacker has
already committed all the acts necessary to commit the
offense. However, because of circumstances beyond his
control, the offense was not consummated. Considering
that the Act does not specifically punish offenses in the

541
See note 518.

frustrated stage, offenses under which are, factually, in
the frustrated stage, shall be considered as offenses in
the attempted stage under this provision.
ICT-ENABLED OFFENSES
2.14. Other crimes committed by, through, and with the use of
ICT
SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal

Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through
and with the use of information and communications
technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this
Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1)
degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
2.14.1. Notes:
2.14.1.1. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of this provision by

treating it as a qualifying circumstance. It emphasized that
there is a stark difference from ordinary crimes and those
that are committed through ICT:
2.14.1.1.1. “Section 6 merely makes commission of existing

crimes through the internet a qualifying circumstance.
As the Solicitor General points out, there exists a
substantial distinction between crimes committed
through the use of information and communications
technology and similar crimes committed using other
means. In using the technology in question, the
offender often evades identification and is able to
reach far more victims or cause greater harm. The
distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher
penalties for cybercrimes.”542
2.14.1.2. Following the High Court’s characterization of Sec. 6

as a qualifying circumstance and applying prevailing
rules on the matter, Sec. 6 does not merely increase the
penalty of the offense committed like an aggravating
542
Disini, supra.

circumstance. A qualifying circumstance is different
from an aggravating circumstance in the sense that it
changes the offense altogether. For example, when a
killing is committed with the qualifying circumstance
of treachery, the crime is no longer homicide but
murder. The crime falls under an entirely different
provision.
2.14.1.3. It is important to remember that there are implications

when one is charged with a crime under the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) or a Special Law in relation to
Section 6. Under the Act and its IRR, there are special
rules on Jurisdiction and Venue. Under Sec. 21, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) shall have jurisdiction over
any violation of the Act including any violation
committed by a Filipino regardless of the place of
commission. The RTC shall also have jurisdiction when
one of the elements was committed within the
Philippines or committed with the use of any computer
system that is wholly or partly situated in the country.
In addition, Sec. 21 also grants jurisdiction to the RTC
when the commission of the act causes damage to a
natural or juridical person, who, at the time of the
commission of the offense, was located in the
Philippines. If the crime charged is only murder under
the Revised Penal Code, then only the provisions of
Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code on jurisdiction would
apply.
2.14.2. Examples:
2.14.2.1. In a case where a person uses a cellphone to trigger a

bomb to kill one person, the crime committed would
be murder by, through, and with the use of ICT under
Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 in relation to Art. 246
of the RPC.
2.14.2.2. Another example is when a programmer uses a

desktop computer, scanner, and printer to create a
spurious business permit to be displayed prominently
on the window of his establishment. In this case, the
crime committed is Falsification of Public Documents
under Art. 172 of the RPC, in relation to Sec. 6 of this
Act, because the falsification was done by, through,
and with the use of ICT. The crime is more properly
the subject of Sec. 6 rather than Computer-related

forgery because, in this case, the forgery is on a
physical document, not Computer Data.
2.15. SEC. 7. Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution

under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability
for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, or special laws.
2.15.1. Notes:
2.15.1.1. The legal challenges to this provision have not yet been
fully addressed. The Supreme Court was clear when it
said that double jeopardy would lie if the provision were
made to apply to either libel or child pornography,
however, they reserved judgment on other crimes until
actual cases are brought to the courts:
2.15.1.1.1. “With the exception of the crimes of online libel and

online child pornography, the Court would rather leave
the determination of the correct application of Section 7
to actual cases. Online libel is different. There should be
no question that if the published material on print, said
to be libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that
identical material cannot be the subject of two separate
libels. The two offenses, one a violation of Article 353 of
the Revised Penal Code and the other a violation of
Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same
elements and are in fact one and the same offense.
Indeed, the OSG itself claims that online libel under
Section 4(c)(4) is not a new crime but is one already
punished under Article 353. Section 4(c)(4) merely
establishes the computer system as another means of
publication. Charging the offender under both laws
would be a blatant violation of the proscription against
double jeopardy. The same is true with child
pornography committed online. Section 4(c)(2) merely
expands the ACPA’s scope so as to include identical
activities in cyberspace. As previously discussed, ACPA’s
definition of child pornography in fact already covers the
use of "electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic
or any other means." Thus, charging the offender under

both Section 4(c)(2) and ACPA would likewise be
tantamount to a violation of the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy.” 543
2.15.1.2. As explained by the Supreme Court in Disini, the

Constitutionality of Sec. 7 has been left open to actual cases
that may reach the courts. The important insight of the
Court’s discussion on Sec. 6 and 7 is that when the use of
an ICT is already an element of an offense or crime sought
to be charged under either a Special Penal Law or the RPC,
then another charge under Sec. 6 of this Act would
constitute double jeopardy. In those cases, the two laws
would actually punish the same exact offense or crime.
3. PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS
3.1. Jurisdiction
The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over

any violation of the provisions of this Act, including any
violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of
the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of
the elements was committed within the Philippines or
committed with the use of any computer system wholly
or partly situated in the country, or when by such
commission any damage is caused to a natural or
juridical person who, at the time the offense was
committed, was in the Philippines. (CPA, Sec. 21)
3.1.1. The Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over Cybercrimes

when:
3.1.1.1. They are committed by a Filipino national regardless

of the place of commission;
3.1.1.2. Any of the elements was committed within the

Philippines;
3.1.1.3. They are committed with the use of any computer

system wholly or partly situated in the country; or
543
Ibid.

3.1.1.4. By such commission any damage is caused to a
natural or juridical person who, at the time the
offense was committed, was in the Philippines.
3.1.2. Notes:
3.1.2.1. This provision on jurisdiction is a recognition of the

trans-border character of cybercrimes – where in a
single offense, the perpetrator will be in one
jurisdiction, the victim in another, and the parts of a
computer network are scattered all around the globe.
Unless the jurisdiction of Philippine courts are
expanded beyond the usual limitations under the
Territoriality Principle, cybercriminals can effectively
evade prosecution
3.1.2.2. The Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over

Cybercrimes when any of the elements was
committed within the Philippines. This is an
application of the Territoriality Principle, which
already pervades most of the Philippine criminal
justice system.
3.1.2.3. The Philippine Courts may also exercise jurisdiction

over Cybercrimes when the victim is a natural or
juridical person who, at the time the offense was
committed, was in the Philippines.
3.1.2.3.1. This is an application of the Protective Principle

which gives a country the jurisdiction over
conduct outside its territory that threatens its
security as a state or that of its people.
3.1.2.3.2. The victim does not have to be Filipino nor a

resident of the Philippines. The victim, natural
or juridical, need only be in the Philippines at
the time the offense was committed.
3.1.2.4. The Courts may also exercise jurisdiction when the

offense was committed with the use of any computer
system wholly or partly situated in the country.
3.1.2.4.1. For example, a person in Country A launches a

DDoS attack against a website hosted in Country
B, using a botnet comprised of computers in the
Philippines. A DDoS attack usually involves one

computer called the Master which coordinates the
attack and a botnet, a series of Slave computers
which, when instructed by the Master, overload a
target computer system or network with traffic
causing it to shut down and deny service to its
usual users. These Slaves are usually
compromised and made part of the botnet usually
without their administrators’ knowledge and
consent.
3.1.2.5. Finally, Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over

cybercrimes committed by Filipino nationals
regardless of the place of commission;
3.1.2.5.1. This is an application of the Nationality Principle

where nationals of a state are obliged to comply
with domestic law even when outside of their
nation’s territory.
3.2. Venue
Section 22. Venue. – Criminal action for violation of the Act

may be filed with the RTC of the province or city where the
cybercrime or any of its elements is committed, or where any
part of the computer system used is situated, or where any of
the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took place:
Provided, that the court where the criminal action is first filed
shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
3.2.1. Notes
3.2.1.1. Under OCA Circular No. 18-2017:
“The Regional Trial Court branches designated as

Special Commercial Courts in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC
dated June 17, 2003 are hereby DESIGNATED as
‘Cybercrime Courts’ to try and decide cybercrime
cases covered under Republic Act No. 10175, in
addition to their designation as Special Commercial
Courts;
The Cybercrime Courts in the judicial regions shall

have territorial authority over the entire region where
the Regional Trial Court is located for purposes of
exercising the special jurisdiction granted herein.
Accordingly, cybercrime cases shall be filed in the

Office of the Clerk of Court in the official station of
the proper Cybercrime Court
xxx xxx xxx
Cybercrime Courts in Quezon City, Manila, Makati,

and Pasig shall have authority to act on applications
for the issuance of search warrants involving
violations of Republic Act No. 10175, which search
warrants shall be enforceable nationwide. Within
their respective territorial jurisdictions, the
Cybercrime Courts in the judicial regions where
violations of Republic Act No. 10175 occurred shall
have jurisdiction to issue search warrants.”
3.3. Tools for Investigation

3.3.1. Introduction
3.3.1.1. The CPA vests the responsibility for the efficient and
effective law enforcement to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine National Police
(PNP).544 The law also mandates the NBI and the PNP to
organize a cybercrime division or unit to exclusively
handle cases involving the violation of the CPA.545
3.3.1.2. On the DOJ’s end, the DOJ created an Office of

Cybercrime (‘OOC’) that coordinates the efforts of the
NBI and the PNP.546
3.3.1.3. The CPA provides tools to aid law enforcement agencies

in dealing with violations of the CPA. These tools
include the following: collection of computer data,
preservation, retention, and disclosure of computer data;
and search, seizure, and examination of computer data.
3.3.1.4. From an investigation standpoint, the first tool law

enforcement will likely utilize is the preservation power
under Section 13 of the Act. Pursuant to this authority,
law enforcement officers can issue an order requiring
544 CPA, Sec. 9; IRR, Rule 3, Sec. 9.

545 Ibid.
546 IRR, Rule 3, Sec. 9.

service providers to preserve traffic and content data for
a period of six (6) months, extendible for another six (6)
month period.
3.3.1.5. Thereafter, the law enforcement agencies can apply to the

courts for a disclosure order under Section 14 of the Act,
which also requires such order to be in the form of a
warrant, presumably, taking the form of the warrant
mentioned in Section 15 of the Act.
3.3.1.6. Independent of the preservation and disclosure orders,

the law enforcement agencies also have the option to
secure court orders which allow the following: (a) real-
time collection of traffic data; (b) real-time collection of
content data; and (c) a search warrant.
3.3.1.7. The real-time collection of traffic data provision of the

Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in Disini and
requires the same standard as a search warrant before
such an order can be issued.
3.3.1.8. The real-time collection of content data, however,

continues to be governed by the provisions of Section 12
of the Act and the standards set therein are applicable to
court orders which permit the same.
3.3.1.9. The search, seizure, and examination of computer data

on the other hand will be done via a regular search
warrant procedure mandated in the Constitution and the
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
3.3.1.10. Note that all of the above procedural rules are not
directed at prosecutors but to law enforcement agencies
namely, the NBI and he PNP-ACG. What is important to
remember is that non-compliance with these so-called
procedural rules results in the application of the
exclusionary rule under Section 18 of the Act, which
renders all such evidence collected inadmissible.
Furthermore, Section 20 imposes criminal liability for
failure to comply with the orders of law enforcement
agencies and the court attract liability under Presidential
Decree No. 1829 which deals with penalizing obstruction
of justice.
3.3.2. Real-Time Collection of Traffic and Content Data

From the IRR: “Sec. 13. Collection of Computer Data. Law
enforcement authorities, upon the issuance of a court
warrant, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical
or electronic means, and the service providers are required to
collect or record by technical or electronic means and/or to
cooperate and assist in the collection or recording of
computer data that are associated with specified
communications transmitted by means of a computer
system.
The court warrant required under this section shall be issued

or granted upon written application, after the examination
under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses
he may produce, and the showing that: (1) there are
reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes
enumerated hereinabove has been committed, is being
committed or is about to be committed; (2) there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence that will be
obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to
the solution of, or to the prevention of any such crimes; and
(3) there are no other means readily available for obtaining
such evidence.”
3.3.2.1. Notes
3.3.2.1.1. Section 13 of the IRR allows the collection or

recording of computer data that is associated
with specified communications transmitted by
means of a computer system. At the same time,
it provides for the cooperation of service
providers in collection or recording of this
information.
3.3.2.1.2. The term communication refers to the

transmission of information through
information and communication technology
media, including voice, video, and other forms
of data.547 On the other hand, the term
computer data refers to any representation of
facts, information, or concepts in a form
suitable for processing in a computer system,
including a program suitable to cause a
547 Ibid., Rule 1, Sec. 3(g).

computer system to perform a function, and
includes electronic documents and/or
electronic data message whether stored in local
computer systems or online.548
3.3.2.1.3. Traffic data refers to computer data, other than

the communications, including, but not limited
to the communication’s origin, destination,
route, time, date, size, duration, or type of
underlying service.549 For mobile phones, this
may consist of dialed numbers, length of calls,
caller ID information of incoming calls as well
as time and date of calls.
3.3.2.1.4. Content data, however, refers to the content of

the communication or the message conveyed by
the communication.
3.3.2.1.5. As originally enacted, the Act required a court

warrant for the purpose of the real-time
collection of traffic data as well as content data.
As mentioned in the above-quoted provision,
the warrant will be issued upon written
application and after examination under oath
or affirmation of the applicant and the
witnesses he or she may produce. The applicant
must show the following, taken from Sec. 12
from the CPA: (1) there are reasonable grounds
to believe that any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been committed, is being
committed or is about to be committed; (2)
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
evidence that will be obtained is essential to the
conviction of any person for, or to the solution
of, or to the prevention of any such crimes; and
(3) there are no other means readily available
for obtaining such evidence.
3.3.2.1.6. Originally, the Act allowed law enforcement

agencies “with due cause” to engage in the real-
time collection of traffic data – without the
548
Ibid., Sec. 3(j).
549
Sec. 3(hh), IRR.

benefit of a court order or judicial oversight.
This was struck down in the case of Disini.550
where the Supreme Court stated that “with
enough traffic data, analysts may be able to
determine a person’s close associations,
religious views, political affiliations, even sexual
preferences. ”551 As these pieces of information
are likely beyond what the public may expect to
be disclosed, it falls within matters protected by
the right to privacy. However, the Court
considered Section 12 to not be drawn narrowly
enough to protect individual rights. It noted
that “Section 12 provides minimal protection to
internet users and that the procedure
envisioned by the law could be better served by
providing for more robust safeguards. ”552 In
the end, the Court ruled that the real-time
collection of traffic data can only be done
through a search warrant.
3.3.2.1.7. Note that the search warrant needed for the

real-time collection of traffic data must conform
to the requirements of the Constitution and
search warrants in general. This is more
stringent than the court warrant required under
this section which imposed a lower standard.
3.3.2.1.8. The standard in Section 12, however, now

applies to non-traffic data otherwise referred to
as content data. In other words, it is possible to
secure a court order allowing the real-time
collection of content data using the lower
standard in Section 12 of the Act.
3.3.2.1.9. With regard to the venue of the application,

OCA Circular No. 18-2017 designated the courts
that were previously designated as Special
Commercial Courts under AM 03-03-03-SC as
Cybercrime Courts.553 Under this Circular,
550 Disini, supra.

551
Ibid.
552 Ibid.
553 OCA Circular No. 18-2017.

Cybercrime Courts in the judicial regions have
the territorial authority over the entire region
where the Regional Trial Court is located for the
purposes of exercising the special jurisdiction
granted therein. Moreover, Cybercrime Courts
in Quezon City, Manila, Makati, and Pasig were
given the authority to act on applications for the
issuance of search warrants involving violations
of Republic Act No. 10175. Search warrants
issued by the Cybercrime Courts of these four
cities shall be enforceable nationwide. All other
warrants are limited only to the territorial
jurisdiction of the issuing court.
3.3.3. Preservation, Disclosure, and Destruction of

Computer Data
Sec. 13. Preservation of Computer Data. — The integrity

of traffic data and subscriber information relating to
communication services provided by a service provider
shall be preserved for a minimum period of six (6)
months from the date of the transaction. Content data
shall be similarly preserved for six (6) months from the
date of receipt of the order from law enforcement
authorities requiring its preservation.
Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time

extension for another six (6) months: Provided, that
once computer data preserved, transmitted or stored by
a service provider is used as evidence in a case, the
mere furnishing to such service provider of the
transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor
shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer
data until the termination of the case.
The service provider ordered to preserve computer data

shall keep confidential the order and its compliance.
3.3.3.1. Notes:
3.3.3.1.1. The law requires service providers to preserve

the integrity of traffic data and subscriber
information relating to communication services
that they provide for a minimum period of six
(6) months from the date of the transaction.
Furthermore, should there be an order from

law enforcement authorities requiring their
preservation, content and traffic data shall be
also be preserved for six months from the date
of receipt of the order. These periods may be
extended by order of law enforcement agencies
for another six-month period. However, if the
computer data is used as evidence in a case the
service provider once notified by the Office of
the Prosecutor, shall preserve the computer
data until the termination of the case or as
ordered by the court.
Sec. 14. Disclosure of Computer Data. — Law

enforcement authorities, upon securing a court
warrant, shall issue an order requiring any person or
service provider to disclose or submit subscriber’s
information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its
possession or control within seventy-two (72) hours
from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint
officially docketed and assigned for investigation and
the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose
of investigation.
3.3.3.1.2 According to Disini, while the law and rules

require the preservation of traffic data and
subscriber information and allow the
preservation of content data through an order
of law enforcement agencies, such is not the
same for disclosure. When it comes to
disclosure, a court warrant is required before
the law enforcement authorities may order a
person or service provider to disclose or submit
the subscriber’s information, traffic data, or
other relevant data (including content data)
within his or her possession or control. Thus:
“What Section 14 envisions is merely the

enforcement of a duly issued court warrant, a
function usually lodged in the hands of law
enforcers to enable them to carry out their
executive functions. The prescribed procedure
for disclosure would not constitute an unlawful
search or seizure nor would it violate the

privacy of communications and
correspondence. Disclosure can be made only
after judicial intervention.”554
3.3.3.1.3 As the law and rules do not state the

requirements before a court may grant the
warrant for the disclosure of computer data,
then it can only mean that such warrant must
conform to the requirements of a search
warrant under the Constitution and the Rules
on Criminal Procedure.
3.3.3.1.4 With regard to the venue of the application, as

in the case of warrants for the collection of
data, the application must be made in the
Cybercrime Court having territorial
jurisdiction over the judicial region where the
warrant shall be enforced.555 If the applicant
seeks to procure a warrant that is enforceable
nationwide then the application must be made
in the Cybercrime Courts of Quezon City,
Manila, Makati, and Pasig.
Sec. 17. Destruction of Computer Data. — Upon

expiration of the periods as provided in [Section] 13
[Preservation of Computer Data] (…) service providers
and law enforcement authorities, as the case may be,
shall immediately and completely destroy the computer
data subject of a preservation and examination.
3.3.3.2 Notes.
3.3.3.2.2 The period for the retention of preserved data is

limited. Under Section 17 of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act, service providers and law
enforcement authorities shall immediately and
completely destroy the computer data subject to
a preservation and examination. Traffic data
and subscriber information shall be destroyed
upon the lapse of six (6) months from the date
of the transaction unless there has been an
554 Disini, supra.

555
OCA Circular No. 18-2017.

order for the extension for another six (6)
months. The same periods also apply to content
data. In case the computer data was used as
evidence in a case and the service provider has
been notified by the Office of the Prosecutor to
preserve the computer data, the destruction
shall be done until the final termination of the
case or as ordered by the court.
3.3.4 Search, Seizure, Examination, Custody, and

Destruction of Computer Data
Sec. 15. Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer

Data. — Where a search and seizure warrant is
properly issued, the law enforcement authorities shall
likewise have the following powers and duties:
Within the time period specified in the warrant, to

conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and:
(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data

storage medium;
(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data

secured;
(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored

computer data;
(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the

computer data storage medium; and
(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer

data in the accessed computer or computer and
communications network.
Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may

order any person who has knowledge about the
functioning of the computer system and the measures to
protect and preserve the computer data therein to
provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information, to
enable the undertaking of the search, seizure and
examination.
Law enforcement authorities may request for an

extension of time to complete the examination of the

computer data storage medium and to make a return
thereon but in no case for a period longer than thirty
(30) days from date of approval by the court.
3.3.4.1 Notes.
3.3.4.1.2 Section 15 of the CPA and its IRR allows law

enforcement authorities to do the following: (1)
secure a computer system or a computer data
storage medium; (2) make and retain a copy of
those computer data secured; (3) maintain the
integrity of the relevant stored computer data; (4)
conduct forensic analysis or examination of the
computer data storage medium; and (5) render
inaccessible or remove those computer data in the
accessed computer or computer and
communications network.
3.3.4.1.3 Law enforcement authorities however need to

first procure a search and seizure warrant before
conducting the aforementioned activities. These
activities supplement existing search and seizure
rules. Given this, it appears that the requirements
for a valid search and seizure would likewise
apply. Hence, there must be probable cause,
determined personally by judge, after personal
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce;
on the basis of their personal knowledge of the
facts they are testifying to. The warrant must
describe particularly the place to be searched and
the things to be seized.
3.3.4.1.4 It must be pointed out, however, that the last

requirement is not entirely workable in relation to
Cybercrimes. The law and jurisprudence require
the particular identification of the place to be
searched and object to be seized. The place where
a cybercrime may be committed is not necessarily
rooted to a single spot. As mentioned in Disini;
“In this digital age, the wicked can commit

cybercrimes from virtually anywhere: from
[I]nternet cafés, from kindred places that provide
free internet services, and from unregistered
mobile [I]nternet connectors. Criminals using

cellphones under pre-paid arrangements and with
unregistered SIM cards do not have listed
addresses and can neither be located nor
identified …”
3.3.4.1.5 Similarly, the things to be seized are also difficult

to state with particularity. Note that the subjects
of the search and seizure warrant in Section 15
are communications and computer data. At best,
these types of data can only be identified to be
associated with some actions. Hence, it is
submitted that a broad leeway must be granted in
gauging whether an application for a search and
seizure order under Section 15 fulfills the
requisites.
Sec. 16. Custody of Computer Data. — All computer

data, including content and traffic data, examined
under a proper warrant shall, within forty-eight (48)
hours after the expiration of the period fixed therein,
be deposited with the court in a sealed package, and
shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the law
enforcement authority executing it stating the dates
and times covered by the examination, and the law
enforcement authority who may access the deposit,
among other relevant data. The law enforcement
authority shall also certify that no duplicates or
copies of the whole or any part thereof have been
made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies
are included in the package deposited with the court.
The package so deposited shall not be opened, or the
recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or then
contents revealed, except upon order of the court,
which shall not be granted except upon motion, with
due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person
or persons whose conversation or communications
have been recorded.
3.3.4.2 Notes:
3.3.4.2.2 Section 15 allows law enforcement authorities to

intercept, among others, communications and
computer data. However, in order to examine what
was intercepted, Section 16 requires an order of the
court that is only granted upon motion with due
notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or

persons whose conversation or communications
have been recorded.
3.3.4.2.3 After communication and computer data has been

intercepted, the law enforcement authority must
deposit the relevant data to the court within 48
hours. The relevant data must be in a sealed package
accompanied by the following: (1) affidavit of the law
enforcement authority executing it stating the dates
and times covered by the examination, and the law
enforcement authority who may access the deposit,
among other relevant data; (2) certification that no
duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof
have been made, or if made, that all such duplicates
or copies are included in the package deposited with
the court.
3.3.4.2.4 Admittedly, the trial courts are in no position to hold

and preserve computer data. This means the
mandatory destruction in the Act will lead to the
degradation of electronic evidence. It is therefore
suggested that the prosecution or the law
enforcement agencies apply for a court order
appointing the law enforcement agencies as the
custodian of such evidence, on behalf of the court.
Sec. 17. Destruction of Computer Data. — Upon

expiration of the periods as provided in Section 13 and
15 service providers and law enforcement authorities,
as the case may be, shall immediately and completely
destroy the computer data subject of a preservation
and examination.
3.3.4.3 Notes:
3.3.4.4 The period for the retention of data subject of the

search and seizure warrant is also limited. After the
expiration of the period to examine the computer
data storage medium and to make a return thereon,
the computer data must be destroyed immediately
and completely. This period may extended, upon
request of the law enforcement authority, but the
period shall not be longer than 30 days from the date
of approval of the court.
3.4 Non-Compliance

3.4.1 Exclusionary Rule
Sec. 18. Exclusionary Rule. — Any evidence procured

without a valid warrant or beyond the authority of
the same shall be inadmissible for any proceeding
before any court or tribunal.
3.4.1.1. Notes:
3.4.1.1.1 Similar to the long-established rule in

jurisprudence, evidence illegally obtained by the
State are deemed to be inadmissible for any
purpose or proceeding.556
3.4.2 Obstruction of Justice
Sec. 20. Noncompliance. — Failure to comply with the

provisions of Chapter IV hereof specifically the orders
from law enforcement authorities shall be punished
as a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 with
imprisonment of prision correctional in its maximum
period or a fine of One hundred thousand pesos
(Php100,000.00) or both, for each and every
noncompliance with an order issued by law
enforcement authorities.
3.4.2.1 Notes:
3.4.2.1.1 Section 20 considers the failure to comply with the

provisions of Chapter IV of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act, specifically the orders from law
enforcement authorities, as a violation of
Presidential Decree 1829. Chapter IV includes the
following sections: preservation of computer data
(Section 13); disclosure of computer data (Section
14); search, seizure, and examination of computer
data (Section 15); custody of computer data
(Section 16); and destruction of computer data
(Section 17). Furthermore, under the Implementing
Rules and Regulations, the failure to comply with
556
Stonehill v Dikono, G.R. No. L-19550 (June 19, 1967).

the provisions of Chapter VII, Rules 7 and 8 are
dealt with similarly.
3.4.2.1.2 One interpretation of the Act is that non-

compliance is punished as a violation of
Presidential Decree 1829. Hence, Section 20 of the
CPA necessarily incorporates elements of the
offense that are defined by Presidential Decree
1829. However, another interpretation is that the
Act defines specific crimes and imposes a penalty,
independent of Presidential Decree 1829 which can
lead to the conclusion that the Act amended
Presidential Decree 1829 to include additional
offenses.
According to Disini, for violation of Presidential Decree 1829 to be

punishable, the act must still be done ‘knowingly or willfully’.
There must still be a judicial determination of guilt, during which,
as the Solicitor General assumes, defense and justifications for
non-compliance may be raised.557
557
Ibid.

Section 3.7. COMPETITION
I. Scope and Application.
Territoriality for Purposes of Competition Violations encompasses the

following: local commerce in the Philippines, and foreign commerce
affecting trade and industry in the Philippines.
Local trade and commerce in the Philippines, as provided for by:
Sec. 3. Scope and Application. — This Act shall be

enforceable against any person or entity engaged in any
trade, industry and commerce in the Republic of the
Philippines.558
Foreign commerce provided that it:
It shall likewise be applicable to international trade

having direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable
effects in trade, industry, or commerce in the Republic
of the Philippines, including those that result from acts
done outside the Republic of the Philippines.
Hence, a competition violation is an exception to the territoriality

rule of Philippine penal law.
However, jurisdiction over the person of the offender of such

a case will require a long-arm statute or a legal assistance
treaty in order to be obtained. But it excludes acts otherwise
violative when undertaken for labor purposes or in relation to
collective bargaining.
This Act shall not apply to the combinations or activities

of workers or employees nor to agreements or
arrangements with their employers when such
combinations, activities, agreements, or arrangements
are designed solely to facilitate collective bargaining in
respect of conditions of employment. Note that this
exception applies only when the agreements are solely
designed with the ends of conditions of employment in
mind. This exception is lost when a labor union engages
in a conspiracy with an employer or any other non-labor
558
Philippine Competition Act, Sec. 3.

party to achieve an anticompetitive effect. For purposes
of this law, raising wages or lower factory output is not
to be treated as competition violations.559 For a labor
agreement to avail of this exemption, it must meet the following
requisites:
Mackey Exemption of Labor Agreements
The US 8th Circuit Federal Court laid down the key

conditional requisites for a labor agreement to be
exempted from anti-trust regulation namely: “(i) The
agreement sought to be exempted concerns a mandatory
subject of collective bargaining; (ii) The restraint on trade
primarily affects only the parties to the collective bargaining
relationship; and (iii) The agreement is the product of bona
fide arm’s-length bargaining.”560
In turn, this rule on the exemption of labor

agreements is subject to four established
exemptions, as follows:
Anti-Competitive Intent Model
An important point to consider is that a union has substantial

effects on the product market.561 The product market may be
affected by hoarding workers’ supply, increasing wages, and
raising prices as a consequence.562 This activity by the union is
similar to any other input or "upstream" cartel; it causes a
raise prices and a reduction of production in "downstream"
markets.563 As such, there would be a violation if a union
commits an offense which aims to have an objective or an
influence on the price or source of goods in the interstate
commerce.564
In applying the exemption, two tests should be satisfied. First, the

courts will not exempt an agreement that has a direct and
substantial restriction of the product market done outside a
559 United Mine Workers Of America V. Pennington et al., 381 U.S. 657.
560 Ibid.
561 Randall Marks, “Labor And Anti-trust: Striking a Balance Without Balancing”, 35 AM. U. L. REV. 699
715 (1986).
562 Ibid.
563 Ibid.
564 Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 US 469, 492-97 (1940).

collective bargaining relationship. Second, if there is a collective
bargaining relationship, a mandatory subject may likely grant an
exemption.565 It is a well-settled principle that no one thing is
absolute. Thus, the exemption given to the coverage of
competition laws over labor unions is subject to further
considerations.
Anti-trust laws apply to labor unions when a union enters into an

agreement with the employer to impose a scale on the wages other
bargaining units.566 Moreover, union activity not undertaken
collectively with non-labor groups fall outside the scope of anti-
trust laws only if it constituted mandatory subject of union
bargaining.567
However, the stipulations governing employment

although covered by the anti-trust exemption must be
taken note of. Restraint on the product market and the
limitation imposed by the unions solely to protect the
interests of one group of employers over competition to
the prejudice of others do not enjoy exemption from the
Sherman Act.”568 Collective bargaining activities which
exceeds its purpose or is broader than necessary to
achieve its object is not exempt and is subject to anti-
trust scrutiny.569
Additionally, non-exempt conduct which involve restrictions by

the union and the employer include three models namely the
Cartel Model, Exclusion Model or Suppression Model. 570
Cartel Model
The Cartel Model provides that there is a conspiracy between

leading firms and the union to cartelize the product
market.571 The conspiracy may be committed when a union
adopts policies aimed at eliminating competition over non-
565 Marks, supra, note 291, at 743.

566 United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 US 657 (1965).
567 Ibid.
568 Daniel S. Frost, “Labor's Anti-trust Exemption”, 55 CAL L. REV. 254 (1967).
569 Robertson v. National Basketball Association, 389 F. Supp. 867, 890 nA1 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (US).
570 Rapal, Maria Fraulaine May L., “Age of Enlightenment: Assailing the Provisions of the Philippine
Competition Act over Labor Unions and Establishing Legal Standards as to their Coverage”,
unpublished thesis (2016).
571 Marks, supra.

members in order to block their entry in the market. 572 Large
firms are able to reduce competition by giving higher
compensation in exchange of the union’s assistance to affect the
product market.573
Exclusion Model
Additionally, the Exclusion Model refers to an agreement between

firms and a union to dismiss or impose barriers on firms
without a union in order to protect union work.574 The
agreement might specify a boycott by firms with a union to not
employ firms without a union as subcontractors. 575 On the other
hand, an agreement between the union and firms may be sought
to lobby the government and oppose competitors without a
union.576
It is dangerous to exclude firms without a union because of the

possible collusion with firms who have unions. 577 Moreover, the
firms which faced barriers have more possibilities of efficiency
because of lower compensation levels. 578 Further, there may still
be reduced production even without the said effects. 579
Suppression Model
Finally, the Suppression Model discusses that unions may defeat

labor saving technological changes in order to maintain
union jobs.580 Collective bargaining may be done through a
maintenance of an existing technology or enforcement of artificial
restrictions.581 Under this model, this type of agreement would
eventually lead to a reduction of efficiency not beneficial.
572 Ibid.
573 Ibid.
574 Ibid.
575 Ibid.
576
Ibid.
577 Ibid.
578
Ibid.
579
Ibid.
580
Ibid.
581
Ibid.

II. Competition Violations
The proposed Rules and Regulations Implementing the Criminal

Provisions of the Philippine Competition Act enumerate the criminal
offenses as follows:
Section 1. Anti-competitive Agreements. —
(a) The penalty of imprisonment from two years to seven years, and a
fine of not less than Fifty Million Pesos (Php50,000,000.00) but
not more than Two Hundred Fifty Million Pesos
(Php250,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon —
(1) Any entity that shall enter with one or more competitors into
any agreement restricting competition as to price, or
components thereof, or other terms of trade; or
any agreement fixing price at an auction or in any form of
bidding including cover bidding, bid suppression, bid rotation
and market allocation and other analogous practices of bid
manipulation; or
any agreement setting, limiting, or controlling production,
markets, technical development, or investment that has the
object or effect of substantially preventing, restricting or
lessening competition; or
any agreement dividing or sharing the market, whether by
volume of sales or purchases, territory, type of goods or
services, buyers or sellers or any other means, that has the
object or effect of substantially preventing, restricting or
lessening competition.
(b) Agreements punished under subsections (a) and (b) above are per
se prohibited. Such agreements are conclusively presumed not
contributing to improving the production or distribution of goods
and services or to promoting technical or economic progress, and
doing benefit to the consumers.
(c) When the entities involved are juridical persons, the penalty of
imprisonment shall be imposed on its officers, directors, partners
or employees holding managerial positions, who are knowingly
and willfully responsible for such violation. Officers, directors,

partners or employees holding managerial positions in such
juridical entities, who knowingly permitted or failed to prevent the
agreement are presumed to be knowingly and willfully responsible
for such violation.
Note that with respect to the definitions of key concepts above, the
rules all provide general guidelines but are all non-exclusive in
character. Hence:
(d) “Price components” shall include, but not limited to base price,
discount, fee and tax rates.
(f) “Terms of trade” refers to the relative price of imports in terms of

exports and is defined as the ratio of export prices to import
prices.
(c) “Analogous practices of bid manipulation” shall include, but not

limited, to the following:
(1) Non-public bid opening

(2) Failing to read out bid prices and terms at bid opening
(3) Making changes to or discarding parts of bids, for example,
bid securities, after receipt; “losing” all or parts of bids
(4) Changing the announced evaluation criteria during the
evaluation process
(5) Arbitrarily assigning or changing bid scores; making
deliberate “errors” in scoring
(6) Voiding all bids for alleged errors in specifications and re-
bidding the work
(7) Extending the bid due date to permit late, changed or altered
bids
(8) Allowing unauthorized persons to participate in and
influence the bid evaluation
(9) Interference in the bid selection process by senior officials
(10) Failing to record important information in the bid evaluation
report, such as the ranking of bidders
III. Jurisdiction
i. Criminal Actions
Criminal actions with respect to competition violations are primarily

offenses against the State. The injury suffered by the State is

premise upon the harm done to national commerce, in that it
adversely affects the economy and prosperity of the nation. 582
While it is not generally necessary to assert why the State is the
injured party, the following are the usual means by which such
injury is alleged:
The unlawful contracts, combination and conspiracy in

restraint of trade, unlawful combination and conspiracy to
monopolize and monopolization hereinbefore alleged have
injured and adversely affected the economy and prosperity of
the State in, among others, the following ways:
(a) Revenues of its citizens have been wrongfully extracted from the
Government;
(b) Taxes affecting the citizens and commercial entities have been
increased to affect such losses of revenues and income;
(c) Opportunity in manufacturing, shipping and commerce have
been restricted and curtailed;
(d) The full and complete utilization of the natural wealth of the
Government has been prevented;
(e) The high cost of manufacture in the country has precluded goods
made there from equal competitive access with those of other
States to the national market;
(f) Measures taken by the State to promote the general progress and
welfare of its people have been frustrated;
(g) The Philippine economy has been held in a state of arrested
development.
Criminal actions are commenced motu proprio upon receipt of a verified

complaint from an interested party or referral by the concerned regulatory
agency.583 Criminal actions are instituted with the filing of the complaint
with the Department of Justice’s Office for Competition 584, which shall
have two roles: 1) to conduct preliminary investigations of possible
competition violations, and 2) to prosecute these violations before the
courts.585
276 Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 405 U.S. 251 (1972).
583
R.A. No. 10667, Sec. 12 (a) Conduct inquiry, investigate, and hear and decide on cases involving
any violation of this Act and other existing competition laws motu proprio or upon receipt of a
verified complaint from an interested party or upon referral by the concerned regulatory agency,
and institute the appropriate civil or criminal proceedings.
584 Executive Order No.45, s.2011.
585 Sec. 13. Office for Competition (OFC), Powers and Functions. — The OFC under the Department of
Justice (DOJ-OFC) shall only conduct preliminary investigation and undertake prosecution of all

ii. Investigative Jurisdiction
The proposed Rules and Regulations Implementing the Criminal

Provisions of the Philippine Competition Act provides for the following
general rules regarding investigative jurisdiction:
criminal offenses arising under this Act and other competition-related laws in accordance with
Section 31 of Chapter VI of this Act.

RULE II. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Section 1. Fact Finding; Preliminary Inquiry. —
(a) The Philippine Competition Commission, motu proprio, or upon

the filing of a verified complaint by an interested party or upon
referral by a regulatory, law enforcement or any government
agency shall have the sole and exclusive authority to initiate and
conduct a fact-finding or preliminary inquiry for the enforcement
of the ACT and other competition-related laws based on
reasonable grounds. (31p1)
(b) Complaints for violation of the ACT and other competition-related

laws filed directly with a regulatory, law enforcement or any
government agency shall, within 10 days from receipt thereof be
referred to the Commission for fact-finding or preliminary inquiry
or other appropriate action. In case the complaint or referral
involves violation of Subsections 14 (a) and (b) of the ACT, a copy
of the complaint or referral shall be furnished the Department of
Justice Office for Competition (DOJ OFC).
(c) Except when deputized by the Commission, no law enforcement

agency shall conduct any kind of fact-finding, inquiry or
investigation into any competition-related matters. (31p6)
Section 2. Referral to DOJ OFC for Preliminary

Investigation. —
If after conducting a fact-finding or preliminary inquiry for the

enforcement of the ACT or relevant laws based on reasonable grounds
the evidence so warrants, the Commission may file before the DOJ
OFC criminal complaints for violations of the ACT or relevant laws for
preliminary investigation and prosecution before the proper court.
(31p1p4)
Section 3. Preliminary Investigation under the Revised

Rules of Criminal Procedure. —
(a) The DOJ OFC shall conduct the preliminary investigation in

accordance with the REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
(31p4).
(b) The subpoena shall contain a directive to the respondent to

indicate in his/its counter-affidavit or any subsequent pleading or
motion whether he/it is availing himself/itself of the leniency
program in accordance with these RULES.

Originally designated by law as the Competition Authority, its new
role under the PCA regime is that of prosecution. This is in addition to
the investigatory processes of the various sectoral regulators, by which
they determine whether a case should be referred to the PCC. The
court with jurisdiction over criminal actions under the Philippine
Competition Act is the Regional Trial Court, and is reviewable under
the same process as any other criminal case governed by the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.586
Thus, in criminal actions involving competition violations, there may

be on the government side three agencies prosecuting an action:
1) The Philippine Competition Commission as the lead agency in

prosecuting competition violations and as preliminary
investigator, the agency is also empowered to be an intervenor
in administrative and regulatory proceedings before other
agencies.587
2) The Office for Competition of the Department of Justice

handles preliminary investigation of competition violations.
The Philippine Competition Commission may file the
complaint before the DOJ-OFC.
3) The Sectoral Regulators for specific industries, such as the

Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), independently have
jurisdiction to regulate matters which are also covered by the
Philippine Competition Act. Hence, in an administrative
proceeding before such Sectoral Regulators involving matters
that could benefit from the PCC’s expertise, the PCC is
empowered at its discretion to be an intervenor. In addition,
after completion of their own proceedings the Sectoral
Regulators may refer a complaint to PCC for appropriate
preliminary inquiry.
586 Sec. 31, R.A. No. 10667. If the evidence so warrants, the Commission may file before the DOJ
criminal complaints for violations of this Act or relevant laws for preliminary investigation and
prosecution before the proper court. The DOJ shall conduct such preliminary investigation in
accordance with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
587 (n) Intervene or participate in administrative and regulatory proceedings requiring consideration
of the provisions of this Act that are initiated by government agencies such as the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Energy Regulatory Commission and the National Telecommunications
Commission.

It is also important to take note that the Philippine Competition Act
expressly prohibits law-enforcement agencies from taking
part in investigation violations of the Act unless they have
been expressly deputized by the Philippine Competition
Commission.588
The Office for Competition’s investigation power extends only to the

preliminary investigation stage, and only encompasses the criminal aspect
of a violation. Hence, a sectoral regulator which refers a possible violation
to the PCC thereafter loses its jurisdiction to conduct fact-finding on the
competition aspects of the same case.
The penalties for criminal actions of the Philippine Competition Act

are as follows:
SEC. 30. Criminal Penalties. – An entity that enters into any anti-
competitive agreement as covered by Chapter III, Section 14(a) and
14(b) under this Act shall, for each and every violation, be penalized
by imprisonment from two (2) to seven (7) years, and a fine of not less
thanFifty Million Pesos (Php50,000,000.00) but not more than Two
Hundred Fifty Million Pesos (Php250,000,000.00). The penalty of
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the responsible officers, and
directors of the entity.
When the entities involved are juridical persons, the penalty of

imprisonment shall be imposed on its officers, directors, or employees
holding managerial positions, who are knowingly and willfully
responsible for such violation.
In addition, it should be noted that any violation of bid-rigging or bid

manipulation that is done in conjunction with government officials or
procurement personnel will likewise make both parties liable for
violation of the Anti-Graft And Corrupt Practices act as well as the
Government Procurement Act, without prejudice to their liability
under the Philippine Competition Act.
588Sec.
31 (b), R.A. No. 10667. Except as provided in Section 12(i) of Chapter II of this Act, no law
enforcement agency shall conduct any kind of fact-finding, inquiry or investigation into any
competition-related matters.

IV. The Prosecution Process
i. How a case is initiated before the Office for Competition

of the Department of Justice589
For purposes of initiating a case before the Office for

Competition, a Preliminary Inquiry must first be
commenced at the Philippine Competition Commission
Enforcement Office as follows:
RULE II
Preliminary Inquiry
Section 2.1. Purpose and scope. — The fact-finding or

Preliminary Inquiry (“Preliminary Inquiry”) is conducted to ascertain
whether there are reasonable grounds to conduct a Full
Administrative Investigation for any violation of the Act, its
implementing rules, or other existing competition laws. During the
conduct of the Preliminary Inquiry, the potential adverse effect on
consumer welfare or competition in the relevant sector or industry, or
prejudice to public interest shall be considered, as well as any of the
following:
a) Interest of the party filing the complaint;

b) The PCC’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Preliminary Inquiry;
c) Possible violations of the Act, its implementing rules, or other
existing competition laws; or
d) Possible violators of the Act, its implementing rules, or other
existing competition laws.
The Preliminary Inquiry shall not be limited by the allegations or

contents of the verified complaint, referral by a regulatory agency, or
motu proprio directive, but may include other matters gathered in the
course thereof.
Section 2.2. Who shall conduct; basis — The PCC, through the
Enforcement Office, shall have the sole and exclusive authority to
conduct a Preliminary Inquiry, upon motu proprio directive from the
Commission, or upon the filing of a verified complaint by an
interested party or upon referral by a regulatory agency, based on
Based on the Draft Rules of Procedure of the Philippine Competition Commission as of June 16,
589
2017..

reasonable grounds. Any other complaints, referrals, reports, or
information may be the subject of motu proprio Preliminary Inquiry
upon recommendation of the Enforcement Office.
Section 2.3. Commencement of Preliminary Inquiry. – A verified

complaint shall be considered submitted for Preliminary Inquiry ten
(10) days from its filing unless it is denied due course by the
Enforcement Office for non-compliance with the requirements under
Section 2.4 hereof. The foregoing notwithstanding, during the same
period of ten (10) days from the filing of a verified complaint or
receipt of a referral from a regulatory agency, the Commission,
consistent with its authority under Section 31 of the Act, may decide
not to initiate a Preliminary Inquiry on such complaint or referral
taking into consideration the following: (a) PCC’s jurisdiction; (b)
public interest; (c) resource allocation; or (d) likelihood of a successful
outcome. In case of motu proprio Preliminary Inquiry, the same shall
commence from the day the Commission resolves to conduct the
same.
Note that the PCC is empowered to consider both likelihood

of success and resource allocation in the determination of
competition violations even at the preliminary investigation
stage.
Section 2.4. Verified complaint. — A verified complaint shall contain

the following: a) Identity of the Entity Subject of Complaint (“ESC”);
b) Interest of the Complainant in the subject matter of the complaint;
c) Violation under the Act, its implementing rules, or other existing
competition laws; d) Acts constituting the violation; e) Documents
and other materials supporting the allegations; and f) Statement
under oath that the Complainant has read the complaint and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or
based on authentic records.
Note that the PCC must take into account the interest of the
party initiating the complaint, but when we speak of
criminal competition cases, the State is the aggrieved party
and thus the DOJ-OFC need not anymore consider the
interests of the complaining entity.
Section 2.5. Resolution of procedural issues; designation of

procedural officer. – The Enforcement Office shall resolve issues
relating to claims of privileged information, confidentiality, and
propriety of subpoenas arising during the Preliminary Inquiry, Full
Administrative Investigation, and other proceedings not before the
Commission. The ruling of the Enforcement Office may be appealed to

the designated procedural officer (“Procedural Officer”) within three
(3) days from notice, stating the factual and legal grounds relied upon
for the appeal. The Procedural Officer shall resolve the matter within
ten (10) days from the filing of the appeal. A Procedural Officer shall
be designated upon commencement of a Preliminary Inquiry, Full
Administrative Investigation, or other proceedings not before the
Commission where a Procedural Officer may be needed. In the
performance of his function, he shall have the power to administer
oaths and affirmations, and receive evidence
Section 2.6. Effect of withdrawal of a complaint or referral. —

Withdrawal of a complaint or referral does not automatically result in
the discontinuance or termination of the Preliminary Inquiry, nor
discharge the entity subject of Preliminary Inquiry from complying
with processes under the Act and its implementing rules and from
possible imposition of administrative sanction or penalty, if
warranted.
Section 2.7. Conduct of Preliminary Inquiry. — During the

Preliminary Inquiry, the Enforcement Office shall have the authority
to, among others, do the following: a) Administer oaths, summon and
examine witnesses, and receive evidence; b) Request an individual or
entity who may be in possession, custody or control of any
documentary materials, electronically stored information, or tangible
things, or may have knowledge of any information, relevant to the
Preliminary Inquiry, to make available to the Enforcement Office such
documentary materials, electronically stored information or tangible
things for inspection and copying or reproduction, to file written
reports or answers to questions, to give a statement concerning
documentary material or other information, or to produce the
required information in a specified format such as but not limited to
lists, summaries or tables; c) Issue subpoena duces tecum and
subpoena ad testificandum; d) Require any entity to file a written
statement or answer to queries, which relate to any matter relevant to
the Preliminary Inquiry; e) Apply for an inspection order with the
court to undertake inspections of business premises and other offices,
land and vehicles, as used by the entity to be inspected, where it
reasonably suspects that relevant books, tax records, or other
documents, including those in electronic format, which relate to any
matter relevant to the Preliminary Inquiry are kept, and it is essential
for the conduct of a full and thorough Preliminary Inquiry to prevent
the removal, concealment, tampering with, or destruction of the
books, records, or other documents. Business premises include
premises used in connection with the affairs of the entity or where
documents relating to the affairs of the entity can be found; f) Consult
with resource persons; g) Deputize any enforcement agency of the

government, or enlist the aid and support of any private institution,
corporation, entity, or association; h) Initiate proceedings for
contempt and similar violations committed during Preliminary
Inquiry; and i) Exercise such other powers and functions that it may
deem necessary and proper for the conduct of the Preliminary Inquiry.
Note that the Procedural Officer handling the case may

request information or physical items, or issue subpoenas
duces tecum and subpoenas ad testificandum, but still
needs to apply to the appropriate court in order to search or
retrieve items. Hence, at this stage the Procedural Officer
may choose from three methods to obtain evidence: 1)
voluntarily compliance with a request for information, 2)
obtained via a subpoena duces tecum or subpoena ad
testificandum, or 3) obtained during a ‘Dawn Raid’
pursuant to a court order.
Section 2.8. Period. – The Preliminary Inquiry shall, in all cases, be

completed by the Commission within ninety (90) days from
commencement thereof. For amended or supplemented verified
complaints or referrals, or multiple referrals or verified complaints
involving the same subject matter, the ninety (90) days shall be
counted from the filing or receipt of the amendments or supplements,
or of the latest complaint or referral, as the case may be.
Section 2.9. Termination of Preliminary Inquiry. — The Preliminary

Inquiry shall be terminated by the Enforcement Office by: a) Issuing a
resolution ordering its closure if no violation or infringement of the
Act, its implementing rules, or other existing competition laws is
found, without prejudice to any other action which the Enforcement
Office may deem proper or necessary under the circumstances; b)
Issuing a resolution ordering its closure on the ground that the
possible violation will not likely result in significant harm to consumer
welfare or competition in the relevant market, or will not likely
prejudice public interest; or c) Issuing a resolution to proceed, on the
basis of reasonable grounds, to the conduct of a Full Administrative
Investigation.
Note that the ground closing a case on the basis of the

“violation not likely resulting in significant harm to the
public welfare or competition in the relevant market is” is
NOT available for Per Se criminal violations which are
conclusively presumed to harm the public welfare and are
punished even at the conspiracy stage.

Section 2.10. Prioritization of Investigations. – The Enforcement
Office shall have discretion to prioritize matters that may have
significant impact on consumer welfare or competition, or may
prejudice public interest as the enforcement prioritization guidelines
may provide.
Section 2.11. Proposal for Settlement. – At any time after

commencement of the Preliminary Inquiry but prior to the conclusion
of the Full Administrative Investigation, the ESC or the Entity Under
Full Administrative Investigation (“EUFAI”) may submit to the
Enforcement Office a proposal for settlement specifying therein,
among others, its willingness:
a) To make a clear and unequivocal admission of one or more

specific violation/s of the Act, its implementing rules, or other
existing competition laws;
b) To pay a specified amount of penalty which must be within

the range of the imposable fines;
c) To cease the infringing behavior immediately from the date it

enters into settlement discussions with the Commission,
where it has not already done so; and
d) To implement specific remedies. The proposal shall contain

the name of the concerned entity’s representative, his written
authority to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and
of documents, and to enter into a settlement. If submitted
during the Preliminary Inquiry, the proposal for settlement
shall not suspend the running of the ninety (90) days within
which to complete the inquiry unless the entity concerned
requests such suspension and the Enforcement Office finds
the same reasonable or necessary under the circumstances. In
no case shall the suspension exceed sixty (60) days without
the approval of the Commission. Upon the recommendation
of the Enforcement Office, the Commission may approve a
settlement under such terms and conditions that are fair and
reasonable.
Note that this is also referred to as the ‘Nolo Contendere’ or

‘No Contest’ plea. It allows the entity to pay a fine as though
found guilty of a violation, without a judicial determination
of such guilt. It may thus be said to be one situation in which
a ‘criminal’ case is capable of settlement.

Section 2.12. Referral to the Department of Justice. — At any
time after termination of the Preliminary Inquiry and if the evidence
so warrants, the PCC may file before the Department of Justice
criminal complaints for violations of the Act or other existing
competition laws for preliminary investigation and prosecution before
the proper court.
Note that the OFC may decide not file the complaint before
the proper courts, even if the PCC itself has found probable
cause, if the OFC believes that the evidence does not warrant
it.
Section 2.13. Notice to the Complainant or Referring Agency. — The

Complainant or referring agency may be informed of the termination
of the Preliminary Inquiry taking into consideration the need to
protect the integrity of the investigatory process.
ii. Sufficiency of a Complaint in Competition Violations
At its core, a complaint alleging an antitrust violation is sufficient if it

avers the particular acts alleged to be anti-competitive, along with the
specific intent of the conspirators with particularity. Thereafter, the
anti-competitive effect and prejudice must also be stated. This rule,
however, is subject to the following exception:
A per se violation
The per se violations (meaning violations in and of itself) under the

Philippine Competition Law are those under Section 14 (a). Although
the law does not define what a per se violation is, the term has an
established definition in international jurisprudence:
"Conduct considered illegal per se is invoked only in a limited class of

cases, where a defendant's actions are so plainly harmful to
competition and so obviously lacking in any redeeming pro-
competitive values that they are conclusively presumed illegal without
further examination."
In addition, the Rules Implementing the Criminal Provisions of the

Philippine Competition Act have provided a definition as well for per
se agreements:
“Such agreements are conclusively presumed not contributing to

improving the production or distribution of goods and services or to
promoting technical or economic progress, and doing benefit to the
consumers.”

By contrast, "most antitrust claims are analyzed under a 'rule of
reason,' according to which the finder of fact must decide whether the
questioned practice imposes an unreasonable restraint on
competition, taking into account a variety of factors, including specific
information about the relevant business, its condition before and after
the restraint was imposed, and the restraint's history, nature, and
effect."590
When a violation is a per se violation, such as price-fixing or bid-

rigging under the Philippine Competition Act 591, it is sufficient to
allege the overt act of such price-fixing or bid-rigging. There is no
need to allege that the overt acts were performed with the intent of
monopolizing or restraining trade.
iii. An Antitrust Complaint Must Not Contain Only

Conclusions of Law
In averring a complaint alleging violations of the competition law, it is

a common error to merely allege the material result as a conclusion of
law.
The doctrine currently observed as best practice in other jurisdictions

is the Twombly Rule, taken from the case of Bell Atlantic Corp. vs.
Twombly.
Stating an antitrust claim requires a complaint with

enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an
agreement was made. An allegation of parallel conduct and a
bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice.
“[t]he crucial question” is whether the challenged anticompetitive

conduct “stem[s] from independent decision or from an
agreement,” Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film
Distributing Corp., While a showing of parallel “business
behavior is admissible circumstantial evidence from which”
agreement may be inferred, it falls short of “conclusively
establish[ing] agreement or … itself constitut[ing] a Sherman Act
offense.” The inadequacy of showing parallel conduct or
interdependence, without more, mirrors the behavior’s ambiguity:
consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide
590 State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997).

591 Sec. 14 (a), R.A. No. 10667.

swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally
prompted by common perceptions of the market. 592
The US Supreme Court further expounded on the reasoning

behind the Twombly rule in Ashcroft vs. Iqbal, as follows:
Two working principles underlie Twombly. First, the

tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations
as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of a cause of
action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory
statements. Second, determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the
reviewing court to draw on its experience and common
sense. While legal conclusions can provide the
complaint’s framework, they must be supported by
factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief.593
This rule is reiterated by the Supreme Court in our own jurisdiction,

which has stated that pleadings should not merely assert conclusions
of law.
A pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of
action or defense asserted, as distinguished from mere conclusion
of fact, or conclusion of law. An allegation that a contract is valid,
or void, as in the instant case, is a mere conclusion of law.
General allegations that a contract is valid or legal, or is just, fair

and reasonable, are mere conclusion of law. Likewise, allegations
that a contract is void, voidable, invalid, illegal, ultra vires, or
against public policy, without stating facts showing its
invalidity, are mere conclusions of law; as are allegations that a
contract is in conformity with, or in violation of a constitutional
or statutory provision.594
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also provided that pleadings
should state the ultimate facts in a case.
592 BellAtlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

593
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
594 Alfredo Remitere, et al., v.. Remedios Montinola Vda. De Yulo, et al., G.R. No. L-19751 (February
28, 1966).

It is settled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by
the allegations in the complaint. In resolving a motion to dismiss
based on the failure to state a cause of action, only the facts
alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test is whether
the court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based on
the facts alleged and the prayer asked for. Indeed, the elementary
test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint
alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Only
ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts, which
should not be alleged in the complaint in the first place, are
considered for purposes of applying the test.595
V. Leniency and Binding Rulings
A unique feature of the Philippine Competition Act is the presence

of provisions allowing for ‘Leniency’ in case of suspected violators.
This is provided for in Section 35 of the PCA:
Sec. 35. Leniency Program. – The Commission shall develop a

Leniency Program to be granted to any entity in the form of
immunity from suit or reduction of any fine which would
otherwise be imposed on a participant in an anti-competitive
agreement as provided in Section 14(a) and 14(b) of this Act in
exchange for the voluntary disclosure of information regarding
such an agreement which satisfies specific criteria prior to or
during the fact-finding or preliminary inquiry stage of the case.
Immunity from suit will be granted to an entity reporting illegal

anti-competitive activity before a fact-finding or preliminary
inquiry has begun if the following conditions are met:
(a) At the time the entity comes forward, the Commission

has not received information about the activity from any
other source;
(b) Upon the entity’s discovery of illegal activity, it took

prompt and effective action to terminate its participation
therein;
595
D.M. Ferrer & Associates Corporation vs UST, G.R. No. 189496.

(c) The entity reports the wrongdoing with candor and
completeness and provides full, continuing, and
complete cooperation throughout the investigation; and
(d) The entity did not coerce another party to participate in

the activity and clearly was not the leader in, or the
originator of, the activity.
Even after the Commission has received information about the

illegal activity after a fact-finding or preliminary inquiry has
commenced, the reporting entity will be granted leniency,
provided preceding conditions (b) and (c) and the following
additional requirements are complied with:
(1) The entity is the first to come forward and qualify for
leniency;
(2) At the time the entity comes forward, the Commission does
not have evidence against the entity that is likely to result in a
sustainable conviction; and
(3) The Commission determines that granting leniency would not

be unfair to others.
Such program shall include the immunity from any suit or charge of
affected parties and third parties, exemption, waiver, or gradation of
fines and/or penalties giving precedence to the entity submitting such
evidence. An entity cooperating or furnishing information, document
or data to the Commission in connection to an investigation being
conducted shall not be subjected to any form of reprisal or
discrimination. Such reprisal or discrimination shall be considered a
violation of this Act subject to the sanctions provided in this Act.
Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution for entities that

report to the Commission false, misleading, or malicious information,
data or documents damaging to the business or integrity of the
entities under inquiry as a violation of said section. An entity found to
have reported false, misleading or malicious information, data, or
document may be penalized by a fine not less than the penalty
imposed in the section reported to have been violated by the entity
complained of.

The DOJ-OFC may likewise grant leniency or immunity as provided in
this section in the event that there is already a preliminary
investigation pending before it.
As clearly provided for in the law however, the Office for Competition
may only extend leniency or immunity to entities already made the
subject of a preliminary investigation before them. The granting of
leniency privileges must be exercised with caution, however, as if
granted it also discharges the possibility of claims or suits by third
parties, including the civil aspects thereof.
Pursuant therefor to the PCA, the Office for Competition has

developed draft guidelines with respect to the leniency application
process and remedies as part of the proposed Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Criminal Provisions of the PCA.

RULE II. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Section 4. Appointment of Representative for Leniency

Discussions. —
If two or more parties within the same entity indicate that they are
availing themselves of the leniency program, they shall appoint a joint
representation to engage in leniency discussions with the DOJ OFC on
their behalf.
RULE III. LENIENCY PROGRAM
Section 1. DOJ OFC May Grant Leniency. —
(a) The DOJ OFC may grant leniency or immunity from suit as
provided in Section 35 of the ACT and in and in accordance with
these RULES to any entity that would otherwise be charged as a
participant in an anti-competitive agreement as defined in
Subsections 14(a) and (b) of the ACT in exchange for the voluntary
disclosure during the preliminary investigation of the case
pending before it of information regarding such an agreement
which satisfies specific criteria in the event that there is already a
preliminary investigation pending before it.
(b) An entity cooperating or furnishing information, document or data

to the Commission in connection to investigation being conducted
shall not be subjected to any form of reprisal or discrimination.
Section 2. Immunity from Suit. —
Even after the DOJ OFC has received information about the illegal activity
after a preliminary investigation has commenced, the reporting entity
shall, subject to the provisions of Section 6 hereof, be granted immunity
from suit, provided the following conditions and requirements are
complied with:
(a) The entity, upon its discovery of the illegal activity, took prompt
and effective action to terminate its participation therein;
(b) The entity reports the wrongdoing with candor and completeness
and provides full, continuing, and complete cooperation
throughout the investigation; and
(c) The entity is the first to come forward and qualify for leniency;

(d) At the time the entity comes forward, the DOJ OFC does not have
evidence against the entity that is likely to result in a sustainable
conviction; and
(e) The DOJ OFC determines that granting leniency would not be
unfair to others.
Section 3. Leniency for Directors, Partners, Officers, and

Employees. —
(a) If a juridical entity qualifies for leniency under Section 2 hereof,

all directors, partners, officers, and employees of the corporation
who admit their involvement in the illegal anti-competition
activity as part of the confession of the juridical entity shall be
granted immunity from criminal prosecution for the illegal
activity, if they admit their wrongdoing with candor and
completeness and continue to assist the throughout the
preliminary investigation.
(b) If a juridical entity does not qualify for leniency under Section 2
hereof, the directors, partners, officers, and employees who come
forward with the corporation shall be considered for immunity
from criminal prosecution on the same basis as if they had
approached the DOJ OFC individually.
(c) All directors, partners, officers, and employees of the juridical

entity who shall be granted immunity from criminal prosecution,
whether under subsection (a) or (b) hereof, shall execute an
undertaking that they shall testify in court at the trial of the case
from which they are granted immunity from suit.
Section 4. Information to be Provided. —
To qualify for leniency, the entity or its directors, partners, officers, and
employees must provide the DOJ OFC with the information and evidence
listed below, to the extent that this, in the DOJ OFC's view, would not
jeopardize the preliminary investigation:
(a) A sworn statement which includes, in so far as it is known to the

applicant at the time of the submission:
(1) A detailed description of the alleged anti-competitive

agreements, including for instance its aims, activities and
functioning; the product or service concerned, the geographic
scope, the duration of and the estimated market volumes
affected by the alleged cartel; the specific dates, locations,

content of and participants in, and their specific acts
committed in connection with the alleged anti-competitive
agreements, and all relevant explanations in connection with
the pieces of evidence provided in support of the application;
(2) The name and address of the legal entity submitting the
immunity application as well as the names and addresses of
all the other entities that participated in the alleged anti-
competitive agreements;
(3) The names, positions, office locations and, where necessary,

home addresses of all individuals who, to the applicant's
knowledge, are or have been involved in the alleged anti-
competitive agreements, including those individuals which
have been involved on the applicant's behalf, as well as the
specific acts they committed; and
(b) Other evidence relating to the alleged anti-competitive

agreements in the possession of the applicant or available to it at
the time of the submission, including in particular any evidence
contemporaneous to the infringement.
Section 5. Excluded Immunity Applicants. —
An entity that took steps to coerce or instigate another entity to

participate, or acted as the ringleader or played the determining role in
any anti-competitive agreement or reported false, misleading or malicious
information, date or document shall not be eligible for immunity from suit
under the program.
Section 6. Other Requirements Applicant May Need to Satisfy.—
The DOJ OFC, at its discretion, may require an entity or directors,

partners, officer or employees applying for leniency to satisfy or show the
following additional requirements:
(a) The cooperation of an entity or directors, partners, officer or

employees applying for leniency includes the following:
(1) Providing the DOJ OFC promptly with all relevant

information and evidence that comes into the applicant’s
possession or under its control;
(2) Remaining at the disposal of the DOJ OFC to reply promptly
to any requests that, in the DOJ OFC’s view, may contribute to
the establishment of relevant facts;

(3) Making current and, to the extent possible, former employees
and directors available for interviews with the DOJ OFC;
(4) Not destroying, falsifying or concealing relevant information
or evidence; and
(5) Unless and to the extent otherwise explicitly authorized by the
DOJ OFC, not disclosing the fact or any of the content of the
leniency application.
(b) When contemplating making an application to the DOJ OFC but

prior to doing so, it must not have:
(1) Destroyed evidence which falls within the scope of the

application; or
(2) Disclosed, directly or indirectly, the fact or any of the content

of the application it is contemplating.
(c) The applicant shall execute an undertaking that he/it shall

testify in court at the trial of the case from which the applicant
is granted immunity.
RULE IV. LENIENCY PROCEDURE
Section 1. Filing of Application. —
(a) An entity wishing to benefit from leniency must apply to the DOJ
OFC and provide it with the information specified above. Before
making a formal application or filing his counter-affidavit, the
applicant may approach the DOJ OFC in order to seek informal
guidance on the application of the leniency program.
(b) Once a formal application has been made, the DOJ OFC shall,
upon request, provide an acknowledgement of receipt confirming
the date and time of the application. The DOJ OFC shall assess
applications in relation to the same alleged anti-competitive
agreement in the order of receipt.
(c) The filing of application for leniency shall have the effect of
suspending the preliminary investigation pending the processing
of, and action on the application. The DOJ OFC shall act on the
application within 30 days after submission of the information
required to meet the relevant evidential threshold for leniency or
the expiration of the period given.

Section 2. Marker for Immunity Applicants. —
(a) An entity wishing to make an application for immunity may,

within 10 days from receipt of the complaint, initially apply for a
‘marker’. A marker protects an applicant’s place in the queue for a
given period of time and allows it to gather the necessary
information and evidence in order to meet the relevant evidential
threshold for immunity.
(b) The DOJ OFC has discretion as to whether it shall grant a marker
or not. Where a marker is granted, the DOJ OFC shall determine
the period, which not be less than 10 days but not more than 30
days, within which the applicant has to “perfect” the marker by
submitting the information required to meet the relevant
evidential threshold for immunity. If the applicant perfects the
marker within the set period, the information and evidence
provided shall be deemed to have been submitted on the date
when the marker was granted.
(c) To be eligible to secure a marker, the applicant must provide the

DOJ OFC with its name and address as well as information
concerning —
(1) The basis for the concern which led to the leniency approach;
(2) The parties to the alleged anti-competitive agreements;
(3) The affected products;
(4) The affected territories;
(5) The duration of the alleged anti-competitive agreements; and
(6) The nature of the alleged anti-competitive agreement conduct.
Section 3. Granting Immunity. —
(a) Once the DOJ OFC has verified that the evidence submitted is
sufficient to meet the relevant evidential threshold for immunity,
it shall grant the applicant conditional immunity from suit or fine
in writing.
(b) If the relevant evidential threshold is not met, the DOJ OFC shall
inform the entity in writing that its application for immunity is
rejected.
(c) The DOJ OFC shall take its final position on the grant of leniency
or immunity at the end of the preliminary investigation. If the
DOJ OFC, having granted conditional immunity, ultimately finds
that the leniency or immunity applicant is not eligible under
RULE III, Section 5, or that the applicant has not fulfilled all of

the conditions attached to leniency, the DOJ OFC shall inform the
applicant of this promptly. If leniency or immunity is withheld
because the DOJ OFC finds at the end of the preliminary
investigation that the conditions attached to leniency or immunity
have not been fulfilled, the entity shall not benefit from any other
favorable treatment under the program in respect of the same
proceedings.
(d) Upon the grant or rejection of the application for leniency or

immunity, the preliminary investigation shall be resumed.
Note that a party may not seek leniency or immunity for

anticompetitive acts from both the Office for Competition and the
Philippine Competition Commission. While the jurisdiction of the
OFC to issue immunity commences only upon a preliminary
investigation before it, the PCC only has the jurisdiction to extend
leniency before any preliminary investigation has begun. Hence, once
preliminary investigation has commenced, the PCC no longer has the
ability to grant leniency, and only the OFC may do so assuming the
investigation was commenced before it. The OFC may grant immunity
to party to a preliminary investigation before it if said party did not
apply for leniency at the PCC prior to the commencement of any
investigation. Nevertheless, the PCC still retains the power to ‘forbear’
from applying the administrative penalties of the law, pursuant to
Section 28 of the PCA:
SEC. 14. Forbearance. – The Commission may forbear from applying

the provisions of this Act, for a limited time, in whole or in part, in all or
specific cases, on an entity or group of entities, if in its determination:
(a) Enforcement is not necessary to the attainment of the policy

objectives of this Act;
(b) Forbearance will neither impede competition in the market where

the entity or group of entities seeking exemption operates nor in
related markets; and
(c) Forbearance is consistent with public interest and the benefit and
welfare of the consumers.
A public hearing shall be held to assist the Commission in making this

determination.
The Commission’s order exempting the relevant entity or group of

entities under this section shall be made public. Conditions may be

attached to the forbearance if the Commission deems it appropriate to
ensure the long-term interest of consumers.
In the event that the basis for the issuance of the exemption order
ceases to be valid, the order may be withdrawn by the Commission.
Note however that the application of the criminal provisions of the

Philippine Competition Act cannot be the subject of forbearance
before the OFC, as enforcement of penal provisions is not
discretionary among the enforcing authorities.
In addition to applying for leniency or immunity with the DOJ, an

entity may also avail of a non-adversarial remedy to shield itself from
criminal liability by availing of a binding ruling prior to a concrete
finding of the illegality of their acts. Hence, although a binding ruling
may be adverse, it will grant the entity requesting it an ‘adjustment
period’ wherein they will be immune from criminal prosecution.
RULE XIV (PCC Draft Rules of Procedure)

Non-adversarial Remedies
Article I.
Binding Ruling
Section 14.1. Binding Ruling; When Availed. – Any entity that is in

doubt as to whether a contemplated act, course of conduct, agreement, or
decision (the “Subject Matter”) is in compliance with, is exempt from, or is
in violation of any of the 46 provisions of the Act, other competition laws,
or the rules of the Commission, may request the Commission, in writing,
to render a binding ruling thereon: Provided, That the Subject Matter has
not been executed or implemented and no prior complaint or investigation
has been initiated on the Subject Matter: Provided, further, That the
Subject Matter does not involve a merger or an acquisition.
Section 14.2. Contents of Request for Binding Ruling. – In its

written request, the applicant shall:
a) State clearly the issue(s) that the applicant wishes resolved;

b) Cite the provision of law under which the issue on the Subject
Matter arises;
c) State all material facts;
d) Provide supporting documents and information relating to the
Subject Matter; and
e) Identity of the companies and other entities involved in the Subject
Matter. Each request shall be limited to only one Subject Matter.

Section 14.3. Formal Requirements. – The request must comply
with the following requirements:
a) Signed by a general partner of a partnership, an officer or director

of a corporation with evidence of his/her authority, or in the case
of a natural person, the natural person or his/her legal
representative. In either case, the application shall contain a
certification, duly notarized, that the contents of the request are
true and accurate of his own personal knowledge and/or based on
authentic records;
b) Accompanied by an affidavit, attesting to the fact that the

applicant has the intention of engaging in the Subject Matter;
Section 14.4. Action on the request. – Within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of the request, the Commission may give due course to the same
and direct the Enforcement Office to submit its recommendation or
comments on the said request.
Section 14.5. Costs. The applicant shall defray the costs and resources
spent that may be necessary for the proper assessment of the application.
Should the applicant refuse or be unable to pay the necessary costs, the
application may not be given due course.
Section 14.6. Additional Information. – The Commission or the

Enforcement Office, as the case may be, may request the submission of
additional information or documents, or call for a conference with the
applicant in order to propound clarificatory questions and obtain more
information relating to the request.
Section 14.7. Recommendation of the Enforcement Office. – The

Enforcement Office shall submit its recommendation to the Commission
on the binding ruling application within ninety (90) days, extendible for
another sixty (60) days, from the receipt of the same: Provided, That the
period may be shortened in consideration of the specific circumstances of
the Subject Matter: Provided, further, That the running of the period shall
stop when the Enforcement Office requests for additional information
under Section 14.6, and shall run again once the Enforcement Office
certifies that the applicant has already submitted all the requested
information.
Section 14.8. Period to Resolve Application. — The Commission

shall resolve the application for binding ruling within thirty (30) days
from receipt of the Enforcement Office’s recommendation, unless an
additional period is warranted.

Section 14.9. Issuance. – On the basis of the information and
documents submitted by the applicant, the Commission may grant the
applicant’s request and issue a binding ruling, setting forth the
information and documents relied upon: Provided, That the ruling is for a
specified period, subject to extension as may be determined by the
Commission, and based on substantial evidence. The Commission may
refrain from issuing a binding ruling if: a) it finds that the information
provided by the applicant, which will form the basis of the ruling is
insufficient or incomplete; b) the application relates to a hypothetical or
speculative matter; c) the same issue involving the same applicant or a
related applicant is pending in a case under investigation by the
Commission or under litigation; d) sufficient guidance on the same issue
can be found in the Commission’s decisions, guidelines, rules, other
communications or in a binding ruling already issued by the Commission;
e) the Subject Matter is appropriate for a merger and acquisition review
under Section 17 and 20 of the Act; f) the applicant is unwilling or unable
to pay for the costs necessary for the proper assessment of the application;
or g) the application is not in accordance with the rules or is not
appropriate for a binding ruling.
Section 14.10. Withdrawal of Request for Binding Ruling. – After

an application is given due course, it may only be withdrawn if the
applicant will no longer pursue the Subject Matter.
Section 14.11. Adverse Binding Ruling. – In the event of an adverse

binding ruling, the applicant shall be provided with a reasonable period,
which in no case shall be more than ninety (90) days, to abide by the
ruling of the Commission and shall not be subject to
administrative, civil or criminal liability for actions taken
preparatory to the Subject Matter of the request, unless the
applicant fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, its implementing
rules, or other existing competition laws.
Note that an adverse binding ruling offers no immunity shield

for matters not specifically stated as the ‘Subject Matter’ of the
binding ruling request.
Section 14.12. Effectivity. – The binding ruling shall be effective only

as regards the entity that applied for it, for the specific set of
circumstances set forth therein, and within the period specified by the
Commission. Where such ruling was obtained on the basis of fraud, or
misleading or false information, the same shall be considered void. Any
binding ruling rendered by the Commission is without prejudice to the
right of the Commission to subsequently rescind the ruling and, where
appropriate, to commence an enforcement proceeding should the entity

refuse to comply with the terms that may be set forth in an appropriate
order.
Section 14.13. Publication. – The binding ruling shall be published on

the PCC website, subject to the Rules on Confidentiality.

CHAPTER IV
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURES
Section 4.1. LOOKOUT BULLETIN ORDER/ALLOW

DEPARTURE ORDER
ISSUANCE OF IMMIGRATION LOOKOUT BULLETIN (ILBO)

AND ALLOW DEPARTURE ORDER (ADO)
The issuance of ILBO was precipitated by the Temporary Restraining

Order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court on the authority of the
Secretary of Justice to issue Hold Departure Order (HDO), Watch List
Order (WLO), ADO, and similar issuances pursuant to his powers and
functions as the principal law agency of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
mandated to, among other things, investigate the commission of crimes,
prosecute offenders, and provide immigration regulatory services, 596
implemented through Department Circular No. 41.
While the ILBO is specifically a power of the Bureau of Immigration (BI),

a line agency of the DOJ, the same may be exercised by the DOJ, through
the Secretary, under the principle of “supervision and control.” 597
Additionally, the exercise thereof is necessary in view of the power of the
DOJ, through the National Prosecution Service (NPS), to investigate and
prosecute criminals.
Request for ILBO must be in writing, address to the Secretary, and

personally signed by the head of Prosecutor’s Office where there case is
pending or by the handling prosecutor himself, attaching the documents
relevant thereto and citing therein the reason thereof.
Upon receipt of the request, the same shall be rerouted to the Office of the
Chief State Counsel where the request shall be assigned to a State Counsel
for evaluation and the preparation of draft action to be forwarded to the
Office of the Secretary for approval and signature. Signed draft action
shall then be referred to the BI for its implementation, copy furnished the
requesting office/prosecutor.
596
Section 3, Chapter 1, Title III, Book IV, Executive Order No. 292.
597 Ibid., Section 38 (1), Chapter 7, Book IV.

Person is covered by the ILBO may request for ADO provided that the
request is not objected to by the handling prosecutor. Lifting of the ILBO
may also be requested when the case involving the requesting party had
already been dismissed with finality, duly certified, and there is a
certification that there is no Petition for Review filed or pending. The
dismissal of the case is not sufficient to warrant the allowance of the party
to leave the country. Rather, the ILBO must first be lifted with the party
submitting documents of dismissal and absence of Petition for Review.
It must be stressed that while the DOJ issue ILBO upon request of
government offices/institutions, in cases affecting them, including those
under investigation by them, it does not issue ILBO upon request of
private individuals and offices, even if coursed thru or indorsed by
prosecutors, in cases affecting them. Denial of said request is signed by
the Chief State Counsel, not the Secretary.
Besides, there is no period for the granting of the ILBO, although request
for ADO, which are, more often than not, connected or related to the
stated dates of absence from the country are expedited.

4.1.1. DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 41 JUNE 07, 2010
CONSOLIDATED RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING

THE ISSUANCES AND IMPLEMENTING OF HOLD
DEPARTURE ORDERS, WATCHLIST ORDERS, AND ALLOW
DEPARTURE ORDERS
WHEREAS, while several Supreme Court circulars, issued through the

Office of the Court Administrator, clearly state that "Hold Departure
Order shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts," said circulars are, however,
silent with respect to cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below
the RTC as well as those pending determination by government
prosecution offices;
WHEREAS, apart from the courts, the Secretary of Justice as head of the
principal law agency of the government mandated to, inter alia,
investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders, and provide
immigration regulatory services, is in the best position to institute
measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice, without, however,
sacrificing the individual's right to travel;
WHEREAS, the Department of Justice, therefore, issued Circular No. 17

on March 19, 1998 and Circular No. 18 on April 23, 2007 to respectively
govern the issuance and implementation of Hold Departure Orders
(HDOs), Watchlist Orders (WLOs), and Allow Departure Orders (ADOs),
among others;
WHEREAS, in view of the problems that cropped up both in the issuance

and implementation of said Orders, there is a need to review, revise and
consolidate the two department issuances to ensure their effective
implementation.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of existing laws, the

following consolidated rules are hereby adopted:
Section 1. Hold Departure Order. - The Secretary of Justice may issue an

HDO, under any of the following instances:
(a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases

falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the Regional Trial
Courts (RTCs).

If the case against the accused is pending trial, the application under
oath of an interested party must be supported by (a) a certified true
copy of the complaint or information and (b) a Certification from the
Clerk of Court concerned that criminal case is still pending.
(b) Against the alien whose presence is required either as a defendant,

respondent, or witness in a civil or labor case pending litigation, or
any case before an administrative agency of the government.
The application under oath of an interested party must be supported

by (a) a certified true copy of the subpoena or summons issued against
the alien and (b) a certified true copy complaint in civil, labor or
administrative case where the presence of the alien is required.
(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue an HDO against any
person, either motu proprio, or upon the request by the Head of a
Department of the Government; the head of a constitutional body or
commission; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the Judiciary;
the Senate President or the House Speaker for the Legislature, when
the adverse party is the Government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities, or in the interest of national security, public safety
or public health.
Section 2. Watchlist Order. - The Secretary of Justice may issue a WLO,

under any of the following instances:
(a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases

pending trial before the Regional Trial Court.

by (a) certified true copy of an Information filed with the court, (b) a
certified true copy of the Prosecutor's Resolution; and (c) a
Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned that criminal case is
still pending.
(b) Against the respondent, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases

pending preliminary investigation, petition for review, or motion for
reconsideration before the Department of Justice or any of its
provincial or city prosecution offices.

by (a) certified true copy of the complaint filed, and (b) a Certification
from the appropriate prosecution office concerned that the case is

pending preliminary investigation, petition for review, or motion for
reconsideration, as the case may be.
(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue a WLO against any person,
either motu proprio, or upon the request of any government agency,
including commissions, task forces or similar entities created by the
Office of the President, pursuant to the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2003" (R.A. No. 9208) and/or in connection with any
investigation being conducted by it, or in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health.
Section 3. Completeness of Information. - To ensure the proper

identification of the subject of the HDO/WLO and to avoid inconvenience
to any innocent party, all applications or requests, including the
HDO/WLO to be issued, shall contain the following information of the
subject:
a. Complete name, i.e., given name, middle name or initial and surname;
b. Alias/es, if any;
c. Date and place of birth;
d. Place of last residence;
e. Passport details, if available;
f. Recent photograph, if available;
g. Complete title and docket number of the case; and
h. Specific nature of the case.
Section 4. HDO/WLO Validity. - The validity period of any HDO/WLO

issued pursuant to this Circular shall be reckoned from the date of its
issuance. The HDO shall valid for five (5) years unless sooner terminated.
On the other hand, the WLO shall be valid for sixty (60) days unless
sooner terminated or extended, for a non-extendible period of not more
than sixty (60) days.
Section 5. HDO/WLO Lifting or Cancellation. - In the lifting or

cancellation of the HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular, the
following rules shall apply:
(a) The HDO may be lifted or cancelled under any of the following
grounds:

1. When the validity period of the HDO as provided for in the
preceding section has already expired;
2. When the accused subject of the HDO has been allowed to leave
the country during the pendency of the case, or has been acquitted
of the charge, or the case in which the warrant/order of arrest was
issued has been dismissed or the warrant/order of arrest has been
recalled;
3. When the civil or labor case or case before an administrative

agency of the government wherein the presence of the alien
subject of the HDO/WLO has been dismissed by the court or by
appropriate government agency, or the alien has been discharged
as a witness therein, or the alien has been allowed to leave the
country;
(b) The WLO may be lifted or cancelled under any of the following
grounds:
1. When the validity period of the WLO as provided for in the

preceding section has already expired;
2. When the accused subject of the WLO has been allowed by the
court to leave the country during the pendency of the case, or has
been acquitted of the charge; and
3. When the preliminary investigation is terminated, or when the

petition for review, or motion for reconsideration has been denied
and/or dismissed.
(c) All applications for lifting/cancellation of HDOs/WLOs must be under

oath and accompanied by certified true copies of the documentary
evidence in support of the ground relied upon.
(d) Any HDO/WLO issued by the Secretary of Justice either motu proprio
or upon request of government functionaries/offices mentioned in
Sections 1 and 2, when the adverse party is the Government or any of
its agencies or instrumentalities, or in the interest of national security,
public safety or public health, may be lifted or recalled anytime if the
application is favorably indorsed by the government
functionaries/offices who requested the issuance of the aforesaid
HDO/WLO.

Section 6. Implementation of HDO/WLO/ADO Issuance and
Lifting/Cancellation. - All Orders issued pursuant to this Circular shall be
immediately transmitted to the Commissioner of Immigration for
implementation, copy furnished the person/s subject thereof, to give the
latter adequate opportunity to content the Order or request consideration
thereof.
Section 7. Allow Departure Order (ADO). - Any person subject of

HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular who intends, for some
exceptional reasons, to leave the country may, upon application under
oath with the Secretary of Justice, be issued an ADO.
The ADO may be issued upon submission of the following requirements:
a. Affidavit stating clearly the purpose, inclusive period of the intended

travel, and containing an undertaking to immediately report to the
DOJ upon return; and
b. Authority to travel or travel clearance from the court or appropriate

government office where the case upon which the issued HDO/WLO
was based is pending, or from the investigating prosecutor in charge
of the subject case.
Section 8. Issuance of Clearance/Certification of Not the Same Person. -

Any person who is prevented from leaving the country because his name
appears to be the same as the one that appears in the HDO/WLO issued
pursuant to this Circular may, upon application under oath, be issued a
Certification to the effect that said person is not the same person whose
name appears in the issued HDO/WLO.
The Certification may be issued upon submission of the following

requirements:
a. Affidavit of Denial;
b. Photocopy of the page of the passport bearing the personal details;
c. Latest clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); and
d. Clearance from the court or appropriate government agency,
whenever applicable.
Section 9. Processing Fees. - Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act

No. 9279 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, there shall be
collected and paid to the Cashier's Office of this Department the following
fees to cover the administrative costs for services rendered by the Legal
Staff, to wit:

Issuance/Lifting or Cancellation/Extension of HDO/WLO - Php2,500.00
Issuance of Allow Departure Order- Php2,500.00
Issuance of Clearance/Certification of Not the Same Person- Php500.00
Section 10. Repealing Clause. - All rules and regulations, particularly

those contained in Circular No. 17 dated March 19, 1998 and Circular No.
18 dated April 23, 2007, as well as all instructions, issuances or orders or
parts thereof inconsistent with the Rules provided herein, are hereby
superseded and/or repealed accordingly.
Section 11. Effectivity. - These rules shall take effect immediately.
May 25, 2010.
(Sgd.) ALBERTO C. AGRA

Acting Secretary

4.1.2. IMMIGRATION LOOKOUT BULLETIN ORDER
A. For the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration to:
1. Disseminate the following information/particulars about the subject

of this ILBO:
2. Instruct all immigration officers to be on the lookout/alert for the

above-named individual should they pass through the immigration
counters in any of our international airports and/or seaports.
3. Coordinate with the National Prosecution Service (NPS) to obtain

additional information about the subject of this ILBO, in order to facilitate
its enforcement, including but not limited to the following:
a. Known aliases
b. Date of Birth
c. Place of Birth
d. Copy of Passport or, at least, passport number or other information
about any travel documents issued to the subject individuals
e. Latest known picture of the subject individuals.
4. Obtain from the NPS the proper office or official to contact, even
outside office hours, in case the subject individual makes an attempt to
leave the country.
5. Promptly relay to the Office of the Secretary, this Department, at

(02) 526-5462, or to the Office of the Prosecutor General at (02) 525-
0952, any pertinent information, especially those tending to indicate that
subject individual is attempting to leave the country, and in order to
obtain other relevant information that may be the basis for the proper
course of action to be taken by the immigration officers.
Said information shall immediately and promptly be relayed to the

foregoing and to any other concerned government office or agency,
keeping in mind that time is of the essence in these situations, especially
to determine the appropriate course of action to be taken thereafter.
Hence, all concerned are strongly warned against waiting until
boarding time to inform the concerned offices of any attempt to leave the
country.
6. Take all other appropriate actions, including, but not limited

to, coordinating with other concerned offices and agencies, and even
airlines, especially since international passengers are customarily required
to check-in a specified number of hours before their flight.

B. For the Prosecutor General to:
1. Keep the undersigned and the BI updated as to the status of the

case. Particularly, promptly and regularly advise the BI of any
significant development in the case, which would allow the BI to
determine the appropriate course of action to take should the subject
individual makes an attempt to leave the country during the effectivity
of the ILBO, or any development that would necessitate or make it
appropriate to modify/update/revoke this ILBO.
2. Identify the proper handling prosecutor or team of prosecutors who

the BI can contact for queries and/or consultation as to courses of
action available to the BI and other government agencies, and to
direct said handling prosecutor/s to make themselves available for any
contingencies, even outside office houses, considering that the
attempts to leave may take place anytime.
3. Draft and issue letter-notices to the above-named individual in case/s

filed before the NPS.
For strict compliance.

Section 4.2. GENDER-SENSITIVE AND CHILD FRIENDLY
APPROACHES TO CASE HANDLING
GENDER-SENSITIVE
APPROACHES TO CASE HANDLING
Understanding the Basic Concepts
• Sex - identifies the biological difference between men and women

determined by reference to genetic and anatomical characteristics.
(PHILJA)
• Gender - refers to the roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a

given society at a given time considers appropriate for men and
women. In addition to the social attributes and opportunities
associated with being male and female and the relationships between
women and men and girls and boys, gender also refers to the
relations between women and those between men. These attributes,
opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are
learned through socialization processes. They are context/ time-
specific and changeable. Gender determines what is expected,
allowed and valued in a woman or a man in a given context. In most
societies, there are differences and inequalities between women and
men in responsibilities assigned, activities undertaken, access to and
control over resources, as well as decision-making opportunities.
Gender is part of the broader socio-cultural context, as are other
important criteria for socio-cultural analysis including class, race,
poverty level, ethnic group, sexual orientation, age, etc. (UN
Women).
• Gender division of labor - This is an important concept in basic

gender analysis that helps deepen understanding about social
relations as an entry point to sustainable change through
development. The division of labor refers to the way each society
divides work among men and women, boys and girls, according to
socially-established gender roles or what is considered suitable and
valuable for each sex. Anyone planning a community intervention
needs to know and understand the division of labor and allocation of
assets on a sex-and-age disaggregated basis for every community
affected by development interventions. Within the division of labor,
there are several types of roles:
• Productive roles: Activities carried out by men and women in order

to produce goods and services either for sale, exchange, or to meet
the subsistence needs of the family.

• Reproductive roles: Activities needed to ensure the reproduction of
society’s labor force. This includes house work like cleaning, cooking,
childbearing, rearing, and caring for family members. Women mostly
do these tasks.
• Community managing role: Activities undertaken primarily by

women at the community level, as an extension of their reproductive
role, to ensure the provision and maintenance of scarce resources of
collective consumption such as water, health care and education.
This is voluntary unpaid work performed during “free” time.
• Community politics role: Activities undertaken primarily by men at

the community level, often within the framework of national politics.
This officially-recognized leadership role may be paid directly or
result in increased power or status.
• Triple role: This refers to the fact that women tend to work longer
and more fragmented days than men as they are usually involved in
three different roles: reproductive, productive and community work.
(UN Women)
• Gender roles - refer to social and behavioral norms that, within a

specific culture, are widely considered to be socially appropriate for
individuals of a specific sex. These often determine the traditional
responsibilities and tasks assigned to men, women, boys and girls.
(See gender division of labor). Gender-specific roles are often
conditioned by household structure, access to resources, specific
impacts of the global economy, occurrence of conflict or disaster, and
other locally relevant factors such as ecological conditions. Like
gender itself, gender roles can evolve over time, in particular through
the empowerment of women and transformation of masculinities.
(UN Women)
• Gender Stereotypes – Gender stereotypes are simplistic

generalizations about the gender attributes, differences and roles of
women and men. Stereotypical characteristics about men are that
they are competitive, acquisitive, autonomous, independent,
confrontational, concerned about private goods. Parallel stereotypes
of women hold that they are cooperative, nurturing, caring,
connecting, group-oriented, concerned about public goods.
Stereotypes are often used to justify gender discrimination more
broadly and can be reflected and reinforced by traditional and
modern theories, laws and institutional practices. Messages
reinforcing gender stereotypes and the idea that women are inferior
come in a variety of “packages” – from songs and advertising to
traditional proverbs. (UN Women)

• Gender Equality (between women and men)
- refers to the equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities of

women and men and girls and boys. Equality does not mean
that women and men will become the same but that women’s
and men’s rights, responsibilities and opportunities will not
depend on whether they are born male or female. Gender
equality implies that the interests, needs and priorities of both
women and men are taken into consideration, recognizing the
diversity of different groups of women and men. Gender
equality is not a women’s issue but should concern and fully
engage men as well as women. Equality between women and
men is seen both as a human rights issue and as a
precondition for, and indicator of, sustainable people-
centered development. (UN Women)
- refers to the principle asserting the equality of men and

women and their right to enjoy equal conditions realizing
their full human potentials to contribute to and benefit from
the results of development, and with the State recognizing
that all human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights.
(Magna Carta of Women Act of 2009)
- There are generally three approaches of equality: Formal

Equality, Protectionist Approach, and Substantive Equality.
a) Formal equality regards women and men as the same and

therefore treats them as the same. It does not take into account
biological and socially constructed differences. It uses male
standards and disregards women’s special needs.
b) Protectionist Approach recognizes difference but considers

women’s weakness as the rationale for different treatment.
c) Substantive equality is the concept of achieving true equality,

even if it is through differential treatment based on a recognition
of the differences and power imbalances between men and
women. This is the kind of equality contemplated by Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW). (PHILJA)
- Gender Discrimination - Any distinction, exclusion or

restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or
purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment
or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on

the basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social,
cultural, civil or any other field. (CEDAW)
- Discrimination can stem from both law (de jure) or from

practice (de facto). The CEDAW Convention recognizes and
addresses both forms of discrimination, whether contained in
laws, policies, procedures or practice.
o De jure discrimination
E.g.In some countries, the law states that women (citizens) who
marry foreign men lose their citizenship and/or property
rights. On the other hand, men (citizens) married to
foreigners do not lose their citizenship and/or property rights.
o De facto discrimination
E.g.The practice of many immigration officials in various

countries is to find a woman traveling alone with her minor
children "suspicious" while men traveling with their children
are seldom questioned. (UN Women)
- Gender Sensitivity - is the ability to recognize gender issues,

especially women’s different perceptions and interests arising
from their unique social location and gender roles. It calls for
an understanding and consideration of the socio-cultural
factors underlying discrimination based on sex. (PHILJA)
3.2.1 Gender Equality and Sensitivity in International Laws

and Principles
a) The Convention on Elimination of all Forms of

Discrimination Against Women
• On 18 December 1979, the United Nations General Assembly

adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). It entered into force
as an international treaty on 3 September 1981. The
Philippines ratified it on 5 August 1981.
• CEDAW, also known as the international bill of rights for

women has three core principles:
- Principle of substantive equality – Equality does not

mean treating men and women in the same way; rather, it

means recognizing the differences between men and
women and why those differences exist, and redistributing
and transforming the unequal power relations between
men and women to ensure equal access to resources and
benefits as well as equal results.
- Principle of non-discrimination – The Convention applies

to all forms of discrimination and requires measures to
eliminate discrimination. Discrimination against women
is defined as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made
on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of
impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or
exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on
a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social,
cultural, civil or any other field.”
- Principle of state obligation – State parties are legally

bound to eliminate discrimination and ensure equality.
Generally, they have the obligation to guarantee rights
through legislation and the obligation to ensure the
practical realization of those rights. (IWRAW-AP)
• The Philippines, as a State Party, has the obligation to:
o Embody the principle of equality in constitution and laws;

o Ensure practical realization of the principle of equality;
o Prohibit discrimination against women;
o Refrain from discrimination;
o Eliminate discrimination by any person, organization or
enterprise;
o Modify or abolish laws, regulations, customs and practices
that constitute discrimination; and
o Repeal discriminatory penal provisions. (PCW)
• Summary of articles and provisions:
o Article 1: Definition of Discrimination - Defines

discrimination against women to cover all facets of human
rights and fundamental freedoms.
o Article 2: Country duties - Countries must eliminate
discriminatory laws, policies, and practices in the national
legal framework.
o Article 3: Equality - Women are fundamentally equal with
men in all spheres of life. Countries must take measures to
uphold women's equality in the political, social, economic,

and cultural fields.
o Article 4: Temporary special measures - Countries may
implement temporary special measures to accelerate
women's equality.
o Article 5: Prejudice - Countries agree to modify or
eliminate practices based on assumptions about the
inferiority or superiority of either sex.
o Article 6: Trafficking - Countries agree to take steps to
suppress the exploitation of prostitution and trafficking in
women.
o Article 7: Political and public life - Women have an equal
right to vote, hold public office, and participate in civil
society.
o Article 8: International work - Women have the right to
work at the international level without discrimination.
o Article 9: Nationality - Women have equal rights with men
to acquire, change, or retain their nationality and that of
their children.
o Article 10: Education - Women have equal rights with men
in education, including equal access to schools, vocational
training, and scholarship opportunities.
o Article 11: Employment - Women have equal rights in
employment, including without discrimination on the basis
of marital status or maternity.
o Article 12: Health - Women have equal rights to affordable
health care services.
o Article 13: Economic and social life - Women have equal
rights to family benefits, financial credit, and participation
in recreational activities.
o Article 14: Rural women - Rural women have the right to
adequate living conditions, participation in development
planning, and access to health care and education.
o Article 15: Equality before the law - Women and men are
equal before the law. Women have the legal right to enter
contracts, own property, and choose their place of
residence.
o Article 16: Marriage and family - Women have equal
rights with men in matters related to marriage and family
relations.
o Articles 17-24: The Committee on CEDAW and reporting
procedures.
o Articles 25-30: Administration of the Convention. (PCW)
b) The Yogyakarta Principles
• The Principles on the Application of International Human Rights

Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
(Yogyakarta Principles) were developed in Yogyakarta, Indonesia
by a group of renowned human rights experts from 25 countries
in 2006. The Yogyakarta Principles provide guidance to States
on how to apply international human rights law to issues
pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity. Although it
is not a treaty, it is a clarification of State obligations under
international instruments with respect to promoting and
protecting all human rights for all persons on the basis of
equality and without discrimination.
• Among the 29 principles, the following relate to access to justice:
o Principle 1: Right to universal enjoyment of human rights.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights. Human beings of all sexual orientations and gender
identities are entitled to the full enjoyment of all human
rights.
o Principle 2: Right to equality and non-discrimination.

Everyone is entitled to enjoy all human rights without
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity. Everyone is entitled to equality before the law and
the equal protection of the law without any such
discrimination whether or not the enjoyment of another
human right is also affected. The law shall prohibit any such
discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and
effective protection against any such discrimination.
o Principle 3: Right to recognition before the law. Everyone

has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the
law. Persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender
identities shall enjoy legal capacity in all aspects of life.
o Principle 7: Right to freedom from arbitrary deprivation of

liberty. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or
detention. Arrest or detention on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity, whether pursuant to a court
order or otherwise, is arbitrary. All persons under arrest,
regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, are
entitled, on the basis of equality, to be informed of the reasons
for arrest and the nature of any charges against them, to be
brought promptly before a judicial officer and to bring court
proceedings to determine the lawfulness of detention,
whether or not charged with any offense.

o Principle 8: Right to a fair trial. Everyone is entitled to a fair
and public hearing by a competent, independent and
impartial tribunal established by law, in the determination of
their rights and obligations in a suit at law and of any criminal
charge against them, without prejudice or discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
o Principle 9: Right to treatment with humanity while in

detention. Everyone deprived of liberty shall be treated with
humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the
human person. Sexual orientation and gender identity are
integral to each person’s dignity.
o Principle 10: Right to freedom from torture and cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Everyone
has the right to be free from torture and from cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment, including for reasons
relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.
o Principle 27: Right to promote human rights. Everyone has

the right, individually and in association with others, to
promote the protection and realization of human rights at the
national and international levels, without discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
o Principle 28: Right to effective remedies and redress. Every

victim of a human rights violation, including of a violation
based on sexual orientation or gender identity, has the right to
effective, adequate and appropriate remedies. Measures taken
for the purpose of providing reparation to, or securing
adequate advancement of, persons of diverse sexual
orientations and gender identities are integral to the right to
effective remedies and redress.
o Principle 29: Accountability. Everyone whose human rights,

including rights addressed in these Principles, are violated is
entitled to have those directly or indirectly responsible for the
violation, whether they are government officials or not, held
accountable for their actions in a manner that is
proportionate to the seriousness of the violation. There should
be no impunity for perpetrators of human rights violations
related to sexual orientation or gender identity.
3.2.2. Gender Equality and Sensitivity in Domestic Laws
c) Relevant Constitutional Provisions

• Article II, Section 14, 1987 Constitution. The State recognizes the
role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
• Article XIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution. The Congress shall give

highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and
enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural
inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the
common good. To this end, the State shall regulate the
acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its
increments.
• Article XIII, Section 14, 1987 Constitution. The State shall protect
working women by providing safe and healthful working
conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such
facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and
enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the
nation.
d) Republic Act No. 9710, or The Magna Carta of Women Act of

2009
• The Magna Carta of Women Act establishes a framework of rights

for women based on CEDAW. It took effect on 15 September
2009. It is the Philippine bill of rights for women.
• Salient features of the Magna Carta of Women Act:
- Expands the CEDAW definition of discrimination against

women to include: “any act or omission, including by law,
policy, administrative measure, or practice, that directly or
indirectly excludes or restricts women in the recognition and
promotion of their rights and their access to and enjoyment of
opportunities, benefits, or privileges.”
- It sets the responsibilities of duty-bearers, primarily the State,
to promote and protect these rights and eliminate
discrimination against women.
- While the State is the primary duty-bearer, the private sector,
society in general, and all individuals also have the
responsibility to contribute to the recognition, respect, and
promotion of the rights of women defined and guaranteed
under the Act.
It guarantees the rights and empowerment of women in all
aspects, including:

 Protection from violence;
 Protection and security in times of disasters, calamities,
and other crisis situations;
 Participation and equitable representation of women in
all spheres of society particularly in the decision-making
and policy-making processes in government and private
entities;
 Equal treatment before the law;
 Equal access and elimination of discrimination in
education, scholarships, and training;
 Participation in sports;
 Elimination of discrimination of women in the military,
police, and other similar services;
 Non-discriminatory and non-derogatory portrayal of
women in media and film;
 Right to health; and
 Equal rights in all matters relating to marriage and family
relations.
- It guarantees the rights and empowerment of women in

marginalized sectors.
- It establishes institutional mechanisms to ensure that the
State promotes women’s rights and eliminates gender
discrimination in its systems, structures, policies, programs,
processes, and procedures.
• Specific provisions and mechanisms:
a) Requires that there should be a fifty-fifty gender balance

number of women in third level positions in government
while the composition of women in all levels of development
planning and program implementation should be at least 40
percent. (Section 12.A)
b) Grants leave benefits of two (2) months with full pay based on
gross monthly compensation to women employees who
undergo surgery caused by gynecological disorders, provided
that they have rendered continuous aggregate employment
service of at least six (6) months for the last twelve (12)
months. (Section 21)
c) Requires government agencies and local government units to

design and implement Gender and Development (GAD)
programs addressing gender issues and concerns based on

their mandates, Republic Act No. 7192 (Women in
Development and Nation Building Act), gender equality
agenda of the government, and other GAD-related legislation,
policies, and commitments. (Section 36.a)
d) Provides that the GAD budget of the agency or local

government unit must be at least five percent (5%) of the
agency’s or the local government unit’s total budget
appropriations. (Section 36.a)
3.2.3. Main Forms of Gender-Based Crimes Against Women

and Girls
While recognizing that certain groups of individuals are abused and

discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity, this
Manual primarily focuses on gender-based violence against women
and girls. Gender-based violence within the scope of this Manual
refers mainly to acts or omissions directed against women or girls
because of their sex; where the underlying motivation for the crime is
the belief that women and girls are inferior to the opposite sex; where
the crime results in physical, sexual, psychological, or economic harm
or suffering to women and girls; or when the crime affects them
disproportionately. (UNODC, GC19)
Several forms of gender-based violence are defined as crimes or

offenses in the Revised Penal Code or special laws. The following are
among the more common ones:
Table 1
Main Forms of Gender-Based Violence
Against Women and Girls
Sexual Violence Sexual violence against women and girls

includes rape, acts of lasciviousness,
seduction, corruption of minors, and white
slave trade. Republic Act No 8353, or the
Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amended the Revised
Penal Code provisions on rape and
reclassified rape as a crime against persons
instead of a crime against chastity.
Consequently, rape is now punishable under
Article 266-A and B, Title Eight of the Revised
Penal Code.
R.A. 8353 expanded rape to include rape by

sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge, and

rape by sexual assault. While the traditional
concept of rape is understood as a crime
committed by a man against a woman, rape
by sexual assault may be committed by a man
by inserting his penis into a woman’s or man’s
mouth or anal orifice, or by a man or woman
by inserting any instrument or object into the
genital or anal orifice of another woman or
man.
Acts of lasciviousness is punishable under

Articles 336 and 339 of the Revised Penal
Code; qualified seduction and simple
seduction under Articles 337 and 338,
respectively; corruption of minors under
Article 340; and white slave trade under
Article 341.
Sexual Harassment Republic Act No. 7877, or the Anti-Sexual

Harassment Act of 1995, penalizes work,
education, or training-related sexual
harassment. It is committed by an employer,
employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor,
coach, trainer, or any other person who has
authority, influence, or moral
ascendancy over another in a work or training
or education environment. It is sexual
harassment when such person demands,
requests, or otherwise requires any sexual
favor from the other, regardless of whether
the demand, request or requirement is
accepted by the object of the harassment.
Human Trafficking Republic Act No. 9208, or the Trafficking in

Persons Act of 2003, as amended by Republic
Act No. 10364, or the Expanded Anti-
Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012 prohibits:
- the recruitment, obtaining, hiring,

providing, offering, transportation,
transfer, maintaining, harboring, or
receipt of persons
- with or without the victim’s consent or

knowledge
- within or across national borders
- by means of threat, or use of force, or
other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or of position,
taking advantage of the vulnerability of
the person, or, the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over
another person, or even without any of
these means if the victim is a child
- for the purpose of exploitation which
includes at a minimum, the exploitation
or the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor
or services, slavery, servitude or the
removal or sale of organs.
Violence Against Republic Act No. 9262, or the Violence

Women and their Against Women and their Children Act,
Children (VAWC) penalizes:
- any act or a series of acts committed by

any person
- against a woman who is his wife, former
wife, or against a woman with whom the
person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or with whom he has a
common child, or against her child
whether legitimate or illegitimate, within
or without the family abode
- which result in or is likely to result in
physical, sexual, psychological harm or
suffering, or economic abuse
- including threats of such acts, battery,
assault, coercion, harassment, or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is
not limited to physical violence, sexual
violence and economic abuse
Voyeurism Republic Act No. 9995, or the Anti-Photo and

Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 declares it
unlawful for any person to:
- Take a photo or video coverage of a person

or group of persons performing sexual act
or any similar activity, or capture an image
of the private area of a person/s such as the
naked or undergarment clad genitals,
pubic area, buttocks, or female breast
without the consent of the person/s
involved and under circumstances in which
the person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy;
- Copy or reproduce, or to cause to be
copied or reproduced, such photo or video
or recording of sexual act or any similar
activity with or without consideration;
- Sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or
distributed, such photo or video or
recording of sexual act, whether it be the
original copy or reproduction thereof; or
- Publish or broadcast, or cause to be
published or broadcast, whether in print or
broadcast media, or show or exhibit the
photo or video coverage or recordings of
such sexual act or any similar activity
through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular
phones and other similar means or device.
3.2.4. Understanding Barriers to Access to Justice for Gender-

Based Violence
The barriers to access to justice in cases involving gender-based violence

are multi-dimensional and go beyond the legal aspects, as demonstrated
in Table 2. It is necessary for duty bearers to identify and be aware of
these obstacles so that the appropriate measures may be taken. Legal
empowerment of women and girls requires a multi-disciplinary approach,
which integrates knowledge and understanding of the laws and legal
procedures with other initiatives that address all the other factors that
obstruct women’s access to justice. (International Development Law
Organization-IDLO)

Table 2
Barriers to Access to Justice in Gender-Based Violence
(based on UNODC, IDLO, CEDAW reference materials)
Socio-cultural • Myths or false beliefs about sexual and

gender-based violence based on gender
discrimination and stereotyping
• Traditional attitudes by which women
are regarded as subordinate to men or
as having stereotyped roles
• Religious or cultural beliefs that may
influence the victims’ decision to
pursue the case
• Victim-blaming
• Lack of support from family and
friends
• Lack of gender-sensitivity of
responders and service providers
Language barriers
• Lack of resources and time to
participate in justice processes,
especially given the heavy burden of
labor that women bear for their
families
Psychological • Psychological impact on the victim, such

as post-traumatic stress disorder,
depression, and anxiety, which may
result in delayed reporting and
reluctance of the victim to participate in
the criminal justice process
• Trauma might affect the victim’s ability
to coherently or fully recount his or her
experience and to be responsive to
questions
• Victim’s fear of harassment, retaliation,
being charged with crime, re-
victimization, loss of family approval,
and stigmatization
• Victim’s shame and embarrassment in
having to testify about intimate details

• Victim’s low self-esteem and difficulty
in trusting others
• Victim’s feeling of guilt or betrayal if the
accused is a family member or someone
close to the victim
• Uncertainty and unfamiliarity with the
criminal justice process
• Feeling of unpreparedness for trial
• Victim’s learning difficulties or mental
health issues
Physical and • Proximity of the accused to the victim

Environmental resulting in fear and harassment
• Undue exposure to the public
• Lack of safeguards to prevent
intimidation, threats, and harm
• Lack of facilities that help create a safe,
appropriate, and enabling environment
to disclose and report violence
• Unavailability or inaccessibility of the
courts, prosecution services, law
enforcers, social welfare officers, and
other duty bearers
Economic • Financial burden on the victims to

pursue a case
• Economic trade-off in cooperating in
the prosecution of cases, i.e. time
devoted to pursuing legal remedies is
time away from work and source of
livelihood
• Vulnerability of victims and witnesses
to desist in exchange for money or
other financial considerations
• Lack of resources of victims limit their
access to quality and effective services
• Power imbalance due to economic
disparity between the victim and the
accused

Legal • Weak investigation and gathering of
evidence
• Lack of preparation of witnesses
• Unhelpful trial or trial-related
practices
• Limited victim compensation and
witness protection
• Discriminatory legal provisions
• Limited legal mechanisms to allow
testimony of victims with disabilities
Institutional and • Lack of assistance, such as financial,

Political legal, medical, forensic, social,
physical, and psychological recovery
services.
• Lack of protective or special measures
that can help create the conditions for
safe and effective testimony
• Delays in the administration of justice
• Lack of awareness, training, and
capacity development of duty bearers
• Lack of information and awareness on
remedies and measures available to
victims
• Heavy caseload resulting in
overburdened judiciary, law
enforcement, social welfare, and
prosecution services
• Lack of specialized units
• Lack of gender mainstreaming in the
practices, policies, and operations of
duty bearers
• Limited staff and other resources
• Lack of inter-agency collaboration
• Corruption, political pressure, and
influence
3.2.5. Eliminating Gender Biases and Addressing Myths

About Gender-Based Violence
There are a number of common misperceptions about gender-based

violence, which prosecutors should be made aware of so that these
would not negatively influence their behavior and decisions. If

unaddressed, these myths may unjustly cast doubt on the credibility of
the victims and their narration of facts, shift the blame on the victims,
and exonerate the accused. (UNODC)
The following commonly-held beliefs surrounding some of the main

forms of gender-based violence are founded on gender biases,
discrimination, and stereotyping (taken from UNODC and supported
with Supreme Court decisions):
a) Myth: A woman threatened with rape violently resists, attempts

to escape, or screams for help.
Fact: There is no standard response to sexual violence. Victims

do not react in the same way.
People v. Tuando, G.R. No. 207816 (February 24, 2016):
Understanding the last issue presented, the accused is trying to

destroy the credibility of AAA due to the fact that she tried to live a
normal life despite being raped by him. The accused finds fault with
AAA when she continued to live normally after she was sexually
abused.
There is ample basis to conclude that AAA's resumption to normal life

after the commission of rape cannot be taken against her. A victim's
reaction after a harrowing experience, especially in a crime of rape, is
subjective and not everyone responds in the same way. There is no
standard form of behavior that can be anticipated of a rape victim
following her sexual abuse. People respond differently to emotional
stress, particularly minor children subjected to such level of emotional
trauma.
People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122 (January 15, 2014):
A person accused of a serious crime such as rape will tend to escape

liability by shifting the blame on the victim for failing to manifest
resistance to sexual abuse. However, this Court has recognized the
fact that no clear–cut behavior can be expected of a person being
raped or has been raped. It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to
shout or seek help do not negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not
imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially when
that person was intimidated into submission by the accused. In cases
where the rape is committed by a relative such as a father, stepfather,
uncle, or common law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes
the place of violence.

People v. Dulay, G.R. Nos. 144344-68 (July 23, 2002):
Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the rape in any
degree from the victim is admissible as evidence of lack of consent.
Tenacious resistance, however, is not required. Neither is a
determined and persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim
necessary.
At the Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on the disagreeing

provisions of S.B. No. 950 and H.B. No. 6265, the forerunners of R.A.
No. 8353, the legislators agreed that Article 266-D is intended to
soften the jurisprudence of the 1970s when resistance to rape was
required to be tenacious. The lawmakers took note of the fact that
rape victims cannot mount a physical struggle in cases where they
were gripped by overpowering fear or subjugated by moral authority.
Article 266-D tempered the case law requirement of physical struggle
by the victim with the victim’s fear of the rapist or incapacity to give
valid consent. Thus, the law now provides that resistance may be
proved by any physical overt act in any degree from the offended
party.
b) Myth: Rape happens only to young, attractive, or desirable

women.
Fact: There is no “typical” victim. Sexual violence can happen to

anyone.
People v. Ilao, G.R. Nos. 152683-84 (December 11, 2003):
The fact that private complainant was older than appellant by 5 years
does not excuse nor mitigate the heinous nature of the sexual
molestation. Whether or not appellant is younger than complainant is
not relevant in rape cases as force or intimidation is relative and need
only be sufficient to consummate the crime.
c) Myth: Rape happens only in poorly-lit or secluded places.
Fact: Sexual violence can occur anywhere and at any time.
People v. Pascual, G.R. Nos. 144495-96 (March 12, 2002):
Indeed, the evil in a rapist has no conscience, and the beast in him
may bear no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape
anywhere, even in a house where there are other occupants. It is an
accepted rule in criminal law that rape may be committed even when

the offender and the victim are not alone. In fact, rape has been
committed in the same room where other family members were also
asleep. Verily, the argument that the crime cannot be committed in a
house where other members of the family reside or may be around is a
contention that has long been rejected by this Court.
People v. Queigan, G.R. No. 133586-603 (February 19,

2001):
It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from

committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby. The
possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of even the whole
family of the accused inside the same room with the likelihood of
being discovered. Indeed, in People v. Fernando Watimar, the Court
held that "for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to
be ideal or the weather to be fine for rapists bear no respect for locale
and time when they carry out their evil deed. Rape may be committed
even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the
rapist's wife was asleep or even in a small room where other family
members also slept, as in the instant case."
d) Myth: Some women deserve to be raped. Either they are asking

for it (sexy clothes incite men to rape), they wanted it, or they put
themselves in dangerous situations.
Fact: Sexual violence is never the victim’s fault.
People v. Navarro, et al., G.R. No. 137597 (October 24,

2003):
The defenses attempt to depict the victim as a woman of loose

morals deserves scant consideration. The victims character or
reputation is immaterial in rape, there being absolutely no nexus
between it and the odious deed committed. A woman of loose morals
could still be the victim of rape, the essence thereof being carnal
knowledge of a woman without her consent. The argument of
appellants that the victim must have consented to the sexual act, if
indeed there was, because she acquiesced to go with them and had the
opportunity to leave their company at any time she wished, is a non
sequitur. Freely going with a group for a ride around is one thing;
freely having sex with one of the members thereof is another.
e) Myth: A victim’s inconsistencies mean she is not credible.
Fact: The belief that many victims are not telling the truth
because of inconsistencies in their statements or testimonies

places unreasonable requirements on victims to demonstrate that
they are real and deserving victims. Aware of the myths
themselves, many victims adjust their initial account in order to
appear believable.
People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122 (January 15, 2014):
Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony

are generally expected. As this Court stated in People v. Saludo:
Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in

detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person’s achievement
or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is
something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a
stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her
conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape
victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an
accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had
undergone.
Since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions,

accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in
testing the credibility of a witness. The inconsistencies mentioned by
Pareja are trivial and non–consequential matters that merely caused
AAA confusion when she was being questioned. The inconsistency
regarding the year of the December incident is not even a matter
pertaining to AAA’s ordeal. The date and time of the commission of
the crime of rape becomes important only when it creates serious
doubt as to the commission of the rape itself or the sufficiency of the
evidence for purposes of conviction. In other words, the “date of the
commission of the rape becomes relevant only when the accuracy and
truthfulness of the complainant’s narration practically hinge on the
date of the commission of the crime.” Moreover, the date of the
commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.
f) Myth: A victim will report everything at the first available

opportunity.
Fact: The trauma experienced by the victim causes her to feel

unsafe. Victims often need to feel safe and supported before
reporting.

People v. Ilao, G.R. Nos. 152683-84 (December 11, 2003):
While indeed the victim might have tarried in reporting her

defilement, yet the delay is explained by the fear generated by
appellant in the mind of complainant. The hiatus in reporting the
crime does not extricate appellant from his predicament. As the trial
court found, complainant did not divulge the first incident of rape out
of fear for her life and that of her family. She could have kept her
ordeal forever in silence were it not for the second incident which
engendered her continuing fear of a repetition thereof, unless she
could put a stop to it. This reaction appears typical of a woman who
has been abused. Rape is a harrowing experience and the shock
concomitant to it may linger for a while. It is upon this fear springing
from the initial rape that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of
psychological terror, which could numb his victim to submissiveness.
People v. Melivo, G.R. No. 113029 (February 8, 1996):
No matter how courageous the act of filing a complaint might appear

to be, rape exacts a heavy psychological and social toll on the victim
who is usually twice victimized: by the rapist during the act of rape
and by a society which devalues the victim’s worth by characterizing
the crime principally as an insult to the victim’s chastity. With all the
attendant social consequences such a classification brings, many cases
of rape go naturally unreported, and those cases which manage to
reach the authorities are routinely treated in a manner so demeaning
to the victim’s dignity that the psychological ordeal and injury is
repeated again and again in the hands of inexperienced, untrained and
oftentimes callous investigators and courtroom participants.
g) Myth: Husbands cannot rape their wives.
Fact: Rape occurs whenever sexual contact is not mutual, when

choice is taken away, regardless of relationship.
People v. Quintos, G.R. No. 199402, (November 12, 2014):
Accused’s argument that he and AAA were sweethearts is irrelevant in

rape cases wherein the main element is “lack of consent.” Regardless
of the relationship between two individuals, forcing carnal knowledge
upon another is considered rape, more so when the victim is incapable
of giving consent due to her mental capacity. Even married couples,
upon whom the law imposes the duty to cohabitate, are protected
from forced sexual congress.

Rape, as now defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, does not
make a distinction with regard to an accused's relationship with the
victim. It only requires that sexual congress be forced by a man upon
another person. Moreover, Republic Act No. 9262 recognizes that wives,
former wives, co-parents, and sweethearts may be raped by their
husbands, former husbands, co-parents, or sweethearts by stating that
committing acts of rape against these persons are considered violence
against women. x x x
Further, we discussed marital rape in People v. Jumawan. We said:
Husbands do not have property rights over their wives' bodies.

Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of marriage, if not
consensual, is rape. x x x
Clearly, it is now acknowledged that rape, as a form of sexual

violence, exists within marriage. A man who penetrates her wife
without her consent or against her will commits sexual violence
upon her, and the Philippines, as a State Party to the CEDAW and
its accompanying Declaration, defines and penalizes the act as
rape under R.A. No. 8353.
h) Myth: The seriousness of sexual harassment has been

exaggerated. Most so-called harassment is harmless flirtation.
Fact: Sexual harassment can be devastating. Studies indicate that

most harassment has nothing to do with flirtation or sincere
sexual or social interest. Rather, it is about control, domination
and/or punishment.
Philippine Aelos Automotive United Corporation and/or

Chua vs. National Labor Relations and Cortez, G.R. No.
124617 (April 28, 2000):
Anxiety was gradual in private respondent's five (5)-year employment.

It began when her plant manager showed an obvious partiality for her
which went out of hand when he started to make it clear that he would
terminate her services if she would not give in to his sexual advances.
Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced "superiority" which
is enough to dampen an employee's spirit in her capacity for
advancement. It affects her sense of judgment; it changes her life. If
for this alone private respondent should be adequately compensated.
Thus, for the anxiety, the seen and unseen hurt that she suffered,
petitioners should also be made to pay her moral damages, plus
exemplary damages, for the oppressive manner with which petitioners

effected her dismissal from the service, and to serve as a forewarning
to lecherous officers and employers who take undue advantage of their
ascendancy over their employees.
3.2.6. Using Gender-Sensitive or Gender-Fair Language

(UPCWS, UNESCO)
• Sexism in language is the use of words or expressions that

devalues one sex, usually women, and discriminates against them.
It perpetuates inequality and reinforces superiority of one sex over
the other.
• Gender-fair or gender-sensitive language, on the other hand, is

the use of words and expressions that eliminate, reduce, or avoid
discrimination, stereotyping, and the moral or social exclusion of
women.
• Why promote gender-sensitive language? Because –
a) Language reflects our beliefs and the way we think.

b) Language shapes the way we think and affects our behavior.
c) Language reflects cultural meanings and values in our society.
d) Language affects socialization. Children who learn the
language absorb the underlying values and biases.
• Some guidelines in using gender-sensitive or gender-fair

language:
a) Avoid ambiguity. Use inclusive words when the message is

intended to refer to both sexes
Example of Sexist Alternative Comment

Language Language or
Phrasing
Man, mankind People, humanity, Avoid the use of

men and women generic masculine
words. Substitute with
Manpower Staff, work force, a word or phrase that is
employees more inclusive.
Man-made Artificial, synthetic,

manufactured

Example of Sexist Alternative Comment
Language Language or
Phrasing
Businessman, Entrepreneur, Avoid terms ending in

businessmen business executive, man for functions that
business people, may be performed by
business community either sex.
Chairman Chairperson
Layman Layperson
Policeman Police officer
Everyone is entitled Everyone is entitled Use the plural form to

to his own opinion. to their own avoid using male
opinions. pronouns.
b) Avoid stereotyping.
Example of Alternative Comment

Sexist Language Language or
Phrasing
Lady lawyer Lawyer Use of sex-linked

modifiers is patronizing
Male nurse Nurse and suggests that the
norm for some
Male secretary Secretary occupations is for a
particular sex. When it is
important to emphasize
the female aspect of a
person occupying a
position, use “woman” or
“female” instead of lady.
Stewardess Flight attendant Feminine suffixes such as

-ess, -ette, -trix make
Heroine Hero unnecessary reference to
the person’s sex, suggests
Usherette Usher triviality, unimportance,
or inferiority of women
Actress Actor occupying such position.

Sexist Language Language or
Phrasing
Administratrix Administrator
Transport will be Transport will be Avoid language that

provided for the provided for the implies stereotyping roles
delegates and their delegates and their and relationships, and
wives. spouses. disparages a person based
on sex.
Juan and Maria They share the
have full-time jobs; housework.
he helps with the
housework.
Mothering Parenting
Avoid language that have
Housewife Homemaker hidden assumptions
about roles and
relationships, or
disparages a person based
on sex.
Coed Female college

student
Starlet Aspiring actor
Girl Friday Administrative

assistant
Chicks Girls, women
Ladies chattering Women talking
House husband Homemaker
Maids Domestic helpers,

household help

c) Avoid language that fosters unequal gender relations.

Sexist Language or
Language Phrasing
Man and wife Husband and wife Use parallel terms.
Men and girls Men and women
Men and ladies Ladies and

gentlemen
d) Avoid gender-polarization of meanings in the use of adjectives.
Examples:
o Forceful men are perceived as charismatic, while forceful

women are domineering.
o Lighthearted men are perceived as easygoing, while women of
the same nature are frivolous.
o Forgetful men are absent-minded, while forgetful women are
scatterbrained.
o Angry men are outraged, while angry women are hysterical.
o Men are curious, while women are nosy.
o When me talk together, it is called a discussion. But when
women talk together, it is called gossip.
 Supreme Court decisions on the use of gender-sensitive or gender-

fair language:
Judge Dojillo, Jr. v. Ching, A.M. No. P-06-2245 [Formerly

OCA IPI NO. 06-2373-P, 31 July 2009:
In the case of Judge Dojillo, he should be admonished to be more

circumspect in his choice of words and use of gender-fair
language. There was no reason for him to emphatically
describe Concepcion as a lesbian because the complained acts
could be committed by anyone regardless of gender orientation.
His statements like I am a true man not a gay to challenge a girl
and a lesbian like her, the handiwork and satanic belief of dirty
gossiper, and the product of the dirty and earthly imagination of
a lesbian and gossiper were uncalled for.

Being called to dispense justice, Judge Dojillo must demonstrate
finesse in his choice of words as normally expected of men of his
stature. His language, both written and spoken, must be guarded
and measured lest the best of intentions be misconstrued.
Atty. Guanzon, et al. v. Judge Rufon, A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2038
(October 19, 2007) (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2250-RTJ):
A careful scrutiny of the record shows sufficient ground for a

reprimand and an admonition to respondent to act with utmost
temperance, sensitivity and circumspection in the discharge of his
functions. x x x
Concededly, complainants in administrative proceedings have the

burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their
complaint (Araos v. Luna-Pison, 378 SCRA 246). The fact that,
owing to the unavailability of the parties, no hearings were
conducted in the case to thresh out the issues presented by their
various pleadings and incidents did not, however, totally discount
the existence of factual bases for the charges leveled against
respondent. In her November 8, 2006 affidavit (pp. 169-170,
Rollo), Cynthia Bagtas-Serios significantly gave the following
account of respondent's deportment which goes into the heart of
the complaint, viz.: x x x
In one of the first hearings of my case, when Atty. Rowena

Guanzon was not assisting me but another counsel, I was
shocked when Judge Anastacio Rufon, inside the court with so
many people present, said to me "next time you see your
husband, open your arms and legs." I felt humiliated and
insulted, and was glad that the hearing did not proceed
because the respondent was not present.
The following day, I called Atty. Rowena Guanzon and

reported Judge Rufon's foul language and intolerable conduct
to her (p. 170, ibid.). x x x
Respondent had, of course, taken great pains to refute the

foregoing allegations (pp. 215-219, ibid.), complete with transcript
of stenographic notes taken in Civil Case No. 99-10985 (pp. 220-
240, ibid.) as well as the orders issued in the case (pp. 241-243,
ibid.). In denying the charges leveled against him, however,
appropriate note may be taken of the fact that respondent's
January 20, 2006 comment admitted his use of "frank language"
in court when exhorting litigants to settle their differences and his
resort to "strong and colorful" words whenever he has had a drink

or two, albeit after office hours (pp. 81-82, ibid.). Even more
significantly, the July 12, 2006 letter of complainant Caldit which
was attached as Annex "4" to respondent's own Pre-Trial Brief
contains the following tell-tale assertions, viz.: x x x
Respondent should bear in mind that a judge holds a position in

the community that is looked up to with honor and privilege
(Ramos v. Barot', 420 SCRA 406). Although judges are subject to
human limitations (Misajon v. Feranil, 440 SCRA 298), it cannot
be over-emphasized that no position is more demanding as
regards moral righteousness and uprightness of any individual
than a seat on the Bench (Resngit-Marquez v. Llamas, Jr., 385
SCRA 6). Because a judge is always looked upon as being the
visible representation of law and, from him, the people draw
much of their will and awareness to obey legal mandates (Garcia
v. Bueser, 425 SCRA 93), it has been rightfully ruled that moral
integrity is more than a cardinal virtue in the judiciary; it is a
necessity (Office of the Court Administrator v. Sayo, Jr., 381
SCRA 659).
In closing, it would be remiss not to remind respondent of the fact

that all judges should always observe courtesy and civility (Fineza
v. Aruelo, 385 SCRA 339) and also be temperate, patient and
courteous both in conduct and language (Fidel v. Caraos, 394
SCRA 47), especially to those appearing before him (Lastimosa-
Dalawampu v. Yrastorsa, Sr., 422 SCRA 26). The exacting
standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary (Imbang v. Del Rosario, 421 SCRA 523). In view of the
fact that public confidence in the judiciary is very easily eroded by
irresponsible and improper conduct of judges (Navarro v.
Tormis, 428 SCRA 37), respondent should remember to avoid
improprieties and the appearance of impropriety in all of his
activities (Veloso v. Caminade, 434 SCRA 7).
• Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular 12, S. 2005 on

the Use of Non-Sexist Language in all Official Documents,
Communications, and Issuances directs all heads and employees
of constitutional bodies, departments, bureaus, offices, and
agencies of the national government; local government units;
state colleges and universities; local government units; and
government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters to:
o Recognize the importance of transforming language from

traditional usage to a more liberating one, that which is

gender-sensitive;
o Use non-sexist language in preparing letters, memoranda, and
other issuances.
o Make a conscious effort to avoid implicit and explicit
discriminatory language against women or men.
o Promote gender-sensitivity in the bureaucracy.
3.2.7. Practical Steps to Promote Gender-Sensitivity in the

Investigation and Prosecution of Criminal Cases
The following pointers are substantially based on UNODC’s Handbook

on Effective Prosecution Responses to Violence Against Women and
Girls. Relevant laws, rules, and jurisprudence are cited, where
appropriate. While specific measures are suggested for every stage of
the criminal procedure, it is understood that throughout the process
prosecutors should always use gender-fair language and respect the
victims and their right to privacy and confidentiality.
Table 3
Gender-Sensitivity in the Various Stages of
Investigation and Prosecution
Inquest/Preliminary • Ensure that the preliminary

Investigation investigation proper or inquest of
women rape victims is assigned to
female prosecutor or prosecutors in
compliance with Sec. 4 of Republic
Act No. 8505, or the Rape Victim
Assistance and Protection Act of
1998.
• In rape cases, whenever necessary
to ensure fair and impartial
proceedings, and after considering
all circumstances for the best
interest of the parties, order a
closed-door investigation. (Sec. 5 of
R.A. 8505)
• Ensure that the victims feel safe. As
much as possible, keep them from
being in close proximity to the
suspects.
• Take every step necessary to access
all legally available information and

evidence before evaluating the case.
• Be aware of how you assess the
victim’s character, behavior and
credibility and ensure that your
assessment is not based on
stereotypes of “real rapes”, “genuine
victims” and “appropriate
behavior”.
• Do not criticize or make judgmental
statements about the victims.
• Use gender-fair language in
addressing the parties and drafting
your resolutions.
• Add the charge of violating a
protection order if there was one in
effect at the time of the offense.
• Take extra care in determining the
primary or predominant aggressor
when this is not self-evident or
easy, especially because women
may sometimes not self-report that
they are victims. Make an
independent analysis to determine
the predominant aggressor and
proceed against that suspect alone.
(e.g. When women are charged with
violating Article 201 of the Revised
Penal Code for participating in
obscene exhibitions and indecent
shows, determine whether there are
elements of trafficking or there are
indicators that they have been
forced, coerced, unduly influenced,
threatened, or were taken
advantage of for the purpose of
engaging in the acts complained of.
If there are such elements or
indicators, the women should not
be charged. They are victims of
trafficking. The real perpetrators
are those who caused these women
to engage in obscene exhibitions
and indecent shows.)
• In cases of violence against women
and children, do not mediate or
conciliate or influence the victim-

survivor or applicant for a
protection order to compromise or
abandon the relief sought. This is
prohibited. (Sec. 27, Implementing
Rules and Regulations, Republic Act
No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Children
Act of 2004)
Victim Interview • Interview and prepare the victims

before pre-trial commences.
• Choose an appropriate place for the
interview. Ideally, it should be
somewhere where the victims will feel
safe and calm and will be afforded
privacy.
• Treat the victims with respect and as a
whole person, not just as a case.
• Ideally, do not sit behind a desk and
avoid tense body postures that may
intimidate the victims.
• Avoid multiple interviews. As much
as possible, involve the other key
players (such as social workers and
psychologists) who need to participate
in the interview so that the victims
will not need to be interviewed several
times.
• Explain the criminal justice process to
the victims to reduce uncertainty and
fear of the unknown, to allow the
victims to participate meaningfully in
the process, and to ensure that they
understand what is going on.
• Explain the role of the defense lawyers
to help prepare the victims to expect
aggressive and challenging opposition
from the defense, especially during
cross-examination.
• When speaking to the victims, listen
to them and give them time to tell you
what happened.
• Consider accommodating victims’
requests to have relatives, friends, or

other support persons present during
the interview, unless the presence of
that person could be considered
harmful.
• Victims might need to be reminded
that the violence was not their fault.
• Always ask the victims about safety
concerns for themselves and their
families, and make arrangements for
witness protection when necessary.
• Assist the victims in availing
themselves of victim compensation
from the Board of Claims under the
Victim Compensation Program
(Republic Act No. 7309).
• Refer the victims to government
agencies or non-government
organizations that may provide them
with assistance, such as medical,
psychological, financial and
livelihood assistance.
Pre-Trial/Arraignment • If there is a private prosecutor,

confer with the private prosecutor to
coordinate approaches and
strategies.
• Before offering a plea agreement,
confer with the victims to get their
views concerning the potential
disposition of the case. Explain to
them the advantages and
disadvantages of plea bargaining.
• Ask the court to issue protective
orders when necessary.
• Notify the victim if and when the
defendant is released and give the
victim a copy of the order outlining
the conditions of release and
information as to who to contact if
the defendant breaches any
condition.  
Bail Hearings/Trial • Prepare the victims and witnesses

ahead of time and not just minutes

before the bail hearings/trial.
• Provide the victims and their
witnesses with sufficient time to re-
read and go over their statements.
• If the victims are not
psychologically prepared to testify,
present other witnesses first.
• Use expert witness to address
certain issues, such as:
o Issues relating to popular myths

regarding violence against
women
o Issues relating to the victim’s
perplexing behavior (e.g.
behavior caused by post-
traumatic stress disorder,
dynamics of domestic violence or
sexual abuse)
o Issues relating to medical and
forensic issues such as DNA
evidence, criminalist work
(serology, fingerprints), sexual
assault nurse examiners,
physicians, etc.
• Do not ask the victims to reenact or

demonstrate what was done to them
in such a way that will require the
victims to point to or expose
sensitive body parts or in any other
way humiliate or re-victimize the
victims. Oppose any attempts on
the part of the defense to require
this of the victims. Instead, use
alternative tools, such as diagrams,
pictures, or anatomically correct
dolls (especially if the victims are
girl children) to demonstrate the
acts committed.
• If introducing forensic evidence, be
familiar with some of the biological
evidence and how it is tested to
assist you in understanding the
implications of the presence or
absence of evidence.

• Expedite the hearings and oppose
motions for continuance or
cancellation when such will have a
negative impact on the victims.
• Invoke the Rape Shield Rule when
the defense attempts to discredit the
victim by introducing evidence or
asking questions pertaining to the
victims’ past sexual conduct,
opinion on such matters, or
reputation.
o “In prosecutions for rape, evidence

of complainant's past sexual
conduct, opinion thereof or of
his/her reputation shall not be
admitted unless, and only to the
extent that the court finds, that such
evidence is material and relevant to
the case.” (Sec. 6, R.A. 8505)
• Object to examination questions by

the defense that are irrelevant,
improper, or insulting, and to harsh
or insulting demeanor of the defense
counsel. (Sec. 3[1], Rule 132, Revised
Rules on Evidence)
• Ask the court for other protective
measures to ease victims’ experience
of the trial and facilitate their
testimony, such as:
o Excluding the public

o Removing any identifying
information such as names and
addresses from the court’s public
records and media
o Using a pseudonym for the
victim
o Prohibiting disclosure of the
identity of the victim or
identifying information to a third
party
o Permitting victims to testify
behind screens or other special
methods

CHILD-FRIENDLY APPROACHES TO CASE HANDLING
3.2.8. Introduction to the Convention on the Rights of the

Child
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) came into force
on 2 September 1990. It is the most universally accepted
international human rights instrument.
• The Philippines ratified the CRC on 21 August 1990.
• The CRC recognizes that all children are subjects and holders of
rights. They are not simply passive or helpless recipients of
charity, welfare, and assistance from adults. Every child is an
individual and a member of the family and society, with inherent
and inalienable rights to survival, development, protection, and
participation.
• In addition to recognizing the rights of the child, Article 4 of the

CRC mandates States Parties to take positive steps to implement
these rights by undertaking all appropriate legislative,
administrative, and other measures. With regard to economic,
social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such
measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and,
where needed, within the framework of international co-
operation.
• Article 5 binds States Parties to respect the rights of parents, or

where applicable, the members of the extended family and
community or any person legally responsible for the child, to
provide the appropriate guidance and direction to the child
consistent with the child’s evolving capacities.
• Article 1 of the CRC defines the term “child” by setting an upper

age limit of 18 years old, below which a person is considered a
child. It allows States to set a lower threshold for reaching the age
of majority, but States should always be guided by the principles
of the CRC in determining the appropriate age.
For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every

human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law

applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. (Article 1,
CRC)
• While Article 1 states when childhood ends, it does not prescribe

when childhood begins. Nevertheless, the CRC’s Preamble
recognizes the rights of the unborn by referring to the Declaration
of the Rights of the Child, as follows:
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights

of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental
immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including
appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".
• The CRC has three Optional Protocols: (a) the Optional Protocol
on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,
which entered into force on 18 January 2002; (b) the Optional
Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, which
entered into force on 12 February 2002; and (c) the Optional
Protocol on a communications procedure, which entered into
force on 14 April 2014. The Philippines ratified the first two on 28
May 2002 and 26 August 2003, respectively. It is yet to ratify the
third Optional Protocol.
• The CRC is guided by four core principles: non-discrimination,

maximum survival and development, respect for the views of the
child, and best interests of the child. These are general precepts
that are fundamental to the realization of all the rights in the
Convention.
3.2.9. The principle of non-discrimination
• The principle of non-discrimination is articulated in Article 2 of

the CRC. It is founded on the fundamental right of every human
being to be respected and treated equally without any distinction,
exclusion, restriction or preference, which is based on any ground.
1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in
the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction
without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s
or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, color, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic
or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure

that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination
or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed

opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or
family members. (Article 2, CRC)
• The CRC applies to all children equally, with special protection to

particular vulnerable groups of children, such as abandoned,
neglect, and abused children; child refugees; disabled children;
and indigenous children.
• This non-discrimination obligation requires States actively to

identify individual children and groups of children the recognition
and realization of whose rights may demand special measures. For
example, the Committee highlights, in particular, the need for
data collection to be disaggregated to enable discrimination or
potential discrimination to be identified. Addressing
discrimination may require changes in legislation, administration
and resource allocation, as well as educational measures to change
attitudes. It should be emphasized that the application of the non-
discrimination principle of equal access to rights does not mean
identical treatment. A general comment by the Human Rights
Committee has underlined the importance of taking special
measures in order to diminish or eliminate conditions that cause
discrimination. (CRC/GC5)
3.2.10. The principle of maximum survival and development
• This principle is embodied in Article 6 of the CRC, which

recognizes the child’s inherent right to life and mandates States
Parties to ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and
development of the child.
• “Development” is interpreted in its broadest sense as a holistic

concept, embracing the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral,
psychological, and social development. Implementation measures
should be aimed at achieving the optimal development for all
children. (CRC/GC5)
3.2.11. The principle of respect for the views of the child
• This principle is expressed in Article 12, which provides that

children have the right to express their views freely in all matters
that affecting them. Their views should be given due weight
consistent with their evolving capacities, taking into consideration
their age and maturity of the child. It highlights the role of
children as active participants in the promotion, protection, and
monitoring of their rights. (CRC/GC5)

3.2.12. The principle of best interests of the child
• Article 3 (1) provides that the best interests of the child shall be a
primary consideration in all actions concerning children. It
requires all government institutions, whether legislative,
administrative or judiciary, as well as private institutions to
systematically consider how children’s rights and interests are or
will be affected directly or indirectly by their decisions and actions.
(CRC/GC5)
37. The expression “primary consideration” means that the child’s

best interests may not be considered on the same level as all
other considerations. This strong position is justified by the
special situation of the child: dependency, maturity, legal
status and, often, voicelessness. Children have less possibility
than adults to make a strong case for their own interests and
those involved in decisions affecting them must be explicitly
aware of their interests. If the interests of children are not
highlighted, they tend to be overlooked. (CRC/GC14)
Reference to the best interests principle is made in several other Articles

of the CRC, such as Article 9 on separation from parents; Article 10 on
family reunification; Article 18 on parental responsibilities; Article 20 on
deprivation of family environment and alternative care; Article 21 on
adoption; Article 37(c) on separation from adults in detention; Article 40,
paragraph 2 (b) (iii) on procedural guarantees, including presence of
parents at court hearings for penal matters involving children in conflict
with the law. (CRC/GC14)
• “Children” refers to an individual child, a group of children, or all

children in general. (CRC/GC14)
• The best interests principle is a three-fold concept:
a) It is a substantive right. As such, it is the intrinsic obligation

of the State to have the child’s best interests assessed and
taken as a primary consideration whenever a decision has to
be made regarding the child.
b) It is a fundamental, interpretative principle. Any doubt as to

the interpretation of a law must be resolved in favor of the
interpretation that most effectively serves the child’s best
interests.
c) It is a rule of procedure. Procedural guarantees must be in

place in all proceedings affecting children to ensure that the

child’s best interests are appropriately integrated and
consistently applied. States Parties must be able to
demonstrate how the best interests of the child is considered
when a decision is reached, what are the criteria for
determining what is for the child’s best interests, and how the
child’s interests have been weighed against other interests.
(CRC/GC14)
• There are two steps involved in implementing the best interests

principle:
a) Best-interests assessment. Assess the specific circumstances

involved for a specific child or group of children, and list
down all the different elements or factors necessary to make a
decision affecting the child. It is the decision-maker and his or
her staff – if possible a multidisciplinary team – who carries
this out. The child should participate when appropriate.
b) Best-interests determination. Describe the formal process

that will be followed to determine the child's best interests on
the basis of the best-interests assessment. The process should
have safeguards to ensure legal guarantees and the proper
application of the right. Make a decision following the
procedure. (CRC/GC14)
• When making an assessment and determination, it is useful to put

together a list of the elements that may be taken into consideration
given the specific circumstances of each child or group of children or
children in general. Table 1 is a non-exhaustive list of some of the
factors to consider.
Table 1
Elements to Consider in a Best-Interests Assessment and
Determination
Elements Guide Questions/Matters to Consider
Child’s Views • What are the child’s thoughts and

feelings about the situation? What are
his or her preferences in resolving the
issue?
• Is the child’s participation in the
proceedings necessary?
• Is the child of the age and maturity to
directly participate in the proceedings?

• Is the environment conducive for the
child to express his or her views freely?
• What are the possible effects, positive
and negative, on the child if he or she
participates?
• If the child is unable to articulate
himself or herself, are his or her views
taken into consideration indirectly
through a representative, such as the
child’s parents, guardian, social worker,
psychologist, counselor, or teacher?
Child’s Identity • What are the child’s characteristics,

such as sex, sexual orientation, national
origin, religion and beliefs, cultural
identity, and personality?
• How do these characteristics affect the
assessment and determination of the
child’s best interests?
• What are the possible consequences of
the decision on the child’s identity?
Situation of • Is the child in need of special protection

vulnerability due to his or her disability, belonging to
a minority group, being a victim of
abuse, living in the street, etc.?
• What accommodations should be
considered given the child’s current
situation and future needs?
• How does the child’s vulnerability affect
the decision?
Preservation of the • Is the child separated from his or her

family environment parents or is there a potential for such
and maintaining separation?
relations • Is separation necessary to protect the
child?
• Is there a way to preserve family unity
or prevent separation?
• Have steps been taken to restore or
enhance the capacity of parents to take
care of the child?

 What other options may be considered
and exhausted so that separation would
only be the last resort?
Care, protection  Are the child’s material, physical,

and safety of the educational, and emotional needs, as
child well as needs for affection and safety
being met?
 What are the consequences of the
decision on such needs?
 What are the safety considerations for
the child at the current time?
 What are the possible future risk, harm,
and other consequences of the decision
on the child’s safety?
 Is the child’s health condition a
Child’s Right to significant factor in the decision?
Health  Does the child have a need for treatment
or is there a possibility for such need,
which should be considered?
 Does the child have access to
information about his or her health and
development to help him or her make
appropriate choices?
 Does the child currently have access to
quality education and an opportunity
Child’s Right to for joyful activities, respect,
Education participation and fulfillment of
ambitions?
 How will the decision affect the child’s
right to access quality education?
3.2.13. Domestic laws on crimes against children
The laws listed in Table 1 apply to adults and children. Table 2 lists some
of the domestic laws that focus specifically on children.
Table 2
Domestic Laws on Crimes Against Children
Republic Act No. R.A. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger

7610 Deterrence and Special Protection Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination, and for Other Purposes

[Special Protection of Children Against
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act],
was enacted pursuant to the Constitutional
policy to protect children from various forms
of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation,
violence, discrimination, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development. Until its
passage, crimes against children were largely
defined and penalized in different sections of
the Revised Penal Code, which contains the
general penal laws of the Philippines. The Act
mandates the government to sanction
violations against children; carry out a
program for prevention, deterrence, and
crisis intervention; and intervene on behalf of
the child when the parent, guardian, teacher,
or person having care or custody of the child
fails or is unable to protect the child or when
acts against the child are committed by their
parents or other caregivers.
The Act expanded the traditional meaning of

“children” to include not only those who are
below the age of majority or below 18 years
old, but also those who are at or above 18
years of age but are unable to fully take care
of or protect themselves because of a physical
or mental disability or condition.
The following are the offenses that are

defined under the Act, violations of which are
punished with a range of penalties, including
imprisonment, fine, suspension or
cancellation of license, and suspension or
termination of parental authority:
(a) Child prostitution and other sexual

abuse;
(b) Child trafficking;
(c) Obscene publications and indecent
shows;
(d) Other acts prejudicial to the development

of the child;
(e) Unlawful employment of children;
(f) Violations against children of indigenous
communities, including discrimination;
and
(g) Violations against children in situations
of armed conflict.
Republic Act No. R.A. 9231, An Act Providing for the

9231 Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child
Labor and Affording Stronger Protection for
the Working Child, Amending for this
Purpose Republic Act No. 7610, As Amended,
Otherwise Known as the “Special Protection
Of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation
And Discrimination Act”, generally provides
the following:
a) sets the minimum age of employment at

15 years old;
b) sets the working hours allowed for
working children;
c) prohibits children below 18 years old
from being engaged in the worst forms of
child labor, which includes:
i. All forms of slavery, or practices
similar to slavery such as sale and
trafficking of children, debt bondage
and serfdom and forced or
compulsory labor, including
recruitment of children for use in
armed conflict; or
ii. The use, procuring, offering or
exposing of a child for prostitution,
for the production of pornography or
for pornographic performances; or
iii. The use, procuring or offering of a
child for illegal or illicit activities,
including the production and
trafficking of dangerous drugs and
volatile substances prohibited under
existing laws; or
iv. Work, which by its nature or the
circumstances in which it is carried

out, is hazardous or likely to be
harmful to the health, safety or
morals of children.
Republic Act No. R.A. 9775, An Act Defining the Crime of Child
9775 Pornography, Prescribing Penalties Therefor
and for Other Purposes, or the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009, defines “child
pornography” as any representation, whether
visual, audio, or written combination thereof,
by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical,
magnetic or any other means, of child
engaged or involved in real or simulated
explicit sexual activities.
The Act prohibits and penalizes the following:
a) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or

coerce a child to perform in the creation
or production of any form of child
pornography;
b) To produce, direct, manufacture or create
any form of child pornography;
c) To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute,
broadcast, advertise, promote, export or
import any form of child pornography;
d) To possess any form of child pornography
with the intent to sell, distribute, publish,
or broadcast: Provided. That possession
of three (3) or more articles of child
pornography of the same form shall be
prima facie evidence of the intent to sell,
distribute, publish or broadcast;
e) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally
provide a venue for the commission of
prohibited acts as, but not limited to,
dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas,
houses or in establishments purporting
to be a legitimate business;
f) For film distributors, theaters and
telecommunication companies, by
themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child
pornography;

g) For a parent, legal guardian or person
having custody or control of a child to
knowingly permit the child to engage,
participate or assist in any form of child
pornography;
h) To engage in the luring or grooming of a
child;
i) To engage in pandering of any form of
child pornography;
j) To willfully access any form of child
pornography;
k) To conspire to commit any of the
prohibited acts stated in this section.
Conspiracy to commit any form of child
pornography shall be committed when
two (2) or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of
any of the said prohibited acts and decide
to commit it; and
l) To possess any form of child
pornography.
Republic Act No. R.A. 10627, An Act Requiring all Elementary

10627 and Secondary Schools to Adopt Policies to
Prevent and Address the Acts of Bullying in
their Institutions, or the Anti-Bullying Act of
2013, defines “bullying” as any severe or
repeated use by one or more students of a
written, verbal or electronic expression, or a
physical act or gesture, or any combination
thereof, directed at another student that has
the effect of actually causing or placing the
latter in reasonable fear of physical or
emotional harm or damage to his property;
creating a hostile environment at school for
the other student; infringing on the rights of
the other student at school; or materially and
substantially disrupting the education process
or the orderly operation of a school; such as,
but not limited to, the following:

a) Any unwanted physical contact between
the bully and the victim like punching,
pushing, shoving, kicking, slapping,
tickling, headlocks, inflicting school
pranks, teasing, fighting and the use of
available objects as weapons;
b) Any act that causes damage to a victim’s
psyche and/or emotional well-being;
c) Any slanderous statement or accusation
that causes the victim undue emotional
distress like directing foul language or
profanity at the target, name-calling,
tormenting and commenting negatively
on victim’s looks, clothes and body; and
d) Cyber-bullying or any bullying done
through the use of technology or any
electronic means.
The Act does not provide for penalties for

bullying. The appropriate provisions of the
Revised Penal Code and relevant special laws
3.2.14. Understanding Access to Justice for Children
a) Child-friendly Justice System
A child-friendly justice system is one that understands the rights

and unique vulnerabilities of children, empowers children to
report violations of their rights and seek redress, and minimizes
the challenges that children face at every step of the legal
proceedings. (CRIN)
b) Barriers to Access to Justice for Children
Table 3 is a non-exhaustive list of other factors that hinder

children from effectively accessing justice, which is mainly based
on the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights (A/HRC/25/35) and CRIN’s Global Report
on Access to Justice for Children

Table 3
Barriers to Access to Justice for Children
Socio-cultural  Society’s lack of awareness of

children’s rights, and children’s lack
of awareness of their own rights
 Lack of support from family
members and other adults
 Multiple forms of stigmatization
and discrimination for children of
certain groups on grounds of sex,
disability, ethnicity, color, language,
religion, property, birth, status,
sexual orientation or gender
identity
Psychological  Children’s lack of trust and confidence

that their complaints will be taken
seriously and fairly assessed
 Fear of harassment, further
stigmatization, abandonment or
reprisals against them or their families
 Shame, fear and distrust, which prevent
children from speaking out and seeking
help
 Children do not feel empowered to
assert their rights
Physical and  Unfamiliar and complicated justice

Environmental system creates an intimidating
environment for children
 Physical distance to courts and service
providers
 Harassment, threats, and intimidation
from the perpetrator
Economic  Costs of proceedings discourage children

and their families to file and pursue
complaints
 Lack of financial capacity of children to
act without the support of their parents
or guardians

Legal  Complex justice system is difficult for
children to understand
 Strict time limits on when a case must be
submitted particularly for young children
Institutional and  Lack of specialized judges, prosecutors,

Political lawyers and other personnel working
with children, as well as sufficient
resources to provide specialized training
 Lack of information about where to go
and whom to call for assistance
 Lack of implementation of child-friendly
procedures required to ensure children
are able to give evidence effectively
 Procedures concerning the assessment
and determination of best interests,
treatment and participation of children
in proceedings, including criminal,
administrative and civil proceedings, that
are not adapted to children’s rights and
needs or may even be discriminatory
towards children based on their age and
gender
 Delays in the justice system
c) Child-Friendly Practices to Overcome Barriers
Children get into contact with the legal system as victims, complainants,
witnesses, or offenders. Regardless of the circumstances under which they
enter the justice system, children should be treated in a way that is
consistent with the full realization of their rights. Table 4 provides some
examples of child-friendly practices (taken from the Child Rights
International Network’s Child-Friendly Justice and Children’s Rights)
that minimize barriers to access to justice for children in different
circumstances.

Table 4
Examples of Child-Friendly Justice Practices
Children as victims  Social workers, police officers, teachers,

doctors, nurses, hospital receptionists
and anyone else who might encounter
child victims should receive
appropriate training and be able to
quickly refer them to designated points
of contact in the legal system.
 Steps should immediately be taken to
protect child victims from further harm
and to link them with services they may
need to reach a full physical and
psychological recovery.
 Free 24-hour helplines should be put in
place to offer child victims a chance to
discuss their options before bringing
matters to the attention of authorities.
Children as  Children should have access to free

complainants legal advice to discuss their rights and
the options available for pursuing
violations of these rights.
 Children should be able to initiate legal
proceedings directly, through a parent
or guardian, and through a chosen or
appointed legal representative. Young
adults should also be able to initiate
legal proceedings to address childhood
violations of their rights.
 Court fees, parental permission
requirements, legal representation
mandates, and any other constraints
that might prevent children from
bringing legal proceedings should be
removed.

Children as  Children should be interviewed by
witnesses trained professionals in the presence of
trusted adults. The number of
interviews should be kept to an absolute
minimum; and where multiple
interviews are necessary, the same
interviewer should conduct each
session.
 When a child agrees to testify in court,
measures should be taken to keep the
child at ease. Children should not be
forced to have contact with alleged
perpetrators and, where appropriate,
audio-visual or closed-circuit television
technology should be made available to
facilitate pre-recorded testimony or live
communication from a remote location.
 Children should be asked
straightforward questions in language
that they understand.
 It should never be presumed that
children's testimony or evidence is
untrustworthy or inaccurate simply
because it is not submitted by an adult.
Children as  Any child apprehended by the police

offenders and suspected of wrongdoing should be
given an immediate opportunity to
contact a parent, guardian or trusted
person and provided with access to a
lawyer free of charge.
 Police officers should explain to children
why they have been apprehended in a
way that they can understand, and
should not question children about their
potentially offending behavior until a
parent, guardian, trusted person or
lawyer has arrived.  
 Children should only be detained in
exceptional circumstances and, where
this is necessary, should never be
detained alongside adults.

d) Do’s and Don’ts in Child-Friendly Interviewing
Below is a list of practical steps in interviewing children, which is

taken from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops‘ Do‟s and
Don‟ts of Child-Friendly Interviewing.
 DO’S
o Be friendly and welcoming. Smile! Put the child at ease with

your body language and demeanor.
o Arrange seating so that you can face and speak directly to the
child. Ensure that you are eye-level with the child (and not
standing over her or him).
o Clearly introduce who you are to both the caregiver and the
child. Explain the purpose of the interview and what the child
and caregiver can expect.
o Let the child know that she or he is free to take a break for
water, to use the restroom, or to ―take a breather‖ at any point
in the interview.
o Ask easy questions to start off to help build the child‘s

confidence and comfort level.
o Be creative with the interview. Use child-friendly activities.
o Allow children to give free-narrative responses; patiently take

notes of any follow-up questions you have without
interrupting the child. Start with broad questions, followed by
more specific questions.
o Go off-script. Although you may be using a checklist or form

to direct the interview, the conversation will feel less stilted if
you follow the flow of the conversation in an informal
manner. At the end, look through your checklist to make sure
you have not forgotten any important information.
o Lead the child through the conversation so that she or he can

easily follow the conversation. It is best not to jump from
question to question without introducing new topics.
o Observe the child carefully during the interview. Look for

signs of distress and take appropriate action.

o Take time in the conversation to summarize what has been
discussed. Repeating back to the child what you have
understood lets the child feel that her or his voice is being
heard, and gives them an opportunity to correct any
misunderstandings.
o Leave time for children to ask questions or provide additional

comments.
o Take a deep breath to help handle any strong feelings and

decide to proces s what you are feeling after the interview.
 DONT’S
o Conduct interviews in non-confidential spaces or in places

that are uncomfortable.
o Act like a private investigator or intimidate the child with your

way of questioning.
o Cross-examine the child or assume the child is lying if the

story changes.
o Make assumptions about what children are thinking or

feeling.
o Show any frustration or skepticism during the interview.
o Ignore signs of distress, such as bruises, not talking, or

uncontrollable crying. As a mandated reporter, it is your job
and obligation under law to report suspected child
maltreatment.
o Use closed questions that allow the child only to answer ―Yes‖
or ―No.‖ (―Do you play soccer after school?‖ or ―Do you love
your aunt?‖). Instead ask open-ended questions. (―What
sports do you play afterschool?‖ or ―What activities do you
and your aunt do together?‖)
o Ask two questions in one.
o Further distress the child.
o Leave the child in the middle of telling a traumatic story to go

do something else.

o Forget to balance your time and resources, which could force
you to have to cut off an interview.
o Ignore the questions that children ask you.
o Make false promises.
3.2.15. Child-Friendly Investigation and Inquest
The Committee for the Special Protection of Children (CSPC) was

created by virtue of Executive Order No. 275, s. 1995, amended by
Executive Order No. 53, s. 2011, to serve as the body principally
responsible for coordinating and monitoring the investigation and
prosecution of cases involving violations of R.A. No. 7610 and
other child-related criminal laws. It is chaired by the Department
of Justice and co-chaired by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development.
Pursuant to its general mandate, the CSPC formulated a Protocol
for Case Management of Child Victims of Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation, which it adopted on 31 May 2013 through
Committee Resolution No. 1, s. 2013. The Protocol serves as a
guide for concerned government agencies, non-government
organizations, and other stakeholders in handling child abuse
cases. It highlights the roles and responsibilities of each one from
reporting or referral of a case until its termination to ensure that
child victims are dealt with in a child-sensitive and appropriate
manner. It also illustrates how the different government agencies
and their partners can either work independently or in
coordination with each other throughout the different stages of a
case.
The Protocol establishes the following guidelines for prosecutors

to make the preliminary investigation and inquest processes
child-appropriate:
 Child abuse cases shall be prioritized, over and

above all other cases. If the case is under inquest
investigation, upon receipt of the accomplished
preliminary investigation (PI) form, affidavit of
arrest, investigation report, sworn statements of
complainant/s and witness/es, and other
supporting evidence, commence and terminate
the inquest investigation and file the criminal
information with the appropriate court/s within
the 12, 18, or 36-hour reglementary period stated
under Article 125 (delay in the delivery of

detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities) of the Revised Penal Code.
If the case is under preliminary investigation, issue a notice of

preliminary investigation to all parties upon receipt of a
complaint or referral form with attached sworn statements
and other supporting evidence endorsed by the LEA. Set the
case for preliminary investigation and resolve the matter
within 60 days from receipt of the same.  The CSPC
Chairperson may assign a prosecutor to assist the LEA in case
build up.
 Send all preliminary investigation subpoena and
processes to the child‘s given address. Furnish the
LEA that conducted the investigation (e.g., for
Minor AAA c/o RIDMD IV-A, et al.) of all
subpoena and other processes.
 Observe color-coding of case folders (e.g., pink

for child abuse-related cases, violet for VAW-
related cases).
 A trained prosecutor shall conduct the

investigation in a language or dialect understood
by the child. Legal jargon must not be used in the
presence of a child.
The investigating prosecutor must explain to the child legal

terminologies uttered during the proceedings.
As much as possible, the investigating prosecutor shall require

the presence of a social worker in all stages of the preliminary
investigation.
 The calendar of cases for preliminary

investigation must not indicate the name of the
child to protect his/her identity and privacy.
Instead, the calendar of cases shall use the child‘s
alias as indicated in the LEA endorsement letter
and in the child‘s sworn statement.
 During preliminary investigation, the presence of

the child shall only be required when:

o Taking his/her oath before an administering officer when
subscribing his/her sworn statement and/or reply-
affidavit; and
o Answering clarificatory questioning by the Investigating
Prosecutor
On any other preliminary investigation settings, the child need not

be present and may be represented by his/her parents, guardian,
social worker, or counsel.
 Before administering the oath, explain to the

child the nature and obligation of an oath and
ascertain that he understands it.
 If the affidavit of the child is clear and sufficient,

no clarificatory questions shall be propounded to
avoid multiple interviews that could re-
traumatize the child.
 If clarificatory hearing is necessary it must be

conducted at the earliest time possible. If parties
are represented by respective counsels, send
notices to counsels directing them to submit their
list of questions for the child three (3) working
days before the scheduled preliminary
investigation. Only the investigating prosecutor
shall talk to the child and propound clarificatory
questions using simple, developmentally-
appropriate, and non-threatening words.
 Face-to-face confrontation between the child and

the alleged perpetrator must be avoided at all
times. Screens, one-way mirror, and other devices
that could shield the child from the perpetrator
shall be used. To avoid threatening the child, the
identification of the perpetrator shall be done
after clarificatory hearing is completed.
 Before requesting the child to affix his/her

signature or thumb mark in any minutes or
record of the proceedings, the Investigating
prosecutor must take time to explain to the child
the contents of any documents he is about to sign.

 Direct all parties and their counsels, if there are
any, not to discuss the case and the proceedings
with anyone who is not directly involved therein.
 The media must not be allowed to cover any part

of the investigation, interview or take photos of
the child and other parties involved in the case.
Refer to media guidelines.
 No complaint shall be dismissed on the mere
basis of an affidavit of desistance or recantation
submitted by the child and his/her family or
guardian. The Investigating prosecutor shall exert
all efforts to find out the real cause for the
submission of the affidavit of desistance in
accordance with Department of Justice Circular
No. 54, s. 2002.
 The criminal information shall not indicate the
name of the child. The alias as indicated in the
child‘s affidavit shall be used to protect the child‘s
identity.
 The real name of the child shall be typewritten at

the back page of the resolution and the criminal
information.
3.2.16. Child-Friendly Trial and Examination of Child

Witnesses
a) Protocol for Case Management of Child Victims of

Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation
The Protocol provides the following guidelines for prosecutors

before and during trial of cases involving child abuse, neglect, and
exploitation:
1. Prepare the child and other witnesses before their court

testimony.
2. On a case-to-case basis, identify the sequence of witnesses

that will best help and facilitate the child‘s testimony. If the
child has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), present first
other witnesses or seek continuance of proceedings until the
child is able to testify.

3. With the help and in the presence of the parent, legal
guardian, or social worker, interview the child and prepare the
child for court.
4. Arrange with the Court a one-day trial or marathon hearing to

reduce time in court, minimize child‘s school absence, and
disruption of the child‘s daily routine.
5. Move for exclusion of the public or conduct of hearing in

chambers to protect the identity of the child and ensure the
confidentiality of proceedings.
6. Ensure that there is no direct confrontation between the child

and the alleged perpetrator. Screens, one-way mirrors, and
other devices such as live-link monitors to shield the child
from the accused must be used.
7. If the child is hearing impaired or differently-abled, move for

an appointment of a sign language expert or other
professionals (e.g., special education teacher) who may help
him effectively communicate with the Court.
8. If there is danger to the safety of the child, file a motion for

reception of child‘s testimony through alternative means, e.g.,
Skype or video conferencing, or motion for change of venue of
the case.
9. If the child has developmental delay, and such delay

incapacitates the child to competently testify in court, present
the testimony of a developmental pediatrician to explain to
the Court the reason why the child cannot testify. If the child
is suffering from PTSD, present a psychiatrist, if available, to
explain the condition of the child; the adverse effects of the
abuse on him; and share recommendations to hasten or
facilitate the child‘s healing and recovery.
10. After the child has testified, de-brief the child with the help of
the parent, legal guardian, or social worker; explain what will
happen next; and give the child the opportunity to ask
questions about the process, the case, and articulate other
related issues.
11. If the child is unavailable, prosecute the case by presenting

other witnesses and evidence deemed sufficient to prove the
alleged perpetrator‘s guilt. The child is unavailable in any of
the following:

o Deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory,
mental illness, or will be exposed to severe psychological
injury; or
o Absent from the hearing and attendance in court by the
child cannot be procured by process or other reasonable
means.
o The child‘s hearsay evidence (e.g., audio-taped or

videotaped interview) shall be admissible if corroborated
by other admissible evidence such as the testimony of the
forensic interviewer and the person who recorded,
preserved, and observed the chain of custody of the audio
or video interview.
12. Upon the recommendation of the social worker, request the

Court to issue provisional and/or protection orders for the
child.
13. Tap the assistance of PNP and NBI to locate missing

witnesses.
14. Upon receipt of verified and confirmed information about

alleged perpetrator‘s possible flight, request the Court to issue
a hold departure order.
15. Communicate with the Court the child‘s immediate and long-
term concerns and issues.
16. Keep the child informed about the development of the case.
17. If requested by the case manager, attend a case conference to

help thresh out child‘s issues and concerns that also impact
the case.
b) The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness governs the examination

in court of child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of a
crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply in all proceedings,
whether criminal or non-criminal, involving children. (Sec. 1)
The objectives of this Rule are to create and maintain an environment

that will allow children to give reliable and complete evidence,
minimize trauma to children, encourage children to testify in legal
proceedings, and facilitate the ascertainment of truth. (Sec. 2)

Generally, the examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or
any proceeding shall be done in open court. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. The party
who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such child
witness may, however, move the court to allow him or her to testify in
the manner provided in the Rule. (Sec. 8)
Table 5
Child-Friendly Approaches under the
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
Competency of a child  Every child is presumed qualified to

to testify and be a witness. (Sec. 6)
probative value of the
child’s testimony  Competency examination is
conducted motu proprio or on motion
of a party when the court finds that
substantial doubt exists regarding the
ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish
truth from falsehood, or appreciate
the duty to tell the truth in court. (Sec.
6)
 Corroboration — Corroboration shall

not be required of a testimony of a
child. His or her testimony, if credible
by itself, shall be sufficient to support
a finding of fact, conclusion, or
judgment subject to the standard of
proof required in criminal and non-
criminal cases. (Sec. 22)
Persons who assist  Guardian ad litem – a person who

the child witness may be appointed by the court to
ensure that the best interests of the
child are promoted throughout the
court proceedings. The guardian ad
litem must be familiar with the
judicial process, social service
programs, and child development.
Preference is given to the parents of
the child, if qualified. (Sec. 5)

 Interpreter – a person whom the
child can understand and who
understands the child who may be
appointed by the court motu proprio
or upon motion to interpret for the
child when the child:
o does not understand the English

or Filipino language, or
o is unable to communicate in said
languages due to his
developmental level, fear,
shyness, disability, or other
similar reason (Sec. 9)
 Facilitator – a child psychologist,

psychiatrist, if available, social
worker, guidance counselor, teacher,
religious leader, parent, or relative of
the child who may be appointed by
the court motu proprio or upon
motion when the child is unable to
understand or respond to questions
asked. Counsels for the parties shall
pose their questions to the child only
through the facilitator. (Sec. 10)
 Support person – The child has the

right to be accompanied by one or
two persons of his or her own
choosing to provide him or her
emotional support. (Sec. 11)
Physical  Waiting area for child witnesses —

accommodations and The courts are encouraged to provide
courtroom a waiting area for children that is
management separate from waiting areas used by
other persons. The waiting area for
children should be furnished so as to
make a child comfortable. (Sec. 12)
 Courtroom environment - To create a

more comfortable environment for
the child, the following

accommodations may, in its
discretion, be allowed by the court
without the need to be supported by a
finding of trauma to the child:
o Judge need not wear his or her

judicial robe;
o Court may direct and supervise
the location, movement and
deportment of all persons in the
courtroom including the parties,
their counsel, child, witnesses,
support persons, guardian ad
litem, facilitator, and court
personnel;
o Court may allow the child to
testify from a place other than the
witness chair;
o Court may allow for the witness
chair or other place from which
the child testifies to be turned to
facilitate the child‘s testimony but
the opposing party and his or her
counsel must have a frontal or
profile view of the child during the
testimony of the child; and
o Court may allow for the witness
chair or other place from which
the child testifies to be rearranged
to allow the child to see the
opposing party and his or her
counsel, if he or she chooses to
look at them, without turning his
or her body or leaving the witness
stand. (Sec. 13)
 Excluding the public - When a child

testifies, the court may order the
exclusion from the courtroom of all
persons, including members of the
press, who do not have a direct
interest in the case. (Sec. 23)
 Persons prohibited from entering and

leaving courtroom — The court may
order that persons attending the trial

shall not enter or leave the courtroom
during the testimony of the child.
(Sec. 24)
 Prohibition on compelling the child to

look at the accused – The child cannot
be required to look at the accused
except during official in-court
identification of the accused. (Sec. 13)
 Testimony during appropriate

hours— The court may order that the
testimony of the child should be taken
during a time of day when the child is
well-rested. (Sec. 14)
 Recess during testimony —The child

may be allowed reasonable periods of
relief while undergoing direct, cross,
re-direct, and re-cross examinations
as often as necessary depending on
his or her developmental level. (Sec. 1
Tools  Testimonial aids — The court shall

permit a child to use dolls,
anatomically-correct dolls, puppets,
drawings, mannequins, or any other
appropriate demonstrative device to
assist him in his or her testimony.
(Sec. 16)
 Emotional security item — While

testifying, a child shall be allowed to
have an item of his or her own
choosing, such as a blanket, toy, or
doll. (Sec. 17)
 Screens, one-way mirrors, and other

devices to shield child from accused
—The prosecutor or the guardian ad
litem (after consulting the
prosecutor) may apply for an order
that the chair of the child or that a
screen or other device be placed in

the courtroom in such a manner that
the child cannot see the accused
while testifying. If the court grants
the application, the courtroom shall
be arranged to enable the accused to
view the child. (Sec. 26)
 Live-link television testimony - The

court may order that the testimony
of the child be taken by live-link
television if there is a substantial
likelihood that the child would
suffer trauma from testifying in the
presence of the accused, his or her
counsel or the prosecutor as the case
may be. The trauma must be of a
kind that would impair the
completeness or truthfulness of the
testimony of the child. (Sec. 25)
Questioning the child  Approaching the witness— The

witness court may prohibit a counsel from
approaching a child if it appears that
the child is fearful of or intimidated
by the counsel. (Sec. 18)
 Mode of questioning— The court

shall exercise control over the
questioning of children so as to (1)
facilitate the ascertainment of the
truth; (2) ensure that questions are
stated in a form appropriate to the
developmental level of the child; (3)
protect children from harassment or
undue embarrassment; and (4) avoid
waste of time. The court may allow
the child witness to testify in a
narrative form. (Sec. 19)
 Leading questions — The court may

allow leading questions in all stages
of examination of a child if the same
will further the interests of justice.
(Sec. 20)

 Objections to questions— Objections
to questions should be couched in a
manner so as not to mislead,
confuse, frighten, or intimidate the
child. (Sec. 21)
Evidentiary rules  Videotaped deposition - The

prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad
litem may apply for an order that a
deposition be taken of the testimony
of the child and that it be recorded
and preserved on videotape. If, at the
time of trial, the court finds that the
child is unable to testify because
there is a substantial likelihood that
the child would suffer trauma from
testifying in the presence of the
accused, his or her counsel or the
prosecutor as the case may be; or the
child is unavailable for any reason
described in Section 4(c), Rule 23 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the
court may admit into evidence the
videotaped deposition of the child in
lieu of his testimony at the trial. (Sec.
27)
 Hearsay exception in child abuse

cases — A statement made by a child
describing any act or attempted act of
child abuse, not otherwise admissible
under the hearsay rule, may be
admitted in evidence in any criminal
or non-criminal proceeding under
certain conditions. (Sec. 28)
 Videotaped and audiotaped in-depth

investigative or disclosure interviews
in child abuse cases — The court may
admit videotape and audiotape in-
depth investigative or disclosure
interviews as evidence, under certain
conditions. (Sec. 29)

 Sexual abuse shield rule —The
following evidence is not admissible in
any criminal proceeding involving
alleged child sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the

alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the

sexual predisposition of the alleged
victim.
Evidence of specific instances of

sexual behavior by the alleged victim
to prove that a person other than the
accused was the source of semen,
injury, or other physical evidence shall
be admissible. (Sec. 30)
Protection of privacy  Confidentiality of records — Any

and safety record regarding a child shall be
confidential and kept under seal.
Except upon written request and
order of the court, a record shall only
be released to the members of the
court staff for administrative use; the
prosecuting attorney; defense
counsel; guardian ad litem; agents of
investigating law enforcement
agencies; and other persons as
determined by the court. (Sec. 31[a]
 Protective order — Any videotape or

audiotape of a child that is part of the
court record shall be under a
protective order. (Sec. 31[b])
 Additional protective orders— The

court may, motu proprio or
on motion of any party, the child, his
parents, legal guardian, or the

guardian ad litem, issue additional
orders to protect the privacy of the
child. (Sec. 31[c])
 Publication of identity contemptuous

— Whoever publishes or causes to be
published in any format the name,
address, telephone number, school,
or other identifying information of a
child who is or is alleged to be a
victim or accused of a crime or a
witness thereof, or an immediate
family of the child shall be liable to
the contempt power of the court.
(Sec. 31[d])
 Non-disclosure of personal
identifying information — A child
has a right at any court proceeding
not to testify regarding personal
identifying information, including his
or her name, address, telephone
number, school, and other
information that could endanger his
or her physical safety or his or her
family. The court may, however,
require the child to testify regarding
personal identifying information in
the interest of justice. (Sec. 31[e])
 Destruction of videotapes and

audiotapes — Any videotape or
audiotape of a child produced under
the provisions of this Rule or
otherwise made part of the court
record shall be destroyed after five (5)
years have elapsed from the date of
entry of judgment. (Sec. 31[f])
 Records of youthful offender— Where

a youthful offender has been charged
before any city or provincial
prosecutor or before any municipal
judge and the charges have been
ordered dropped, all the records of
the case shall be considered as

privileged and may not be disclosed
directly or indirectly to anyone for any
purpose whatsoever. (Sec. 31[g])
3.2.16. PROCEDURE IN CASES INVOLVING CHILDREN
A. INQUEST PROCEEDINGS
1. If the Child is the Complainant
The presence of the child during the inquest proceedings shall not
be required unless his statement is found wanting in material or
substantial details and it is considered necessary to have him
further examined, in which event the inquest prosecutor shall:
a. Give the case first priority;
b. Have the proceedings conducted as far as practicable in the

Provincial/ City Prosecutor‘s Office during regular office
hours;
c. Conduct the examination of the child in the presence and with

the assistance of his/her parents, guardian, custodian and/or
authorized representative;
d. Ensure against undue and sensationalized publicity, especially

where the charge involves a crime against chastity;
e. See to it that the child is not subjected to any form of

harassment or undue influence from any party, particularly in
cases where the alleged offender is the child‘s parents,
guardian, custodian, or one who has official, moral, social or
financial ascendancy over the child;
f. Take down the name, address, age and date of birth of the
child, as well as the name and address of the child‘s parents,
guardian or custodian, and reflect the same in the record of
the case/proceedings; and
g. Not to countenance the withdrawal/dismissal of the case in

the course of the inquest proceedings unless made with the
express conformity or consent of the child and the latter‘s
parent/s, guardian, custodian or authorized representative. In
case of conflict, the child‘s wish or decision shall prevail.

2. If the Child is the Suspect
The inquest prosecutor shall determine the age of the child on the
basis of:
a. Documentary proof such as, but not limited to, birth

certificates, baptismal certificates, school record, dental chart,
etc.;
b. Testimony of parent/guardian if not controverted; or,
c. Physical appearance of the child.
If the child is fifteen (15) years of age or under, the

complaint shall be dismissed immediately. If the child is over
fifteen (15) but under eighteen (18) years of age, the
inquest prosecutor shall determine whether or not the former
acted with discernment in committing the act complained of and
if he finds that the child did not act with discernment, he
shall:
1. Immediately prepare a written report of his findings,

recommending therein the dismissal of the case and the
immediate release of the child from custody;
2. Submit the same to the Provincial/City Prosecutor or the

Chief of the Inquest Division, as the case may be, for
appropriate action; and
3. Pending approval/disapproval of his recommendation, cause

the child to be placed under the custody of the DSWD or other
authorized person or entity;
If the inquest prosecutor finds that the child acted with

discernment, he shall proceed in accordance with the rules
and procedure established by RA 9344, otherwise known as
―the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006‖.
3. Guidelines in the Conduct of All Inquest Proceedings

Involving a Child:
The inquest prosecutor shall:
a. As far as practicable, conduct the proceedings in the Office of

the Provincial/ City Prosecutor during regular office hours;

b. See to it that the child is accompanied and assisted by the
parents, guardian, custodian and/or authorized
representative;
c. Ensure that the child is provided with competent legal

assistance;
d. Make sure that the child is not co-mingled with adult

detainees in one and the same detention cell;
e. Take care that the child is not subjected to any form of

coercion, harassment or undue influence from any party
wielding parental, custodial, official, moral, social or financial
ascendancy over the child;
f. In no case employ any form of deceit or false promises during

the investigation process; and
g. Ensure the case/proceedings against undue and

sensationalized publicity.
The inquest prosecutor shall reflect in the record of the
case/proceedings the name, identity and address, age and
date of birth, of the child as well as the name and address of
the parent/s, guardian, custodian and/or authorized
representative.
B. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
The prosecutor shall conduct a preliminary investigation only in the

following instances:
 When the child does not qualify for diversion;
 When the child, the parent or guardian does not agree to

diversion;
 When diversion is not appropriate for the child, after considering

the assess-ment and recommendation of the social worker; and
 When the child fails to comply with the terms and conditions of
the contract of diversion. (Sec. 26, chapter 2, RA 9344)
Upon serving the subpoena and the affidavit of complaint, the

prosecutor shall notify the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) of such
service as well as personal information and place of detention of the
child (Sec. 33, chapter 3, RA 9344).

1. If the child is the victim
The presence of the child during the preliminary investigation shall

not be required. Where it is considered necessary that the child be
summoned for clarificatory questioning, the investigating prosecutor
shall:
a. Conduct the examination of the child in the presence and with

the assistance of his/her parent/s, guardian, custodian and/or
authorized representative or social worker;
b. Ensure the case and/or the proceedings against sensationalism

and undue publicity, especially where the charge involves the
commission of a crime against chastity;
c. See to it that the child is not subjected to any form of

harassment or undue Minfluence from any party, particularly
in cases where the of-fender is the parent/s guardian, or
custodian, or one who has official, moral, social or financial
ascendancy over the child; and
d. Make sure that the name, address, age and date of birth of the
child, as well as the name and address of the parent/s,
guardian or custodian are duly reflected in the record of the
case.
2. If the child is the respondent
In the course of the preliminary investigation, all summons,

subpoenas and notices shall be served on or sent to the child through
the parent/s, guardian, custodian, or authorized representative.
The presence/attendance of the child during the preliminary

investigation proceedings shall not be required unless it is considered
necessary for clarificatory questioning, in which case, the
Investigating Prosecutor shall:
a. Conduct the examination of the child in the presence of the

parent/s, guardian, custodian and/or authorized
representative or Local Social Welfare Development Officer
(LSWDO), and with the assistance of a competent legal
counsel;
b. See to it that the fundamental rights of the child are fully

protected and safeguarded;

c. Take care that any party wielding parental, custodial, official,
moral, social or financial ascendancy over the child does not
subject the latter to any form of coercion, harassment or
undue influence;
d. Ensure the case/proceedings against undue and
sensationalized publicity.
e. Make sure that the name, address, age and date of birth of the
child, as well as the name and address of the parent/s,
guardian or custodian are duly reflected in the record of the
case.
Confidentiality of all records should always be maintained.
C. PROTECTIVE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD
The child shall be placed under the protective custody of the Social
Welfare and Development or other accredited NGOs pending inquest
and/or preliminary investigation proceedings.
D. TERMINATION OF INQUEST/PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
Upon the termination of the inquest/preliminary investigation

proceedings, notice of the action taken on the case by the
inquest/preliminary investigating officer shall be given to the child
victim, the child in conflict with the law and their parent/s, guardian,
custodian or authorized representative.

CHAPTER V
LEGAL WRITING AND LEGAL FORMS
Section 5.1. OVERVIEW
Effective communication, particularly written communication, is one of

the most important tools that every lawyer must posses in his/her arsenal.
Indeed, some would even argue that a lawyer‘s ability to communicate is
sometimes more important than his/her knowledge of the law itself.
Fundamental Objective of Communication
The key objective of communication, whether oral or written, is for a party

(the ―sender‖) to be able to convey a message to another party (the
―receiver‖), with the message bearing the same meaning as the sender
intended it to bear. That message may be informative, argumentative,
descriptive, etc.. Whatever that message and its purpose may be, the
important thing is for it to be conveyed.
Challenges to Effective Communication
Among the challenges to effective communication are, as follows:
 Language – If the message sender and receiver speak different

languages, chances are they will not be able to effectively
communicate;
 Background – The orientation or background of the message sender

vis-à-vis that of the receiver may result in each of them having varied
appreciation of the context within a communication may be framed;
 Understanding of words/phrases - This also proceeds from the

varied backgrounds between the message sender and receiver. Thus
certain words of phrases might bear to denote different meanings to
each of them;
 Inability to translate thought to words – Sometimes, the

message sender has difficulty translating into (written) words the
thoughts or ideas that run in his/her head.
Keys to Effective Communication
Among the remedies to combat the above challenges may be the following:

 Know your reader – By knowing his/her reader, the message
sender may be able to tailor-fit his/her message in a way that the
reader will be readily able to understand;
 Say what you mean, and mean what you say - Often, the
message sender just needs to say exactly what it is that he/she means
to say, without resorting to flowery language or ambiguous idiomatic
expressions or figures of speech;
 Use short sentences (tie in the readers’ background) -

Verbose language may often result to a breakdown in communication;
 Format for better readability (use lists, headings, sub-

headings, bullets, etc.) - Formatting tools can be of tremendous
help in making our messages clearer and more understandable to the
reader.
Section 5.2. TWO STAGES OF WRITING: PRE-WORK AND

ACTUAL WRITING
Justice Roberto Abad, in his book The Fundamentals of Legal Writing,

divides the task of legal writing into two major stages: pre-work and actual
writing. Both are equally important. That said, however, it should be
noted that a good pre-work will help ensure ease of actual writing.
1. Pre-work
Before diving into actual writing, a writer must first organize his thoughts
and figure out exactly what it is that he/she needs or wants to write. For
public prosecutors drafting case resolutions, pre-work will consist of:
i. Discovering relevant facts;

ii. Identifying where the legal dispute lies;
iii. Identifying the issues that need to be addressed;
iv. Identifying the applicable laws/rules;
v. Formulation of theory/arguments (outline).
If the writer is unclear with his/her material in thought, there

is almost no chance that he/she can be clear about it in
writing.
It will be helpful, too, if the prosecutor can make an outline of the

resolution, based on his/her above findings.

2. Actual Writing
Only after the prosecutor has organized his/her thoughts should he/she
now delve into the actual writing or drafting of the resolution.
Section 5.3. COMMON GRAMMATICAL ERRORS
Errors in grammar are among the chief hindrances to effective

communication in the sense that the writer is unable to express what
he/she truly intends to say. This may result in the reader either (i) being
unable to comprehend the message that is meant to be conveyed or,
worse, (ii) understanding the message in the wrong way.
Among the more common grammatical errors committed by professionals

are:
1. Improper subject-verb agreement
“Each and every lawyer in the world are craving for a chance to
propound oral arguments before the highest court of the land.” --
WRONG
The correct way should be ―(E)ach and every lawyer in the world IS
craving for chance to propound…‖. ―Each and every‖ refers to a
singular subject, not plural.
“Either the accused or his wife are guilty of the crime of estafa.” --
WRONG
The correct way should be ―(E)ither the accused or his wife IS guilty
of…‖. If the pairings either/or (often the either is omitted) or
neither/nor form part of the subject of a verb and both elements are
singular, then the verb must be singular too.
“Neither the professor nor his students knows the correct usage of
„neither…nor‟.” -- WRONG
The correct way should be ―(N)either the professor nor his students
KNOW the correct…‖. In this case, the rule is: if the pairings
either/or (often the either is omitted) or neither/nor form part of
the subject and at least one of the elements is plural, then the verb
must be plural too.

Another acceptable way of doing this is by abiding by the PROXIMITY
RULE. Under this rule, the verb should be governed by the element
nearest to it. Example:
―Neither the judge nor the lawyers WERE in the courtroom.‖ (since
the verb ―were‖ follows the subject ―lawyers‖ which is plural)
―Either the lawyers or the judge IS mistaken.‖ (since the verb ―is‖
follows the subject ―judge‖ which is singular)
―The accused, together with his companions, are hereby charged with
the crime of robbery.‖ -- WRONG
The correct way should be ―(T)he accused, together with his

companions, IS hereby…‖. The ―phrase ―together with his
companions‖ does not form part of the subject.
“A bouquet of red roses accentuate the room.” – WRONG
The correct way should be ―(A) bouquet of red roses ACCENTUATES

the room.‖. The real subject here is the ―bouquet‖ (which is singular),
not the ―red roses‖.
2. Improper subject-pronoun matching
―Fr. Lopez and her friends went to the museum.‖ -- WRONG
―Private complainant, Maria Ozawa, is charging respondent, Cesar

Montano, of bigamy. He claims that, prior to their marriage, she had
already contracted a previous marriage with one Sunshine Cruz.‖ –
WRONG
Needless to state, the improper or careless use of pronouns to denote

a particular subject can be very confusing, and can lead to significant
miscommunication.
3. Dangling participial phrase
“WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the complaint, the same is hereby

dismissed.” – WRONG
The correct way should be ―(W)HEREFORE, finding no merit in the

complaint, THIS COURT hereby dismisses the same.‖ In the previous
example, the participial phrase ―finding no merit in the complaint‖ is
deemed dangling because it is not connected to its proper subject, i.e.,
the person or thing that ―finds no merit in the complaint‖ – which is
the court.

4. Misplaced modifiers
“On her way home, the accused found a gold man‟s bracelet.” –
WRONG
The correct way should be ―(O)n her way home, the accused found
man‘s GOLD bracelet.‖. The modifier should always immediately
precede the word it seeks to modify. This is to ensure clarity.
“The accused nearly stabbed the victim 20 times.” – WRONG

“She saw a puppy and a kitten on the way to the grocery store.” –
WRONG
Following our rule that the modifier should immediately precede the
word it seeks to modify, these sentences should have been written,
thus:
―The accused stabbed the victim NEARLY 20 times.‖
―One the way to the grocery store, she saw a puppy and a kitten.‖
The illustration below will highlight how a simple repositioning of a

modifier within a sentence may result in totally different messages:
“Nadia just contributed P1,000.00 to the fund.” – Here, the emphasis

is on the the timing of the contribution (i.e., it was done very recently).
“Just Nadia contributed P1,000.00 to the fund.” – Here, the emphasis

is on the fact that it was only Nadia alone who contributed to the fund.
“Nadia contributed just P1,000.00 to the fund.” – Here, the emphasis

is on the meagerness of the amount contributed.
5. Improper use of prepositions
Set forth below are the correct prepositions to use given a particular
verb:
―Charged WITH…‖
―Accused OF…‖
―Indicted FOR…‖
―Different FROM…‖ (merely denotes difference)
―Better/Worse THAN…‖ (apart from denoting difference, it also
suggests superiority/inferiority)

Thus:
―Jude is being charged WITH concubinage. Concubinage is different
FROM adultery, and is much better THAN rape.‖ – CORRECT
6. Ambiguous Pronouns
Writers should be careful to avoid using ambiguous pronouns as this

will necessarily result in vagueness of the message. Example:
“Laura has a gift for Diane, but can‟t give it because she‟s currently
out of town.” – WRONG. It is unclear who between Laura and Diane
is out of town.
“Plaintiff‟s car collided with defendant‟s van because it was

positioned on the wrong side of the road.‖ – WRONG. It is unclear
whose car is on the wrong side of the road.
7. Importance of concise use of word
It is also important to use the correct specific word or phrase that truly
encapsulates what the writer intends to say, as the use of an incorrect
word or term may denote something different. For prosecutors (or
litigators, in general), this may then have a bearing on the evidence
that they will present in court vis-à-vis the given fact that they want to
establish. Examples:
 ―hack‖ vs. ―stab‖ – different motion altogether

 ―lent‖ vs. ―borrowed‖ – difference in orientation
 ―sold‖ vs. ―purchased‖ – difference in orientation
 ―The accused returned the P600,000.00 to the complainant‖ vs.
―The accused paid Php600,000.00 to the complainant.‖ In the
first sentence, there is a connotation that the accused previously
took Php600,000.00 from the complainant due to the use of the
word ―returned‖.
Finally, the writer should make sure that he/she uses the correct word
in cases of homophones. Examples:
 ―ensure‖ vs. ―insure‖

 ―allude‖ vs. ―elude‖
 ―affect‖ vs. ―effect‖
 ―compliment‖ vs. ―complement‖

Section 5.4. MODERN LEGAL WRITING
The thrust should always be on clarity of message more than anything

else. The writer should write to express, rather than impress.
Some useful tips to help achieve clarity:
1. Language
 grammar, style, tone, and being conscious of the target audiences‘

knowledge, requirements, and level of sophistication;
2. Organization
 effective sequencing or arranging of thought, topic flow,

transitions, and structure
3. Brevity
 Get to the point; drop verbiage
Things that a writer must lose:
1. Legalese
Counterintuitive as it may seem, the modern trend is to do away with

legalese and, instead, use plain, easy-to-understand words and phrases
whenever possible.
Plain English vs. Legalese
 Plain English is clear and straightforward expression, using only

as many words as are necessary;
 Plain English avoids obscurity, inflated vocabulary and

convoluted sentence construction;
 Plain English lets reader concentrate on the message instead of

being distracted by complicated language; makes sure that their
audience understands the message easily;
 Legalese or legalisms do not refer to unsimplifiable legal terms

like subpoena or injunction but to the legal jargon that has an
everyday English equivalent.

all archaic and outdated ―Know All Men By These
phrases Presents‖
foreign phrases that have en toto, inter alia, arguendo, ab

plain language substitutes initio
vague “pointers” Herein, hereunder, hereinafter,

hereinbefore, hereinabove,
heretofore, therein, thereunder,
thereunto; aforementioned,
abovementioned
Stilted, useless “pointers” Such, said, same
Useless “grab-alls” Whatsoever, whensoever,

wheresoever, whosoever
Here are some ways we can re-write ―legalese‖ into simpler, easier to
understand plain English:
LEGALESE PLAIN ENGLISH
He contributed part of his PDAF He contributed part of his PDAF

to the ABA NGO. On 27 to the ABA NGO. On 27
November 2015, he deposited P3 November 2015, he deposited P3
Billion to said NGO. Billion to THAT NGO.
He prepared the application. On He prepared the application. On

May 2, he filed the same. May 2, he filed it.
Or, simply
He prepared the application and

filed it on May 2.
Under such agreement, the Under the agreement, the

parties… parties…
Genan brought a civil action… Genan sued…
In the instant case… In this case, …
Inasmuch as Since, because

Some more examples of legalese:
LEGALESE PLAIN ENGLISH
Pursuant to Rule 45, … Under Rule 45, …
Anent the claim, … About the claim, …

Or
Regarding the claim…
Prior to/Subsequent to… Before/After…
Thereafter, Lisa returned to her Later, Lisa returned to her office.

office.
In the event the Seller fails… If the Seller fails…

Or
Should the Seller fail…
The undersigned hereby agrees… The [party] hereby agrees…
2. Excess Baggage
Lawyers also have the tendency to ―overdo‖ their writing by including

certain words or phrases that, while displaying sophistication, does not
really add much clarity to the message that the lawyer is trying to get
across.
Some examples:
Too many “notes” We note that, It should be noted

that, It bears noting, It is
noteworthy
Ridiculous hyperbole It is our considered opinion,
Nothing is more established in
law, It cannot be
overemphasized
Agreeing too much It is agreed, It is further agreed,
the Parties agree, I agree, You
agree, It is understood and
agreed, We confirm our
agreement
Too many “notes” We note that, It should be noted
that, It bears noting, It is
noteworthy

3. Passive Voice
Whenever possible, the writer should always endeavor to use the active
voice, rather than the passive voice. Hence:
Not – The decision was rendered by the Honorable Court.

But – The Honorable Court rendered the decision.
4. Fear of Graphics
As the adage goes, a picture paints a thousand words. Sometimes,

pictures are better able to convey a particular message.
Prosecutors are invited to resort to use of graphics if and when this will
help convey the correct message or sentiment that goes into a resolution.
Some examples:
This might denote homicide or even murder.
This, on the other hand, might easily and more graphically denote
treachery.

The above graphic may clearly illustrate robbery (or, specifically, a ―riding
in tandem‖ party).
Section 5.5. COMMON PROSECUTORIAL FORMS
1. Resolutions
Resolutions must contain:
i. Caption
ii. Body
iii. Dispositive Portion
iv. Relevant Signature(s)
a. The Caption should contain:
1. Title of the issuing office

2. Names of all the complainants and all of the respondents
3. NPS Number
4. The offense charged
b. The Body of a resolution should contain:
1. A brief summary of the facts of the case

2. A concise statement of the issues involved
3. Analysis of the facts vis-à-vis laws
4. The findings and recommendations of the Investigating
Prosecutor
Prosecutors should endeavor to summarize the statements of the

complainant and his/her witnesses. There should be no need to quote

everything that these persons alleged verbatim. Rather, it should be
enough that their statements or allegations are presented in a clear
albeit summary fashion.
c. The Dispositive Portion should contain:
1. Contains the conclusion of the Investigating Prosecutor

2. DISMISSAL OF THE CASE or RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FILING OF INFORMATION(s)
Below is a suggested simple outline for an efficient resolution:
A. Nature of the Case

B. Facts as alleged by the complainant(s)
C. Evidence submitted by complainants(s)
D. Facts as alleged by the respondent(s)
E. Evidence submitted by respondent(s)
F. Issue(s)
G. Analysis of facts vis-à-vis law (elements of the crime[s]
charge)
H. Conclusion/Recommendation
See Volume 3 for some samples of resolutions (including a proposed

template for a resolution in an inquest proceeding).
2. Information
Sec. 4 Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides
that:
An Information is an accusation in writing, charging a person with an

offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.
Relatedly, Sec. 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

provides that an information must:
i. State the name of the accused

ii. The designation of the offense given by statute
iii. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense

(including qualifiying or aggravating circumstances)
iv. Name of offended party
v. Approximate date of the commission
vi. Place where the offense was committed

In a couple of its recent decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that, in
alleging qualifying aggravating circumstances (e.g., treachery, evident
premeditation, etc.), it is enough that the information actually alleges or
mentions these qualifying aggravating circumstance, without a need to
elaborate on how these were actually carried out.
Thus, in People vs. Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438 (2002), the Supreme Court
held that:
―An Information to be sufficient must contain all the elements required by

the Rules on Criminal Procedure. In the crime of murder, the qualifying
circumstance raising the killing to the category of murder must be
specifically alleged in the Information. The Information is sufficient as
long as the qualifying circumstance is recited in the Information,
regardless of whether designated as aggravating or qualifying, or whether
written separately in another paragraph or lumped together with the
general averments in a single paragraph.‖
This doctrine was reiterated in the more recent case of People vs. Asilan,
G.R. No. 188322 (2012) where the Supreme Court ruled:
―Asilan also claims that his constitutional right to be informed of the

nature and cause of accusation against him was infringed when he was
convicted for Murder, since the manner by which he carried out the killing
with the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not alleged in the
Information against him. Thus, he asserts, he was effectively only charged
with Homicide.
xxx xxx xxx
―This Court held that ‗[u]nder Section 6, the Information is sufficient if it

contains the full name of the accused, the designation of the offense given
by the statute, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of
the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense.‘
The Information herein complied with these conditions. Contrary to
Asilan‘s contention, the qualifying circumstance of ‗treachery‘ was
specifically alleged in the Information. The rule is that qualifying
circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to
violate the accused‘s constitutional right to be properly informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him."598
598
Compare these doctrines in Lab-Eo and Asilan with that in People vs. Valdez, G.R. No. (2013).
Note that Valdez is actually the later case.

See Volume 3 for some samples of informations.
3. Judicial Affidavits and Internal Memoranda
Supreme Court circular A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (2012) governs and prescribes
the form of Judicial Affidavits (―JA‖).
Prosecutors mainly need to bear in mind the importance of the fluidity

and chronology of allegations presented through the questions and
answers, not different from a seamless direct examination. After all, a JA
is simply just that -- a transcript of the direct examination of a witness.
It may also be worth remembering there are actually two affidavits

comprising a JA: first is the direct examination/testimony of the witness,
the second is the attestation by the examining counsel. Both parts must be
subscribed and sworn to (by the witness and counsel, respectively).
See Volume 3 for a sample Judicial Affidavit.
4. Trial Brief
A trial brief is usually an internal document generated to serve as a guide

for the prosecutor in the course of trial. It tells the prosecutor what
he/she needs to prove and how (i.e., what evidence to present to proof a
particular fact or element of a crime). It can also tell the prosecutor what
defenses he/she might anticipate to encounter from the accused, or what
evidence the accused may present in support of a particular defense. With
this, the prosecutor can better prepare to discredit these pieces of defense
evidence, or to present rebuttal evidence, if necessary.
5. Internal Memoranda
Intra-office memorandum is also a vital tool for communication within

and among prosecutors, and within personnel in the Department, as a
whole. While no hard-and-fast rule nor template exists or is prescribed,
the rules governing the writing of internal memoranda should not deviate
the basic rules governing legal writing in general, as discussed above.
Thus, clarity of message should invariably be the priority. Of course,

respectful language, with a certain degree of formality, is expected. After
all, public prosecutors are professionals in every sense.

CHAPTER VI
VALUES AND ETHICS IN PROSECUTION
Section 6.1 OVERVIEW
Public prosecutors play a unique role in the justice system. Thus, there
are some fundamental ethical laws, rules, and principles that aim to
specifically govern the conduct of public prosecutors vis-à-vis their unique
role.
The Role of the Public Prosecutor
1. The client is the State (not the private complainant)
Ultimately, the client of the public prosecutor is NOT the private

complainant. Rather, it is the state. This is in contrast with that of the
public attorney, whose clients are the defendants/accused in their private
capacities. Thus, much unlike the public attorneys, public prosecutors
have no private interests to look out for, and their sole duty is to protect
and advance the interests of the state. As held by the Supreme Court in
the case of Yangco vs. Millan, 57 Phil. 761, ―(I)t is not enough for the
prosecutor to serve the public, he should serve them well. He must take
steps as will adequately safeguard the people‘s interest.‖
2. The primary function is to secure justice (not convictions)
“I should bear in mind that in serving the state, I am not expected to

send innocent persons to jail; neither am I expected to let the guilty
go unpunished.” (Prosecutor‘s Credo)
As provided in the Code of Professional Responsibility, ―(T)he primary

duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is NOT TO CONVICT, but
to see that justice is done.‖ Again, this principle proceeds from the basic
norm that the public prosecutor serves only the interests of the state, and
the state is not so much after convictions as it is after the administration of
justice.
Section 6.2 SIGNIFICANT SOURCES OF ETHICS LAWS/RULES

FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTORS
Set forth below are some of the more significant sources of ethical
laws/rules that govern the conduct of public prosecutors:

 Republic Act (RA) No. 6713, or the ―Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards‖
1. RA No. 3019, or the ―Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act‖
2. Code of Professional Responsibility (―CPR‖)
3. Revised Penal Code (―RPC‖)
4. Code of Conduct for Prosecutors (―CCP‖)
Section 6.3 COMMON ETHICAL ISSUES ENCOUNTERED BY

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS
Among the more common ethical issues hounding public prosecutors in

the discharge of their functions are: (i) corruption/bribery/abuse of
autority (ii) acceptance of ―gifts‖, and (iii) conflict of interest.599
Set forth below are some of the more salient laws/rules regarding these
ethical issues.
Corruption/Bribery/Abuse of Authority
a. Revised Penal Code
i. Direct Bribery — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an

act or omission, in connection with the performance of his official
duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present
received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of
another.
ii. Indirect bribery — Acceptance of gifts offered to him/her by

reason of his/her office.
iii. Qualified bribery – Public officer (entrusted with law

enforcement) refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender
who committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present
b. Republic Act No. 3019
iv. Commitment to public interest - Public officials and employees

shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal
interest. All government resources and powers of their respective
offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly
599
Based on a training needs assessment survey conducted by the American Bar Association Rule of
Law Initiative and the Department of Justice in early 2016-2017.

and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds
and revenues.
v. Simple living - Public officials and employees and their families

shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income.
They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of
wealth in any form.
vi. Corrupt Practice - Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving

any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for
any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other part, wherein the public
officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
vii. Prohibition on private individuals - It shall be unlawful for any

person having family or close personal relation with any public
official to capitalize, exploit, or take advantage of such family or
close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage
from any other person having some business, transaction,
application, request or contract with the government, in which
such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include
the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third
civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close
personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and
professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures
free access to such public officer.
viii. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth – If a public official has

been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in
his name or in the name of other persons, wealth that is
manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful
income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal.
Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of
such public official may be taken into consideration, when their
acquisition through legitimate means cannot be
satisfactorily shown.
Acceptance of “gifts”
i. "Gift" refers to a thing or a right to dispose of gratuitously, or any

act or liberality, in favor of another who accepts it, and shall
include a simulated sale or an ostensibly onerous disposition
thereof. It shall not include an unsolicited gift of nominal or
insignificant value not given in anticipation of, or in

exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee (RA
No. 3019)
ii. "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or

indirectly, a gift from a person other than a member of his family
or relative, even on the occasion of a family celebration or national
festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is neither
nominal nor insignificant, or the gift is given in
anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor (RA No. 3019)
iii. A prosecutor should not receive money, gift, or reward in relation

to a case under inquest proceeding, summary investigation, or
preliminary investigation pending before, or disposed by him/her
or by any other prosecutor. (Sec. 5.6, CCP)
Conflict of interest
i. ―Conflict of interest‖ – a situation where the concerns or aims two

different parties are incompatible; related to perceived bias;
ii. A prosecutor should refrain from handling the inquest

proceeding, summary investigation, or preliminary investigation
of a case when a conflict of interest arises (Sec. 5.5, CCP)
iii. When is there conflict of interest?
 ―moonlighting‖ (see Sec. C.1 of the CCP);

 when the lawyer of one of the litigants is a family member or
friend of the prosecutor;
 when the prosecutor is personally interested in the subject
matter of the case
Section 6.4. SOME ETHICAL ISSUES UNIQUE TO

PROSECUTORS
Primarily due to the unique role that they play in the administration of
justice, public prosecutors are likewise exposed to certain legal ethics
issues that are, to a large extent, distinctive to their functions. Below are
just two these ethical issues characteristic of the unique role that public
prosecutors perform.
1. Probable Cause vs. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In his article Revisiting Legal and Judicial Ethics: Challenges and

Perspectives, Justice Hilarion Aquino gives an excellent and
comprehensive discourse on this controversial topic and poses the

following ethical dilemma and discusses it for serious consideration by the
public prosecutors:
―Is it ethical for a prosecutor to file the Information in the

awareness that all the evidence that he has establishes only
“probable cause”, which of course is insufficient to convict the
accused.”
According to Justice Aquino, the rule is that a finding of probable cause is

necessary for the filing of the information, but it does not follow that,
where there is probable cause – without anything more – the information
must be filed.
Thus, it is incumbent upon public prosecutors to very carefully balance the
interests of the state with that of the accused as a private individual.
Justice Aquino continues his rhetoric, thus:
“Is it ethical to indict a person for the commission of an offense

which immediately and inevitably puts him and the members of
his family to shame, incarcerates him if the crime charged is
non-bailable, or even if bailable, if he cannot afford to post bail,
burdens him with expenses of litigation and attorney‟s fees, and
makes him suffer anxiety and the inconveniences of trial with
time and effort spent, when all that the prosecutor has is
evidence showing the probability of the indictee‟s guilt?”
In conclusion, Justice Aquino plainly concludes:
“To answer that in the affirmative is, to me, to tolerate an

injustice, if not an oppression.
xxx
Why indeed should a prosecutor be allowed to gamble with the

honor, the liberty, the property, and the well-being of a person in
the crucible of a criminal proceeding on the basis of a mere
expectancy: that his inadequate evidence might perchance be
fortified or rehabilitated during trial?”
2. Exculpatory Evidence
To be clear, public prosecutors are not only ethically, but also legally
obliged to disclose any exculpatory facts or evidence that is in their control
or possession. This is another ethical (or legal) issue that is unique to
public prosecutors as it is, at the very least, counter-intuitive given the
public prosecutors‘ primary legal orientation.

Thus, the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly provides:
“…The suppression of facts or concealment of witnesses capable

of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is a cause for disciplinary action.” (Rule 6.01,
CPR)
So, too, the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors reiterates this very important
ethical norm, thus:
A prosecutor should not suppress facts or conceal witnesses relevant to

establishing the innocence of the accused. (Sec. 1.5, CCP)
This principle, of course, proceeds from the fundamental concept that the
primary duty of the public prosecutor is NOT to convict, but rather to
secure justice. Hence, public prosecutors are obliged to disclose
exculpatory evidence even this will result in the dismissal of their case and
the acquittal of the accused.
In such cases where public prosecutors actually disclose exculpatory

evidence to the court, thus resulting in the acquittal of the accused, has the
prosecutor failed? The answer, of course, is a resounding ―no‖, since the
exposé or revelation of the exculpatory evidence, thereby causing the
dismissal of the case against the accused, has actually resulted in the ends
of justice being served.

CHAPTER VII
RELEVANT LAWS/ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
Section 7.1 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6981 April 24, 1991
“AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A WITNESS PROTECTION,

SECURITY AND BENEFIT PROGRAM AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES”
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Name of Act. - This Act shall be known as the "Witness

Protection, Security and Benefit Act".
Section 2. Implementation of Program. - The Department of

Justice, hereinafter referred to as the Department, through its Secretary,
shall formulate and implement a "Witness Protection, Security and Benefit
Program", hereinafter referred to as the Program, pursuant to and
consistent with the provisions of this Act.
The Department may call upon any department, bureau, office or any
other executive agency to assist in the implementation of the Program and
the latter offices shall be under legal duty and obligation to render such
assistance.
Section 3. Admission into the Program. - Any person who has

witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of a crime
and has testified or is testifying or about to testify before any judicial or
quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority, may be
admitted into the Program: Provided, That:
a) The offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as

defined under the Revised Penal Code, or its equivalent under
special laws;
b) His testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material

points;
c) He or any member of his family within the second civil degree of

consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threats to his life or bodily
injury or there is a likelihood that he will be killed, forced,
intimidated, harassed or corrupted to prevent him from testifying,

or to testify falsely, or evasively, because or on account of his
testimony; and
d) He is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would be testifying

against the other law enforcement officers. In such a case, only the
immediate members of his family may avail themselves of the
protection provided for under this Act.
If the Department, after examination of said applicant and other relevant

facts, is convinced that the requirements of this Act and its implementing
rules and regulations have been complied with, it shall admit said
applicant to the Program, require said witness to execute a sworn
statement detailing his knowledge or information on the commission of
the crime, and thereafter issue the proper certification. For purposes of
this Act, any such person admitted to the Program shall be known as the
Witness.
Section 4. Witness in Legislative Investigations. - In case of

legislative investigations in aid of legislation, a witness, with his express
consent, may be admitted into the Program upon the recommendation of
the legislative committee where his testimony is needed when in its
judgment there is pressing necessity therefor: Provided, That such
recommendation is approved by the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be.
Section 5. Memorandum of Agreement With the Person to be

Protected. - Before a person is provided protection under this Act, he
shall first execute a memorandum of agreement which shall set forth his
responsibilities including:
a) To testify before and provide information to all appropriate law

enforcement officials concerning all appropriate proceedings in
connection with or arising from the activities involved in the
offense charged;
b) To avoid the commission of the crime;
c) To take all necessary precautions to avoid detection by others of

the facts concerning the protection provided him under this Act;
d) To comply with legal obligations and civil judgments against him;

e) To cooperate with respect to all reasonable requests of officers and
employees of the Government who are providing protection under
this Act; and
f) To regularly inform the appropriate program official of his current

activities and address.
Section 6. Breach of the Memorandum of Agreement. -

Substantial breach of the memorandum of agreement shall be a ground
for the termination of the protection provided under this Act: Provided,
however, That before terminating such protection, the Secretary of Justice
shall send notice to the person involved of the termination of the
protection provided under this Act, stating therein the reason for such
termination.
Section 7. Confidentiality of Proceedings. - All proceedings

involving application for admission into the Program and the action taken
thereon shall be confidential in nature. No information or documents
given or submitted in support thereof shall be released except upon
written order of the Department or the proper court.
Any person who violates the confidentiality of said proceedings shall upon
conviction be punished with imprisonment of not less than one (1) year
but not more than six (6) years and deprivation of the right to hold a
public office or employment for a period of five (5) years.
Section 8. Rights and Benefits. - The witness shall have the following
rights and benefits:
(a) To have a secure housing facility until he has testified or until the
threat, intimidation or harassment disappears or is reduced to a
manageable or tolerable level. When the circumstances warrant,
the Witness shall be entitled to relocation and/or change of
personal identity at the expense of the Program. This right may
be extended to any member of the family of the Witness within
the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
(b) The Department shall, whenever practicable, assist the Witness

in obtaining a means of livelihood. The Witness relocated
pursuant to this Act shall be entitled to a financial assistance
from the Program for his support and that of his family in such
amount and for such duration as the Department shall
determine.

(c) In no case shall the Witness be removed from or demoted in
work because or on account of his absences due to his
attendance before any judicial or quasi-judicial body or
investigating authority, including legislative investigations in
aid of legislation, in going thereto and in coming therefrom:
Provided, That his employer is notified through a certification
issued by the Department, within a period of thirty (30) days
from the date when the Witness last reported for work:
Provided, further, That in the case of prolonged transfer or
permanent relocation, the employer shall have the option to
remove the Witness from employment after securing clearance
from the Department upon the recommendation of the
Department of Labor and Employment.
Any Witness who failed to report for work because of witness

duty shall be paid his equivalent salaries or wages
corresponding to the number of days of absence occasioned by
the Program. For purposes of this Act, any fraction of a day shall
constitute a full day salary or wage. This provision shall be
applicable to both government and private employees.
(d) To be provided with reasonable travelling expenses and

subsistence allowance by the Program in such amount as the
Department may determine for his attendance in the court,
body or authority where his testimony is required, as well as
conferences and interviews with prosecutors or investigating
officers.
(e) To be provided with free medical treatment, hospitalization and

medicines for any injury or illness incurred or suffered by him
because of witness duty in any private or public hospital, clinic,
or at any such institution at the expense of the Program.
(f) If a Witness is killed, because of his participation in the

Program, his heirs shall be entitled to a burial benefit of not less
than Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) from the Program
exclusive of any other similar benefits he may be entitled to
under other existing laws.
(g) In case of death or permanent incapacity, his minor or

dependent children shall be entitled to free education, from
primary to college level in any state, or private school, college or
university as may be determined by the Department, as long as
they shall have qualified thereto.

Section 9. Speedy Hearing or Trial. - In any case where a Witness
admitted into the Program shall testify, the judicial or quasi-judicial body,
or investigating authority shall assure a speedy hearing or trial and shall
endeavor to finish said proceeding within three (3) months from the filing
of the case.
Section 10. State Witness. - Any person who has participated in the
commission of a crime and desires to be a witness for the State, can apply
and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by the Department, shall be
admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances are
present:
(a) The offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony
as defined under the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under
special laws;
(b) There is absolute necessity for his testimony;
(c) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper

prosecution of the offense committed:
(d) His testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material

points;
(e) He does not appear to be most guilty; and
(f) He has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving
moral turpitude.
An accused discharged from an information or criminal complaint by the

court in order that he may be a State Witness pursuant to Section 9 and 10
of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court may upon his petition be
admitted to the Program if he complies with the other requirements of this
Act. Nothing in this Act shall prevent the discharge of an accused, so that
he can be used as a State Witness under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
Section 11. Sworn Statement. - Before any person is admitted into the
Program pursuant to the next preceding Section he shall execute a sworn
statement describing in detail the manner in which the offense was
committed and his participation therein. If after said examination of said
person, his sworn statement and other relevant facts, the Department is
satisfied that the requirements of this Act and its implementing rules are

complied with, it may admit such person into the Program and issue the
corresponding certification.
If his application for admission is denied, said sworn statement and any
other testimony given in support of said application shall not be
admissible in evidence, except for impeachment purposes.
Section 12. Effect of Admission of a State Witness into the

Program. - The certification of admission into the Program by the
Department shall be given full faith and credit by the provincial or city
prosecutor who is required not to include the Witness in the criminal
complaint or information and if included therein, to petition the court for
his discharge in order that he can utilized as a State Witness. The Court
shall order the discharge and exclusion of the said accused from the
information.
Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Witness to immunity
from criminal prosecution for the offense or offenses in which his
testimony will be given or used and all the rights and benefits provided
under Section 8 hereof.
Section 13. Failure or Refusal of the Witness to Testify. - Any

Witness registered in the Program who fails or refuses to testify or to
continue to testify without just cause when lawfully obliged to do so, shall
be prosecuted for contempt. If he testifies falsely or evasively, he shall be
liable to prosecution for perjury. If a State Witness fails or refuses to
testify, or testifies falsely or evasively, or violates any condition
accompanying such immunity without just cause, as determined in a
hearing by the proper court, his immunity shall be removed and he shall
be subject to contempt or criminal prosecution. Moreover, the enjoyment
of all rights and benefits under this Act shall be deemed terminated.
The Witness may, however, purge himself of the contumacious acts by

testifying at any appropriate stage of the proceedings.
Section 14. Compelled Testimony. - Any Witness admitted into the

Program pursuant to Sections 3 and 10 of this Act cannot refuse to testify
or give evidence or produce books, documents, records or writings
necessary for the prosecution of the offense or offenses for which he has
been admitted into the Program on the ground of the constitutional right
against self-incrimination but he shall enjoy immunity from criminal
prosecution and cannot be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any
transaction, matter or thing concerning his compelled testimony or books,
documents, records and writings produced.

In case of refusal of said Witness to testify or give evidence or produce
books, documents, records, or writings, on the ground of the right against
self-incrimination, and the state prosecutor or investigator believes that
such evidence is absolutely necessary for a successful prosecution of the
offense or offenses charged or under investigation, he, with the prior
approval of the department, shall file a petition with the appropriate court
for the issuance of an order requiring said Witness to testify, give evidence
or produce the books, documents, records, and writings described, and the
court shall issue the proper order.
The court, upon motion of the state prosecutor or investigator, shall order
the arrest and detention of the Witness in any jail contiguous to the place
of trial or investigation until such time that the Witness is willing to give
such testimony or produce such documentary evidence.
Section 15. Perjury or Contempt. - No Witness shall be exempt from

prosecution for perjury or contempt committed while giving testimony or
producing evidence under compulsion pursuant to this Act. The penalty
next higher in degree shall be imposed in case of conviction for perjury.
The procedure prescribed under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court shall be
followed in contempt proceedings but the penalty to be imposed shall not
be less than one (1) month but not more than one (1) year imprisonment.
Section 16. Credibility of Witness. - In all criminal cases, the fact of

the entitlement of the Witness to the protection and benefits provided for
in this Act shall not be admissible in evidence to diminish or affect his
credibility.
Section 17. Penalty for Harassment of Witness. - Any person who

harasses a Witness and thereby hinders, delays, prevents or dissuades a
Witness from:
(a) Attending or testifying before any judicial or quasi-judicial body

or investigating authority;
(b) Reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge the commission or

possible commission of an offense, or a violation of conditions or
probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(c) Seeking the arrest of another person in connection with the

offense;
(d) Causing a criminal prosecution, or a proceeding for the revocation

of a parole or probation; or

(e) Performing and enjoying the rights and benefits under this Act or
attempts to do so, shall be fined not more than Three Thousand
Pesos (Php3,000.00) or suffer imprisonment of not less than six
(6) months but not more than one (1) year, or both, and he shall
also suffer the penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding
public office in case of a public officer.
Section 18. Rules and Regulations. - The Department shall

promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement
the intent and purposes of this Act. Said rules and regulations shall be
published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Section 19. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive issuances,

rules and regulations inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.
Section 20. Funding. - The amount of Ten Million Pesos

(Php10,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any
funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated to carry into
effect the purpose of this Act.
Expenses incurred in the implementation of the Program may be

recovered as part of the cost or indemnity imposed upon the accused.
Furthermore, other funding schemes or sources, subject to the limitations

of the law, shall be allowed in furtherance hereof.
Section 21. Separability Clause. - The declaration of

unconstitutionality or invalidity of any provision of this Act shall not affect
the other provisions hereof.
Section 22. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days
following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved: April 24, 1991.

Section 7.2 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7309 March 30, 1992
“AN ACT CREATING A BOARD OF CLAIMS UNDER THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF UNJUST
IMPRISONMENT OR DETENTION AND VICTIMS OF VIOLENT
CRIMES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

Section 1. Creation and Composition of the Board. – There is

hereby created a Board of Claims under the Department of Justice,
hereinafter referred to as the Board, to be composed of one (1) chairman
and two (2) members to be appointed by the Secretary of the said
department.
Section 2. Powers and Functions of the Board. – The Board shall

have the following powers and functions:
(a) To receive, evaluate, process and investigate application for

claims under this Act;
(b) To conduct an independent administrative hearing and resolve

application for claims, grant or deny the same;
(c) To deputize appropriate government agencies in order to

effectively implement its functions; and
(d) To promulgate rules and regulations in order to carry out the

objectives of this Act.
Section 3. Who may File Claims. – The following may file claims for
compensation before the Board:
(a) Any person who was unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned
but subsequently released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal;
(b) Any person who was unjustly detained and released without being
charged;
(c) Any victim of arbitrary or illegal detention by the authorities as

defined in the Revised Penal Code under a final judgment of the
court;

(d) Any person who is a victim of violent crimes. For purposes of this
Act, violent crimes shall include rape and shall likewise refer to
offenses committed with malice which resulted in death or serious
physical and/or psychological injuries, permanent incapacity or
disability, insanity, abortion, serious trauma, or committed with
torture, cruelly or barbarity.
Section 4. Award Ceiling. – For victims of unjust imprisonment or

detention, the compensation shall be based on the number of months of
imprisonment or detention and every fraction thereof shall be considered
one month; Provided, however, That in no case shall such compensation
exceed One Thousand Pesos (Php1,000.00) per month.
In all other cases, the maximum amount for which the Board may approve
a claim shall not exceed Ten thousand pesos (Php10,000.00) or the
amount necessary to reimburse the claimant the expenses incurred for
hospitalization, medical treatment, loss of wage, loss of support or other
expenses directly related to injury, whichever is lower. This is without
prejudice to the right of the claimant to seek other remedies under
existing laws.
Section 5. When to File Claims. – Any person entitled to

compensation under this Act must, within six (6) months after being
released from imprisonment or detention, or from the date the victim
suffered damage or injury, file his claim with the Department, otherwise,
he is deemed to have waived the same. Except as provided for in this Act,
no waiver of claim whatsoever is valid.
Section 6. Filing of Claims by Heirs. – In case of death or incapacity

of any person entitled to any award under this Act, the claim may be filed
by his heirs, in the following order: by his surviving spouse, children,
natural parents, brother and/or sister.
Section 7. Resolution of Claims. – The Board shall resolve the claim

within thirty (30) working days after filing of the application.
The Board shall adopt an expeditious and inexpensive procedure for the
claimants to follow in order to secure their claims under this Act.
Section 8. Appeal. – Any aggrieved claimant may appeal, within fifteen

(15) days from receipt of the resolution of the Board, to the Secretary of
Justice whose decision shall be final and executory.

Section 9. Funding. – For purposes of this Act, the initial amount of
Ten Million Pesos (Php10,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be
appropriated from the funds of the National Treasury not otherwise
appropriated.
The subsequent annual funding shall also partly come from one percent
(1%) of the net income of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation and one percent (1%) of the proceeds and sales and other
disposition and military camps ion Metro Manila by the Base Conversion
and Development Authority.
The proceeds from any contract relating to the depiction of a crime in a

movie, book, newspaper, magazine, radio or television production, or live
entertainment, of any kind, or in any other form of commercial
exploitation of any convict's story, recollection, opinion and emotions with
regard to the offense committed shall not be released to convict in a
criminal case or his heirs, agents, assignees or successors in interest until
full compensation for damages suffered by a awarded to, the victim, his
heirs or successors in interest is paid or arranged for, and the state is able
to collect/assess fines and costs and any other amounts due it in case of a
conviction by final judgment. Such damages shall include, but shall not be
limited to, judicial awards, funeral expenses, medical expenses, lost
earning and the like.
To ensure the continuity of the funding requirements under this Act, the
amount of Five pesos (Php5.00) shall be set aside from each filing fee in
every civil case filed with the court, the total proceeds of which shall
constitute the Victim Compensation Fund to be administered by the
Department of Justice.
Section 10. Repealing Clause. – All Laws, executive orders and

executive issuances inconsistent with this Act are hereby deemed repealed
or modified accordingly.
Section 11. Separability Clause. – If for any reason any section or

provision of this Act shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid, no other
section or provision shall be affected thereby.
Section 12. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect after its
publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VICTIMS’
COMPENSATION PROGRAM
What is the Victims’ Compensation Program?
This is a program which gives compensation in an amount not exceeding

Php10,000.00 to victims of unjust imprisonment or detention and of
violent crimes.
Who can apply for the compensation?
Those-
 Unjustly accused convicted and imprisoned and subsequently

acquitted by a court.
 Unjustly detained and released without being charged.
 Arbitrarily or illegally detained by the authorities as established
under a final court judgment.
 Who are victims of a violent crime
How do I file a claim?
Get an Application Form from the Board of Claims at the Department of

Justice, Padre Faura, Manila or from the Office of the Regional Prosecutor
nearest you.
Where do I file a claim?
After you fill up the Application Form, submit the same directly to the
Board of Claims or to the Office of the Regional Prosecutor nearest you.
When should I file the claim?
The claim should be filed within six (6) months after release from
imprisonment of detention or after the violent crime was committed.
Can a claim be filed by the heirs of the victim who dies or is

incapacitated?
Yes, the claim may be filed by the victim‘s surviving spouse, children,
natural parents, brother and/or sister, in that order.
Ipasa mo na.

Section 7.3 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10353 December 12, 2012

Section 1. Short Title. –This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Enforced or

Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012″.
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. –The State values the dignity of every

human person and guarantees full respect for human rights for which
highest priority shall be given to the enactment of measures for the
enhancement of the right of all people to human dignity, the prohibition
against secret detention places, solitary confinement, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention, the provision for penal and civil
sanctions for such violations, and compensation and rehabilitation for the
victims and their families, particularly with respect to the use of torture,
force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the
free will of persons abducted, arrested, detained, disappeared or otherwise
removed from the effective protection of the law.
Furthermore, the State adheres to the principles and standards on the

absolute condemnation of human rights violations set by the 1987
Philippine Constitution and various international instruments such as, but
not limited to, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), to which the Philippines is
a State party.
Section 3. Definitions. –For purposes of this Act, the following terms

shall be defined as follows:
(a) Agents of the State refer to persons who, by direct provision of the
law, popular election or appointment by competent authority,
shall take part in the performance of public functions in the
government, or shall perform in the government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
official, of any rank or class.
(b) Enforced or involuntary disappearance refers to the arrest,

detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty
committed by agents of the State or by persons or groups of
persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of
the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the

disappeared person, which places such person outside the
protection of the law.
(c) Order of Battle refers to a document made by the military, police

or any law enforcement agency of the government, listing the
names of persons and organizations that it perceives to be
enemies of the State and which it considers as legitimate targets
as combatants that it could deal with, through the use of means
allowed by domestic and international law.
(d) Victim refers to the disappeared person and any individual who
has suffered harm as a direct result of an enforced or involuntary
disappearance as defined in letter (b) of this Section.
Section 4. Nonderogability of the Right Against Enforced or

Involuntary Disappearance. –The right against enforced or involuntary
disappearance and the fundamental safeguards for its prevention shall not
be suspended under any circumstance including political instability, threat
of war, state of war or other public emergencies.
Section 5. "Order of Battle" or Any Order of Similar Nature, Not Legal

Ground, for Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance. – An "Order of
Battle" or any order of similar nature, official or otherwise, from a
superior officer or a public authority causing the commission of enforced
or involuntary disappearance is unlawful and cannot be invoked as a
justifying or exempting circumstance. Any person receiving such an order
shall have the right to disobey it.
Section 6. Right of Access to Communication. – It shall be the absolute

right of any person deprived of liberty to have immediate access to any
form of communication available in order for him or her to inform his or
her family, relative, friend, lawyer or any human rights organization on his
or her whereabouts and condition.
Section 7. Duty to Report Victims of Enforced or Involuntary

Disappearance. – Any person, not being a principal, accomplice or
accessory, who has an information of a case of enforced or involuntary
disappearance or who shall learn of such information or that a person is a
victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance, shall immediately report
in writing the circumstances and whereabouts of the victim to any office,
detachment or division of the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG), the Department of National Defense (DND), the
Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the City or Provincial

Prosecutor, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) or any human
rights organization and, if known, the victim‘s family, relative, or lawyer.
Section 8. Duty to Certify in Writing on the Results of Inquiry into a

Reported Disappeared Person‟s Whereabouts. –In case a family member,
relative, lawyer, representative of a human rights organization or a
member of the media inquires with a member or official of any police or
military detention center, the PNP or any of its agencies, the AFP or any of
its agencies, the NBI or any other agency or instrumentality of the
government, as well as any hospital or morgue, public or private, on the
presence or whereabouts of a reported victim of enforced or involuntary
disappearance, such member or official shall immediately issue a
certification in writing to the inquiring person or entity on the presence or
absence and/or information on the whereabouts of such disappeared
person, stating, among others, in clear and unequivocal manner the date
and time of inquiry, details of the inquiry and the response to the inquiry.
Section 9. Duty of Inquest/Investigating Public Prosecutor or any

Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Official or Employee. –Any inquest or
investigating public prosecutor, or any judicial or quasi-judicial official or
employee who learns that the person delivered for inquest or preliminary
investigation or for any other judicial process is a victim of enforced or
involuntary disappearance shall have the duty to immediately disclose the
victim‘s whereabouts to his or her immediate family, relatives, lawyer/s or
to a human rights organization by the most expedient means.
Section 10. Official Up-to-Date Register of All Persons Detained or

Confined. - All persons detained or confined shall be placed solely in
officially recognized and controlled places of detention or confinement
where an official up-to-date register of such persons shall be maintained.
Relatives, lawyers, judges, official bodies and all persons who have
legitimate interest in the whereabouts and condition of the persons
deprived of liberty shall have free access to the register.
The following details, among others, shall be recorded, in the register:
(a) The identity or name, description and address of the person

deprived of liberty;
(b) The date, time and location where the person was deprived of
liberty and the identity of the person who made such deprivation
of liberty;

(c) The authority who decided the deprivation of liberty and the
reasons for the deprivation of liberty or the crime or offense
committed;
(d) The authority controlling the deprivation of liberty;
(e) The place of deprivation of liberty, the date and time of admission
to the place of deprivation of liberty and the authority responsible
for the place of deprivation of liberty;
(f) Records of physical, mental and psychological condition of the

detained or confined person before and after the deprivation of
liberty and the name and address of the physician who examined
him or her physically, mentally and medically;
(g) The date and time of release or transfer of the detained or confined
person to another place of detention, the destination and the
authority responsible for the transfer;
(h) The date and time of each removal of the detained or confined
person from his or her cell, the reason or purpose for such
removal and the date and time of his or her return to his or her
cell;
(i) A summary of the physical, mental and medical findings of the

detained or confined person after each interrogation;
(j) The names and addresses of the persons who visit the detained or
confined person and the date and time of such visits and the date
and time of each departure;
(k) In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the identity,
the circumstances and cause of death of the victim as well as the
destination of the human remains; and
(l) All other important events bearing on and all relevant details
regarding the treatment of the detained or confined person.
Provided, That the details required under letters (a) to (f) shall be entered
immediately in the register upon arrest and/or detention.
All information contained in the register shall be regularly or upon request

reported to the CHR or any other agency of government tasked to monitor
and protect human rights and shall be made available to the public.

Section 11. Submission of List of Government Detention Facilities. –
Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act and as may be
requested by the CHR thereafter, all government agencies concerned shall
submit an updated inventory or list of all officially recognized and
controlled detention or confinement facilities, and the list of detainees or
persons deprived of liberty under their respective jurisdictions to the
CHR.
Section 12. Immediate Issuance and Compliance of the Writs of Habeas

Corpus, Amparo and Habeas Data. – All proceedings pertaining to the
issuance of the writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data shall be
dispensed with expeditiously. As such, all courts and other concerned
agencies of government shall give priority to such proceedings.
Moreover, any order issued or promulgated pursuant to such writs or their

respective proceedings shall be executed and complied with immediately.
Section 13. Visitation/Inspection of Places of Detention and,

Confinement. –The CHR or its duly authorized representatives are hereby
mandated and authorized to conduct regular, independent, unannounced
and unrestricted visits to or inspection of all places of detention and
confinement.
Section 14. Liability of Commanding Officer or Superior. - The

immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the
immediate senior official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies
shall be held liable as a principal to the crime of enforced or involuntary
disappearance for acts committed by him or her that shall have led,
assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the
commission thereof by his or her subordinates. If such commanding
officer has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should
have known that an enforced or involuntary disappearance is being
committed, or has been committed by subordinates or by others within
the officer‘s area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not
take preventive or coercive action either before, during or immediately
after its commission, when he or she has the authority to prevent or
investigate allegations of enforced or involuntary disappearance but failed
to prevent or investigate such allegations, whether deliberately or due to
negligence, shall also be held liable as principal.
Section 15. Penal Provisions. – (a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua

and its accessory penalties shall be imposed upon the following persons:
(1) Those who directly committed the act of enforced or involuntary

disappearance;

(2) Those who directly forced, instigated, encouraged or induced
others to commit the act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance;
(3) Those who cooperated in the act of enforced or involuntary

disappearance by committing another act without which the act
of enforced or involuntary disappearance would not have been
consummated;
(4) Those officials who allowed the act or abetted in the

consummation of enforced or involuntary disappearance when
it is within their power to stop or uncover the commission
thereof; and
(5) Those who cooperated in the execution of the act of enforced or

involuntary disappearance by previous or simultaneous acts.
(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal and its accessory penalties shall be
imposed upon those who shall commit the act of enforced or
involuntary disappearance in the attempted stage as provided for and
defined under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.
(c) The penalty of reclusion temporal and its accessory penalties shall
also be imposed upon persons who, having knowledge of the act of
enforced or involuntary disappearance and without having
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, took part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner:
(1) By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit

from the effects of the act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance;
(2) By concealing the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance

and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof in order to
prevent its discovery; or
(3) By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the

principal/s in the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance,
provided such accessory acts are done with the abuse of official
functions.
(d) The penalty of prision correctional and its accessory penalties shall be
imposed against persons who defy, ignore or unduly delay compliance
with any order duly issued or promulgated pursuant to the writs of

habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data or their respective
proceedings.
(e) The penalty of arresto mayor and its accessory penalties shall be
imposed against any person who shall violate the provisions of
Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of this Act.
Section 16. Preventive Suspension/Summary Dismissal. – Government

officials and personnel who are found to be perpetrators of or participants
in any manner in the commission of enforced or involuntary
disappearance as a result of a preliminary investigation conducted for that
purpose shall be preventively suspended or summarily dismissed from the
service, depending on the strength of the evidence so presented and
gathered in the said preliminary investigation or as may be recommended
by the investigating authority.
Section 17. Civil Liability. –The act of enforced or involuntary

disappearance shall render its perpetrators and the State agencies which
organized, acquiesced in or tolerated such disappearance liable under civil
law.
Section 18. Independent Liability. –The criminal liability of the offender

under this Act shall be independent of or without prejudice to the
prosecution and conviction of the said offender for any violation of
Republic Act No. 7438, otherwise known as "An Act Defining Certain
Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as
well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, and Investigating Officers,
and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof‘; Republic Act No. 9745,
otherwise known as "An Act Penalizing Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Prescribing Penalties
Therefor"; and applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
Section 19. Nonexclusivity or Double Jeopardy Under International

Law. – Any investigation, trial and decision in any Philippines court, or
body for any violation of this Act shall; be without prejudice to any
investigation, trial, decision or any other legal or administrative process
before any appropriate international court or agency under applicable
international human rights and humanitarian law.
Section 20. Exemption from Prosecution. – Any offender who

volunteers information that leads to the discovery of the victim of enforced
or involuntary disappearance or the prosecution of the offenders without
the victim being found shall be exempt from any criminal and/or civil
liability under this Act: Provided, That said offender does not appear to be
the most guilty.

Section 21. Continuing Offense. – An act constituting enforced or
involuntary disappearance shall be considered a continuing offense as
long as the perpetrators continue to conceal the fate and whereabouts of
the disappeared person and such circumstances have not been determined
with certainty.
Section 22. Statue of Limitations Exemption. – The prosecution of

persons responsible for enforced or involuntary disappearance shall not
prescribe unless the victim surfaces alive. In which case, the prescriptive
period shall be twenty-five (25) years from the date of such reappearance.
Section 23. Special Amnesty Law Exclusion. – Persons who are changed
with and/or guilty of the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance
shall not benefit from any special amnesty law or other similar executive
measures that shall exempt them from any penal proceedings or
sanctions.
Section 24. State Protection – The State, through its appropriate

agencies, shall ensure the safety of all persons involved in the search,
investigation and prosecution of enforced or involuntary disappearance
including, but not limited to, the victims, their families, complainants,
witnesses, legal counsel and representatives of human rights organizations
and media. They shall likewise be protected from any intimidation or
reprisal.
Section 25. Applicability of Refouler. –No person shall be expelled,

returned or extradited to another State where there are substantial
grounds to believe that such person shall be in danger of being subjected
to enforced or involuntary disappearance. For purposes of determining
whether such grounds exist, the Secretary of the Department, of Foreign
Affairs (DFA) and the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in
coordination with the Chairperson of the CHR, shall take into account all
relevant considerations including where applicable and not limited to, the
existence in the requesting State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant
or mass violations of human rights.
Section 26. Restitution and Compensation to Victims of Enforced or

Involuntary Disappearance and/or Their Immediate Relatives. –The
victims of enforced or involuntary disappearance who surface alive shall
be entitled to monetary compensation, rehabilitation and restitution of
honor and reputation. Such restitution of honor and reputation shall
include immediate expunging or rectification of any derogatory record,
information or public declaration/statement on his or her person,
personal circumstances, status, and/or organizational affiliation by the
appropriate government or private agency or agencies concerned.

The immediate relatives of a victim of enforced or involuntary
disappearance, within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity,
may also claim for compensation as provided for under Republic Act No.
7309, entitled "An Act Creating a Board of Claims under the Department
of Justice for Victims of Unjust Imprisonment or Detention and Victims of
Violent Crimes and For Other Purposes", and other relief programs of the
government.
The package of indemnification for both the victims and the immediate
relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity shall be
without prejudice to other legal remedies that may be available to them.
Section 27. Rehabilitation of Victims and/or Their Immediate Relatives,

and Offenders. – In order that the victims of enforced or involuntary
disappearance who surfaced alive and/or their immediate relatives within
the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, may be effectively
reintegrated into the mainstream of society and in the process of
development, the State, through the CHR, in coordination with the
Department of Health, the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) and the concerned nongovernment organization/s,
shall provide them with appropriate medical care and rehabilitation free
of charge.
Toward the attainment of restorative justice, a parallel rehabilitation

program for persons who have committed enforced or involuntary
disappearance shall likewise be implemented without cost to such
offenders.
Section 28. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – Within thirty (30)

days from the effectivity of this Act, the DOJ, the DSWD, the CHR, the
Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND) and the
Families of Desaparecidos for Justice (Desaparecidos), in consultation
with other human rights organizations, shall jointly promulgate the rules
and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act and shall
ensure the full dissemination of the same to the public.
Section 29. Suppletory Applications. – The applicable provisions of the

Revised Penal Code shall have suppletory application insofar as they are
consistent with the provisions of this Act.
Section 30. Appropriations. –The amount of Ten Million Pesos

(Php10,000,000.00) is hereby appropriated for the initial implementation
of this Act by the CHR. Subsequent fluids for the continuing
implementation of this Act shall be included in the respective budgets of
the CHR and the DOJ in the annual General Appropriations Act.

Section 31. Separability Clause. – If for any reason, any section or
provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid, such other
sections or provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and
effect.
Section 32. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules
and regulations and other issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified
accordingly.
Section 33. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15)
days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general
circulation or the Official Gazette, which shall not be later than seven (7)
days after the approval thereof.
Approved,
(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE (Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.

President of the Senate Speaker of the House of
Representatives
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2817 and House Bill
No. 98 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives
on October 16, 2012.
(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES (Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP

Secretary of Senate Secretary General
House of Representatives
Approved: DEC 21 2012
(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

President of the Philippines

Section 7.4 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9851 December 11, 2009
“AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING CRIMES AGAINST

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENOCIDE AND
OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, ORGANIZING
JURISDICTION, DESIGNATING SPECIAL COURTS, AND FOR
RELATED PURPOSES”

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Philippine Act
on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law,
Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity".
Section 2. Declaration of Principles and State Policies. -
(a) The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,

adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land and adheres to a policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.
(b) The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights, including the rights of indigenous
cultural communities and other vulnerable groups, such as
women and children;
(c) It shall be the responsibility of the State and all other sectors
concerned to resolved armed conflict in order to promote the goal
of "Children as Zones of Peace";
(d) The state adopts the generally accepted principles of international

law, including the Hague Conventions of 1907, the Geneva
Conventions on the protection of victims of war and international
humanitarian law, as part of the law our nation;
(e) The most serious crimes of concern to the international

community as a whole must not go unpunished and their effective
prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national
level, in order to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of
these crimes and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes,

it being the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction
over those responsible for international crimes;
(f) The State shall guarantee persons suspected or accused of having

committed grave crimes under international law all rights
necessary to ensure that their trial will be fair and prompt in strict
accordance with national and international law and standards for
fair trial, It shall also protect victims, witnesses and their families,
and provide appropriate redress to victims and their families, It
shall ensure that the legal systems in place provide accessible and
gender-sensitive avenues of redress for victims of armed conflict,
and
(g) The State recognizes that the application of the provisions of this
Act shall not affect the legal status of the parties to a conflict, nor
give an implied recognition of the status of belligerency
CHAPTER II
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Section 3. For purposes of this Act, the term:
(a) "Apartheid' means inhumane acts committed in the context of an

institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination
by one racial group or groups and committed with the intention of
maintaining that regime
(b) "Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population" means

forced displacement of the persons concerned by expultion by
expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are
lawfully present, without grounds permitted under domestic or
international law.
(c) "Armed conflict" means any use of force or armed violence

between States or a protracted armed violence between
governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between
such groups within that State: Provided, That such force or armed
violence gives rise, or may give rise, to a situation to which the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, including their common
Article 3, apply. Armed conflict may be international, that is,
between two (2) or more States, including belligerent occupation;
or non-international, that is, between governmental authorities
and organized armed groups or between such groups within a

state. It does not cover internal disturbances or tensions such as
riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a
similar nature.
(d) "Armed forces" means all organized armed forces, groups and
units that belong to a party to an armed conflict which are under a
command responsible to that party for the conduct of its
subordinates. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal
disciplinary system which enforces compliance with International
Humanitarian Law
(e) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course

of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to
in Section 6 of this Act against any civilian population, pursuant
to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit
such attack.
(f) "Effective command and control" or " effective authority and

control" means having the material ability to prevent and punish
the commission of offenses by subordinates.
(g) "Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons" means the

arrest, detention, or abduction of persons by, or with the
authorization support or acquiescence of, a State or a political
organization followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation
of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of
those persons, with the intention of removing from the protection
of the law for a prolonged period of time
(h) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers

attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the
exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in
particular women and children.
(i) "Extermination" means the international infliction of conditions

of life, inter alia, the deprivation of access to food and medicine,
calculated to bring about the destruction of a part of a population.
(j) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a women

to be forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the
ethnic composition of any population carrying out other grave
violations of international law.
(k) "Hors de Combat" means a person who:

(1) is in the power of an adverse party;
(2) has clearly expressed an intention to surrender; or
(3) has been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by

wounds or sickness and therefore is incapable of defending
himself: Provided, that in any of these cases, the person form
any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
(l) "Military necessity" means the necessity of employing measures

which are indispensable to achieve a legitimate aim of the
conflict and are not otherwise prohibited by International
Humanitarian Law
(m) "Non-defended locality" means a locality that fulfills the following

conditions:
(1) all combatants, as well as mobile weapons and mobile

military equipment, must have been evacuated;
(2) no hostile use of fixed military installations or

establishments must have been made;
(3) no acts of hostility must have been committed by the

authorities or by the population; and
(4) no activities in support of military operations, must have

been undertaken.
(n) "No quarter will be given' means refusing to spare the life of
anybody, even of persons manifestly unable to defend themselves
or who clearly express their intention to surrender.
(o) "Perfidy" means acts which invite the confidence of an adversary to

lead him/her to believe he/she is entitled to, or is obliged to
accord, protection under the rules of International Humanitarian
Law, with the intent to betray that confidence, including but not
limited to:
(1) feigning an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce;
(2) feigning surrender;

(3) feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(4) feigning civilian or noncombatant status; and
(5) feigning protective status by use of signs, emblems or

uniforms of the United Nations or of a neutral or other State
not party to the conflict.
(p) "Persecution" means the international and severe deprivation of

fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of
identity of the group or collectivity.
(q) "Protect person" in an armed conflict means:
(1) a person wounded, sick or shipwrecked, whether civilian or

military;
(2) a prisoner of war or any person deprived of liberty for reasons

related to an armed conflict;
(3) a civilian or any person not taking a direct part or having

ceased to take part in the hostilities in the power of the
adverse party;
(4) a person who, before the beginning of hostilities, was

considered a stateless person or refugee under the relevant
international instruments accepted by the parties to the
conflict concerned or under the national legislation of the
state of refuge or state of residence;
(5) a member of the medical personnel assigned exclusively to

medical purposes or to the administration of medical units or
to the operation of or administration of medical transports; or
(6) a member of the religious personnel who is exclusively

engaged in the work of their ministry and attached to the
armed forces of a party to the conflict, its medical units or
medical transports, or non-denominational, noncombatant
military personnel carrying out functions similar to religious
personnel.
(r) "Superior" means:

(1) a military commander or a person effectively acting as a
military commander; or
(2) any other superior, in as much as the crimes arose from

activities within the effective authority and control of that
superior.
(s) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or

suffering, whether physical, mental, or psychological, upon a
person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except
that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from,
inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
(t) "Works and installations containing dangerous forces" means works

and installations the attack of which may cause the release of
dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian
population, namely: dams, dikes, and nuclear, electrical
generation stations.
CHAPTER III
CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW,
GENOCIDE AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Section 4. War Crimes. - For the purpose of this Act, "war crimes" or
"crimes against Interntional Human Humanitarian Law" means:
(a) In case of an international armed conflict , grave breaches of the

Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the
following acts against persons or property protected under
provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(1) Willful killing;
(2) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological

experiments;
(3) Willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or

health;
(4) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not

justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
wantonly;

(5) Willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected
person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(6) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population or

unlawful confinement;
(7) Taking of hostages;
(8) Compelling a prisoner a prisoner of war or other protected

person to serve in the forces of a hostile power; and
(9) Unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or

other protected persons.
(b) In case of a non-international armed conflict, serious violations of

common Article 3 to the four (4) Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, namely , any of the following acts committed against
persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including member
of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and those
placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any
other cause;
(1) Violence to life and person, in particular, willful killings,

mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(2) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular,

humiliating and degrading treatment;
(3) Taking of hostages; and
(4) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions

without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are
generally recognized as indispensable.
(c) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in

armed conflict, within the established framework of international
law, namely:
(1) Internationally directing attacks against the civilian

population as such or against individual civilians not taking
direct part in hostilities;

(2) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is,
object which are not military objectives;
(3) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material,

medical units and transport, and personnel using the
distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions or Additional
Protocol III in conformity with intentional law;
(4) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel,

installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a
humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as ling as
they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian
objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(5) Launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will

cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to
civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage
to the natural environment which would be excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct military advantage
anticipated;
(6) Launching an attack against works or installations containing

dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause
excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian
objects, and causing death or serious injury to body or health .
(7) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages,

dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are
not military objectives, or making non-defended localities or
demilitarized zones the object of attack;
(8) Killing or wounding a person in the knowledge that he/she

is hors de combat, including a combatant who, having laid
down his/her arms or no longer having means of defense, has
surrendered at discretion;
(9) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or the

military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United
Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva
Conventions or other protective signs under International
Humanitarian Law, resulting in death, serious personal injury
or capture;

(10) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to
religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes,
historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and
wounded are collected, provided they are not military
objectives. In case of doubt whether such building or place has
been used to make an effective contribution to military action,
it shall be presumed not to be so used;
(11) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to

physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of
any kind, or to removal of tissue or organs for transplantation,
which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital
treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his/her
interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the
health of such person or persons;
(12) Killing, wounding or capturing an adversary by resort to

perfidy;
(13) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(14) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such

destruction or seizure is imperatively demanded by the
necessities of war;
(15) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
(16) Ordering the displacements of the civilian population for

reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the
civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;
(17) Transferring, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of

parts of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the
population of the occupied territory within or outside this
territory;
(18) Commiting outrages upon personal dignity, in particular,

humiliating and degrading treatments;
(19) Commiting rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced

pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual
violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva

Conventions or a serious violation of common Article 3 to the
Geneva Convensions;
(20) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to

render certain points, areas or military forces immune from
military operations;
(21) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of

warfare by depriving them of objects indespensable to their
survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as
provided for under the Geneva Conventions and their
Additional Protocols;
(22) In an international armed conflict, compelling the nationals

of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war
directed against their own country, even if they were in the
belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;
(23) In an international armed conflict, declaring abolished,

suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and
actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
(24) Commiting any of the following acts:
(i) Conscripting, enlisting or recruiting children under the

age of fifteen (15) years into the national armed forces;
(ii) Conscripting, enlisting or recruiting children under the

age of eighteen (18) years into an armed force or group
other than the national armed forces; and
(iii) Using children under the age of eighteen (18) years to

participate actively in hostilities; and
(25) Employing means of warfare which are prohibited under

international law, such as:
(i) Poison or poisoned weapons;
(ii) Asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all

analogous liquids, materials or devices;

(iii) Bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human
body, such as bullets with hard envelopes which do not
entirely cover the core or are pierced with incisions; and
(iv) Weapons, projectiles and material and methods of

warfare which are of the nature to cause superfluous
injury or unecessary suffering or which are inherently
indiscriminate in violation of the international law of
armed conflict.
Any person found guilty of commiting any of the acts specified herein
shall suffer the penalty provided under Section 7 of this Act.
Section 5. Genocide - (a) For the purpose of this Act, "genocide" means
any of the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnic, racial, religious, social or any other similar stable and
permanent group as such:
(1) Killing members of the group;
(2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the

group;
(3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life

calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part;
(4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the

group; and
(5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to directly and publicly incite
others to commit genocide.
Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts specified in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall suffer the penalty provided
under Section 7 of this Act.
Section 6. Other Crimes Against Humanity. - For the purpose of this act,
"other crimes against humanity" means any of the following acts when
committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against
any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Willful killing;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in

violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy,

enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of
comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on

political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, sexual
orientation or other grounds that are universally recognized as
impermissible under international law, in connection with any act
referred to in this paragraph or any crime defined in this Act;
(i) Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons;
(j) Apartheid; and
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing

great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical
health.
Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts specified herein
shall suffer the penalty provided under Section 7 of this Act.
CHAPTER IV
PENAL PROVISIONS
Section 7. Penalties. - Any person found guilty of committing any of the

acts provided under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall suffer the penalty
of reclusion temporal in its medium to maximum period and a fine
ranging from One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00) to Five
hundred thousand pesos (Php 500,000.00).

When justified by the extreme gravity of the crime, especially where the
commision of any of the crimes specified herein results in death or serious
physical injury, or constitutes rape, and considering the individual
circumstances of the accused, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a
fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 500,000.00) to
One Million Pesos (Php 1,000,000.00) shall be imposed.
Any person found guilty of inciting others to commit genocide referred to

in Section 5(b) of this Act shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period and a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (Php
10,000.00) to Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php 20,000.00).
In addition, the court shall order the forfeiture of proceeds, property and
assets derived, directly or indirectly, from that crime, without prejudice to
the rights of bona fide third (3rd) parties. The court shall also impose the
corresponding accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code,
especially where the offender is a public officer.
CHAPTER V
SOME PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Section 8. Individual Criminal Responsibilities. - (a) In addition to

existing provisions in Philippine law on principles of criminal
responsibility, a person shall be criminally liable as principal for a crime
defined and penalized in this Act if he/she:
(1) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with

another or through another person, regardless of whether that
other person is criminally responsible;
(2) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which

in fact occurs or is attempted;
(3) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted

commission of such a crime by a group of person acting with a
common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall
either:
(i) be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or

criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose
involves the commission of a crime defined in this Act; or
(ii) be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to

commit the crime.

(b) A person shall be criminally liable as accomplice for facilitating the
commission of a crime defined and penalized in this Act if he/she aids,
abets or otherwise assists in its commission or attempted commission,
including providing the means for its commission.
(c) A person shall be criminally liable for a crime defined and penalized in
this Act if he/she attempts to commit such a crime by taking action
that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the
crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the
person's intention. However, a person who abandons the effort to
commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime
shall not be liable for punishment under this Act for the attempt to
commit the same if he/she completely and voluntarily gave up the
criminal purpose.
Section 9. Irrelevance of Official Capacity. - This Act shall apply equally

to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In
particular, official capacity as a head of state or government, a member of
a government or parliament, an elected representative or a government
official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility
under this Act, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for
reduction of sentence. However:
(a) Immunities or special procedural rules that may be attached to the

official capacity of a person under Philippine law other than the
established constitutional immunity from suit of the Philippine
President during his/her tenure, shall not bar the court from
exercising jurisdiction over such a person; and
(b) Immunities that may be attached to the official capacity of a person

under international law may limit the application of this Act, nut only
within the bounds established under international law.
Section 10. Responsibility of Superiors. - In addition to other grounds of

criminal responsibility for crimes defined and penalized under this Act, a
superior shall be criminally responsible as a principal for such crimes
committed by subordinates under his/her effective command and control,
or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his/her
failure to properly exercise control over such subordinates, where:
(a) That superior either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time,
should have known that the subordinates were committing or about to
commit such crimes;

(b) That superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures
within his/her power to prevent or repress their commission or to
submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and
prosecution.
Section 11. Non-prescription. - The crimes defined and penalized under

this Act, their prosecution, and the execution of sentences imposed on
their account, shall not be subject to any prescription.
Section 12. Orders from a Superior. - The fact that a crime defined and
penalized under this Act has been committed by a person pursuant to an
order of a government or a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not
relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless all of the following
elements occur:
(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the
government or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.
For the purposes of this section, orders to commit genocide or other

crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.
CHAPTER VI
Protection of Victims and Witnesses
Section 13. Protection of Victims and Witnesses. - In addition to existing

provisions in Philippine law for the protection of victims and witnesses,
the following measures shall be undertaken:
(a) The Philippine court shall take appropriate measures to protect the
safety, physical and physiological well-being, dignity and privacy of
victims and witnesses. In so doing, the court shall have regard of all
relevant factors, including age, gender and health, and the nature of
the crime, in particular, but not limited to, where the crime involves
sexual or gender violence or violence against children. The prosecutor
shall take such measures particularly during the investigation and
prosecution of such crimes. These measures shall not be prejudicial to
or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and to a fair and
impartial trial;

(b) As an exception to the general principle of public hearings, the court
may, to protect the victims and witnesses or an accused, conduct any
part of the proceedings in camera or allow the presentation of
evidence by electronic or other special means. In particular, such
measures shall be implemented in the case of the victim of sexual
violence or a child who is a victim or is a witness, unless otherwise
ordered by the court, having regard to all the circumstances,
particularly the views of the victim or witness;
(c) Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the court shall
permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at
stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the court in
manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of
the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and concerns
may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the
court considers it appropriate in accordance with the established rules
of procedure and evidence; and
(d) Where the disclosure of evidence or information pursuant to this Act

may lead to the grave endangerment of the security of a witness for
his/her family, the prosecution may, for the purposes of any
proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of the trial,
withhold such evidence or information and instead submit a summary
thereof. Such measures shall be exercised in a manner which is not
prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and to a
fair and impartial trial.
Section 14. Reparations to Victims. - In addition to existing provisions

in Philippine law and procedural rules for reparations to victims, the
following measures shall be undertaken:
(a) The court shall follow the principles relating to the reparations to, or
in respect of, victims,including restitution, compensation and
rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision, the court may, wither
upon request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances,
determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or
in respect of, victims and state the principles on which it is acting;
(b) The court may make an order directly against a convicted person
specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims,
including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation; and
(c) Before making an order under this section, the court may invite and
shall take account of representations from or on behalf of the
convicted person, victims or other interested persons.

Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prejudicing the rights of
victims under national or international law.
CHAPTER VII
Applicability of International Law and Other Laws
Section 15. Applicability of International Law.- In the application and

interpretation of this Act, Philippine courts shall be guided by the
following sources:
(a) The 1948 Genocide Convention;
(b) The 1949 Genava Conventions I-IV, their 1977 Additional Protocols I
and II and their 2005 Additional Protocol III;
(c) The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in
the Event of Armed Conflict, its First Protocol and its 1999 Second
Protocol;
(d) The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and its 2000 Optional
Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict;
(e) The rules and principles of customary international law;
(f) The judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals;
(g) Relevant and applicable international human rights instruments;
(h) Other relevant international treaties and conventions ratified or

acceded to by the Republic of the Philippines; and
(i) Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists and authoritative

commentaries on the foregoing sources as subsidiary means for the
determination of rules of international law.
Section 16. Suppletory Application of the Revised Penal Code and Other
General or Special Laws. - The provisions of the Revised Penal Code and
other general or special laws shall have a suppletory application to the
provisions of this Act.

CHAPTER VIII
JURISDICTION
Section 17. Jurisdiction.- The State shall exercise jurisdiction over

persons, whether military or civilian, suspected or accused of a crime
defined and penalized in this Act, regardless of where the crime is
committed, provided, any one of the following conditions is met:
(a) The accused is a Filipino citizen;
(b) The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the

Philippines; or
(c) The accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.
In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense

with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under this Act
if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the
investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the
authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the
Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another
State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.
No criminal proceedings shall be initiated against foreign nationals

suspected or accused of having committed the crimes defined and
penalized in this Act if they have been tried by a competent court outside
the Philippines in respect of the same offense and acquitted, or having
been convicted, already served their sentence.
Section 18. Philippine Court, Prosecutors and Investigators. - The

Regional Trial Court of the Philippines shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the crimes punishable under this Act. Their judgments
may be appealed or elevated to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme
Court as provided by law.
The Supreme Court shall designate special courts to try cases involving
crimes punishable under this Act. For these cases, the Commission on
Human Rights, the Department of Justice, the Philippine National Police
or other concerned law enforcement agencies shall designate prosecutors
or investigators as the case may be.
The State shall ensure that judges, prosecutors and investigators,

especially those designated for purposes of this Act, receive effective

training in human rights, International Humanitarian Law and
International Criminal Law.
CHAPTER IX
FINAL PROVISIONS
Section 19. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason or reasons, any part
or provision of this Statute shall be held to be unconstitutional or invalid,
other parts or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall
continue to be in full force and effect.
Section 20. Repealing Clause. - All laws, presidential decrees and

issuances, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof
inconsistent with the provisions of this Statute are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.
Section 21. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after
its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers
general circulation.
Approved.
Sgd. PROSPERO C.
NOGRALES Sgd. JUAN PONCE ENRILE
Speaker of the House of President of the Senate
Representative
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2669 and House Bill
No. 6633 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of
Representatives on October 14, 2009 and October 16, 2009, respectively.
For:
Sgd. MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP

Sgd. EMMA LIRIO-REYES
Secretary General
Secretary of the Senate
House of Representatives
Approved:
Sgd. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

Section 7.5. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 35
“CREATING THE INTER-AGENCY COMMITTEE ON EXTRA-

LEGAL KILLINGS, ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES, TORTURE
AND OTHER GRAVE VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE,
LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSONS”
WHEREAS, Art. II, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution declares that the
State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights;
WHEREAS, Art. III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides that no

person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law;
WHEREAS, Art. III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable;
WHEREAS, Art III, Section 12 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that
any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice;
WHEREAS, Art. III, Section 12 (2) of the 1987 Constitution provides that
no torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him, and that secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited;
WHEREAS, Art. III, Section 14 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that
no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law;
WHEREAS, Art. III, Section Sec. 18 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides
that no person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations;
WHEREAS, there have been reported and validated violations of the

above-declared rights of the individual throughout the years, which have
served to create an impression of a culture of impunity, wherein security
establishments of the State and non-state forces have been accused of
silencing, through violence and intimidation, legitimate dissent and
opposition raised by members of the civil society, cause-oriented groups,

political movements, people‘s and nor-government organizations, and by
ordinary citizens;
WHEREAS, most of these violations remain uninvestigated and

unsolved, with the perpetrators unidentified or unprosecuted, giving rise
to more impunity;
WHEREAS, there is a need to revisit these unsolved cases of grave

violations of the right to life, liberty, and security of persons, whether
committed as part of an apparent government policy in the past or as
recurring cases of unsanctioned individual abuse of power and authority
by State and non-state forces under the present; and
WHEREAS, the present Administration declares as a matter of

paramount policy that there is no room for all these forms of political
violence and abuses of power by agents or elements of the State or non-
state forces, and towards this end commits to establish an institutional
legacy of an efficient, coherent, and comprehensive government
machinery dedicated to the resolution of unsolved cases of political
violence in the form of extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances,
torture, and other grave violations of the right to life, liberty, and security
of persons;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of the

Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and
by law do hereby order:
SECTION 1. Creation of the lnter-Agency Committee. There is

hereby created an Inter-Agency Committee on Extra Legal Killings,
Enforced Disappearances, Torture, and Other Grave Violations of the
Right to Life, Liberty, and Security of Persons, to be composed of the
following:
Chairperson: Secretary, Department of Justice (DOJ)

Members: Chairperson, Presidential Human Rights Committee
(PHRC)
Secretary, Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG)
Secretary, Department of National Defense (DND)
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAPP)
Presidential Adviser for Political Affairs (PAPA)
Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
Director General, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Director, National Bureau of investigation (NBI)

The Committee shall invite the Chairperson of the Commission of Human
Rights (CHR) and the Ombudsman as observers and resource persons of
the Committee.
The above officials may designate their representatives to the Committee,

who shall have a rank not lower than Assistant Secretary, or General and
Chief Superintendent in the case of the AFP and the PNP.
The Committee shall organize a technical working group coming from the
offices of the various members and a secretariat that may be designated by
the Chairperson.
SECTION 2. Functions. The Committee shall undertake the following:
a) Inventory of cases. For the first 30 days, the Committee shall conduct
an inventory of all cases of extra-legal killings, enforced
disappearances, torture, and other grave violations of the right to life,
liberty, and security of persons, perpetrated by Stale and non-state
forces alike, from all government sources, i.e. the investigative and
prosecutorial government offices, including the National Prosecution
Service (NPS), the Ombudsman, CHR, PNP, NBI, AFP Inspector
General, People‘s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), National Police
Commission (NAPOLCOM), PNP Internal Affairs Service, the
Judiciary and all others, for purposes of categorizing said cases, as
follows:
i. Unsolved Cases;
ii. Cases under investigation;
iii. Cases under preliminary investigation; and
iv. Cases under trial.
Simultaneously, the Committee shall also source data of cases from non-
government sources, specifically independent and non-partisan
international and national human rights organizations and groups.
In determining which cases are to be included in the inventory, the

Committee shall draw up guidelines for the consideration of doubtful
cases with primacy given to the political complexion of the offense
committed, and the participation of State or non-state forces in the
commission of the human rights violation.
b) Investigation of unsolved cases. After conducting the inventory, the

Committee shall prioritize the unsolved cases for action, and assign
special investigation learns to conduct further investigation on these
cases for the possible identification of the perpetrators. Greater priority
shall be given to high profile cases perpetrated during the past
administration.

c) Monitoring and reporting to the Committee of cases under
investigation, preliminary investigation, and trial. For cases under
investigation, preliminary investigation, and trial, the Committee shall
designate a special oversight team composed of investigators and
prosecutors who shall actively monitor developments on these cases
and regularly report and submit recommendations to the Committee.
d) Investigation and prosecution of new cases. The Committee shall also

designate a special team of investigators and prosecutors exclusively for
new cases, for immediate investigation and prosecution of the
perpetrators. Cases referred to or filed with the CHR or the Ombudsman
shall be monitored by this special team for action on CHR and
Ombudsman resolutions on said cases, if applicable, unless the
investigation has already been started beforehand by, or complaints
have already been filed with, the agencies under the Committee‘s
jurisdiction, in which case the special team shall oversee, supervise and
monitor the investigation or preliminary investigation conducted by the
Committee‘s agencies, notwithstanding the conduct of an on-going
investigation by the CHR or the Ombudsman. However, the special
team shall actively coordinate with the CHR and the Ombudsman in the
conduct of these concurrent investigations.
In the case of torture, the special team shall ensure that Section 9 (a) of
RA No. 9745 or the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 on the 60-day period for
an investigation of a complaint for torture is followed by the DOJ, Public
Attorney‘s Office (PAO), PNP, NBI, and the AFP.
e) Action upon the cases. After the report of every team, which shall be
made as regularly and as expeditiously as possible, whether in the form
of short memoranda, email, notes, field spot reports, sms messages,
and the like, the Chair shall take immediate action if such is within the
jurisdiction of the agencies of the Department of Justice, without need
of consultation or agreement of the other members, or in consensus
with the concerned member of the Committee. In any case, the Chair
shall have the discretion to table any matter for discussion and decision
of the Committee, especially in the instance of high-profile or
problematic cases.
f) Submission of report to the President. After the first six months from
its creation, and every six months thereafter, the Committee shall
submit a report to the President, detailing the inventory of cases
according to category, and describing the accomplishments and
progress made for each case, or the problems and obstacles
encountered, highlighting problematic high profile cases from the past
administration as well as violations committed during the present

administration, with further recommendations for any additional
action that may be taken by the President requiring coordination on a
common course of action with the CHR, the Ombudsman, Congress,
and the Judiciary.
SECTION 3. Coordination and autonomy of members. Nothing in

this Administrative Order shall be interpreted to add to bureaucratic
processes or regulations in order to achieve the mandate of the Committee
or hamper the regular and ordinary course of functions of the agencies
under the jurisdiction of the Committee members. The individual agencies
shall not be prevented from accomplishing what otherwise is ordinarily
accomplished in the regular conduct of their operations and functions,
unless otherwise specifically agreed upon by the Committee for purposes
of coordinating and implementing concerted action for the achievement of
the Committee‘s mandates.
SECTION 4. Support and cooperation from other government

agencies. The various departments, bureaus, offices, agencies, and local
government units are hereby enjoined to give full support, assistance and
cooperation to the Committee in carrying out its mandate and functions.
SECTION 5. Funding. The initial funding requirements for the Inter-

Agency Committee shall be charged against the current appropriations of
the agencies composing the Committee. Thereafter, funding for the
succeeding years shall be incorporated in their respective regular
appropriations.
SECTION 6. Repealing Clause. This Administrative Order supersedes

and repeals Administrative Order No. 211 (s.2007) on the creation of the
Task Force Against Political Violence. The Task Force is hereby directed to
submit and turnover all its documents, data, reports, supplies, resources,
and remaining budget to the Committee, subject to regular procedures.
SECTION 7. Effectivity. This Administrative Order shall take effect

immediately.
DONE, in the City of Manila, this 22nd day of November, in the year of our
Lord, Two Thousand and Twelve.
(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

By the President:
(Sgd.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.
Executive Secretary
Source: Malacañang Records Office

Revised Manual For Prosecutors: 2017 EDITION

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Revised Manual For Prosecutors: 2017 EDITION

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVISED MANUAL FOR

CHAPTER I CRIMES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL

TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY

Article 114 Treason 1

TITLE TWO CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL

Article 124 Arbitrary Detention 9

TITLE THREE CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER 18

Article 134 Rebellion or Insurrection – How

TITLE FOUR CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST 40

Article 161 Counterfeiting the Great Seal of the

Commonwealth Act No. 142, as amended by R.A. 6085,

Article 179 Illegal Use of Uniforms or Insignia 58

TITLE FIVE CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND

Republic Act No. 9165, “The Comprehensive Dangerous

TITLE SIX CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS 69

Article 200 Grave Scandal 69

Article 203 Who are Public Officers 71

TITLE EIGHT CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS 102

Article 246 Parricide 102

TITLE NINE CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY

Article 267 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal

TITLE TEN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY 144

Article 293 Who are Guilty of Robbery 144

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, “An Act Penalizing the Making

Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic

Article 316 Other Forms of Swindling 173

Article 333 Who are Guilty of Adultery 181

TITLE TWELVE CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL

Article 347 Simulation of Births, Substitution of

TITLE THIRTEEN CRIMES AGAINST HONOR 196

Article 353 Definition of Libel 196

Republic Act No. 4200, “The Anti-Wire Tapping Act” 199

Republic Act No. 1477, “Exempting The Publisher,

Article 358 Slander 202

TITLE FOURTEEN QUASI-OFFENSES 207

Article 365 Imprudence and Negligence 207

CHAPTER II PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR MOST

2.1 Murder 210

CHAPTER III UPDATES ON SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 218

Section 3.1 Trafficking in Persons: Republic Act

CHAPTER IV MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURES 472

Section 4.1 Lookout Bulletin Order/Allow

CHAPTER V LEGAL WRITING 554

Section 5.1 Overview 554

CHAPTER VI VALUES AND ETHICS IN

Section 6.1 Overview 568

CHAPTER VII RELEVANT LAWS/ADMINISTRATIVE

Section 7.1 Republic Act No. 6981

All together towards a better DOJ!

This 2017 Edition of the Revised Manual for Prosecutors is a product

First, to the following:

• The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement

• The International Development Law Organization (IDLO),

• The American Bar Association-Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI),

• Former Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano who originally

• Former Prosecutor General Victor C. Sepulveda and Acting

• The consultant-writers, Atty. Jude Romano, Criminal Law Expert;

• SDSP Richard Anthony D. Fadullon - DOJ Proper

Fourth, to the members of the Technical Working Group created

Finally, to Undersecretary Antonio T. Kho, Jr., for his guidance and

CRIMES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND

TITLE ONE - CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL

1. Offender is a Filipino citizen 1. Proof to determine whether