Criminal Law 2 Notes PDF PDF

CRIMINAL LAW II
BLOCK 1‐K
AY 2011‐2012

RECITATION AND LECTURE NOTES
FROM THE CLASSES OF PROFESSOR MAXIMO AMURAO
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW
MENDIOLA, MANILA

In Loving Memory of
Marvin ‘Marvs’ P. Reglos –
Block mate, Brother and Friend
CRIMINAL LAW II 2
K notes

ART. 114
TREASON

Q: who may commit treason?
Filipinos and aliens residing within the country

Q: if the offender is a Filipino Citizen, where may he commit treason?
Anywhere

Q: So Filipinos who commit treason abroad may be held criminally liable under Philippine laws?
Yes

Q: Does this not violate the principle of territoriality?
It does

Q: What is the principle of territoriality?
The penal laws of a State extend only as far as its territory
Philippine penal laws punish crimes committed only within Philippine territory

Q: Is there a conflict between the principle of territoriality and the fact that a Filipino who commits
treason abroad may be liable under Philippine laws?
Yes, there is.

Q: How would you then resolve the conflict? State your legal bases.
1. Under par.5, art.2 of the RPC, treason is a crime against national security. It falls within the
exceptions to the doctrine of territoriality.
2. Art.114 uses the phrase ‘Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres
to her enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere’

Q: What’s the principle behind the fact that a Filipino Citizen, as opposed to an alien, may be held liable
for treason even if he happens to commit it outside Philippine shores?
1. Because treason is a crime against national security and the State
2. and his CITIZENSHIP requires him to owe permanent allegiance to his State

Q: As far as the alien is concerned, where may he commit treason?
Only within the Philippines

Q: Why is that?
Because the ‘Treason’ he commits is treason against the host state, and he may only commit it
during his actual residence within that state.

Q: Doesn’t an alien residing in the Philippines owe the state his allegiance, too?
Yes, he does. But the allegiance he owes to the state is temporary.

Q: What do you mean by ‘temporary’?
H I R Y U K I M I K O O K U B O
He only owes it to the state during his actual residence there, in return for the protection he
receives from the state.

Q: How long does he (the alien) have to stay in the Philippines in order to be held liable for the
Commission of treason?
Any length of time would suffice for the liability to attach.

Q: Even if he stays for only a day and commits treason within that day?
Yes, even then.

Q: But doesn’t ‘residence’ entail a longer period of time?

CRIMINAL LAW II 3
K notes

Not in this case. ‘Residence’ as contemplated by the provision on treason is not synonymous to
‘residence’ contemplated by civil law. The alien may be held liable even if his ‘residence’ within
the country is only for a day.

*NB: ‘residence’ here does not connote any definite length of time. The raison de etre of the law
is to make any alien who betrays the state liable. Theoretically, even if he stays for an hour, and
commits treason within that hour, he may still be held liable. What is meant by ‘residence’ is the
stay of the alien within the country, during which stay he shares our resources, and the
protection afforded to us by the State.

Q: What if the alien was a former Japanese citizen when he committed treason, and then he becomes
Naturalized. May he still be held liable?
Yes.

Q: How is treason committed?
1. By levying war against the government
2. By adhering to her (the Philippines’) enemies, giving them aid and comfort

Q: Treason in the first mode (Levying war). How is this committed?
Through the assembling of persons for the purpose of delivering the government to a foreign
country

Q: What are the elements of committing treason by levying war against the government?
1. There is an assembling of persons
2. The purpose is to execute a treasonable design against the government

Q: In levying war, should there be an actual military encounter with the government forces?
Not necessarily. The mere assembly of persons for the purpose of executing a treasonable
design is already made punishable.

Q: Can this be committed by a single person?
No. The law speaks of ‘men’. There is a presupposition of the plurality of offenders.

Q: Is it necessary that this assembly of men be armed?
No, the law does not qualify.

Q: Supposing the Philippine government was at war with Japan. We were all unarmed inside this
classroom and were discussing ways and means of effectively delivering the government into the hands
of a foreign power. May we be held liable for treason?
Yes. There is compliance with all the elements of levying war against the government.

Q: Treason in the 2nd mode (adhering to the enemies and giving them aid and comfort), does the
‘adherence’ have to be a physical act?
Yes, it does.

Q: What do you mean by ‘adhere’?
Favouring the enemy either mentally, psychologically, or emotionally.

Q: If that’s the case, then you mean that mere adherence – the favouring of the enemy mentally – is
punishable?
No. Mere mental adherence is not punishable. The adherence has to be coupled with a physical,
overt act. Adherence is qualified by the phrase ‘giving them aid and comfort’.

Q: What do you mean by ‘giving them aid’?
The act of strengthening or aiding to strengthen the enemy
The act of weakening or aiding to weaken the Philippines

*NB: note the bipolar consequence. You aid the enemy, you weaken our defence.

CRIMINAL LAW II 4
K notes

Q: Supposing that during the Japanese occupation, certain Filipinos were moving around, convincing the
people that the principles of the Japanese government were better than those of the Philippines. Is
this treasonous?
No. There is only adherence in this case. Adherence and giving aid or comfort must concur to
consummate the crime of treason in the second mode.

Q: Supposing during that same occupation you were a merchant engaged in the selling of weapons. You
had transactions with the Japanese involving those weapons. Is this treasonous?
Yes. Arming them augments their capability for war and is analogous to adhering to them and
giving them aid or comfort.

Q: How is ‘adherence’ proven?
It may be implied by the nature of the act.

Q: Suppose that you were engaged in the transportation business. Japanese hired your buses to
transport their troops to another province. Are you liable?
Yes. The act directly strengthens the enemy.

Q: Suppose you were a rice dealer and the Japanese bought rice from you. Are you liable?
No. The purpose here is purely commercial.

*NB: unless I exclusively supply it to them.

Q: Why not? Won’t the selling of rice to them operate to strengthen them?
It will, but there is no adherence on my part. Aid or comfort must be extended to the enemies in
their capacity as enemies, not as regular or paying customers or individuals.

Q: And if you were supplying the Japanese troops with comfort women?
I will not be liable. This does not aid them in war.

Q: Supposing you performed an act of duty in favour of the enemy government (i.e.: serving as an
official under their regime), will you be liable?
It depends. If the position is a highly‐responsible one (think: policy‐determining), I am liable.
If the duty contemplated is purely a ministerial one, I am not liable.

Q: In the prosecution for treason, what is necessary to secure a conviction?
1. The testimony of AT LEAST TWO witnesses to the SAME overt act or
2. The confession of the accused of his guilt in the commission of the crime

Q: How is compliance with the with the 2‐witness rule achieved?
1. By the presentation of at least 2 witnesses who testify to the same overt act AND
2. These 2 witnesses’ testimonies must be lent credence by the court

*NB: If you present 2 witnesses, but only one is believed, there is no compliance. The two
requirements must concur.

Q: Is it necessary that those 2 witnesses testify to the same overt act?
Yes

Q: Why? (Ah, the killer question. 3 rounds of shotgun recits for us here, mates. Be careful)
Because…
1. The law requires it
2. The seriousness of the offense of treason and its corresponding afflictive penalties need to
be proven by evidence greater than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The crime of treason is a continuing crime composed of many acts
4. Treason is committed in time of war and under abnormal circumstances
5. To prevent to miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW II 5
K notes

Q: You mean to say ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ is not enough?
Yes, it isn’t enough. There must be compliance with the 2‐witness rule.

*NB: Treason is the only crime where proof beyond reasonable is not sufficient.

Q: Is a plea of ‘guilty’ mitigating in treason?
Yes, it is.

Q: When should this plea be made?
During Arraignment, for it to be mitigating under Article 13, par.7

*NB: During arraignment, the contents of the information are read to the accused in a language
Or dialect known to him. He is asked whether or not he understands the charges levied against
Him, then he is asked how he pleads: guilty or not guilty. THIS is the ‘confession of guilt’
contemplated by Art.13, par.7

Q: What is the legal effect of a plea of guilty?
It serves as an admission by the accused of the veracity of ALL the facts and charges alleged in
the information

Q: If the accused pleads guilty, does the prosecution still need to present evidence against him to prove
his culpability?
Not anymore

Q: What about the defence? What proof may it present, assuming the accused pleads guilty?
The defence may present evidence to mitigate or justify the act.

*NB: this is known as a reverse trial. Defence presents evidence of mitigation, Prosecution
refutes the evidence of the defence.

Q: If during arraignment, the accused is asked if he understands the charges read to him and he says no,
what should the court do?
Exert effort to make him understand (think: translators, sign language experts etc.)

Q: And if after those efforts, he still does not understand, may the court proceed with trial?
No.

*NB: to proceed at this stage would violate the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusations against him. (Btw this may sound ridiculous, but there
you have it.)

Q: If the accused pleads guilty at another time, will it still be considered mitigating?
Not anymore. The plea of guilty must be done in open court before the prosecution presents its
Evidence

Q: Does the two‐witness rule apply in proving adherence?
No. Adherence may be proved by the testimony of only one witness.

NOTES:

*Treason, definition: a breach of allegiance to the government, committed by a person who owes
allegiance to it.

*Allegiance: the obligation of fidelity and obedience owed by a citizen to his state, and the alien to the
host state. It may be permanent or temporary.

CRIMINAL LAW II 6
K notes

*The following circumstances are inherent in treason and are therefore not aggravating: evident
premeditation, abuse of superior strength and treachery.

*Treason is a war crime. It cannot be committed during times of peace. It is, however, not necessary
that there be a formal declaration of war.

*Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by extra‐judicial confessions

*There is no such thing as ‘attempted treason’. The mere attempt to commit it is punishable.

*Treason absorbs other common crimes committed in furtherance of its goals. It may not be complexed
with them.

ART. 115
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON

Q: What are the elements?
a. In the time of war
b. 2 or more persons come to an agreement to –
1. Levy war against the government
2. Adhere to the enemies and give them aid or comfort
c. They decide to commit it

Q: Can a foreigner be held liable for conspiracy or proposal to commit treason?
Yes.

Q: Elements of Proposal to commit treason
a. In time of war
b. A person who has decided to levy war against the government, or to adhere to the enemies
to give them aid and comfort proposes its execution to some other person/s

NOTES:

*Mere agreement and decision to commit ~ consummates the crime

*Mere proposal, even without acceptance, is punishable too. If the other person accepts, the crime is
already conspiracy to commit treason.

ART. 116
MISPRISION OF TREASON

Q: Does mere silence make a person criminally liable?
Generally, No.

Q: Are there any exceptions to the rule?
Yes. When the law specifically provides.

Q: Why then is failure to disclose knowledge of a conspiracy to commit treason punishable?
1. Because the very existence of the state itself threatened
2. Because conspiracy to commit treason is mired in secrecy, hence the need for disclosure
(and a mechanism to ensure disclosure).

Q: Why is there no punishment for failure to disclose knowledge of actual treason?
Because in full blown treason, the overt acts are plain for the government to see.

CRIMINAL LAW II 7
K notes

Q: Will the two‐witness rule apply to the prosecution of this crime?
No. This is a distinct offence from that of reason.

Q: May a foreigner be held liable for misprision of treason?
No. The offender must be a Filipino citizen owing full and permanent allegiance to the Republic.

Q: Does this violate the principle of generality?
Yes, it does.

Q: What is the principle of generality?
All persons within a state’s criminal jurisdiction are equally liable for acts committed against
That state’s laws.

Q: How then would you resolve the conflict?
The principle of generality has certain exceptions:
1. Treaties
2. The law of nations (international law)
3. Express provisions to this effect in our own laws

Q: What is concealed in misprision in treason?
Knowledge of the conspiracy to commit treason

Q: Who are the authorities to whom this knowledge should be disclosed?
Mayors, Judges, City Fiscals/Prosecutors

Q: Supposing you have knowledge of a conspiracy to commit treason. You did not disclose it to the
authorities because to your mind, they are all corrupt. You disclosed the information instead to the
Chief of Staff. Are you liable?
No. There is no intention to keep the secret. No criminal intent

Q: How soon should the disclosure be made?
Within a reasonable period. The actual time depends on the sound discretion of the court.

Q: The accused is prosecuted for MT, it was alleged in the information that, being a Filipino citizen, he
owed permanent allegiance to the Philippines and yet, having knowledge of persons who were armed
and who performed acts with the view of overthrowing the government, he did not disclose the same.
May he be held liable?
No. The knowledge he had was knowledge of full‐blown treason already, and not a mere
conspiracy.

Q: The accused is a resident of a city, has knowledge of a conspiracy to commit treason, but refused to
disclose the same to the proper authorities because they are among the most corrupt. He disclosed his
knowledge to the AFP. Is he liable?
No. There was no intent to NOT disclose the information he had.

NOTES:

*Art.116 does not apply when the crime of treason is already committed because Art.116 speaks of
‘knowledge of conspiracy against… xxx’

*The offender in Art.116 is punished as an accessory (penalty: 2 degrees lower than that for principals in
treason), although he is a principal in the crime of misprision of treason.

*Art.116 is an exception to the rule that mere silence does not make a person criminally liable.

CRIMINAL LAW II 8
K notes

Art. 117
ESPIONAGE

Q: How is this committed?
1. By entering without authority therefor, any warship, fort or naval or military establishment or
reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippines; or
2. By disclosing to the representatives of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data, or
information referred to in par.1, art.117, which the offender had in his possession by reason of
the public office he holds

Q: Under the 1st mode of commission, who may be held liable?
Any person

Q: You mean to say that in this first manner of commission, liability is not conditioned by citizenship?
Yes

Q: When is the crime consummated?
When the offender has entered any of the enumerated places in par.1, art.117 and has taken the
articles, data or information with intent to gain the same

Q: Is it necessary that the offender possess intent to gain?
Yes, intent is necessary. Refer to the phrasing: ‘for the purpose of… xxx’.

Q: Is it necessary that he succeeds?
No, it isn’t. Mere entrance with purpose to obtain classified information is enough for liability to
attach

Q: Supposing the US donated armaments, etc. to the RP for us to use against Malaysia. These arms were
stored in a warehouse in Nueva Ecija. A newspaper reporter, without permission from the government,
entered the place in order to take pictures. On his way out, he was apprehended. Is he liable?
Yes. The elements of espionage in the first mode are complete.

Q: What if he chartered a private helicopter to take aerial pictures?
Liable.

Q: Under the RPC?
No, the law that governs in this case is CA 616

Q: What if he climbed a tree to get a better view?
Liable. (CA 616)

Q: Suppose a journalist who was accosted told the authorities that he only wanted to take pictures of
modern war machines he previously read about in the Manila Bulletin?
No. The information he intends to obtain is no longer confidential. It has been declassified.
(think: publication in a newspaper)

Q: What is the second manner of commission?
By disclosing to the representatives of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or
information referred to in par.1, art.117, which the offender had in his possession by reason of
his public office.

Q: A high‐ranking official has possession of classified information. In order to impress a foreign beauty
candidate, he shared the information with her. May he be criminally liable under the second manner of
commission?
Yes. The law speaks of ‘representatives’. It makes no distinction as to what kind of
representative. A foreign beauty candidate is a representative of her nation.

CRIMINAL LAW II 9
K notes

Art. 118
INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS

The offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts, and such acts provoke or give occasion
for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals in
their persons and property.

Q: Can you give an example
Burning another country’s flag, if the act results in a war that involves or is liable to involve the
Philippines

Q: The US is involved in a war. Suppose the Philippines trained a battalion of soldiers to be deployed in
Iraq; if the person training those soldiers has no authority to do so, will he be liable?
No. He becomes liable if he is authorized to train those soldiers.

Art. 119
VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY

There is a war in which the Philippines is involved, there is a regulation issued by competent
authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality, and the offender violates such regulation.


Q: What is neutrality?
The state of taking no part in a contest of arms going on between others.
A condition of abstinence from armed hostilities.

Q: Is it necessary for there to be a government regulation?
Yes.

Q: Are you saying it is the regulation that you actually violate?
Yes.

Q: So you mean that without a regulation, a person will not be liable under this provision?
Yes.

Q: Whose neutrality is violated when a person commits this crime?
The Philippines’ neutrality.

Q: Who declares our neutrality?
Congress.

Art. 120
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY

It is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved, the offender makes correspondence with
an enemy country or a territory occupied by enemy troops; and the correspondence is either
a)prohibited by Government; b)carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; or c)containing
notice or information which might be useful to the enemy

CRIMINAL LAW II 10
K notes

Q: Supposing the Phils is at war with Malaysia. Mindanao is under control of Malaysia. You left your
boyfriend in Davao, you wrote a letter to him and sent it. The government previously restricted all mail
into Mindanao. Will you be liable?
Yes.

Q: Supposing you wrote a letter with a heart and an arrow drawn on the paper. No words were used.
Will you be liable?
Yes. ‘Ciphers and conventional signs’.

Q: Is intent material here?
No.

Q: May a person be held liable even if the correspondence contains innocent matters?
Even if the matters are innocent, so long as it is prohibited by the government and you send it or
commit the prohibited act, you are liable.

Q: Why is intent immaterial when the government has expressly prohibited correspondence?
Because of the possibility that some information that might prove useful to the enemy might be
unwittingly revealed.

Q: So it is the possibility of revealing that information that is sought to be pre‐empted?
Yes.
NOTE:
*If ciphers were used, there is no need for prohibition

Art. 121
FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY

There is a war in which the Philippines is involved; the offender must be owing allegiance to the
Government; the offender attempts to flee or to go to enemy country; that going is prohibited
by competent authority.


Q: What consummates the crime?
The mere attempt to flee

Q: Who may be held liable?
Persons owing allegiance to the government

Q: May resident aliens be held liable?
Yes. ‘Allegiance’ may be temporary or permanent. The law does not qualify.

Q: Supposing you fly to enemy country. The act is not prohibited by the government. May you be liable?
No. There must be prohibition by competent authority.

Q: So you mean the prohibition defines the crime?
Yes.

Art. 122
PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY ON THE HIGH SEAS
OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS

CRIMINAL LAW II 11
K notes

1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in PH waters
2. By seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in PH waters the whole or part of its cargo,
its equivalent or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers

Q: What is piracy?
Robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas or in PH waters without lawful authority, and
done with animo furandi and in the spirit of universal hostility.

Q: Where may piracy be committed?
On the High Seas or in PH waters

Q: What are the 2 kinds of piracy punished by our laws?
1. Piracy under the RPC (art. 122)
2. Piracy under Presidential Decree 532

Q: Under the RPC, may piracy be committed by a stranger?
Yes.

Q: Under the same law, may it be committed by a crew member of passenger?
Yes.

Q: Define ‘high seas’
Any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of the low‐water marks although
those waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign country.

Q: Is the term synonymous with ‘international waters’?
No.

Q: What are included in the definition of ‘Philippine waters’?
All bodies of water such as but not limited to seas, bays, gulfs around, between and connecting
each of the islands of the Philippine archipelago, irrespective of their depth or breadth over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction

Q: What is a vessel?
Any craft used for the transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through PH
waters, including all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing (sec.3, PD 532)

Q: May piracy be committed in the Pasig river?
Yes

Q: Suppose you were on board a banca in Burnham lake (Baguio City); you took out your phone and a
person suddenly seized it from you. What crime was committed?
Piracy under the RPC (because the offender was a stranger)

Q: Is the banca considered a vessel?
Yes

Q: Is Burnham lake considered a body of water?
Yes

Q: Even if it happens to be man‐made?
Yes

Q: Is the phone personal property?
Yes

Q: The person who took your phone, was he a member of the complement or a passenger?

CRIMINAL LAW II 12
K notes

He was a stranger

Q: May piracy be committed in the Estero de San Miguel, beneath the Mendiola Bridge?
Yes

Q: Suppose the estero was full of garbage, may piracy still be committed?
No, the waters must at least be navigable

Q: On a banca from Mandaluyong to Makati, one of the passengers was a hold‐upper, in the middle of
the river, he announced a hold‐up and demanded that you give your belongings to him. What crime did
he commit?
Piracy under PD 532

Q: On a ship from Manila to Cebu: while waiting for the departure of the ship, a person suddenly
boarded the ship, pointed a knife at you, demanded that you surrender your belongings, after which, he
got off. What crime was committed?
Piracy under RPC

Q: Even if the ship was not sailing then?
Yes

Q: What if it was a fellow passenger who took your belongings?
The crime is piracy under the RPC

Q: Supposing you are in a floating casino in Manila Bay. While you were there, a person pointed a
revolver at you and demanded that you give him your winnings. What crime was committed?
Piracy under the RPC and PD 532

Q: Who decides which crime is to be alleged in the information sheet?
The prosecutor / fiscal

Q: So you file both and let the fiscal decide?
Yes

Q: Supposing Indonesian pirates committed the crime in Malaysian waters. They fled and encountered
engine trouble. They were brought by the Philippine Coastguard to Manila. May they be prosecuted in a
Regional Trial Court in Manila?
Yes

*NB: Piracy is a crime against the law of nations and pirates are hostes humani generis (enemies
of the human race)

Q: When is piracy qualified?
1. Whenever the pirates have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever they have abandoned their victims without any means of saving themselves;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape


Q: Is there a complex crime of piracy with rape?
None. Qualified piracy is a separate crime in itself

RA 6235
THE ANTI‐HIJACKING LAW

Q: What are the punishable acts, as far as an aircraft of Philippine registry is concerned?

CRIMINAL LAW II 13
K notes

1. Compelling a change in the course or destination of an aircraft (whether the aircraft is in
flight or not)
2. Seizing or usurping control of an aircraft while it is in flight

Q: When is an aircraft considered to be ‘in flight’?
From the moment all its external doors are closed following embarkation until any of such doors
is opened for disembarkation

*NB: ‘flight’ as far as an aircraft of PH registry is concerned is the crucial time element which
would determine the commission of the crime of hijacking

Q: On a PAL flight from Manila to Davao: the accused compelled the pilot to veer the plane a little to the
right for a couple of minutes. Is this a violation of RA 6235?
Yes, the accused compelled to pilot to change the course of the plane for a few minutes

Q: The accused bribed the pilot to veer the plane a little to the left in exchange for money. Is he liable
under this law?
No. There was no compulsion involved.

Q: May a plane be considered in flight when its doors are already closed but the plane itse lf is still on the
ground because there happens to be an engine problem?
Yes

Q: Supposing the doors were already closed, the passengers were already on board but the pilot was still
waiting for instructions from the control tower. The accused seized control of the plane during this
interval. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: You mean to say the plane was already in flight?
Yes
Q: Are you saying that the legal definition of ‘flight’ is different from the scientific definition of ‘flight’?
Yes

Q: Is that not ridiculous? (trolling moment, mates. Say the answer loud and clear: )
Yes, sir.It isridiculous :D

Q: Supposing a group of skydivers on board a PH plane were about to stage an exhibition. At an altitude
of 15,000 ft. the door of the plane opened and the divers jumped out. The last person, instead of
jumping, seized control of the plane instead. Is he liable?
No. Legally speaking, the plane is no longer in flight, notwithstanding the fact that it is actually
flying.

Q: What crime was committed, if not hijacking?
Grave coercion

Q: What are the punishable acts, as far as a plane of foreign registry is concerned?
1. Landing the plane anywhere within the Philippines
2. Seizing of usurping control of the plane while it is within the Philippines

Q: Is it necessary that the usurping or seizing of control be done while the foreign plane is legally in
flight?
No

Q: Japan Airlines. After the plane has landed, the external doors were opened and the accused barged
into the cockpit and seized control of the plane. Is he liable?
Yes

CRIMINAL LAW II 14
K notes

Q: Under the same circumstances, except that the plane was one of PAL. Is the accused liable for
hijacking?
No

Q: What are the other punishable acts under RA 6235?
Shipping, Loading, Carrying in any passenger aircraft operating as a public utility within the
Philippines any explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or material

Q: May the offenders still be held liable for shipping/loading/carrying any explosive… material if they did
so on a chartered plane?
Yes

Q: Why?
The character of a public utility is NOT changed by a mere contract (i.e. the fact that it was
chartered). It remains a public utility.

Q: Why won’t an offender be held liable if the acts were to be committed on a private aircraft?
Because there is no threat to innocent passengers, and this threat is what the law seeks to
avoid. (if you do this on your own plane, go ahead. Pakamatay ka mag isa –Atty. A)

Q: What are the qualifying circumstances under this special law?
‐When the offender has fired upon the pilot, members of passengers
‐When the crime was accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape

ART. 123
QUALIFIED PIRACY

Q: What are the qualifying circumstances?
1. Whenever the offenders have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape

PEOPLE v. CATANTAN

278 SCRA 761
Bellosillo, J.
FACTS:
Emiliano Catantan was found guilty of piracy for having attacked Eugene and Juan Pilapil, Jr.,
who were then fishing. He allegedly boarded the Pilapils’ pump boat, levelled his gun at Eugene,
struck the latter on the cheek and ordered Juan, Jr. to lie down. When they were far out into
sea, the engine stalled and the brothers were directed to row the boat. They saw another boat
and Catantan ordered them to approach it. He boarded the new boat, along with his co‐accused,
Ursal. The outrigger of the new boat caught the front part of the Pilapils’ boat and Catantan
kicked it hard, causing the prow to break. The Pilapil brothers ended in the sea, where they
swam together, clinging to their boat. Catantan argues that his actions merely constituted

Grave Coercion and not Piracy; and that in order for Piracy to be committed, it is essential that
there is an attack and seizure of a vessel. He claims that he and Ursal merely boarded the
Pilapils’ boat and when aboard, used force to compel the brothers to take them to some other
place. Catantan insists that he and Ursal had no intention of permanently taking possession or
depriving the Pilapils of their boat.

ISSUE:
Did the actions of Catantan constitute Piracy as defined by Section 2, par.(d) of Presidential
Decree No. 532?

HELD:

CRIMINAL LAW II 15
K notes

YES. Sec.2, par.(d) of PD 532 defines piracy as ‘any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the
taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of
the complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in
Philippine waters.’ The compulsion on the Pilapils was obviously part of the act of seizing the
boat. Catantan and Ursal abandoned the Pilapils only because their pump boat broke down and
it was necessary to transfer to another boat.

‐ oOo ‐

PEOPLE v. TULIN

364 SCRA 10
Melo, J.
FACTS:
‘M/T Tabangao’ was sailing of the coast of Mindoro, carrying a total value of Php 40.4 Million in
petroleum products. It was suddenly boarded by seven fully armed pirates led by Emilio
Changco. The pirates detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel. The crew was
ordered to paint over the name ‘M/T Tabangao’ on the front and rear portions of the vessel as
well as the logo on its chimney. They were then ordered to paint the name ‘Galilee’. The crew
was forced to sail to Singapore where, following a failed attempt to anchor, it returned to
Batangas. A few days later, it sailed again to Singapore and anchored a few miles from the
shoreline where another vessel named ‘Navi Pride’ anchored beside it, to which the captive crew
was ordered by Changco to transfer the petroleum products. ‘M/T Tabangao’ returned to
Batangas, but remained at sea. 2 days later, the members of the crew were released in 3
batches, the 1st and 2nd batches were fetched from the shoreline by Cecilio Changco, Emilio
Changco’s brother. The crew called their employer and reported the incident. A series of arrests
were made and accused‐appellants Tulin, Loyola, Changco, Infante and Hiong were apprehended
and charged with Qualified Piracy, to which they pleaded not guilty. Tulin, Infante and Loyola
claimed that they were standing by the beach, conversing, when ‘M/T Tabangao’s Captain and
2nd Mate approached them and asked if they wanted to work on the vessel, to which they
allegedly agreed even if they had no sea‐going experience. The trial court found them guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them to Reclusion Perpetua.

ISSUES:
1. Did Republic Act 7659, amending Art.122 of the Revised Penal Code, obliterate the crime of
Piracy under PD 532?
2. Can Accused‐Appellant Cheong be convicted as an accomplice despite the fact that the actions
he allegedly committed were executed outside Philippine waters and territory?

HELD:
1. NO. Art.122 of the RPC, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on the
high seas by any person not a member of a ship’s complement nor a passenger. Upon its
amendment by RA 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include
offenses committed ‘in Philippine waters’. On the other hand, under PD 532, the coverage of the
law on piracy embraces any person, ‘including a passenger or member of the complement.’ RA
7659 neither superseded not amended the provisions on piracy under PD 532. Art.122, as
amended; and PD 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.

2. YES. Although PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be
committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still
deemed part of the act of piracy, hence the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.
Piracy falls under Title One, Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to
the rule on territoriality in criminal law.

CRIMINAL LAW II 16
K notes

TITLE II
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

ART. 124
ARBITRARY DETENTION

Q: What are the classes of arbitrary detention?
1. Detaining a person without legal ground
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
3. Delaying release

Q: Manner of commission (elements)
1. The offender is a public officer or employee
2. He detains a person
3. The detention is without legal grounds

Q: May this be committed by ANY public officer?
No – only those vested with authority to detain a person

Q: And who are those public officers?
Those who have a duty to make an arrest; or those who may recommend an arrest or detention;
or those who may order an arrest or detention

Q: May a private individual be liable for arbitrary detention?
Yes

Q: How?
By proving him to be an accomplice, accessory or a principal (by inducement/indispensable
cooperation)

Q: May a private person be held liable as a principal by direct participation?
Yes

Q: How?
By proving a conspiracy between the private individual and the public officer

Q: May this be committed by an officer who arrested and detained a person by virtue of a warrant
issued by court?
No. The moment there is a warrant, no arbitrary detention can be committed. A warrant grants
the authority to arrest a person.

Q: What are the instances when a warrantless arrest may be considered lawful?
1. When the offender has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense in the presence of the arresting officer
2. When the arresting officer has personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the
commission of the crime
3. When the person arrested is a prisoner who has escaped

Q: Give an example of the first instance

Q: May a crime be committed in the presence of an officer who is blind? Deaf? Both?
Yes; Yes; and Yes.

Q: Explain.
Said officer still has other senses with which to determine the commission of a crime.

CRIMINAL LAW II 17
K notes

Q: Under arbitrary detention, is it necessary that the arrest is without legal ground?
Yes

Q: And if the arrest is with legal ground?
There is no crime of arbitrary detention

Q: Give examples of ‘legal grounds’
1. Commission of a crime
2. Ailments requiring compulsory confinement
3. Violent insanity
NB: violent insanity. Not plain insanity. The law specifies the degree of insanity required.

Q: Under the 1st manner, suppose you were walking home and you saw A,B,C entering the house of your
neighbor, carrying out their plan to rob the latter. May you as a private individual arrest them?
Yes. The crime is being committed in my presence.

Q: Supposing one night, while on your way home, you saw Pedro tinkering with the padlock of your
gate. May you arrest him?
Yes. He is attempting to commit an offense.

Q: Are you sure that he is? Suppose he told you he was merely curious. May you still arrest him?
Yes. I can link the overt act of tinkering with the gate to the commission of robbery or trespass
to dwelling. It’s also illogical for him to be tinkering with a padlock at that time of the night. The
circumstances tend to prove robbery.

Q: Under the first instance of a warrantless arrest (i.e: the offender has committed a crime). Give an
example

Q: Supposing on your way to San Beda, you saw a commotion. A was stabbed by B. They were 5 meters
away from you. B starts to run. You stopped him and proceeded to arrest him. Were your actions
lawful?
Yes. A crime was just committed in my presence.

Q: One day you saw Juan stab Pedro. You failed to arrest him. After a month, you saw Juan walking near
your house. May you arrest him?
Yes. The crime was committed in my presence

Q: Even if the crime was committed a month ago?
Yes, the lapse of time is immaterial

Q: What is the second instance of a warrantless arrest?
When an offense has in fact just been committed and the officer has probable cause to believe
that the person was the one who committed it, and the officer has personal knowledge of the
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Q: There was a commotion in front of UE. While on your way there, you saw people running towards
your direction. You asked them what happened. They told you that a person was stabbed in front of the
university. You reached UE and saw the victim. He pointed to a running figure and told you that the said
figure was the stabber. You ran after the suspect but lost him in the crowd. When you reached Morayta,
you saw a man wearing a bloody shirt. May you arrest him?
Yes. There is probable cause to believe that he was the one who committed the offense. I talked
to the victim and obtained personal knowledge of the facts of the crime. I can link the bloody
shirt to the facts. This gives me probable cause to believe that the man was indeed the stabber.

Q: Supposing you did not get to talk to the victim, you simply heard the shouts about the fleeing
stabber. You saw a man with a knife somewhere along Morayta. He was cleaning his knife. May you
arrest him?

CRIMINAL LAW II 18
K notes

No. I do not have personal knowledge of the facts of the crime. I may not unilaterally assume
that he committed the stabbing simply because I saw him cleaning a knife.

Q: Supposing the victim told you the man that stabbed him is tall, white, with a prominent chin and
dressed in a white shirt. When you reached Morayta, you saw a man fitting the description. May you
arrest him?
No. The facts are too general. They are not what the law contemplates by ‘personal knowledge
of facts’ – they aren’t enough to sustain a lawful warrantless arrest. They do not constitute
probable cause.

*NB: going by the above description, anybody can be the stabber. ‘Tall, white, with a prominent
chin and wearing a white shirt’ – perhaps half the male population of metro manila can fit the
description

Q: Ms. Palay is a victim of rape. Together with her parents, she proceeded to the NBI to report the
incident. Due to the influence of the media, the case became well‐known. A task force was organized,
this task force was independent of the NBI. The task force learned that the rapist was in Bacolod. They
went there, and found him. May the lawfully arrest him without a warrant?
No. There is no personal knowledge, merely hearsay knowledge.

Q: Under the same facts, you were in Bacolod airport and saw a man wearing a jacket with the name
‘Mabelle Palay’ embroidered on it. May you arrest him?
No. I have no personal knowledge of the facts.

*NB: the jacket alone is not a sufficient basis for probable cause.

Q: 10 cars were carnapped from the Toyota showroom. The incident was reported to your office. The
following morning, Manila PD received a call from a secret informant that the carnappers were on their
way to Binondo and will have dinner at one of the restaurants there. 5 officers were dispatched to the
scene and at 8pm, the carnappers arrived. May the officers effect an arrest?
No. They merely have hearsay knowledge.

Q: Define ‘probable cause’

Q: Is probable cause the same as suspicion?
No

Q: Can a person be arrested based on suspicion?
No

Q: Why not?
Because suspicion is not the same as probable cause.

Q: X stabbed someone and was chased by people as he fled. He was holding a knife and wearing a shirt
stained with blood. From the opposite direction, a police officer saw the commotion. He arrested X. Is
the arrest a lawful one?
Yes

Q: Your house was robbed. You saw the robbers as they fled. You were able to give a description of
them to the police. After 3 days, the officers saw a person who fitted the descriptions you gave. Is the
warrantless arrest lawful?
No. The officers had enough time to secure a warrant.

Q: Can arbitrary detention be committed through imprudence?
Yes

Q: What are the periods of detention which the law penalizes?
‐Not exceeding 3 days

CRIMINAL LAW II 19
K notes

‐More than 3 days but less than 15 days
‐More than 15 days but less than 6 months
‐More than 6 months

Q: In the case of an escaped prisoner, why is a warrantless arrest not unlawful?
Because the escapee is already in the act of committing a continuous crime: evasion of the
service of sentence

Q: What are the legal grounds for detaining a person?
‐commission of a crime
‐violent insanity
‐ailments requiring compulsory confinement (nb: not just any ailment)

Q: Y was killed by an unknown assailant. The officers got a tip that X was the offender. They arrested
him. X voluntarily admitted that he did it although he was not asked by the officers to do so. He was
detained. Was there arbitrary detention?
None. Once X made the confession, the officers had a right to arrest him.

NOTES:

*There is detention when a person is placed in confinement or there is restraint on his liberty

*The person detained need not be ‘restrained’ literally. He may even be able to walk around. The
essence of detention is that the person is not allowed to leave of his own volition and his liberty is
curtailed.

*Although the primary persons liable for this crime are public officers/employees, private individuals
who conspire with public officers may also be liable

ART. 125
DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL
AUTHORITIES

1. The offender is a public officer/employee
2. He has detained a person for some legal ground
3. He fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within –
a. 12 hrs, for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties or their equivalent
b. 18 hrs, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties/their equivalent
c. 36hrs, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties, or
their equivalent

Q: What is meant by ‘delay in delivery’ here?
The delay in delivery refers to the filing of the proper complaint/information or charge against
the person detained before a court.

*NB: the filing of the information may be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for

Q: So you’re saying that the delivery here does not pertain to actual physical delivery?
Yes. What is meant by delivery is the filing of the complaint/information/charge

Q: Why does the law punish the delay in filing?
To protect the accused

Q: How is that?

CRIMINAL LAW II 20
K notes

The filing of the proper complaint puts the accused under the ambit of judicial protection. The
courts will take it from there. If certain actions (i.e.: conveyance to prison or facilities like an
asylum) is necessary, the courts may order them. Without the complaint, and the protection of
the law, the accused is open to all sorts of abuse.

Q: If the detention was illegal to begin with (i.e.: done in excess of the period for filing the
complaint/information allowed by law), does a subsequent filing cure the illegality?
No

Q: May the officers ask the accused to sign a waiver concerning the detention?
Yes, but the waiver must be executed by the accused under oath and with the assistance of
counsel, in order to avoid a violation of the accused’s constitutional rights.

Q: What is the length of the waiver of arbitrary detention?
‐5 days for light offenses
‐7 to 10 days for serious and less serious offenses

*NB: Beyond this, arbitrary detention is committed.

Q: If the offender is not a public officer, or is a public officer acting in a private capacity, wha t is the
crime committed?
Illegal detention

Q: distinguish arbitrary detention from illegal detention

Q: May a public officer who arrested an offender by virtue of a warrant of arrest be held liable for
arbitrary detention?
No. The presence of a warrant takes the act out of the contemplation of Art. 125

Q: Who may issue a warrant of arrest?
A competent court

Q: What do you mean by ‘competent’?
The court is vested with jurisdiction over the offense committed

Q: When does the delay become illegal?
Upon the expiration of the specified periods

Q: What are the periods?

*NB: Art.125 applies only when the arrest is made without a valid warrant of arrest AND the
subsequent warrantless arrest is a lawful one.

Q: Supposing the accused was delivered to the fiscal/prosecutor, does art.125 still apply?
Yes. The fiscal is not part of the judiciary.

Q: Is a turnover to the PNP sufficient compliance with the law? The Ombudsman? The Public Prosecutor?
The Provincial Governnor?
No to all the above‐mentioned officials, they are not part of the judiciary

Q: Suppose you arrested a robber by virtue of a warrant of arrest. Due to bad weather conditions, you
failed to deliver him to the proper authorities. May you be held liable?
No, there is a warrant of arrest, I can detain him for as long as the circumstances warrant

Q: Suppose you killed a neighbour in the course of your town fiesta. There was a police officer present
and he arrested you because he saw the killing happen. Within how many hours must he deliver you to
the proper authorities?
36 hours, the crime I committed is punishable by an afflictive penalty (homicide/murder)

CRIMINAL LAW II 21
K notes

Q: And if you were delivered within 48 hours, what crime did the officer commit?
Violation of Art. 125

Q: Supposing the police officer could not deliver you within 36 hours, what should he do?
Release me.

Q: Assuming that the detention was illegal to begin with, does this affect the validity of your arrest?
Not necessarily. The arrest may have been valid at its inception, notwithstanding that the
subsequent detention was illegal.

Q: As a police officer, you validly arrested a murderer. Instead of delivering him to the proper judicial
authorities, you proposed a different deal: he would serve as your manservant for a year. He agreed.
What crime may you be charged with?
Art.125

Q: Why isn’t a public officer liable if he failed to deliver the accused to the judicial authorities beyond the
specified periods in Art. 125 when the arrest was effected by virtue of a valid warrant?
Because the accused is already within the sphere of judicial protection. The issuance of a
warrant presupposes that a criminal information sheet was already filed before a competent
court.

Q: Illustrate the ‘judicial protection’ contemplated by this article
The accused, when placed under judicial protection may safely exercise his rights (i.e.: the right
to bail/ preliminary investigation/ speedy, impartial and public trial ++ ) and can be monitored by
the court. He is no longer vulnerable to abuse in the hands of the arresting officers.

Q: A police officer delivered a murderer to the public prosecutor on the 37 th hour following the incident.
The prosecutor filed an information 3 days later. Is the police officer liable under this provision?
Yes

Q: Is the prosecutor liable?
No

Q: When an officer releases a person because he could not deliver that person to the proper judicial
authorities within the timeframe provided for in this provision, may he be held criminally liable?
No, but he may be held administratively liable

ART. 126
DELAYING RELEASE

Q: Who are the public officers most likely to violate this provision?
Wardens and jailers; bailiffs, sheriffs, and clerks of court as far as service of notice is concerned

Q: When is there a release in delay? (elements)
1. The offender is a public officer/employee
2. a. there is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
b. there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person
3. The offender without good reason delays
a. the service of notice of such order to the prisoner
b. the performance of such judicial/executive order for the release of the prisoner
c. the proceedings upon a petition for the liberation of such person

Q: Upon whom is the notice served?
The jailer or warden

Q: Give an example of a proceeding for the liberation of a person contemplated by this provision

CRIMINAL LAW II 22
K notes

Proceedings for Habeas Corpus

*NB: It helps to know the definition of Habeas Corpus ;)

ART. 127
EXPULSION

1. Offender = public officer/employee
2. He expels a person from the Philippines or compels a person to change his residence
3. The offender is not authorized by law to do so

Q: Who may be validly expelled from the PH?
Aliens ONLY (a citizen may not be expelled)

Q: Who may order the expulsion?
The President, as recommended by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation

Q: Suppose there is a convict who has already served the minimum of his sentence and was allowed
parole. The condition of his parole fixes his residence in a different place, against his own will. Is the
condition valid?
Yes, the law on probation allows the court to fix conditions for a person’s parole. The
compulsion is authorized by law.

Q: The Mayor of Manila ordered the arrest of prostitutes in order to clean up the city and to stop
prostitution. He had them brought to Mindanao. Is he liable?
Yes

*NB: Actual case: Villavicencio v. Lukban

Q: May an alien be deported by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation without violating this
provision?
Yes, if the alien is an undesirable alien

Q: Suppose X, a Filipino citizen, was refused re‐entry into the PH after he had voluntarily left the country
a year before. May the act of refusal be considered as forcing him to change his residence?
Yes
Q: Is a threat to national security a valid reason for expelling a citizen?
No

Q: Why can’t a Filipino citizen be expelled?
Because it is his legal and natural right – conferred upon birth – to live and die in the Philippines

Q: Give instances when a person may be lawfully compelled to change his address
‐By virtue of a judicial order/final judgment
‐Expropriation proceedings
‐Ejectment proceedings
‐Destierro
‐As a condition for parole/probation/pardon
‐By virtue of a barangay protection order, in relation to the Anti‐Violence against Women and
Children Law (RA 9262)

SECTION TWO – VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

CRIMINAL LAW II 23
K notes

ART.128
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

*NB: Pay special attention to this provision. It almost always comes up in the Midterm Exam

1. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; or
2. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of the
owner; or
3. By refusing to leave the premises after having surreptitiously entered the said dwelling and
after having been required the leave the same

Q: Who may be held liable for this crime?
Public officers/employees who are vested with authority to conduct a search

Q: Under the first manner, must entry be done against the owner’s will?
Yes

Q: Suppose there is a judicial order for the entry, May the officer be liable?
No

Q: What do you mean by ‘judicial order’?
A search warrant

Q: Define a search warrant
It is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by the Judge
and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and to bring it before the court (Sec.1, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

Q: When is this issued?
Upon probable cause

Q: Define ‘probable cause’

Q: What do you mean by ‘dwelling’?
A place of rest and comfort

Q: (Trolling moment :P ) So a comfort room is a dwelling?
No

Q: You said ‘place of rest and comfort’.
The place must satisfy the domestic life of a person

Q: Must the dwelling be a concrete house?
No

Q: Suppose the house was made of cardboard. May the officer still be held liable?
Yes

Q: What are the requisites of a valid search warrant?
1. It must be issued upon probable cause
2. It must be issued for a single offense
3. The probable cause must be determined personally by the issuing judge
4. It must contain a particular description of the place, persons or things to be seized

Q: Suppose one of the requisites is missing, what is the legal effect on the warrant?
The warrant becomes null and void

CRIMINAL LAW II 24
K notes

Q: How does the issuing judge determine probable cause?
Through the use of searching questions

Q: May he delegate this task to somebody else?
No, he must perform it personally

Q: Suppose the search warrant was not obtained lawfully, what is its effect on the personal property
seized?
The things seized are inadmissible as evidence against the accused

*NB: Recall the Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (you can thank Justice Holmes for the
cheesy label btw)

Q: The NBI conducted a surveillance operation for 2 weeks, after which the agents were convinced that
there is indeed a shabu lab inside a certain compound. They applied for a search warrant for a violation
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (CDDA) and for Illegal Possession of Firearms. Is the warrant
issued by the court a valid one?
No, it was issued for 2 offenses. The agents should have applied for 2 separate warrants.

Q: A warrant was issued for a violation of the CDDA. When the agents entered the compound, they saw
a warehouse whose door was open, through which they could see high‐powered firearms. They seized
the firearms. May those same firearms be used as evidence against the owners of the compound?
Yes. Although the warrant specified a search for illicit drugs only, the seizure of the firear ms
may be justified under the Plain View Doctrine

*NB: The Plain View Doctrine allows officers to seize incriminating evidence so long as the items
seized were within their plain view. What is meant by ‘plain view’ however is that the items
must be (1)open to eye and hand and that (2)the incriminating nature of the items is obvious or
apparent to the officers seizing them. It does NOT allow the officers to SEARCH for the items if
the same items are not included in the warrant and are not within plain view.

Q: Suppose the warrant issued was for the seizure of equipment etc for the production of shabu, and
stated the location of the shabu lab as being ‘inside a compound, within a white house with a blue gate’.
Is the warrant valid?
No. There is no particularity of description. Any compound or house could fit the description.

Q: A warrant was issued for Illegal Possession of Firearms. It ordered the peace officers to seize high‐
powered firearms in the condominium unit of the accused located on the 5 th floor of a building. The
agents saw that there were several other units on that floor, so they knocked on the door of the 1 st unit
there and inquired about the one they were searching for. The tenant pointed to the one on the far end.
The agents raided that unit and seized the firearms. May the firearms be used as evidence?
No. There was an intervention of a third person in conducting the search and seizure. The
warrant did not fulfill the requirements for validity. It did not state with particularity the place
to be searched.

Q: A warrant was issued against 4 accused for violation of the internal revenue law. It ordered the
seizure of ‘all documents contained inside 2 cabinets in the office of the accused’, the agents
implemented the warrant and seized each piece of paper found within the cabinets. The prosecutor
sifted through the papers and chose the relevant ones and then presented them as evidence. May the
papers be admitted as evidence against the accused, in view of their relevance to the offense charged?
No. They were illegally obtained. The warrant was in the nature of a general warrant, it did not
contain a particularity of description of things to be seized.

Q: NBI agents applied for a search warrant in order to search a house said to be a shabu lab. It was
almost 5pm when they arrived at the sala of the judge. The judge was in a hurry and instructed the clerk
of court to receive whatever evidence the agents were to present in support of their application for the
warrant, to draft the warrant, and to bring the same to the judge. Everything was done by the clerk,

CRIMINAL LAW II 25
K notes

who left a blank space for the signature of the judge. The clerk brought the order to the judge who
signed it. The NBI agents implemented the warrant. Is the warrant valid?
No, probable cause was not determined by the judge

Q: Suppose the judge was not in his sala. You were one of the NBI agents. You were pressed for time so
you asked the judge’s wife – who was present –to sign the warrant. The wife happened to be an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Is the search warrant valid?
No, the duty to determine probable cause is a personal one. The only person who could have
issued it was the judge, not his wife.

Q: But his wife was is a Supreme Court Justice
Her position is immaterial. Only her husband could have issued the warrant, even if he did
happen to occupy a lower position.

Q: In the course of a search for violation of the CDDA, NBI agents inadvertently came across unlicensed
firearms. May the seize the guns and use them as evidence?
No

Q: A SW was issued directing officers to seize firearms in a unit on the 3rd floor of ABC Condominium.
When the NBI agents got there, they found many units. They searched every room until they found the
one containing the firearms. Was the search and subsequent seizure valid?
No, the fact that they had to search roomtoroom presupposes that the warrant did not contain
a sufficiently particular description of the place to be searched

Q: Suppose the accused owned the entire 3rd floor. Was the room‐to‐room search valid?
Yes

Q: A SW was issued. The place described was a ‘2‐storey blue house within XYZ compound’. When the
officers arrived there, they found 3 two‐storey houses. They entered each of the houses and served the
warrant. Were their actions lawful?
No

Q: Suppose then that when the officers arrived at XYZ compound, they found no 2‐storey blue house.
One officer asked the guard on duty and the guard told them the house they were looking for was on
the other street. They followed the guard’s instructions and found the house. They served the warrant.
Was the service of warrant lawful?
No

Q: Suppose the warrant described the place to be searched as a ‘rainbow painted house – blue door,
pink roof, yellow windows’. When the officers arrived, they served the warrant. Was the service valid?
Yes (‘hard to miss a house painted so garishly’ –Atty A.)

*NB: Why the outlandish hypotheticals, you ask. Simple enough: He’s drilling it into you: the NBI
agent/ officers implementing the warrant should NOT need nor ask any help in identifying the
place to be searched because once they do;the warrant does not contain a sufficient description
of the locale to be searched.

Q: May vessels (i.e.: boats) be searched without a warrant? Aircraft?
Yes to both. The nature of these vessels/aircraft makes them easy to move.

Q: Suppose the person who committed the punishable acts under this provision is a private individual,
what crime did he commit?
Trespass to dwelling

Q: When may we say that there has been entry against the will of the owner?
When the entry is effected against an express or implied prohibition

CRIMINAL LAW II 26
K notes

Q: A police officer who is your neighbour noticed that the front door to your house was slightly ajar. HE
entered to investigate what was going on because it aroused his suspicion. Is this a violation?
No

Q: There was a sign on the door ‘DO NOT ENTER AT ALL TIMES’ but the door was slightly open. Would
entry be a violation?
Yes, the sign constitutes an express prohibition

Q: Give an example of an implied prohibition
A locked door

Q: Suppose the door was locked, and the police officer picked the lock in orde r to enter and investigate.
Is he liable?
Yes

Q: A sign says ‘NO TRESPASSING’ and the officer entered. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose the sign says ‘ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK’. Would entry make the officer liable?
No

Q: What if it said ‘BEWARE OF DOGS’?
No. (‘The sign is merely a warning.. that there are.. dogs.’ :D –Jaika Dublado, 1k)

Q: An officer saw your younger brother enter your house with an unlicensed firearm. The door was half‐
open but a sign said ‘Strangers Keep Out’. The officer entered. Is he liable?
Yes – express prohibition

Q: Suppose there was no sign
The officer is not liable

Q: Suppose the officer entered and sat on the sofa. The door was closed but not locked. Is he liable?
Yes, closed door = implied prohibition

Q: Under the second manner of commission (searching papers and effects without the owner’s previous
consent), is it necessary that the entry be done without the consent of the owner?
No. What is punished here is an unconsented search, not entry.

*NB: It’s easy enough to imagine the scenario contemplated by the law. For instance, the officer
entered without the owner’s consent, but when the owner saw the officer, he did not complain.
The officer then proceeded to conduct a search. Notice that the owner subsequently allowed
the entry, but did not give permission for a search.THATsearch is what the second manner
punishes, not the earlier entry. The essence of the crime is searching without consent,
regardless of whether or not the entry was done with or without permission.

Q: What if the owner consented to a search of the living room and the officer continued searching into
the hallways and the bedrooms, is he liable under the second manner?
Yes. The permission was only for the living room.

Q: A police officer entered your house with your consent. While waiting in the sala, he saw an unlicensed
firearm atop the TV. He seized the same. Were his actions valid?
Yes, under the plain view doctrine

Q: Suppose you allowed a police officer to enter the living room. You left to make him some coffee.
When you returned, he was searching the room. You asked him what he was doing and he said ‘trying to
look for shabu’. You said ‘there’s no shabu here, if you want, you can search the other rooms of the
house’. Was the search in the living room valid?
No, there was no previous consent

CRIMINAL LAW II 27
K notes

Q: So he is liable for the search in the living room, but not in the other rooms?
Yes

Q: Suppose that while waiting for you, he opened several cabinets and drawers in your house, and was
able to seize an unlicensed gun and shabu. Was the search valid?
No, the items were not in plain view and are consequently inadmissible as evidence

Q: Under the 3rd manner of commission (entering surreptitiously, refusing the leave the premises after
having been required to do so), what consummates the crime?
Refusal to leave the premises

Q: What do you mean by ‘surreptitiously entering’?
Entering secretly, or without the knowledge of the owner

Q: Is the liability here for entry?
No, it is for the refusal to leave after effecting entry

Q: Give an example

Q: If the entry was made through the main door which was closed but was not locked, and the owner
required the officer to leave, which the officer did, is the he still liable?
Yes, under the 1st manner of commission

ART.129
MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED SEARCH WARRANT AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE
OF A LEGALLY OBTAINED WARRANT

1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause; or
2. Exceeding authority by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally
obtained

Q: Who may commit this?
Public officers/employees vested with authority to procure or execute a search warrant

Q: When may it be said that there is no ‘just cause’?
By applying the Test of Lack of Cause, when perjury can be imputed on the person who executed
or applied for the warrant

Q: What do you mean by ‘perjury’?
Executing a false affidavit or making a false statement under oath (‘simply stated, it is malicious
if the it based on false facts –Atty A.)

Q: Is perjury a necessary crime in committing the offense of maliciously obtaining a warrant?
Yes

Q: Does that make it a complex crime under Art.48?
No, they remain separate crimes

Q: What is your legal basis for saying that?
By direct provision of law, Art.129 makes it a separate crime (‘In addition to… xxx’)

Q: Give examples of other crimes which, by direct provision of law, may not be complexed under Art.48?
‐Direct Bribery (Art. 210)
‐Maltreatment of Prisoners (Art. 235)

CRIMINAL LAW II 28
K notes

‐Usurpation of Real Rights (Art. 312)

Q: What are the 2 kinds of complex crimes under Art. 48?
1. An offense is a necessary means for committing another offense;
2. A single act results in two or more grave or less grave offenses

Q: Suppose NBI agents, through a false affidavit, procured a search warrant. During the search, they
destroyed several furniture, committed acts of lasciviousness against the daughter of the owner and
kicked the son. What crimes were committed?
1. Maliciously obtaining a search warrant
2. Perjury
3. Physical Injuries
4. Malicious Mischief (resulting in destruction of property)
5. Acts of lasciviousness
*all separate crimes

Q: Suppose you had a persistent suitor whom you don’t like and so rejected. He turned out to be an NBI
officer. To get back at you, he caused an application for a search warrant against your brother for
keeping firearms in your house, which is not true. The warrant was issued. What crimes may he be liable
for?
1. Maliciously obtained search warrant and
2. Perjury
*separate crimes

Q: Suppose he came to you and told you that unless you answer him, he will implement the warrant. In
order to save your brother, you answered him. Is he still liable for procuring a warrant without just
cause?
Yes, the crime is already consummated. The warrant need not be implemented for liability to
attach.

Q: Suppose that when he applied for a search warrant, he had no legal cause, but when the warrant was
served, an unlicensed firearm was found beneath the pillow of your brother. May the officer still b e
liable for procuring a search warrant without just cause?
No, not anymore

Q: NBI agents, after conducting a surveillance operation, applied for a warrant. The application
contained 2 offenses: violation of the CDDA and Illegal possession of firearms. The judge issued the
search warrant. The agents raided the shabu lab and were able to seize several shabu paraphernalia and
50 unlicensed firearms. The same were deposited in the custody of the NBI. The items were sought to be
used as evidence in court. Are they admissible?
No, the warrant was not lawfully obtained, the application contained 2 offenses. ‘No warrant
shall issue except for a single offense’ (Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court)

Q: Even if the evidence is vital to the case and would prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Yes, even if

*NB: The rule on the validity of a search warrant is strictly construed against the State. This is
because a warrant is the state’s most potent weapon for intruding into the privacy of a person.
When a warrant is illegally obtained, all evidence seized by virtue of that warrant are tainted
(fruits of the poisonous tree) and may not be used as evidence against the accused, regardless
of their relevance or materiality to the case.

Q: A warrant was issued by the RTC for the search of a house suspected to be a shabu lab. The things to
be seized were particularly described and thereafter, the NBI agents conducted the search. They saw an
unlicensed firearm which was not mentioned in the search warrant. They seized the same. A
corresponding case for illegal possession of firearm was filed. Is the evidence admissible?
Yes. The seizure of the unlicensed firearm was done because a crime was then being committed
in the presence of the NBI agents and the object of the crime was the unlicensed firearm.

CRIMINAL LAW II 29
K notes

Q: You’re saying that a continuing crime was being committed? What crime?
Yes – illegal possession of firearm

Q: A search warrant was issued for shabu and other paraphernalia. After digging around in the back of
the house, the agents found unlicensed firearms. Are the same admissible?
No, the firearms were not seized by virtue of a lawful search, they were also not within the
ambit of the plain view doctrine

Q: What are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed?
‐Consented Searches
‐Searches incidental to lawful arrests
‐Plain view
‐Stop‐and‐Frisk
‐Searches of moving vehicles or vessels
‐Searches pursuant to building, sanitary or safety (i.e.: fire) regulations
‐Searches pursuant to violations of customs laws

Q: Under the second manner (abuse in the service of a warrant), suppose that in the implementation of
a SW lawfully obtained, an officer with his rifle hit an occupant who did not even resist the search to
begin with. The occupant died. What crime/s were committed?
1. Art.129(2) – abuse in the service of a warrant; and
2. Homicide
*separate crimes

Q: Suppose one of the agents destroyed your things during the implementation of a search warrant
lawfully obtained. What crime/s were committed?
1. Abuse in the service of a warrant; and
2. Malicious mischief
*separate crimes

Q: Does the law require that for abuse to be committed, the search warrant must first be lawfully
obtained?
Yes

Q: On its face, may the warrant be presumed valid?
Yes, the warrant enjoys the presumption of validity since it was issued by the court

Q: What constitutional right is sought to be safeguarded by this provision?
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures

*NB: NOT the right to privacy, do NOT say ‘right to privacy’ and ruin your recit streak :)

PEOPLE v. SINOC

275 SCRA 357
Narvasa, C. J.
FACTS:
Isidoro Viacrusis was motoring on a company Pajero, driven by Tarsisio Guijapon. As they
approached the public cemetery of Claver, several armed men stopped them. Claiming to be
New People’s Army members, the men boarded the vehicle and ordered Guijapon to proceed.
Once in Barobo, Surigao del Norte, the armed men ordered Viacrusis and Guijapon to alight, led
them with their hands bound behind their backs to a coconut grove, and shot them. Viacrusis
survived. Witness Marlyn Legaspi saw the victims, and the Pajero, which left the scene. The
police, acting on a tip‐off by a secret informant, went to the Bliss Housing Project where they
found Danilo Sinoc approaching the stolen Pajero, and found on his person the keys to the

CRIMINAL LAW II 30
K notes

vehicle. Sinoc was arrested. 4 months after the arrest, Sinoc was brought to the Public
Attorney’s Office where police asked Atty. Alfredo Jalad for permission to take Sinoc’s
statement in writing. Sinoc confessed to the occurrences leading up to his arrest after he was
informed of his rights by Atty. Jalad. The former was then brought to the City Prosecutor that
he might take oath on his statement. After having ascertained the voluntariness of the affidavit,
the Prosecutor affixed his signature. During trial, Sinoc proferred an alibi and alle ged further
that he was not informed of his constitutional rights during custodial interrogation and that he
was made to sign the affidavit of confession under duress.

ISSUE:
Was there a valid warrantless arrest?
HELD:
YES. An arrest without a warrant may be liawfully effected by a peace officer when an offense
has just been committed and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed it. There is no question that the police were aware that an offense
had just been committed, that an informant saw the Pajero and that Sinoc had the key to the
vehicle. Sinoc’s link to the stolen vehicle was palpable and the officers had no alternative save to
arrest him. It was their clear duty to do so, the omission of which would have been inexcusable.

‐ oOo –

PEOPLE v. SALVATIERRA

276 SCRA 55
Kapunan, J.
FACTS:
Charlie Fernandez was walking towards the direction of Quiapo, along M. de la Fuente Street
when he was met by 4 persons, one of whom was David Salvatierra. Salvatierra lunged at
Fernandez with a bladed instrument, hitting him in the chest. Charlie Fernandez died of his
wound. The incident was witnessed by Milagros Martinez, who at the time, was afraid and told
no one save for her daughter. Meanwhile, Marciano Fernandez, Charlie’s father, reported the
death of his son to the Western Police District (WPD) where an advance information was
prepared, indicating that 4 unidentified persons perpetrated the crime. 3 months after the
stabbing, David Salvatierra was apprehended for causing a commotion along Miguelin Street,
Sampaloc, Manila. The arresting officers found out that he was a suspect in the killing of Charlie
Fernandez and turned him over to the WPD. Salvatierra was charged with murder and he
pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Milagros Martinez, who had been persuaded to
testify by Marciano Fernandez, and the trial court found Salvatierra guilty as charged. On
appeal, Salvatierra assigns as error the trial court’s failure to find that the warrantless arrest for
the offense of malicious mischief – which led to his detention for the alleged murder of Charlie
Fernandez – was unconstitutional.

ISSUE:
Were the irregularities in the warrantless arrestof David Salvatierra for the crime of murder
deemed waived by his failure to raise them before entering his plea?

HELD:
YES. Accused‐appellant Salvatierra is estopped from questioning his arrest considering that he
never raised it before entering his plea. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or in the
procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before
he enters his plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Consequently, any irregularity
attendant to his arrest, if any, had been cured by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
the trial court when he entered his plea and participated during trial.

‐ oOo –

CRIMINAL LAW II 31
K notes

PEOPLE v. FLORES

358 SCRA 319
Ynares‐Santiago, J.
FACTS:
Samson Sayam was last seen drinking beer in the company of Sgt. Winnie Tampioc, and Citizens
Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU) members Aaron Flores, Sulpecio Silpao and Edgar
Villeran. They left the store where they were drinking and walked towards the direction of the
military detachment headquarters, after which, witnesses heard gunshots. Despite diligent
efforts by Sayam’s mother and relatives to locate him, he has not been found. The prosecution
contends that Sayam was kidnapped and illegally detained pursuant to a conspiracy among the
accused. The trial court rendered a decision acquitting Sgt. Tampioc on the grounds of
reasonable doubt, and convicting Flores, Villeran and Silpao of the crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.

ISSUES:
1. Did the trial court err in ruling that the accused‐appellants committed kidnapping and serious
illegal detention?
2. Are the accused guilty of arbitrary detention under Art.124?

HELD:
1. YES. The crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention has the following elements: (a) the
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; and (d)in
the commission of the offense, the following circumstances are present: (i) the kidnapping or
detention 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 is a minor, female, or public officer. Accused‐
appellants, being members of the local Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU), are not
private individuals but public officers. As such, they can only be held liable for the crime of
arbitrary detention.

2. NO. Detention is defined as the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure or in any manner
depriving him of his liberty. The records show no evidence sufficient to prove that Samson
Sayam was detained arbitrarily by accused‐appellants. While the prosecution witness testified
that they were seen walking with Sayam toward the direction of the detachment headquarters,
there is no evidence that he was actually confined there or anywhere else. The fact that Sayam
has not been seen or heard from since he was last seen with the accused‐appellants does not
prove that he was detained and deprived of his liberty. The fact of detention, whether illegal or
arbitrary, was not clearly established by credible evidence. Likewise, there was no proof that
there was actual intent on the part of the accused‐appellants to deprive Sayam of his liberty.
That Sayam is missing up to this date cannot be a basis for the trial court to render conviction.
Mere suspicion is insufficient to convict the accused‐appellants.

NOTES

*On warrants. A question was once asked in Constitutional Law II (under the coverage of ‘Search and
Seizure’) whether or not a warrant could in fact contain more than one offense. The class suffered a
shotgun round, and was made to say ‘yes’ despite deep instincts to the contrary. It was said that a
warrant could in fact contain more than one offense IF it was issued for (1) complex crimes; or (2) special
complex crimes. We asked Atty. A for clarification and he spent 30 whole minutes drilling it into us: a
warrant CANNOT – EVER – contain more than A SINGLE offense.

*Notwithstanding the presence of art.48, RPC on complex crimes, a warrant may still NOT contain two
or more offenses. The complexing is done by the PROSECUTOR, NOT the arresting officers; and it’s done
AFTER a warrant has been served because the Prosecutor looks at the evidence obtained through that
very warrant and determines the degree of perversion – and hence, culpability – of the

CRIMINAL LAW II 32
K notes

accusedfollowing the formula: did one offense result in two or more grave or less grave offenses? Was
one a necessary means to commit the other? Beyond that, complexing cannot be assumed. Besides,
what is the basis of the arresting officers to apply for a warrant in connection with a complex or special
complex crime? And what basis would the issuing Judge have to find probable cause for a complex or
special complex crime? ‘If I were counsel for the defence, I would move for the nullification of your
warrant. The best remedy is to apply for TWO separate warrants’ –Atty. A

ART.130
SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT A WITNESS

1. The offender = public officer/employee
2. He is armed with a search warrant legally obtained
3. He searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person
4. The owner or any member of his family, or 2 witnesses residing in the same locality are not
present

Q: What is the order of the people who must witness the search?
1. Homeowner
2. Members of the family who are of sufficient age and discretion
3. Responsible members of the community (2)

Q: Who may commit this?
Public officers/employees authorized to conduct a search


Q: Are 2 housemaids considered ‘witnesses’, in the event that the owner and blood relatives are not
present?
Yes

Q: 2 Barangay tanods?
Yes

Q: 2 members of the police team?
No

Q: Suppose the owner was not present, but his 2 daughters aged 12 and 8 respectively were there. May
the search be made?
No

Q: Why not?
The members of the family must be of sufficient age or discretion

Q: What about 2 neighbors whom you were not in good terms with?
They may be witnesses. The law does not require that the owner be on good terms with them.

SECTION THREE – PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF
PEACEFUL MEETINGS

ART.131
PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS

CRIMINAL LAW II 33
K notes

1. By prohibiting or interrupting without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting; or by
dissolving the same
2. By hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its
meetings
3. By prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with
others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances

Q: Under the 1st mode of commission (prohibiting or interruption the holding of an assembly without
legal ground/dissolving the same), what constitutional right is safeguarded?
The right to peaceful assembly

Q: Is this right absolute?
No

Q: May it be regulated? How?
Yes, it may be regulated. The regulation may be done in exercise of police power.

Q: If the offender is a private individual, what crime does he commit?
Disturbance of Public Order (Art. 153)

Q: If the meeting is no longer peaceful, may it be dissolved?
Yes

Q: If the meeting that was interrupted or dissolved is a session of the city council, and the dissolution is
done by a public officer, is Art. 131 applicable?
No, the crime in this case is a crime against a legislative body, not punishable under this article

Q: If the officer stops a meeting because of a city ordinance, is he liable?
No

Q: suppose he does so in a private residence?
He is liable

Q: May a police officer stop a peaceful meeting taking place in a freedom park?
No. By law (BP 880), meetings in freedom parks need not be conducted pursuant to a permit.
The officer has no lawful cause to interrupt the peaceful meeting

Q: What is a freedom park?
An area established by law as such, where one can peaceably assemble at any time without
having to procure a permit from the government for that purpose

Q: Suppose you and your classmates are failing Criminal Law 2. You assembled in front of San Beda
without a permit, demanding the removal of Atty. Amurao. Are you liable?
Yes

Q: Under what law?
Batas Pambansa 880 – The Public Assembly Act of 1985

Q: In what manner are you liable?
For conducting an assembly without a permit and in an area not designated as a freedom park

Q: What if you conducted your rally in Liwasang, Bonifacio?
We are not liable – The area is a designated freedom park

Q: If you conducted it in front of the San Beda gate, may you be arrested without a warrant?
Yes

CRIMINAL LAW II 34
K notes

Q: You decided to start the rally from España to Mendiola. It was a spontaneous decision. May you be
intercepted anywhere between those areas and arrested?
Yes

Q: What is the reason for requiring a permit?
The state seeks to ensure the maintenance of public order and safety and does so in exercise of
its sovereign police power

Q: You conducted a rally at a freedom park. In the course of the rally, you uttered libellous speeches.
May the rally be dispersed?
Yes, it has ceased to be peaceful

Q: But it was done in a freedom park
What is controlling as far as the dispersal goes is the nature of the rally. Even if it was done in a
freedom park, it had ceased to be peaceful. A freedom park may be used subject to the
qualification that the assembly must be a peaceful one

Q: So the right to a peaceful assembly in a freedom park is also not absolute?
Yes, it is not absolute. The right to use a freedom park is also regulated

Q: Under the 2nd mode of commission (hindering a person from joining any lawful association/attending
any of its meetings), what constitutional right is safeguarded?
The right to association

Q: What are the 2 punishable acts under this manner of commission?
1. Hindering someone from joining a lawful association
2. Preventing him from attending any of its meetings

Q: Give an example of the 1st act

Q: Your distant relative, a police officer, prevented you from joining an unrecognized fraternity within
San Beda College of Law. Is he liable?
Yes, the fraternity is not necessarily an unlawful association, notwithstanding the fact that San
Beda Law does not recognize it

Q: Same facts, except that the organization you wanted to join was the Abu Sayyaf. Is your relative
liabel?
No

Q: And if you wanted to join the National Democratic Front‐New People’s Army (NDF‐NPA)?
He is not liable

Q: Give an example of the 2nd manner of commission

Q: Give an example of the 3rd manner of commission

Q: Under the 3rd manner, what constitutional right is safeguarded?
The right to petition the government for redress of grievances

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880
THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACT OF 1985

Outline of Definitions

 Public Assembly:

 Public Place:Includes any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street, bridge, or other thoroughfare,

CRIMINAL LAW II 35
K notes

park, plaza, square and/or any open space of public ownership where the people are allowed access

 Freedom Parks: Parks duly established by every City or Municipality where demonstrations and
meetings may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit

 Maximum Tolerance: The highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other peace‐
keeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same

 When Permits are required: organization and holding of a public assembly in a public place

 No permits required for the use of freedom parks duly established by law

 When the assembly is to be held on private property, the consent of the owner is needed

Salient Provisions

 Sec.5 – Application Requirements: The application shall be in writing, shall include the names of the
leaders/organizers; the purpose of the assembly; date, time, duration thereof; the place/streets to
be used; and the probable number of persons participating; and the transport and public address
system to be used. The application shall be filed with the office of the Mayor of the city of
municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held, at least 5 working days before
the scheduled activity.

 Sec.6 – Action to be taken on the Application: The Mayor/any official acting in his behalf has the
duty to issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly
will create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public
morals and public health. The Mayor/official acting in his behalf shall act on the application within 2
working days from the date the application was filed, failing which, the permit shall be deemed
granted. Should for any reason, the Mayor/official refuse to accept the application for a permit, said
application shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of the office of the Mayor and it shall be
deemed to have been filed. If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a
substantive evil warranting the denial/modification of the permit, he shall immediately inform the
applicant who must be heard on the matter. Action on the permit shall be in writing and served on
the applicant within 24hrs. If the mayor/acting official denies the application/modifies the terms
thereof, the applicant may contest the decision in an appropriate court of law.

 Sec.9 – Non‐interference of law enforcement authorities:Law enforcement authorities shall not
interfere with the holding of a public assembly. To adequately ensure public safety, a contingent
under the command of a responsible police officer may be detailed and stationed at least 100
meters away from the area of activity to maintain peace and order at all times.

 Sec.10 – Police Assistance when requested:Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal
with the demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and units to which they
belong displayed prominently; and they shall observe the policy of Maximum Tolerance. They shall
not carry any kind of firearms, but may be equipped with baton, riot sticks, and shields, crash
helmets with visor, gas masks, boots or ankle high shoes with shin guards. Tear gas, smoke
grenades, water cannons or any similar anti‐riot device shall not be used unless the public assembly
is attended by actual violence or serious threats of violence or deliberate destruction of property.

 Sec.11 – Dispersal of Public Assembly with Permit: No public assembly with a permit shall be
dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes violent, the police may disperse it as follows: At the
first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall call the
attention of the leaders of the public assembly and ask the latter to prevent any possible
disturbance. If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful objects from the
participants are thrown at the police or at the non‐participants or at any property, causing damage,
the ranking officer shall audibly warn the participants that if the disturbance persists, the assembly
will be dispersed. If the violence/disturbance does not stop or abate, the ranking officer shall audibly

CRIMINAL LAW II 36
K notes

issue a warning to the participants and after allowing a reasonable period of time to lapse, shall
immediate order it to forthwith disperse. No arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also
be made during the public assembly unless he violates during that assembly a law, statute,
ordinance, or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be governed by Art.125 of the RPC as
amended. Isolated acts/incidents of disorders or breach of the peace during the assembly shall not
constitute a ground for dispersal.

 Sec.13 – Prohibited Acts:The following shall constitute violations of this Act:
a. The holding of any public assembly as defined in this act by any leader/organizer without having
first secured that written permit where a permit is required, or the use of such permit for such
purposes in any place other than those set out in said permit: provided however that no person
can be punished or held criminally liable for participating in/attending an otherwise peaceful
assembly
b. Arbitrary and unjustified denial/modification of a permit in violation of the provisions of this Act
by the Mayor or any other official acting in his behalf
c. Unjustified/arbitrary refusal to accept or acknowledge receipt of the application for a permit
d. Obstructing, impeding, disrupting, or otherwise denying the exercise of the right to peaceful
assembly
e. Unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law enforcement agency or any person to
disperse the assembly
f. Acts in violation of Sec.10 hereof
g. Acts described hereunder, if committed within 100 meters from the area of activity of the public
assembly or on occasion thereof:
1. Carrying of a deadly or offensive weapon/device such as firearm, pillbox, bomb and the like
2. Carrying of a bladed weapon and the like
3. Malicious burning of any object in the streets or thoroughfares
4. Carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement unit
5. Interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a public assembly, by the use of a
motor vehicle, its horns, and loud sound systems.

ART.132
INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

1. The offender = public official/employee
2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take place or are going
on
3. The offender prevents or disturbs the same

Q: Is it necessary that this be committed in an actual place of worship?
No, the manifestations or ceremonies may be taking place outside a religious structure

Q: Give an example

Q: What are the circumstances qualifying the crime?
The presence of violence or threats in the commission of the crime

Q: Suppose there was a mass going on in Luneta. A public officer fired shots in the air and the people
scattered. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose the mass was over and a politician was giving a speech
He is no longer liable under Art.132

Q: Same facts. You learned of the mass in Luneta and you wanted to join. You were not allowed to join
by a police officer guarding the entrance. Is he liable?

CRIMINAL LAW II 37
K notes

Yes, but under Art.131, not 132

Q: What constitutional right is safeguarded here?
The Right to Freedom of Religion

Q: Is a mere disturbance sufficient?
No, the disturbance has to be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful

ART.133
OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS

Q: Who may commit it?
Q: When is the act considered to be ‘notoriously offensive’?

Q: Give an example

Q: From whose viewpoint is the concept of ‘notoriously offensive’ judged?
From the viewpoint of the offended party

Q: The accused took a statue of the virgin mary and chopped it into pieces in front of a group that was
praying. He considered the statue to be merely a piece of wood. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Would such an act be considered notoriously offensive?
Yes

CRIME COMMITTED NATURE OF THE CRIME PERSONS LIABLE LEGAL EFFECT OF A
MISSING ELEMENT
Prohibition, Crime against the Public Officers, If not committed by a
Interruption and fundamental law of the Outsiders public officer, the crime
Dissolution of a State is Tumults and Public
Peaceful Meeting Disorders or Grave
(ART. 131) Coercion

Interruption of Crime against the Public Officers If committed by a
Religious Worship fundamental law of the member of the meeting
(ART.132) state = Unjust Vexation

If the meeting is not
religious = Tumults or
Alarms

If the act is not
notoriously offensive to
the feelings of the
faithful = Unjust
Vexation

If the offender is a
private person who is
not a member of the
meeting = Disturbance
of Public Order

CRIMINAL LAW II 38
K notes

Offending the Religious Crime against Public Public Officers, If the crime is not
Feelings Order Private Persons who are Tumults = Alarms and
(ART.133) members of the Scandals
meeting,
Outsiders If the meeting is illegal
from the onset =
Inciting to Rebellion

NOTES:

*If the crime is conducted in a place devoted to a religious purpose, there is no need for an on‐going and
actual ceremony

*Religious ceremonies… well… think: acts performed (not necessarily) inside the church, i.e.:
processions and special prayers for burying the dead but NOT prayer rallies

*The offensive acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or a ritual of the same nature
for the purpose of ridicule i.e.: mocking or scoffing at, or attempting to damage an object of religious
veneration

*There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful. Mere arrogance or rudeness is not
enough

CHAPTER ONE
REBELLION, COUP D’ETAT, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY

ART.134
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

1. There is –
a. A public uprising AND (*whatever you do, do NOT forget the conjunctive)
b. A taking up of arms against the government
2. The purpose of the uprising or movement is either –
a. To remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws…
i. The territory of the Philippines OR any part thereof (*do NOT forget the disjunctive);
or
ii. Any body of land, naval, or other Armed Forces
b. To deprive the Chief Executive or Congress wholly or partially of any of their powers of
prerogatives

Q: Differentiate this from Treason

TREASON REBELLION
(ART.114) (ART.134)
RE: Manner of Prosecution Two‐Witness Rule Ordinary Rules of Evidence

RE: Time of Commission Time of War Time of Peace

CRIMINAL LAW II 39
K notes

Q: Give an example of Rebellion in the Philippines

Q: Can this be committed by a single person?
No, it is a crime of masses

Q: Who may be liable?
The Leaders and the Participants

Q: Suppose an NPA officer asked you to encash some of their checks and deliver the money to them. Are
you liable?
No, mere adherence to the enemy by giving them aid or comfort is NOT punishable in rebellion

Q: Members of the NPA kidnapped a Chinese merchant and demanded ransom. Upon payment, the
merchant was released and the ransom was used by the NPA to finance its activities. What crime/s was
committed?
Rebellion ONLY

Q: Why is that?
Because Rebellion ABSORBS common crimes committed in furtherance of its goals. It may not
be complexed with those crimes in order to aggravate the liability of the accused

*NB: Absorption of crimes is NOT synonymous with Complex Crimes. In complexing, the liability
of the accused is the one for the greater offense. In Absorption, the liability is set by law and
may not be aggravated by the commission of another crime. Why? Because penal laws should be
construed liberally in favour of the accused and strictly against the State. That’s just the way it
is.

Q: Suppose the kidnappers distributed the ransom amongst themselves and did not remit the money to
their higher‐ups, what crime was committed?
Kidnapping, the crime is not absorbed by rebellion because it was not committed in furtherance
of the political goals of rebellion

Q: The NPA ambushed the Governor and killed him for being corrupt. What crime was committed?
Rebellion

Q: May they be prosecuted for Murder?
No, the crime is absorbed in Rebellion

Q: Suppose they raped the daughter of the Governor, What crime/crimes were committed?
1. Rebellion
2. Rape
*separate, not absorbed – because the rape was not committed in furtherance of rebellion

Q: Factory employees organized themselves as an armed group and become so powerful they had a
strike and declared their factory as being under their own laws. They killed 10 persons in the process.
What crime was committed?
Rebellion

Q: Suppose the leader of the Rebellion is unknown. Who may be held liable?
Any person who speaks for signs receipts for, or directs the Rebellion, or performs similar acts
on behalf of the rebels

Q: Will conspiracy to commit Rebellion make you liable?
Yes

Q: How about proposal to commit it?
No

CRIMINAL LAW II 40
K notes

NOTES:

*The success of a rebellion is immaterial. Whether it failed or not does not affect the liability of the
accused

*The purpose of rebellion is always political

*The term ‘Rebellion’ is used when the object is to completely overthrow the government and
supersede it

*Insurrection refers to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor importance to
prevent the exercise of government authority with respect to particular matters or subjects

*An actual clash of arms between government forces and the rebels is not necessary to convict the
accused who is in conspiracy with others actually taking arms against the government

*The purpose of the uprising must be shown although it is not necessary that it is actually achieved

*Rebellion refers to the armed act of seeking a change of government without external participation

*Actual participation here refers to rising publicly and taking up arms against the government. If there
doesn’t happen to be a public uprising, the crime is direct assault

*Mere giving of aid or comfort is not a criminal act in the case of rebellion. Merely sympathizing with the
rebels is not considered as participation in the rebellion. There must be actual participation in the
uprising.

*There doesn’t have to be actual killing of any person. The mere threat of removing the Philippines from
the control of the government through force or violence is sufficient

*Rebellion cannot be complexed with other common crimes, HOWEVER, illegal possession of firearms in
furtherance of rebellion is DISTINCT from the crime of rebellion.

*Rebellion is a CONTINUING CRIME

*A private crime (aka. crimes against chastity ‐ note that RAPE is no longer a private crime by virtue of
RA 8353) may be committed during rebellion

PONCE‐ENRILE v. SALAZAR
Narvasa, J.
FACTS:
Senate Minority floor leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested on the strength of a warrant issued on an
information charging him and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan for the
crime of ‘rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder’ which they allegedly committed during
the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Enrile was taken and
held overnight at the NBI Headquarters in Taft Avenue without bail, none having been recommended by
the Prosecutor. The following morning he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City, and
given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the Northern Police District. Enrile filed for Habeas
Corpus, alleging that he was being held to answer for a criminal offense not contained in the statute
books, that he was charged in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary
investigation conducted, that he was denied his right to bail and arrested and detained on the strength
of a warrant issued without the judge having first personally determined the existence of probable
cause.

ISSUES:
1. Can Senator Enrile be held liable for the complex crime of ‘Rebellion with murder and multiple
frustrated murder’?
2. Was the arrest warrant issued without the judge’s personal determination of probable cause?

CRIMINAL LAW II 41
K notes

HELD:
1. NO. As held in the Hernandez case, rebellion cannot be complexed with any other offense
committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an
unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. The information filed against him
does in fact charge an offense. Read in the context of Hernandez, the information charges Enrile
with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion.

2. NO. It is sufficient that the Judge follows established procedure by personally evaluating the
report and supporting documents submitted by the Prosecutor. Merely because respondent
Judge Salazar had what some might consider a relatively brief period (1 hour and 20mins) within
which to comply with the duty gives no reason to assume that he had not, or could not have so
complied; nor does that single circumstance suffice to overcome the legal presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed.

‐ oOo –

PONCE‐ENRILE v. AMIN

Gutierrez, Jr., J.
FACTS:
Together with the filing of an information charging Sen. Enrile with ‘Rebellion complexed with
Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder’ in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Government
Prosecutors filed another information charging him with a violation of Presidential Decree 1829.
The information alleged that Enrile, who had reasonable ground to believe or suspect that ex‐
Colonel Gregorio Honasan had committed a crime, voluntarily concealed the ex‐Colonel in his
own residence in Dasmariñas Village, Makati. Enrile filed an omnibus motion to quash or dismiss
on the ground, among others, that the pending charge of rebellion complexed with murder and
frustrated murder precluded the prosecution of a violation of PD 1829. His motion was denied.
The respondent Judge upheld the prosecution’s contention that simultaneous proceedings are
permissible because Rebellion is based on the Revised Penal Code; where the instant case is
based on a special law. Enrile appealed to the Supreme Court, and the High Court issued a
Temporary Restraining order enjoining proceedings in the instant case.

ISSUE:
Can Senator Enrile be simultaneously charged withobstruction of justice, a violation of
Presidential Decree 1829; and the Revised Penal Code, with regards to Rebellion?

HELD:
NO. If a person cannot be charged with the complex crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to
be applied, neither can he be charged separately for two different offenses where one is a
constitutive or component element of, or committed in furtherance of rebellion. Being in
conspiracy with Honasan, Enrile’s alleged act of harbouring/concealing was for no other purpose
but to further the crime of rebellion, thus constituting a component thereof. The crime of
rebellion consists of many acts. The acts committed in furtherance of it, though crimes in
themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion. They cannot, therefore, be
made the basis of separate charges. The rationale remains the same: all crimes, whether
punishable under a special law or general law, which are components or ingredients, or
committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in rebellion and cannot be isolated and
charged as separate crimes. The theory of absorption in rebellion cases must not confine itself
to common crimes but also to offenses under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance
of the political offense.

‐ oOo –

CRIMINAL LAW II 42
K notes

UMIL v. RAMOS
Per Curiam
FACTS:
Consolidated cases for Habeas Corpus.

RE: ROLANDO DURAL
Ronnie Javellon was arrested without a warrant while he was confined at the Saint Agnes
Hospital and receiving treatment for gunshot wounds. The doctors alerted the military to his
presence there. He was identified the day before as being one of the people who shot 2 CAPCOM
policemen in their patrol car. Javellon later turned out to be Rolando Dural, a known NPA
member.

RE: AMELIA ROQUE, WILFREDO BUENAOBRA, DOMINGO ANONUEVO,
RAMON CASIPLE, AND VICKY OCAYA
The accused were arrested after military agents received information from a former NPA
member that two houses – one occupied by Renato Constantine and located in Molave Street,
Marikina Heights, Marikina; and one occupied by Benito Tiamzon – were being used as NPA
safehouses. The houses were put under military surveillance. Pursuant to a search warrant,
Renato Constantine was confronted. He could not produce any permit for the firearms in his
house, as well as the ammunitions, radio and other equipment in the residence. He also
admitted that he was a ranking member of the NPA. Wilfredo Buenaobra arrived at the
safehouse and had letters for Constantine and other rebels. He also admitted to being an NPA
courier. Amelia Roque was arrested in consequence to Buenaobra’s arrest because he had in his
possession papers leading to her whereabouts. Subversive documents and live ammunition
were found in her possession and she admitted to belonging to the group. Domingo Anonuevo
and Ramon Casiple arrived at the safehouse and agents frisked them, finding subversive
documents, and loaded guns without permits. Vicky Ocaya was arrested without a warrant
when she arrived at the house of Benito Tiamzon. Tiamzon’s house was the subject of a search
warrant. Ammunition and subversive documents were thereafter found in Ocaya’s car.

RE: DEOGRACIAS ESPIRITU
The accused was arrested without a warrant on the basis of the attestation of certain witnesses
that at 5:00pm, at the corner of Magsaysay Boulevard and Velencia Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila,
and on November 22, 1988, Espiritu spoke at a gathering of drivers and sympathizers, saying
‘Bukas tuloy ang welga natin, hanggang sa magkagulo na.’

RE: NARCISO NAZARENO
Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of men in Alabang, Muntinlupa. 14 days later, Ramil
Regala, one of the suspects, was arrested and he pointed out Narciso Nazareno as one of his
companions during the killing. That same morning, Nazareno was arrested without a warrant.

ISSUE:
Were the arrests validly effected?

HELD:
RE: ROLANDO DURAL
YES, the warrantless arrest was valid. He was committing an offense when he was arrested –
being an NPA member. The NPA is an outlawed organization and membership therein is a
continuing crime. He did not cease to be a subversive for purposes of arrest simply because he
was confined at St. Agnes Hospital. Military agents were dispatched on confidential information
to verify if an NPA member had indeed been admitted for a gunshot wound. The information
was based on actual facts, supported by circumstances sufficient to engender a belief that an
NPA member truly was in that hospital.

RE: AMELIA ROQUE, WILFREDO BUENAOBRA, DOMINGO ANONUEVO,
RAMON CASIPLE, AND VICKY OCAYA
YES, their arrests were all valid. They were searched pursuant to search warrants and were
found with unlicensed firearms, explosives and ammunition. They were caught in flagrante

CRIMINAL LAW II 43
K notes

delicto. The reason for all their arrests was that military authorities received information about
2 safehouses being used by the NPA, with exact locations and the names of Renato Constantine
and Benito Tiamzon. At the time of their arrests, they had ownership of unlicensed firearms,
ammunition, subversive documents. They also admitted to membership in the NPA. There was
probable cause to support their warrantless arrests.

RE: DEOGRACIAS ESPIRITU
YES, the warrantless arrest was valid. He was arrested not for subversion but for uttering words
which the arresting officers believed to constitute Inciting to Sedition. The case was mooted
anyhow, considering the failure of the investigating officers to appear at the re‐investigation.

RE: NARCISO NAZARENO
YES, the warrantless arrest was valid. Although Nazareno’s arrest was effected 14 days later, the
arrest falls under Sec.5(b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court since it was only then that the police
came to know that Nazareno was probably one of those guilty in the killing of Bunye II. The
arrest had to be made promptly, even without a warrant, to prevent possible flight.

ART.134‐A
COUP D’ETAT

Q: Who is the offender here?
Member of the military, police; public officers or employees

Q: Differentiate this with Rebellion

REBELLION COUP D’ETAT
(ART.134) (ART.134‐A)
RE: Persons Liable Public Officers/Employees and Public Officers/Employees,
Private Individuals Military men, Police Officers

RE: Manner of Commission Rising Publicly and Taking Up A Swift attack accompanied by
Arms against the Government violence, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth

RE: Purpose of Commission To remove from allegiance to Seizing or diminishing state
the Government the territory of power
the Philipines or any part
thereof, or any body of land,
naval or other armed forces;

To deprive the Chief Executive or
Congress, wholly or partially, of
any of their prerogatives or
powers

RE: Target of Attack The Government Authorities of the Philippines,
Military Camps, Installations,
Communications Networks,
Public Utilities or other facilities

Q: May coup d’etat be commited by a single person?
Yes

Q: May it be committed secretly?
Yes (use of stealth)

CRIMINAL LAW II 44
K notes

Q: May a private individual be held liable for coup d’etat?
No

TREASON REBELLION COUP D’ETAT SEDITION
(ART.114) (ART.134) (ART.134‐A) (ART.139)
Nature of the Crime Against Crime Against Crime Against Crime Against
Crime National Security Public Order Public Order Public Order
Overt Acts Levying war Public Uprising; Swift attack Rising publicly or

against the accompanied by tumultuously
government; Taking up arms violence,
against the intimidation, *NB: ‘tumultuously’
Adherence to the government threat, strategy or refers to the
enemies, giving stealth presence of more
them aid or than 3 (i.e.: at least
comfort 4) armed men or
men provided with
means for violence
Purpose or To deliver the To remove from Seizing or To prevent the

Objective government, allegiance to the diminishing state promulgation or
during time of Government the power execution of any
war, to the enemy territory of the law or the holding
Philipines or any of any popular
part thereof, or election;
any body of land,
naval or other To prevent the
armed forces; National
Government or any
To deprive the provincial/municipal
Chief Executive or government or any
Congress, wholly public officer
or partially, of any thereof from freely
of their exercising its or his
prerogatives or functions; or to
powers prevent the
execution of any
administrative
order;

To inflict any act of
hate/revenge upon
the person or
property of any
public
officer/employee;

To commit, for any
political or social
end, any act of
hate/revenge
against private
persons or any
social class;

To despoil, for any
political or social

CRIMINAL LAW II 45
K notes

end, any person,
municipality or
province, or the
National
Government if all or
any part of its
property.

Q: Conspiracy to commit rebellion, how is this committed?
Q: Proposal to commit rebellion, how is this committed?
Q: 5 members of the NPA ambushed and killed a company manager because he was responsible for the
dismissal of several workers. The workers were dismissed for union busting. What crime was
committed?
Rebellion

Q: Prof. Amurao flunked ½ of the class. He received a threat to change the grades or else he would be
killed. He refused to change the grades. The following day, he was ambushed by an NPA member who
happened to be the brother of one student who failed. What crimes were committed?
1. Rebellion (brother was an NPA member, rebellion is a continuing crime)
2. Grave Coercion
3. Murder complexed with Direct Assault
*All separate, not absorbed by rebellion because the common crimes were not committed
in furtherance of rebellion

Q: The provincial governor was liquidated by the Alex Boncayao Brigade (an NPA liquidation squad –
think: people who kill other people for the NPA). The governor had been a known drug lord. He was
found and killed by the Brigade. What crime was committed?
Rebellion

Q: 2 Victory Liner Buses were burned by the NPA because the management of Victory refused to pay
revolutionary taxes. 2 passengers died. What crime was committed?
Rebellion

Q: The sister of an NPA officer was raped by the commanding officer of the AFP. The prosecution for
rape was dismissed. To avenge the injustice, the NPA officer killed the military commander. What
crime/s did he commit?
1. Rebellion
2. Murder
*Separate, because the murder was committed for a personal motive

ART.135
PENALTY FOR REBELLION, INSURRECTION OR COUP D’ETAT

Q: Who are liable?
1. An y person who ‐
a. Promotes
b. Maintains
c. Heads a rebellion or insurrection
2. An y person who, while holding any public office or employment, takes part therein by ‐
a. Engaging in war against the forces of the government
b. Destroying property or committing serious violence
c. Exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they
have been appropriate
3. An y person merely participating or executing the command of another in a rebellion

CRIMINAL LAW II 46
K notes

*NB:
Persons Liable, as far as their occupations are concerned:
A. PERSONS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Anyone who leads, directs, or commands others to undertake a coup d’etat
B. PERSONS NOT IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Anyone who participates or in any manner, supports, finances, abets or aids others in
the commission of coup d’etat

NOTES

*Serious violence is that inflicted upon civilians which may result in homicide. It is not limited to
hostilities against other military forces

*Diversion of Public Funds is Malversation, but when committed here, it is absorbed by rebellion.

*The public officer, to be liable, must take active part. Mere silence or omission is not punishable in
rebellion

*Common crimes committed for profit or personal motives, without any political motivation, would be
separately punished and not absorbed in rebellion

ART.136
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D’ETAT,
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

*NB: It helps to know by heart the definition of ‘conspiracy’ and ‘proposal’

Q: Suppose military officers met outside the PH and agreed and decided to seize power from the present
administration. Upon arrival in the PH, they were arrested and prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a
coup d’etat. Are they liable?
No, the crime was committed outside the country. It cannot be prosecuted here because it is not
one of the exceptions to the rule on territoriality, as enumerated under Art.2 of the RPC

ART.137
DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OF EMPLOYEES

1. By failing to resist a rebellion by all the means within one’s power
2. Continuing to discharge the duties of office under the control of the rebels
3. Accepting appointment to office under the rebels

Q: Give an example

NOTES

*Art.137 presupposes the existence of rebellion. No rebellion, no crimes committed under Art.137

*The public officer/employee so charged must not be in conspiracy with the rebels or coup plotters else
his liability is under art.135/art.136

*If the position was accepted in order to protect the people, the official is not liable

*The collaborator must not have tried to impose the wishes of the rebels on the people

CRIMINAL LAW II 47
K notes

ART.138
INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

1. The offender does not take arms, nor is he in open hostility against the government
2. He incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion
3. The inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or
other representations tending to the same end

Q: Suppose a member of the NPA was going around, recruiting members. What crime was committed?
Rebellion

Q: An ordinary barangay leader, fed up with the present administration, gave speeches aimed at
persuadingor convincing people to join him in the fight against the government. What crime did he
commit?
Inciting to rebellion

Q: Suppose the audience before whom he spoke was finally induced and persuaded to join the
movement to overthrow the government. What crime did he commit?
Rebellion
The persons induced will be principals by direct participation
The offender is a principal by inducement in the crime of rebellion

Q: And if the audience was not convinced? What are the respective liabilities?
The speaker = Inciting to Rebellion
The audience = No liability

Q: You were walking along Makati, naked, with a placard saying ‘Down with the Aquino Administration’.
You were distributing flyers containing pictures of a corrupt government, and inviting the reader to join
you and overthrow the government. What is your liability?
Inciting to Rebellion

Q: Distinguish Art. 136 from Art. 138

PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION INCITING TO REBELLION
(ART.136) (ART.138)
The person making the proposal has decided to It is not required that the offender has decided to
commit the rebellion, i.e.: to take active part in it actually commit rebellion

The person who proposes the execution of the The inciting is done publicly
crime uses secret or covert means

Q: Give examples (*note: examples, plural) of military camps or reservations
‐The army reservation in Fort Bonifacio
‐The Philippine Military Academy
‐Villamor Air Base
‐Camp Crame
‐Camp Dangwa
‐Navy Headquarters
‐Poropoint in San Fernando, La Union

Q: Give examples of Communications Networks
*NB: this may include privately‐owned companies (i.e.: PLDT, Smart, Globe, ABS‐CBN etc)

Q: Give examples of Public Utilities
*NB: ‘public’ – mind the examples, MERALCO is now privately‐owned, btw
‐MAYNILAD

CRIMINAL LAW II 48
K notes

‐NAIA
‐DMIA

Q: Death occurring during a coup d’etat – is this a separate crime?
No, it is absorbed. Violence is an element of coup d’etat

Q: When may civilians be liable for coup d’etat?
When they participate, support, finance, aid or abet the coup

ART.139
SEDITION

*NB: Pay close attention to this one, it comes up during Midterm Exams

1. The offenders rise –
a. Publicly (*NB: of there is NO public uprising, the crime = tumults and other disturbances
of public order); AND (*NB: conjunctive – very important)
b. Tumultuously (vis‐a‐vis rebellion where there must be a ‘taking up of arms against the
government)
2. They employ threat, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods
3. The offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the following objects:
a. To prevent the 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 official thereof 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
d. To commit for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private
persons or any social class (*NB: even private individuals may be offended parties, not
just the government or public officials)
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

Q: When is a public uprising deemed ‘tumultuous’?
When there is the presence of at least 4 (and ALL four must be armed) men provided with
means for violence

Q: 10 persons armed themselves for the purpose of preventing the holding of a referendum through
violence. Are they liable for sedition?
No, a referendum is different from a popular election

Q: Several members of a barangay armed themselves and proceeded to the election precincts, and
prevented the election officers from performing their duty. What crime was committed?
Sedition in the 1st manner

Q: The city engineer of Makati issued an order for the demolition of the shantytowns in a certain area.
When the demolition was about to take place, residents of the area blocked the road leading to the site,
the purpose of doing so is to prevent the city engineer and his men from pushing through with the
demolition. What crime was committed?
Sedition in the 2nd manner

Q: Suppose Bayani Fernando, pursuant to his project ‘Metro Gwapo’, relocated all the squatters in
Baclaran. One morning while inside the Baclaran Church, the residents set his car on fire. What crime or
crimes did they commit?
1. Sedition

CRIMINAL LAW II 49
K notes

2. Arson
*separate crimes: unlike rebellion or coup d’etat, sedition does NOT absorb commit crimes
committed in furtherance of its goals

Q: Suppose you have a grudge against your municipal mayor and you burned down his house. What
crime/s may you be liable for?
1. Sedition in the 3rd manner
2. Arson
*separate crimes

Q: Suppose you shoot him instead
1. Sedition in the 3rd manner
2. Murder/Homicide
*separate crimes

Q: Give an example of the 4th objective

Q: Give an example of the 5th objective

Q: Conspiracy to commit sedition, how is this committed?
Q: Inciting to sedition, how is this committed?
Q: Give an example of inciting to sedition in the 1 st manner

Q: What are the two rules in determining culpability, as far as inciting to sedition goes?
1. The Clear and Present Danger Rule
2. The Dangerous Tendency Rule

Q: What is employed in this jurisdiction?
Both Rules, depending on the attending circumstances

Q: Is there such a crime as ‘proposal to commit sedition’?
None

Q: Suppose you incited others to commit sedition and they did. What crime was committed?
Sedition

Q: What is meant by ‘scurrilous libels’?
Writings that are low, vulgar and mean

Q: Give an example

Q: May inciting to sedition be committed by mere silence?
Yes, by ‘knowingly concealing such evil practices’

Q: What is sedition?
A Raising of commotion or disturbances in the State, possessing as its ultimate objective a
violation of the public peace or at least such measures that evidently engender such violations

Q: May sedition be committed by 3 persons?
No – there must at least be 4 armed persons

Q: If there are 50 persons who are not armed, is there sedition?
None

Q: 20 persons, with only one carrying a .45cal revolver
No

CRIMINAL LAW II 50
K notes

*NB: it doesn’t matter how many people there are, it matters how many ARMED people there
are – mind the qualification for means of violence

Q: If no one was carrying a gun but 5 were carrying arms
Sedition

Q: If 6 were carrying World War II vintage M‐1 Garand Rifles that would not even fire?
Sedition (trolling moment: they can still be used to hit somebody :D )

Q: What if those 6 people were armed with stones? Scissors? Needles?
Yes to all the above, the crime is sedition – these items may be used for violence (trolling
moment: Ever been poked in the eye with a needle? There you go – violence :D)

Q: What is the liability of the participants, supposing they were not able to achieve the purpose they
aimed for?
Sedition, The crime is consummated once all the elements concur (think: public and tumultuous
uprising + any of the 5 objects of sedition) – the success of the endeavour is not an element

*NB: That’s how it works. Once ALL elements are present, criminal liability inures (automatically
attaches) to the offense. Check the elements for every crime – if they are incomplete, the crime
is not consummated.

Q: The MMDA was set to demolish a shantytown. The residents blocked the MMDA officials’ access to
the site. The police arrived and the residents dispersed, allowing the demolition officers to do their job.
Are the residents liable?
Yes, the crime was already consummated

Q: Same facts, except that the residents held only pieces of wood. Are they liable?
Still liable (trolling moment: being hit by a piece of wood… hurts. Violence, mates.)

Q: In the 1st manner, is it necessary that the holding of popular elections is actually prevented?
No

Q: In the MMDA example, suppose there were 20 residents, only one carried a firearm, the rest were
simply being rowdy and noisy. The armed resident fired at a vehicle owned by the MMDA. The driver
died. What is the armed resident’s liability?
Murder/Homicide

*NB: NOT sedition. Notice, he was the only one armed

Q: Suppose that the remaining 19 residents picked up pieces of wood. What is the liability of the resident
who shot a member of the demolition team?
1. Sedition
2. Murder/Homicide
*separate crimes because sedition does not absorb common crimes

Q: What is the legal effect of common crimes in sedition?
They are not absorbed and will be prosecuted independently of the case for sedition

Q: May they be complexed with sedition?
No

Q: Give an example of common crimes committed in sedition
*trolling moment ‐ formula: sedition (public and tumultuous uprising + any of the 5 objectives) +
any of the common crimes (i.e.: murder/homicide/arson/rape/serious physical injuries etc) + a
whole lot of imagination. Go for it :P

CRIMINAL LAW II 51
K notes

NOTES:

*As differentiated with rebellion, the nature of sedition may be either political or social, whereas
rebellion is always political

*The offender in sedition may be either a public or private individual

*A public uprising AND an object of sedition must concur, else it isn’t sedition

*Common crimes are NOT absorbed by sedition

*Preventing an election through legal means (i.e.: electoral contests, filing civil cases pertaining to
elections) is not contemplated by sedition

*Persons liable for sedition are (1) the leader/s and (2) other persons participating in the seditious act/s

ART.143
ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND
SIMILAR BODIES

1. There is a projected OR (*NB: disjunctive – very important) actual meeting of Congress or
any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions, or committees or
divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board
2. The offender – who may be any person – prevents such meeting by force or fraud (*NB:
mind the 2 manners of prevention: force or fraud)
Q: Give an example
Q: What are the legislative bodies included in the provision?

Q: May this be committed by a participant of the meeting?
Yes, ‘any person’

ART.144
DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDING

1. There is a meeting of Congress or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board/city/municipal council or board
2. The offenders does any of the following acts:
a. He disturbs any of such meetings
b. He behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt its
proceedings or to impair the respect due it

Q: Give an example

Q: Meeting of a committee created by the Senate. A resource person was being interpolated. Someone
in the audience shouted and booed the interpolating Senator. Is that someone liable?
Yes

Q: May the Senate also cite him for contempt?
Yes

CRIMINAL LAW II 52
K notes

Q: May the Senator also order that person’s incarceration?
Yes

NOTES:

*The nature of the crime of ‘disturbance of proceeding’ is criminal. When the Senate cites a person in
contempt, the nature of that offense (the one found to be contemptuous) is essentially legislative.
Hence, the 2 offenses are independent of each other, even if they result from the same overt act.

*The Senate, in the exercise of its inherent plenary powers, may also order the incarceration of the
accused, notwithstanding the filing of a criminal case for Art.144

ART.145
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY

*NB: It helps to review the table of penalties, as well as the definition of concepts like ‘session of
Congress’ and ‘parliamentary immunity’

1. By using force, intimidation, threats or fraud to prevent any member of Congress from –
a. Attending the meeting of the assembly or any of its committees, constitutional
commissions, or committees or divisions thereof, or from
b. Expressing his opinions or
c. Casting his vote
2. By arresting or searching any member of Congress while Congress is in regular or special
session, except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under the Code by a
penalty higher than prision mayor
**elements:
a. The offender = a public officer/employee
b. He arrests or searches any member of Congress
c. Congress, at the time of the arrest or search, is in a regular or special session;
d. The member searched/arrested has not committed a crime punishable under the RPC by
a penalty higher than prision mayor

*NB: Under the 1987 Constitution (which, needless to say, takes precedence over the
RPC), the privilege from arrest of any member of Congress while the same is in session
extends to all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years of imprisonment. The ambit
of the privilege, therefore, includes offenses punishable by prision mayor, which runs
from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.

Q: Give an example of the 1st manner of commission

Q: Is it necessary that the member is actually prevented from doing those things?
No

Q: May the crime be committed outside the Halls of Congress?
Yes

Q: Suppose the committee on public order of the House of Representatives (HR) scheduled a meeting in
Basilan. The meeting was in connection to the hostages taken by the Abu Sayyaf. Because the airport
was waylaid by persons, they were not able to attend the meeting. Are those persons liable?
Yes

Q: Give an example of preventing a legislator from expressing his opinion

Q: Where should that opinion be expressed?

CRIMINAL LAW II 53
K notes

In the Legislature, in the halls of congress, during the meeting or session

Q: And if the legislator was invited to give an graduation address?
No liability for the offender under Art.145. He may be held liable, however, for grave coercion

Q: Give an example of preventing a legislator from casting his vote

Q: Suppose that despite the threat, the legislator still casted his vote. Is the offender still liable?
Yes

Q: What consummates the crime in the 1st manner?
Employing force, intimidation of threat

*NB: It isn’t necessary that the offender actually succeeds in preventing the legislator

Q: How is the 2nd manner committed?

Q: What is the duration of Prision Mayor?
6 years, 1 day to 12 years

Q: So you’re saying that a legislator may only be arrested when his offense carries with it a penalty
higher than 12 years?
No – if the crime was committed when Congress is not in session, he may be arrested despite the
fact that the penalty is not within the privileged range provided for in art.145

Q: When a member of Congress commits a crime and the penalty for it is 6 years, may he be arrested?
No

Q: If the penalty is higher than 6 years?
Yes

Q: Even if Congress is in session?
Yes, even if

Q: If Congress is not in session, may he be arrested, regardless of the penalty?
Yes

*NB: 2 important qualifications in this crime are (1) the penalty for the offense committed and
(2) whether Congress happens to be in session or not

Q: Physical Injuries committed long before the legislator was elected. A warrant of arrest was issued for
the offense, which is punished by Prision Correccional. Congress is in Session. May he be arrested?
No

Q: The lower house is in session from July 1 to October 31. On September 15, the warrant was issued. The
legislator was arrested in his house. Are the arresting officers liable?
Yes

*NB: By ‘session’, the law does not mean the time when the members of Congress are actually
sitting in the Halls of Congress. As far as the concept goes, Congress is ‘in session’ 24/7 and is
deemed to be ‘in session’ for all the days included in the period of July 1 to October 31

Q: What is meant by ‘session’?
The time inclusive of the initial convening until final adjournment

Q: Same facts, except that the offense committed was murder. Would the police still be liable?
Not anymore, the penalty for murder is higher than 6 years

CRIMINAL LAW II 54
K notes

Q: A person committed a crime before he became a Member of Congress. When he was elected, the
warrant of arrest was issued. The penalty for the crime he committed is 6 years. The officers arrested
him, are the officers liable?
Yes

Q: A Congresswoman committed plunder long before being elected. A corresponding information was
filed with the Sandiganbayan. May she be arrested, notwithstanding the fact that Congress is in session?
Yes, the penalty for plunder is higher than 6 years

Q: Suppose a legislator uttered gravely slanderous words against you. Can you file a case against him?
Yes, the immunity is from arrest and searches only, NOT from the filing of complaints

*NB: file anytime you want, but be mindful that filing is NOT the same as arrest/search. For the
latter, the law imposes certain qualifications.

Q: So if the court prepared a warrant of arrest but did not have it implemented, the court is not liable?
Yes, the court is not liable. What is punished is actual arrest/search

ART.146
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES

Q: What are the 2 kinds of illegal assemblies?
1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the RPC
2. Any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of
the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority
or his agent

Q: Who may be criminally liable?
1. The leaders/organizers of the meeting
2. The persons merely present at the meeting

Q: What is the presumption of the law, if a person at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm?
1. It is presumed that the purpose of the meeting insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts
2. He is considered a leader/organizer of the meeting

Q: In the 1st form, how many persons must be armed?
At least 2 since the law speaks of ‘persons’ (plural)

Q: Suppose there are 10 members, only 1 of them is armed with 10 hand grenades. Is the same
considered an illegal assembly?
No

Q: Suppose then that 5 of them are armed and the purpose of their meeting is to sell shabu, marijuana
and cocaine. Will they be liable for illegal assembly under the 1 st manner?
No, the crime committed is a violation of a special law (CDDA), not the RPC

Q: And if the purpose was to steal cars?
They are not liable, they violated a special law (Anti‐Carnapping Law)

Q: What if they planned to rob a bank?
They are liable, robbery is punishable under the RPC
Q: What is the 2nd manner of commission?
Q: Is it necessary that the persons attending the meeting be armed, under the 2nd manner?

CRIMINAL LAW II 55
K notes

No

Q: Suppose you and your classmates gathered together since the midterm exam is upcoming and you
knew for a fact that all of you would fail. You planned to wipe your criminal law teacher off the face of
the planet. Will you be liable for illegal assembly?
Yes, under the 2nd manner

Q: Why?
Because the members are incited to commit the crime of direct assault upon a person in
authority

Q: Suppose that instead of going to class, you and 10 other classmatesgathered together for a meeting
wherein you, as the leader, incited them to join the NPA. What is your liability?
1. Inciting to Rebellion (*NB: you merely incited them, no mention was made as to whether or
not they actually joined)
2. Illegal Assembly in the 2nd manner
*separate crimes

Q: And the liability of your classmates, assuming they join the NPA?
Rebellion by direct participation

Q: What is your liability if your classmates end up joining the NPA?
Rebellion as principal by inducement

*NB: the classmates actually joined the NPA. You induced them to.

Q: What would be your liability if your classmates did NOT end up joining the NPA?
Illegal Assembly (only)

*NB: It is important under the 2nd manner that the audience is incited to the commission the
crime of treason, rebellion, insurrection, sedition or assault. If the audience ends up actually
committing those crimes, the liability for those crimes attach, as far as they are concerned. As
far as the person inciting them to commit those crimes, he becomes liable as a principal by
inducement for having caused the actual commission. It helps to recall the particeps criminis at
this point, because liabilities for crimes (as principals, accomplices and accessories) are affected
by commission or non‐commission. Remember also that when the audience ends up committing
those crimes, the leader’s liability is for the crime they committed in addition to the liability for
illegal assembly – because by the time the audience members actually commit treason/rebellion
etc, the crime of illegal assembly in the 2nd manner has already been consummated.

Q: What if you and your classmates met to discuss your plans for illegal recruitment?
We are liable

*NB: Remember that ESTAFA is a crime punishable by the RPC, and that estafa can be
committed in connection with illegal recruitment


ART.147
ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS

Q: What are illegal associations?
1. Associations totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
2. Associations totally or partially organized for purposes contrary to public morals

Q: Differentiate illegal assemblies from illegal associations

CRIMINAL LAW II 56
K notes

ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
ART.146 ART.147
RE: punishable acts Meeting and Assembly per se are The act of forming or organizing,
punishable as well as membership in these
organizations is punishable

RE: conduct of a meeting There should be an actual There is no need for an actual
meeting meeting

RE: persons liable Leaders Founders
Organizers Directors
Persons merely present Presidents
Members

RE: purpose Commit crimes punishable under Commit any of the crimes
the RPC punishable under the RPC

Incite audience to the Organizing an association or
commission of organization for purposes
treason,rebellion, contrary to public morals
insurrection, sedition,
assault

Q: Give an example of illegal associations

Q: You and your classmates form an association for the purpose of taking money from your clients
through fraudulent acts. Are you liable?
Yes, the crime we plan on committing is estafa

Q: You, along with your friends, form an association called ‘Cheats, Inc.’ in order to help each other pass
criminal law II. Will you be liable for illegal associations?
Yes, cheating is contrary to public morals

Q: An organization was formed in order to pair couples together and orchestrate false weddings. Is this
punishable?
Yes, the acts are contrary to public morals

Q: Suppose you joined an association which propagates cohabitation without the benefit of marriage.
The philosophy of the organization is that marriage is just a piece of paper, no longer practicable nor
honoured by society. Are you liable?
Yes, the organization’s purpose is contrary to public morals

Q: An association is composed of married men and women. The purpose is to ‘foster love’ among
themselves. Are they liable?
Not necessarily, as long as they are not committing adultery or concubinage or bigamy


ART.148
DIRECT ASSAULTS

*NB: Pay special attention, this comes up in Midterm Exams. Also, it helps to review the elements of
rebellion and sedition

1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the
purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition

CRIMINAL LAW II 57
K notes

2. Without public uprising, by attacking, employing force, seriously intimidating or seriously
resisting any person in authority or his agent while the said person or agent is –
a. Engaged in the actual performance of official duties; OR (*NB: disjunctive, very
important)
b. On the occasion of such performance (*NB: ‘on the occasion’ here does NOT refer to the
time when the performance is being done. It means ‘by reason of’ or ‘because of’ the
performance. Hence, the performance contemplated here has already been/has
previously been done. Think: past tense, as far as the duty performed goes)

*NB: Do NOT omit the ‘without public uprising’ phrase. Once there is a public uprising, the crime
is no longer direct assault but rebellion/sedition as the case may be.

Q: May direct assault be committed against private individuals?
Yes (see: objects of sedition, ‘xxx any act of hate or revenge… against private individuals xxx’

Q: Give an example of direct assault in the 1st manner

Q: There are 3 armed persons who went to Binondo, employed force and intimidation on Chinese
retailers there because these retailers were dominating the retail business area. What is the liability of
the 3 persons?
Direct Assault in the 1st manner (see: 4th object of sedition)

Q: What is the 2nd manner of committing direct assault?

Q: Who do you mean by ‘on the occasion of such performance’?
The impelling motive of the attack is the past performance of official duty

*NB: ‘past’ because if the attack was done during the actual performance, the crime is direct
assault under the 1st manner, not the 2nd

Q: Who is a person in authority? (*NB: know this by heart)
Any person directly vested with jurisdiction to govern or execute the laws, whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board or commission

Q: Give examples
‐Barangay Captains
‐Mayors
‐Governors
‐Municipal Councilors, etc.

Q: Teachers?
Yes (see: Art.152)

Q: Lawyers?
Yes (see: Art.152)

Q: A senator?
Yes

Q: The President of the Philippines?
Yes

Q: Former First Gentleman Miguel Arroyo?
No, he is not vested with jurisdiction to execute the laws

Q: And who is an agent of a person in authority? (*NB: know this by heart, too)

CRIMINAL LAW II 58
K notes

Any person who, by direct provision of law, by election or appointment by competent authority
is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and
property

Q: Give examples
‐Peace officers/Policemen
‐Barangay Tanods
‐Soldiers/Members of the military

Q: Between the 1st and 2nd manners of commission, is there a difference in the degree of force necessary
to commit the crime of direct assault?
Yes –
a. If the offended party is a Person in Authority, the force employed does not have to be
serious
b. If the offended party is an Agent of a Person in Authority, the force employed must be
serious

Q: When do you say that the force employed is ‘serious’?
When it indicates a determination to defy the law and its representatives at all hazards


Q: Suppose you were being arrested by a police officer, you hit him with your fists. Will you be liable?
No, fist blows aren’t serious

Q: A warrant of arrest was issued against you. The police sought to implement the warrant and your
family members blocked them from entering the house. Are they liable?
Yes, Direct Assault under the 1st manner (see: objects of sedition: preventing a public officer
from exercising his functions)

Q: Your brother was apprehended by the police while he was in a bar fight. He was incarcerated. You
asked the police for his release and they refused. You organized your friends and went to the police
headquarters and fired at the officers there. Are you liable for Direct Assault?
Yes

Q: Under the 1st or 2nd manner?
1st – for inflicting an act of hate or revenge on an agent of a person in authority

Q: Because you flunked Criminal Law I, you pushed your professor aside when you met him by the stairs
leading up to 13L. He lost his balance but didn’t fall. Are you liable for direct assault?
Yes, a professor is also considered a person in authority. The force necessary need not be serious

Q: Are all the elements present?
Yes. The offended party is a person in authority, the force used did not have to be serious, and
the attack was by reason, or on occasion of a past performance of duty

Q: You were not able to study for Criminal Law II. You came to class and pointed a rifle at Atty. Amurao.
The rifle had a sign that read ‘Do not call me for recitation’. Will you be liable?
Yes – serious intimidation

Q: A Mayor’s mistress assaulted him in his office because the Mayor refused to support her. Is she liable?
Yes

Q: But the reason for the assault was because he refused to support her
When the person in authority is engaged in the actual performance of duty, the motive for the
attack is immaterial

CRIMINAL LAW II 59
K notes

*NB: motive only becomes material when the offense is committed under the second manner
i.e.: when the person in authority is not engaged in the actual performance of duty

Q: Suppose we are having class in Criminal Law II. A person suddenly came in and shot Atty. Amurao. The
shot resulted in your teacher’s death. What crimes did that person commit?
Direct Assault complexed with Murder/Homicide as the case may be

*NB: the teacher was in the actual performance of official duties

Q: For example, after our class in Criminal Law II, Atty. Amurao was walking along Mendiola when a
person suddenly fired at him. He eventually dies. The reason for the attack was that Atty. Amurao had
an obligation to pay the amount of Php 100,000 and he refused to honor the obligation. What is the
offender’s liability?
Direct Assault (in the 2 nd manner) complexed with Murder

*NB: the teacher is no longer in the actual performance of official duties

Q: For example, you ran into your teacher in Criminal Law II along one of the corridors. This was after
your Criminal Law II class which you failed. What crime did you commit?
Direct Assault in the 2nd manner

Q: Suppose a lawyer made arguments that significantly strengthened the case for the prosecution
during the trial. The offender saw the lawyer eating at a restaurant on the evening of the day when the
judgment pronouncing the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt was promulgated. He fired his gun
at the lawyer, causing serious physical injuries. Is the offender liable?
Yes, the attack was committed by reason of a past performance of duty

Q: Suppose you are a governor, and you recommended your niece to the Mayor for a position in said
Mayor’s office. The Mayor deferred your recommendation because the position was no longer vacant.
When you saw the Mayor, you shot him but he did not die. You succeeded in merely inflicting a serious
wound. What crime did you commit?
Direct Assault complexed with Serious Physical Injuries

Q: Say you are a Senator. You are in a hurry so you ran a red light. The traffic enforcer asked you to
present your driver’s license but instead of complying, you pointed a gun at him and fired, inflicting a
wound. Are you liable?
Yes

NOTES:

*Direct Assault is always complexed with the material consequence of the act (i.e.: murder, serious
physical injuries, etc.) EXCEPT when it results in a light felony, in which case, the liability for the light
penalty is absorbed by direct assault

*Hitting a policeman with your fists is not direct assault because the policeman is an agent of a person in
authority and the force necessary to consummate the crime must be of a serious character

*Because the provision uses the phrase ‘laying hands… xxx’ on a person in authority, the force that is
necessary to consummate direct assault when the offended party is a person in authority does not have
to be serious

*The intimidation or resistance employed against both a person in authority and his agent must be of a
serious character

PERSON IN AUTHORITY AGENT OF A PERSON IN
AUTHORITY
RE: force employed Need not be serious Must be of a serious character

CRIMINAL LAW II 60
K notes

RE: intimidation or resistance Must be of a serious character Must be of a serious character

*Even when the person in authority/agent agrees to fight, the crime is still direct assault. Their
agreement to fight does not mitigate the liability

*BUT when the person in authority/agent PROVOKES the fight (i.e.: the PIA/agent attacks first), the
innocent party is entitled to plead legitimate self‐defence

*Direct Assault cannot be committed during rebellion – recall: elements of both crimes, need for public
uprising in rebellion

ART.149
INDIRECT ASSAULT

1. A person in authority or an agent of a person in authority is a victim of any form of direct
assault defined under art.148 (*NB: notice that one of the elements of this crime is a crime in
and of itself – direct assault under art.148)
2. A person comes to the aid of such person in authority/agent
3. The offender makes use of force or intimidation upon the person who came to the aid of the
person in authority/agent

Q: Does the person coming to the aid of the Person in Authority/Agent have to be a public officer?
No, even a private individual may come within the purview of the provision, as long as he came
to the aid of the assaulted person in authority/agent

Q: May indirect assault be committed without the crime of direct assault?
No, Direct Assault is an essential element of Indirect Assault

*NB: this is an example of a ‘parasite crime’ (‐Atty. A). No Direct Assault, no Indirect Assault

Q: Will the acquittal in Direct Assault carry with it the acquittal in Indirect Assault, as far as the offender
is concerned? (*NB: pay attention to this, it can be tricky)
It depends

Q: Depends on what?
The nature of the acquittal for the crime of Direct Assault

Q: Explain
If the acquittal in Direct Assault is because the offender DID NOT commit the act, there will be an
acquittal for Indirect Assault

If the acquittal in Direct Assault is by reason of an EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE, there will NOT be
an acquittal for Indirect Assault

*NB: Recall the nature of exempting circumstances (i.e.: minority, insanity) – unlike
justifying circumstances where, in the eyes of the law, no crime was committed, there is
no criminal and there is no criminal liability; in exempting circumstances, there is still a
crime committed, there is still a criminal offender and there is still criminal liability,
EXCEPT that the criminal offender is EXEMPTED. Think: when a person is exempted, it
does NOT mean that he is innocent of the crime. It simply means that the law does not
make him serve out the sentence for his crime.

If the acquittal in Direct Assault is because the evidence adduced for that crime does not prove
the offender’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, there will NOT be an acquittal in Indirect Assault

CRIMINAL LAW II 61
K notes

*NB: Remember that Indirect Assault depends on the commission of Direct Assault. If
the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offender did in
fact commit Direct Assault, it still does NOT mean that he did not commit it at all – it
simply means that the prosecution was not able to meet the quantum of proof
necessary for a conviction. Consequently, the case for Indirect Assault may still proceed.

Q: Suppose a judge who convicted X and sentenced him to suffer 10 years of imprisonment. X served out
the sentence and when he was released, the judge had already retired. X saw the judge leaving the
church one morning and he attacked the judge. The mayor was also on his way out of the church and
saw the commotion. He (the mayor) started to make his way to the judge in order to help the latter, but
someone – a third person – prevented him from doing so by hitting him. What is the liability of X? What
about the liability of the 3rd person who prevented the mayor from helping the judge?
X’s liability: Direct Assault
3rd person’s liability: Direct Assault as well. The mayor is a person in authority, too

Q: Same facts, except that the person coming to the aid of the judge was his neighbour, a businessman.
What is the liability of the 3rd person who prevented the professor?
Indirect Assault

ART.150
DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS

1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey the summons of Congress, its special/standing
committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and their committees,
subcommittees or divisions, or by any commission of committee chairman or member
authorized to summon witnesses
2. By refusing to be sworn in, or placed under affirmation while being before such legislative or
constitutional body/official
3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents or
records in the offender’s possession, when required by them (Congress, constitutional
commissions etc) to do so in the exercise of their functions
4. By restraining another from attending as a witness in such legislative or constitutional body
5. By inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn in by any such body or
official

Q: Give an example under any of the punishable acts

Q: Jocjoc Bolante was being questioned by the Senate. He refused to answer the questions and invoked
his right against self‐incrimination. Will he be liable?
No, there is a legal excuse for his refusal

Q: Bolante deposited Php 500,000,000 in several banks. The Senate required the banks to produce the
papers, books and records of the accounts allegedly belonging to Bolante. The banks refused to comply
and invoked the Bank Secrecy Law. Will the banks be liable?
No, there is a legal excuse

Q: Suppose Bolante answered all the Senate’s questions, but the Senate was not satisfied with the
answers because they weren’t what the Senators expected to hear. May Bolante be held criminally
liable?
No, he answered all the questions

Q: Suppose Bolante failed to produce the books, papers and documents required by the Senate and the
Senate ordered his imprisonment unless he complied. May the Senate validly do so?
No

CRIMINAL LAW II 62
K notes

Q: What is the difference between Contempt and Disobedience?
Contempt is an offense that is Administrative in nature
Disobedience is a criminal offense

ART.151
RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE
TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY
OR AN AGENT OF A PERSON IN AUTHORITY

1. A person in authority/agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of
official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender
2. The offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority/agent
3. The act of the offender is NOT included in the provisions of art.148 (direct assault), 149
(indirect assault), or art.150 (disobedience to summons)

Q: Give an example

Q: Suppose you are arrested for jaywalking. Instead of obeying the policeman, you lay prostrated on the
street. Are you liable?
Yes

Q: Differentiate art.148, art. 149, art.150 and art.151

DIRECT ASSAULT INDIRECT ASSAULT DISOBEDIENCE TO DISOBEDIENCE TO
ART.148 ART.149 SUMMONS A PERSON IN
ART.150 AUTHORITY/HIS
AGENT

ART.151
Use of force is Use of force is directed No force is employed, No force is
directed against the against the person mere disobedience/ employed, the
person in authority coming to the aid of a Refusal to be sworn in/ offender instead
or his agent person in authority/agent Refusal to produce books, resists or seriously
papers, etc.; restraining disobeys the person
another; inducing in authority/agent
disobedience to a
summons issued by
Congress/any of the
bodies mentioned in the
article, consummates the
crime
Person in Person in Authority/Agent The summons; questions Person in

Authority/Agent is assaulted while in the or orders must be issued Authority/agent

must be engaged in performance of official in the exercise of official must be in the
the actual duty or by reason thereof functions actual performance
performance of of his duties; or
official functions or *NB: Presumes that Direct must have issued a
assaulted by reason Assault is already lawful order to the
thereof consummated, that is, the offender
person in authority/agent
is already assaulted while
in the performance of
duty or on occasion
thereof

CRIMINAL LAW II 63
K notes

Use of force against Mere use of force or No qualifications as to the Mere putting up of
the person in intimidation against the degree of resistance is
authority need not person coming to the aid refusal/disobedience punishable
be serious of a person in required to consummate
authority/agent the crime Disobedience,
Use of force against consummates the crime; however, must be
an agent of a person no qualification as to the serious
in authority must be degree of
serious force/intimidation
required

ART. 153
TUMULTS AND OTHER
DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER


1. By causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment
2. By interrupting or disturbing a public performance, function, gathering or peaceful meeting
if the act is NOT included in art.131 (prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful
meetings) and art.132 (interruption of religious worship)
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 (*NB: rendered
inapplicable by the suspension of the death penalty)

Q: Give an example of the 1st manner

Q: Give an example of the 2nd manner

Q: For instance, the person who interrupted and dissolved the rally is a public officer, will he be liable
under this article?
No, he will be liable under art.131 (prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful
meetings)

Q: What is art.131? 132?

Q: For example, the person who interrupted and dissolved the rally is a public officer who a lso happens
to be a participant of that rally, what is his liability?
He is liable under art.153 because art.131 requires that the public officer‐offender must not be a
participant of the meeting

Q: When is a meeting considered to be tumultuous?

Q: When may an outcry be a crime under Inciting to Rebellion, and when may it be considered a
Disturbance of Public Order?
In Inciting to Rebellion, the outcry must be serious and deliberate; the offender should have
done the act with the idea of inciting his listeners/readers to commit the crime of
rebellion/sedition

*NB: Here the inciting to rebellion/sedition is the controlling aim of the outcry

CRIMINAL LAW II 64
K notes

In Disturbance of Public Order, the outcry is not serious and is a spontaneous, unconscious
outburst which, although rebellious/seditious in nature, is not intentionally calculated to induce
others to commit rebellion/sedition

*NB: Here, the inciting to rebellion/sedition is not the controlling aim – there is no aim,
to be exact, just that the inciting takes place as a result of a spontaneous outcry

Q: Give an example

Q: An Anti‐Charter Change rally is on‐going. Suddenly, a passer‐by shouted ‘Revolution is the answer!’
What crime did he commit?
Disturbance of Public Order, he made an outcry not intentionally aimed at inciting others to
rebellion/sedition

Q: After you gave a speech, a person shouted ‘Down with the Aquino Government!’ What crime did he
commit?
Disturbance of Public Order

ART.154
UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION

1. By publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing, lithography, or any other
means of publication, as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause
damage to the interest or credit of the State
2. By 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. By maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document
without proper authority or before it has been published officially
4. By 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

Q: Give an example of the 1st manner

Q: May this crime be committed by any person?
Yes

Q: Give an example of the 2nd manner

Q: As a scriptwriter, you portrayed Commander Datu in one of your films as a hero of the Muslim
community. However, in the eyes of the law, he is a criminal. Will you be liable?
Yes

Q: As a columnist, you wrote an article which praises and justifies the acts of Jocjoc Bolante. You
described him as an honest, truthful and trustworthy public official and that he serves as an example to
be followed by everyone. Will you be liable?
Yes

Q: Give an example of the 3rd manner

Q: Suppose the Court of Appeals is set to release its resolution regarding the GSIS‐MERALCO
controversy. Before releasing the same to the public, you went to the Court of Appeals, obtained a copy,
and gave it to GSIS and MERALCO. Will you be liable?
Yes

Q: Give an example of the 4th manner

CRIMINAL LAW II 65
K notes

Q: Are there any instances when a writer simply cannot include his name in his article?
Yes, i.e.: when to do so would endanger his life

Q: In literature, are writers required to write their real name?
No, they can use pen names

Q: What about actors and showbiz personalities, are they allowed to use names other than their real
names?
Yes, they may use screen names

ART.155
ALARMS AND SCANDALS

1. By discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker or other explosives within any town or public
place calculated to cause alarm or danger
2. By instigating or taking an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive
to another or prejudicial to public tranquillity
3. By disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other
nocturnal amusements
4. By causing disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise, provided
that Art.153 is not applicable

Q: Will a person be liable if he discharged a firecracker during new year’s eve?
No, the law exempts the celebration of new year’s eve and fiestas. By tradition, these days are
considered holidays and the celebration of them through these means would not cause alarm or
danger.

Q: Suppose it isn’t a holiday, and at midnight, you light a firecracker in your residential subdivision. Will
you be liable?
Yes

Q:What is a ‘charivari’?
A medley of discordant voices or a mock serenade of discordant noises made on kettles, tins, or
horns designed to annoy or insult

Q: Under the 3rd manner, is it necessary that the offender be intoxicated?
No

Q: Give an example where a person will be liable for disturbing the public peace while engaged in
nocturnal amusements

Q: Under the last manner (4th), does the disturbance have to be committed at night time?
No

Q: Can you give an example?

ART.156
DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL

1. There is a person confined in jail or in a penal establishment
2. The offender removes therefrom such person, OR helps his escape

CRIMINAL LAW II 66
K notes

Q: Does the prisoner have to be a prisoner by final judgment?
No, he may be merely a detention prisoner

Q: Who are the persons who may be held liable for the commission of this crime?
‐An outsider
‐A fellow prisoner
‐An employee of the penal establishment who does NOT have custody/charge of the prisoner

*NB: if the person responsible for the crime is one who has custody/charge of the
prisoner, the crime committed is Infidelity in the Custody of a Prisoner (Art. 223), not
Art.156
‐A guard

Q: What qualifies the crime?
The offender’s act of employing bribery as a means to remove a person from jail

*NB: NOT the offender’s act of receiving or agreeing to receive a bribe in consideration
for the commission of the offense because that is merely a generic aggravating
circumstance

Q: Does employment of deceit in the commission of the crime affect criminal liability?
No, the employment of deceit is not an element of the offense

Q: If the crime committed by the escapeehappens to be treason, murder or parricide, what is the legal
effect on the liability of the person who helps his escape?
The person who helps the criminal’s escape may be held liable as an accessory for assisting in the
escape of a principal (see: Art.19, par.3)

Q: What is the liability of the escapee if he is not a prisoner by final judgment and yet manages to
escape?
He has no criminal liability

*NB: Evasion of the Service of Sentence requires prior conviction by final judgment

Q: What is the escapee’s liability if manages to escape while his case is pending appeal?
The offender has no liability, the case has not yet been decided, He has not yet been convicted
by final judgment

CHAPTER SIX
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

*NB: It helps to review the mechanics of Pardon in relation to this Chapter

Art.157
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

1. The offender is a convict by final judgment
2. He is serving his sentence which consists of deprivation of liberty
3. He evades the service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence

Q: If the prisoner is merely a detention prisoner and not one by final judgment, may he be held liable for
this crime?
No

CRIMINAL LAW II 67
K notes

Q: What if the person does happen to be convicted by final judgment but is a minor?
He is not liable

*NB: Recall the provisions of RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act) – minors are NOT
considered ‘convicts by final judgment’ because their sentence is suspended

Q: And if the accused escaped while his conviction is on appeal?
He is not liable, either. Judgment in this case is not yet final.

Q: Does that hold true even if the appeal was dismissed because he escaped?
Yes

Q: Is Art.157 applicable to the penalty of Destierro?
Yes, destierro is a deprivation of liberty, albeit partial.

*NB: the Spanish text is controlling: ‘sufriendo privacion de libertad’. Destierro was meant to
deprive one of his liberty

Q: What circumstances qualify the offense?
If the evasion of escape takes place –
1. By means of unlawful entry (i.e.: by ‘scaling’ a wall)
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors
3. By using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence, intimidation
4. Through connivance with other convicts of employees of the penal institution

ART. 158
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION
OF DISORDERS, CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES
OR OTHER CALAMITIES

1. The offender is a convict by final judgment, who is confined in a penal institution
2. There is disorder resulting from conflagration, earthquakes, explosions, similar
catastrophes or a mutiny in which he has NOT participated
3. He evades the service of sentence by leaving the penal institution where he is confined on
the occasion of such disorder or during a mutiny
4. He fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48hrs following the issuance of a
proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity

Q: What is being punished by this provision: the leaving of the penal institution or the failure to give
oneself up within 48 hrs?
The failure to give oneself up to the authorities within 48hrs after the proclamation announcing
the end of the calamity

*NB: Because this provision carries with it a sort of ‘loyalty award’, a special incentive for the
conscientious prisoner

Q: What is the legal effect on the accused’s liability if he fails to give himself up after the specified time?
An additional 1/5 of the unexpired jail time for his original offense will be added to his sentence

*NB: The added jail time is not to exceed 6 months, of course

Q: And if the accused does turn himself in, what is the legal effect on his liability?
1/5 of his original sentence will be deducted from his remaining jail time

Q: Which is longer – the deduction or the added time?

CRIMINAL LAW II 68
K notes

The deduction (1/5 of the original sentence, vs. the additional penalty of 1/5 of the unexpired
sentence. As always, penal laws should be construed liberally in favour of the accused)

Q: What is a mutiny?
An organized, unlawful resistance to a superior officer; a revolt

Q: Is there a ‘mutiny’ as contemplated by the law if the accused disarmed the guards and escaped and
the guards do not happen to be his superior officers?
None in this event, neither will there be a reduction of sentence upon surrender

ART.159
OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

1. The offender was a convict by final judgment
2. He was granted a conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
3. He violated any of the conditions of such pardon

Q: Give an example of a condition appended to a pardon
i.e.: ‘the accused shall not violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines’ (the usual condition
fixed to a pardon granted by the President)

Q: What kind of pardon is contemplated by this provision?
Conditional Pardon

Q: And what is the nature of a Conditional Pardon?
It is in the nature of a contract between the accused and the Chief Executive

Q: May the court require the convict to serve the unexpired term of his original sentence if that sentence
does NOT exceed 6 years?
No, it may not

Q: Does the condition extend to special laws?
Yes

Q: In the event that the convict violates any condition appended to the pardon, may he be arrested and
incarcerated without trial?
Yes

Q: May the time the convict spent out of prison be deducted from the unexecuted portion of his
sentence, in the event that he is re‐arrested?
No

Q: What is the time frame for the duration of the conditions of the pardon?
The conditions of the pardon are limited only to the remaining period of the sentence

Q: Differentiate the legal effects of a violation of conditional pardon and evasion of service of sentence
by escaping

VIOLATION OF A CONDITIONAL PARDON EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE BY ESCAPING
Does not cause any injury to the right of It is an attempt, at least, to evade the penalty
another person nor does it disturb the public inflicted by the courts upon criminals and thus
order defeat the purpose of the law of either reforming
or punishing the criminals for having disturbed the
Merely an infringement of the terms stipulated in public order
a contract between the President and the criminal

CRIMINAL LAW II 69
K notes

CHAPTER SEVEN
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING THE SERVICE OF PENALTY
IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE

ART.160
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING
SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER
PREVIOUS OFFENSE

1. The offender was already convicted by final judgment of one offense
2. He committed a new FELONY before beginning to serve such sentence OR while serving the
same (*NB: ‘new felony’ – keep in mind the reserved meaning for the term felony – acts or
omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code)

Q: Does the second crime have to be a felony?
Yes

Q: What about the first crime?
It does not have to be a felony

Q: Is this the same as recidivism?
No, Art.160 refers to Quasi‐Recidivism

Q: Differentiate the two

RECIDIVISM QUASI‐RECIDIVISM
BOTH the first and second offenses must be Does not require that the 2 offenses are embraced
embraced under the SAME TITLE of the Revised under the same title of the Code
Penal Code
(see: Art.160)
(see: Art.14, par.9)

Q: Differentiate Quasi‐Recidivism from Reiteracion

QUASI‐RECIDIVISM REITERACION
May be committed while sentence is being served Requires that the offender shall have served out
for the first offense, or before serving it the sentence for the prior offenses (plural)

Contemplates more than one prior offense

Q: What is the nature of Quasi‐Recidivism?
It is a SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE where a person, AFTER having been convicted by
final judgment of one offense, shall commit a NEW FELONY before beginning to serve the
sentence for the 1st offense OR while serving the same.

Q: Is it a crime?
No

CRIMINAL LAW II 70
K notes

Q: What are the legal effects of it?
1. The offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by the law
for the new felony
2. It cannot be off‐set by an ordinary mitigating circumstance

Q: Is there a time‐frame when a Quasi‐Recidivist may be pardoned?
Yes, when he turns 70 yrs. old and has already served out his sentence after reaching the said
age

Q: And if he happens to be a habitual criminal?
He may not be pardoned

CHAPTER ONE
FORGERIES

SECTION ONE – FORGING THE SEAL OF GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

ART.161
COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FORGING THE SIGNATURE
OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Q: What are the punishable acts under this provision?
1. Forging the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands
2. Forging the Signature of the President of the Philippines
3. Forging the Stamp of the President of the Philippines

Q: Who has custody of the Great Seal?
The Chief Executive

Q: Is this the same as Falsification of Public Documents?
No, it is an entirely distinct and separate crime

Q: If the accused simply wrote down the initials ‘BA‐III’ to stand for ‘Benigno Aquino III’, will he be liable?
No, the signature must be fully formed

ART.162
USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP

1. The Great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the Chief
Executive was forged by another person (*NB: the offender must not be the person who
committed the forgery)
2. The offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery
3. He used the counterfeit seal/signature/stamp

Q: If the offender committed the forgery himself, what is his liability?
He is a principal under art.161

CRIMINAL LAW II 71
K notes

Q: Does not the act of using an item forged by somebody else constitute liability as an accessory?
Generally, it does

Q: What is the difference in this case?
The act committed under art.162 is that of an accessory, but the law imposes a penalty that is
only ONE DEGREE LOWER, although an accessory is generally punished with a penalty two
degrees lower than that of a principal

Q: Is this an exception to the general rule on the particeps criminis?
Yes

SECTION TWO – COUNTERFEITING COINS

Art.163
MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING
FALSE COINS

1. There are false/counterfeited coins
2. The offender either made, imported or uttered such coins
3. In case of uttering such false coins, the offender connived with the counterfeiters or
importers

Q: When is a coin considered to be ‘false’?
When it is forged or is not authorized by the Government as legal tender

Q: What if the coin happened to contain 24karats of gold?
The intrinsic value of the coin is immaterial

Q: What is meant by ‘uttering’ false coins?
The circulation or delivery or the act of giving the coins away

Q: When is a coin considered to be ‘uttered’?
When it is paid, or when the offender is caught committing any preparatory act prior to its
delivery, even though he may not have obtained his intended gain

Q: If the offender was caught merely counting the coins before paying them, is he liable?
Yes, the counting is a preparatory act and is considered to fall within the concept of ‘uttering’
false coins

Q: May coins that are no longer in circulation be considered ‘false coins’ if the offender chose to
counterfeit them?
Yes

*NB: Even former coins withdrawn from circulation may be counterfeited. The provision does
not qualify the word ‘coin’ with the adjective ‘current’ (ps: God I hated statcon so much)

Q: What are the kinds of counterfeited coins under this provision?
1. Silver coin of the PH/ coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines (oh alright, Bangko Sentral if
you insist on the nationalistic term)
2. Coin of minor coinage (i.e.: 1 centavo, 5 centavos etc)
3. Coin of the currency of a Foreign Country

Q: When foreign coins are counterfeited, must they be in circulation?

CRIMINAL LAW II 72
K notes

Yes, the law says ‘currency of a foreign country’

*NB: more statcon. Demonetized coins are no longer considered ‘currency’ – root word is
obvious, the coins must be in circulation. I.e.: if you counterfeited a Franc, you are not liable
because the legal tender/currency of France is now the Euro

Art.164
MUTILATION OF COINS – IMPORTATION
AND UTTERANCE OF MUTILATED COINS

Q: What are the punishable acts?
1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirement that there be intent to
damage or defraud another
2. Importing or Uttering such mutilated coins, with the further requirement that there must
be connivance with the mutilator or importer in the case of utterance

Q: What is meant by ‘mutilation’?
To diminish by ingenious means the metal in the coin

*NB: this is punishable because the coin diminishes in intrinsic value, one who utters it receives
its legal value in return for a lesser intrinsic value

Q: Does the mutilated coin have to be of legal tender?
Yes, the law uses the words ‘legal currency’

Q: Is mutilation of foreign coins punishable?
No, merely the counterfeiting (see: art.163) of foreign coins is punishable under the RPC

Art.165
SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN
WITHOUT CONNIVANCE

*Trust me, I’m as bored as you are at this point, I have trouble imagining a court docket actually listing
hearings for cases of violations under these provisions

1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent to utter the
same, knowing that it is false or mutilated
**ELEMENTS:
a. Possesion
b. Intent to Utter
c. Knowledge of Falsity
2. Actually uttering such false of mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false or mutilated
**ELEMENTS
a. Actual Utterance
b. Knowledge of Falsity

NOTES:

*Possession of, or uttering false coins does NOT require that the counterfeited coin is legal tender

*BUT if the coin being possessed is accompanied by an intent to utter the same, or it is being uttered, or
it is a mutilated coin, it must be of legal tender

CRIMINAL LAW II 73
K notes

*Possession here includes constructive possession

*Possession of false/mutilated coins by the counterfeiters of mutilators themselves does NOT constitute
a separate offense

*Actually uttering false/mutilated coins, knowing them to be so, is a crime under art.165 EVEN IF there
isn’t connivance (see: elements of the 2nd punishable act, note the absence of connivance as an essential
element of the crime)

SECTION THREE – FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES,
OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; IMPORTING AND UTTERING FALSE OR
FORGED NOTES, OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES

Art.166
FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR
OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER;
IMPORTING SUCH FALSE/FORGED NOTES
AND DOCUMENTS

1. Forging or Falsifying Treasury of Bank Notes or other documents payable to bearer
2. Importation of such false/forged obligations or notes
3. Uttering such false/forged obligations or notes in connivance with the forgers or importers

Q: Differentiate Forgery from Falsification

FORGERY FALSIFICATION
Giving the appearance of a true or genuine Erasing, Substituting, Counterfeiting or Altering by
document any means, the figures, letters, words or signs

To make a false instrument intended to be passed
for a genuine one

Q: What is meant by ‘payable to bearable’?
Ownership is transferred to the bearer by mere delivery –
1. When it is expressed to be so payable
2. When it is payable to a person named therein or to bearer
3. When it is payable to the order of a fictitious or non‐existing person, and such fact was
known to the person making it so payable
4. When the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of any person
5. When the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank
(See: Sec.9, The Negotiable Instruments Law)

Q: Give examples of ‘obligations and securities’
‐bonds
‐certificates of indebtedness
‐coupons
‐treasury notes
‐fractional notes
‐certificates of deposit
‐bills
‐checks

CRIMINAL LAW II 74
K notes

‐drafts for money
‐other representatives of value issued under any act of Congress

*NB: Philippine National Bank (PNB) checks are commercial documents not covered by art.166

NOTES:

*Penalties depend on the kind of forged treasury/bank notes or other documents

*The penalty for forging or falsifying notes and obligations is more severe than that for counterfeiting
coins

Art.167
COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING AND UTTERING
INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER

1. There is an instrument payable to order or other document of credit NOT payable to bearer
2. The offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument
3. In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer

Q: What is meant by ‘payable to order’?
‐Drawn payable to the order of a specified person or to him or his order
‐Negotiated by indorsement or delivery
(See: Sec.8, The Negotiable Instruments Law)

Q: Does the article cover instruments or other documents issued by a foreign government or bank?
Yes, art.167 has no specification of the country or government issuing the instruments or
documents

Q: What is the reason behind this law?
To maintain the integrity of the currency and insure the credit standing of the government; to
prevent the imposition on the public and the government of worthless notes or obligations; to
protect the banking system and the economy

Art.168
ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY
OR BANK NOTES OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS
OF CREDIT

1. Any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer,
or any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is
forged or falsified by any person
2. The offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified
3. He –
a. Uses any of such forged/falsified instruments
b. Is in possession with intent to use any of such forged/falsified instruments

Q: Is intent to possess punishable under this article?
No, intent to possess is not synonymous with ‘intent to use’ and is therefore not an offense
punishable by art.168

CRIMINAL LAW II 75
K notes

Q: What is the presumption of the law with regard to the person in possession of a falsified document?
A person in possession of a falsified document and who makes use of it is presumed to be the
material author of the falsification

NOTES:

*Intent to use is sufficient to consummate the crime when the offender is IN POSSESSION of
false/falsified obligations or notes

*BUT mere possession WITHOUT intent to use it to the damage of another is not a crime

Art.169
HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED

Q: How is forgery committed?
1. By giving to a treasury/bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words
or signs contained therein

Q: Does forgery include falsification and counterfeiting?
Yes

Q: What are the acts punished under Presidential Decree (PD) 247?
Defacing, mutilating, tearing, burning or destroying, in any manner whatsoever, currency notes
and coins issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines

SECTION FOUR – FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE, PUBLIC, COMMERCIAL
AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS AND WIRELESS,
TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES

Art.170
FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS

1. There is a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either
House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council
2. The offender alters the same
3. He has no proper authority therefor
4. The alteration has changed the meaning of the document

Q: Who may commit this crime?
Any person who alters a document without the proper authority therefor

Q: What type of document is contemplated under this article?
Legislative documents

Q: May this crime be committed by a public officer who does NOT take advantage of his official position?
Yes

Q: Suppose the City Council passed an Ordinance and when it was transmitted to the Mayor for his
approval, the Mayor changed one of the WHEREAS clauses. Is he liable?
Yes, the Mayor has no authority to unilaterally change any of the parts of an ordinance

CRIMINAL LAW II 76
K notes

Q: Did the Mayor in the foregoing example take advantage of his official position? How?
Yes he did, he took advantage of the fact that the ordinance must first be signed by him and
changed one of the WHEREAS clauses

Q: Supposing the Mayor did not take advantage of his position and acted in a private capacity, will he
still be liable?
Yes

Art.171
FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE,
OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER

1. The offender is a public officer, employee or notary public
2. He takes advantage of his official position
3. He falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts:
a. Counterfeiting or Imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
b. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did NOT in fact so participate;
c. Attributing to person who have participated in any act or proceeding statements OTHER
than those in fact made by them;
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
e. Altering true dates;
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
g. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary
to, or different from, that of the genuine original;
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
registry, or official book
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with
respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil
status of persons

Q: Differentiate art.170 from art.171

FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC
DOCUMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, NOTARY
(ART.170) OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
(ART.171)
RE: Type of Document Legislative Documents Public/Official/All other
documents NOT legislative in
nature

RE: Persons Liable Any unauthorized person Public Officer, Employee or

Notary Public

Ecclesiastical Minister, with
respect to falsification of records
or documents which affect the
status of persons

RE: Manner of Commission Offender need not take Offender must take advantage
advantage of his official position of his public position

CRIMINAL LAW II 77
K notes

Q: When may a public officer be said to ‘take advantage’ of his position?
1. When he has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of
the document
2. When he has official custody of the document which he falsifies

Q: What is a ‘document’?
‐Any written statement by which a right is established or an obligation, extinguished
‐A writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed

Q: What are the punishable acts which require the use of a GENUINE document?
1. Making an alteration/Intercalation
2. Including in a copy a different statement
3. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in any protocol,
registry or official book

*NB: Other acts of falsification may be committed by SIMULATING or FABRICATING a document
and hence do not require the presence of a genuine one

Q: Is the simulation of public, official or mercantile documents also contemplated by the article?
Yes – the provision says … ‘shall falsify adocument’ (type of document is not specified)

Q: Under the first mode (counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting etc), what are the two ways of
committing the crime?
1. Counterfeiting or Imitating any handwriting, signature of rubric
2. Feigning or Simulating any signature, handwriting or rubric which does NOT in fact exist

Q: What are the requisites of counterfeiting?
1. Intent or Attempt to Imitate
2. There must be at least 2 signatures/handwritings/rubrics – the genuine one and the forged
one; and they must bear a resemblance to each other

Q: And if the 2 do not appear the same?
The offender may be liable under Art.171, par.2 (causing it to appear that person/s have
participated in an act they did not in fact so participate in)

Q: Under the second mode of commission (causing it to appear that persons have participated etc),
what are the requisites?
1. The offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or number of persons
participated in an act or proceeding
2. Such person/s did NOT in fact so participate

Q: May the 2nd manner be committed by a private person?
Yes, but the act – if committed by a private individual – is punishable under art.172, not art.171

Q: Under the 3rd mode of commission (attributing false statements to persons who have participated in
an act or proceeding), what are the requisites?
1. A person or group of persons participated in an act or proceeding
2. He/they made statements in such act/proceeding
3. The offender, in making the document, attributed to him/them statements other than
those actually made by them

Q: Under the 4th mode of commission, (making untruthful statements), what are the requisites?
1. The offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts
2. He has the legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him
3. The facts narrated by him are absolutely false
4. The perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of
injuring a third person

CRIMINAL LAW II 78
K notes

Q: What is meant by ‘legal obligation’ under this article?
There is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated

Q: Does the person making the narration have to be aware of the falsity of the facts narrated by him?
Yes

Q: Suppose a Mayoral candidate wrote ‘eligible’ on the certificate of candidacy because he believed he
was of sufficient age when he filled up the form, although he actually was not.Is he liable?
No

Q: Why not?
Because the false narration must be one of FACTS not of a CONCLUSION OF LAW

*NB: This is an actual case (see: People v. Yanza, GR. No. 12089, 29 April 1960) – A woman wrote
‘eligible’ because she believed that turning 23 yrs old upon assuming the councillorship was
tantamount to being eligible for running for that position. Notice that she had no intent to
make an untruthful narration of facts and she did not actually write a false fact, she made a
conclusion of law regarding her eligibility. Had she written ‘I was born on <insert false date>’,
she would have been liable.

Q: Must the narration of fact be completely false?
Yes, because if there is some colourable truth in the statements, the crime of falsification is not
deemed to have been committed

Q: Is wrongful intent necessary when the document falsified is a public one?
No

Q: May falsification be committed by omission?
Yes

Q: Under the 5th manner of commission, (altering true dates), what is the controlling requisite?
The date/s altered must be material to the document

Q: Under the 6th manner of commission (making an alteration/intercalation in a genuine document etc),
what are the requisites?
1. There is an alteration (a change) or intercalation (an insertion)
2. It was made on a genuine document
3. The alteration/intercalation has changed the meaning of the document and
4. The change made the document speak something else

Q: Suppose a document was made on 27 April 2012. The document actually bore ’25 April 2012’. The
Secretary noticed this and changed the date to the 27th. Is she liable?
No, alteration which speaks the truth is not falsification. What she did was not a falsification, it
was a correction

*NB: to be liable, the alteration must affect the integrity or change the effects of the document.
If it was made to safeguard the integrity of the same, there is no criminal responsibility for the
act

Q: Under the 7th manner of commission, (issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a
copy of an actually non‐existent original), must the offender act in his official capacity?
Yes, the crime cannot be committed without taking advantage of official positions since these
acts can be made only by the custodian/the one who prepared and retained a copy of the
original document

NOTES:

CRIMINAL LAW II 79
K notes

*It is the OFFICIAL CHARACTER of the offender which is mainly taken into consideration by art.171 –
which is why intent to cause damage or intent to gain is NOT necessary to consummate the offense

*Be that as it may, a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL who cooperates with a public officer in the falsification of a
public document is guilty of falsification by public officer (art.171) and incurs the same liability and
penalty as the public officer (recall: particieps criminis – principal by indispensible cooperation)

*If a false official or public document was used in a CRIMINAL PROCEEDING to adversely affect the trial
or the admissibility of evidence (i.e.: to prevent or prohibit the investigation in a criminal case), the act is
punished under Presidential Decree 1829 as an act constituting obstruction of justice. Note that this only
applies if the falsification of the document is done in relation to a criminal proceeding

Art.172
FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS

1. Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual
2. Falsification of private documents by any person
3. Use of falsified documents
a. Introducing falsified documents in a judicial proceeding
**ELEMENTS:
i. The offender knew that a document was falsified by another person
ii. The false document is embraced in art.171 or in any subdivisions, nos. 1 or 2 of art.172
iii. He introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding
b. Use of falsified documents in any other transaction
**ELEMENTS:
i. The offender knew that a document was falsified by another person
ii. The false document is embraced in art.171/ subdivisions nos.1 and 2 or art.172
iii. He used such document in transactions, but NOT in judicial proceedings
iv. The use of the falsified documents caused damage to another or at least it was used
with intent to cause such damage

Q: What are the 4 kinds of documents that may be the subject of falsification?
1. Public Documents (i.e.: health sanitation forms, etc)
2. Official Documents (i.e.: letters to government department heads)

*NB: here’s the difference: Public Documents are general in character and have for their
Scope the public safety. Official documents are those issued in official capacity or by virtue
of the duties or functions of office, they do not necessary target the public in general. DO
NOT confuse ‘public’ or ‘official’ documents with ‘legislative’ documents – they have
different natures and their respective falsifications are punished distinctly and separately.

3. Commercial Documents (i.e.: receipts and vouchers)
4. Private Documents (you don’t need an example for this)

Q: Who may commit this crime?
‐Private Individuals
‐Public officials who do NOT take advantage of their positions

Q: Differentiate this from art.171

FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE
OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, NOTARY INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF
OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
(ART.171) (ART.172)

CRIMINAL LAW II 80
K notes

RE: Type of Document ‐public ‐public
‐official ‐official
‐commercial ‐commercial
‐private

RE: Persons Liable Public Officer, Employee or Private Individuals
Notary Public
Public Officers who do not take
Ecclesiastical Minister, with advantage of their public
respect to falsification of records positions
or documents which affect the
status of persons

RE: Manner of Commission Offender must take advantage Offender must act in a private
of his public position capacity

RE: Damage or Injury Caused Damage is not a necessary Prejudice to a third party is
element for consummation; primarily taken into account
Prejudice to a 3rd party is
immaterial *nb: damage need not be
material, damage to one’s
honour is included

*nb: damage is NOT necessary
when the crime involves
introducing falsified documents
in judicial proceedings

Q: Suppose you prepared a solicitation letter and signed Atty. Amurao’s name. What crime did you
commit?
Falsification of a private document

Q: And if you followed it up with a real solicitation and appropriated the amount to yourself?
Estafa

Q: Through a falsified Pawnshop ticket you were able to redeem certain pieces of jewelry. What crime
did you commit?
Theft through falsification of a commercial document

Q: Suppose a public officer falsified a document, but he did not take advantage of his public position.
What crime did he commit?
Falsification under art.172

Q: Define the four kinds of documents

PUBLIC OFFICIAL PRIVATE COMMERCIAL
Created, executed or Issued by a public Deeds or instruments Any document defined
issued by a public official in the exercise executed by a private or regulated by the
official in response to of the functions of his person without the Code of Commerce or
the exigencies of public office intervention of a notary any other commercial
service or one wherein public or other person law
the execution of which, While it may be legally authorized, by
a public official considered a type of which document some Used by merchants or
intervened ‘public document’, the disposition or businessmen to
scope is not as general agreement is proved, or promote or facilitate
Any instrument evidence set forth trade
authorized by a notary Required by a bureau to

CRIMINAL LAW II 81
K notes

public or a competent be filled by its officers
public official, with the for purposes of its
solemnities required by record and information,
law for example

Q: May private documents be considered ‘public’?
Yes, i.e.: deeds acknowledged before a notary public, even if falsification was committed before
it was presented to the notary; or when they become parts of an official record and are certified
by a public officer duly authorized to do so by law

Q: May Estafa be committed through Falsification of Private Documents?
No – the effect or consequence of estafa (i.e.: damage to third persons) is the same as that of
falsifying a private document

Q: How do you then determine which crime must be alleged in the complaint?
By the order of commission – If estafa was committed first, then the crime is estafa. If the
falsification came first, then the crime is falsification of a private document (*NB: ‘find out
which crime was committed first –Atty.A)

Q: Is damage to the public necessary under this crime?
No

Q: What about damage to a third party?
Yes, there must be damage caused to a 3rd party or at least that the act was committed with
intent to cause such damage

Q: Suppose you committed the crime of falsification in Makati. You brought the document to Manila and
were arrested here. Which court has jurisdiction?
The court in Makati

Q: Where may use of a falsified document be done?
1. In judicial proceedings
2. In other transactions

Q: Suppose you falsified a document in an administrative case. Will you be liable?
Yes, ‘other transactions’

Q: When is the user of the falsified document deemed to be the author of the falsification?
1. If the use was so closely connected in time with the falsification, AND
2. The user had the capacity for falsifying the document

Art.173
FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE, TELEGRAPH AND
TELEPHONE MESSAGES; AND USE OF FALSIFIED MESSAGES
* <rolls eyes> ‘wireless, cable and… telegraph… messages’, yeah? xD
1. Uttering fictitious, wireless, telegraph or telephone messages
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is an officer of employee of a private corporation engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone messages
b. He commits any of the following acts:
i. Uttering fictitious, wireless, cable or telegraph/phone messages
ii. Falsifying the said messages

CRIMINAL LAW II 82
K notes

2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone messages
**see: ELEMENTS of # 1
3. Using falsified messages
**ELEMENTS:
a. The accused knew that the wireless, cable, telegraph/phone message was falsified
b. He used such falsified dispatch
c. The use resulted in prejudice to a 3rd party or was made with intent to cause such
prejudice

Q: Give an example of 1)falsifying these messages; 2)Uttering them; and 3) using them

Art.174
FALSIFICATION OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATES,
CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE AND THE LIKE

Q: By whom is this committed, and how?
1. Any physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, shall issue a
false certificate
2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or
similar circumstances
3. Any private person who shall falsify a certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the 2
preceding subdivisions

Q: What is a certificate?
Any writing by which testimony is given that a fact has or has not taken place

Q: Give an example of a 1) false certificate of merit; 2) false certificate of service

Q: Suppose you asked your father, a doctor, to give you a medical certificate so that you would be
excused from your criminal law class today. Who may be liable under art.174?
My father

Q: And if it was your classmate who forged your father’s signature?
My classmate is liable

Q: What will be your liability if you presented it?
Use of falsified certificates under art.175

Art.175
USING FALSE CERTIFICATES

1. A physician or surgeon had issued a false medical certificate or a false certificate of
merit/service/good conduct or similar circumstances, OR a private person had falsified any
of the said certificates
2. The offender knew that the certificate was false
3. He used the same

Q: Give an example

SECTION SIX – MANUFACTURING, IMPORTING AND POSSESSION OF
INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS INTENDED FOR
THE COMMISSION OF FALSIFICATION

CRIMINAL LAW II 83
K notes

Art.176
MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF INSTRUMENTS
AND IMPLEMENTS OF FALSIFICATION

1. By making or introducing into the PH any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification
2. By possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or
falsification made in, or introduced into the PH by another person

Q: Suppose there was a raid on your house and the police officers saw equipment used for falsification
or making Philippine money. May you be liable?
No, mere possession does not make me liable – the possession must be accompanied by intent
to use the equipment

Q: Suppose your grandmother gave you instruments or implements for falsification. You hid it in your
jewelry box as a memento of her. Will you be liable?
No

Q: Suppose you had the intent to use it when the need arises. Will you be liable?
Yes

CHAPTER TWO
OTHER FALSITIES

SECTION ONE – USURPATION OF AUTHORITY, RANK, TITLE
AND IMPROPER UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA

Art.177
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY
ANDOFFICIAL FUNCTIONS

1. By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent or representative or
any department or agency of the Philippine Government or any foreign government
2. By performing any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the
Philippine Government or of a foreign government or any agency therefore, under pretence
of official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so

Q: Give an example

Q: You were at a party. A guest likes you, and in his effort to impress you, he introduced himself as
Mayor Amurao, when in fact he is not. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: What if he introduced himself as the Vice President of Globe Telecommunications?
He will not be liable – the position he falsely represents is not contemplated by the law

Q: What is the difference between usurpation of authority and usurpation of official functions?

USURPATION OF AUTHORITY USURPATION OF OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS

CRIMINAL LAW II 84
K notes

RE: Consummation Mere misrepresentation Performance

RE: Overt Acts Positive, Express and Explicit Actual performance of any act
Representation pertaining to ‐
1) The Government itself
2) A person in authority
3) A public officer of government

Q: You violated a traffic regulation. The Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) confiscated your
driver’s license. The MMDA officer was previously dismissed from service. Is the officer liable?
Yes, He was not lawfully entitled to confiscate a license

Q: A person introduced himself to Chinese merchants as a Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) agent. He
examined books, records, accounts, etc. The merchants called the BIR and were told that the BIR does
not have an employee by such a name. What crime did the person commit?
Usurpation of official functions

Q: Are there any other punishable acts under this article?
Yes, art.177 also punishes the usurpation of authority of diplomatic or consular or any other
official of a foreign government or those of the Philippine government

Art.178
USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND
CONCEALING TRUE NAME

1. Use of a fictitious name
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender uses a name other than his real name
b. He uses that fictitious name publicly
c. His purpose is –
To conceal a crime; or
To evade the execution of a judgment; or
To cause damage to public interest
2. Concealing true name
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender conceals –
His true name; and
All other personal circumstances
b. His purpose is to conceal his true identity

Q: What is a fictitious name?
Any name which a person uses publicly, which he applies to himself without authority of law

Q: What is meant by ‘authority of law’ in this case?
1. That a person’s name is appears in the records of the Civil Registry, for citizens of the
Philippines
2. That an alien’s name is appears on the records of the Bureau of Immigration

Q: Will the use of a fictitious name make one liable in all cases?
No, there are exceptions

Q: Give examples of the use of fictitious names which does not carry with it any criminal liability

CRIMINAL LAW II 85
K notes

Q: If damage is caused by concealing one’s true name to a private individual, and not the public, what
crime is committed?
Estafa

Art.179
ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS OR INSIGNIA

1. The offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress
2. The insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office NOT held by the offender OR to a class of
persons of which he is not a member
3. The said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly

Q: Give an example

Q: Suppose a PNP officer is dismissed from the service but he still wore his uniform when he attended a
public function. Is he liable?
Yes, he was already dismissed from office and the uniform now pertains to an office which he
does not hold

Q: And if a lay person wore the ecclesiastical robes of a priest?
That person is liable, the clothing he wore pertains to a class of persons which he is not a
member of

Q: A group of prostitutes wore the uniforms of Assumption College, College of the Holy Spirit and Centro
Escolar University. Are they liable?
Yes, the dress they wore pertains to a class of which they are not members

Q: Does the uniform/insignia/dress have to be an exact replication of the original one?
No, a colourable resemblance calculated to deceive the common run of people is sufficient

Q: Is the wearing or a badge or emblem of rank of the Armed Forces of the Philippines punishable under
this article?
No, it is punishable under Republic Act 439

Q: What about the manufacture or sale of these military uniforms without proper authority?
The manufacture or sale is not punishable under art.179, but under Executive Order No. 297

SECTION TWO – FALSE TESTIMONY

Art.180
FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT

1. There is a criminal proceeding
2. The offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein
3. He knows that the testimony he gives is false
4. The defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted OR convicted by
final judgment

Q: Suppose you testified falsely against a battalion of solders in a court martial proceeding. Are you
liable?
No – court martial proceedings are executive in nature and are not criminal proceedings

CRIMINAL LAW II 86
K notes

Q: Suppose that in a homicide case, the offender testified falsely but the testimony was not believed by
the court. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Why is that?
Credence lent by the court to the testimony is immaterial. What is punishable is the act of giving
a false testimony per se

Q: You testified falsely in a civil case. Are you liable?
No, not under art.180

Q: And if you testified falsely in a petition for adoption? In an electoral case before the HRET?
I am not liable, the foregoing are special proceedings, not criminal proceedings

Q: By the way, what is a ‘civil action’?
An action brought for –
1. The protection or enforcement of a right
2. The prevention or redress of a wrong

Q: You testified in a criminal case against your neighbour. Your testimony was a false one, one beyond
the realm of normal human experience, and the court found it to be so. Are you liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose you testified falsely in your own favour. May you be prosecuted for false testimony?
Yes – the right to testify on one’s behalf does NOT carry with it the right to testify falsely

Q: How is the offender punished as far as false testimony goes?
The penalty depends upon the sentence of the defendant (i.e.: acquittal or conviction)

Art.181
FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT

Q: Why is finality a necessary element here, as well as in art.180?
Because the penalty for both crimes depends upon the punishment to which the accused is
finally sentenced

Q: What if the false testimony did not directly influence the decision of acquittal, or did not directly
benefit the accused?
It is still punishable, Intent to favour the accused is sufficient for criminal liability to attach

Q: Suppose you happen to be the defendant. You voluntarily take the witness stand and testify falsely,
albeit favourably in your behalf. Are you liable?
Yes

Q: And if you were asked a question and you merely denied the commission of the crime, are you liable?
No

Art.182
FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES

1. The testimony must be given in a civil case
2. It must relate to the issues presented in said case

CRIMINAL LAW II 87
K notes

3. It must be false
4. It must be given by the defendant knowing it to be false
5. It must be malicious and given with intent to affect the issues presented in the case

Q: Suppose a person died intestate. The heirs cannot agree extrajudicially so they brought the case for
judicial settlement. In the course of the settlement hearings, one heir testified falsely. Is he liable?
No – Judicial settlement is NOT a civil case, it is a special proceeding
He may be liable for perjury

Q: Suppose in a guardianship proceeding that was pending in court, you testified falsely in your favour.
Are you liable? What crime did you commit?
No, I am not liable under art.181 – Guardianship proceedings are special in nature
I committed perjury

Q: In an election protest, the defeated candidate testified falsely. Is he liable?
No, an electoral case is special in nature

Q: What is the character of the penalty in this case?
The penalty in art.182 depends on the amount of the controversy

Art.183
FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND
PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION

Q: What are the ways of committing perjury?
1. By falsely testifying under oath; or
2. By making a false affidavit
*NB: Falsely testifying under oath should NOT be done in a judicial proceeding, else
arts.180/181/182 apply

Q: How is perjury committed?
1. The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter
2. The statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oaths
3. In that statement/affidavit, the accused made a wilful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law

Q: What is an oath?
Any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an
act faithfully and truthfully. It involves the idea of calling upon God to witness what is averred as
truth, and it is supposed to be accompanied by an invocation of His vengeance or a renunciation
of his favour in the event of a falsehood

*NB: think: for people who believe in the existence of God. If you don’t, you undertake an
affirmation

Q: How is it different from an affirmation?
An affirmation does not involve the idea of belief in God and in His vengeance

Q: Why is an oath/affirmation necessary, to begin with?
An oath or affirmation exposes the witness/affiant to the peril of perjury should a falsehood be
committed

*NB: This is why you’re required to take an oath on things like filling in forms – giving testimony,
etc., should you chose to lie notwithstanding your oath/affirmation, criminal liability for perjury

CRIMINAL LAW II 88
K notes

attaches. That’s why unverified complaints are prone to dismissal – legally speaking; nobody is
willing to believe a statement of facts unless the person making the statement puts his own
neck on the chopping block by swearing – under pain of criminal liability – that he is speaking
the truth

Q: An employee in a labour case testified falsely. What crime did he commit?
Perjury, labour cases are quasi‐judicial in nature

Q: Supposing you and your fiancé are applying for a marriage license. Your fiancé wrote his civil status to
be ‘single’ when in fact his previous marriage is still valid. What crime did he commit?
Perjury – Civil status is a material matter in an application for marriage license

Q: Suppose he wrote ‘Chinese’ as his citizenship, instead of ‘Filipino’ as should be the case. What crime
did he commit?
He did not commit any crime – Citizenship is NOT a material matter in an application for
marriage license

*NB: note how the concept of materiality is a relative one, depending on the circumstances and
facts

Q: Suppose your fiancé is a widower and he wrote ‘single’ as his civil status?
He did not commit any crime, the loss of his previous wife extinguished the marriage, the license
will still be issued and he is in fact single

*NB: ah, persons. It helps to reason with other branches of law – as long as you’re sure of what
you’re saying

Q: Suppose you wrote ’23 years old’ as your age in that same application for a marriage license. You are
in fact 16. What crime did you commit?
Perjury – Age is a material matter in an application for marriage license. Only persons who have
attained legal age are allowed to apply for one

Q: Define a ‘material matter’
A material matter is –
1. The main fact which is the subject of the inquiry or any circumstance which tends to prove
that fact; or
2. Any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative
to the subject of inquiry; or
3. One which legitimately affects the credibility of any witness who testifies

*NB: the test of materiality is whether a false statement can influence the tribunal, not whether
it actually does or could probably influence the result of trial
(People v. Banzil, CA‐GR No. 22964‐R, 56 OG 4929)

Q: Suppose you want to run as Congressman. In the Certificate of Candidacy, you wrote ’40 years old’
when in fact you are only 20. What crime did you commit?
Perjury – Age is a material matter, sec.6, art.VI of the 1987 Constitution fixes the minimum age
for a Congressman at 25 years

Q: Suppose you wanted to be Mayor of your town. You wrote your age as ’35 years old’, when you are
only 20. What crime did you commit?
Perjury

Q: You wanted to run for Senator. You wrote your age as ’45 years old’ when you really are 50. Are you
liable?
No, Either way, I am still qualified to run

CRIMINAL LAW II 89
K notes

Q: Supposing you finished Law here at San Beda and applied to take the Bar Examinations. You were
previously convicted of a crime, but you declared in your application that you do not have a criminal
record. Are you liable?
Yes, previous conviction is a material matter in an application for taking the bar exams

Q: If you gave a false testimony relating to an act of terrorism, what crime did you commit?
A violation of Republic Act 9372 – the Human Security Act and Terrorism Law

*NB: Under the said law, any false testimony given in relation to the crime of Terrorism, as
defined under the statute, are punishable thereby

Q: May perjury be committed through negligence or imprudence?
No, one of the requisites of perjury is wilful and deliberate assertion of falsehood

*Here’s a trick: when the elements of a crime require criminal intent, think: wilful and
deliberate/intentional/I‐really‐mean‐to‐do‐this‐and‐screw‐the‐consequences kind of assertion of
will, good faith is a defence. Obviously, if you DIDN’T mean to do it, or you did it without any
malice, you’ve negated the element of criminal intent – in which case, you knock out one
essential requisite of the crime charged (Kimiko, paraphrasing Atty.A – yeah, I’m bad at
sounding serious)

Q: Is good faith a defence?
Yes, because the false assertion must be intentional

Q: Suppose you executed a false Affidavit of Loss. You stated that your driver’s license was lost when
your wallet was snatched, when in fact the license had been confiscated. What crime did you commit?
Perjury

Q: Same facts, except that you had the affidavit notarized by someone whose license for the job was
already expired. May you be liable for perjury?
No, the element of competent authority is lacking
I may, however, be liable for Falsification of Private Documents

Q: Who is a ‘competent’ person, in the contemplation of this article?
Someone authorized to administer oaths – A person who has the right to inquire into the
questions presented to him upon matters under his jurisdiction

Q: Is it necessary that there be a specific provision of law requiring the affidavit/sworn statement to be
made?
Not really. HOWEVER, the 4th element may be read to say ‘that the sworn statement containing
the falsity is authorized by law’ (i.e.: as long as it was made for a legal purpose)
(People v. Angangco, unpublished – GR No. L‐47693, October 12, 1943)

Q: Supposing you and your fiancé executed an application for marriage license. You had it notarized by
someone who, by all appearances, was a notary public. He turned out to be a cigarette vendor. Will you
be liable?
No, there is a lack of a competent person

Q: Suppose you are placed under oath before the Secretary of the Civil Registry of your municipality. Will
you be liable for perjury if you assert a falsehood?
No, the secretary is not a competent person within the contemplation of the provision

Q: Suppose the Senate invited Jocjoc Bolante to one of the Senate hearings regarding the Fertilizer
Scam. Bolante made a wilful assertion of falsehood. What crime did he commit?
Perjury

Q: Suppose you are a journalist. In your column you glorified Bolante as a person of genuine honesty and
integrity, one to be emulated by all Filipinos. What crime did you commit?

CRIMINAL LAW II 90
K notes

Unlawful Use of Means of Publication (art.154, 2nd manner of commission)

*NB: ‘By 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’ (art.154, par.2)

Q: Supposing in a homicide case, you testified as a witness and stated that you were actually present
during the crime when in fact, you were sleeping in your own residence. The accused was found guilty as
charged. What crime did you commit?
False Testimony against a Defendant (art.180); (see: elements of art.180)

Q: Supposing in an application for marriage license, you placed ‘single’ as your civil status. A family court
previously promulgated a Decree of Legal Separation with regards to your marriage. Will you be liable
for perjury?
Yes, a Decree of Legal Separation does not extinguish the matrimonial ties. It does not grant the
right to re‐marry, because it is merely separation ‘a mensa et thoro’ (in bed and board). My civil
status does not revert back to ‘single’ by virtue of the decree

Q: Suppose you are applying for the Civil Service Examination. In the application, you declared that you
believe you are a person of good moral character. You were previously convicted of rape, homicide and
physical injuries. Are you liable?
No

Q: Why not?
My declaration was one in the nature of an opinion, not a statement of fact

Q: Suppose Miss Philippines submitted an affidavit stating that she is beautiful. The statement is false. Is
she liable?
No, she made a statement of opinion

*NB: notice here that there’s a key difference between making a false statement of FACT and a
false OPINION. Perjury pertains to false statements of facts. You’re not allowed to lie under
oath, you are however entitled to false opinions, think: delusions of grandeur :D

Q: Is perjury a crime other than false testimony in criminal/civil cases?
Yes, It pertains to perversions of truth in non‐judicial proceedings

Q: What if you made false statements to the Public Prosecutor during the preliminary investigation; or
to the Presiding Judge during pre‐trial?
I may still be liable for perjury

Q: Why?
Because False Testimony in judicial proceedings contemplates an actual trial where a judgment
of conviction or acquittal is rendered

Q: Are 2 contradictory sworn statements sufficient to convict someone of perjury?
No, the prosecution must prove which of the 2 is false and show by OTHER EVIDENCE (not the

contradictory statements) that it is indeed false and was made knowingly

NOTES

*Under the Revised Penal Code, there is no longer a separate crime of ‘SUBORNATION OF PERJURY’. This
crime used to be penalized by the Old Code but was deleted upon revision. For purposes of definition,
subornation of perjury is committed by a person who knowingly and wilfully procures another to swear
falsely; and the witness suborned actually does testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of
perjury.

CRIMINAL LAW II 91
K notes

*The direct induction of a person by another to commit perjury may be punished under art.183 in
relation to art.17 (hello, particeps criminis) – The person who commits subornation of perjury is a
principal by inducement in plain perjury, and the person suborned is a principal by direct participation,
both being liable for plain perjury.

Art.184
OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE

1. The offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony
2. He knew the witness or testimony to be false
3. The offer was made in a judicial OR official proceeding

Q: Does the false witness have to testify?
Yes

*NB: Under the Rules for the Offer of Evidence (Sec.35, Rule 132, Rules of Court), as far as
testimonial evidence is concerned, the offer begins the moment a witness is called to the stand
and interrogated by counsel. Obviously, the witness has to testify.

NOTES:
*Even if there is a conspiracy to offer false witness (between the witness himself and the person
offering him), if the witness desisted before testifying, the latter is not liable. The party not having
desisted is liable

*Art.184 applies when the offender does NOT induce a witness to testify falsely, but merely offers the
false witness in evidence. If the former happens, i.e.: if there is induction, art. 180/181/182/183 in relation
to art.7, par.2 applies

*If perjury was committed in connection with the Anti‐Terrorism Law (RA 9372), the act is punishable
under RA 9372

CHAPTER THREE
FRAUDS

SECTION ONE – MACHINATIONS, MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS

Art.185
MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS

1. By soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any
public auction
**ELEMENTS:
a. There is a public auction
b. The accused solicited any gift/promise from any of the bidders
c. Such gift/promise was the consideration for his refraining from taking part in that public
auction
d. The accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned
2. By attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts, promises, or
any other artifice
**ELEMENTS:

CRIMINAL LAW II 92
K notes

a. There is a public auction
b. The accused attempted to cause the bidders to stay away from that public auction
c. It was done by threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice
d. The accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned

Q: What is the reason behind the law?
To ensure free access to, as well as the integrity of public auctions

Q: What is the purpose of an auction?
To get the highest bid for the thing auctioned

‐Mere solicitation, in the first manner
‐Mere attempt to cause bidders to stay away through the use of threats, gifts, promises, or any
other artifice, in the second manner

Q: Suppose you offered a gift in order to get a bidder to stay away from the auction. Your offer was not
accepted. Are you liable?
Yes, the mere attempt consummates the crime

Q: Give an example

Art.186
MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

1. Combination to prevent free competition in the market
‐ By entering into any contract/agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to
prevent by artificial means free competition in the market
2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market
‐ By monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or by combining with
any other person/s to monopolize said merchandise or object in order to alter the prices
thereof by spreading false rumours or making use of any other artifice to restrain free
competition in the market

Q: May this be committed by a single person?
No

Q: Will you consider this as conspiracy?
Yes

Q: Give an example of this


SECTION TWO – FRAUDS IN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

Art.187
IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF FALSELY MARKED
ARTICLES OR MERCHANDISE MADE OF GOLD, SILVER,
OR OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR ALLOYS


CRIMINAL LAW II 93
K notes

1. The offender imports, sells, or disposes of any of those articles or merchandise (gold, silver,
other precious metals and their alloys)
2. The stamps, brands or marks of those articles of merchandise fail to indicate the actual
fineness or quality of those metals/alloys
3. The offender knows that the stamps, brands, or marks fail to indicate actual fineness

Q: What are the merchandise involved?
1. Gold
2. Silver
3. Precious metals
4. Gold/silver/precious metal alloys

Q: What are the standards used for punishing the failure to indicate actual fineness?
When actual fineness is –
‐less than one‐half karat for gold
‐less than four one‐thousandths for silver
‐less than three one‐thousandths for other articles such as watches

*NB: ARTS.188‐189: NO LONGER APPLICABLE

‐ oOo END OF MIDTERM COVERAGE oOo –

CRIMINAL LAW II 94
K notes

MIDTERM REMINDERS: THE SYLLOGISM STYLE OF REASONING

*NB: This is how Atty. Amurao wishes students to answer his questions. He gave this reminder during
the last meeting before the exams

Three components (in THIS particular order):
I. Major Premise
II. Minor Premise
III. Conclusion

The major premise is the ANSWER to the problem. It may be a PROVISION OF LAW, a SUPREME COURT
DECISION or an ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRINCIPLE

The minor premise is composed of the PERTINENT AND RELEVANT FACTS of the problem

The conclusion is the APPLICATION of the minor premise to the major premise. It should SUPPORT the
ANSWER. If it doesn’t, there’s something wrong with your analysis.

SAMPLE:
A police officer entered your house by opening the door which at the time was closed. What crime did
he commit?

I. MAJOR PREMISE:
Violation of Domicile

II. MINOR PREMISE OR FACTS:
Violation of Domicile is committed by… xxx Any public officer gaining entry into another’s dwelling
without the homeowner’s permission. A dwelling is defined as a place which satisfies the domestic life
of a person. The homeowner’s house, in this case, amply qualifies under the definition of ‘dwelling’.
Moreover, the fact that the door to the dwelling was closed constitutes a form of implied prohibition.
While it may not have been locked or there may not have been a sign which says ‘Do Not Enter’ or a
prohibition of that nature, it is clear nonetheless that by closing the door, the owner did not wish
strangers to enter without his leave. It is true that the provision admits of certain exceptions, i.e.: that
of entry by virtue of a validly obtained search warrant, but the facts do not state that the officer did in
fact possess such a warrant.

III. CONCLUSION:
The acts of the officer put him squarely within the contemplation of the law insofar as this crime is
concerned. Therefore, by opening the closed door without first having secured the permission of the
owner, the officer committed the crime of Violation of Domicile.

Of course, you don’t have to actually bullet your answers and label them as ‘major/minor premise,
conclusion’ – this was merely an illustration.

We asked the Professor if it was necessary to specifically mention the pertinent article and this is what
he said: ‘There is no need to, unless you are absolutely sure of the numbers and headings you are citing.
Do NOT cite them unless you are certain they are the right ones, else you will be given deductions. To be
safe, you may use the general phrase ‘under the law…’ Do not court disaster.’ –Atty. A

Well there you have it. Basic rules apply: keep margins neat and straight, do not write on the back page
(do NOT, because he certainly gives deductions for these infractions), do NOT tear or fold pages of the
booklet, do NOT use correction fluids (that’s marking, after all), and refrain from using parentheses or
completely shading out wrong words/phrases. One clean line – a STRIKETHROUGH SUCH AS THIS –
suffices. Begin on a new page for every item.Indications as to answers are allowed, i.e.: use of phrases
such as ‘please see answer in numeral II’ etc.

Good Luck. Fight on, fight well ~ Kimiko ;)

CRIMINAL LAW II 95
K notes

TITLE SIX
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS

CHAPTER ONE GAMBLING
AND BETTING

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1602
PRESCRIBING STIFFER PENALTIES IN ILLEGAL GAMBLING

*NB: PD 1602 REPEALED the provisions of arts.195‐199 of the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act 3063, and
Presidential Decrees 483, 449, 510 and 1306

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS AND PUNISHABLE ACTS

 Gambling: Any game or scheme, whether upon chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of money,
articles or value consisting of money, articles or value; or representatives of value are at stake or
made

 Punishable Games:
1. Cockfighting, jueteng, jai alai or horse racing, including bookie operations and game fixing,
numbers, bingo and other forms of lotteries
2. Cara y cruz, pompiang or the like
3. 7‐11 and any game using dice
4. Black jack, lucky nine, poker and its derivatives, monte, baccarat, cuajo, panguigue, and
other card games
5. Pak que, high and low, mah‐jong, domino and other games using plastic tiles and the like
6. Slot machines, roulette, pinball, and other mechanical contraptions and devices
7. Dog racing, boat racing, car racing and other forms of races
8. Basketball, boxing, volleyball, bowling, Ping‐Pong, and other forms of individual or team
contests which include game fixing, point shaving and other machinations
9. Banking or percentage games, or any other game or scheme, whether upon chance or skill,
wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representatives of value are at
stake or made

 Illegal Numbers Games: Any form of illegal gambling activity which uses numbers or combinations
thereof as factors in giving out jackpots, prizes or returns

 Lottery: A scheme for distribution of prizes by chance among persons who have paid, or agreed to
pay, a valuable consideration for the chance to obtain a prize

 ELEMENTS of LOTTERY:
1. Consideration
2. Chance
3. Prize or some advantage or inequality in amount or value which is in the nature of a prize

 ELEMENTS of KNKOWINGLY PERMITTING GAMBLING TO BE CARRIED ON IN A PLACE OWNER OR
CONTROLLED BY THE OFFENDER
1. A gambling game was carried on in an inhabited or uninhabited place or in any building,
vessel or other means of transportation
2. The place, building, vessel or means of transportation is owned or controlled by the
offender
3. The offender permitted the carrying on of such game, knowing that it is a gambling game

 Maintainer: The person who sets up and furnishes the means with which to carry on the gambling
game or schemes

CRIMINAL LAW II 96
K notes

 Conductor: The person who manages or carries on the gambling game or scheme

 Betting:Betting money or any object or article of value or representative of value upon the result of
any game, race or other sports contests

 Game Fixing: Any arrangement, combination, scheme or agreement by which the result of any
game, race or sport contest shall be predicted and/or known other than on the basis of the honest
playing skill or ability of the player or participants

 Point Shaving: Any arrangement, combination, scheme or agreement by which the skill or ability of
any player or participant in a game, race or sport contest to make points or scores shall be limited
deliberately in order to influence the result thereof in favour or one or the other team, player or
participant therein

 Game Machination: Any other fraudulent, deceitful, unfair or dishonest means, method, manner or
practice employed for the purpose of influencing the result of any game, race or sport contest

 Bet‐taker or promoter: [In cockfighting] A person who calls and takes care of bets from owners of
both gamecocks and those of other bettors before he orders commencement to the cockfight and
thereafter distributes won bets to the winners after deducting a certain commission

 Bettor: [In cockfighting] Any person who participates in cockfights with the use of money or other
things of value; bets with other bettors or through the bet taker or promoter and wins or loses his
bet depending upon the result of the cockfight as announced by the referee or Sentenciador. He
may also be the owner of a fighting cock.

 Totalizer: [In horse racing] A machine for registering and indicating the number and nature or bets
made on horse races

Q: What is gambling?

Q: May a spectator be criminally liable?
No

Q: Give examples of games punished under our gambling laws
(see: table above, enumerated games)

Q: In the case of punishable games specified by the law, is it necessary that there should be actual
betting involved?
No, even if there were no actual bets placed, so long as the games are played – and the games
are among those enumerated by the law – criminal liability already attaches to those who play
them

Q: In the case of games such as basketball, volleyball, etc., does the mere playing of them carry any
liability?
No, not if they were merely played. They become punishable games when they involve point‐
shaving, game‐fixing, etc.

Q: Who is a gambler?

Q: Who is a maintainer?

Q: Suppose you are the owner of a boat, and there is gambling going on in it. Are you liable?
It depends:
‐If I can prove that I have NO knowledge of the gambling, I am not liable

CRIMINAL LAW II 97
K notes

‐If the gambling takes place with my knowledge, I am liable

Q: What is a lottery?

Q: Is lottery a form of gambling?
Yes

Q: Does the consideration made by the gambler have to be in relation to the prize obtained, in order to
be liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose that in a certain mall, customers were told that for every purchase worth Php 100.00, they
will be entitled to a raffle ticket. The prize for the final draw is a Mazuratti (a car – a very expensive car ;)
‐kimi). Is this lottery?
Yes

Q: If you participated, do you get the full value for your money?
Yes

Q: Is the prize, theMazuratti, merely incidental?
Yes

Q: What is the full value of your money?
The purchase worth Php 100.00

Q: Is this a punishable form of lottery?
No

Q: Why not?
Because I get the full value for my money – this fact takes the game out of the contemplation of
the laws penalizing lottery.

*NB: Notice here that the mechanics of the game do not involve betting in order to win a prize,
and I did not buy the ticket for the sole consideration of winning the Mazuratti. I bought Php
100.00 worth of other items and was given a raffle ticket. This is not a punishable form of
lottery.

Q: You mean to say that not all forms of lottery are punishable?
Yes, not all forms are punishable

Q: What is point shaving?
Q: Give an example
Q: What is game fixing?

Q: Give an example

Q: What is betting?

CHAPTER TWO
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS

Art.200
GRAVE SCANDAL

CRIMINAL LAW II 98
K notes

1. The offender performs an act or acts
2. Such acts are highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs
3. The highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling within any other article of the Revised
Penal Code
4. The act complained of is committed in a public place or within public knowledge or view

Q: What do you mean by ‘decency’?
Propriety of conduct, modesty, or good taste

Q: What are customs?
Established usage, social conventions carried on by tradition and enforced by social disapproval
of any violation thereof

Q: What is a grave scandal?
A scandal that consists of acts which are offensive to decency and good customs which, having
been committed publicly, have given rise to public scandal to persons who have accidentally
witnessed the same

Q: Suppose the scandal was committed in the privacy of one’s room, is it a grave one?
No, the element of publicity is missing

Q: Give an example

Art.201
IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND
EXHIBITIONS AND INDECENT SHOWS

Q: How is this committed and by whom?
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals
2. The authors of obscene literatures, published with their knowledge in any form, the editors
published with their knowledge in any form, the editors publishing such literature; and the
owners or operators of the establishment selling the same
3. Those who, in theatres, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit indecent or
immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or on film, which are proscribed by virtue
hereof, shall include those which –
a. Glorify criminals or condone crimes;
b. Serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence;
c. Offend any race or religion;
d. Tend to abet traffic in, and use of, prohibited drugs; and
e. Are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful
orders, decrees and edicts; and
4. Those who shall sell, give away, or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculptures, or literature
which are offensive to morals

Q: What are the tests of obscenity?
‐Whether the tendency of the of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave or corrupt those
whose minds are open to such immoral influence, and into whose hands such a publication may
fall

‐Whether or not such publication shocks the ordinary sense of men as an indecency

Q: Give examples of obscene literature

Q: What is the test of obscenity for nude pictures?

CRIMINAL LAW II 99
K notes

Whether the motive of the pictures, as indicated by them, is pure and impure; or whether it is
naturally calculated to excited impure imaginations

Q: When may authors or editors of obscene literature be held liable?
When the literatures are published with their knowledge

Q: Give an example of the use of nude pictures that do not expose the user to any criminal liability
i.e.: A painting made for art’s sake

*NB: nude pictures, even if they possess only a slight degree of obscenity, if used for commercial
purposes, come under the purview art.201

Q: Is mere possession of nude pictures punishable?
No

Art.202
VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES

Q: Who are vagrants?
1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence who has the physical ability to work
and who neglects to apply him/herself to some lawful calling
2. Any person found loitering about public or semi‐public building or places, or tramping or
wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of support
3. Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill‐fame; ruffians or pimps and those
who habitually associate with prostitutes
4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of this code, shall be
found loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without any
lawful or justifiable purpose
5. Prostitutes
*For the purposes of this article, women who for money or profit habitually engage in
sexual intercourse OR lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes

Q: Suppose X is an able‐bodied man, almost always seen in public places. His means of support is his
mother who is laundrywoman. Is he a vagrant?
Yes

Q: Suppose the mother is employed in a Fortune 500 company and can provide for the support of her
son. Is he still considered a vagrant?
Yes – he possesses all the characteristics enumerated by art.202: he is able‐bodied, has no
apparent means of subsistence and does not apply himself to some lawful calling

Q: May a woman who has been in the prostitution business for the last 20 years still remain a virgin?
(*trolling moment xD )
Yes

Q: Who is a prostitute?
A woman who, for money or profit habitually engages in –
1. Sexual intercourse; OR
2. Lascivious conduct

Q: From the legal point of view, can a man be a prostitute?
No

Q: A woman had sexual intercourse for 2 weeks but she did not ask her customers for money. Is she a
prostitute?
No

CRIMINAL LAW II 100
K notes

Q: Suppose she did it only once this year, and asked for money as compensation for her services. Is she a
prostitute?
No, the element of habitual frequency is lacking

Q: Suppose she does it regularly with one man, charging him php 50.00 per session. Is she a prostitute?
Yes

Q: Suppose she had sex with a man for 6 months. During those months, the man did not pay her
although he did keep promising to give her the money. Is she a prostitute?
Yes. The promise of payment is ‘profit’ as far as she is concerned

Q: Is it necessary that she actually receives the money?
No

Q: Suppose she asks for jewelry for every sexual act. Is she a prostitute?
Yes, jewelry is profit as far as she is concerned

*NB: profit is the controlling motive in prostitution, and that ‘profit’ does not necessarily have
to be in monetary form

Q: The police conducted a raid on a house in Binondo known to be a whorehouse. They opened a cubicle
and surprised a woman and her customer in the sexual act. Is she liable?
No, the element of habituality is lacking

Q: Suppose there was proof that the woman had been with other men that day?
She is liable

Q: Will the man be liable?
Yes, as a principal by direct participation (*on a whole new level, yeah? lol)

Q: Who is a pimp?
One who provides gratification for the lust of others

Q: Who is a ruffian?
A brutal, violent, lawless persons

Q: When is one considered to be ‘dissolute’?
When he is lax and unrestrained, as well as immoral

Q: If the prostitute caught in Binondo happened to be 15 years old, what is her liability?
She has none. Minors are exempt from criminal liability, by virtue of RA 9344

TITLE SEVEN
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

CHAPTER ONE
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

*Contrary to the practice of some criminal law professors (i.e.: they skip this Title, because to their mind
this Title represents everything wrong with the criminal justice system, think: never really catching the
perpetrators), Atty. A spends a considerable amount of time for recits on this coverage. To HIS mind,
this Title is made all the more important because of the nature of the offenders and the fact that a
separate court altogether – the Sandiganbayan – has jurisdiction over offenses committed under this
Title. I suppose his thinking has influenced me a bit, and at the risk of sounding impertinent, I would like
to spell it out: Notwithstanding general pessimism, this Title is important. ‐Kimiko

CRIMINAL LAW II 101
K notes

Art.203
WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS

Q: Who are considered public officers?
1. Those whoare taking part in the performance of public functions OR who are performing in
the government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
official of any rank and class;
2. Those whose authority to take part or perform public functions must be –
a. By direct provision of law;
b. By popular election; or
c. By appointment by competent authority

Q: Are employees of Government‐Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) considered ‘public
officers’?
Yes

Q: Suppose the City of Manila entered into a contract with XYZ corporation to maintain the cleanliness
of the City Hall. The contract provided that the corporation would assign its men to clean the hall. Are
these people considered public officers?
No

Q: Is their work a public function?
Yes

Q: Are they appointed by the City Government itself?
No, they were assigned or appointed by XYZ corporation – a private corporation

CHAPTER TWO
MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE

 Misfeasance: Improper performance of some act which might be lawfully done
 Malfeasance: Performance of some act which ought not to be done
 Nonfeasance: Omission of some act which ought to be performed

SECTION ONE – DERELICTION OF DUTY

Art.204
KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT

1. The offender is a judge
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
3. The judgment is unjust
4. He knows that the judgment is unjust

Q: What is a ‘judgment’?
The final consideration and determination of a court competent jurisdiction upon the matters
submitted to it, in an action or proceeding

Q: When does a judgment become ‘unjust’?
When it is –
1. Contrary to law

CRIMINAL LAW II 102
K notes

2. Not supported by evidence; or
3. Both

Q: What may be the sources of an unjust judgment?
1. Error
2. Ill‐will or Revenge
3. Bribery

Q: What is the ground for liability here?
Bad faith

Q: Suppose an appellant was unhappy with a decision handed down by the Court of Appeals. May he file
for Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment?
No

Q: Why not?
Art.204 does not apply to members of a collegiate court

Q: Give examples of collegiate courts in our justice system
‐The Supreme Court
‐The Court of Appeals
‐The Sandiganbayan

Art.205
JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE

1. The offender is a Judge
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
3. The judgment is manifestly unjust
4. The judgment is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance

Q: What is the standard for measuring a decision that is ‘manifestly unjust’?
When the decision is so patently contrary to law that even a person possessing a meager
knowledge of the law cannot doubt the injustice

Q: Is this synonymous with abuse of discretion or error of judgment?
No, abuse of discretion and error of judgment are not punishable

Q: Is good faith a defence here?
No

Q: Will any degree of negligence make the Judge liable?
No, the negligence must be inexcusable

Art.206
UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order or decree; or
b. Rendering a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through negligence or
ignorance

CRIMINAL LAW II 103
K notes

Q: What is an interlocutory order?
One issued by the court between the commencement and the end of a suit or action and which
decides some point or matter. It is NOT, however, a final decision of the matter in issue

*NB: Test for determining whether an issuance by the court is interlocutory or not: Does
it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If
it does, it is interlocutory. If not, it is a final decision.

Q: Must an interlocutory order be related to the main issue of the case?
No

Q: Give examples of interlocutory orders
i.e.: Orders granting preliminary injunction; or appointer a receiver; Temporary Restraining
Orders

Art.207
MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE

2. There is a proceeding in his court
3. He delays the administration of justice
4. The delay is malicious/caused by the Judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either
party in the case

Q: Is mere delay punishable?
No

Art.208
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES;
NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE

1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law (Dereliction
of duty in the prosecution of offenses)
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has the duty to cause the
prosecution of, or to prosecute offenses
b. There is dereliction of the duties of his office, i.e.: Having knowledge of the commission
of a crime, he does not cause its prosecution
c. He acts with malice and deliberate intent to favour the violator of the law
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses

Q: Suppose a smuggler, knowing that an illegal shipment will be unloaded, talked to a police officer and
told him not to assign any men in the area where the shipment was to be unloaded and along the route
to be used for its transportation. The police officer agreed. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: May he also be held liable for violating RA 3019 (Anti‐Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)?
Yes

Q: Suppose a public prosecutor caused the dismissal of a complaint for estafa because it was filed
against his mother‐in‐law. Is he liable?
Yes

CRIMINAL LAW II 104
K notes

Q: May the prosecutor be held liable for a violation of PD 1829?
Yes

Q: Simultaneously?
No, he may either be held liable and prosecuted for art.208 OR PD 1829 – whichever metes out
the higher penalty

*NB: this is an interesting twist to the doctrinal line of ‘penal laws should be construed in favour
of the accused’. Here, if an act is punishable both under the RPC and under PD 1829, the accused
will be prosecuted for the crime bearing the heavier penalty. I suppose it would help to think of
it in the light of another doctrinal phrase – that public office is a public trust. Among the many
tables of crimes throughout Book Two of the RPC, you’ll notice that if the offender happens to
be a public official, the penalty is higher – under art.14 (aggravating circumstances) as well,
taking advantage of public position is an aggravating circumstance.

Q: Does the offender in Dereliction of Duty have to act with malice?
Yes

Q: Are you saying that dereliction of duty caused by poor judgment or an honest mistake is not
punishable?
Yes, it is not punishable

Art.209
BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY
OR SOLICITOR – REVELATION OF SECRETS

1. Causing damage to a client either by –
a. Any malicious breach of professional duty
b. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance

*NB: When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of his employment or inexcusable
negligence/ignorance, there must be damage caused to the client for liability to attach

2. Revealing any of the secrets of the client learned in the offender’s professional capacity

*NB: Damage here is not necessary

3. Undertaking the defence of the opposing party in the same case without the first client’s
consent, and after having undertaken the 1st client’s defence or after having received from
him confidential information

*NB: If the client consents to the attorney’s undertaking of the opposite party’s
defence, there is no crime committed

Q: Give an example for each punishable act

Q: In the 2nd punishable act, would the lawyer be liable if the client consented?
No

Q: May a paralegal be held liable for violating this provision?
No, non‐members of the Philippine are not liable for art.209

Q: May anybody else besides the client waive the right to privileged communication?
No, only the client may do so

CRIMINAL LAW II 105
K notes

Q: Why is that?
Because the whole concept of privileged communication was intended for the benefit and
protection of the client

Q: Suppose the court asked your client whether or not he admitted the commission of a crime. May you
raise an objection?
Yes

Q: May you waive your right to raise that objection?
No

Q: What kind of matters are sought to be protected by this article?
Those learned in confidence by a lawyer from his client

Q: Suppose you are a lawyer and you gave advice to C because C approached you and said he wanted to
kill B. Despite your advice, B later turned out dead. You were asked to testify against C. May you invoke
privileged communication and refuse to do so?
No, the advice I offered C was not given with a view to professional employment. No attorney ‐
client relationship exists between me and him.

NOTES:

RULES OF EVIDENCE

RULE 130

RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
xxx
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
xxx
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Sec. 24. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
a) The husband or the wife…
xxx

b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course or with
a view to, professional employment, nor can attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity


SECTION TWO – BRIBERY

Art.210
DIRECT BRIBERY

1. The offender is a public officer within the scope of art.203

*NB: person liable = a public officer ‘or any other persons performing public duties’

CRIMINAL LAW II 106
K notes

2. He accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another

*NB: The gift is either (a) voluntarily offered by a private person, or (b) solicited by the
public officer. In case there is only an offer of a gift or a promise to give something, the offer
or promise must be accepted by the public officer; else, only the offeror is liable for
Attempted Corruption of Public Officer (art.212)

3. Such offer or promise is accepted; or gift or present received by the public officer –
a. With a view to committing some crime
b. In consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the
act must be unjust; or
c. To refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do

*NB: in a nutshell, these are the 3 ways of committing direct bribery (think: punishable acts)

4. The act which the offender agrees to person or which he executes is connected with the
performance of his official duties

1. Agreeing to perform, performing, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present an
act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties
2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime, in connection with the performance of his official duty
3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining from doing something which it is his official duty to do,
in consideration of a gift or promise

Q: Under the 1st punishable act (agreeing to perform a crime in exchange for any officer, promise or
gift), what consummates the crime?
Mere agreement to perform an act which constitutes a crime

Q: Is it necessary that the act constituting a crime is actually committed?
No

Q: Does the officer have to actually receive the gifts?
No

Q: Suppose the bribe‐giver promised the officer a gift, but after he’d gotten what he needed, he no
longer delivered the gift. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose there was an extensive cross‐examination during a trial. The opposing counsel did his job
well, and the cross‐examination damaged the theory of the prosecution. The counsel for the
prosecution asked the stenographer to change certain portions of the transcript in return for Php
50,000. The stenographer agreed and promised that the altered transcript would be ready in a week.
Before he could even work on his promise, however, the lawyer was arrested by the NBI. Is the
stenographer liable?
Yes, his mere agreement already consummated the crime. Whether or not he was able to deliver
the transcript to the lawyer is immaterial insofar as his liability is concerned

Q: Suppose the stenographer actually changed the transcript and handed it to the lawyer b ut the latter
did not have enough cash and said that he would be back to pay the balance. What crime/s may the
stenographer be held liable for?
1. Direct Bribery (art.210)
2. Falsification of Public Document (art.171)
3. Violation of the Anti‐Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)
*separate crimes

CRIMINAL LAW II 107
K notes

Q: Was direct bribery a necessary means for the stenographer to commit falsification?
Yes

Q: May it be complexed with falsification, then?
Yes, it MAY (*NB: pay attention to the fact that the word ‘may’ is only used to convey
possibility, not actuality) be complexed under art.48

Q: What do you mean by saying it ‘may’ be complexed?
Direct Bribery may be complexed following the formula in art.48 HOWEVER, it contains the
phrase ‘in addition to the penalty’… which means, in actuality, it CANNOT be complexed with
any other crime, because the law itself makes the liability for it stand independently of other
crimes

Q: If that is the case, then what crimes may the officer be held liable for, with regards to direct bribery
and your so‐called ‘independent’ liabilities?
The officer who commits direct bribery under this manner is liable for –
1. Direct Bribery
2. The crime agreed upon; and
3. A violation of RA 3019

*NB: Very notable, the three‐tiered liability for public officers. Always, as the good professor
drilled into us, a public officer has 3 liabilities under direct bribery

Q: Suppose the lawyer no longer returned, is the stenographer still liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose you approached a Judge and told him that if he could render a favourable decision for you,
you would give him a sexbomb dancer of his choice for 2 nights – absolutely free. The decision was
rendered in your favour but you were not able to produce the dancer. Is the Judge liable?
It depends:
‐If there was sufficient evidence to prove my innocence in the case which the Judge decided, he
will not be liable
‐If the evidence was enough to prove my guilt, however, and the decision rendered by the Judge
was in my favour, then the Judge is liable

Q: Under the 2nd punishable act or manner of commission (accepting a gift in consideration of an act
which does not constitute a crime), what consummates the crime?
Actual acceptance of a bribe

Q: What about a promise to accept the bribe? (*trolling moment: a promise to accept is not the same as
acceptance, mind you)
No, the acceptance must actually be made, not simply promised

Q: Illustrate this manner of commission

Q: Suppose a Land Transportation Officer accepted the amount you offered him but all the same did not
allow you to get ahead of others in your application for a license. Is he liable?
Yes, he already accepted the bribe

Q: Suppose the license was already handed to you but you had no money to pay him for his special
effort. The officer told you he would return to collect the sum but failed to do so. Is he liable?
No

Q: Under the 3rd manner (agreeing to refrain from performing official duty), what consummates the
crime?
Mere agreement to shirk performance of official duties for a bribe

CRIMINAL LAW II 108
K notes

Q: Suppose you apply for a driver’s license and instead of taking the written exam, you placed money in
the examiner’s desk drawer. He said he would take the exam for you. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose you passed the written exam but had to wait for the results before undergoing the practical
exams. You placed another Php 1,000 in the examiner’s drawer and he immediately told you to report to
him the next day for the practical exams. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Who may be liable for direct bribery?
‐Private persons who conspire with public officers to commit the crime
‐Accessories and Accomplices
‐Principals by indispensable cooperation

*NB: Regarding principals by inducement, they cannot be held liable under this crime because
there is a separate crime altogether which penalizes the act of inducing or attempting to induce
a public officer to commit a crime: art.212 (corruption of public official)

Q: Is direct bribery a crime involving moral turpitude?
Yes

Q: Explain
Moral Turpitude in direct bribery can be inferred from the 3rd element: ‘Accepting a promise or
gift and deliberately committing an unjust act/crime/refraining from performing an official duty
in exchange for favours. There is malicious intent to renege on the duties the public officer owes
to society and he also takes advantage of his office/position to do betray the public trust
(Magno v. COMELEC et. al. GR No. 147904; October 4, 2002)

Art.211
INDIRECT BRIBERY

1. The offender is a public officer
2. He accepts gifts
3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of his office

Q: Distinguish this from direct bribery

DIRECT BRIBERY INDIRECT BRIBERY
ART.210 ART.211
*in BOTH cases, the public officer receives a gift

There is an agreement between the public officer There is usually no agreement between the parties
and the giver concerned

The offender agrees to perform, or actually It is not necessary that the public officer should do
performs an act or refrains from doing something any particular act or even promise to do an act; it
because of the gift or promise is sufficient that he accepts the gifts by reason of
his office.

Mere acceptance of the offered gifts

Q: Give an example

CRIMINAL LAW II 109
K notes

Q: What is the purpose of a bribe offered under art.211?
The bribe is offered in anticipation of a future favour from the public official concerned

Q: Suppose you are the owner of a taxi cab company and you gave a car to the Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). Are you liable?
Yes

Q: When a public officer is prosecuted either for direct or indirect bribery, may he likewise be
prosecuted for a violation of RA 3019?
Yes – RA 3019 contains the phrase ‘in addition to… xxx’. The accused suffers penalties for
separate crimes

Q: Suppose the officer accepted a promise concerning the offer of a car to him by virtue of his public
office. Is he liable?
No – art.211 uses the words ‘gifts’, it refers to presents actual and material

Art.211‐A
QUALIFIED BRIBERY

1. The offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement
2. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death
3. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration of any promise, gift
or present

The position of the offender (he being entrusted with law enforcement) and the nature of the
crime he fails to prosecute (crimes punishable by afflictive penalties)

Art.212
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS

1. The offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer
2. The offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer under
circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct or indirect bribery

Q: Give an example

Q: Who is the offender within the contemplation of this article?
The person offering promises of gifts to a public official under circumstances that would
implicate the official for direct/indirect bribery

Q: Is the person making the offer of gifts or promises still liable if he did so because the public official
concerned demanded the offer?
Yes

Q: Suppose you made such an offer to a public official. He refused your offer. Are you still liable?
Yes

Q: What about the public officer, is he liable despite his denial?
No, he is not liable if he refused my offer

CRIMINAL LAW II 110
K notes

RE: IMMUNITY FOR WITNESSES

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 749

GRANTING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION TO GIVERS OF BRIBES AND
OTHER GIFTS AND TO THEIR ACCOMPLICES IN BRIBERY AND OTHER
GRAFT CASES AGAINST PUBLIF OFFICERS
Outline of salient provisions and important definitions
Sec.1
*The immunity in this section is for any person who voluntarily gives information about any violation of
Arts.210, 211, 212 of the RPC; RA 3019; Sec.345 of the Internal Revenue Code; Sec.3604 of the Tariff and
Customs Code and other provisions penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of a public official.
*The person applying for immunity must willingly testify against the public official or employee.
*Exemption from prosecution or punishment for the offense with reference to which his information
and testimony were given
*Immunity may be enjoyed even in cases where the information and testimony are given against a
person who isn’t a public official but who is a principal/accomplice or accessory
*Immunity may be enjoyed notwithstanding that the person offered or gave the bribe or gift or he is an
accomplice for such bribe or gift‐giving

**The following conditions must concur:
1. The information must refer to consummated violations of any of the above‐mentioned
provisions;
2. The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the accused public official;
3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;
4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points; and
5. The informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a cr ime involving moral
turpitude

Sec.2
*No immunity if the information/testimony turns out false or malicious or made only for the purpose of
harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing the public official concerned.

Q: What are the requirements for applying for immunity?

Q: What are the crimes covered by PD 749?
‐Direct Bribery (art.210)
‐Indirect Bribery (art.211)
‐Corruption of Public Official (art.212)
‐Violations of the Anti‐Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)
‐Violation of Sec.345 of the Internal Revenue Code
‐Violation of Sec.3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code
‐Other provisions penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of a public official

Q: Suppose a witness testified against a public official, availed of immunity and after doing so, refused
to take the stand. What is the legal effect of his refusal?
The immunity will no longer cover him

Q: May he now be included in the information and prosecuted?
Yes

Q: Suppose he testified but the testimony was incredible and tended to favour the official. Is he still
immune from prosecution?
No, the testimony must be necessary for the conviction of the official

CRIMINAL LAW II 111
K notes

Q: Suppose he testified but his testimony was already part of the evidence for the prosecution before he
did. Is he still immune?
No, his testimony must not be in the possession of the State prior to its offering

REPUBLIC ACT 3019
ANTI‐GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

*Brace yourself; this is a long and taxing special law – absolutely tedious to note down, the kind of slit‐
your‐wrist kind of memory work that the Legal Socratic method of learning is famous for (Animo San
Beda, ahaha). Check out the codal for the full extent of public officialdom’s madness.

REPUBLIC ACT 3019
(As Amended)
ANTI‐GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
*Summary of Salient Provisions and Important Definitions
Sec.2

 Public Officer:includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the classified or unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation, even nominal,
from the government

 Receiving any gift:includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than
a member of the public officer’s immediate family, in behalf of himself or of any member of his
family or relative within the fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity of affinity even on occasion
of a family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is, under
circumstances, manifestly excessive

Sec.3 (Corrupt Practices of Public Officers)

a) Persuading, inducing, or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation
of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with
the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced to
commit such violation or offense;

b) 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 party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene
under the law;

c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift or present or other pecuniary or material
benefit, for himself or for another, from any person, for whom the public officer, in any manner or
capacity, has secured or obtained or will secure/obtain any government permit or license in
consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Sec.13 of this Act;

d) Accepting or having any member of his (the public officer’s) family accept employment in a private
enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof and within one
year after his termination;

e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or
judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged
with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions;

f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining directly or

CRIMINAL LAW II 112
K notes

indirectly from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage, or for the purpose of favouring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favour of
or discriminating against any other interested party;

g) Entering, on behalf of the government into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby;

h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited
by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest;

i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and
which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not
participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the
approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transactions or acts by the board, panel or
group to which they belong;

j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favour of any person not
qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere
representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified of entitled;

k) Divulging valuable information if a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on
account of his official position to authorize persons, or releasing such information in advance of its
authorized release date

Sec.4 (Prohibition on Private Individuals)

*Taking advantage of family or close personal relation with a public official who has to intervene in
some business, transaction or application or request or contract of the government with any other
person

*Knowingly inducing or causing any public official to commit any of the acts in Sec.3

Sec.5 (Prohibition on Certain Relatives)

*Applies to: spouse/any relative within the 3rd civil degree, whether by consanguinity or affinity of the
President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives

*Prohibition from intervening in any business, transaction, etc. with the government
*Exceptions:
1. Pre‐existing business with the government before the official’s assumption of office;
2. Any application, the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the public officer but
rather, depends on compliance with requisites required by the law;
3. Any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession

Sec.6 (Prohibition on Members of Congress)

*Applies during incumbency

*Prohibition against acquiring or receiving any personal pecuniary interest in any business enterprise
which will be directly or indirectly favoured by any law or resolution authored by him previously
approved or adopted during the same term

Sec.7 (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth)

*To be submitted within 30 days after assuming office and thereafter on or before April 15 following the

CRIMINAL LAW II 113
K notes

close of every calendar year, as well as upon expiration of term of resignation or separation from office

*Contents: Assets, Liabilities, Net Worth, as well as sources of income taxes paid for the next preceding
calendar year

*The following may be considered as far as implicating a public officer goes:
 Property in the name of spouse or dependents when acquisition through legitimate means
cannot be shown
 Bank deposits or manifestly excessive expenditures
 Activity in any club or association
 Frequent travels abroad of a non‐official character

Sec. 9 (Penalties)
xxx

*Violations of this Act, if proven in an administrative proceeding, shall be sufficient cause for removal or
dismissal, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against the offender

Sec.10 (Competent Court)

*Court with original jurisdiction over offenses under this Act: The Sandiganbayan (otherwise known as
the Graft Court, a special collegiate court with 15 Justices in 5 divisions, each one composed of 3
members)

Sec.11 (Prescription of Offenses)

*All punishable acts herein enumerate prescribe after 15 years

Sec.12 (Termination of Office)

*It is NOT allowed for a public official to resign or retire pending investigation or prosecution for
offenses punishable by this Act

Sec.13 (Suspension, Loss of Benefits)

*Rather self‐explanatory, this. Oh, all right. For the heck of it: Any public official against whom charges
are filed may be preventively suspended. Note that the suspension here is preventive in nature, it is NOT
the penalty. Although the preventive suspension is mandatory, it ISN’T automatic. It has to be raised via
motion by the prosecution and is ordered after a hearing on the validity of the information has been had

*If the public officer is ACQUITTED (not ‘dismissed’), the public officer shall be entitled to reinstatement
and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime,
administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

Sec.14 (Exception)…the pink care bear provision ‐kimi

*Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of
gratitude or of friendship according to local customs or usage are not punishable

*The practice of any profession, lawful trade or occupation during incumbency, when allowed by law

NOTES:

*Okay. You okay? Did the special law freak you out? :D Read on! Fight! :D

*RA 3019 is a catch‐all piece of legislation intended to cover all loopholes. Notice that some, if not all, the
punishable acts are faintly reminiscent of some acts punished under the Revised Penal Code. The reason

CRIMINAL LAW II 114
K notes

for its enactment is obvious: to cut off any possible escaping of liability. Certain actions which the RPC
merely hints at, or vaguely alludes to, are made full‐blown, black and white, and clear offenses under RA
3019. This is also why actions punishable under the law stand independent of their cousins in the RPC.

CHAPTER THREE
FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS

Art.213
FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY
AND SIMILAR OFFENSES

1. Entering into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or making use of any
other scheme to defraud the government in dealing with any person with regard to
furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds
2. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those
authorized by law, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts
3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by
him officially, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts
4. 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

*NB: Number 1 above refers to the offense of ‘Fraud against public treasury’, and
numbers 2 through 4 are acts of ‘Illegal Exaction’

Q: What are the elements of Fraud against Public Treasury?
2. He should have taken advantage of his office (i.e.: he intervened in the transaction in his
official capacity)
3. He entered into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or made use of any
other scheme with regard to –
a. Furnishing supplies; or
b. Making contracts; or
c. Adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds
4. The accused had the intent to defraud the government

Q: How is Illegal Exaction committed?
1. The offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and
other imposts
2. He is guilty of –
a. Demanding, directly/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 officially; or
c. Collecting or receiving, directly/indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or
objects or a nature different from that provided by law

Q: Suppose the Department of Health appropriated Php 100 Million for medicines set to be distributed
to the poor. Instead of the medicines specified in the Order List, the manufacturer, acting in connivance
with DOH officials, distributed medicines of inferior quality. Are the DOH officials liable?
Yes

CRIMINAL LAW II 115
K notes

Q: Suppose there is a contract between the Department of Public Works and Highways and a private
contractor. DPWH purchases 100 truckloads of gravel, 200 truckloads of sand and 500 bags cement.
DPWH paid the contractor for that much, but the contractor, in connivance with DPWH officials
delivered only 10 truckloads of gravel, 10 truckloads of sand and 50 bags of cement. Are the officials
liable?
Yes

Q: What crimes are they liable for?
1. Frauds against the public treasury (art.213)
2. Violation of RA 3019
*separate crimes

Q: An official asked a Chinese businessman to pay for Php 700,000 for delinquency taxes when in fact
the businessman is only liable for Php 500,000. Is the official liable?
Yes

Q: What crime?
Illegal Exaction – for collecting taxes larger than those authorized by the law

Q: What if the official only asked for Php 200,000?
He is still liable for collecting a sum different than that authorized by the law

Q: Suppose you were the businessman in the previous example, and you were not in the position to pay
the Php 700,000 demanded by the official. He agreed to accept only Php 500,000 – which was really all
you were liable for. Is the official still liable?
Yes, the mere demand of Php 700,000 – even if it didn’t succeed – consummates the crime

Q: Suppose you had a shady agreement with an official regarding the payment of taxes but it did not
materialize. Is he liable?
No, the sum must either be demanded or received. He did not demand it, nor did he receive it.

Art.214
OTHER FRAUDS

2. He takes advantage of his official position
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in art.315 ‐ art.318 (estafa, other forms
of swindling, swindling a minor, other deceits)

Art.215
PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS

1. The offender is an appointive public officer
2. He becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in any transaction of exchange or speculation
3. The transaction takes place within the territory subject to his jurisdiction
4. He becomes interested in the transaction during his incumbency

Q: Give an example

Q: Suppose a Regional Trial Court judge purchases millions of stocks from a company in Ortigas. Is he
liable?
Yes, Ortigas is Part of the National Capital Region and the judge’s jurisdiction spans the NCR

CRIMINAL LAW II 116
K notes

Q: Suppose an RTC judge in Laguna purchased stocks in Makati. Is he liable?
No, Makati is not within his jurisdiction

Q: Suppose a Senator purchased millions worth of Stocks in Makati. Is he liable under art.215?
No, a Senator is not an appointive official

Art.216
POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST
BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL

Q: Who are liable?
1. Public officers who directly or indirectly became interested in any contract or business in
which it was their official duty to intervene
2. Experts, arbitrators and private accountants who, in like manner, took part in any contract
or transaction connected with the estate or property in the appraisal, distribution or
adjudication of which they have acted
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or the
estate

Q: Suppose a guardian had to sell some of his ward’s property due to the ward’s hospitalization. The
court allowed him to do so. Is he liable?
No, the court allowed it

Q: Suppose he happened to sell the property to a company where he happens to be one of the major
stockholders. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: What sort of interest is prohibited by this article?
Pecuniary interest

Q: Is actual fraud necessary for the liability to attach?
No, what is punishable is the possibility of placing personal interest over the government’s

CHAPTER FOUR
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY

Art.217
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY –
PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION

Q: Who are liable?
Public officers who are accountable for public funds or property

Q: Who is an accountable public officer?
One vested by law with custody and charge or control of public funds by reason of the duties of
his office

Q: What are the ways of committing malversation?
1. By appropriating public funds or property
2. By taking or misappropriating the same
3. By consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take
such funds or property
4. By being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property

CRIMINAL LAW II 117
K notes

Q: What are the common elements to all acts of malversation?
2. He has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office
3. Those funds or property are public funds or public property for which he is accountable
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented; or through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take them

Q: The Director of the Manila Zoo has a caretaker who works for him. The caretaker sold the animals
during the Director’s absence. Is the latter liable?
No, he only had a qualified charge over the animals and was not an accountable public officer

Q: Who would be liable then?
The Director of the Zoo

Q: What would be the liability of the person who has a qualified charge over the missing property?
Theft or Qualified Theft, if it was done with abuse of confidence

*NB: If the officer had no authority to receive or to party with the funds or property, or had only
a qualified charge over them, the crime is theft, not malversation

Q: Suppose a Mercedes Benz was ordered confiscated for having been used in the commission of a
certain crime. The custodian sold the car. Is he liable for malversation?
Yes, the car became public property the moment it was seized by public authority and the
custodian was an accountable officer as far as it was concerned

Q: Suppose the car was used to transport shabu prior to its confiscation. A Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) officer sold it. What crime is the agent liable for?
Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (CCDA)

Q: Suppose a kilo of heroine was confiscated and PDEA officers sold it. What crime was committed?
Violation of the CDDA

Q: a SWAT member was given a modern assault rifle to be used in relation to his job. He committed
irregularities in office and was dismissed from the service. He was ordered to surrender the rifle to his
superiors but he refused and sold it instead. What crime did he commit?
Malversation of public funds or property

Q: But he was already dismissed from service
Even so, he is still an accountable officer within the contemplation of the law

Q: Suppose a property custodian of the DPWH left certain construction equipment by the side of the
road that was being constructed. The residents noticed the equipment and sold it. What crime is the
custodian liable for?
Malversation through negligence or abandonment

Q: The Commission of Audit (COA) conducted a surprise audit in a certain municipality. The COA officers
found that there was a shortage of Php 100,000 from funds that were in the custody of the municipal
treasurer. The treasurer was informed of the shortage and he immediately borrowed money from his
friend to fill in the shortage. Is he liable?
No because the presumption of misappropriation does not apply

Q: Suppose there was a demand from competent authority for the treasurer to account for the missing
sum of money within 10 days and the treasurer failed to comply. Is he liable?
Yes, the presumption then attaches

Q: What is the presumption?

CRIMINAL LAW II 118
K notes

Failure of an accountable public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property
with which he is chargeable upon demand by any duly authorized officer shall be prima facie
evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use

Q: Suppose a criminal case was filed against the treasurer and upon knowing of the filing, he returned
the missing amount. Is he still liable?
Yes

Q: What is the legal effect of his act of returning the missing funds?
The return mitigates his criminal liability

Q: It does not extinguish it?
No it does not. Return of malversed property is not one of the modes for extinguishing liability
under art.89 of the RPC

Q: Suppose it was the municipal cashier who took the money, is he liable for malversation?
No, the cashier is not an accountable public officer

Q: What crime did the cashier commit?
Theft or Qualified Theft

Q: As far as the presumption of malversation goes, what is the legal effect of a demand from a duly
authorized officer?
The demand allows the presumption of malversation to attach

Q: Is the demand a necessary element of proving malversation?
No

Q: What is the legal effect again of payment of the missing funds?
Mitigation

Q: What kind of mitigating circumstance is it?
An ordinary mitigating circumstance as per art.13, par.10 in relation to art.13 par.7 – the return is
analogous to a voluntary surrender or confession of guilt

Q: What is the effect of the return of the malversed funds to the civil liability of the offender?
The return has no effect whatsoever on his civil liability

Q: May private persons be held liable for malversation? How?
Yes, if they conspired with the accountable public officer in committing malversation

Q: May private property be the object of malversation?
Yes, if the private property in question was –
a. Seized
b. Attached; or
c. Deposited by public authority

Q: Is actual damage to the government necessary to prove liability?
No

Art.218
FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS

1. The offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom
2. He must be an accountable officer for public funds or property

CRIMINAL LAW II 119
K notes

3. He is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit or to a
provincial auditor
4. He fails to do so for a period of 2 months after such accounts should be rendered

Q: Is demand for accounting necessary?
No, it is sufficient that there is a law or regulation requiring the officer to render account

Q: Is misappropriation necessary for liability to attach?
No

Q: What is the required duration within which the officer should render accounts?
Within 2 months after such accounts should be rendered

Art.219
FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICER TO
RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING THE COUNTRY

2. He must be an accountable officer for public funds or property
3. He must have unlawfully left, or be on the point of leaving the PH without securing from the
Commission on Audit a certificate showing that his accounts have been finally settled

Q: Give an example

Q: Suppose a municipal treasurer goes to Shinjuku, Tokyo to attend an official convention without
having finally settled his accounts. Is he liable?
No, at least not yet, he was on official business

Q: Suppose he goes to Disneyland with his family with the intention of returning, but he left without
securing a certificate to prove he had finally settled his accounts. Is he liable?
Yes

Art.220
ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY

*NB: This is otherwise known as ‘Technical Malversation’

2. There is a public fund or property under his administration
3. Such fund/property has been appropriated by law or ordinance for a particular use
4. He applies the same to a public use other than that for which it has been appropriated

Q: Distinguish this from malversation under art.217

MALVERSATION TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
ART.217 ART.220
RE: Manner of Commission Offender appropriates, Offender re‐appropriates the
misappropriates, takes, fund or property under his
consents, or through custody for a purpose other than
abandonment or negligence, that which the fund/property
permits another person to take was originally intended for
the funds or property under his
custody; or is otherwise guilty of *NB: only one manner of

CRIMINAL LAW II 120
K notes

malversation commission

*NB: 4 modes of commission

RE: Character of Funds or Public or if private, has been Public, with the additional
Property seized, attached or deposited by qualification that such fund or
public authority property was appropriated by
law or ordinance for a particular
use

RE: Personal Gain or Benefit Offender in certain cases profits Offender does not derive any
from the proceeds of the crime personal gain or profit

RE: Application of Malversed Malversed funds are applied to Malversed funds/property are
Funds personal use and to the benefit applied to another public use
of the offender or a 3rd person different from that which was
intended

RE: Presumption of law as to Failure to have funds forthwith No presumption as to liability
liability and coming leads to the
presumption that the offender
has put the funds to personal
use

Q: Again. What constitutes the crime of technical malversation?
The application of public funds or property by an accountable public officer to a different
(public) use other than that for which the fund/property has been appropriated by law or
ordinance

Art.221
FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF
PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY

1. Failing to make payment, done by a public officer who is under obligation to make payment
from government funds in his possession
**ELEMENTS:
a. The public officer has government funds in his possession
b. He is under obligation to make payment from such funds
c. He maliciously fails to make the payment
2. Refusing to make delivery, done by a public officer who has been ordered by competent
authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his administration

Q: Give examples of each punishable act

Art.222
OFFICERS UNCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING PROVISIONS

Q: Who are the persons liable under Arts.217 – 221?
1. Private individuals who, in any capacity whatsoever, have charge of any national, provincial,
or municipal funds, revenues or property
2. Administrators or depositories of funds or property attached, seized, or deposited by public
authority even if such property belongs to private individuals

CRIMINAL LAW II 121
K notes

RE: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1829

DECREE PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OR APPREHENSION
OF PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
* Outline of Punishable Acts

ACTS PUNISHED:

1. Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats

2. Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document or object, with
intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any
investigation of, or official proceedings in criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in criminal cases

3. Harbouring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable
ground to believe or suspect has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to
prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction

4. Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or
the execution of judgment or concealing one’s true name and other personal circumstances for
the same purpose/s

5. Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service or process of court orders
or disturbing proceedings in the fiscals’ offices, in the Tanodbayan, or in the courts.

6. Making, presenting, or using any record, document, paper, or object with knowledge of its
falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official
proceedings in criminal cases

7. Soliciting, accepting or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, or
discontinuing, the impending prosecution of a criminal offender

8. Threatening, directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person,
honour or property or that of any immediate member/s of his family in order to prevent such
person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in criminal cases; or
imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing
in the investigation of, or official proceedings in criminal cases

9. Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies
from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or
fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for
purposes of background information and not for publication, and publishing or disseminating
the same to mislead the investigator or the court

**If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher penalty, the
higher penalty shall be imposed

CRIMINAL LAW II 122
K notes

REPUBLIC ACT 7080 AS AMENDED
THE ANTI‐PLUNDER ACT

REPUBLIC ACT 7080
AS AMENDED

AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER
*Summary and Outline of Salient Provisions and Punishable Acts

Sec.1
xxx
(d) Ill‐gotten wealth:Any asset, property or business enterprise or material possession of any person
within the purview of Sec.2 hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly, through dummies, nominees,
agents, subordinates, and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or
similar schemes:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds or raids on the
public treasury
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks, or any
other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any
government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer
concerned
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the national
government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, or Government Owned or
Controlled Corporations and their subsidiaries
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other
form of interest of participation including the promise of future employment in any business
enterprise or undertaking
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or
implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests; or
6. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence
to unjustly enrich oneself at the expense and to the damage of the Filipino people and the
Republic of the Philippines

Sec.2 – Definition of the crime of plunder, penalties

*Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill‐
gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in section 1(d)
hereof, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Php 50,000,000 shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder

*Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing
to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense

*The court shall declare any and all ill‐gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets
including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited
in favour of the State

Sec.3 – Competent Court

*The Sandiganbayan

Sec.4 – Rule of Evidence

CRIMINAL LAW II 123
K notes

*It shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the
scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate, or acquire ill‐gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish
beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the over‐all unlawful scheme
or conspiracy

Sec.6 – Prescription of crimes

*prescription: after 20 years; however, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired
by public officers from them or their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches,
or estoppel.

RA 9160, AS AMENDED
THE ANTI‐MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001

REPUBLIC ACT 9160
AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT 9194

AN ACT DEFINING THE CRIME OF MONEY LAUNDERING,
PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
*Summary of Important Definitions and Punishable Acts
Sec.3 – Definitions

a. Covered Institutions:
1. Banks, non‐banks, quasi‐banks, trust entities and all other institutions and their subsidiaries
and affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
2. Insurance companies and all other institutions supervised or regulated by the Insurance
Commission
3.
A. Securities, dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar entities
managing securities or rendering services as investment agent, adviser, or consultant
B. Mutual funds, close‐end investment companies, common trust funds, pre‐need
companies and other similar entities;
C. Foreign exchange corporations, money changers, money payment, remittance, and
transfer companies and other similar entities
D. Other entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial
derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes, and other similar
monetary instruments or property supervised by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC)

b. Covered Transactions:
Transactions in case or other equivalent monetary instruments involving a total amount in
excess of Php 500,000 within one banking day

b‐1. Suspicious Transactions:
Transactions with covered institutions, regardless of the amounts involved, where any of the
following circumstances exist:
1. There is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification
2. The client is not properly identified
3. The amount involved is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the
client
4. Taking into account all known circumstances, it may be perceived that the client’s
transaction is structured in order to avoid being the subject of reporting requirements
under this Act
5. Any circumstances relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the profile

CRIMINAL LAW II 124
K notes

of the client and/or the client’s past transactions with the covered institution
6. The transaction is in any way related to an unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is
about to be, or is being, or has been committed
7. Any transaction that is similar or analogous to any of the foregoing

Sec.4 – Money Laundering Offense

*Money Laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity as herein defined are
transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources

*Persons Liable:
1. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument, property, represents, involves, or relates to
the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact said monetary
instrument or property
2. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the proceeds of any
unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the
offense of money laundering
3. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this Act to be
disclosed and filed with the Anti‐Money Laundering Council (AMLC)

Sec.5 – Jurisdiction of Money Laundering Cases

*Regional Trial Courts
*Sandiganbayan, if the offender is a public officer

Sec.6 – Prosecution of Money Laundering

a. Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money laundering and
the unlawful activity as herein defined
b. Any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity shall be given precedence over the prosecution
of any offense or violation under this Act, without prejudice to the freezing of assets and other
remedies provided

Sec.10 – Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property

*The Court of Appeals, upon application ex parte by the AMLC and after determination that probable
cause exists, may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately. The order shall be for 20
days unless extended by the Court

Sec.11 – Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits

*The AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any financial
institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act, when it has been
established that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity

Sec.16 – Prohibition against political harassment

*This Act shall not be used to for political persecution and to hamper competition in trade or commerce

*No case for money laundering may be filed against, and no assets shall be frozen, attached or forfeited
to the prejudice of a candidate for an electoral office during election period

CHAPTER FIVE
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

CRIMINAL LAW II 125
K notes
SECTION ONE – INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS

Art.223
CONNIVING WITH, OR CONSENTING TO EVASION

2. He had in his custody or charge a prisoner, either a detention prisoner or one by final
judgment
3. The prisoner escaped from the officer’s custody
4. The officer was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape

Q: Give an example

Q: Suppose there is a prisoner who requested a pass to go home since his house is near the jail anyway.
The officer consented and granted him the pass. Is the officer liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose the prisoner requested that he serve his sentence by acting as the servant of the jail guard. Is
the guard liable?
Yes

Q: Police officers allowed the detained prisoner to go home and take a bath. Are they liable?
Yes

Q: Does the offender have to agree to allow the prisoner to leave?
Yes, agreement is an indispensable element of the crime because the officer has to be ‘in
connivance’ with the prisoner

Q: Who is a detention prisoner?
One who is in legal custody, arrested for, and charged with some crime or public offense

Q: How is he different from the other type of prisoner mentioned in the article?
A detention prisoner has merely been arrested and charged with a crime; whereas a prisoner by
final judgment has been found guilty as charged by a competent court and conveyed to prison
by order of the same court in order to serve out his sentence

Q: What is the legal effect of releasing a prisoner in relation to the expiration of the periods specified in
Art.125 (Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities)?
The officer who released the prisoner will not be criminally liable

*NB: recall, art.125 specifies particular time periods for the delivery of a person to the proper
judicial authorities, i.e.:
12 hrs, for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties or their equivalent
18 hrs, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties/their equivalent
36hrs, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties, or
their equivalent
Failure to deliver the prisoner within these periods means that the arresting officer must release
the prisoner (see: Art.125 for further reference)

Art.224
EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE


CRIMINAL LAW II 126
K notes
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either a prisoner by detention
or one by final judgment
3. The prisoner escapes through his negligence

Q: Differentiate this from art.157

EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE INFIDELITY THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
ART.157 ART.224
The offender here is the escapee or the prisoner The offender here is the public officer who was
who escaped given custody or charge of the prisoner that
escaped

The escapee is a convict by final judgment The escapee may either be a prisoner by final
judgment or merely a detention prisoner

Q: Suppose a prisoner escaped through an officer’s negligence. The officer hunted him down and
captured him. Is the officer still liable?
Yes

Q: What is the legal effect of his effort to recapture the escaped prisoner?
It may mitigate his liability but it does not afford him complete exculpation

Q: What is the liability of the escapee, if he happens to be a prisoner by final judgment?
He is liable for a violation of art.157 (evasion of service of sentence)

Q: And if the escapee is a detention prisoner, what is his liability?
He incurs no criminal liability for escaping

Art.225
ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE CUSTODY
OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER

1. The offender is a private person
2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is confided to him
3. The prisoner or person under arrest escapes
4. The offender consents to the escape of the prisoner/person under arrest, or the escape
takes place through his negligence

Q: What is the character of the offender in this article?
The offender is a private person to whom the custody of a prisoner/person under arrest is
confided

SECTION TWO – INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS

Art.226
REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS


CRIMINAL LAW II 127
K notes

2. He abstracts, destroys or conceals documents or papers
3. The said documents or papers should have been entrusted to him by reason of his office
4. Damage, whether serious or not, was caused to a 3rd party or to the public interest

1. Removing;
2. Destroying; or
3. Concealing documents or papers officially entrusted to the offending public officer

Q: Give an example

Q: Would any manner of removal make the public officer liable?
No, the removal has to be made for an illicit purpose, and damage must result from the act of
removal

Q: Suppose the building where an RTC was situated began leaking during a storm and the stenographer
removed several documents from the filing cabinets in order to save them. Will the stenographer be
liable?
No, the removal was not done with an illicit purpose in mind

Q: As far as removal goes, is illicit purpose necessary?
Yes

Q: What about concealment or destruction, is illicit purpose necessary as well?
No, in concealment and destruction, the mere acts are punishable; an illicit purpose is not
necessary

*NB: think about it. Removing a document could still be done for a legal and lawful purpose, but
what legal or lawful purpose does concealing or destroying the document serve? I suppose the
inherent nature of the acts – hiding the documents (concealment) and destroying them speak
of a perversity behind the act that is in itself reprehensible and doesn’t have to be coupled by
actual ill‐will ‐kimi

Q: Suppose a clerk of court saw a newspaper lying on the desk. She burned it. Is she liable?
No, the newspaper is not a document within the contemplation of the law

Q: Suppose it was an unsigned document which she burned. Is she liable?
No, the document was not complete nor duly accomplished

*NB: the document here must be complete and one by which a right could be established or an
obligation could be extinguished, i.e.: it must carry with it a binding legal effect, if it doesn’t,
then the offender isn’t liable

Q: When is removal consummated?
Upon the secreting away of the document from its usual place

Q: In removal, is it required that the offender actually achieves his illicit purpose?
No, it is sufficient that he has removed the documents for an unlawful purpose; whether or not
that purpose was actually achieved is immaterial

Q: Suppose an officer delivered a document to someone who is not the proper recipient for it, and he
did so with an illicit purpose in mind. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Is damage a necessary element for all the punishable acts?
Yes

CRIMINAL LAW II 128
K notes
Art.227
OFFICER BREAKING SEAL

2. He is charged with the custody of papers or property
3. These papers or property are sealed by proper authority
4. He breaks the seals or permits them to be broken

Q: Must there be damage for liability to attach?
No, damage is not a necessary element of the offense

Art.228
OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS

2. Closed papers, documents or objects are entrusted to his custody
3. He opens or permits to be opened the said papers, documents or objects
4. He does not have the proper authority to do so

Q: Must there be damage?
No

SECTION THREE – REVELATION OF SECRETS BY AN OFFICER
Art.229
REVELATION OF SECRETS

1. Revealing any secrets known by the offending public officer by reason of his official capacity
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is a public officer
b. He knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity
c. He reveals such secret without authority or justifiable means
d. Damage, great or small, is caused to the public interest
2. Wrongfully delivering papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which
should not be published
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is a public officer
b. He has charge of papers
c. The papers should not be published
d. He delivers the papers of copies thereof to a 3rd person
e. The delivery is wrongful
f. Damage is caused to public interest

NOTES:

*If the papers contain secrets and shouldn’t be published, and they are removed and delivered to the
wrong person, art.229 applies

*If there aren’t any secrets, the crime is infidelity in the custody of documents or papers

*Damage is a necessary element, but it must be to the public interest

CRIMINAL LAW II 129
K notes
Art.230
PUBLIC OFFICERS REVEALING THE SECRETS
OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

2. He knows of the secrets of a private individual by means of his public office
3. He reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reason

Q: Does the revelation have to be public?
No

Q: Suppose the offender is an attorney; is he liable under this article?
No, he would be liable under art.209 (betrayal of trust by an attorney)

Q: Is damage to private individuals necessary?
No, the damage required is to the people’s faith and trust in public service

Q: Suppose an employee of the BIR disclosed your income to his co‐employee. Is he liable?
Yes, a person’s income is his own secret

CHAPTER SIX
OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

SECTION ONE – DISOBEDIENCE, REFUSAL OR ASSISTANCE AND
MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS

Art.231
OPEN DISOBEDIENCE

1. The offender is a judicial or executive officer
2. There is a judgment, decision or order from superior authority
3. The judgment or decision or order was made within the scope of the superior authority’s
jurisdiction and issued with the legal formalities
4. The offender openly refuses to execute the judgment/decision/order which he is duty‐bound
to obey, without any legal justification

Art.232
DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF SUPERIOR OFFICER,
WHEN SAID ORDER WAS SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR OFFICER

2. An order was issued by his superior for execution
3. He has suspended the execution of such order
4. His superior disapproves of the suspension
5. The offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the suspension

Q: Give an example

CRIMINAL LAW II 130
K notes

Q: What is the legal effect on the inferior officer’s liability if he disobeyed an unlawful order issued by his
superior?
None, he is not duty‐bound to obey an unlawful order

Art.233
REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE

2. A competent authority demands that he lend his cooperation towards the administration of
justice or other public service
3. He maliciously fails to do so

Q: Suppose there was no demand; may the officer from whom assistance was expected be held liable?
No, demand is a necessary element. There can be no refusal if there was no demand to begin
with

Art.234
REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE

1. The offender is elected by popular election to a public office
2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office
3. There is no legal motive for his refusal to be sworn in or to discharge his official duties

Q: Suppose you refused to discharge the duties of a barangay secretary, may you be held liable?
No, art.234 does not cover appointive officials

Art.235
MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS

1. The offender is a public officer or employee
2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention prisoner
3. He maltreats the prisoner in either of the following manners:
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner
under his charge, either –
i. By the imposition of punishment not authorized by regulations; or
ii. By inflicting authorized punishments in a cruel or humiliating manner; or
b. By maltreating the prisoner to extort a confession or obtain some information from the
prisoner

Q: Who are the prisoners contemplated?
Those by final judgment, and detention prisoners

Q: Suppose a detention prisoner was being suspected of having been involved in kidnapping. One of the
arresting officers inflicted wounds on the prisoner, which would have caused the detainee’s death, had
it not been for timely medical intervention. What crime/s did the officer commit?
1. Maltreatment of prisoners
2. Frustrated homicide
*separate crimes

CRIMINAL LAW II 131
K notes

Q: Is it a complex crime; does one absorb the other, or are they separate crimes?
They are separate crimes

Q: What is your legal basis for saying that?
The article specifically makes any other injuries inflicted during the course of the maltreatment
as separate offenses by employing the phrase ‘in addition to any other liability for the physical
injuries or damage caused… xxx’

Q: Suppose a detention prisoner was under the custody of a jail guard, and the guard orders the
detainee to wash his clothes and when the detainee refused, the guard punched him in the face. What
crime/s did the guard commit?
1. Maltreatment of prisoners
2. Physical Injuries
*separate crimes

Q: Under the second manner of commission (extortion of confession), what is the legal effect of the
extortion?
The act of maltreating the prisoner to extort a confession or obtain information aggravates the
offender’s liability and increases the penalty for the offense

Q: Give examples of crimes that, by direct provision of law, cannot be complexed with any other crimes
1. Rebellion
2. Estafa (cannot be complexed with Falsification of private document)
3. Direct Bribery
4. Search Warrants maliciously obtained
5. Maltreatment of Prisoners (cannot be complexed with Physical Injuries)

REPUBLIC ACT 9745
ANTI‐TORTURE ACT OF 2009

REPUBLIC ACT 9745

AN ACT PENALIZING TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING
TREATMENT OF PUNISHMENT AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR
*Summary of Important Definitions and Salient Provisions

Sec.3 – Definitions

Torture:
*An act by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted on a
person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a 3rd person information or a confession;
punishing him or her for an act he or she or a 3rd person has committed or is suspected of having
committed; or intimidating or coercing him or her or a 3rd person; or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with
consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person in authority. It does not include
pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions

Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment:
*Deliberate and aggravated treatment or punishment not enumerated under Sec.4, inflicted by a
person in authority or agent of a person in authority against a person under his or her custody, which
attains a level of severity causing suffering, gross humiliation or debasement to the latter

Sec.4 – Acts of Torture

a. Physical Torture
Causes severe pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the body, i.e.:

CRIMINAL LAW II 132
K notes

systematic beating, food deprivation, electric shock, burning, rape or sexual abuse, use of
psychoactive drugs… xxx

b. Mental or Psychological Torture
Calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or undermine a person’s dignity or morale, i.e.:
blindfolding, threatening relatives, confinement in solitary cells, prolonged interrogation, denial of
sleep or rest, infliction of shame… xxx

Sec.5 – Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment

*Deliberate and aggravated treatment not enumerated in Sec.4 which attains a level of severity
sufficient to cause suffering, gross humiliation, or debasement

Sec.6 – Freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, an
absolute right

*Torture, etc. as criminal acts shall apply to all circumstances. A state or threat of war or public
emergency, or order of battle shall not and can never be invoked as a justification for torture

Sec.7 – Prohibited detention

*Secret detention places, solitary confinement, incommunicado or other forms of detention where
torture may be carried out

Sec.8 – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule

*Any confession, admission, or statement obtained as a result of torture shall be inadmissible in
evidence in any proceeding, except if the same is used as evidence against the person/s accused of
committing torture

Sec.13 – Who are criminally liable

1. Principals:
*Any person who actually participated or induced another in the commission of torture or who
cooperated in the execution of the act of torture by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable as
principal

*Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior government official who issued an
order to any lower ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever purpose shall be liable as
principals

*The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the
immediate senior public official of the Philippine National Police and other law enforcement agencies
shall be held liable as principals to the crime of torture for any act or omission or negligence committed
by him that shall have led, assisted, abetted, or allowed whether directly or indir ectly, the commission
thereof by his subordinate. If he has knowledge of, or owing to the circumstances at the time, should
have known that acts of torture shall be committed, is being committed or has been committed by his
subordinates or by others within his area of responsibility and despite such knowledge, did not take
preventive or corrective action either before, during or immediately after its commission, when he has
the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture but failed to prevent or investigate them,
whether deliberately or due to negligence, he shall also be liable as principal

2. Accessories:
*Public officers or employees who have knowledge that torture is being committed, and without
participating therein either as principal or accomplice, who take part in any of the following manners:
a. By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the act
of torture
b. By concealing the act of torture and/or destroying the effects or instruments in order to

CRIMINAL LAW II 133
K notes

prevent its discovery
c. By harbouring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal/s, provided that
accessory acts are done with abuse of the official’s public functions

Sec.15 – Torture as a separate and independent crime

*Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony committed as
a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be
treated as a separate and independent criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable without
prejudice to any other criminal liability provided for by domestic and international laws

Sec.16 – Exclusion from the coverage of special amnesty law

*Persons who have committed any act of torture shall not benefit from any special amnesty law or
similar measures that will have the effect of exempting them from any criminal proceedings and
sanctions

Sec.22 – Applicability of the Revised Penal Code

*The provisions of the RPC insofar as they are applicable shall be suppletory to this Act

*If the commission of any crime punishable under Title 8 (Crimes Against Persons) and Title 9 (Crimes
Against Personal Liberty and Security) of the RPC is attended by any of the acts constituting torture, the
penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum period

NOTES:

*In case you didn’t read through all of that, or speed‐read it, here’s an even shorter summary of the
legal effect of the commission of torture on a public officer’s liability:
1. Torture may not be complexed with any other crime or felony, it remains an independent
liability
2. If any felony under Title 8 or 9 of the RPC (Crimes against Persons; Crimes against personal
liberty and security) is committed alongside torture, the penalty for the felony remains
distinct BUT will be imposed in its maximum because the law on torture (See: sec.22, RA
9745) provides for a special aggravating circumstance
3. The offender cannot invoke the state or threat of war, or an order of battle as justification
for torture
4. The offender is excluded by direct provision of law from the scope of any special amnesty
law or similar measure which would exempt him from criminal liability for torture
…in short, if you happen to be the offender, your a** is toast.

SECTION TWO – ANTICIPATION, PROLONGATION AND ABANDONMENT
OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF PUBLIC OFFICE

Art.236
ANTICIPATION OF THE DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICER

1. The offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment either by election or
appointment
2. The law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or give a bond
3. He assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such office
4. He has not taken his oath of office and/or given the bond required by law

CRIMINAL LAW II 134
K notes

Q: What kinds of public offices require bonds?
Those involving trust and confidence

Q: What is the purpose of the bond?
To assure the government of indemnity in case of any irregularities

Q: What form may the bond take?
It may either be in cash or in the form of a security bond

Q: What happens to the bond after the end of an official’s term?
The bond is returned at the end of service

Art.237
PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES AND POWERS

1. The offender is holding a public office
2. The period provided by law, regulations or special provisions for holding such office has
already expired
3. He continues to exercise the duties and powers of such office

Q: Suppose an officer is about to retire, but his term is extended. As a result thereof, he continues to
discharge the duties of his office. Is he liable?
No, his term was extended

Art.238
ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION

2. He formally resigns from his position
3. His resignation has not yet been accepted
4. He abandons his office to the detriment of the public service

Q: What qualifies the offence?
When the abandonment has for its purpose to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing,
prosecuting or punishing any of the crimes under Title 1, Chapter 1 or Title 3, Book 3 of the RPC

Q: How is this different from Dereliction of Duty under art.208?
‐In Abandonment of Office, there is real and actual abandonment
‐In Dereliction of Duty, the public officer does not abandon his office but rather fails to
prosecute a violation of law

SECTION THREE – USURPATION OF POWERS AND UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS

*NB: Think: Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Co‐Equal Branches of Government… Basically,
this is the portion of criminal law that protects the independence of the three branches of government
and punishes any unwarranted interference among those respective spheres ‐kimi

Art.239
USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

CRIMINAL LAW II 135
K notes

1. The offender is an executive or judicial officer
2. He –
a. Makes general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority
b. He attempts to repeal a law; or
c. Suspends the execution thereof

Q: Give an example

Q: What is the purpose contemplated by the law?

Art.240
USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

2. He –
a. Assumes a power pertaining to the executive authorities; or
b. Obstructs the executive authorities in the exercise of their powers

Q: Give an example

Q: What is the purpose of this provision?

Art.241
USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS

1. The offender is an officer of the executive branch of the government
2. He –
a. Assumes judicial powers
b. Obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any Judge within his
jurisdiction

Q: Give an example

Q: What is the purpose of this provision?

Art.242
DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION

2. A proceeding is pending before him
3. There is a question brought before the proper authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is
not yet decided
4. He has been lawfully required to refrain from continuing the proceeding
5. He still continues with the proceeding

Q: Suppose the jurisdictional issue is resolved in the officer’s favour. Is he still liable?
Yes

Q: Why so?

CRIMINAL LAW II 136
K notes

Because the offence has already been consummated when the issue was not yet decided;
whether or not the decision would be in the officer’s favour is not material to his liability under
art.242

Q: What is the purpose of the law?

Art.243
ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

1. The offender is an executive officer
2. He addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial authority
3. The order or suggestion relates to any case or business coming within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of justice

Q: What is the purpose of this article?
To prevent executive officers from influencing judicial authorities in the disposition of legal
matters pending before the courts

Q: Suppose the Deputy Executive Secretary prepared a letter addressed to a Judge which states that the
judge should be lenient in the appreciation of evidence, and that any legal assistance given to a strong
political leader whose case was pending before the judge would be highly appreciated. Is the Deputy
liable?
Yes

Q: Why?
The Deputy Executive Secretary has no prerogative whatsoever to suggest leniency on the part
of the judge and to imply that a favourable decision would be highly appreciated; his suggestion
– however mild – could have the effect of influencing the disposition of the case

Q: Suppose the case was decided favourably anyway, despite lack of leniency in the appreciation of
evidence. Is the Deputy still liable?
Yes, what is punishable is the act of trying to interfere in matters within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts; the deputy was liable the moment he sent the letter – even if the
appreciation of evidence did eventually exculpate the political leader

Art.244
UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS

2. He nominates or appoints a person to a public office
3. The nominee/appointee lacks the legal qualifications therefor
4. The offender knows that his nominee/appointee lacks those qualifications at the time he
made the nomination/appointment

Q: Suppose you were aware that a friend of yours had just finished serving sentence for the crime of
rape. You knowingly recommended him for a public position which specifically requires that any person
who might hold that office should not have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Are
you liable?
No, the mere act of recommending an unqualified person – even if done so knowingly – is not
punishable

Q: Must there be a law listing down the required qualifications?

CRIMINAL LAW II 137
K notes

Yes, otherwise there would be no ‘legal qualifications’ to speak of

SECTION FOUR – ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY

*NB: this is not to be confused with ‘Crimes against Chastity’. I know, I know, you’re not stupid. I’m just
saying. The law here specifically sets apart punishments for abuses against chastity committed by public
officers in connection with their duties ‐kimi

Art.245
ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY – PENALTIES

Q: What are the modes of commission?
1. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters
pending before the offending officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required to
submit a report to or consult with a superior officer
2. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman under the offender’s
custody
3. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances towards the wife, daughter, sister or
relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in the custody of the offendeing
warden or officer

2. He solicits or makes immoral/indecent advances towards a woman
3. The woman is either –
a. Interested in matters pending before the offender for decision, or with respect to
which, he is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer; or
b. Under the custody of the offender who is a warden or another public officer directly
charged with the care and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest (detainees)
c. The wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity of the person in
the custody of the offender (*NB: ascendants of the prisoner are not included)

*NB: recall, persons:
‐wife: 1 degree of affinity
‐daughter: 1 degree of consanguinity; descendant
‐sister: 2 degrees of consanguinity
…And no, mothers and grandmothers are not contemplated by this provision – curious,
that (or perhaps not so, considering the offence is one against chastity… go figure)–
kimi

The mere proposal of an immoral/indecent act

Q: Suppose a judge who happened to be married left a woman a note which said ‘I love you’. Is he liable?
No (*trolling moment: don’t make the mistake of saying ‘yes’ or you’ll hear this: ‘You mean to
say LOVE is the monopoly of those who are single?? –Atty.A :D )

REPUBLIC ACT 9372
RE: TERRORISM

*Brace yourself… again. This is even longer than the Anti‐Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ‐kimi

REPUBLIC ACT 9372
THE HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007

CRIMINAL LAW II 138
K notes

Sec.3 – Terrorism

*Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal
Code:
A. Art.122 (piracy in general)
B. Art.134 (rebellion/insurrection)
C. Art.134‐A (coup d’état), including acts committed by private persons
D. Art.248 (murder)
E. Art.267 (kidnapping and serious illegal detention)
F. Art.324 (crimes involving destruction…)

*or under:
1. PD 1613 (the law on arson)
2. RA 6969 (toxic substances and hazardous and nuclear waste control act of 1990)
3. RA 5207 (atomic energy regulatory and liability act of 1968)
4. RA 6235 (anti‐hijacking law)
5. PD 532 (anti‐piracy and anti‐highway robbery law of 1974); and
6. PD 1866, as amended (codifying the laws on illegal and unlawful possession, manufacture,
dealing in, acquisition, or disposition of firearms ammunitions or explosives)

*…thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of
terrorism

*penalty: 40 years of imprisonment without parole, as provided for under Act 4103 (the indeterminate
sentence law)

**think: any of the aforementioned violations + a condition of widespread and extraordinary panic +
trying to coerce government to agree to an unlawful demand = terrorism
‐kimi

Sec.4 – Conspiracy to commit terrorism

*There is conspiracy when 2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the
crime of terrorism and decide to commit the same

Sec.5 – Accomplice

*Any person who, not being a principal under art.17 of the RPC, or a conspirator under sec.4 hereof,
cooperates in the execution of either the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by
previous or simultaneous acts

Sec. 6 – Accessory

*Any person who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism, and without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice under
arts.17 and 18, RPC, takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:

a. By profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
b. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof in order
to prevent its discovery
c. By harbouring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal or conspirator of the crime

Sec.7 – Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications

*Exception to RA 4200 (anti‐wiretapping law): police or members of a law enforcement team may
conduct surveillance or listen to, or intercept communications upon written order of the Court of
Appeals; provided that surveillance of communication between lawyers and clients, doctors and

CRIMINAL LAW II 139
K notes

patients, journalists and their sources, and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized

Sec.11 – Custody of Intercepted and Recorded Communications

*custody lies with the authorizing division of the CA; the materials are considered classified and shall be
sealed and deposited therein

*it shall be unlawful for any person to copy those materials in whatever form

Sec.13 – Disposition of Deposited Materials

*classified sealed materials shall not be opened or revealed or divulged unless authorized via written
order by the CA upon application of the Department of Justice and only upon a showing that the DOJ
has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti‐Terrorism Council

*proper written notice shall be served to the person who has been the subject of the surveillance

Sec.15 – Evidentiary Value of Deposited Materials

*Anything obtained in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act shall be absolutely inadmissible as
evidence

Sec.16 – Penalty for unauthorized or malicious interceptions and/or recordings

*xxx … provided that notwithstanding sec.15, the party aggrieved shall be allowed access to the sealed
material as evidence for the prosecution of any police or law enforcement personnel who maliciously
procured said authorization

Sec.17 – Proscription of terrorist organizations, associations or group of persons

*the following shall be declared as a terrorist and outlawed organization by the Regional Trial Court
upon application of the DOJ with due notice and opportunity to be heard given the organization:

*any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism,
or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this
Act or to sow or create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace
to coerce the government to give to an unlawful demand

Sec.18 – Period of detention without judicial warrant of arrest

*Art.125, RPC, notwithstanding, 3 days (counted from the time of arrest). No criminal liability for the
arresting police officer

*provided that the arrest must result from the surveillance under sec.7 and examination of bank
deposits under sec.27

Sec.21 – Rights of a person under detention

*think: Miranda Rights, waiver in writing and in the presence of counsel

Sec.22 – Penalty for violation of detainee’s rights

*xxx … unless the police or law enforcement personnel who violated the detainee’s rights is duly
identified, the same penalty shall be imposed on the police officer or head or leader of the law
enforcement unit having custody of the detainee at the time of the violation

Sec.26 – Restriction on Travel

CRIMINAL LAW II 140
K notes

*where evidence of guilt is not strong and accused is granted bail, the court shall limit the right to travel
within the municipality or city where the offender resides or where the case is pending

*travel outside the country shall be a violation of the conditions of bail

*alternative: house arrest without use of telephones/cell phones/e‐mail/computers/internet or other
means of communication

Sec.27 – Judicial Authorization required to examine bank deposits, accounts and records

*RA 1405 notwithstanding, upon application, the CA may issue authorization after finding probable
cause that a person charged with or suspected of terrorism or being a member of an outlawed group
owns the accounts

*same procedure for obtaining authorization, custody of data, evidentiary value, penalties for violations

Sec.37 – Penalty for bank officials and employees defying a court authorization

*Those who refuse get punished, too.

Sec.39 – Seizure and Sequestration

*Deposits and their outstanding balances, placements, trust accounts, assets and records shall be
seized, sequestered and frozen in order to prevent their use, transfer or conveyance for purposes
inimical to the safety and security of the people, or injurious to the State

*However, a reasonable withdrawal of sums for family needs or the services of counsel shall be allowed
upon permission of the court

Sec.40 – Nature of seized, sequestered and frozen deposits, etc.

*the seized and sequestered property shall be deemed as property held in trust by the bank for such
person and the government during the pendency of the investigation; use or disposition of them shall
be subject to the approval of the court

Sec.44 – Infidelity in the custody of detained persons

*Any public officer who has direct custody of a detained person under the provisions of this Act and
who, by deliberate act, misconduct or inexcusable negligence causes or allows the escape of such
detained person shall be guilty of an offense

Sec.45 – Immunity and protection of government witnesses

*notwithstanding the provisions of RA 6981 (witness protection, security and benefits act), the
immunity of government witnesses testifying under this act shall be governed by secs.17 and 18 of Rule
119, Rules of Court

*provided that said witnesses shall be entitled to the benefits granted under RA 6981

Sec.48 – Continuous trial

*in cases of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the judge shall set the case for continuous trial
on a daily basis from Monday to Friday or other short‐term trial calendar to ensure speedy trial

Sec.49 – Prosecution under this Act shall be a bar to another prosecution under the RPC or any other
special penal laws

*When a person has been prosecuted under a provision of this Act, and after the accused had pleaded

CRIMINAL LAW II 141
K notes

to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another
prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act

Sec.50 – Damages for unproven charge of terrorism

*Upon acquittal, Php 500,000 for every day the offender has been detained without a warrant as a
result of such accusation – to be charged automatically against the appropriations of the police agency
or Anti‐Terrorism Council that brought or sanctioned the filing of the charges and to be released 15 days
from date of acquittal

*Award of damages shall be without prejudice to the right of the acquitted person to file criminal or
administrative charges against those responsible for charging him with terrorism

Sec.52 – Applicability of the RPC

*The provisions of Book I, RPC shall be applicable

Sec.57 – Ban on Extraordinary Rendition

*no person suspected or convicted of terrorism shall be subjected to any country unless his or her
testimony is needed for terrorist‐related police investigations or judicial trials in the said country and
unless his or her human rights, including the right against torture and right to counsel, are officially
assured by the requesting country and transmitted accordingly and approved by the Department of
Justice

Sec.58 – Extra‐Territorial application of this Act

*subject to the provisions of an existing treaty of which the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory
and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of this Act shall
apply:

1. To individual persons who commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act within the
terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone, and airspace of the Philippines
2. To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act inside the
territorial limits of the Philippines
3. To individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the PH, commit
any of the said crimes on board a Philippine ship or airship
4. To individual persons who commit any of the said crimes within any embassy, consulate, or
diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official
capacity
said crimes against Philippine Citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship
or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and
said crimes directly against the Philippine government

TITLE EIGHT
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

CHAPTER ONE
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE

CRIMINAL LAW II 142
K notes

SECTION ONE – PARRICIDE, MURDER, HOMICIDE

Art.246
PARRICIDE

*NB: It helps to recall Persons with respect to the definition of the victims of parricide… quite obviously
because relationship is a key element in this crime

1. A person is killed
2. He is killed by the accused
3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child – legitimate or illegitimate – or a legitimate
other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused

Q: Who is the victim?
The victim is either –
a. The parents (father/mother); or
b. The child (legitimate or illegitimate); or
c. A legitimate OTHER descendant; or
d. The legitimate spouse of the accused

Q: Suppose you killed your brother. What crime did you commit?
Murder or Homicide, depending on the circumstances attending the killing

Q: Why is that?
A brother (or sister) is not included in the enumeration of the law with respect to the
relationship of the victim to the accused in the crime of parricide

Q: An illegitimate grandson killed his illegitimate grandfather. What crime did he commit?
Homicide or murder

Q: A husband and wife were married. At the time of marriage, the wife was a minor whose consent was
obtained through force. After 3 years, the husband killed her. What crime did he commit?
Parricide

Q: Why is that?
Semper Presumitur Matrimonio – ‘always presume marriage’. The law attaches a presumption
of validity to the marriage. If however, the marriage was proven to indeed be void ab initio, the
crime is murder or homicide

Q: A husband and wife were married in Hong Kong without a marriage license. When they visited the
Philippines, the husband killed the wife. What crime was committed?
Parricide

*NB: the law does not require that the marriage should be solemnized in the Philippines, it only
requires that the victim must be the legitimate spouse of the accused – as long as the marriage
is valid (and it is presumed to be so), the crime is parricide. For all we know, a marriage license is
not a requirement in HK, and even if it were… well, that’s another issue. For purposes of this
question, the presumption of validity with respect to the marriage still attaches

Q: Suppose the couple were Filipino Citizens and a Decree of Legal Separation was previously issued
before the husband killed the wife. What crime was committed?
Parricide

Q: Why?

CRIMINAL LAW II 143
K notes

Because a Decree of Legal Separation does not sever the marital bond, the couple are still validly
married under the law, and the victim was therefore the legitimate spouse of the accused

Q: Suppose an Annulment case was pending when the husband killed the wife. What crime was
committed?
Parricide, the pending case has not yet been finally decided and the marriage was still valid as of
the time of the killing

Q: Suppose that on the day of the killing, a judgment of Annulment had just become final. What crime
was committed?
Murder or Homicide, the victim was no longer the legitimate spouse of the accused by virtue of
the finality of the judgment

Q: A prostitute killed her illegitimate year‐old son. What crime did she commit?
Parricide

Q: Is not the killing of a child of tender years automatically attended by Treachery?
Yes it is

Q: Does not treachery qualify homicide to murder?
It does

Q: Why then do you say that the crime is parricide. Should it not be murder?
The crime is still parricide; notwithstanding the presence of the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of treachery because the law specifically sets apart the requirements of parricide
and those requirements are met by the facts: a person (child of 1 year) was killed, the accused
(prostitute) killed him, and he was her (illegitimate) son

NOTES:

*Notice that as far as the ‘other descendant’ is concerned, that descendant has to be legitimately
related to the accused, if he isn’t, the crime is murder or homicide, not parricide – which means that
only relatives by blood in the direct ascending/descending line are considered – except, of course, where
a legitimate spouse happens to be the victim

*If there is no clear evidence of marriage, the presumption cannot attach, and the crime therefore, is
murder/homicide

*parricide may be committed through reckless imprudence

*the crime is STILL parricide, even if the accused was not aware of his/her relationship to the victim; the
law does not require knowledge of relationship

*the liability of a STRANGER cooperating in the commission of parricide is the liability for
murder/homicide

Art.247
DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIESINFLICTED
UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

1. A legally married person or parent surprises his (or her) spouse or daughter, the latter being
under 18 and living with him (or her), in the act of sexual intercourse with another person
2. He/she kills any or both of them or inflicts any serious physical injuries during the act or
immediately thereafter

CRIMINAL LAW II 144
K notes

3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter; or he or she has
not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse

Q: Who may avail of the benefits of art.247?
1. A legally married spouse
2. The parent of a daughter under 18 and who is living with him/her

Q: What benefits are granted by the law?
1. The accused incurs no criminal liability (or is exempted from the liability) for less serious or
slight physical injuries
2. The punishment for the killing or infliction of physical injuries is Destierro

Q: What is Destierro?
It is a penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty whereby an accused is ordered by the court to
stay within the limits provided by the court and to not come within a 25 – 250 kilometre radius
of the area where the victim or victim’s family resides

Q: A husband surprised his wife in the sexual act with another man. He fired his gun at the two. The wife
was hit but according to the doctor, her injurious were only of a less serious character. Is he liable for
her injuries?
No

Q: When should the killing or infliction of injuries take place?
During the act itself or immediately thereafter

Q: What do you mean by ‘immediately thereafter’?
The discovery, the escape and the pursuit of the victim by the accused should all form part of
one single act; there should be no unreasonable interval of time in between

Q: Suppose that when the husband came home one night, he saw a man in his smallclothes jump out of
the bedroom window. He followed the man, overtook him, and killed him. May he avail of the benefits
of art.247?
No

Q: Why not?
The provision presupposes that the accused actually witnessed the act and committed the
killing or infliction of injuries during the act or immediately thereafter; neither of these
conditions were present

*NB: the time element is essential to the offence. 2 things have to be present: (1) observation of
the act (i.e.: actually seeing it happen) and (2) acting within that time frame (i.e.: right then and
there or just after). This is because the killing must be the direct by‐product of the accused’s
uncontrollable rage; it should have been motivated by blind impulse and must not have been
influenced by external factors (i.e.: the accused should not have had time to seriously think
about what he was doing). In essence, it’s vital that the accused did not have time for cold
calculations, else that can only mean he purposefully considered the act of killing, and the full
liability for parricide (if the victim is the spouse or daughter) or murder/homicide (if the victim is
a stranger) attaches–kimi

Q: Suppose the husband saw his wife and her paramour both naked in their bedroom. He shot them and
they died. May he avail of art.247?
No, he did not surprise them in the act

Q: Suppose the husband saw the wife naked with her paramour. They were committing lascivious acts
preliminary to the sexual act. He shot them. May he avail of art.247?
No

CRIMINAL LAW II 145
K notes

Q: A husband had suspicions of his wife’s infidelity. He told her that he would go home to the province.
He did not proceed there but simply waited for an hour, after which he returned home and caught the
wife and her paramour in the act of intercourse. He went down to the kitchen, but couldn’t find a
suitable knife. He remembered that he had lent the neighbour his revolver a day before. He went to the
neighbour, recovered his gun and returned to his house. He found the paramour playing billiards and
the wife in the kitchen. He shot and killed the paramour. May he avail of art.247?
No, everything the husband did was premeditated. The liability for murder attaches.

Q: Same facts, except that the husband had no suspicions and did not say he would go to the province
or wait for an hour. He simply walked in, saw them, and commenced the earlier narrated actions. May
he avail of art.247?
Yes, all his actions in this case formed one fluid and spontaneous act and the killing happened
immediately after his observation of the sexual act; the killing was still the proximate cause of
his obfuscation

Q: What is the penalty for art.247?
Destierro

Q: What is the purpose of destierro?
The protection of the accused from retributory acts which could be committed by the victim or
the victim’s family

Q: Suppose the husband surprised his wife in the act with her paramour. He shot the paramour and the
bullet also hit the houseboy, who happened to be standing behind the bedroom wall. Is the husband
liable for the death or injuries of the houseboy?
Yes

Q: Suppose one night, the husband arrived home early and found his wife and her paramour sleeping in
the same bed. He took his gun from the nightstand and shot the paramour. Is he liable?
Yes (*trolling moment: do NOT interpret ‘sleeping in the same bed’ as the sexual act)

Q: Suppose he arrived home, heard a stranger’s voice from inside and before opening the door, peaked
through a crack in the door. He saw his wife and her paramour rising from the bed, the paramour was
buttoning up his drawers. He opened the door and fired at both of them. Is he liable?
Yes, he did not see the sexual act

Q: A husband saw his wife and a stranger in the sexual act. The wife was screaming for help. He ran
down to the kitchen, grabbed a knife and stabbed the stranger. May he invoke art.247?
No, but he may invoke art.11, par.2 (defence of relative)

Q: A husband saw the sexual act between his wife and her paramour. The act appeared to be voluntary.
He went down to the kitchen to get a knife but when he returned, the paramour was no longer there.
The next day, the husband saw the paramour by a convenience store and shot the latter. Will he be
liable for murder?
Yes

Q: Suppose the husband and his wife agreed that on certain days, they could both have sex with other
partners. One night, a night scheduled to be the husband’s turn, he caught the wife with another
partner in the sexual act. He stabbed the partner to death. Will the husband be liable?
Yes, he consented to his wife’s infidelity

NOTES:

*Whatever the book says, this article ISa felony. It defines the manner of commission of a criminal act
and attaches a penalty for it –Atty. A

*Obviously, the sexual act contemplated by the article must be voluntary

CRIMINAL LAW II 146
K notes

Art.248
MURDER

*NB: Reviewing art.14 and the kinds of Aggravating Circumstances is a must when studying this crime

Q: How is murder committed?
1. A person was killed
2. The accused killed him
3. The killing was attended by any of the (6) qualifying circumstances under art.248
4. The killing was NOT parricide or infanticide

Q: What are the six classes of qualifying aggravating circumstances?
1. Treachery; taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defence or of means or person to insure or afford impunity
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment
or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of
any other means involving great waste or ruin
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an
earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity
5. Evident premeditation
6. Cruelty; deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the victim’s suffering; or outraging or
scoffing at the person or corpse

*NB: That’s pretty hairy memory work, so here’s my own aide‐mémoire. I’ve found that it
becomes easier to associate whole classes with a few key words so that when you recall the
word, the whole class comes to mind: ‐kimi

a. Treachery
b. Incentives
c. Flood, Fire, Poison and Vehicles
d. Public Calamities
e. Premeditation
f. Cruelty

Q: Distinguish Murder from Homicide

MURDER

HOMICIDE
ART.248 ART.249
*let’s make this easier –kimi

Somebody was killed, the killing was attended by Somebody was killed and while there might have
qualifying aggravating circumstances been other kinds of aggravating circumstances,
there were no qualifying aggravating
circumstances

Q: So if you killed a person without any of the 6 Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances, what is the
crime?
Homicide

Q: Suppose there was a generic aggravating circumstance, how would you classify the killing?
Homicide

Q: What are the kinds of aggravating circumstances?
1. Generic
2. Inherent

CRIMINAL LAW II 147
K notes

3. Specific
4. Qualifying
5. Special*

GENERIC INHERENT SPECIFIC QUALIFYING SPECIAL*
Attend the Are essential to Specifically attend Change the nature Specifically
commission of any the commission of the commission of of a crime provided by law
crime certain crimes particular crimes
May not be offset Attend only the
May be offset by May be offset by May be offset by by an ordinary commission of
ordinary ordinary ordinary mitigating certain crimes, the
mitigating mitigating mitigating circumstance application
circumstances circumstances circumstances thereto dictated
Requires a by direct
i.e.: dwelling, i.e.: trespass to i.e.: ignominy in privileged provision, usually
night time dwelling in the the crime of rape mitigating not applied in
crime of robbery circumstance in analogy to other
order to be offset similar crimes
unless provided so
i.e.: treachery, by the law
evident
premeditation, i.e.: when murder
cruelty is attended by the
commission of any
of the acts of
torture, the
penalty for
murder shall be
imposed in its
maximum (see:
Sec.22, Anti‐
Torture Law)

Q: Suppose that in a trial, a qualifying aggravating circumstance is not alleged but the prosecution
introduced a witness and presented evidence proving the existence of such a qualified aggravating
circumstance. The defence did not object, and the qualified aggravating circumstance was actually
proven. What is the effect of the presence of that QAC?
The crime is homicide – the QAC will only serve to increase the penalty

Q: Suppose a person was killed and the accused was under the influence of alcohol. What crime was
committed?
Homicide

*NB: Intoxication is not a Qualified Aggravating Circumstance. As per article 15, RPC, intoxication
is an alternative circumstance which, depending on the conditions attending the crime, may
either be aggravating or mitigating

Q: Suppose the accused was under the influence of drugs?
The crime is murder

*NB: Influence of drugs is considered a qualifying aggravating circumstance, as per sec.25 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

Q: Suppose the accused used an unlicensed firearm to kill the deceased?
The crime is murder, due to the use of an unlicensed firearm

Q: Will the accused be simultaneously liable for illegal possession of firearm?

CRIMINAL LAW II 148
K notes

No

NOTES:

*Because of the nature of murder, the obvious consummation of the crime is when the victim is actually
killed. Else, the crime is frustrated/attempted murder only

*When there are more than one qualifying aggravating circumstances attending the killing, only one will
serve to qualify the offense to murder. The other qualifying circumstances will operate as generic
aggravating circumstances (apparently this means, you can’t browbeat the accused by stacking the
qualifying circumstances)

*The qualifying circumstance(s) should be alleged in the information. Else, the crime will not become
murder and those circumstances will be considered generic aggravating circumstances

*There must be INTENT TO KILL if the crime was committed by means of the methods enumerated
under par.3, art.248 (i.e.: inundation, fire, poison etc), but killing a person with TREACHERY is murder,
even if there was no intent to kill, because of the voluntary nature of treachery

RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF QUALIFIED AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
TO THE CRIME OF MURDER
1. When more than one circumstance are present, the others must be considered as generic
aggravating circumstances

2. When the other circumstances are absorbed in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be
considered as separate generic aggravating circumstances

3. Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information

*To constitute treachery, the means, methods, or forms of attack must be consciously adopted

*The killing a child of tender years constitutes treachery

*The crime is murder if superior strength was taken advantage of

*Re: armed men, the men must take part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly, and the
accused must avail himself of their aid or rely upon them

*TREACHERY and PREMEDITATION are inherent in murder by poison and CANNOT be considered as
aggravating circumstances for the purpose of further increasing the penalty

*Proving Premeditation:
1. Prove time when the determination to kill was made
2. Overt act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination
3. Sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution of the killing

*Atty.A does not spend much time on discussing the 6 qualifying aggravating circumstances in murder
because he holds people responsible for reviewing their criminal law 1 notes regarding the
circumstances affecting criminal liability

ART.249
HOMICIDE


CRIMINAL LAW II 149
K notes

1. A person was killed
2. The accused kills him without any justifying circumstances
3. The accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed
4. The killing was NOT attended by any of the qualifying aggravating circumstances of Murder,
or by those of Parricide/Infanticide

NOTES:

*Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted, because with respect to crimes of personal
violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the
aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof

*Evidence of intent to kill is important only in attempted/frustrated homicide – in these cases, if there is
no intent to kill, the crime is physical injuries

*Death of the victim due to his own refusal to seek medical attention is NOT a defence, that he would
have lived had he received proper medical aid is immaterial

*There is NO crime as ‘frustrated homicide through imprudence’

*When the wounds that caused death were inflicted by 2 different persons acting independently, even if
they were not in conspiracy with each other, each one is guilty of homicide (because either wound could
have caused death) – this rule is applicable when there is no conspiracy, otherwise, the act of one is the
act of all

*Use of unlicensed firearm is aggravating in homicide. In such a case, the circumstance is not considered
a separate crime but will be appreciated as a mere aggravating circumstance

*In all crimes against persons of which death is an element, there must be satisfactory evidence of –
1. The fact of death
2. The identity of the victim (ergo, if the victim was unknown, the body unfound, the fact of
death was not sufficiently established – BUT if the victim was known and could not have
survived (i.e.: his hands were tied before being thrown into the water), even if the body was
never found, the corpus delicti is established)

ART.250
PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE,
MURDER OR HOMICIDE

Q: How may the courts apply penalties for the 3 crimes mentioned?
1. The penalty lower by 1 degree than that which should be imposed under the provisions of
art.50 may be imposed on the accused, in view of the facts
2. Considering the facts, the courts may likewise reduce by 1 degree the penalty which under
art.51 should be imposed for an attempt to commit parricide/murder/homicide

Q: Are these rules mandatory?
No, they are permissive – the courts are given latitude to decide reasonably, and to impose the
penalties which align with the facts

NOTES:

*Think: 2 degrees lower than the penalty imposed by the law for frustrated parricide/murder/homicide;
3 degrees lower for attempted parricide/murder/homicide/

CRIMINAL LAW II 150
K notes

ART.251
DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY

*NB: Think, death in the course of a free‐for‐all lol

1. There are several persons
2. They did NOT compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and
attacking each other reciprocally
3. They quarrelled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner
4. Someone was killed in the course of the affray
5. It cannot be ascertained who actually killed him
6. The person/s who inflicted physical injuries or who used violence can be identified

Q: Give an example

*NB: This is easy, just remember the adjectives – ‘confused and tumultuous’. There ought to be
a melee out there, with no two groups fighting in an organized manner. Something like a
spontaneous altercation – like in a bar. Conjure up a picture of someone drunk, who heard
something he didn’t like and… all hell breaks loose lol (what? bar fights amuse me :P ) –kimi

Q: Will this provision apply if the person who killed the deceased can be identified?
No, if he can be identified his liability is the one for murder/homicide

Q: Who are liable?
1. The persons/s who inflicted the serious physical injuries
2. If such persons are unknown, all persons who used violence upon the deceased (with lesser
penalties)

Q: How many persons should there be in order for it to be a ‘tumultuous affray’?
At least four

Q: Suppose 2 rival gangs met in alley and assaulted each other. One person died in the course of the
fight. Does this provision apply?
No – the groups must not be (a) identified and/or (b) organized

ART.252
PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN A
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY

1. There is a tumultuous affray as referred to in art.251
2. A participant/some participants thereof suffered serious physical injuries/less serious
physical injuries
3. The person responsible for the injuries cannot be identified
4. All those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party are
known

Q: If the person responsible for the injuries can be identified, what is his liability?
Physical Injuries

Q: Is it required that the injured party must be a participant in the affray?
Yes

Q: What if the offender can be identified, but the injuries were only of a slight nature?
This provision does not apply

CRIMINAL LAW II 151
K notes

ART.253
GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE

1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether consummated or not (i.e.: furnishing him with
the means to commit suicide)
2. Lending assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself

Q: Give an example

Q: What do you mean by ‘suicide’?
Self‐destruction, the wilful taking of one’s one life

Q: Is the suicidal person liable, supposing the attempt to take his life fails?
No he is not

Q: Suppose an abortion results from the suicidal act of a pregnant woman. Is the woman liable for the
abortion?
No

Q: Why not?
Suicide is not a crime under our penal laws. Since the woman is not liable for attempting suicide,
she is also not liable for the result of that attempt

Q: Suppose you feel that you will fail criminal law 2. You asked your classmate to push you off the ledge
while you stand at the top of this building. Instead of dying, you were able to recover. May you be liable?
No, the party committing suicide is not liable

*NB: curious, this…Perhaps because suicidal people are not truly balanced? I found myself
involuntarily staring off into space contemplating the reason for the lack of liability of the
suicidal party. At any rate, the law isn’t concerned with his/her motives. It is enough that the law
does not make that person liable –kimi

Q: What about your classmate?
He/she is liable under art.253

Q: Suppose you saw your grandmother suffering from a disease, she asked for your help, and you
decided to perform acts that constitute euthanasia (mercy killing). Will you be liable?
Yes (see: 2nd punishable act, assistance to the extent of doing the killing yourself)

Q: So you’re saying that the law considers this kind of euthanasia synonymous to ‘assisting suicide’?
Yes, it does

*NB: for purposes of this question – note that the suicidal person (grandma) requested your
help in ending her life. Even if she requested it, the law makes you liable. Consent of the victim,
therefore, is neither mitigating nor justifying. I wholly disagree with this part of the law, I think
suffering victims should be given the right to choose their manner of death – but my opinions
carry no weight as far as this provision goes. The law is clear: help anybody die – even for
humanitarian reasons as defined under existent theories for euthanasia – and you are liable.
(Needless to say, I personally make a quiet distinction between helping demented persons die –
which I believe is wrong because they are not aware of the consequences of their action and
could very well be obfuscated – and helping terminally ill, medically‐diagnosed, physically‐
suffering patients die; that last group, I think, if they can be proven to have reached a lucid and
wilful decision to end the pain, should be given a choice.) –kimi

Q: Is suicide lawful?
Yes

CRIMINAL LAW II 152
K notes

*NB: by ‘lawful’, we don’t mean ‘right’ or ‘moral’ or ‘good’. What is meant by ‘lawful’ is that the
act is not considered a crime, much less punished as such, by the law. Saying something is
‘lawful’ is in effect stating that there is an absence of a law punishing the act, it is NOT saying
that the act is morally or properly good

ART.254
DISCHARGE OF FIREARM

1. The offender discharges a firearm at another person
2. He has no intention to kill that person

Q: How is this different from alarms and scandals?
Here, the person actually aims a gun – and fires – at another human being

Q: Distinguish this from attempted murder
Under art.254, there is no intent to kill – whether actual or presumed by law

Q: What is the purpose of the offender in art.254?
To intimidate or frighten the offended party

Q: How would you know if the crime is illegal discharge of firearm or grave threats?
Grave threats involve a condition; Illegal Discharge of firearm (while it is committed in a
threatening manner) does not involve a condition

Q: A gun was aimed at the house of your neighbour. Is this punishable under art.254?
No, the crime is alarms and scandals

Q: A gun was aimed at A, but when it was discharged, the shooter shifted and as a result, the bullet was
fired a few inches to A’s right. What crime did the shooter commit?
Illegal Discharge of Firearm

NOTES

*Actual discharge of the gun is controlling, and the gun must be aimed at somebody – not something

*A person can be held liable for discharge even if the gun was not pointed at the offended party when it
fired, as long as it was initially aimed at the offended party

*There must be no intention to kill

*Intent to kill is negated by the distance between the offender and the victim (I honestly think this is
ridiculous, considering that a crack sniper – say, a member of the US Marine Sniper Company – can take
you out with a headshot from a kilometre away – that’s 1,000 metres, worrrd. And yes, I know more
about guns and shooting than most girls do, I like stuff that have to do with the military – not the
Philippine military, of course – because we’ve no such thing to speak of lol)–kimi

*’This provisions is already irrelevant, considering the nature of guns we have now. Is not the nature of
the weapon indication enough of intent to kill? You FIRED A GUN at somebody’ –Atty.A

SECTION TWO – INFANTICIDE AND ABORTION

*suggested reading: for information’s sake, Roe v. Wade –kimi

CRIMINAL LAW II 153
K notes

ART.255
INFANTICIDE

1. A child was killed
2. It was less than 3 days (72 hours) old
3. The accused killed that child

Q: Distinguish this from abortion
In abortion, the victim is a foetus. In infanticide, the victim is a child less than 3 days old

Q: Suppose a stranger killed a 48‐hour old baby with the use of poison. What crime did he commit?
Infanticide

*NOT murder, notwithstanding the use of poison, which would have resulted in murder if the
victim had not been a 2‐day old child. The age of the victim is controlling, with respect to
infanticide

Q: Suppose the mother killed her 29‐hour old baby. What crime did she commit?
Infanticide

Q: May the penalty for infanticide be mitigated?
It depends

Q: On what?
On who committed the crime, and for what reason – If the person who killed the child was its
own mother or maternal grandparents, and the killing was done to conceal dishonour, the
penalty may be mitigated

*NB: I extremely disagree with this part of the law. The original notes for this stated that
‘provided they are of good character’. In any event, how is ‘good character’ supposed to square
with killing a baby less than 3 days old? I think that only complete insanity should excuse a
mother for killing her child, and no circumstance should excuse that mother’s parents – the
child’s maternal grandparents – from killing it,honour or no honour –kimi

Q: Suppose the child was born dead, or although born alive, could not sustain an independent life of its
own. Is there infanticide?
No, the child could not sustain a life of its own

NOTES

*When the offender is the FATHER, MOTHER or LEGITIMATE ASCENDANT of the child, the offender shall
suffer the penalty prescribed for parricide. If the offender is another person, the penalty is that for
murder

*Only the mother and the maternal grandparents of the child are entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of concealing dishonour (this is deplorable –kimi)

*’What is material here is the AGE of the child, not the qualifying circumstances or the relationship of
the offender to the victim’ –Atty.A

*A stranger who cooperated in the killing is also guilty of infanticide, but the penalty is that for murder

*There is no infanticide if the child is born dead or although born alive, could not sustain an independent
life of its own

CRIMINAL LAW II 154
K notes
ART.256
INTENTIONAL ABORTION
1. There is a pregnant woman
2. Violence is exerted on her; or drugs or beverages administered to her; or the accused
otherwise acts upon the pregnant woman
3. As a result of the use of violence/drugs/beverages/any other act of the accused, the foetus
dies, either in the womb or from having been expelled therefrom
4. The abortion was intended

Q: What are the ways of committing intentional abortion?
1. By using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman
2. By acting, but without using violence, without the consent of the woman
3. By acting with the consent of the pregnant woman

Q: Who are liable?
1. The pregnant woman, if she consented to the abortion
2. Any person who caused the abortion – with or without the woman’s consent

Q: Is it necessary that the victim of abortion must be unable to live on its own?
Yes

Q: What if the foetus was killed after having been separated from the womb?
If it could sustain a life of its own, the crime is infanticide

ART.257
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION

1. There is a pregnant woman
2. Violence is used on her without intending an abortion
3. The violence is intentionally exerted
4. As a result of the violence, the foetus dies – either in the womb or after having been
expelled therefrom

Q: May there be a crime of unintentional abortion through reckless imprudence?
No, the violence must be intentionally exerted – if the violence resulted from imprudence, there
is no conformity to the elements of art.257 and therefore, no crime of that nature

Q: Suppose a jeepney driver who was driving recklessly hit a pregnant woman. She was thrown a few
metres away, as a result of which, she suffered an abortion. What crime did the driver commit?
Physical Injuries – the violence was not intended

Q: Suppose a pregnant woman had an argument with her husband. He slapped her, which caused her to
fall and lose the baby. Is he liable under art.257?
Yes

Q: Suppose he did not slap her but the argument caused the wife to bleed and lose the baby. Is he liable?
No, there was no violence exerted

ART.258
ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN HERSELF

CRIMINAL LAW II 155
K notes

OR BY HER PARENTS

1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion
2. The abortion was intended
3. It was caused by –
a. The pregnant woman herself
b. Any other person with her consent
c. Any of her parents with her consent

Q: Does concealing dishonour operate as a mitigating circumstance here, as far as the woman is
concerned?
Yes

Q: Who is entitled to invoke it?
The woman ONLY

Q: What about her parents?
They may NOT invoke it

*NB: while it is true that under infanticide, the maternal grandparents may also invoke the
mitigating circumstance of concealing dishonour, this is not the case with art.258 (I honestly do
not know why, considering that in infanticide, a living, breathing, child is killed, as opposed to
the termination of a nameless, not yet fully formed foetus – not to say that one crime is less
reprehensible than the other, but the distinction is certainly odd, isn’t it? –kimi)

NOTES

*Instances when the woman is liable: (1) when she performs the abortion herself; (2) when she consents
that any other person or her parents perform the abortion

*persons liable: (1) the woman (under par.1); (2) the ‘other person’; (3) the woman’s parents

ART.259
ABORTION PRACTICED BY A PHYSICIAN
OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES

1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion
2. The abortion is intended
3. The offender, who must be a physician/midwife, causes the abortion or assists in causing it
4. The physician/midwife takes advantage of his/her scientific knowledge or skill

**NB: elements of the offense, as far as pharmacists are concerned:
a. The offender is a pharmacist
b. There is no proper prescription from a physician
c. He dispenses any abortive

Q: May this be committed through reckless imprudence?
No, the offender must knowingly take advantage of his/her scientific knowledge or skill

SECTION THREE – DUEL

CRIMINAL LAW II 156
K notes

ART.260
RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS
IN A DUEL

1. Killing one’s adversary
2. Inflicting physical injuries on an adversary
3. Participating in combat, although no physical injuries have been inflicted

Q: What is a duel?
A formal or regular combat previously concerted between 2 parties in the presence of 2 or more
Seconds of lawful age on each side, who make the selection of arms and fix all the other
conditions of the fight

*NB: Think: Heath Ledger in the movie ‘A Knight’s Tale’; or Jim Caviesel in ‘The Count of Monte
Cristo’ – yes, this is so archaic(not to mention, it sounds ridiculous. So medieval. So dark ages) –
kimi

Q: Who may be liable?
1. The person who killed his opponent, or who inflicted injuries
2. The Seconds are liable as accomplices

Q: Suppose no one was injured or harmed in the duel. Can the combatants still be held liable?
Yes

Q: One of the combatants was seriously injured but he survived. May he still be liable for participating in
a duel?
Yes

ART.261
CHALLENGING TO A DUEL

1. Challenging another to a duel
2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a duel
3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a
duel
Q: Who are the Seconds?
Q: Who are liable?
1. The challenger
2. The instigators

CHAPTER TWO
PHYSICAL INJURIES

ART.262
MUTILATION

Q: What is mutilation?
The loping off, or clipping off, of some part of the body

CRIMINAL LAW II 157
K notes

*NB: putting out an eye is not mutilation

Q: What are the 2 kinds of mutilation?
1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally or partially of some
essential organ for reproduction
2. Intentionally making other mutilations – lopping off, or clipping off, any part of the body
other than the essential organs for reproduction, to deprive someone of that part of his
body

Q: Distinguish mutilation from physical injuries
‐In Mutilation, the offender acts with the deliberate intent to deprive someone of the use of a
part of the body;
‐In Physical Injuries, the offender’s purpose is merely to inflict bodily injury

Q: How would you know if the injuries inflicted constitute the crime of mutilation or
attempted/frustrated homicide?
By ascertaining the presence or absence of intent to kill

ART.263
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

By –
1. Wounding
2. Beating
3. Assaulting; or
4. Administering injurious substances

Q: What are the injuries contemplated?
1. Insanity, imbecility, impotency or complete blindness
2. Loss of the senses (i.e: speech, hearing, smell), loss of limbs (i.e.: hand, foot, arm or leg),
partial blindness (loss of only one eye); permanent incapacity for work
3. Deformity or the loss of another part of the body; Loss of the USE of any other part of the
body; incapacity for labour for more than 90 days
4. Illness or incapacity from labour for more than 30 days

Q: How would you know if the crime was serious physical injuries or murder/ homicide/ parricide/
infanticide?
Presence/absence of intent to kill

Q: Suppose that during the recruitment of a neophyte, and his initiation into a fraternity, the neophyte
suffered injuries which lasted for more than 30 days. What are the liabilities of the fraternity members?
Violations of the Anti‐Hazing Law


REPUBLIC ACT 8049
THE ANTI‐HAZING LAW

REPUBLIC ACT 8049
ANTI‐HAZING LAW
Summary of Important Definitions and Salient Provisions
Sec.1

Hazing:
Any initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,

CRIMINAL LAW II 158
K notes

sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or
humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury

Organization:
Includes any club of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police, the
Philippine Military Academy, or Cadet Corps of the Citizen’s Military Training or Citizen’s Army
Training

Sec.2

*Prior written notice to the school authorities/head of the organization 7 days before the conduct of
such initiation which shall not exceed 3 days

*Notice shall include the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and an undertaking that no
physical violence shall be employed by anybody during such rites

Sec.3

*At least 2 representatives of the school or organization must be present to see to it that no physical
harm of any kind shall be inflicted

Sec.4

*If the person subject to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a
result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who actually
participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals

*The responsible officials of the school or of the police, military or citizen’s army training organization
may impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the person/s charged under these provisions
even before their conviction

*The maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed in any of the following instances:
a) When the recruitment is accompanied by force, violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on the
person of the recruit who refuses to join;
b) When the recruit, neophyte, or applicant initially consents to join but upon learning that hazing
will be committed on his person, is prevented from quitting;
c) When the recruit, neophyte or applicant having undergone hazing is prevented from reporting
the unlawful act to his parents/guardians, to the proper school authorities, or to the police
authorities, through force, violence, threat or intimidation;
d) When the hazing is committed outside of the school or institution; or
e) When the victim is below 12 at the time of the hazing

*The owner of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when he has actual
knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring

*If the hazing is held in the home of one of the officers/members of the fraternity, group or
organization, the parents shall be held liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the
hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring

*The school authorities including the faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual
knowledge thereof, but failed to take action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as
accomplices for the acts of hazing committed by the perpetrators

*The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually
planned the hazing although not present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed shall be
liable as principals

CRIMINAL LAW II 159
K notes

*The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as a
principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein

*Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there
was no intention to commit so grave a wrong

Author’s Note:

February 19, 2012, Sunday, saw this particular piece of legislation come alive in a way this block
could never have anticipated. One of our own, Marvin P. Reglos, was set to join the Lambda Rho
Beta Fraternity and would be initiated that day. He died as a result of the injuries inflicted on
him during the initiation. His death shocked all levels of the academe – and was aired over a
period of weeks on national news channels. We all watched the story piece itself together. He
was taken to a poolside resort in Antipolo, Rizallate on February 18 (Saturday). The next day, at
around 3pm or thereabout, a red Honda Civic stopped by the emergency room of Unciano
Medical Centre, and Marvin was left to the care of the attending doctors. He was pronounced
dead after doctors tried in vain to revive him for 20 minutes. Later that afternoon, 2
unidentified men showed up at the medical centre, claiming to be ‘friends’ of Marvin, and
wanting to know how he was doing. They claimed that they had received messages, informing
them that Marvin was at the centre (a blatant lie which the doctors promptly refuted. Nobody
in that centre alerted them to Marvin’s condition – he died alone). The police who were then
investigating the death took them into custody. Murder charges were filed against those 2 men
– later identified as former Bedan law students and a few others, including the ‘Grand Rhoan’ of
the Fraternity. As I write this (May 27, 2012), trial is still on‐going. There are no words at all to
describe the horror of what we went through as we travelled to Antipolo and saw him for
ourselves, the agony of watching a father weep over his son in a morgue (that father’s screams
echo forever in the darkest corners of my dreams), and of a mother arriving home from South
Korea to be at her son’s wake and the funeral that would follow. We made the 15‐hour trip to
Marvin’s hometown of Burgos, Isabela – where we were met with the anger of an entire
community – people who hated what was done to him, the brutality he was subjected to…
People who did not know that it was our loss too. I’m writing this because Marvin was my
friend. And because his story deserves to be told. Unequivocally, I would like to state that I
denounce the use of violence as a requisite for membership in any organization. No amount of
justification can supply the lacking principle – not loyalty, or brotherhood, or strength or
courage; not even consent. Marvin made the mistake of thinking that being in a fraternity was a
way to help boost survival within the law school, and an avenue for acceptance. Those same
people he looked to for support took his life even as he trusted them with it. The extreme
cruelty with which they had treated my friend was evident from the injuries he bore –
everywhere skin showed, there were bruises. He died of kidney failure, the autopsy report said;
kidney failure from the sheer loss of blood.So ended the dreams of our kind, funny Marvin –
eldest among 3 siblings born to a farmer and an OFW. So much for the vaunted ideals of
brotherhood – which those particular fraternity membersclearly negated when they arrogated
to themselves the right to take a life. They deserve none of this society’s sympathy.

~ Kimiko

Q: What is hazing?

Q: how is it committed?

*NB: see sec.1

Q: What are the organizations covered and those that are not?

*NB: see sec.1

CRIMINAL LAW II 160
K notes

Q: Who are liable?
1. PRINCIPALS:
a. The members or officers of the organization who participated in the infliction of
harm, if the person subjected to hazing suffers any physical injury or dies as a result
thereof
b. Parents of a member of the organization, when the hazing has been carried out in
that member’s home and the parents had actual knowledge of the hazing, and
failed to prevent it
c. Officers, former officers, alumni of the organization who planned the hazing,
although they were not actually present during the event
d. Persons actually present during the initiation who fail to prove that they acted to
prevent the same
2. ACCOMPLICES:
a. The owner of the place where hazing took place, if he had actual knowledge of the
hazing and failed to prevent it
b. School authorities and faculty members who had actual knowledge of the hazing
and failed to prevent it

Q: What are the legal requirements regarding the conduct of initiation rites?
‐Prior written notice to the school authorities/organization head containing the names of the
members who will be participating, and submitted 7 days before the event.

‐The notice must also contain an undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by any
person during the rites

‐2 school/organization authorities must be present during the initiation rites to insure that no
physical harm shall be inflicted

Q: What is the legal effect on the mitigation of liability, as far as being charged with a violation of this
special law is concerned?
The accused is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to
commit so grave a wrong

Q: What is the presumption of the law, with regards to persons actually present during the hazing?
Persons who are present during the hazing are presumed to have participated therein as
principals unless they can prove that they prevented the commission of the hazing

NOTES:

*Serious physical injuries may be committed through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence

*Impotency and sterility are not synonymous

*Blindness requires loss of vision in both eyes or one, it does not include mere weakness of vision

*Re: physical injuries, a tooth is considered a member of the body

*’Deformity’ involves physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. It includes scars or bodily
impairments that are (a) not curable by natural means or by nature; as well as (b) conspicuous and
visible (i.e.: if it’s covered by clothing, even if it does happen to be a horrible scar, it isn’t deformity, as
far as the law is concerned)

*Loss of hearing must be in both ears; else the injury is merely considered a loss of the use of one part of
the body, not deafness as in loss of the power to hear

*’Labour’ includes work, studies or preparation for a profession

CRIMINAL LAW II 161
K notes

*When the category of the offense of serious physical injuries depends on the period of the
illness/incapacity for labour, there must be evidence of the length of that period, else the offense will be
considered merely as slight physical injuries

*There is no ‘incapacity for labour’ if the injured party could still engage in his work albeit less effectively
than before

*Serious physical injuries is qualified when the crime is committed against the same persons
enumerated under parricide; or when it is attended by any of the circumstances defining the crime of
murder HOWEVER, serious physical injuries resulting from excessive chastisement by parents is not
qualified (this is another thing I disapprove of – excessive chastisement by parents should be qualified –
no parent should be able to escape a higher penalty for seriously hurting a child just because he/she
happens to be that child’s parent –kimi)

ART.264
ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES
OR BEVERAGES

1. The offender inflicted any serious physical injuries on another
2. It was done by knowingly administering any substances or beverages or taking advantage of
the victim’s weakness of mind or credulity
3. The offender had no intent to kill

Q: What are the penalties for this crime?
Those established by the article on serious physical injuries

Q: Suppose the resulting injury was not of a serious nature
Art.264 is not applicable

Q: What crime was committed if the offender possessed intent to kill?
Frustrated Murder

ART.265
LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

Q: What are less serious physical injuries?
Physical injuries not described by law as ‘serious’ (see: arts.263, 264) but which shall incapacitate
the offended party for labour for 10 days or more (but not more than 30 days), or shall require
medical attendance for the same period

Q: Distinguish this from attempted or frustrated murder/homicide
There is no intent to kill in less serious physical injuries

Q: May this be committed through negligence?
Yes

1. Manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person
2. Presence of circumstances adding ignominy to the offense
3. Relationship
a. If the victim is either the offender’s parent, ascendant, guardian, curator or teacher
b. If the victim is a person of rank or a person in authority, provided that the crime does
not fall under Direct Assault

CRIMINAL LAW II 162
K notes

ART.266
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
AND MALTREATMENT

Q: When are injuries considered to be of a slight nature?
1. When the offended party was incapacitated for labour from 1‐9 days, or shall require medical
attendance during the same period
2. When the offended party has sustained injuries which do not prevent him from engaging in his
habitual work nor require medical attendance
3. When the offender ill‐treats another by deed without causing any injury

CHAPTER THREE
RAPE
(As amended by Republic Act 8353)

*NB: For obvious reasons, this chapter composes one consolidated discussion

ART.266‐A
RAPE, WHEN AND HOW COMMITTED

ART.266‐B
PENALTIES

ART.266‐C
EFFECT OF PARDON

ART.266‐D
PRESUMPTIONS

Q: How is rape classified?
Rape is classified as a public crime, a crime against persons

Q: Before being included under crimes against persons, what Title was Rape under?
Rape used to be a crime against chastity, and as such, a private crime

Q: What is a public crime?
Any crime which may be prosecuted ex officio (by the public prosecutor)

Q: What is the legal effect of the reclassification and redefinition of Rape under RA 8353?
1. Marital Rape has become a punishable offense
2. Rape has become a public crime (whereas before, only the offended party may institute the
charges)
3. Rape was made a non‐bailable offense
4. Rape can now be committed not only through sexual intercourse but also through sexual
assault

Q: How is rape committed?
1. 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

CRIMINAL LAW II 163
K notes

d. When the offended party is under 12 or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above is present
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in par.1 of art.266‐A, shall
commit any 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

*NB: here’s a table to help you out, I found the book rather disorganized when it came to this ‐
Kimi

ELEMENTS OF RAPE UNDER PAR.1 ELEMENTS OF RAPE UNDER PAR.2
(rape through sexual intercourse) (rape through sexual assault)
1. The offender is a man 1. The offender commits an act of sexual
2. He had carnal knowledge of a woman assault
3. Such an act is accomplished under the 2. The act is committed by any of the
following circumstances: following means:
a. By using force/intimidation a. By inserting his penis into another
b. When the woman is deprived of person’s mouth or anal orifice; or
reason or is unconscious b. By inserting any instrument/object
c. By means of fraudulent machination into the genital/anal orifice of another
or grave abuse of authority person
d. The woman is under 12 or is demented 3. The act is accomplished under any of the
following circumstances:
a. By using force/intimidation
b. When the woman is deprived of
reason or is unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination
or grave abuse of authority
d. The woman is under 12 or is demented

Q: What are the qualifying aggravating circumstances in rape?
1. When the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step‐parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree, or the common law spouse of the
victim’s parent
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, any of the children or other
relatives within the 3rd 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 transmitted
diseases and the virus/disease is transmitted to the victim
7. When committed by any member of the AFP or paramilitary units thereof or 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 handicap
of the offended party at the time of the commission of the offense

*NB: As always, I found it simpler to memorize this by taking key words and associating the key
words with the entire circumstance, here’s my list:
1. Age and relationship
2. Official custody

CRIMINAL LAW II 164
K notes

3. Ignominy (think: full view of relatives)
4. Priests and Nuns (no disrespect meant)
5. Below 7
6. Venereal diseases (HIV/AIDS/STDs)
7. Law Enforcement/Prison
8. Mutilation/Disability
9. Pregnancy
10. Mental Deficiency

Q: May a woman commit rape?
Yes

Q: May a woman be criminally liable for rape under the 1 st manner (sexual intercourse) as a principal by
inducement?
Yes

Q: By indispensible cooperation?
Yes

Q: How about as a principal by direct participation?
Yes, but ONLY if there is a conspiracy

Q: As an accomplice or accessory?
Yes

Q: Under the 1st manner of committing rape, must there be sexual intercourse?
Yes, else only acts of lewdness are being performed and the crime is therefore acts of
lasciviousness, not rape

Q: What is meant by ‘carnal knowledge’? (anybody who can’t answer this shouldn’t be in law school :P –
kimi)

Q: In the event that force is used, what degree of resistance must be put up by the offended party?
The same degree she would employ had she been fighting for her life

*NB: Remember though, that in cases where the force is overwhelming and resistance would
have been futile (think: sorry for the graphic illustration, but picture a scenario of gang rape
with guns thrown in for good measure), the law does not require that the woman should have
resisted, much less resisted strongly – ‘it is not necessary that she should have resisted up to the
point of death’

Q: In rape through force and intimidation, is it necessary that there be full penetration?
No, partial penetration is sufficient

Q: Suppose the woman did not resist, but was merely reluctant. Is the man liable?
No

Q: Suppose some form of drug was placed in an unwilling woman’s drink, and as a result of drinking it,
her sexual appetites were aroused. The act was consummated. Is the man liable?
Yes, the man employed fraudulent machination

Q: Suppose a man had sex with a deaf‐mute woman. May it be considered rape?
Not in the absence of any proof that the woman was an imbecile

Q: Suppose a man raped a feeble‐minded woman who was not completely deprived of reason. Is he
liable?
Yes, deprivation of reason does not have to be complete – mental deficiency is sufficient

CRIMINAL LAW II 165
K notes

Q: Suppose an unconscious girl woke up to find a man on top of her and she did not offer any resistance.
Is the man liable?
It depends –

‐If there was already partial penetration, resistance is unnecessary, the crime has been
consummated, and the man is liable

‐If there was no penetration yet, and she did not resist, the man is not liable

Q: When rape is committed by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, is it
necessary that there be force, threat or intimidation
No

Q: So the woman may actually consent to the crime?
Yes, but her consent would have been obtained fraudulently and does not serve to mitigate or
justify the crime

Q: Suppose a man beat a woman unconscious before having carnal knowledge of her, is he liable? Under
what manner of commission?
Yes, he is liable under the 2nd manner

Q: Suppose he administered narcotics to the woman
He is liable under the 2nd manner

Q: Suppose your boyfriend picked you up for dinner, but instead of driving to the restaurant, he drove
to a secluded place and committed the act against you. Is he liable? How?
Yes, he is liable by employing fraudulent machination

Q: Suppose that by virtue of a promise made by your boyfriend, you agreed to have sexual intercourse.
When you found out you were pregnant, he disappeared. Is he liable? What crime did he commit?
Yes, he is liable for rape through fraudulent machination

*NB: Remember persons? Yeah, the Gasheem Shokat Baksh case ‐ breach of promise to marry is
not actionable under civil law, except with respect to material costs incurred, but under criminal
law, a promise to marry which resulted in a woman’s consent to sexual intercourse may be
actionable if it can be proven that the promise was fraudulently madeand was the actual reason
for the woman’s consent–kimi, thinking aloud while paraphrasing the Great A

Q: Suppose that the offended party was 11 years, 11 months, and 29 days old at the time of the
commission of the offense, and the accused paid for her willing services. Is this rape?
Yes

*NB: This, my friends, is statutory rape. Consent and the involvement of profit are immaterial.
The law seeks to protect the victim, and assumes that at this age, any decision made by the child
– even if it was made willingly – to engage in the sexual act does not exonerate the offender one
bit –kimi

Q: How is sexual assault committed?

*NB: see table above

Q: May a wife be raped by her husband?
Yes – the fact that they were married at the time of the commission of the act does not mitigate
the man’s liability

*NB: the old doctrine – replaced now by RA 8353 – was that a husband and a wife shared one
and the same personality, so that it was not possible for a husband to, in effect, rape himself.
Still older doctrines contended that the woman’s act of marrying the man was consent for all

CRIMINAL LAW II 166
K notes

future sexual intercourse encounters. Kudos to the acumen of the new rape law and the
expanded sphere of protection now granted to married women :) ‐‐kimi

Q: Suppose that after a forced sexual encounter, the husband and wife again had intercourse, but this
time, there was willing consent on the part of the woman. What is the legal effect, if any, to the
previous act of rape, or even to the criminal case filed against the husband?
The subsequent act shall be deemed as forgiveness, and it shall extinguish the criminal action
against the husband, provided that the marriage is not void ab initio

Q: What is the effect of the marriage of the offended party to the offender in rape cases?
The criminal action shall be extinguished, or the penalty imposed, assuming that the action has
already been decided against the offender; PROVIDED that the marriage is VALID.

*NB: this is important! According to the book, marriage ‘extinguishes the criminal action’ but
only with respect to the principal and not the accomplices and accessories; apparently, this
means that only the offender who marries the victim is benefited by the marriage. Atty. A
however, draws attention to the words ‘shall extinguish the criminal action’ – which logically
means that ALL those impleaded in the action shall also be benefited – partial extinction of the
action with respect to the impleaded parties is not stated in the law (amazed, aren’t ya? I was
too, the professor’s logic is impeccable –kimi)

NOTES:

PAR.1 PAR.2
RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT
‐ Absence of sperm does not negate rape (what is ‐ Contemplates a violation of the body’s orifices
controlling is penetration – whether partial or full (which includes penetration by a finger)
– not emission)

‐ Consummation: touching of the labias by the
penis, not merely epidermal contact

*Rape does not have a frustrated stage – partial penetration already consummates the crime

*Rape with Homicide is a Special Complex Crime

*As far as multiple rape goes, the number of times the act was committed is the same as the number of
counts of rape for which the accused is/are liable

*When homicide is committed NOT by reason or on the occasion of the rape, there are 2 separate
crimes, not the special complex crime of rape with homicide

*Admissible evidence in rape:
1. Any overt physical act manifesting resistance in any degree
2. Situations rendering the offended party incapable of giving consent
3. The uncorroborated testimony of the victim, but the same must be conclusive, logical and probable

RE: CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT DURING RAPE
1. Force or intimidation A verbal refusal alone is not sufficient, there must be
physical struggle

The force exerted on the victim need not be
irresistible, so long as it brings about the desired result
of the offender

The TEST is whether the threat or intimidation
produces a reasonable fear in the victim’s mind that

CRIMINAL LAW II 167
K notes

resistance or failure to yield to the desires of the
accused would result in the threat being carried out

Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all
does not amount to consent

The law does not imposed upon a rape victim the
burden of proving resistance

In intimidation, the moral ascendancy of influence of
the offender may substitute for the element of
physical force (i.e.: fathers against their daughters);
and when the offender has ascendancy, it isn’t
necessary that the victim puts up resistance

2. Deprivation of Reason The victim has no will, or has an impaired will

The deprivation doesn’t have to be complete

3. Fraudulent Machination or Grave Abuse Fraudulent machination may take the form of insidious
of Authority words used in order to consummate the crime

4. Statutory Rape When the girl is demented or is under 12 years of age,
although she may have consented to the act

This applies, even though the victim may have been a
prostitute

The law does not consider this kind of consent
voluntary

The character of the offended woman is immaterial in
rape

*the important thing to note about this is that the law
places full liability upon the accused and specifically
denies to him particular defences (i.e.: consent,
assailing the character of the offended party)

CHAPTER ONE CRIMES
AGAINST LIBERTY

SECTION ONE – ILLEGAL DETENTION

ART.267
KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION

1. The offender is a private individual
2. He kidnaps/detains another person, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty
3. The act of detention/kidnapping must be illegal
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:

CRIMINAL LAW II 168
K notes

a. The kidnapping/detention lasts more than 3 days
b. It is committed simulating public authority
c. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or
threats to kill him are made
d. The person kidnapped/detained is a minor, a female or a public officer

Q: When is a person ‘detained’?
When he is illegally deprived of his liberty

Q: Is it necessary that there be physical deprivation of liberty?
No

*NB: ‘liberty’ as contemplated by this provision is not restricted to physical locomotion; moral
compulsion may also be considered a form of deprivation of liberty (think: threatening a
person)

Q: Suppose the victim could get out but he chose to stay within the detention area for security reasons.
Is this illegal detention?
No

Q: What are the circumstances that must attend the detention, for it to be considered illegal?

*see: element #4

Q: Suppose the detention lasted for only 24hrs but the detainee was a minor. Is the accused liable?
Yes – The circumstances need not concur (see: wording, ‘any of the following instances… xxx’)

Q: The person detained was a 25‐year‐old woman, and she was detained for only 2 days. Is the accused
liable?
Yes

Q: Same facts as the previous question, except that the victim was a barangay tanod. Is the accused
liable?
Yes

Q: Give an example of illegal detention committed by simulating public authority

Q: Suppose that the infliction of physical injuries was merely incidental, is the accused liable?
Yes – the law makes no distinction as to the manner of infliction of the injuries

Q: What does ‘ransom’ mean?
Money or price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person/s;
payment made toward the view of releasing a person from captivity

Q: Suppose you were courting a woman but she neglected your proposal. You kidnapped her sister, and
informed her that her sister would only be released if she accepted your courtship. Is this a crime?
Yes, the acts constitute kidnapping, and were committed for a consideration

*NB: apparently then, ‘consideration’ is not limited to pecuniary or material benefit

Q: Suppose A owes X Php 50,000. A could not pay his debt, so he kidnapped his own mother instead and
said that he would only release her if she would give him the money to pay off his debt to X. Is this
kidnapping for ransom?
Yes, notwithstanding that the money was legally due to X

Q: A borrowed a car but refused to return it to X. X kidnapped A’s brother with the condition that the
brother would only be released if the car was returned. A complied, and X released the brother. What
crime was committed?

CRIMINAL LAW II 169
K notes

Kidnapping for ransom (with the car as the consideration)

Q: Suppose A, B and C kidnapped X and brought him to the next town. That same night, they killed him.
Murder – there was no indication of A, B and C’s intention to detain X; Kidnapping was merely
incidental to murder

Q: Suppose X was kidnapped, brought to the neighbouring town and a ransom for his release was
demanded. The ransom was not offered so X was killed. What crime was committed?
The special complex crime of Kidnapping with Homicide

Q: How do you know whether the crime was kidnapping or murder or the special complex crime of
kidnapping with homicide/murder?
By ascertaining specific intent

Q: What circumstance qualifies the offense?
Demand for ransom

*NB: note that the provision imposes reclusion perpetua (formerly death) where the
kidnapping/ detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom; even if none of the
4 circumstances enumerated in par.1 were present during the commission of the offense

Q: Is there any special aggravating circumstance? What is it?
Yes – when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention; or is raped or subjected
to torture or dehumanizing acts

NOTES:

*If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary detention; provided that the officer had a duty
to detain a person

*As long as the crime was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, actual demand for ransom is
not necessary

*The accused is not liable when there is a lack of motive to resort to kidnapping

*Two things make up ‘deprivation of liberty’: (a) actual or physical confinement; or (b) restrictions (not
necessarily physical) place upon the detainee

*The restraint need not be permanent in order for criminal liability to attach

*Purpose or motive is NOT material when any of the circumstances in par.1 is present

*See last paragraph of art.267 for the definition of the special complex crime of kidnapping w ith murder

*Where the victim is taken from one place to another for the purpose of killing him, the crime is murder

*Specific intent is determinative of the crime (think: to kidnap or to kill?)

*The penalty for the crime is not reduced by the circumstance of voluntary release by the captors as a
result of non‐attainment of their purposes

*Conspiracy to extort ransom makes all the conspirators liable under par.2, art.267, including those who
did not take any part of the money

*There is NO complex crime of ‘illegal detention with rape’ – what the law provides for is the special
complex crime of ‘serious illegal detention/kidnapping with rape’ – there’s a difference between the
two, because the law (art.48) does not allow for ‘rape with illegal detention’ – there is no single act

CRIMINAL LAW II 170
K notes

resulting in 2 or more grave/less grave felonies; nor is illegal detention a necessary means for committing
rape

ILLEGAL DETENTION ARBITRARY DETENTION
RE: Purpose of Commission To deprive a person of his liberty To detain a person without any
– whether physically or legal ground
otherwise

Re: Character of Offender The offender is a private The offender is a public officer
individual (or a public officer not with a duty to detain persons
vested with authority to detain a
person)

Re: Classification of the Crime Crime against personal liberty Crime against the fundamental
law of the State

ART.268
SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION

1. The offender is a private individual
2. He kidnaps or detains another or in any manner deprives him of his liberty
3. The act of kidnapping/detention is illegal
4. The crime is committed without any of the circumstances under art.267

Q: How is this different from serious illegal detention?
1. Slight illegal detention is committed without the circumstances involved in serious illegal
detention
2. Slight illegal detention may be MITIGATED by –
a. Voluntary release within 3 days from the commencement of detention; without having
attained the captors’ intended purpose; AND
b. Before the institution of criminal proceedings

*NB: When this privileged mitigating circumstance is present, the liability of the captors is
mitigated, and the penalty is lowered by 1 degree; BUT in order for this to operate, it must be
shown that the offender was in the position to prolong the detention and ALL the requisites
must concur, FURTHERMORE, this circumstance is NOT mitigating if the victim is a woman

ART.269
UNLAWFUL ARREST

1. The offender arrests or detains another person
2. The offender’s purpose is to deliver him to the proper authorities
3. The arrest or detention is NOT authorized by law; or there is no reasonable ground therefor

Q: Distinguish this from arbitrary detention; and from serious or slight illegal detention

SERIOUS ILLEGAL

SLIGHT ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL ARREST
DETENTION DETENTION
RE: Manner of Kidnapping or Committed without the Involves the
Commission Detention without legal 4 circumstances in arrest/detention of
grounds under any of serious illegal detention another person
the following
circumstances:

CRIMINAL LAW II 171
K notes

a. The kidnapping/
detention lasts
more than 3 days
b. It is committed
simulating public
authority
c. Any serious physical
injuries are inflicted
upon the person
kidnapped or
detained; or threats
to kill him are made
d. The person
kidnapped/detaine
d is a minor, a
female or a public
officer

RE: Purpose Deprivation of Liberty; Deprivation of liberty Delivery of the detained
coupled with a demand person to proper
for ransom in the case authorities (without
of kidnapping for legal authority to do so;
ransom (which qualifies or without reasonable
the offense) ground)

RE: Character of Offender is a private Offender is a private Offender may be any
Offender individual or a public individual person – private or
officer not vested with public (in which case,
authority to detain a the public offender had
person no authority to
arrest/detain and did
not act in official
capacity)

RE: Voluntary Release Not Mitigating Mitigating; except Not mitigating
of detained person by when the offended
the offender (as a party is a woman
result of non‐
attainment of purpose)

**notes When the The same penalty No period of detention
circumstances in par.1 (reclusion temporal) for is fixed by the law, but
of art.267 are present the principal offender motive is controlling
(see: manner of shall be incurred by
commission, (a), (b), (c) anyone who shall
and (d) in first column furnish the place for the
above), motive or perpetration of the
purpose is immaterial crime

SECTION TWO – KIDNAPPING OF MINORS

*NB: In connection with the concepts of ‘custody’ and ‘parents’ and ‘minors’, it would be very
prudent to give your Persons notes on parental authority a once‐over

CRIMINAL LAW II 172
K notes

ART.270
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR

1. The offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor (*NB: pursuant to the new Family Code, a
minor is one under 18 years of age; this provision and its definition of minor, i.e. ‘over or under 7
but less than 21’ has therefore been amended)
2. He deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents/guardians

Q: May the parents be criminally liable for this crime?
Yes – if one is granted custody of the child, and the offender failed to return that child to the
legally recognized parent

Q: Suppose a husband and wife were legally separated. Custody of their child was awarded to them on a
scheduled basis – The wife was granted custody during weekdays (Mondays through Fridays), with the
husband having been given custody over the weekends. During one such weekend, the husband brought
the child to the countryside, where they stayed for 5 days. Is the husband liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose that in a judicial proceeding, the mother was deprived of custody over her children and the
family court awarded custody to the DSWD. The mother paid them a visit, but took them with her when
she left. Is she liable?
Yes

NOTES:

*What is punishable is the deliberate failure to restore the minor to his parent/guardian

*The qualifying and essential element to this crime is the requirement that the offender must have been
entrusted with the custody of the child

*It isn’t necessary that the purpose is to permanently separate the minor from his parent/guardian –
temporary separation, so long as the elements concur – is punishable

ART.271
INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON
HIS HOME

1. A minor is living in the home of his parents/guardians or the person (*NB: this includes juridical
persons like the DSWD) entrusted with his custody
2. The offender induces said minor to abandon that home

Q: Give an example

Q: Suppose the accused assembled some minors in the province and regaled them with stories of
Manila. The minors were immensely amused and when the accused was about to leave that evening, 3 of
them approached him and requested to tag along. The accused agreed and brought the minors to
Manila. Is he liable?
No

*NB: The inducement should be done with malicious intent/ a deliberate purpose to cause harm.
If the minor in question chose to abandon his home of his own free will, no crime is committed

CRIMINAL LAW II 173
K notes

Q: Same facts, except that the accused persuaded the minors to leave their homes and travel to Manila
because there would be lucrative jobs waiting for them there. The minors agreed, and were taken to the
city. Is the accused liable?
Yes

NOTES:

*The inducement must be actual, with criminal intent, and determined by a will to cause damage

*’To induce’ = to influence, to prevail on; to move by persuasion, or to incite by motives

*What constitutes the crime is the act of inducing a minor to abandon his home, it isn’t necessary that
the minor actually does abandon it

*The minor shouldn’t leave his home of his own free will

SECTION THREE – SLAVERY AND SERVITUDE

ART.272
SLAVERY

1. The offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human being
2. The purpose of the offender is to enslave such a human being

Q: What qualifies the offense?
If the offender’s purpose is to assign the victim to some immoral traffic (i.e.: prostitution)

ART.273
EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOUR

1. The offender retains a minor in his service
2. The retention is against the will of the minor
3. It is done under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian, or person entrusted with the custody of such minor

NOTES:

*In line with the constitutional principle that no person shall be imprisoned by virtue of debt, this
provision makes it clear that even under criminal law, perhaps most especially under it, indebted ness is
not a ground for detaining a person

ART.274
SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION
IN PAYMENT OF DEBT

1. The offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as a household servant or farm labourer
2. It is against the debtor’s will
3. The purpose is to require or enforce the payment of debt

CRIMINAL LAW II 174
K notes

CHAPTER TWO CRIMES
AGAINST SECURITY

SECTION ONE – ABANDONMENT OF HELPLESS PERSONS AND EXPLOITATION OF MINORS

Art.275
ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
AND ABONDONMENT OF ONE’S OWN VICTIM

1. Failing to render assistance to any person whom the offender finds in an uninhabited place
wounded or in danger of dying when he can render such assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense
**ELEMENTS:
a. The place is NOT inhabited
b. The accused found there a wounded person or one in danger of dying
c. The accused can render assistance without danger to himself
d. The accused fails to render that assistance
2. Failing to help or render assistance to another whom the offender accidentally wounded or
injured
3. Failing to deliver a child under 7 years of age whom the offender has found abandoned, to the
authorities or to his family; or failing to take him to a safe place

Q: Suppose the person the accused found did not have a wound but simply fainted and lost
consciousness. The accused left him there. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose the person was unconscious due to starvation. The accused failed to help. Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Is it necessary that the minor contemplated by this provision be wounded?
No, it is sufficient that the minor was found in a dangerous or unsafe place and the accused
failed to return him to his parents or bring him to safety

Q: Suppose the accused left the minor there because he believed that by the looks of the minor, he was
old enough to fend for himself?
The accused is liable – it is immaterial that the offender did not know the actual age of the child

ART.276
ABANDONING A MINOR

1. The offender has custody of a child
2. The child is under 7 years old
3. He abandons such a child
4. He has no intent to kill the child when he abandoned that child

Q: Suppose the abandoned child later died. May the accused be held liable for homicide/murder?
No – intent to kill is NOT presumed from the child’s death – this rule applies to crimes against
persons; the provision provides for a particular and specific penalty (prision correccional in its
medium to maximum periods) should the child die as a result of the abandonment

Q: What circumstances qualify the crime?
1. Death of the child; or

CRIMINAL LAW II 175
K notes

2. Danger to the minor’s life

NOTES

*If the offender happens to be a parent of the child, civil law imposes the penalty of deprivation of
parental authority

ART.277
ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON
ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY;
INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS

1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or to other persons without the consent of the person
who entrusted the minor to the offender’s care; or without the consent of proper authorities
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender has charge of the rearing or education of a minor
b. He delivers said minor to a public institution or other persons
c. The one who entrusted the child to the offender has not consented to such an a ct; or the
proper authorities have not consented to it
2. Neglect by the offender of his own children by not giving them the education which their station
in life requires and financial condition permits
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is a parent
b. He neglects his own children by not giving them education
c. His station in life requires such education; and his financial condition permits it

*NB: Failure to provide education must be due to a deliberate desire by the parent to evade
such an obligation

ART.278
EXPLOITATION OF MINORS

1. Causing any boy/girl under 16 to perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength ot
contortion, the offender being any person
2. Employing children under 16 who are not the children/descendants of the offender in exhibitions
of acrobatics, gymnastics, rope‐walking, diving, wild animal‐taming; the offender being an
acrobat, etc or circus manager, or person engaged in a similar calling
3. Employing any descendant under 12 in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in the next preceding
paragraph, the offender being engaged in any of the said callings
4. Delivering a child under 16 gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumerated
in par.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. Inducing any child under 16 to abandon the home of his ascendants, guardians, curators, or
teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned in par.2 or to accompany
any habitual vagrant/beggar; the offender being any person

*NB: aide‐mémoire –
1. Any person inducing a child below 16 to perform dangerous gymnastics
2. A person involved in the circus (think: gymnast, acrobat, animal tamer, manager… etc) employing
a child below 16 for the same calling
3. Any ascendant employing a descendant in the circus (rofl)

CRIMINAL LAW II 176
K notes

4. Person with parental authority (parents, teachers… etc) delivering the child to a vagrant/beggar
5. Any person inducing a child below 16 to run away with a vagrant/beggar

Delivery of the child for any of those purposes, in consideration of any price, compensation or
promise

ART.279
ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR OTHER OFFENSES

*The imposition of the penalties described in the preceding articles shall not prevent the imposition
upon the same person of the penalty provided for any other felonies defined and punished by the Code

SECTION TWO – TRESPASS TO DWELLING

Art.280
QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING

1. The offender is a private person
2. He enters the dwelling of another
3. Such entrance is against the owner’s will

Q: Suppose the offender was a public officer, what crime was committed?
Violation of Domicile

Q: Distinguish this from violation of domicile
‐There is only one manner of committing qualified trespass to dwelling
‐The character of the offender in qualified trespass to dwelling is private

Q: Suppose the accused entered through the back door, which was open at that time. The owner saw
him a few moments later as he was walking through the interior of the house, and asked him to leave. Is
he liable?
No, his entry was not against the will of the owner – the back door was open

Q: What are the possible defences in qualified trespass to dwelling?
1. Prevention of serious harm to himself, to the occupants of the dwelling, or to a 3rd person
2. Entry for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity
3. Entry into cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses while the same are still open (*NB: ‘I see
no sense in this, these are not dwellings’ –Atty. A)

The use of violence or intimidation to gain entry

NOTES:

*The definition of ‘dwelling’ depends upon the use the building is put to; it includes a room when it is
occupied by another person

*Lack of permission does not amount to prohibition

*All members of a household are generally presumed to have authority to extend an invitation to enter

CRIMINAL LAW II 177
K notes

*For reference and comparison, see notes under Violation of Domicile

*Prohibition must be in existence prior to, or at the time of entry

*Violence of intimidation as qualifying circumstances may take place immediately after entry

*Prohibition is not necessary when violence or intimidation is employed

*Trespass may be committed by the owner of the dwelling against the actual occupant (think: nosy
landlords and landladies :P –kimi)

ART.281
OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS

1. The offender enters the closed premises or fenced estate of another
2. Entrance is made while the area is uninhabited
3. The prohibition to enter is manifest
4. The trespasser has not secured the owner or caretaker’s permission

SECTION THREE – THREATS AND COERCION

ART.282
GRAVE THREATS

1. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honour or property or that of his family
of any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or imposing any other condition,
even though (the condition) is not unlawful and the offender succeeded in attaining his purpose
2. Making such a threat without the offender attaining his purpose
3. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honour or property of that of his family
of any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not being subject to a condition

*NB: Table for ya :)

ELEMENTS OF GRAVE THREATS WHERE THE ELEMENTS OF GRAVE THREATS THAT ARE NOT
OFFENDER ATTAINED HIS PURPOSE SUBJECT TO A CONDITION
1. The offender threatens another with the 1. The offender threatens another person …
infliction upon the latter’s person, honour, of any wrong
or property (or those of his family) of any 2. Such wrong amounts to a crime
wrong 3. The threat is not subject to any condition
2. Such wrong amounts to a crime
3. There is a demand for money or a
condition is imposed, even though the
condition may not be unlawful
4. Mission Accomplished – Offender attains
his purpose

Q: Suppose the threat was made and relayed only to the person 3hrs after its making. Is the accused
liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose a threat is used as a means for committing another crime. What is the legal effect of that
other crime?

CRIMINAL LAW II 178
K notes

The other crime absorbs the threat

Q: When is there a grave threat?
When there is intimidation or the promise of some future harm or injury, with or without a
condition or demand for money

NOTES:

*The offender in grave threats does not demand delivery of money on the spot, else the crime is robbery
with intimidation

*If the threat is not subject to a condition, the penalty does not depend on the crime threatened to be
committed, but is fixed by law (arresto mayor and a fine of Php 500)

*Grave threat is consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened;
it is not necessary that the offended party is present at the time the threats were made

*Threats made in connection with the commission of other crimes are absorbed by the latter

ART.283
LIGHT THREATS

1. The offender makes a threat to commit a wrong
2. The threat does not constitute a crime
3. There is a demand for money or that other conditions are imposed, even though the conditions
may not be unlawful
4. The offender has either attained his purpose or not

Q: Distinguish this from grave threats
Light threats is committed in the same manner as grave threats, except that the act threatened
should not be a crime

Q: Give an example

Q: ‘If you do not lend me my book, I will be forced to cheat’. What crime was committed here?
Light threats

Q: ‘If you do not allow me to use your book for cheating, I will sell the book’. What crime?
Grave threats – the selling of the book here amounts to estafa

Q: ‘If you do not allow me to borrow your book, I will not pay you my debt’. What crime?
Light threats

Q: Is there a wrong involved?
Yes, but it does not amount to a crime

ART.284
BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR

*In Articles 282 and 283, the person making the threats shall be required to secure a bond for good
behaviour in order not to molest the threatened person

*Failure to furnish a bond for good behaviour shall be punished with destierro

CRIMINAL LAW II 179
K notes

Q: Differentiate this from Bond to Keep the Peace

BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE
Re: APPLICATION TO CRIMES Applies only to light/grave General Application
threats

Re: EFFECT OF FAILURE TO Destierro Detention for not more than 6
FURNISH THE BOND months for grave offenses; not
more than 30 days for light
offenses

Re: PURPOSE Localized – To prevent further General – To prevent
molestation of the offended disturbances of public
party tranquillity

ART.285
OTHER LIGHT THREATS

Q: What are the other light threats?
1. Threatening another with a weapon or by drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in
lawful self‐defence (see: art.11 for the requisites of lawful self‐defence)
2. Orally threatening another in the heat of anger with some harm constituting a crime without
persisting on the idea involved in the threat
3. Orally threatening to do another any harm not constituting a felony

NOTES

*Threats which ordinarily are grave threats, if made in the heat of anger, may be considered light
threats

ART.286
GRAVE COERCIONS

1. Preventing another by means of violence, threats, or intimidation, from doing something not
prohibited by law
2. Compelling another by means of violence, threats or intimidation to do something against his
will, whether it (the forced act) be right or wrong

Q: How is grave coercion committed?
1. A person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law; or compelled

someone to do something against his will, be it right or wrong
2. The prevention/compulsion is effect through violence, threats or intimidation
3. The person that restrained the will and liberty of another did not have the authority of law or
the right to do so

Q: How is this different from grave threats?
‐In grave threats, there is mere employment of fear; and the act was not intended to commit
the 2 modes of coercion (i.e.: forcing a person to do something he doesn’t want to do;
preventing him from doing something lawful); the violence here is not actual, merely futuristic

‐In grave coercion, the intimidation employed goes hand in hand with compulsion or prevention
of an individual’s will; the violence here is actually employed

CRIMINAL LAW II 180
K notes

Q: If the essence of grave threats is intimidation, what is the essence of grave coercion?
Violent compulsion (i.e.: using force to compel someone to do/not do something)

Q: A policeman, through violence, prevented X from joining the NPA. Is he liable?
No, he was justified

Q: Several armed men surrounded the farm in a certain area. The farmers did not leave their houses for
fear of danger. What crime did the armed men commit?
Grave threats

Q: You rode a taxi, but instead of taking you to your desired destination, the driver brought you
somewhere else despite your efforts to stop him. What crime did he commit?
He did not commit any crime

Q: What circumstances qualify the offense?
1. If the coercion is committed in violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage
2. If the coercion is committed to compel another to perform any religious act
3. If the coercion is committed to prevent another from performing any religious act

NOTES:

*The act of preventing another by force should be made at the time the offended party was doing or
was about to do the act to be prevented; if the act was already done when the violence was exerted, the
crime is unjust vexation

*Compelling another to do something includes the offender’s act of doing it himself while subjecting
another to his will

*When the complainant is in actual possession of a thing, even if he has no right to that possession,
compelling him by means of violence to give it up – even if done by the owner of the thing himself – is
grave coercion

*the force or violence must be immediate, actual or imminent

*Even if the offended party did not accede to the purpose of the coercion, the offender is still liable

ART.287
LIGHT COERCION

1. The offender must be a creditor
2. He seizes anything belonging to his debtor
3. The seizure of the thing is to be accomplished by means of violence, or a display of material
force producing intimidation
4. The purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the payment of the debt

Q: Suppose the purpose of the seizure was to sell the properties seized and not to apply it to the debt?
Then the crime is robbery (think: intent to gain, possession through force)
Q: Distinguish this from services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt
LIGHT COERCION SERVICES RENDERED UNDER
COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF
DEBT

CRIMINAL LAW II 181
K notes

RE: Manner of Commission The offender seizes anything The offender compels a debtor
belonging to his debtor through to work for him, either as a
violence or display of material household servant or farm
force producing intimidation labourer

RE: Purpose Application of the seized To require or force the payment
possessions to the debt of debt

Q: Suppose X is indebted to A but he cannot pay; A asked X to work as a janitor in his office as payment
for the debt. Is A liable?
No – this is neither light coercion nor services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt
(see: table above – the facts do not meet the requisites)

Q: Distinguish this from exploitation of child labour

LIGHT COERCION EXPLOITATION OF CHILD
Art.287 LABOUR
Art.273
RE: Parties concerned Offender: Creditor Offender: Any person

Offended party: Debtor Offended party: Minor

RE: Manner of Commission Seizure of any of the debtor’s Retaining a minor in one’s
possessions through service against the minor’s will
violence/material force

RE: Purpose Application of seized possessions (Pretext of) reimbursing oneself
to debt of a debt incurred by an
ascendant/guardian/person
entrusted with the minor’s
custody

Q: Suppose the act was committed by taking possession through deceit and misrepresentation for the
same purpose, what crime was committed?
Unjust vexation

*NB: unjust vexation includes any human conduct which although not productive of some
physical or material harm would however unjustly annoy or vex an innocent person; no violence
or intimidation is employed here

Q: Does actual physical violence have to be employed?
No

ART.288
OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS –
COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE
AND PAYMENT OF WAGES BY MEANS OF TOKENS

ART.289
FORMATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROHIBITION
OF COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR LABOUR
THROUGH VIOLENCE AND THREATS
NOTES

CRIMINAL LAW II 182
K notes

*Arts.288‐289 are now covered by the Labour Code

*The Labour Code requires payment in currency

*Salary refers to the fruits of one’s labour, a person has a right to it and nobody can interfere with how
that salary is to be disposed of

*RE: Art.289 – The Labour Code grants the right to unionize; the essence of a union being that there is
strength in numbers (as opposed to a single employee vs. his employer); management of the
prerogatives of the union is vested solely in the employees themselves; the employer is considered an
interloper and may be held liable for unfair labour practice. Mere inquiry into membership may be
considered a form of interference –Atty. A

CHAPTER THREE
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS

ART.290
DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH
SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE

1. The offender is a private individual or even a public officer not in the exercise of his official
functions
2. He seizes the papers or letters of another
3. The purpose is to discover the secrets of another person
4. The offender is informed of the contents of the papers or letters seized

Revelation of the contents of those papers/letters to a 3rd person

Q: Who are excluded from the contemplation of art.290?
‐parents
‐guardians
‐persons entrusted with the custody of minors with respect to papers or letters
‐spouses

ART.291
REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF OFFICE

1. The offender is a manager, employee or servant
2. He learns the secrets of his principal or master in such capacity
3. He reveals such secrets

Q: Is damage to the manager or employer necessary?
No

ART.292
REVELATION OF INDIVIDUAL SECRETS


CRIMINAL LAW II 183
K notes

1. The offender is a person in charge, employee or workman of a manufacturing or industrial
establishment
2. The manufacturing/industrial establishment has a secret of the industry which the offender has
learned
3. The offender reveals such secrets
4. Prejudice is caused to the owner

TITLE TEN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

CHAPTER ONE
ROBBERY IN GENERAL

ART.293
WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY

Q: What is robbery?
The taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence
against, or intimidation of any person or using force upon anything

Q: What are the classifications of robbery?
1. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons
2. Robbery by the use of force upon things

Q: How is robbery in general committed?
There is –
1. Personal property belonging to another
2. Unlawful taking of that property
3. The taking is with intent to gain
4. Violence or Intimidation of any person; or force upon anything

Q: Suppose you saw X hide a kilo of shabu; he placed the article in his closet and locked the same. You
thought that the shabu would fetch a lucrative price on the streets so you broke the latch on his closet
and took it. Did you commit Robbery?
Yes – prohibited articles may also the subject matter of robbery

Q: What kind of robbery did you commit?
Robbery with force upon things

Q: When must the violence/force/intimidation be present for the crime to be robbery?
The violence/force/intimidation must be present from the start of the act up to the asportation
or taking; the violence or intimidation must be present before the taking of the personal
property is complete

*NB: the application of robbery depends on what point the violence/force was exerted, note ‘by
reason of or on the occasion thereof… xxx’

Q: When is the crime of robbery consummated?

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST/ ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS
From the moment the offender gains possession The thing must be taken out of the building to
of the thing, even if the culprit has had no consummate the crime
opportunity to dispose of the same

CRIMINAL LAW II 184
K notes

Q: What is meant by ‘taking’?
Depriving the offended party of ownership of the thing taken with the character of permanency

Q: Is intent to gain presumed?
Yes

Q: Suppose intent to gain is disproved; what crime was committed?
Grave coercion, provided that violence was employed

Q: Does the intimidation have to refer to the threat of bodily harm?
No, it may take other forms

Q: Give an example

SECTION ONE – ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST
OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS

ART.294
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS – PENALTIES

Q: When is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons committed?
1. When, by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of Homicide is committed
2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson
3. When by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting in sanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted
4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting in the loss of the
use of speech or the power to hear/smell; or the loss of an eye, hand, foot, arm or leg; or the use
of any such member; or incapacity for work in which the injured person is theretofore habitually
engaged is inflicted
5. If the violence/intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
clearly unnecessary for the commission of the offense
6. When in the course of its execution, the offense shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery any of the physical injuries in consequence of
which the injured person becomes deformed or loses any other member of his body; or loses the
use thereof; or becomes ill/incapacitated for work for more than 90 days or the injured person
becomes ill/incapacitated for labour 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

Q: Are the crimes here considered complex crimes under art.48?
No, they are special complex crimes – specifically provided for by art.294

*NB: these are special complex crimes because the common crimes here must be committed in
the course, or because of the robbery; they aren’t normal complex crimes under art.48

Q: Under art.294, when is robbery complexed; and what crimes may it be complexed with?
When the violence results in –
1. Homicide
2. Rape
3. Intentional mutilation; or
4. Any of the serious physical injuries in paragraphs 1 and 2 of art.263

CRIMINAL LAW II 185
K notes

*The taking of personal property is robbery complexed with any of these crimes, even if the
taking was already complete when the violence was employed by the offender

*Here’s the trick: when the original plan was robbery, and these crimes are committed because
of, or during that robbery – it’s a special complex crime

Q: A, B, and C decided to rob X’s house; they say X in front of a nearby store. A, B, and C shot him there,
after which, they proceeded to X’s house to commit robbery; what crime did they commit?
Robbery with Homicide (homicide by reason of the robbery – complexed)

Q: Suppose a robbery had already been committed. It was reported to the police; and while the police
were in pursuit of the robbers, a shootout took place in the nearby province. 2 policemen and 3 robbers
were killed. What crime was committed?
Robbery with Homicide

Q: In the course of the robbery, one offender stepped on a 48‐hour child. What crime did he commit?
Robbery with Homicide

*NB: ‘Homicide’ here is used in its general sense

Q: With regards to the liability of persons when there is a conspiracy; suppose A, B, and C conspired to
rob X’s house. C took X’s wife outside of the house and raped her. What are the individual liabilities of
the offenders?
‐A and B are liable for simple robbery

‐C is liable for the special complex crime of robbery with rape (because A and B were not present
when he raped the woman, and were not in a position to prevent him from doing so – he acted
independently of their conspiracy for robbery

NOTES

*Table for ya :)

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST, OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS

ART.294
Table of Special Complex Crimes
Par.1 ‘Homicide’ here includes parricide and murder
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
‘Homicide’ is NOT limited to a singular death,
multiple deaths are merged in the composite
offense of robbery with homicide so long as all the
killings were perpetrated by reason or on occasion
of the robbery

When committed in a dwelling, robbery with
homicide does NOT require that robbery with
force upon things is first committed

This need not be committed in a building, either

Intent to take personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain must precede the
killing

Killing a person to escape after the commission of
robbery is robbery with homicide

The crime is still robbery with homicide, even if the

CRIMINAL LAW II 186
K notes

person killed was NOT the person who was robbed

All who participated in the robbery as principals
are principals in robbery with homicide, unless it
clearly appears that they endeavoured to prevent
the same

Par.2 Intent to gain must precede rape
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
When the taking of personal property of a woman
is an independent act following defendant’s failure
to consummate the rape, there are 2 distinct
crimes

Additional rapes committed on the same occasion
of robbery will NOT increase the penalty

When the taking of the property after the rape is
NOT with intent to gain (i.e.: mementos or
tokens), there is neither theft nor robbery, just
plain rape and unjust vexation

When rape and homicide coexist with robbery in
the commission of the crime, the liability of the
accused is for the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide, rape being merely
aggravating

Par.3 Applies when the serious physical injuries are
ROBBERY WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES committed ‘upon any person not responsible for
UNDER ART.263, PAR.2 its commission’ (people who aren’t themselves the
robbers)

If the serious physical injuries were inflicted on a
fellow robber, there are 2 distinct offenses:
robbery and serious physical injuries

Par.4 The violence here need not result in serious
ROBBERY WITH UNNECESSARY VIOLENCE AND physical injuries
INTIMIDATION
Violence employed must be unnecessary to the
commission of robbery

*REQUISITES OF ROBBERY UNDER THE 2ND CASE OF
PAR.4, ART.294

1. Any of the physical injuries defined in
paragraphs 3 and 4, art.263 was inflicted in
the course of the robbery
2. Any of them was inflicted upon any person
not responsible for the commission of the
robbery

Par.5 Simple robbery – the use of violence against any
ROBBERY WITH THE USE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST/ person does NOT result in homicide, rape,
INTIMIDATION OF ANY PERSON intentional mutilation or any of the serious
physical injuries which may give rise to a special
*this is not a special complex crime, this is simple complex crime; when it does result in those

CRIMINAL LAW II 187
K notes

robbery crimes, a special complex crime is committed

The violence or intimidation need NOT be present
before or at the exact moment when the object is
taken, it may enter any time before the owner is
finally deprived of his personal property

Intimidation exists when the acts executed/ words
uttered by the offender are capable of producing
fear in the person threatened

ART.295
ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES,
COMMITTED IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND
BY A BAND, OR WITH THE USE OF FIREARM,
ON A STREET, ROAD OR ALLEY

Q: When is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons qualified?
When robbery is committed –
1. In an uninhabited place
2. By a band
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or airship
4. By entering the passengers’ compartments in a train, or in any manner taking the passengers by
surprise in the respective conveyance
5. On a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of firearms

Q: May these circumstances be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances?
No

Q: What is the legal effect of the presence of more than one of these circumstances?
Only one will qualify the offense, the rest will serve to aggravate the penalty

Q: Do they apply to homicide/rape or serious physical injuries committed with robbery?
No

ART.296
DEFINITION OF A BAND AND
PENALTY INCURRED BY MEMBERS THEREOF

Q: When is there a band?
When more than 3 armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery

Q: Suppose A, B, C and D committed robbery with the use of an unlicensed firearm. What is the legal
effect of the firearm on their liabilities?
The penalty shall be imposed in the maximum

*NB: whenever any of the arms used in the commission of the offense is an unlicensed firearm,
the penalty imposed on all malefactors shall be the maximum period of the corresponding
penalty provided by law

Q: May A, B, C and D also be prosecuted for illegal possession of unlicensed firearm?
Yes

CRIMINAL LAW II 188
K notes

Q: What is the presumption of the law with respect to robbery committed by a band?
Any member of a band who is present at the commission of robbery shall be punished as a
principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it can be shown that he
attempted to prevent the same

*NB: Requisites for liability for the acts of other members of the band –
1. The person is a member of the band
2. The band committed robbery
3. Other members of the band committed an assault (or assaults, plural)
4. He did not attempt to prevent the assault

NOTES

*When the robbery was not committed by a band, the robber who did not take part in the assault by
another isn’t liable for that assault

*When the robbery was not by a band and homicide was not determined by the accused when they
plotted the crime, the non‐participant in the killing is liable only for robbery

*When there is conspiracy to commit homicide and robbery, all the conspirators, even if there are less
than 4 armed men, are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide

*Art.296 is not applicable to principals by induction who were NOT present at the robbery, if the
agreement was to commit robbery (and yet homicide happened to be committed)

*Proof of conspiracy is not necessary when 4 or more armed persons committed robbery

*Members of the band must be present at the time of the robbery, although not necessarily during the
assault

*Republic Act 8249 considers the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide merely a special
aggravating circumstance, NOT a separate crime

*The special aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm is NOT applicable to robbery
with homicide committed by a band (art.295 does not apply to subdivisions 1 and 2 of art.294)

*The use of a firearm – whether licensed or not – in making the intimidation is a qualifying circumstance
when the robbery defined in any of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of art.294 is committed on a street, road,
highway or alley

ART.297
ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY
COMMITTED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES

*When by reason or on occasion of an attempted/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

CRIMINAL LAW II 189
K notes

1. The offender has intent to defraud another
2. He compels that person to sign, execute or deliver any public instrument or document
3. The compulsion is made by means of violence or intimidation

Q: Does the instrument have to be public?
Yes

Q: What about the document?
The document may be private or commercial

Q: Suppose the document is void
Art.298 does not apply

SECTION TWO – ROBBERY BY THE USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS

Q: How is robbery by the use of force upon things committed?
When the offender –
1. Entered a house or building by any of the means specified in art.299 or 302; or
2. Even if there was no entrance by any of those means, he broke a wardrobe, chest or any other
kind of locked/closed/sealed furniture or receptacle in the house or building; or he took the
same away to be broken or forced open outside the building

Q: Suppose no entry at all was effected by the accused; and he simply used a long pole to take the
article, what crime was committed?
Theft

*For this kind of robbery, entry is essential – if there is no entry, there is no robbery with force
upon things

Q: May robbery be committed without the actual use of force on things?
Yes, when the entrance is effected through means not intended for egress; by using a fictitious
name; or pretending the exercise of public authority; when things need not be broken or forced
open

Q: A, B, and C used a false key to open the door of their neighbour’s house. When they did so, they saw a
motorcycle in the living room. They took it. What crime did they commit?
Carnapping

Q: Suppose the car contained jewelry and a safe box?
The crime is still carnapping

Q: Suppose the accused broke the window of the car, and took the valuables inside. What crime did he
commit?
Theft

Q: What if the accused pushed the car all the way to the other street before opening a door and taking
the valuables inside?
1. Carnapping
2. Theft
*separate crimes

Q: Your cell phone was taken from your bag when you were walking through the street and didn’t
notice. What crime was committed?
Theft

CRIMINAL LAW II 190
K notes

Q: Suppose you turned around at the moment you felt something being taken from your bag; and the
accused pointed a gun at you to stop you from running after him. What crimes did he commit?
1. Theft
2. Grave Threats
*separate crimes

Q: After robbery was committed, the building was set on fire. What crimes were committed?
Robbery with arson, complexed

ART.299
ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR
PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED
TO WORSHIP


SUBDIVISION A, ART.299 SUBDIVISION B, ART.299
ELEMENTS ELEMENTS
1. The offender entered – 1. The offender is inside a dwelling house,
a. An inhabited place; or public building or edifice devoted to
b. A public building; or religious worship, REGARDLESS of the
c. An edifice devoted to religious circumstances under which he entered it
worship 2. He takes personal property belonging to
2. The entrance was effected by any of the another; does so with intent to gain; and
following means: under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through an opening not intended for a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes,
entrance or egress chests or any other kind of locked or
b. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor; or sealed furniture or receptacle; or
by breaking any door or window b. By taking such furniture or objects
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar away to be broken or forced open
tools outside the place of robbery
d. By using any fictitious name or
pretending he exercise of public
authority
3. Once inside the building, the offender took
personal property belonging to another
and did so with intent to gain

NOTES:

Subdivision A Subdivision B

The law focuses on the manner of gaining entry The law focuses on the manner of obtaining the
here (i.e.: breaking any wall, roof… etc.); entry is article (breaking anything INSIDE the building, i.e.:
controlling here chests, wardrobes, furniture… or taking the same

OUTSIDE to force them open)

The ‘door’ contemplated here is an EXTERNAL one ‘Doors’ contemplated here are internal ones,

found within the building

The crime is theft if the offender did not enter the Entry by any of the means under subdivision A is
building not required for robbery under subdivision B

Any of the 4 means must be resorted to for When a thing is taken outside to be broken open,
ENTRANCE, not for getting out it isn’t necessary that it is actually forced open

The whole body of the culprit must be inside the The crime is estafa or theft if the thing is not

CRIMINAL LAW II 191
K notes

building to constitute entry forced open INSIDE the building where it was being
kept; or when it is taken therefrom to be broken
The wall must be an outside wall, not a party wall outside
or one in between rooms in a house/building
The penalty for robbery with force upon things in
The outside door must be ‘broken’, not merely an inhabited house, etc. depends on the VALUE of
‘forced open’ (roflmao) the property taken and on whether or not the
offender carries arms
‘False keys’ are genuine keys stolen from the
owner or any keys other than those intended by The arms carried by the offender must NOT be
the owner for use on the lock used to intimidate, else art.294 applies

‘Picklocks’ are tools specially adopted for the Note the adjectives used by the law: the furniture
commission of robbery or receptacle must be ‘locked or sealed’, if it isn’t
locked or sealed, there is no robbery –Atty. A
Mere possession of picklocks is punishable; even
the locksmith who made them may be held liable When the object is taken away (see: 2nd manner of
commission, under subdivision B above), there
Re: false keys, the genuine key must be stolen, not mere act of removing it consummates the crime
taken by force or intimidation of the owner

The false key or picklock must be used to ENTER
the building, NOT to open trunks/chests/etc.
inside, else the crime is theft

If the breaking of windows was committed on a
car (like, the dude broke the car windows), the
crime is theft, not robbery with force upon things

ART.300
ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE
AND BY A BAND

*The robbery mentioned in the next preceding article, if committed in an uninhabited place and by a
band shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty therefor

Q: What are the 2 qualifications?
Robbery under art.299 must be committed
1. By a band, AND
2. In an uninhabited place

Q: Do these 2 have to concur?
Yes

Q: Suppose the robbery committed was by means of violence and intimidation against persons. What is
the legal effect of the presence of a band?
The presence of a band qualifies the offense

*NB: Robbery with violence or intimidation of persons must be committed either in an
uninhabited place OR by a band, in order to be qualified. Band and uninhabited place do not
have to concur

ART.301
WHAT IS AN INHABITED HOUSE, PUBLIC BUILDING,

CRIMINAL LAW II 192
K notes

BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES

Q: What is an inhabited house?
Any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even though the
inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed

Q: What are dependencies?
All interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries, barns, coach‐houses, stables or other
departments or enclosed spaces contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior
entrance connected therewith and which form part of the whole

*NB: Requisites for dependencies –
1. Must be contiguous to the building
2. Must have an interior entrance connected therewith; and
3. Must form part of the whole

Q: What is a public building?
The term ‘public building’ includes every building owned by the government or belonging to a
private person bit used or rented by the government, although temporarily unoccupied by the
same

Q: Suppose there is a house. Adjacent to it is a grocery. There is a door connecting one to the other and
the offender destroys the external grocery door and went through the connecting door into the house.
Is he liable?
Yes

Q: Suppose in a public building, the accused entered through the external door, took something from
inside the building and left through the window. What crime did he commit?
Theft – he destroyed nothing, did not force entrance, used no false keys, etc.

Q: Suppose he merely reached for the valuables nearest to the open window. What crime did he
commit?
Theft

Q: Suppose his entire body went through the window
Robbery

ART.302
ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE
OR IN A PRIVATE BUILDING

1. The offender entered an uninhabited place or building which was NOT a dwelling house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship
2. Any of the following circumstances was present:
a. Entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance of egress
b. A wall, roof, floor or outside door or window was broken
c. Entrance was effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar tools
d. A door, wardrobe, chest or receptacle was broken
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the same is broken elsewhere
3. The offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain

CRIMINAL LAW II 193
K notes
ART.303
ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS OR FIREWOOD
IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING

*In the cases enumerated in arts.299 and 302, when the robbery consists in the taking of cereals, fruits
or firewood, the culprit shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in the said
articles

Q: What are cereals?
Seedlings which are immediate products of the soil

ART.304
POSSESSION OF PICKLOCKS OR
SIMILAR TOOLS

1. The offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools
2. Such picklocks or similar tools are specially adapted to the commission of robbery
3. The offender does not have lawful cause for such possession

Q: What about the person making such tools?
The same penalty applies to the maker of the tools

Q: Suppose the offender is a locksmith?
The penalty is higher (prision correccional in its medium – maximum periods)

Q: Is actual use necessary?
No

ART.305
FALSE KEYS

Q: What are included in the term ‘false keys’?
1. Picklocks or similar tools
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

CHAPTER TWO
BRIGANDAGE

Q: What is brigandage?
Brigandage is a crime committed by more than 3 armed persons who form a band of robbers for
the purpose of committing robbery in the highways; or kidnapping persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom for any other purpose to be attained by means of force or
violence

Q: What is punishable here?
The act of forming a band for the purpose of robbery or kidnapping for ransom, or for any other
purpose to be attained through force or violence

CRIMINAL LAW II 194
K notes
ART.306
WHO ARE BRIGANDS – PENALTY

Q: When is there brigandage?
When –
1. There are at least 4 armed persons
2. They formed a band of robbers
3. For any of the following purposes:
a. To commit robbery in the highways
b. To kidnap persons for ransom or extortion
c. To attain any other purpose through force or violence

Q: What is the presumption of the law as to brigandage?
All persons in the band are presumed highway robbers of brigands if any of them carries an
unlicensed firearm

NOTES:

*The law does not qualify the ‘arms’ necessary, except when the presumption as to unlicensed firearms
is applied

*’Highway’ includes city streets

ART.307
AIDING AND ABETTING
A BAND OF BRIGANDS

1. There is a band of brigands
2. The offender knows the band to be of brigands
3. He does any of the following acts:
a. He in any manner aids, abets, or protects such band of brigands
b. He gives them information of the movements of the police or other peace officer of the
government
c. He acquires or receives the property taken by the brigands

Q: What is the presumption of the law as to knowledge?
The person performing the acts has done so knowingly unless the contrary is proven

HIGHWAY ROBBERY OR BRIGANDAGE
UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 532


*Highway Robbery and Brigandage:
The seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away
of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons; or force
upon things, or other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine highway

*Philippine highway:
Any road, street, passage, highway and bridges, or other parts thereof, or railway/railroad
within the Philippines used by persons or vehicles or locomotives or trains for the movement or
circulation of persons or transportation of goods, articles, or property or both

*Any person who aids or protects highway robbers, or abets the commission of highway
robbery/brigandage shall be considered as an accomplice

CRIMINAL LAW II 195
K notes

*The same presumption applies as to knowledge, under art.307 of the RPC

CHAPTER THREE
THEFT

Q: How is theft committed?
Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without
the latter’s consent

ART.308
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT

Q: Who may be held liable for theft?
1. Those who –
a. With intent to gain
b. But without violence against persons nor force upon things
c. Take personal property belonging to another
d. Without the latter’s consent
2. Those who –
a. Having found lost property
b. Fail to deliver the same to local authorities or to its owner
3. Those who –
a. After having maliciously damaged the property of another
b. Remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by them
4. Those who –
a. Enter and enclosed state or field
b. Where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another without the consent of its
owner
c. To hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits, cereals or other forest/farm products

Q: How is theft committed?
1. Taking of personal property
2. The personal property belongs to another
3. The taking is done with intent to gain AND without the consent of the owner
4. The taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things

Q: What does the law presume, when a person is found in possession of property not belong to him?
The law presumes theft, provided that the property must have been recently stolen


NOTES

*There is ‘taking’ even If the offender received the thing from the offended party because taking is
defined with respect to the transfer of physical possession

*’Personal property’ includes electricity and gas, promissory notes, checks and invoices

*Selling the share of a partner or joint owner is NOT theft because, before the dissolution of the
partnership, the property is owned in common, no part of that property truly belongs to a co‐owner or
partner

CRIMINAL LAW II 196
K notes
*In the sale of goods, there is theft if the goods are taken after payment but BEFORE measuring or
weighing without consent of the vendor

*Actual or REAL gain is not necessary, the law looks at anumo lucrandi (intent to gain)

*Lack of opposition is NOT consent, even if the offended party knew of the taking but did not consent
to it, the crime is still theft

*There is no robbery, (but theft instead) when violence is employed for a reason entirely foreign to the
act of taking

*Unless the force upon things is employed to ENTER the building, there is theft

*Delay in the delivery of lost property to the local authorities is immaterial when the finder surrendered
it voluntarily to the owner when the latter came to retrieve it

*Par.1, art.308 is not only limited to the actual finder, the finder in law as well (i.e.: a policeman) to
whom the actual finder surrendered the lost property is also within the scope of the provision

*The law does not require knowledge of the owner of the lost property (that his property was indeed
missing), as long as the accused knew of had reason to know that the property was lost, it was his duty
to return it

*Intent to gain is inferred from deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person

*The unlawful fishing should NOT be done in an actual fishpond, else the crime is qualified theft

*Theft is not a continuing offense

ART.309
PENALTIES

Q: What are the bases for penalties in theft?
1. The value of the thing stolen
2. The value and nature of the property taken or
3. The circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit to commit the crime

ART.310
QUALIFIED THEFT

Q: When is theft qualified?
1. If the act is committed by a domestic servant
2. If it was committed with grave abuse of confidence
3. If the property stolen is –
a. A motor vehicle
b. Mail matter
c. Large cattle
4. If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the plantation
5. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery
6. If the property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance

NOTES

CRIMINAL LAW II 197
K notes

*The penalty here is 2 degrees higher

*Theft by a housemate is not always qualified

*Theft by a labour3er is not qualified theft, only simple theft

*Theft by one who had access to the place where the property is kept is qualified theft

*The confidence gravely abused must be that existing between the offended party and the offender

*Theft by an industrial partner is not qualified theft

*IMPORTANT! RE: The NOVATION THEORY (of extinguishing criminal liability in theft), according to
People v. Tanjuatco, GR. No. L‐23924, April 29, 1968, the acceptance of payment by the complainant
converts the liability of the accused into a civil obligation or estops the complainant from proceeding
with criminal prosecution and this is applicable when there are contractual relations between the
accused and complainant. Atty A disagrees. ‘Does it extinguish criminal liability? No. Never. The grounds
for extinguishment of criminal liability are enumerated under Art.89, Novation is not one of them.
Criminal liability inures to the act the moment all elements are there, whether you like it or not; and the
moment this happens, criminal liability may ONLY be extinguished through the modes under art.89.
Does it extinguish criminal liability before the crime is committed or before all elements set in? No.
Legally speaking, there is no crime yet, and there is nothing to be extinguished.’ – Atty. A

ANTI‐CARNAPPING ACT OF 1992
RE: THEFT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

*Carnapping:
The taking with intent to gain, or a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s
consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons; or by use of force upon
things

*Qualified Carnapping:
When in the course of the commission or on the occasion of carnapping, the owner, driver, or
occupant of the vehicle is killed or raped

ANTI‐CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974
RE: THEFT OF LARGE CATTLE

*Cattle rustling:
Taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner or raiser, of
any of the animals classified as large cattle whether or not for profit or gain or whether
committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things

Includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner
or raiser

*Presumption of cattle rustling:
Failure to exhibit required documents = prima facie evidence that the large cattle in one’s
possession, control or custody are the fruits of cattle rustling

*Large cattle:
Includes the cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass or other domesticated member of the bovine family

CRIMINAL LAW II 198
K notes

RE: QUALIFIED THEFT

*Qualified Theft also includes timber smuggling from, and illegal cutting of logs in, public forest and
forest reserves

ANTI‐FENCING LAW

*Fencing:
The act of any person who, with intent to fain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in
any article, item or object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to
have been derived from the proceeds or robbery or theft

*Presumption of Fencing:
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery = prima facie evidence of fencing

*ELEMENTS of Fencing:
1. Robbery or theft has been committed
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the robbery/theft, buys, receives,
possesses… any article … or anything of value which has been derived from the proceeds of the
said crime
3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article/thing of value has been delivered
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery/theft
4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or another

ART.311
THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
NATIONAL LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM

*If the property stolen be any property of the national library/national museum, the penalty shall be
arresto mayor/fine ranging from Php 200 – 500, or both, unless a higher penalty should be provided
under other provisions of this Code, in which case, the offender shall be punished by such higher penalty

CHAPTER FOUR
USURPATION

ART.312
OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR
USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY

1. Taking possession of any real property belonging to another by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons
2. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons

*ELEMENTS:
1. The offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights in property

CRIMINAL LAW II 199
K notes

2. The real property/real rights belong to another
3. Violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying real property or
usurping real rights in property
4. There is intent to gain on the part of the offender

ART.313
ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS

*ELEMENTS:
1. There are boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks
intended to designate the boundaries of the same
2. The offender alters the said boundary marks

CHAPTER FIVE
CULPABLE INSOLVENCY

ART.314
FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY

*ELEMENTS:

1. The offender is a debtor, and has obligations due and payable
2. He absconds with his property
3. There is prejudice to his creditors

CHAPTER SIX SWINDLING AND
OTHER DECEITS

ART.315
SWINDLING – ESTAFA

*This part is immensely trying – so here’s a table for ya :)

ESTAFA UNDER ART. 315
Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL:
1. The accused defrauded another
a. By abuse of confidence or
b. By means of deceit (fraudulent acts/fraudulent means)
2. Damage or Prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused to the offended party or to a third person

ESTAFA ESTAFA ESTAFA THROUGH
WITH UNFAITHFULNESS OR BY MEANS OF FALSE PRETENSES FRAUDULENT MEANS
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR FRAUDULENT ACTS (Art.315, (Art.315, No.3)
(Art.315, No.1) No.2)

a) By altering the substance, a) By using fictitious name, or a) By inducing another, by
quantity or quality of falsely pretending to means of deceit, to sign any
anything of value possess power, influence, document

CRIMINAL LAW II 200
K notes

qualifications, property,
ELEMENTS: credit, agency, business or ELEMENTS:
1. The offender has an onerous imaginary transactions; or 1. The offender induced the
obligation to deliver by other similar deceits offended party to sign a
something of value document
2. He alters its substance, 2. Deceit is employed to make
quantity or quality him sign the document
3. Damage or prejudice is 3. The offended party signed
caused to another the document
4. Prejudice is caused

b) By misappropriating or b) By altering the quality, b) By resorting to some
converting money, goods or fineness, or weight of fraudulent practice to
any other personal property anything pertaining to his insure success in a gambling
received in trust, or on art or business game
commission or for
administration, or under
any obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of, or
to return the same; or by
denying having received
such goods/money

ELEMENTS:
1. The money goods, or other
personal property must be
received by the offender in
trust/ on commission/ for
administration/ under any
obligation involving delivery
or return of the same
2. There is misappropriation or
conversion of such money/
property by the offender; or
denial on his part of such
receipt

c) By taking undue advantage c) By pretending to have c) By removing, concealing, or
of the signature of the bribed any Government destroying any court record,
offended party in blank, and employee office files, document or any
by writing any document other papers
above such signature in
blank ELEMENTS:
1. There are court records,
ELEMENTS: office files, documents or
1. The paper with the signature any other papers
of the offended party is in 2. The offender removed,

blank concealed or destroyed any
2. The offended party should of them
have delivered it to the 3. The offender had intent to
offender defraud another
3. Above the signature of the
offended party, a document
is written by the offender
without authority to do so
4. The document so written
creates a liability of, or
causes damage to, the

CRIMINAL LAW II 201
K notes

offended party or any 3rd
person

d) 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

ELEMENTS:
1. The offender post‐dated a
check, or issued a check in
payment of an obligation
2. Such postdating or issuing a
check was done when the
offender had no funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited
therein were not sufficient
to cover the amount of the
check

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; or by obtaining
credit at the said places by
the use of false pretense; or
by abandoning or
surreptitiously removing
any part of his baggage
from the same without
paying for his food,
refreshment or
accommodation

Q: How is Damage or Prejudice inflicted?
1. The offender was deprived of his money or property as a result of fraud
2. There is a disturbance in property rights or
3. Temporary prejudice to the offended party or to a 3rd person

CRIMINAL LAW II 202
K notes

FORMULAE FOR DETERMINING THE COMMISSION OF ESTAFA, THEFT OR CIVIL LIABILITY
(The Amurao Formulae)
ESTAFA Juridical Possession + Material
Possession + Misappropriation of
the property

THEFT Material Possession ONLY + Misappropriation

NO CRIME, ONLY CIVIL LIABILITY OWNERSHIP of the personal property +
Juridical Possession +
Material Possession +
Misappropriation

**NOTES:

*Understand the difference between JURIDICAL and MATERIAL possession:

1. JURIDICAL POSSESSION is the kind of possession based on, or coming from a judicial act or
transaction (this is what gives you the right to possess), i.e.: an agreement/ a contract, express
or implied, oral or written; a provision of law (like a lease, commodatum, or deposit). This is the
kind of possession that can be set up even against the actual owner of the property, a ‘better’
right than the owner because it emanates from the law or an agreement

2. MATERIAL POSSESSION is possession that does NOT originate from a judicial act; it is an
extension of the personality of the owner (i.e.: the owner gives you instructions, commands,
orders or requests). This may not be set up against the owner of the property

*What is controlling here is the SOURCE of possession

*RE: ESTAFA, the obligation involves the ‘return of the SAME thing’. When the obligation is facultative,
therefore, there is no obligation to return that exact same thing

*Transfer of ownership is a transfer or all rights over the thing, therefore, misappropriation of the thing
carries no criminal liability, only civil liability (i.e.: co‐ownership)

*When the agent acts within the scope and purpose of the agency when he sells/disposes of the thing,
there is no crime committed. If, however, there was an express prohibition NOT to employ a sub ‐agent,
for example, and the agent did, estafa is committed (because the agent acted beyond his scope, acted
as if he were the owner of the property, he CONVERTED the property and disregarded the terms and
conditions of the agency and the sale and acted in violation of what was agreed upon)

*RE: COMMISSON OF FRAUD VIA POSTDATING A CHECK: if this happened simultaneously with
contracting the obligation, estafa has been committed. If, however, there was already an existing
obligation when the check was issued, there is no estafa.

*RE, BATAS PAMBANSA 22 (BP 22): This is a catch‐all provision, providing for criminal liability whether or
not there is a pre‐existing obligation. The liability under BP 22 is SEPARATE from that under Art.315 of
the RPC.

Q: Suppose Amurao’s criminal law 2 book was borrowed by a student. Amurao allowed the student to
use the book for a week. Can he take back the book tomorrow?
No

Q: Suppose the week has passed, and you were not able to return the book. What crime did you
commit?
Estafa

CRIMINAL LAW II 203
K notes

Q: Suppose Atty. Amurao asked you to bring his book to the dean’s office. After 2 minutes, you were
called back because Amurao decided he does not trust you. Can you refuse to return the book?
No, Atty. Amurao has a better right to possession than I do

Q: Suppose that instead of going to the dean’s office, you went to Recto and sold the book. What crime
did you commit?
Theft – I only had material possession of the thing when I misappropriated it

Q: X borrowed the book. Already anticipating that it could be lost, he asked Atty. Amurao ‘what if I can’t
return it?’, to which Amurao answered ‘As long as you give me the same book, latest edition.’ The
student was not able to return the original book. What crime did X commit?
X did not commit any crime and is liable only for civil liability, he was not under the obligation to
return the exact same book, and ownership of the original book was transferred to him

*NB: the thing that has to be returned has to be the SAME thing. If, as in this case, only a similar
object is asked in the event that the original one is lost, ownership was transferred. X practically
owned the original book and could opt to replace it with the latest edition

Q: Atty. Amurao lent you his lucky Php 1,000 bill. He has kept the same in his wallet for 15 years because
it has brought him a lot of luck. Atty. Amurao told you to return the same bill and made a receip t for it,
on which he wrote down the bill’s serial number. He also made it clear that the bill was to be returned
on or before Monday. On Monday, you failed to return the bill. What crime was committed?
Estafa

Q: X asked Amurao if he could borrow the lucky bill. Amurao agreed, and told X that it would be okay if
he lost the original one and replaced it with another Php 1,000 bill. X failed to return the original bill.
None – X is only civilly liable

Q: Suppose Amurao has a driver. He handed the driver the keys to the car so he could gas up. The driver
did not return. What crime was committed?
Carnapping

*When the object of the misappropriation is a car or a motor vehicle, and the offender only had
MATERIAL possession of the thing, the crime is carnapping

Q: X borrowed Amurao’s car over the weekend to be used as a private car for X’s cousin’s wedding. The
car was not returned. What crime was committed?
Estafa – Both material and juridical possession were transferred, this is not carnapping

Q: Suppose A asked B to pay A’s business taxes, for which A gave B Php 50,000. Instead of paying for the
taxes, B spent the money for personal uses. What crime was committed?
Estafa

Q: A guardian was appointed by the court over the property of the ward. The property amounted to
Php 500,000. The guardian misappropriated Php 200,000. What crime was committed?
Estafa

Q: A sales representative of an appliance company approached B, a prospective customer. The sales
representative explained the benefits, and when B was not convinced, he allowed a one‐week trial
period. After the 7 days, B failed to return the product. Was there misappropriation?
Yes

Q: Could B be liable for estafa?
No

CRIMINAL LAW II 204
K notes

Q: A student deposited Php 200,000 for the alleged destruction of laboratory materials in school. After
the hearing, the court found him not guilty. The school was asked to return the bills, but it returned Php
200,000 in bills with different serial numbers. What crime was committed?
None, the school was not under the obligation to return the exact same bills, only the same
amount

Q: Suppose A is the owner of several pieces of jewelry worth Php 2,000. He gave the jewelry to X to be
sold on a cash basis. Within 5 days, X was supposed to account for the proceed s of the sale. If it was not
sold, he would return the jewelry to A. X sold the jewelry on a credit basis and the buyer failed to pay on
the agreed date. X therefore failed to account for the sale. What crime was committed?
Estafa by conversion

Q: Suppose that when the jewelry was given to X, he was merely told to sell the same within 30 days and
if it was not sold, to return the same. X sold it on credit. Was the sale on credit within the scope of the
authority given to X?
Yes

Q: May X therefore be held liable for estafa?
No

Q: Suppose that instead of selling the jewelry, X gave it to a sub‐agent who sold the jewelry to Y. Y could
not pay for the same on the agreed date. Is X liable for estafa?
No, there was no express prohibition against employing a sub‐agent (if there was, X could be
liable for estafa)

Q: May a co‐owner of a property be liable for estafa?
No

Q: What is the legal effect of Novation on criminal liability?
None, novation does not affect criminal liability (see: earlier notes on the novation theory vis‐à‐
vis criminal liability)

Q: ABC Corporation’s head of office is in Manila. X was assigned to Cebu to collect ABC’s accounts there.
All collectors shall have a period of 30 days to remit the collected accounts. On the 10 th day, X played in a
casino and lost the entire amount. Was there misappropriation?
Yes

Q: Is X liable for estafa?
No, he still has 20 days to remit the amount

Q: Suppose that on the 20th day, X went to Manila, talked to the President of the company, and
confessed. He entered into an agreement with the President and signed a promissory note where he
acknowledged his obligation to pay, and that the amount would be deducted from his salary. After 5
days, X resigned. Was there novation?
Yes – novation arose from the agreement entered into with the President

Q: Did it extinguish the criminal liability?
No, because at the time it was entered into, all the elements of estafa were not yet present; AND
even if they were, novation is not one of the modes of extinguishing criminal liability

Q: Suppose that on December 18, the president said that the collectors have only under December 24 to
remit their collection; X did not want to leave Cebu since it was Christmas. He ended up spending the
money. On December 26, X went to Manila and talked to the president. They had an agreement, but X
resigned the next day. Is X liable for estafa?
Yes, the promissory note did not extinguish the criminal liability and all the elements of estafa
were complete

CRIMINAL LAW II 205
K notes

Q: Suppose one Saturday afternoon, you went to a grocery store, purchased groceries worth Php
10,000. You did not have enough cash with you and you also did not have enough funds in the bank but
you decided to issue a check anyway. The owner accepted the check. On Monday, the grocery store
owner deposited the check and it bounced. A demand to pay was made, and you failed to comply. What
crime was committed?
Estafa – the check was issued simultaneously with the obligation
Violation of BP 22 (provided you received sufficient notice)
*separate crimes

Q: Suppose you asked the owner if you could just pay on Monday and you would be allowed to bring
home the items you sought to buy. The owner agreed. On Monday, you issued a check which bounced. A
demand for payment was made and you failed to comply. Was estafa committed?
No, at the time the check was issued, there was already a pre‐existing obligation

Q: On a Saturday afternoon, you purchased groceries worth Php 10.000. You issued a check in favour of
the owner, but before the check was deposited by the latter on Monday, you went to him and told him
that the check you issued will be replaced by a new one. The owner accepted the new check, but it
bounced. Is this estafa?
No, the issuance of the new check was already for a pre‐existing obligation, but I could be liable
for a violation of BP 22

BATAS PAMBANSA 22
RE: BOUNCING CHECKS

Q: Who are liable?
Persons who –
1. Issue
2. Make; or
3. Draw
A bouncing check

Q: Are endorsers liable?
No

Q: Suppose a check was issued not as payment of an account but as a guaranty for an obligation. The
check bounced. Is the person who issued it liable?
Yes, mere issuance constitutes a violation of BP 22


1. Making or Drawing and Issuing any check 2. Having sufficient funds in, or credit with
to apply on account tor for value, the drawee bank when the offender
knowing at the time of issue that the makes/draws or issues a check, by failing
(maker/drawer/issuer) does not have to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
sufficient funds in or credit with the credit to cover the full amount of the
drawee bank for the payment of such check if presented within a period of 90
check in full upon its presentment, which days from the date appearing thereon,
check is subsequently dishonoured for for which reason it is dishonoured by the
insufficiency of funds/credit; or would drawee bank
have been dishonoured for the same

reason, had not the person drawer,
without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment
ELEMENTS: ELEMENTS:
1. A person makes/draws of issues any check 1. A person has sufficient funds/credit when
2. The check is made/drawn/issued to apply he makes/issues/draws a check

CRIMINAL LAW II 206
K notes

on account or for value 2. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to
3. The person who makes/draws/issues the maintain a credit to cover the full amount
check knows at the time of issue that he of the check if presented within a period
does not have sufficient funds/credit for of 90 days from the date appearing
the payment of the check upon its thereon
presentment 3. The check is dishonoured by the drawee
4. The check is subsequently dishonoured for bank
insufficiency of funds/credit; or would
have been dishonoured for the same
reason if the drawer had not, without any
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment

NOTES:

*The making, drawing and issuing of a check, payment of which is refused by the drawee bank because
of insufficiency of funds in or credit, is prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds/credit
when the check is presented within 90 days from the date on the check

*Failure to make good the payment within 5 banking days gives rise to prima facie evidence of
knowledge of the lack and insufficiency of funds

*If the check that was issued without funds is presented AFTER 90 days, the drawer/maker/issuer is not
liable

*The maker/issuer/drawer is also not liable when the he pays the holder of the check the amount due
thereon or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within 5 banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee bank

*Prima facie evidence does not arise where notice of non‐payment is not sent to the maker/drawer of
the check

*Conviction of acquittal under the Revised Penal Code is NOT a bar to prosecution under BP 22 (re:
estafa) because of the different requisites – BP 22 requires the additional fact of the drawee’s
knowledge of lack/insufficiency of funds, the RPC does not.

*Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing crime

Q: Suppose at the time you issued a check, you had sufficient funds. After 2 days, you sent a notice to
the bank to stop payment because the payee failed to comply with his obligation. The bank refused to
honour the check. Are you liable?
No

Q: Same facts, but this time, you did not have sufficient funds when you ordered the bank to stop
payment. Are you liable?
Yes

ART.316
OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING

*The other forms of swindling are:
1. Conveying, selling, encumbering or mortgaging any real property, and pretending to be the
owner of the same
**ELEMENTS:
a. The thing is immovable

CRIMINAL LAW II 207
K notes

b. The offender, who is not the owner of the property, represents that he is the owner
c. He executes an act of ownership
d. The act is made to the prejudice of the owner or a 3rd person (actual damage is necessary)

2. Disposing of real property as free from encumbrance, although such encumbrance is not
recorded
**ELEMENTS:
a. The thing disposed of is real property
b. The offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is
recorded or not
c. There is express representation by the offender that the real property is free from
encumbrance
d. The act of disposing of the real property is made to the damage of another

3. Wrongful taking by the owner of his property from its rightful possessor
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is the owner of personal property
b. The property is in the lawful possession of another
c. The offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor
d. Prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or to a 3rd person

4. Executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another
*NB: If the conveyance is real and not simulated, the crime is fraudulent insolvency under art.314

5. Accepting any compensation for services not rendered or for labour not performed
*NB: Fraud here is required, else, the arrangement is solution indebiti, and carries with it only
the civil duty to return undue payment

6. Selling, mortgaging or encumbering real property or properties with which the offender
guaranteed the fulfillment of his obligation as surety
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action
b. He guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real properties
c. He sells, mortgages, or in any other manner encumbers said real property
d. Such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is –
i. Without express authority from the court
ii. Made before the cancellation of his bond; or
iii. Made before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him

ART.317
SWINDLING A MINOR

*ELEMENTS:
1. The offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions/ feelings of a minor
2. He induces the minor to –
a. Assume an obligation
b. Give release or
c. Execute transfer of any property right
3. The consideration is some loan of money or credit or other personal property
4. The transaction is to the detriment of the minor

ART.318
OTHER DECEITS

*Punishable Acts:

CRIMINAL LAW II 208
K notes

1. Defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles
2. Interpreting dreams, making forecasts, telling fortunes or taking advantage of the credulity of
the public in any other similar manner for profit or gain

RE: ARSON

ART.320
ARSON

**NB: Presidential Decree 1613 expressly repealed or amended Articles 320‐326 of the Revised Penal
Code, but Presidential Decree 1744 revived Article 320

*Kinds of Arson:
1. Simple Arson (Sec.1, PD 1613)
2. Destruction Arson (Art.320, as amended by RA No.7659)
3. Other cases of arson (Sec.3, PD 1613)

PD 1613
AMENDING THE LAW ON ARSON

Arson:
‐Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another

‐The same penalty shall be imposed when the person sets fire to his own property under circumstances
which expose to danger the life or property of another

‐Definition: the malicious destruction of property by fire

‐Conspiracy to commit arson is also punishable

Destructive Arson:
‐When the property burned is –
1. Ammunitions factories or establishments where explosives/combustible materials are stored
2. Archive/museum whether public or private; any edifice devoted to culture, education and social
services
3. Any church/place of worship/ building where people usually assemble
4. Train, airplane, vessel, watercraft or conveyance for transportation of persons or property
5. Building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial or administrative or other
official proceeding
6. Hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing tenement, shopping centre, public or private
market, theatre/movie house
7. Building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated in a populated or congested area

Other cases of arson:
‐Burning any of the following –
1. Building used as offices of the government or
2. Inhabited house/ dwelling
3. Industrial establishment
4. Plantation, farm, pastureland, etc.
5. Rice/sugar or cane mill, mill central
6. Railway/ bus station, airport, wharf, warehouse

Special Aggravating Circumstances:

CRIMINAL LAW II 209
K notes

1. If committed with intent to gain
2. If committed for the benefit of another
3. The offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property
burned
4. Committed by a syndicate (planned or carried out by a group of 3 or more persons)

Prima Facie Evidence of Arson
1. The fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building
2. A substantial amount of flammable materials are stored in the building
3. Gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or materials
soaked therewith, or containers thereof, or any electronic contrivance designed to start a fire or
ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins
4. The building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the time of the
issuance of the policy
5. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance policy, more than 2 fires have occurred
in the same premises owner or under the control of the offender and/or insured
6. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the effects insured and stored in a building or
property had been withdrawn from the premises except in the ordinary course of business
7. Demand for money or other valuable consideration was made before the fire in exchange for
the desistance of the offender or for the safety of the person or property of the victim

Q: How is Arson committed, under the RPC?

ARSON OF PROPERTY CRIMES INVOLVING BURNING ONE’S ARSON

OF SMALL VALUE DESTRUCTION PROPERTY AS A MEANS
TO COMMIT ARSON
Elements: Elements: Elements: Elements:

1. An uninhabited hut, 1. The offender 1. The offender set fire 1. The property
storehouse, barn, causes destruction to, or destroyed his burned is the
shed, or any other of the property own property exclusive property
property is burned 2. The destruction 2. The purpose of the of the offender
2. The value of the was done by means offender in doing so 2. The purpose of the
property burned of – was to commit arson offender in burning
does not exceed a. Explosion or to cause great it is to defraud or
Php25.00 b. Discharge of destruction cause damage to
3. The burning was electric current 3. The property another or
done at a time or c. Inundation belonging to another prejudice is actually
under d. Sinking or was burned or caused, or the thing
circumstances stranding of a destroyed burned is a building
which clearly vessel in an inhabited
exclude all danger e. Damaging the place
of the fire engine of the
spreading vessel
f. Taking up rails
from railway
track
g. Destroying
telegraph wires
and posts or
those of any
other system
h. Other similar
effective means
of destruction

NOTES

CRIMINAL LAW II 210
K notes

*There is no complex crime of Arson with Homicide. If by reason or on occasion of arson, death results,
the crime of Homicide is absorbed in arson

*Under RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007), a person who commits an act punishable under PD 1613
thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of
terrorism (sec.3, RA 9372)

CHAPTER NINE
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF

ART.327
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF

*Any person who deliberately causes damage to another’s property and who does not fall within the
provisions of the next preceding chapter (arson, other crimes involving destruction)

*Elements of Malicious Mischief:
1. The offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another
2. Such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction
3. The act of damaging another’s property is committed merely for the sake of damaging it

NOTES:

*Malicious mischief is the wilful damaging of another’s property for the sake of causing damage due to
hate, revenge or other evil motives

*It cannot be committed through negligence

*If no malice was involved, there is only civil liability

*If after damaging the thing, the offender used it, the crime is theft

*Damage is not an incident of the crime (as compared to, for example, breaking windows in robbery) –
the act of causing damage itself is punishable

ART.328
SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF

*Qualified Malicious Mischief:
1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions
2. Using poisonous or corrosive substances
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle
4. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or Library or to any archive, registry,
waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public

ART.329

CRIMINAL LAW II 211
K notes

OTHER MISCHIEFS

*Mischiefs not included in Art.328, punished according to the value of the damage caused

ART.330
DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION

*Damaging any railway, telegraph, or telephone lines

*Qualified if the damage results in any derailment of cars, collision or other accidents

ART.331
DESTROYING OR DAMAGING
STATUES, PUBLIC MONUMENTS
OR PAINTINGS

*Self‐explanatory, this

CHAPTER TEN
EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

ART.332
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY

*Crimes involved:
1. Theft
2. Swindling/Estafa
3. Malicious Mischief

*Persons Exempted:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, relatives by affinity in the same line
2. Widowed spouse who commits any of the 3 crimes above with respect to the property which
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same passed into the possession of another
3. Brothers and sisters, and brothers‐in‐law, sisters‐in‐law, if living together

NOTES

*Exemption is based on family relations

*Parties to the crime who are not related to the offended party still remain criminally liable

*Exempted persons include: stepparents, adopted children, concubine/paramour

CRIMINAL LAW II 212
K notes

TITLE ELEVEN CRIMES
AGAINST CHASTITY

CHAPTER ONE ADULTERY AND
CONCUBINAGE

ART.333
WHO ARE GUILTY OF ADULTERY

*Persons Liable:
1. Married woman who has sexual relations with a man not her husband
2. The man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be
subsequently declared void

*Elements:
1. The woman is married
2. She has sexual relations with a man not her husband
3. With respect to the man, he knew her to be married

NOTES

*The acquittal of one party does not operate as acquittal for the other

ART.334
CONCUBINAGE

*Modes of Commission:
1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling
2. Having sexual relations, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not the man’s
wife
3. Cohabiting with her in any other place

*Elements:
1. The man is married
2. He committed any of the 3 punishable acts
3. With respect to the woman, she must know him to be married

CHAPTER TWO
RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

*NB: Art.335 on Rape was repealed by Republic Act 8353

ART.336
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

*Elements:
1. The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness
2. The act is committed against a person of either sex
3. The act is committed under any of the following circumstances:
a. Using force or intimidation

CRIMINAL LAW II 213
K notes

b. The offended party is deprived of reason or is unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
d. The offended party is under 12 years old or demented

CHAPTER THREE
SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS, AND
WHITE SLAVE TRADE

*Seduction: Enticing a woman to unlawful sexual intercourse by promise of marriage or other means of
persuasion without the use of force

ART.337
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION

*2 classes:
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 by certain persons (i.e.: person in authority, etc.)
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant regardless or her age or
reputation

*Elements of seduction of virgin
1. The offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation
2. She is over 12, but under 18
3. The offender has sexual intercourse with her
4. The offender employs abuse of authority, confidence or relationship

*Persons Liable:
1. Those who abused their authority
a. Person in public authority
b. Guardian
c. Teacher
d. Person entrusted with the education or custody of the seduced girl
2. Those who abused confidence
a. Priest
b. House servant
c. Domestic
3. Those who abused relationship
a. Brother who seduced his sister
b. Ascendant who seduced his descendant

ART.338
SIMPLE SEDUCTION

*Elements:
1. The offender party is over 12 years old, but under 18
2. She is of good reputation, single or a widow
3. The offender has sexual intercourse with her
4. The act is done by means of deceit

ART.339
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH
THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY

CRIMINAL LAW II 214
K notes

*Elements:

1. The offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness
2. The acts are committed upon a woman who is a virgin, single or widow of good reputation,
under 18 but over 12 years old; or a sister or descendant
3. The offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence, relationship or deceit

ART.340
CORRUPTION OF MINORS

*The promotion or facilitation of prostitution or corruption of persons under age to satisfy the lust of
another

ART.341
WHITE SLAVE TRADE

*Punishable Acts:
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution
2. Profiting by prostitution
3. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution

CHAPTER FOUR
ABDUCTION

*Abduction: The taking away of a woman from her house or place where she may be for the purpose of
carrying her to another place with intent to marry or corrupt her

ART.342
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

*Elements:
1. The person abducted is any woman, regardless of age, civil status, or reputation
2. The abduction is against her will
3. The abduction is carried out with lewd designs

ART.343
CONSENTED ABDUCTION

*Elements:
1. The offended party must be a virgin
2. She must be over 12 years old, but under 18
3. The taking away must be with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender
4. The taking away must be with lewd designs

ART.344
PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMES OF ADULTERY,
CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION AND
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

CRIMINAL LAW II 215
K notes

*Art.344 no longer covers the prosecution of Rape, as per RA 8353. Rape may now be prosecuted ex
officio

*Order of preference for filing the complaint in the above mentioned crimes:
1. The offended party
2. Parents
3. Grandparents
4. Guardians
*parents, grandparents and guardians may file if the party is a minor or is incapacitated

*RE: ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE – Prosecution shall be upon a complaint filed by the offended
spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty
parties, if they are both alive, or in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders

*RE: SEDUCTION AND ABDUCTION – Prosecution shall be upon a complaint filed by the offended party or
her parents, grandparents, or guardian. No prosecution if the offender has been expressly pardoned by
the above‐named person

*RE: SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION, ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS – The marriage of the offender with the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him

*The complaint must be –
1. Subscribed to by the offended party and
2. Filed in court, not with the fiscal

*Silence or acquiescence of the offended party does not cure the defect of lack of subscription nor
operate to confer jurisdiction of the court

*Pardon must come BEFORE the institution of criminal action and BOTH offenders must be pardoned

*Prior consent bars the institution of criminal proceedings, subsequent consent bars it too

*Condonation is NOT synonymous with pardon; Condonation does not bar subsequent complaints

*Only the offended party may pardon, except in cases where the offended minor is dead or
incapacitated

*Marriage of the parties guilty of adultery/concubinage does not extinguish criminal liability because
both parties are offenders

ART.345
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS
GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY

1. To indemnify the offended woman
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from doing so
3. In every case, to support the offspring

*The adulterer and the concubine can be sentenced to indemnify the offended spouse for damages

*There is no civil liability for acts of lasciviousness

*In multiple rape, all the accused must support the offspring

ART.346

CRIMINAL LAW II 216
K notes

LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS, GUARDIANS,
TEACHERS OR OTHER PERSONS
ENTRUSTED WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY

*Accomplices punished as principals in private crimes:
1. Ascendants
2. Guardians
3. Curators
4. Teachers
5. Any other person who cooperates as an accomplice with abuse of authority or confidential
relationship

TITLE TWELVE
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS

CHAPTER ONE SIMULATION OF
BIRTHS AND USURPATION OF
CIVIL STATUS

ART.347
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION
OF ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER AND
CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF
A LEGITIMATE CHILD

*Punishable Acts:
1. Simulation of birth
2. Substitution of one child for another
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent to cause such child to lose its civil
status

*The fact that the child will be benefited by the simulation of its birth is not a defence

*Requisites for concealing or abandoning a legitimate child:
1. The child must be legitimate
2. The offender conceals or abandons such child
3. The offender has the intent to cause such child to lose its civil status


ART.348
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS

*Committed by assuming the filiation or parental or conjugal rights of another for the purpose of
defrauding the offended party of his heirs

*’Civil Status’ includes one’s public station, profession, the rights, duties, capacities and incapacities
which determine a person to a given class

CRIMINAL LAW II 217
K notes

*There must be intent to enjoy the rights arising from the civil status of another, else the crime is
assuming or using a fictitious name under art.178 or estafa under art.315

*The purpose of defrauding the offended party of his heirs qualifies the crime

CHAPTER TWO
ILLEGAL MARRIAGES

Art.349
BIGAMY

*Elements:
1. The offender has been legally married
2. The marriage has not been legally dissolved or in case of an absentee spouse, that spouse could
not yet be presumed dead according to the civil code
3. He contracts a 2nd or subsequent marriage
4. The subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity

*The 2nd spouse is not necessarily liable for bigamy

*Bigamy is not a private crime

*A person convicted of bigamy may still be prosecuted for concubinage

ART.350
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST
PROVISIONS OF LAWS

*Elements:
1. The offender contracted marriage
2. He knew at the time that –
a. The requirements of the law were not complied with; or
b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment

*Qualifying: If either of the contracting parties obtains the consent of the other by means of violence,
intimidation, or fraud

*The offender must not be guilty of bigamy

ART.351
PREMATURE MARRIAGES

*Persons Liable:
1. Any widow who married within 301 days from the death of her husband, or before having
delivered if she is pregnant at the time of his death
2. A woman who, her marriage having been annulled or dissolved, married before her delivery or
before the expiration of the period of 301 days after the date of the legal separation

*Ratio: Preventing confusion in connection with filiation and paternity

*The period may be disregarded if the first husband was sterile or impotent

CRIMINAL LAW II 218
K notes

*The period applies only to women who are not pregnant. If they are, the prohibition is good only until
delivery

ART.352
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY

*Persons Liable: Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect or civil authorities who shall
perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony

*The offender must be authorized to solemnize marriage else, the liability is for Art.177 (usurpation of
authority or official functions)

TITLE THIRTEEN CRIMES
AGAINST HONOUR

CHAPTER ONE
LIBEL

SECTION ONE – DEFINITION, FORMS AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME

ART.353
DEFINITION OF LIBEL

*A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonour, discredit or contempt
of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead

*Defamation: includes liber and slander, means the offense of injuring a person’s character, fame, or
reputation through false and malicious statements

*Libel: Defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio,
phonograph, painting or theatrical or cinematographic exhibition or any similar means

*Oral defamation = slander

*Seditious libel is punished under art.142

*Elements of Defamation
1. Imputation of –
a. A crime
b. A vice or defect – real or imaginary
c. Any act or omission, status of circumstance
2. The imputation is made publicly
3. It must be malicious
4. It is directed at a natural or juridical person or one who is dead
5. It tends to cause the dishonour, discredit or contempt of the person defamed

*The meaning of the writer is immaterial, it is the meaning CONVEYED to the minds of persons of
reasonable understanding that the law looks at, taking into consideration the surrounding
circumstances

*Even if intended for humour, it could still be libellous

CRIMINAL LAW II 219
K notes

*Imputation of criminal intent is NOT libellous

*There is no crime if the imputation is not published; publication being communication of the
defamatory matter to some 3rd persons

*MALICE IN FACT: may be shown by proof of ill‐will, or purpose to injure; express malice

*MALICE IN LAW: presumed from a defamatory imputation; proof of malice is not required because it is
presumed to exist by the law

*Where the communication is privileged, malice is not presumed from the defamatory words; the
prosecution must prove malice whenever the imputation appears in a privileged communication

*Even if the publication is injurious, the presumption of malice in law disappears upon proof of good
intention and justifiable motive

*But where malice in fact is present, justifiable motive cannot exist and the imputations become
actionable

*Identification of the offended party is required; it isn’t sufficient that the offended party recognized
himself as the attacked or defamed; it must be shown that at least a 3rd person could identify him as the
object of the libelous publication

*Where the article is impersonal on its face and interpretation of its language does not single out
individuals, the requisite of identification is missing and defamation does not exist

*BUT the publication need not refer to the offended party by name; it is sufficient that the offended
party is the person meant or alluded to therein

*Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons is not actionable unless the statements are all‐
embracing or are sufficiently specific for the victims to be identifiable

*Liber published in different parts may be taken together to establish the identity of the offended party

*INNUENDO: a clause in the indictment or other pleading containing an averment which is explanatory
of some preceding word or statement; defines the defamatory meaning which the plaintiff set on the
words, to show how they came to have that meaning and also to show how they relate to the plaintiff

*In libel, there are as many offenses as there are persons defamed

ART.354
REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY

*Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and
justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal,
moral, or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks of any judicial,
legislative, or other official proceeding 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

*IS TRUTH A DEFENCE IN LIBEL?
NO. Generally speaking, truth is NOT a defence in libel. An offender may NOT invoke ‘truth’
as a defence in libel, because libel is a punishable act wherein the law looks at the EFFECT TO THE
MINDS OF THE PUBLIC (i.e.: whether the publication has stigmatized the offended party in the

CRIMINAL LAW II 220
K notes

eyes of the public), and NOT at the intrinsic value of the publication (i.e.: whether it was truthful
or otherwise)
NOTE however, that the law enumerates specific instances when truth may be invoked as a
defence (SEE: ART.361)

*Malice in law is presumed from every defamatory imputation, EVEN IF it were true, the presumption
still exists if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown

*Rebutting the Presumption of Malice:
Defendant must show that –
1. The defamatory imputation is true, in case the allows proof of the truth of the imputation (see:
No.2, art.354 re: ‘fair and true report’)
2. It is published with good intention; and
3. There is justifiable motive for making it

*RE: PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION:

ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION CONDITIONAL OR QUALIFIED PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION
NOT actionable, EVEN IF its author has acted in bad Those which, although containing defamatory
faith imputations, would not be actionable UNLESS
made with malice or bad faith
i.e.: statements by members of Congress in the
discharge of their functions; answers given by There is malice when the defamer has been
witnesses in reply to questions propounded to prompted by ill‐will or spite and speaks not in
them; allegations or statements made by the response to duty, but merely to injure the
parties or their counsels in their pleadings reputation of the person defamed

Scope: narrow and practically limited to legislative If the case is not covered by absolute privilege, it
and judicial proceedings and other acts of state, may be tested in the light of the qualified privilege
including communications made in the discharge extended to a private communication made by
of duty under express authority of law, by or to person to another in the performance of any legal,
heads of executive departments and matters moral or social duty
involving military affairs
Lost by proof of malice

*Communication in par.1, art.354 need not be in a private document

*The privileged communication covers also complaints against individuals who are not public officers,
like priests

*REQUISITES OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION (Par.1, Art.354)
1. The person who made the communication had a legal, moral or social duty to make the
communication, or at least, had an interest to be upheld
2. The communication is addressed to an officer or board or superior having some interest or duty
in the matter
3. The statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice

*RE: privileged communication in the performance of a legal duty, presupposes a provision of law
conferring upon the accused the duty to communicate; if there is no provision of law, there is no duty to
communicate, and the communication is therefore not privileged

*RE: moral duty, the existence of a moral duty depends upon the relationship between the giver and
receiver of the communication and whether the said communication is voluntarily given or not; i.e.:
complaints against priests to their superiors

*RE: social duty, this also depends upon the relationship between the sender and recipient

CRIMINAL LAW II 221
K notes

*Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith

*That the statement is privileged is a matter of defence that must be established by the accused

*Overcoming the defence of privileged communication:
Prosecution must prove that –
1. The defendant acted with malice in fact
2. There is no reasonable ground for believing the charge to be true

*Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their
truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the individual’s
mistake

*REQUISITES OF A FAIR AND TRUE REPORT (Par.2, Art.354)
1. It is a fair and true report of a judicial, legislative or other official proceeding which are NOT of a
confidential nature; or a statement/speech/report delivered in said proceeding, or of any other
act performed by a public official in the exercise of his functions
2. It is made in good faith
3. It is without any comments or remarks

*The communication made in the report must be pertinent and material to the subject matter in which
the author claims an interest to uphold

*The protection of the privilege may be lost by the MANNER of its exercise

*Only matters which are NOT of confidential nature may be published

*Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct of public officers which are related to the
discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation; this concerns matters of PUBLIC INTEREST, where the imputation is based on this, the
presumption of criminal intent does NOT arise from the mere publication of defamatory matter; in
order that a discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false
allegation of fact or a comment based on false supposition

*Retaliation or vindictiveness cannot be a basis of self‐defence in defamation

*The defamatory statements made by the accused must be a fair answer to the libel made by the
supposed offended party and must be related to the imputation made the answer should be
unnecessary libelous

ART.355
LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITING
OR SIMILAR MEANS

*Libel may be committed by means of –
1. Writing
2. Printing
3. Lithography
4. Engraving
5. Radio
6. Phonograph
7. Painting
8. Theatrical exhibition
9. Cinematographic exhibition
10. Any similar means

CRIMINAL LAW II 222
K notes

*Defamation made through an amplifier is not libel but oral defamation

ART.356
THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND
OFFER TO PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION
FOR A COMPENSATION

*Punishable Acts:
1. Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child or other
members of his family
2. Offering to prevent the publication for compensation or monetary consideration

*Blackmail: any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure

*Felonies where blackmail is possible:
1. Light threats (art.288)
2. Threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the publication of a libel for compensation
(art.356)

ART.357
PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS
REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

*Elements:
1. The offender is a reporter, editor, or manager of a newspaper daily or magazine
2. He publishes facts connected with the private life of another
3. Such facts are offensive to the honour, virtue and reputation of said person

*The prohibition applies even if the facts are involved in official proceedings

*GAG LAW (art.357): newspaper reports on cases pertaining to adultery, divorce, issues about the
legitimacy of children will necessarily be barred from publication

*The reporter, etc. may NOT, however, be compelled to reveal the source of the news report unless the
Court/ House Committee of Congress finds it to be demanded by the security of the State

ART.358
SLANDER

*Slander: oral defamation; libel committed by oral or spoken means instead of in writing

*Factors that determine the gravity of Oral Defamation:
1. Expressions used
2. Personal relation of the accused and the offended party
3. Circumstances surrounding the case
4. Social standing or position of the offended party

*The slander need not be personally heard by the offended party

CRIMINAL LAW II 223
K notes

ART.359
SLANDER BY DEED

*Elements:
1. The offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honour
2. Such act is performed in the presence of other persons
3. Such act casts dishonour, discredit or contempt upon the offended party

*Slander by deed refers to slander BY PERFORMANCE, not by the use of words – written or spoken

SECTION TWO – GENERAL PROVISIONS

ART.360
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE

*Persons liable for crimes against honour:
1. Person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in
writing or similar means
2. Author or editor of a book or pamphlet
3. Editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication
4. The owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and all other
persons who in any way participated in, or have connection with its publication

*If the crime imputed is one that cannot be prosecuted publicly (i.e.: adultery), offended party must file
the complaint; the information filed by the fiscal is not sufficient to clothe the court with jurisdiction

ART.361
PROOF OF THE TRUTH

*When proof of truth is admissible:
1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party
is a private or public individual
2. When the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission imputed does
not constitute a crime, provided it is related to the discharge of his official duties

*RE: public officers, when the imputation involves the private life of a government employee, which is
NOT related to the discharge of his official duties, the offender is not allowed to prove the truth of it as
a matter of defence

*Proof of truth must rest upon POSITIVE, DIRECT evidence, upon which a definite finding may be made
by the court; but PROBABLE CAUSE for belief in the truth of the statement is sufficient

*Retraction may mitigate the damages

*That the publication was made as an honest mistake only serves to mitigate the damages and is not a
complete defence

ART.362
LIBELOUS REMARKS

CRIMINAL LAW II 224
K notes

*Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the provisions of art.354, if
made with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof, nor the editor of a newspaper from criminal
liability

CHAPTER TWO INCRIMINATORY
MACHINATIONS

ART.363
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON

*Elements:
1. The offender performs an act
2. By such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime
3. The act does not constitute perjury

*Art.363 is limited to ‘planting’ evidence and the like, which do not in themselves constitute fal se
prosecutions but tend to directly cause false prosecutions

ART.364
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOUR

*Committed by fomenting any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honour or
reputation of a person

*Includes in its scope any scheme or plot which consists of some trickery for the above‐defined purpose

*Gossiping, which is done by availing directly of spoken words = Defamation, NOT intriguing against
honour

*Where the source of the information given can be pinpointed and definitely determined, and it passes
from one to another for the purpose of causing dishonour, the crime is Slander

*But where the source or the author of the derogatory information cannot be determined and the
defendant borrows that information and without subscribing to the truth thereof, passes it to others,
the crime is intriguing against honour

TITLE FOURTEEN
QUASI‐OFFENSES

SOLE CHAPTER
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

ART.365
IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE

*Four ways of commission:

CRIMINAL LAW II 225
K notes

1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would
constitute a grave or less grave or light felony
2. By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an at which would otherwise
constitute a grave or a less serious felony
3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple
imprudence or negligence
4. By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong, which if done maliciously,
would have constituted a light felony

*RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE: voluntarily, but 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

*SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE: consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases wherein the damage
impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest

*If the act performed would NOT constitute a felony (grave/less grave/light) under any other provision
of the Code which defines intentional felony, art.365 is not applicable. There is no crime committed.

*Imprudence or negligence is NOT a crime in itself, but rather a way of committing one; it merely
determines a lower degree of criminal liability and becomes punishable ONLY when it results in a felony

*Criminal negligence is a quasi‐offense, dealt with separately from wilful offenses; what is principally
penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, the lack of care
or foresight

*Imprudence: deficiency of ACTION; failure in PRECAUTION

*Negligence: deficiency of PERCEPTION; failure in ADVERTENCE

*Elements of Reckless Imprudence:
1. The offender does or fails to do an act
2. The doing of/failure to do that act is voluntary
3. It is without malice
4. Material damage results
5. There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration –
a. His employment or occupation;
b. Degree of intelligence, physical condition;
c. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place

*Criminal Negligence presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done, but that it came about
due to imprudence on the part of the offender

*Elements of Simple Imprudence:
1. There is a lack of precaution on the part of the offender
2. The damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest

*Art.64 relative to mitigating and aggravating circumstances is NOT applicable to crimes committed
through negligence; courts shall exercise sound discretion by judging on a case‐by‐case basis

*Contributory Negligence is NOT a complete defence, it merely mitigates criminal liability

*Doctrine of Last Clear Chance: In accordance with this, the contributory negligence of the injured party
will not the defeat the action if it is shown that the accused might have avoided the consequences of the
negligence of the injured party by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence
*Emergency Rule: An accused who, by the negligence of another and not by his own negligence, is
suddenly placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly to avoid injury is not guilty of

CRIMINAL LAW II 226
K notes

negligence if he makes such a choice which a person of ordinary prudence placed in such a position
might make, even though he did not make the wisest choice

*Failure to lend help is a qualifying circumstance

‐ oOo END OF CRIMINAL LAW 2 COVERAGE oOo‐
CONGRATULATIONS!
You made it through a semester under this law school’s most challenging Criminal Law Professor!
Good luck with the grade and the QPI, and here’s hoping that these notes helped out a bit –
If only to lighten to sometimes depressing mood:)

As for You, Marvin ‐ I’d like to think you would have enrolled alongside us
For this coming semester, had you not been busy enjoying those wings. Fly high. ‘1‐K all the way’,
remember? We love and miss you – and yes the dream lives on...
all the way to the Bar exam and beyond it.

~Kimiko

Criminal Law 2 Notes PDF PDF

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

Criminal Law 2 Notes PDF PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

swam together, clinging to their boat. Catantan argues that his actions merely constituted

Overt Acts Levying war Public Uprising; Swift attack Rising publicly or

Purpose or To deliver the To remove from Seizing or To prevent the

Q: Give an example of inciting to sedition in the 1 st manner

Person in Person in Authority/Agent The summons; questions Person in

Authority/Agent is assaulted while in the or orders must be issued Authority/agent

RE: Persons Liable Any unauthorized person Public Officer, Employee or

No, the prosecution must prove which of the 2 is false and show by OTHER EVIDENCE (not the

1. A person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law; or compelled

of the offended party is in 2. The offender removed,

3. Temporary prejudice to the offended party or to a 3rd person

You might also like