Criminal law II

GROUP ACTIVITY

  

Submitted by:

Clemencio, Fiel Wilhelm U.

Gatinga, Gerald Mart C.
Reandino, Steven Peach L.

  

 Submitted to:

VILLENA, VINCENT LONTOC

Chief Prosecutor
 

 
A. What will be the proper crime to charge a person who performed sexual intercourse with a minor,
Rape or Child Abuse?  Qualify your answer.

ANS: According to a decision enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of People vs Abay, G.R. No.
177752, under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act (RA) 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of
sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for
statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and penalized with reclusion
perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with
either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of
the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act
because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to
criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section
5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (complex crimes), a felony under the
Revised Penal Code such as rape cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.

B.  Crimes punishable under the RPC and Special Laws can be compared and differentiated in terms of
the acts being punished, the mode and manner of execution, the object of the crime, or the criminal
intent and objective of the offender.

ANS: As to the acts being punished, the crimes defined and punishable under the RPC are those
where the acts or omissions penalized are intently bad, evil, or wrong that they are almost universally
condemned.  On the other hand, crimes that are defined and punished under Special Laws are those
where the acts penalized are not inherently bad, evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for public good,
public welfare, or interest and whoever violates the prohibition are penalized.

As to the mode and manner of execution, the crimes punished by the RPC are divided into stages such
as attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages and are considered in imposing the proper penalty.
On the other hand, there is no attempted and frustrated stage in Special Laws unless the law itself
punishes the attempted and frustrated stage.

As to the criminal intent and objective of the offender, under the RPC, good faith or lack of criminal
intent or negligence is a defense. On the other hand, good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not
a defense under Special Laws.

Distinguish the following crimes: 

1. Rape, Qualified Seduction, Simple Seduction and Child Abuse under Sec 5(b) of RA 7610;

ANS: Rape under Art. 266-A (1) of the RPC, is the carnal knowledge to a woman against her will, in
this case the offender is always a man and the offender party is always a woman. Rape can also be
committed by sexual assault under Rape under Art. 266-A (2) of the RPC, as provided when the offender
inserts his penis to another person’s mouth or anal orifice or by inserting an instrument or object into
the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Article 337 of the RPC or Qualified Seduction - In qualified seduction there are two classes one is
seduction of a virgin over twelve (12) years and under eighteen (18) years of age by persons who abuses
their authority or confidence reposed in them and the other is seduction of a sister by her brother or
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her age and reputation. The virgin refers to a woman of
good reputation not in a sense does not mean physical virginity.     

Article 338 or Simple Seduction - In simple seduction the offender uses deceit in order to have sexual
intercourse with her. The victim is also a woman who is in good standing that she is over twelve (12)
years and under eighteen (18) years of age. Deceit takes the form of unfulfilled promise of marriage. The
woman is not required to be virgin, all that is necessary is that she is of good reputation.

Ra 7610 sec 5(b) or Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation and discrimination act - In
7160 sec 5(b) the victims are children either male or female who are exploited for sexual or lascivious
conducts in exchange for money or consideration. There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution
when any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or massage clinic, health club or
other similar establishments.

The similarities of these crimes are the offender has carnal knowledge to the victim either by seduction,
by rape or by child exploitation. 

Rape and Seduction distinguished; in rape the offender has carnal knowledge against the woman
against her will with the presence of violence, threat or intimidation or by sexual assault as provided by
RA 8353. While in seduction the offender seduces or enticing a woman to unlawful sexual intercourse by
promise of a marriage or any other means of persuasion without the use of force.

Qualified Seduction and Simple Seduction distinguished as to the virginity of the woman in qualified
seduction virginity is an essential element of the crime while in simple seduction virginity is not an
essential element, it is enough that the woman is single or a widow of good reputation. As to deceit in
qualified seduction, deceit is not an essential element of the crime, while in simple seduction deceit is an
essential element of the crime. As to the commission of the crime in qualified seduction it can be
committed only with abuse of authority or abuse of confidence or relationship, while in simple seduction
it can be committed even without abuse of authority, confidence or relationship. And as to the offender
distinction in qualified seduction this can be committed by specific persons such as priest, house servant,
teacher, brother seducing a sister, ascendant seducing a descendant. While in simple seduction it is
committed by any person so long as there is deceit.

2. Sexual Assault, Acts of Lasciviousness, and Child Abuse under Sec 5 (b) of RA 7610; 

ANS: Rape under Art. 266-A (2) as provided is committed when the offender inserts his penis to
another person’s mouth or anal orifice or by inserting an instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person.  
Art 336 or Acts of Lasciviousness - there is no intent to have sexual intercourse.  The offender commits
an act of lasciviousness or lewdness the victim of either sex done under force or intimidation, by means
of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority or when the offended party is deprived of reason
or unconscious or when the offended party is under 12 years of age or demented. 

Ra 7610 sec 5(b) – under this provision those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or
lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; children
whether male or female are exploited for a consideration or due to coercion or influence from any
syndicated group that indulge in lascivious conduct. 

The similarities of these crimes are that all of them have the performance of lewdness or lasciviousness.
Sexual assault and Acts of lasciviousness distinguished in sexual assault and acts of lasciviousness the
manner of the commission of the crime is the same both lascivious in character. As to the intent in
sexual assault the acts performed by offender clearly indicate that his purpose is to have sex with the
woman while in acts of lasciviousness there is no intent to have sexual intercourse. Citing People V
Jalosjos the Supreme Court adopted the definition of lascivious conduct that it is the intentional
touching, either directly or indirectly or through clothing of the genitalia or anus, groin breast, inner
thigh or buttocks or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person
whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse the
sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area
of a person.

3. Child Trafficking vs Qualified Human Trafficking;

ANS: Under RA 7610, Sec. 7, Child trafficking is any person who shall engage in trading and dealing with
children including the act of buying and selling of a child for money or for any other consideration or
barter. The victim is always a child.

Under RA 9208, Sec 6Qualified human trafficking it is qualified when the trafficked person is a child,
when the child is adopted for the sole purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitations, or any
other similar means, when the trafficking is committed by a syndicate, when the offender is an
ascendant, guardian, parent, or any other who exercise authority to the victim, when the victim is
trafficked and engage in prostitution with the military or law enforcement, when the offender is a law
enforcement agent or military and when by reason of the trafficking the victim dies or becomes insane
or suffered mutilation or becomes infected with HIV or AIDS.

Similarities of child trafficking and qualified human trafficking are both crimes are crimes against
humanity as provided by public international law. These crimes are distinguished that in child trafficking
the victim is always a child, while in qualified human trafficking the victim are mostly adults but it
qualifies when the victim is a child.
 4. Corruption of Minors, Child Abuse under Sec 5 (b) of RA 7610, and Qualified Human Trafficking;

ANS: Under art 340 or corruption of minors of the RPC it is the promoting or facilitating the
prostitution or corruption of persons under age to satisfy the lust of another. The victims may be male
or female. The act is not necessarily be for profit and it is committed by a single act. The victim must be
of good reputation and not a prostitute or corrupted person.

Ra 7610 sec 5(b) - Here the children exploited either for prostitution or for lascivious conduct in
exchange for money or other consideration. There is also coercion or influence on the part of the
offender.

Qualified human trafficking - It is being qualified when it violates sec 6 of RA 9208 when the victim is a
child, there are other qualified circumstances in order that human trafficking be qualified for instance
when the offender is a military or law enforcement agent.

Similarities of these crimes is that all of them a child is involved in the exploitation or abuse.

Article 340 and RA 7610 distinguished both crimes that it is essential that the victims are minors, as to
the profit in corruption of minors it may not necessarily be for profit while in RA 7610 it is generally for
profit. Whereas in qualified human trafficking it is always for profit but the victims are mostly adults, but
qualifies when the victim is a child.

5. White Slave Trade, Slavery, Trafficking in Persons, and VAWC; 

ANS: White Slave trade or art 341 of the RPC provides that engaging in the business of prostitution by
profit and enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution. The victims are always
females and it is for the sole purpose of profit.

Slavery - slavery is considered one of the serious violations in international law, it has also been
crystalized to a customary law to all nations in jus cogens status, which making it the highest norm of
international law. The victim can either be a male or female, adult or child.

Trafficking in persons -  Under the international law trafficking in Persons shall mean the recruitment,
transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or
other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of
vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include at a
minimum the exploitation of prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour
or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of human organs. These
victims may either be a child or an adult, male or female. That are trafficked for a profit or not for profit.
Violence Against Women and Child - Under RA 9262 it is an act or series of act committed by any person
against a woman who is his wife or former wife or any woman who he had sexual or dating relationship,
or against her child which the offender committed physical, sexual, psychological harm or economic
abuse including threats, coercion or deprivation of her liberty. The offender must have a sexual or dating
relationship with the woman.  

Similarities of White Slave Trade, Slavery and Trafficking in Persons these crimes are crimes against
humanity as provided by public international law and has attained the jus cogens status. It is inherently
evil as itself; it designates norms from which no derogation is permitted by way of particular
agreements.

White slavery trade and slavery distinguished as to the sex of the victims in white slavery trade the
victims are limited only to females, while in slavery the victims may either be male or female. Both
crimes are generally for profit.

VAWC and white slavery trade distinguished in VAWC the crime is committed by any person against a
woman who is wife or former wife or any woman he had sexual or dating relationship, while in white
slave trade the offender is any person engage in the business of prostitution and enlisting the service of
women for profit.

6.  Robbery, Grave threats with a condition, Grave Coercion, and Art. 316 (3); 

ANS: In robbery under art 293 of the RPC there be personal property belonging to another, there is
unlawful taking of that property and that the taking must be with the intent to gain, and there is
violence against or intimidation of any person or force used upon things. Violence, force or intimidation
is the key elements for the unlawful taking.

Robbery is classified in to two; robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons and robbery by
use of force upon things.

Grave threats with condition or Art 282 of the RPC provides that the offender threatens another person
with the infliction upon the latter’s honor or property, or upon his family or any wrong, that such wrong
amounts to a crime, that there is demand for money or any other condition is imposed that is not
unlawful and that offender attains his purpose. The key element is that the offender imposed a
condition against the victim.

Grave coercion under art 286 of RPC A person prevents another from doing something not prohibited by
law, or compelling him to do something against his will, that the prevention or compulsion is thru
violence, intimidation, or threats and that the offender has no right to do so or it is not made under
authority of law or lawful right. The element here is that the offender prevents the victim from doing
something or compelling the other by means of violence, threat or intimidation. 
Other forms of swindling under Art 316 (3) the offender is the owner of the personal property, and said
property is in the lawful possession of another and the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful
possessor which prejudices caused to the possessor or third person. The offender is the lawful owner
however he wrongfully takes it from the lawful possessor without the right legal action.

Similarities of these crimes are that the offender has caused injury to another by obtaining a thing
unlawfully. Robbery and grave coercion distinguished both crimes as violence employed by the offender
however in robbery there is intent to gain while in coercion there is no intent to gain.

Robbery and art 316 distinguished in robbery the act is done with violence or intimidation for the
unlawful taking, and the offender is not the lawful owner as well as the unlawful possessor, while in art
316 or other forms of swindling the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor which causes
the injury. The offender is the lawful owner however he wrongfully takes it from the lawful possessor.

Grave threats with condition and grave coercion distinguished in grave threats the offender threatened
to harm and conditional, while in grave coercion the threatened harm is immediate and direct. As to the
manner of commission of the crime in grave threats it is generally committed by means of intimidation
which is future and conditional, while in grave coercion it is committed by violence or intimidation and is
direct and immediate.

7.  Art 315 (1) (c), Art. 316 (4), Art 298, Art 315 (3) (a), and Art 171 (1);

ANS: Estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature in blank or Art 315 (1) (c) There is a crime of
estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature in blank, the paper of the offended party be in blank,
the offended party delivered it to the offender and the document is written by the offender without
authority and it creates liability or causes damages to the offended party. The document has a written
signature of the offended party, because of it the offender takes advantage of it and it causes damages
to the offended party

Other forms of swindling (execution of fictitious contract)  or Art 316 (4) - Is when a person who shall
execute any fictitious contract to the prejudice of the other.

Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation or Art 298 - the offender has the intent to
defraud another, that the offender compels the offended party to sign, execute or deliver any document
and the compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation.

Estafa by inducing another to sign any document or Art 315 (3) (a) – That the offender induced the
offended party to sign a document, that the deceit be employed to make him sign the document, the
offended party personally signed the document and that the prejudice be caused.

Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric or Art 171 (1) - under the RPC it is
committed when there  be an intent to imitate or an attempt to imitate and the two signatures or
handwritings the genuine and the forged, bear some resemblance to each other. In art 315 (1) (c) the
signature is already signed by the offended party,
Similarities of these crimes are that there is prejudice or injury of the offender to another.

Estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature in blank or Art 315 (1) (c) and Other forms of
swindling (execution of fictitious contract)  or Art 316 (4) in estafa there is a blank document with the
signature of the offended party and the offender takes advantage of that document and causes injury to
the one who is the owner of the signature, while in estafa in art 315 (1) sub C the signature is imitated
by the offender and the document is fictitious and causes injury to another. The difference in Art 315 (1)
sub C is that there is no violence or intimidation, while in article 316 (4) the document is void or
fictitious, whereas art 298 does not apply if the document is void. In art 315 (3) (a) the crime is
committed by means of deceit in order for the offended party to sign a document.

In art 316 (4) the signature is immaterial because the contract is fictitious, in art 298 the handwriting
signature of the offended party is compelled by means of violence or intimidation and in art 315 (3) (a)
the writing signature of the offended party is done by means of deceit.

8. Estafa vs. BP 22;

ANS: Deceit and damage are essential elements in Article 315 par 2 (d) of the RPC but are not
required in BP 22. Under the latter law, mere issuance of a check that is dishonored gives rise to the
presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued the same without sufficient funds
and hence punishable which is not so under the Penal Code. as to the liability of endorsers in Bp 22 they
are not liable but on estafa the endorser who has the knowledge that the check is worthless can be
criminally liable, as to the purpose of the issuance of check in bp 22 the issuance is for value or on
account whereas in estafa the issuance of the worthless check is to obtain the consideration from the
payee. As to the damage or deceit in Bp 22 deceit and damage are not elements of the crime while in
estafa the damage or at least intent to cause damage are essential. As to the grace period in BP 22 the
drawer is given 5 days to pay after the notice of dishonor, while in estafa the drawer is given 3 days from
notice. As to the knowledge of lack or insufficiency of funds in Bp 22 the maker knows that at the time of
issue he does not have sufficient funds while in estafa not necessary that the drawer know at the time
he issued the check that it has insufficient funds.
 

9. Falsification vs. Forgery;

 
ANS: Falsification under Art 171 of the RPC is the commission of any of the 8 acts mentioned in art
171 such as counterfeiting, causing it to appear that persons have participated in an act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so participate, attributing to persons who have participated in any act or
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them, making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts, altering true dates, making alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
changes its meaning, 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 genuine original and intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in
a protocol, registry or official book on legislative, public, official, commercial or private documents or
wireless or telegraph messages. On the other hand, forgery under art 169 of the RPC refers to the
falsification and counterfeiting of treasury or bank notes or any instruments payable to bearer.
Similarities of these crimes are that there is altering or imitating the documents or signatures.

10. Theft, Malversation, Estafa under Art. 315 (3) (c), and Art. 226;
 
ANS: Theft or art 308 of the RPC there be taking of personal property, such property belongs to
another and the taking be done with intent to gain. The offender does not use violence or intimidation
through any means specified in robbery under art 299 or 302 in taking personal property of another
with intent to gain. The nature of the property is private. The offender is a private individual.
Malversation or art 217 of the RPC the public fund or property is applied to the personal use and benefit
of the offender or of another person. The nature of the funds is public. The offender generally is a public
officer but malversation may be committed by a private individual who conspired with the accountable
public officer.
                    
Estafa by removing, concealing or destroying documents or Art 315 (3) (c) is committed when the
offender removed, concealed or destroyed any court record, office files or any other papers and that the
offender had intent to defraud another. The offender has no intent to gain but to defraud another.
 
Removal, concealment or destruction of documents or Art 226 under this provision the offender be a
public officer, that he abstracts, removes or destroys the documents, the said documents should be
entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office and the damage whether serious or not is caused. 
 
Theft and malversation distinguished in theft the offender is a private individual with the intent to gain
without the means of violence or intimidation unlawfully takes a thing from another, while in
malversation the offender is public officer and he misappropriated the funds or property which he is
accountable for. In theft the funds are private while in malversation the funds are public.
 
Estafa Art 315 (3) (c) and Art 226 distinguished in estafa the offender has no intent to gain but to
defraud another, the offender may be a private individual or a public officer who is not officially
entrusted with custody of said documents, while in only public officers who have been entrusted with
said documents can be held liable if not then estafa is committed if there is damage caused. 
 

11. Piracy under the RPC vs Piracy under PD 532;

ANS: Piracy under RPC is the robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful
authority and done with the intention to steal and intention of universal hostility. While piracy under PD
532 is any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part of its cargo,
personal belongings of its passengers, by means of violence or intimidation or force upon things
committed by any person including a passenger or a member of the said vessel in Philippine waters. The
similarities are that they are both in sea and there is forcible taking of the vessel. The difference is that
in piracy under RPC the place of commission may be in the Philippine waters or the high seas while in
piracy under PD 532 the crime is committed in Philippine waters only. Moreover as to the offenders in
case of seizure of the vessel whether whole or not the offender is not a member of the vessel or its
passengers whereas in piracy under PD 532 the offender may be a passenger or a member crew of the
said vessel.

 
12. Robbery under Art 294 and 295,  Brigandage, and Highway Robbery under PD 532;

ANS: Robbery under Art 294 and 295 of the RPC distinguished. Art 294 applies where the robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons takes place without entering an inhabited house under
robbery of art 299. But if both are present it shall be considered as a complex crime. Under this article
special complex crime of robbery arises such as robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with
serious physical injuries, robbery with unnecessary violence and intimidation against any person not
responsible for the crime and robbery with the use of violence or intimidation against any person. While
in art 295 the robbery is qualified by 5 special aggravating circumstances such as provided that if
committed in an uninhabited place, by a band, by attacking a moving train, motor vehicle or similar
vehicles, by entering passengers compartments in a train taking them by surprise, on a street or, road or
highway and the intimidation is with the use of firearms. These special aggravating circumstances
impose the penalty in the maximum period and cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstances
and also considered as qualifying circumstances while in robbery under art 294 the crime of special
complex crime of robbery has the express penalty as provided by law.

Brigandage or art 306 of the RPC that there must be at least four armed persons, the formed a band of
robbers and the purpose is any of the following acts; to commit robbery in a highway, to kidnap persons
for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom or to attain by means of force and violence any other
purpose. It may be committed without the use of firearms.

Highway Robbery under PD 532 the robbery should take place along the Philippine highway, the act of
robbery must be indiscriminate and the victim was not predetermined.  In relation to sec 2 of PD 532
the seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or for other unlawful purposes or the taking away of the
property of another by means of violence against or the intimidation of persons or force upon things or
other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine highway.

Highway Robbery (PD 532) and Brigandage distinguished. As to conspiracy among the members in
highway robbery mere conspiracy to constitute the offense is not punishable since it presupposes the
acts defined are actually committed, while in brigandage the mere formation of a band for any purpose
indicated in the law is punishable. As to the formation of a band in highway robbery one person can
commit the crime, while in brigandage offenders must be a band of robbers or more than three (3). As
to the victim in highway robbery any person could be the victim, while in brigandage there is a
preconceived victim. And as to the commission of the crime in highway robbery it must not be an
isolated case of robbery, wheras in brigandage it is immaterial that the robbery was committed for the
first time.
13. Rape thru Forcible Abduction vs Simple Rape;

ANS: The similarities of these crimes are that the offender had sexual intercourse to the woman
against her will by means of violence or intimidation. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a
complex crime that occurs when the abductor has carnal knowledge of the abducted woman under the
following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented. While in
simple rape by sexual intercourse as provided by RA 8353 is that the act is accomplished by using force,
thread or intimidation or when the woman is deprived by reason by means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority or when the woman is under 12 years of age or demented. The difference
between the two is that in the former there is abduction of the woman the offender at first had no
intention of raping the woman but the abductor later raped the woman whereas in the latter the
criminal design of the offender is to rape the woman whether by violence, fraudulent machination or
when the woman is under 12 yrs old or demented.

14.   Illegal Detention, Arbitrary Detention, Unlawful Arrest, Forcible Abduction, and Grave
Coercion; 

ANS: Art 267 of the rpc or illegal detention the offender may be a private or public officer who has no
duty under the law to detain a person. That he kidnaps or dentains another to deprive his liberty, that
the act of detention is illegal and that the commission of the offense any of the following
circumstances: 

A. Kidnapping or detention last for more than three days.

B. That it is committed simulating public authority.
C. That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person detained or threats to kill him are
made.
D. That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor or female or public officer.

 Art 124 of the RPC or arbitrary detention - That the offender is a public  officer or employee, that he
detains a person and that the detention is without legal grounds.

 Similarities of illegal detention and arbitrary detention are that the victims are both in detention. The
differences as to the crime committed is that in illegal detention the crime is against personal liberty
while in arbitrary detention the crime is against the fundamental law of the state. As to the offender in
illegal detention the offender is a private individual while in arbitrary detention the offender is a public
officer and as to the manner of the commission of the crime in illegal detention the offender unlawfully
kidnaps or detains the person or deprives his liberty whereas in arbitrary detention the offender detains
the person without legal ground.

 Art 269 of the RPC or unlawful arrest - That the offender arrests or detains another person, and that the
purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper authorities and that the arrest or detention is
unauthorized by law or there is no reasonable ground.
 

Similarities in arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest are that the offender detains the person. The
differences are that on arbitrary detention the crime is against the fundamental law of the state while in
unlawful arrest the crime is against liberty. And as to the offender in arbitrary detention the offender is a
public officer while in unlawful arrest the offender may be any person whether public or private
individual and as to the intention in arbitrary detention the intention of the offender is not to bring him
to the proper authorities but the detain him while in unlawful arrest the purpose of the offender is to
bring the victim to the proper authority. And as to the manner of the commission of the crime in
arbitrary detention although the offender is a public officer he is without legal ground to detain the
victim whereas in unlawful arrest the private person arrest a person without reasonable ground or when
he is a public officer he is not authorized to arrest or he did not act in his official capacity.

 In distinguishing unlawful arrest and other illegal detention is that if the purpose of the offender is to
deliver him to the proper authorities and it is unlawful then the offense committed is unlawful arrest if
not otherwise then the offender committed other illegal detention.

 Art 342 or abduction - That the victim abducted is a woman regardless of her age or status or
reputation, that the abduction is against her will and that the abduction is with lewd designs.

 Art 286 or grave coercion - That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by
law or compelling the victim to do something against his will that the prevention or compulsion be
effected by violence, threat or intimidation and that the offender that restrained the will of the victim
has no right to do so or the restrain is not made under the authority of law,

 Similarities in abduction and grave coercion are that the victim is compelled or abducted against his will.
The distinction is that in forcible abduction there is an existence of lewd design while in grave coercion 
there is no lewd design. And in abduction there is no deprivation of liberty whereas in grave coercion
there is deprivation of liberty.

15.   Evasion of Service of Sentence, Delivering Prisoners from Jail, Consenting to Evasion;

 ANS: Art 157 of the RPC or evasion of service of sentence - The offender is a convict by final
judgement that he is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty and that he evades the
service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence.

 Art 156 or delivering prisoners from jail - That there is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment,
that the offender removes therefrom such person or helps the escape of such person.

 Art 223 or consenting to evasion - That the offender is a public officer, he had in his custody a prisoner
either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgement and such prisoner escaped from his custody
and he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape.

 The similarities of these crimes is that there is an escaped convict or prisoner.

The differences is that in art 156 the person that is liable is any person who is not the custodian of the
prisoner who helps the escape of the convict while in art 157 that person liable is the prisoner in
confinement by final judgement and in art 223 the public officer who consented or connived in the
escape of the convict is liable.

16.   Treason, Rebellion, Coup d'etat, Sedition, Tumultuous Disturbance, Alarm and Scandal, and
Direct Assault.

ANS: Art 114 of the RPC or treason - The offender whether a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the
Philippines owes allegiance to the government of the Philippines. That there is war in which the
Philippines is involved and that the offender either levies war against the government or adheres to the
enemies by giving them aid or comfort.

Art 134 or rebellion - There be a public uprising and taking up of arms against the government and the
purpose of the uprising or movement is either removing from the allegiance of said government or
depriving wholly or partially any of the powers of the congress or chief executive.

Differences in rebellion and treason as to the classification the crime in rebellion is crime against public
order while in treason  the crime is against national security and as to the purpose of rebellion is to
remove from the allegiance of said government while in treason the purpose is the delivery of the
philippines to a foreign power, as to the manner of the commission of the crime in rebellion there must
be public uprising and by taking arms against the government while in treason by levying war against the
government or adhering to the enemies by giving them comfort or aid. As to the time of commission in
rebellion in times of peace while in treason must be during time of war and as to the person committing
the crime in rebellion any person may commit it whereas in treason only a filipino citizen or an alien
residing in the Philippines may commit it.

Art 134-A coup D’état - The offender is a person or persons belonging to the military or police or any
holding public office, it is committed by means of swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation,
threat, stealth or strategy, the attract is directed against the duly constituted authorities of the
Philippines, and the purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state powers.

Rebellion and Coup d’etat distinguished as to the classification both are crimes against public order and
as to its purpose in rebellion the purpose is to remove from the allegiance of the said government or to
deprive the congress or chief executive of any of their powers while in coup d’etat the purpose is to
diminish state power and its objective is to destabilize or paralyze the existing government. And as to
the manner of the commission of the crime in rebellion the act is committed through force and violence
thru public uprising or by taking arms against the government while in coup d’etat there must be a swift
attack accomplished by violence, threat or intimidation, strategy, stealth. As to the crime directed
against in rebellion it is directed against the government while in coup d’etat it is directed against the
duly constituted authorities of the Philippines or any military camp or public utilities. And as to the
person who commits it in rebellion any person whether public officers or not and in coup d’etat it is
required that the person committing it is a military or police or any holding of any public office.
 

Art 139 or sedition - The offender rise publicity and tumultuous and the employ force, intimidation, or
other means, that the offenders employ any of those means to attain the following: 
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or holding of any popular election;
2. To prevent the government or any public officer from freely exercising its functions;
3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public officer;
4. To commit for any political or social end any act of hate or revenge against private persons or
any social class;
5. To despoil for any political or social end any person municipality or government of all its
property or any part thereof.

Sedition and treason distinguished in sedition is by disturbances or raising of commotions in the state
while in treason it is the violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign. As to the manner of
commission in sedition, arms are not necessary. It is enough that there is public uprising and the uprising
is tumultuous, while in rebellion it is necessary that there be a public uprising and taking arms against
the government. As to its purpose in sedition the purpose is to rise publicity or tumultuously with the
employment of force, intimidation or other means, while in rebellion the purpose is to remove from the
allegiance of said government or deprive the chief executive or congress any of their powers.

 Art 153 or tumultuous disturbances - The acts punishable are that causing any serious disturbance in a
public place or office or establishment, interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions or
gatherings, making an outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any public place, displaying
placards or emblems which provoke disturbance of public order and burying with pomp the body of a
person who has been legally executed.

 Tumultuous disturbances and rebellion or sedition distinguished as to its manner of commission in

sedition or rebellion the outcry or displaying of emblems or placards should have been done with the
idea of inducing its hearers or readers to commit the crime of sedition or rebellion while in tumultuous
disturbances the outcry is more or less unconscious outburst which even though rebellious or seditious
in nature is not intentional to induce others to commit rebellion or sedition and as to the treatment of
the meeting in sedition or rebellion the meeting is unlawful whereas in tumultuous disturbances the
meeting is lawful but becomes unlawful after the outburst.

 Art 155 or alarms and scandals - Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker or other explosives within
any town or public place which produces alarm or danger, instigating or taking an active part in any
disorderly meeting offensive or prejudicial to public tranquility, disturbing the public peace while
wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusements and causing any
disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated.

 Alarms and scandals and tumultuous disturbances distinguished both are crime against public order.
The distinction is that if the disturbance is of a serious nature the crime will fall under tumultuous
disturbances if not it is only alarms and scandals.

 Art 148 or direct assault - There are two kinds the first being: Without a public uprising by employing
force or intimidation to attain any of the purposes of rebellion or sedition. This is very rare. It is the
second form which is commonly committed.
 Second kind is committed when, without a public uprising, the offender: Attacks, Employs force,
seriously intimidates or seriously resists, any person in authority or his agent while engaged in the
performance of official duties or on the occasion thereof knowing him to be such.

There must be an attack or employment of force or serious intimidation, upon the person of the victim.
This includes any offensive or antagonistic movement of any kind, with or without a weapon. This may
be an actual physical contact or the instilling of fear or threat of an evil on the person of the victim, but
not on his property. 

The offended party must be a Persons In Authority (PIA) or a Agent of Persons In Authority (APIA) and
has not yet been separated from the service. Thus the crime is committed even if at the time of
commission the PIA/APIA is on leave, on vacation, or under suspension, but no when he has retired or
was dismissed or removed. 

 1. The following are PIAs:

a). Any person directly vested with jurisdiction i.e he has the power to govern, execute the laws
and administer justice
b). Teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized
private schools, colleges and universities. They must be within the school premises during school
hours or are actually performing the tasks outside the school premises
c). Lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such
performance   
d). Under the Local Government Code: (a) the Punong Barangay, (b) Sanguniang Barangay
members and (c) members of the Lupong Tagapamayapa
2. The following are APIAS:
a. Those who, by direct provision of law, or by election or by appointment, are charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection of life and property ( AGENTS PROPER) such as :
(i). Law Enforcement Agents such as the PNP and the NBI irrespective of their rank
(ii). Barangay Tanods
(iii).Municipal treasurer being the agent of the provincial treasurer
(iv). The postmaster being the agent of the Director of Posts
(v). But Members of the AFP are not included 
The accused must know the victim is a PIA/APIA which fact must be alleged in the Information
1. There must be a clear intent on the part of the accused to defy the authorities, to offend, injure
or assault the victim as a PIA/APIA

These crimes similarities are that there is a crime against the public or public disturbance or there is a
crime against public officers. 
Distinguished rebellion and direct assault in rebellion there must be a public uprising against the
government while in direct assault cannot be committed in times of rebellion or sedition because it
requires that the assault be without a public uprising.

C. A crime is deemed "qualified" when circumstances provided in the law itself punishing it or in
relation to other provisions of the law, other than Art 14 of the RPC, are present during its
commission.

Identify the circumstance and provision of the law, and explain how the same will aggravate the
criminal liability of the offender in the following crimes: (3 points each).

1. Qualified Rape;
 
As provided under Art. 266(A) (1) of the RPC, Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious,

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none
of the circumstances mentioned above be present;

As provided under Art. 266(B) of the Revised Penal Code, rape through sexual intercourse is
qualified by any of the following circumstances:

As to Minority and Relationship

 
A. When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old; and 

B. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

The Supreme Court, in People v. Pruna, has set out the following guidelines in appreciating age,
either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance:

1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy
of the certificate of live birth of such party;

2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove
age;
 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed
or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a
member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters
respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following
circumstances:

a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less than 7 years old;

b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she
is less than 12 years old;

c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she
is less than 18 years old. 

4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the
victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice
provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. 

5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party and the
failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken
against him.

Meanwhile, In the case of People vs. Gallano 752 SCRA 1, February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court
ruled that in order that the accused is convicted of qualified rape under Article 266-B (1) of the
Revised Penal Code, two requisites must be met, namely:
 
(1) the victim must be a less than 18 years old; and
(2) the offender must either be related to the victim by consanguinity of by affinity within the
third civil degree, or is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
 
These two requisites must be both alleged and proved with absolute certainty. Otherwise, the
accused could only be held guilty of simple rape.

As to law enforcement agents

 

C. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law
enforcement or penal institution;
 
D. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or paramilitary units
thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution,
when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
 In the case of People vs. Ogan 623 SCRA 479, July 05, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the
prosecution failed to prove that accused-appellant took advantage of his position as a police
officer for purposes of convicting him of qualified rape, since his victims were not under police
custody. Hence, two requisites must be met:

1.  An offender(police officer or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution)
taking advantange of his position to accomplished the crime of rape; and

2.  The victim must be under police custody.

As to disgrace committed

E. When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other
relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;

In the case of People vs. Flores 638 SCRA 631 , December 15, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled
that Flores still cannot escape the penalty of death. Flores forgot the important fact that aside
from AAA’s minority, the qualifying circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of
AAA’s mother was also alleged in the Information and it is indisputable that when Flores raped
AAA, he committed such act in full view of BBB, AAA’s mother.

Accordingly, once the prosecution were able to alleged and proved that the offender committed
the crime of rape in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within
the third civil degree of consanguinity, the crime of rape will be aggravated to qualified rape.

As to knowledge of the offender of the victim’s disability

F. 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; 
G. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus
(HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease
and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;
H. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission
of the crime;
I. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap
of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime;

In the case of People vs. Obogne 719 SCRA 696 , March 24, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that
the mere fact that the rape victim is a mental retardate does not automatically merit the
imposition of the death penalty. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, knowledge by
the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time of the
commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death
penalty.
 
Applying the above ruling, the knowledge of the offender about the personal circumstances of
the victim is essential. Further, the circumstance must be formally alleged in the information
and duly proved by the prosecution.
  

As to result

J. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical
mutilation or disability;
K. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane; and
L. When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof.

In the case of People vs. Borce 289 SCRA 445 , April 22, 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that a
thorough reading of the records of the case would fail to disclose that accused-appellant
inflicted the wounds on the victim deliberately to maim her. It would, in fact, appear that the
victim sustained the wounds only as a result of a clear attempt by appellant to kill her and cover-
up his misdeeds. The injury thus borne by private complainant should not be taken as a
circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of rape but should instead
rightly be taken up and absorbed in the crime of frustrated murder.

Applying the above ruling, the crime of rape will be qualified if the physical mutilation, insanity,
or homicide were the direct result of the commission of the crime of rape and not merely
incidental.

Effect on Criminal Liability of the Offender

Once proven, the criminal liability of the offender will be imposed with the death penalty,
except K and L wherein the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death, if rape is committed
under paragraph 1 of Article 266(A). In view, however, of the passage of Republic Act No. 9346
which suspends the imposition of the death penalty, the offender shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

2. Qualified Statutory Acts of Lasciviousness

As provided under Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness are:

A. that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

B. that it is done (a) by using force or intimidation or (b) when the offended party is under
12 years of age; and

C. that the offended party is another person of either sex.

According to the Supreme Court in the case of Quimvel vs. People 823 SCRA 192 , April 18, 2017, before
an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, the requisites
of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized under Art. 336 of the RPC earlier enumerated must be met in
addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, which are as follows:

a. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.

b. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.

c. That child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 

Accordingly, once the elements were proved the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its medium
period.

Also, Art. 339 of the RPC Acts of Lasciviousness is deemed qualified when:

A. That the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness

B. That the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence, relationship and
deceit
C. That the acts are committed upon a woman who is below 12 years old

The penalty shall imposed shall be one degree higher than that imposed by law as indicated in Sec. 10,
R.A. 7610

3.     Qualified Statutory Sexual Assault;

As provided under Art. 266(A) (2) of the RPC, Rape is committed By any person who, under any
of the circumstances mentioned below, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his
penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital
or anal orifice of another person:

a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious,

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none
of the circumstances mentioned above be present;

Also, under Art. 266(B) of the Revised Penal Code, rape through sexual assault is qualified by any
of the circumstances discussed above under Qualified rape.
Effect on Criminal Liability of the Offender

Once proven, the criminal liability of the offender will be imposed with the penalty of reclusion
temporal as discussed under the Qualified Rape above, except L wherein the penalty shall be
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, if rape is committed under Paragraph 2 of Article
266(B).

4. Qualified Physical Injuries;

The crime of physical injuries has been defined as the wounding, beating, or assaulting another under
Art. 263 of the Revised Penal Code. Further, the crime will be aggravated and qualified if the serious
physical injuries shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Article 246, or
with attendance of any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248 unless it is committed by a parent
who inflicts it upon his child by excessive chastisement.

As provided under the last paragraph of Art. 263, the law provides higher penalties and in relation with
R.A. 7610, under the last paragraph of Sec. 10, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua if the victim is
below twelve (12) years of age.

5. Qualified Estafa (when not syndicated);

In the case of Galvez vs. Court of Appeals 691 SCRA 455 , February 20, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled
that: first, Presidential Decree No. 1689 also covers commercial banks; second, to be within the ambit of
the Decree, the swindling must be committed through the association, the bank in this case, which
operate on funds solicited from the general public; third, when the number of the accused are five or
more, the crime is syndicated estafa under paragraph 1 of the Decree; fourth, if the number of accused
is less than five but the defining element of the crime under the Decree is present, the second paragraph
of the Decree applies (People v. Romero, People v. Balasa); fifth, the Decree does not apply regardless of
the number of the accused, when (a) the entity soliciting funds from the general public is the victim and
not the means through which the estafa is committed, or (b) the offenders are not owners or employees
who used the association to perpetrate the crime, in which case, Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal
Code applies.

Accordingly, even if the offenders is less than five to qualify as a syndicated estafa under PD. 1689, the
offenders are still liable under the second paragraph of P.D. 1689(a).
6. Qualified Direct Assault

The elements of the 2nd form of direct assault are:

A. That the offender a. makes an attack, b. employs force, c. makes a serious intimidation or d.
Makes a serious resistance
B. That the person is a person in authority or his agent
C. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent is a. engaged in the actual
performance of official duties, or that he is assaulted, b. By reason of the past performance of
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.

There are two kinds of direct assault of the second form

1. Simple assault
2. Qualified assault

Direct assault is then qualified when

A. When the assault is committed with a weapon
B. When the offender is a public officer or employee
C. When the offender lays hands upon a person in authority

 When the offender is a public officer or employee or when the offender lays hands upon a person in
authority, the penalty imposed is prision correccional in its medium and maximum period with a fine not
exceeding P1000 (Gelig v. People)

7. Qualified Reckless Imprudence.

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

The last paragraph of article 365 provides an increase in penalty by one degree if there is a failure to
lend help as may be in his hands by the offender. Reckless imprudence is then met once this
circumstance happens. Failure to lend help, alone, is defined as negligence and not imprudence.

To be more specific, if a doctor were to unwillfully injure another then voluntarily provides his help but
fails due to lack of care , the offense then meets it’s qualifying circumstance. Its violation is not the
failure to give help but the failure to give help as may be in his hands to give.

 
8. Qualified Other Light Threats (use of loose firearm).  (6 points).

Under Art. 285 of the RPC (1) the following acts are punished:

A. Threatening another with a weapon, even if there is no quarrel; and

B. Drawing a weapon in a quarrel, which is not in lawful self defense.

Accordingly, if the offender used a weapon other than a loose firearm, the penalty of arresto menor in
its minimum period or a fine not exceeding forty thousand pesos will be imposed. However, if the
offender uses a loose firearm, it will be considered as an aggravating circumstance as provided under
Sec. 29 of R.A. 10591 and the penalty provided under Sec. 28 will be imposed in lieu of the penalty for
the crime charged or an additional penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed if the penalty provided
under the RPC is the same as those provided under Sec. 28 of R.A. 10591.