What to do next meeting

Wednesday, March 9, 2022

9:01 PM
 
293 - 318
 
1. RA 3019 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
2. 7080 AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER
Crimes against persons and chastity
3. RA 7610 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION
AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
RA 9262 AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN,
PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Ani-photo voyeurism act RA
BP 22, bouncing checks law
Anti-carnapping law
Anti-arson law
 
Title 7 to Title 14
 
 

Important notes
Friday, March 11, 2022
7:38 AM
Article 203. Who are public officers. - For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and
the preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law,
popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the
performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform
in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
 

ARTICLE 25. Penalties Which May Be Imposed. — The penalties which may be imposed,
according to this Code, and their different classes, are those included in the following:

Principal Penalties

Capital punishment: Death.

Afflictive penalties: Reclusión perpetua, Reclusión temporal, Perpetual or temporary

absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prisión mayor.

Correctional penalties: Prisión correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspensión, Destierro.

Light penalties: Arresto menor, Public censure.

Penalties common to the three preceding classes:

Fine, and Bond to keep the peace.

Accessory Penalties

Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,

Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,

Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.

Civil interdiction,

Indemnification,

Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,

Payment of costs.

 
 
 
 

Duration of penalties
Wednesday, March 2, 2022
10:53 AM
 
Article 27.
Reclusion perpetua. - 30 years or more if not pardoned
 
Reclusion temporal. - twelve years and one day to twenty years. [reclusion temporal down is bailable]
 
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. - six years and one day to twelve years
 except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its
duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
 
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. - six months and one day to six years,
 except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be
that of the principal penalty.
 
Arresto mayor. - one month and one day to six months.
 
Arresto menor. - one day to thirty days.
 
Bond to keep the peace. - The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as
the court may determine.
 
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. - Grave felonies are those to which the
law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in
accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
 
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Art..
 
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a
fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.
 
Article 25. Penalties which may be imposed. - The penalties which may be imposed according to this
Code, and
their different classes, are those included in the following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Capital punishment:
Death.
 
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
 
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
 
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
 
 
 

Crimes Against National Security and the Law

of Nations
Sunday, April 17, 2022
1:14 PM
Crimes against national security
1. Treason (Art. 114);
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);
3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and
4. Espionage (Art. 117)
 
 
Crimes against the law of nations
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118);
2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);
3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120);
4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122).
 
- The crimes under this title can be prosecuted even if the criminal act or acts were
committed outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction
 However, prosecution can proceed only if the offender is within Philippine
territory or brought to the Philippines pursuant to an extradition treaty
 This is one of the instances where the Revised Penal Code may be given
extra-territorial application under Article 2 (5) thereof.
- Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and
laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not
only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters
and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
(5) Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
 
- In the case of crimes against the law of nations, the offender can be prosecuted
whenever he may be found because the crimes are regarded as committed against
humanity in general.
 
Almost all of these are crimes committed in times of war, except the following, which can
be committed in times of peace:
 
(1) Espionage, under Article 114 – This is also covered by Commonwealth Act No. 616
which punishes conspiracy to commit espionage. This may be committed both in times of
war and in times of peace.
 
(2) Inciting to War or Giving Motives for Reprisals, under Article 118 – This can be
committed even if the Philippines is not a participant. Exposing the Filipinos or their
properties because the offender performed an unauthorized act, like those who recruit
Filipinos to participate in the gulf war. If they involve themselves to the war, this crime is
committed.
 
(3) Violation of Neutrality, under Article 119 – The Philippines is not a party to a war but
there is a war going on. This may be committed in the light of the Middle East war.
 
Article 114. Treason : Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the
Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or
adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or
elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to
exceed P20,000 pesos.
 
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at
least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.
 
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as
defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by prision mayor to death and
shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos. (As amended by E.O. No. 44, May 31,
1945).
 
Elements
1. Offender is a Filipino or resident alien;
2. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
3. Offender either –
a. levies war against the government; or
 b. adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or
elsewhere
 
Rules, Doctrines, concepts and cases
1. Treason| breach of allegiance to a government, committed by a person who owes
allegiance to it
2. citizenship can be proved by the accused's prison record and/or by testimony of
witnesses who know him to have been born in the Philippines
3. Allegiance| obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individuals owe to the
government under which they live or to their sovereign in return for the protection they
receive
 Either permanent or temporary
4. treason cannot be committed in times of peach
5. Treason by Filipino citizen can be committed outside of the Philippines but treason by
an alien must be committed in the Philippines
6. Treason is a continuous offense
 Committed by one single act, series of acts or by several series of acts in a
single or different times
 All overt acts the accused has done constitute but a single offense and proof
of one is sufficient for conviction
 
Two ways to commit treason:
 
(a) Levying war against the government
Elements:
1. Actual assembling of men;
2. To execute a treasonable design by force;
3. Intent is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy; and
4. Collaboration with foreign enemy or some foreign sovereign
 
5.1| doctrine and cases
 mere acceptance of commission is not
 actual enlistment only is not
 if a body of men however actually assembled for the purpose of executing a
treasonable design, all those who perform any part however minute or remote are
considered to be traitors
 Not necessary that there be a formal declaration of war
 Not necessary that those who attempt to overthrow the government have the
apparent power
 If merely to inflict hate or revenge upon a public officer| NO, public uprising is
not directed at the government
 Must be in collaboration with the enemy; if not --> rebellion (135 in relation
to 134)
 
(b) Adhering to the enemies of the Philippines giving them aid or comfort
 
Elements:
1. Adherence to the enemy (intent to betray)
2. giving aid or comfort to the enemy
3. the two elements above must concur together
 
5.2| doctrine and cases
 Adherence to the enemy| intent to betray; when a citizen intellectually or
emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or convictions disloyal to his
country
 Aid or comfort| An act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in
the conduct of war against the traitor's country and an act which weakens or tends to
weaken the power of the traitor's country to resist or attack the enemy
 Emotional or intellectual attachment or sympathy to the enemy, without
giving aid or comfort is not treason
 When there is no adherence to the enemy, the act which may do aid or
comfort to the enemy does not amount to treason
 Commandeering foodstuff for the enemy is evidence of adherence and aid or
comfort
 Aid or comfort must be a deed or physical activity not merely a mental
operation
 Extent of aid must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not
merely as individuals
-ex: lending money or aid to a friends for his necessities v. lending money to someone to
buy arms or ammunition--> injures the interest of the government of the giver
 Act committed need not actually strengthen the enemy
- as long as it would advance the interest of the enemy or tends to strengthen the enemy
 Commandeering of women to satisfy lust of the enemy is not treason
- not calculated to strengthen the enemy or cripple the defense or resistance of the other
side
 
Further rules, doctrines and cases under aid or comfort
 Informer and active member of the Japanese military police in arresting
suspects
 Agent or spy and participating in the raid of guerrilla hideout
 Finger woman, pointing out who she accuses as guerrilla
 Taking active part in the mass killings
 Person placing himself at the enemy's call to fight side by side when the
opportune time comes
 Overt act of Psychological comfort
 Acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy do
not constitute per se the felony of treason
 Even if it was for the aid or comfort to the enemy; the element of adherence
is not present
 However, when the position was policy-determining and the acts and
utterances of the accused were an earnest implement to such policy --> treason
(acceptance of such position)
 Mere governmental work during the Japanese regime is not an act of treason
 Membership in the police force is not treason but active participation with the
enemies in the apprehension of guerrillas and infliction of ill-treatment is
 Guerrilla warfare may be unlawful, but it should not be suppressed during
occupation
 It is a natural right of the occupied to defend themselves and drive out
invaders
10. Arrest of person alleged to have been committed by the accused due to their
committing a common crime like arson, he is not liable for treason
11. Aid or comfort given to the enemies must be after the declaration of war. The
enemies must be the subject of foreign power
 Does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own country
12. No treason through negligence
13. murder, physical injures, etc., are inherent in the crime of treason
 When killings and other common crimes are charged as overt acts of treason,
they cannot be regarded as separate crimes or complexed with treason
- this rule however would not preclude the punishment of murder or other common
crimes if the prosecution should elect to prosecute the culprit specifically for these
crimes
 
"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at
least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court."
 
Two ways of proving treason
1. Testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act; or
2. Confession of accused in open court.
 Not only an admission of facts made by the accused after a plea of not guilty
 Must be a confession of guilt: pleading guilty before the judge while actually
hearing the same
 
Rules doctrines and cases on this matter:
1. Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by the extrajudicial confession
of the accused
2. Overt act| that physical activity, that deed that constitutes the rendering of aid and
comfort
3. two-witness rule is required to prove the overt act of giving aid or comfort not
adherence
4. two witnesses must refer to the same act, place and moment of time
- example: going guard duty for japanese garrison on different dates
 Not required| their testimonies to be identical
5. the provision requires that witnesses must testify to the whole overt act; or if it is
separable, there must two witnesses to each part of the overt act
6. singleness of purpose is not enough to make one of the two acts
 Illustration on page 16 of Reyes book (2021 edition) [ People v. Abad]
- A: defendant went to the house of Ibarra to search for his revolver --> overt act
B: when ibarra went to the garrison, Ibarra was required by the defendant to
produce his revolver --> another overt act
7. It is sufficient that the witnesses are uniform in their testimony on the overt act; it is
not necessary that there be corroboration between them on the point they testified
 
Adherence may be proved:
 By one witness
 From the nature of the act itself or from the circumstances surrounding the
act
 
Rules doctrines and cases on this matter
 Act of arresting persons suspected of being guerrillas, his being armed and
his being in company with armed Japanese soldiers
 The reason why it need not be proved by two witnesses is because adherence
is a state of mind which can never be proved by direct testimony
 
Aggravating circumstances in treason
 Cruelty and ignominy
- torture before death
- stripping wife and abusing here in front of the husband
- robbery, wanton robbery for personal gain and brutality
 2. evident premeditation is not aggravating in treason
3. superior strength and treachery are inherent in treason
 
Article 64 is not strictly applied to treason
- determining penalty| the amount or degree of aid or comfort given the enemy as well
as the gravity of the separate and distinct acts of treason committed by the accused are
considered
Note: this ruling was made when treason was punishable by reclusion temporal to death
 
Defense of suspended allegiance and change of sovereignty, not accepted
 Citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government
 Sovereignty of government is not transferred to the enemy be mere
occupation
 Subsistence of sovereignty of the legitimate government during occupation is
recognized by IL
 What is suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty
 
Defense of loss of citizenship by joining the army of the enemy is untenable
Defense of duress or uncontrollable fear however is acceptable
 
Article 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason: Penalty. - The conspiracy or
proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor
and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding P5,000 pesos.
 
Elements of conspiracy to commit treason
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. At least two persons come to an agreement to –
a. levy war against the government; or
b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;
3. They decide to commit it.
 
Elements of proposal to commit treason
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. At least one person decides to –
a. levy war against the government; or
b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;
3. He proposes its execution to some other persons.
 
Bar Questions and Answers
1. 2018| The brothers Roberto and Ricardo Ratute, both Filipino citizens, led a group of
armed men in seizing a southern island in the Philippines, and declaring war against the
duly constituted government of the country. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),
led by its Chief of Staff, General Riturban, responded and a full scale war ensued
between the AFP and the armed men led by the brothers. The armed conflict raged for
months. When the brothers-led armed men were running out of supplies, Ricalde, also a
Filipino, and a good friend and supporter of the Ratute brothers, was tasked to leave for
abroad in order to solicit arms and funding for the cash-strapped brothers. He was able
to travel to Rwanda, and there he met with Riboli, a citizen and resident of Rwanda, who
agreed to help the brothers by raising funds internationally, and to send them to the
Ratute brothers in order to aid them in their armed struggle against the Philippine
government. Before Ricalde and Riboli could complete their fund-raising activities for the
brothers, the AFP was able to reclaim- the island and defeat the Ratute-led uprising.
Ricalde and Riboli were charged with conspiracy to commit treason. During the hearing of
the two cases, the government only presented as witness, General Riturban, who
testified on the activities of the Ratute brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli. (a) Can Ricalde and
Riboli be convicted of the crime of conspiracy to commit treason? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Under Article 115 of the Revised Penal Code,
conspiracy to commit treason is committed when in time of war, two or more
persons come to an agreement to levy war against the Government and to adhere
to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, and decide to commit it. Treason is
a war crime. It can only be committed in times of war with a foreign enemy or
another state. There must be actual hostilities. Conspiracy to commit treason
cannot be and will never be committed in time of peace. In the case at bar, when
the Ricalde and Riboli aided the brothers, there was no war in which the Philippines
is involved with a foreign enemy or another state. Thus, they cannot be convicted
for the crime of conspiracy to commit treason
 
Article 116. Misprision of treason. - Every person owing allegiance to (the United
States) the Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having
knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or does not disclose and
make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province,
or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be
punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.
 
Elements
1. Offender owes allegiance to the government, and not a foreigner;
2. He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit treason against the government;
3. He conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as soon as possible to the
governor or fiscal of the province in which he resides, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in
which he resides.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
 Cannot be committed by a resident alien
 116 does not apply when the crime of treason is already committed by
someone and the accused does not report its commission to the proper authority
("knowledge of any conspiracy against")
 Accessory in treason and principal in misprision (penalty is two degrees lower
than treason)
- note: misprision of treason is a separate and distinct offense from the crime of
treason
4. Article 20 does not apply| a principal in this crime
 Only to accessory
5. 116 is an exception to the rule that mere silence does not make a person criminally
liable
 
Other notes:
1. The criminal liability arises if the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial
stage
 Because if the treason already erupted into an overt act, the implication is
that the government is already aware of it
 
Bar Questions:
1. 2010| Because peace negotiations on the Spratlys situation had failed, the People’s
Republic of China declared war against the Philippines. Myra, a Filipina who lives with her
Italian expatriate boyfriend, discovered e-mail correspondence between him and a
certain General Tung Kat Su of China. On March 12, 2010, Myra discovered that on even
date her boyfriend had sent an email to General Tung Kat Su, in which he agreed to
provide vital information on the military defense of the Philippines to the Chinese
government in exchange for P1 million and his safe return to Italy. Two weeks later, Myra
decided to report the matter to the proper authorities. Did Myra commit a crime? Explain.
(3%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Myra committed the crime of Misprision of
Treason under Art. 116 of the Revised Penal Code, for failing to report or make
known “as soon as possible” to the governor or provincial fiscal or to the mayor or
fiscal of the City where she resides, the conspiracy between her Italian boyfriend
and the Chinese General to commit treason against the Philippine Government in
time of war. She decided to report the matter to the proper authorities only after
two (2) weeks.
 
Article 117. Espionage. - The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any
person who:
1. Without authority therefor, enters a 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 Philippine Archipelago;
or
2. Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or
information referred to in the preceding paragraph, discloses their contents to a
representative of a foreign nation.
 
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or
employee.
 
Acts punished
1. By entering, without authority therefore, a warship, fort or naval or military
establishment or reservation to obtain any information, plans, photograph or other data
of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines;
 
Elements
1. Offender enters any of the places mentioned;
2. He has no authority therefore;
3. His purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential
nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.
 
By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or
information referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 117, which he had in his possession by
reason of the public office he holds.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in paragraph 1 of
Article 117, by reason of the public office he holds;
3. He discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.
 
Rules doctrines cases and concepts
1. Espionage| the offense of gathering transmitting or losing information respecting
national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the
injury of the Philippines or to advantage of any foreign nation
2. must have intention to obtain
3. not necessary that information was obtained
 
Commonwealth Act No. 616 – An Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offenses against
National Security Acts punished
1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national
defense;
2. Unlawful disclosing of information affecting national defense;
3. Disloyal acts or words in times of peace
4. Disloyal acts or words in times of war;
5. Conspiracy to violate preceding sections; and
6. Harboring or concealing violators of law
 
Espionage Treason

Crime not conditioned by Citizen or resident alien

citizenship

Both in times of peace and war Only in times of war

Can be committed in many ways Limited to adhering to the enemy by giving aid or comfort or
levying war
Section Two. - Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
 
Article 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. - The penalty of reclusion
temporal shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee, and that of prision
mayor upon any private individual, who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts provokes
or gives occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippine Islands or
exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.
 
Elements
1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts;
2. The acts provoke or give occasion for –
a. a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines; or
b. exposure of Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.
Rules doctrines and cases
1. intention of offender is immaterial
2. committed in times of peace
3. penalty is higher when the offender is a public officer or employee
 
Article 119. Violation of neutrality. - The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted
upon anyone who, on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved,
violates any regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing
neutrality
 
Elements
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is not involved;
2. There is a regulation issued by a competent authority to enforce neutrality;
3. Offender violates the regulation
 
Article 120. Correspondence with hostile country. - Any person who in time of war, shall
have correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops shall
be punished:
1. By prision correccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the Government;
2. By prision mayor, if such correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional
signs; and
3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be useful
to the enemy. If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or
information, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to death.
 
Elements
1. It is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. Offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by
enemy troops;
3. The correspondence is either –
a. prohibited by the government;
b. carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; or
c. containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy.
 
Rules
1. Even if correspondence contains innocent matters it is still punishable if it is prohibited
2. prohibition is not essential in par. 2 and 3
3. Correspondence| communication by means of letters or it may refer to the letters
which pass between those who have friendly or business relations
 
Article 121. Flight to enemy country. - The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted
upon any person who, owing allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee or go to an
enemy country when prohibited by competent authority.
 
Elements
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. Offender must be owing allegiance to the government;
3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country;
4. Going to the enemy country is prohibited by competent authority.
 
Rules
1. alien resident may be punished since the article didn't mention "not being a foreigner"
2. Mere attempt to flee or go to enemy country consummates the crime
3. only when prohibited by competent authority
 
Section Three. - Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters
 
Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. - The penalty of reclusion
temporal shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize
a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize
the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of
its complement or passengers.
 
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine
waters.
 
Acts punished as piracy
1. Attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in Philippine waters;
2. Seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in Philippine waters the whole or part of
its cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
 
Elements of piracy
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders are neither members of its complement nor passengers of the vessel;
3. Offenders either –
a. attack or seize a vessel on the high seas or in Philippine waters; or
b. seize in the vessel while on the high seas or in Philippine waters the whole or
part of its cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers;
4. There is intent to gain.
 
Rules doctrines and cases
1. high seas| not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the
internal waters of a state or in the archipelagic waters
2. Piracy| Robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and
done with animo furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility
3. Mutiny is punished under this article too
 Committed by other members of the complement and by passengers of the
vessel
 Definition| unlawful resistance to a superior officer or the raising of
commotions and disturbances on board a ship against authority of its commander
Elements of mutiny
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders are either members of its complement, or passengers of the vessel;
3. Offenders either – a. attack or seize the vessel; or b. seize the whole or part of the
cargo, its equipment, or personal belongings of the crew or passengers.
 
Piracy Mutiny

Strangers to said Members of crew or passengers

vessel

Intent to gain is Not essential: may only intend to ignore the hip's officers or may be prompted
essential by a desire to commit plunder
 there is no criminal intent.
 
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. 532) Article 122

Vessel is in Philippine Waters Vessel is in the high seas or Philippine waters

piracy in Philippine waters could be committed by any
person, including a passenger or member of the
complement of a vessel
under the amended article, piracy can only be
committed by a person who is not a
passenger nor member of the complement of
the vessel irrespective of venue.
 So if a passenger or
complement of the vessel commits acts
of robbery in the high seas, the crime is
robbery, not piracy.

Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532, the act of
aiding pirates or abetting piracy is penalized as a crime
distinct from piracy
 any person who knowingly and in any
manner aids or protects pirates
This provision of Presidential Decree No. 532
with respect to piracy in Philippine water has
not been incorporated in the Revised Penal
Code. Neither may it be considered repealed
by Republic Act No. 7659 since there is
 - giving them information about the movement of nothing in the amendatory law is inconsistent
the police or other peace officers of the with said section.
government, or  Apparently, there is still the
-acquires or receives property taken by such crime of abetting piracy in Philippine
pirates, or waters under Presidential Decree No.
- in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or 532
who directly or indirectly abets the commission of
piracy.
--> the offender shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders and punished
in accordance with the Revised Penal Code

Reclusion temporal except when physical injuries or Reclusion temporal for simple piracy
other crimes are committed --> reclusion perpetua
Piracy is committed the same way in RPC and PD 532
Same penalty for qualified piracy --> reclusion perpetua
 
4. Piracy cannot co-exist with the crime of robbery
 Considering that the essence of piracy is one of robbery, any taking in a
vessel with force upon things or with violence or intimidation against person is
employed will always be piracy
5. But if the taking is without violence or intimidation on persons of force upon things,
the crime of piracy cannot be committed, but only theft.
 
Article 123. Qualified piracy. - The penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be
imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article,
under any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.
 
Elements
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters:
2. Offenders may or may not be members of its complement, or passengers of the
vessel;
3. Offenders either –
a. attack or seize the vessel; or
b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its equipment., or personal belongings of
the crew or passengers;
4. The preceding were committed under any of the following circumstances:
a. whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
b. whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
c. whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or
rape.
 
Rules doctrines cases
 When any of these crimes accompany piracy, there is no complex crime or
separate crimes
 Although in Article 123 merely refers to qualified piracy, there is also the
crime of qualified mutiny. Mutiny is qualified under the following circumstances:
  (1) When the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving
themselves; or
 (2) When the mutiny is accompanied by rape, murder, homicide, or physical
injuries.
 Note that the first circumstance which qualifies piracy does not apply to
mutiny since mutineers cannot seize vessel by boarding or firing upon the same
 It is qualified piracy even if the cargo is off-loaded outside the Philippines
 Attack and seizure committed in Philippine waters and offloaded in Singapore
- RPC and PD 532
 Qualified piracy is a special complex crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
to death, regardless of the number of victims
 Philippine waters| all bodies of water within the Philippine archipelago and all
other watres belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title including the
territorial sea, the sea-bed, insular shelves and other submarine areas over which
the Philippines has soverignty or jurisdiction
 Vessel| Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo
from one place to another through Philippine waters
 River is considered part of Philippine waters
 Any person who aides or protects pirates or abets the commission of piracy
shall be considered as an accomplice and will be punished in accordance with the
rules prescribed by the RPC
 
Bar Questions and Answers
1. 2006| the S.S. Nagoya Maru was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong towards
Manila, and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engines malfunctioned. The
Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. Due
to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship was anchored, a
motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took
advantage of the situation. They cut the ship's engines and took away several heavy
crates of electrical equipment and loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left
hurriedly towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took place. They
radioed the Aparri Port Authorities resulting in the apprehension of the culprits.
 
What crime was committed? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Piracy in the high seas was committed by the renegade
Ybanags. The culprits, who are neither members of the complement nor passengers of
the ship, seized part of the equipment of the vessel while it was three hundred miles
away from Aparri, Cagayan (Art. 122, Revised Penal Code).
 
Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the culprits stabbed a member of the
crew while sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime committed is qualified piracy, because it was
accompanied by physical injuries/homicide. The culprits stabbed a member of the crew
while sleeping (Art. 123, Revised Penal Code).
 
2. 2008| No. VII. a. The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes,
was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong
typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat,
fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their
money and jewelry. A passenger of M/V Viva Lines I, Dodong advantage of the confusion
to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension,
all four were charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court.
 
Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three person ( Max, Badong and Bogart )
who boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. ( 3% )
 
--> Yes, Max, Baldo and Bogart committed qualified piracy when, not being members or
passengers of the M/V Viva Lines I, attacked said vessel in Philippines waters, and seized
the passengers’ personal belongings. Moreover, the crime was qualified when Max, Baldo
and Bogart boarded the vessel and fired upon the ship, and divested the passengers of
their money and jewelry (Art. 122, 123 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A.
7659 and P.D. 532). The crime was further qualified when they fired upon the vessel and
boarded it.
 
3. 2016| The Royal S.S. Maru, a vessel registered in Panama, was 300 nautical miles
from Aparri, Cagayan when its engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered his men to
drop anchor and repair the ship. While the officers and crew were asleep, armed men
boarded the vessel and took away several crates containing valuable items and loaded
them in their own motorboat. Before the band left, they planted an explosive which they
detonated from a safe distance. The explosion damaged the hull of the ship, killed ten
(10) crewmen, and injured fifteen (15) others. What crime or crimes, if any, were
committed? Explain. (2016 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Qualified Piracy under Article 123 of the Revised Penal
Code was committed because all the elements thereof were present, to wit: (1) the
vessel Royal S.S. Maru is on the high seas, or 300 nm away from Appari, Cagayan;
(2) that the offenders are not members of its complement or passengers thereof;
and (3) that the offenders seized equipment from the vessel, i.e., the crates.
Moreover, the crime was qualified because: (1) the offenders seized the vessel by
boarding; and (2) the crime of piracy was accompanied by murder and physical
injuries.
 
Republic Act No. 6235 (The Anti Hi-Jacking Law)
Anti hi-jacking is another kind of piracy which is committed in an aircraft. In other
countries, this crime is known as aircraft piracy
 
Four situations governed by anti hi-jacking law:
(1) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight,
compelling the pilots thereof to change the course or destination of the aircraft;
 In flight| from the moment all its external doors are closed following
embarkation until any of such doors is open for disembarkation
- This means that there are passengers that boarded. So if the doors are closed to
bring the aircraft to the hangar, the aircraft is not considered as in flight. The
aircraft shall be deemed to be already in flight even if its engine has not yet been
started.
(2) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within
Philippine territory, compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of Philippine
territory;
(3) carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger
aircraft in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance;
and
(4) loading, shipping, or transporting on board a cargo aircraft operating as a public
utility in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance
if this was done not in accordance with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by
the Air Transportation Office on this matter.
 
Rules:
1. Between numbers 1 and 2, the point of distinction is whether the aircraft is of
Philippine registry or foreign registry
 If the aircraft subject of the hi-jack is of Philippine registry, it should be in
flight at the time of the hi-jacking|
- If not: grave coercion or grave threat. If somebody is killed, the crime is homicide
or murder, as the case may be. If there are some explosives carried there, the
crime is destructive arson. If there is illegally possessed or carried firearm, other
special laws will apply.
 if the aircraft is of foreign registry, the law does not require that it be in flight
before the anti hi-jacking law can apply This is because aircrafts of foreign registry
are considered in transit while they are in foreign countries
- Although they may have been in a foreign country, technically they are still in
flight, because they have to move out of that foreign country. So even if any of the
acts mentioned were committed while the exterior doors of the foreign aircraft were
still open, the anti hi-jacking law will already govern.
 
2. The important thing is that before the anti hi-jacking law can apply, the aircraft must
be in flight. If not in flight, whatever crimes committed shall be governed by the Revised
Penal Code.
 
3. As to numbers 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 6235, the distinction is whether the aircraft
is a passenger aircraft or a cargo aircraft.
 In both cases, however, the law applies only to public utility aircraft in the
Philippines. Private aircrafts are not subject to the anti hi-jacking law, in so far as
transporting prohibited substances are concerned.
 If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft, the prohibition is absolute. Carrying
of any prohibited, flammable, corrosive, or explosive substance is a crime under
Republic Act No. 6235.
 But if the aircraft is only a cargo aircraft, the law is violated only when the
transporting of the prohibited substance was not done in accordance with the rules
and regulations prescribed
4. under Section 7, any physical injury or damage to property which would result from
the carrying or loading of the flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance in
an aircraft, the offender shall be prosecuted not only for violation of Republic Act No.
6235, but also for the crime of physical injuries or damage to property, as the case may
be, under the Revised Penal Code
 Other than this situation, the crime of physical injuries will be absorbed
 If the explosives were planted in the aircraft to blow up the aircraft, the
circumstance will qualify the penalty and that is not punishable as a separate crime
for murder. The penalty is increased under the anti hi-jacking law
5. All other acts outside of the four are merely qualifying circumstances and would bring
about higher penalty. Such acts would not constitute another crime. So the killing or
explosion will only qualify the penalty to a higher one
 
Questions and Answers
1. The pilots of the Pan Am aircraft were accosted by some armed men and were told to
proceed to the aircraft to fly it to a foreign destination. The armed men walked with the
pilots and went on board the aircraft. But before they could do anything on the aircraft,
alert marshals arrested them. What crime was committed?
--> The criminal intent definitely is to take control of the aircraft, which is hi-jacking. It is
a question now of whether the anti-hi-jacking law shall govern. The anti hi-jacking law is
applicable in this case. Even if the aircraft is not yet about to fly, the requirement that it
be in flight does not hold true when it comes to aircraft of foreign registry. Even if the
problem does not say that all exterior doors are closed, the crime is hi-jacking. Since the
aircraft is of foreign registry, under the law, simply usurping or seizing control is enough
as long as the aircraft is within Philippine territory, without the requirement that it be in
flight. Note, however, that there is no hi-jacking in the attempted stage. This is a special
law where the attempted stage is not punishable.
 
2. A Philippine Air Lines aircraft is bound for Davao. While the pilot and copilot are taking
their snacks at the airport lounge, some of the armed men were also there. The pilots
were followed by these men on their way to the aircraft. As soon as the pilots entered the
cockpit, they pulled out their firearms and gave instructions where to fly the aircraft.
Does the anti hijacking law apply?
--> No. The passengers have yet to board the aircraft. If at that time, the offenders are
apprehended, the law will not apply because the aircraft is not yet in flight. Note that the
aircraft is of Philippine registry
 
3. While the stewardess of a Philippine Air Lines plane bound for Cebu was waiting for the
passenger manifest, two of its passengers seated near the pilot surreptitiously entered
the pilot cockpit. At gunpoint, they directed the pilot to fly the aircraft to the Middle East.
However, before the pilot could fly the aircraft towards the Middle East, the offenders
were subdued and the aircraft landed. What crime was committed?
--> The aircraft was not yet in flight. Considering that the stewardess was still waiting for
the passenger manifest, the doors were still open. Hence, the anti hijacking law is not
applicable. Instead, the Revised Penal Code shall govern. The crime committed was
grave coercion or grave threat, depending upon whether or not any serious offense
violence was inflicted upon the pilot. However, if the aircraft were of foreign registry, the
act would already be subject to the anti hi-jacking law because there is no requirement
for foreign aircraft to be in flight before such law would apply. The reason for the
distinction is that as long as such aircraft has not returned to its home base, technically,
it is still considered in transit or in flight.
 
4. In the course of the hi-jack, a passenger or complement was shot and killed. What
crime or crimes were committed?
--> The crime remains to be a violation of the anti hi-jacking law, but the penalty thereof
shall be higher because a passenger or complement of the aircraft had been killed. The
crime of homicide or murder is not committed
 
5. The hi-jackers threatened to detonate a bomb in the course of the hi-jack. What crime
or crimes were committed?
 
--> Again, the crime is violation of the anti hi-jacking law. The separate crime of grave
threat is not committed. This is considered as a qualifying circumstance that shall serve
to increase the penalty.
 
6. 1978| A boarded a plane at the Manila Domestic Airport bound for Davao City. While
the plane was still on the tarmac, its doors still open and waiting for the last passenger to
board, A ordered the pilot P at gunpoint, to take the plane to Singapore. When P refused,
A shot him to death. What offense/offenses did A commit? Discuss with reasons.
 Frustrated coercion and murder. When the crimes were committed, the plane
was not "in flight" as the doors were still open for embarkation. So, hijacking was
not committed (Rep. Act No. 6235, Sec. 1). The facts are almost similar to the facts
of the case of People vs. Ang Chio Kio, 95 Phil. 475, where the accused was
convicted of frustrated coercion because of the refusal of the pilot to comply with
 the order of the accused to take the plane to Amoy, China instead of to Aparri and
murder, because the accused shot the pilot to death.
7. 2001 (Highway robbery)
Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and Robbery Division of the
Western Police District and assigned to the South Harbor, Manila, was privy to and more
or less familiar with the schedules, routes and hours of the movements of container vans,
as well as the mobile police patrols, from the pier area to the different export processing
zones outside Metro Manila. From time to time, he gave valuable and detailed
information on these matters to a group interested in those shipments in said container
vans. On several instances, using the said information as their basis, the gang hijacked
and pilfered the contents of the vans. Prior to their sale to "fences" in Banawe, Quezon
City and Bangkal, Makati City, the gang Informs Sgt, Chan who then inspects the pilfered
goods, makes his choice of the valuable items and disposes of them through his own
sources or "fences". When the highjackers were traced on one occasion and arrested,
upon custodial investigation, they implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal charged them all,
including Sgt. Chan as co-principals. Sgt. Chan, in his defense, claimed that he should
not be charged as a principal but only as an accessory after the fact under P.D. 532,
otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and AntiHighway Robbery Act of 1972. Is the
contention of Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? Explain, (5%)
 No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable because by express
provision of P.O. 532, Section 4, a person who knowingly and in any manner, aids
or protects highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the
movement of police officers or acquires or receives property taken by brigands, or
who directly or indirectly abets the commission of highway robbery/brigandage,
shall be considered as accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in
accordance with the rules in the Revised Penal Code.
7. 1975| The accused hijacked an airplane and at gunpoint ordered the pilot to fly to
Peking instead of to Davao, which was the plane's destination. Since the pilot refused,
the accused shot him to death. Afterwards, the accused was overpowered by the crew
and the co-pilot was able to fly the plane safely to Davao. What crime or crimes did the
accused commit? Why?
 The accused is liable for the offense of hijacking which is an act inimical to
civil aviation, since he compelled unlawfully a change in the course of the plane to
Davao, which was its destination, to Peking, while the plane was in flight. Under the
law, it is not essential that the hijacker should succeed in his purpose. The offense
is punishable by death since the accused fired upon the pilot causing his death, and
therefore the offense is accompanied by murder as the pilot did not have any
chance to defend himself. It is assumed that the plane is an aircraft of Philippine
registry. (Secs, 1 and 2, Rep. Act No. 6235).
 
 

Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the

State
Sunday, April 17, 2022
9:12 PM
 
Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State
1. Arbitrary detention (Art. 124);
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities (Art. 125);
3. Delaying release (Art. 126);
4. Expulsion (Art. 127);
5. Violation of domicile (Art. 128);
6. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally
obtained (Art. 129); 7. Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. 130);
8. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings (Art. 131);
9. Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132); and 10. Offending the religious feelings
(Art. 133)
 
Crimes under this title are those which violate the Bill of Rights accorded to the citizens
under the Constitution. Under this title, the offenders are public officers, except as to the
last crime – offending the religious feelings under Article 133, which refers to any person.
- The public officers who may be held liable are only those acting under supposed
exercise of official functions, albeit illegally
 
In its counterpart in Title IX (Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security), the offenders
are private persons
 But private persons may also be liable under this title as when a private
person conspires with a public officer. What is required is that the principal offender
must be a public officer.
- Thus, if a private person conspires with a public officer, or becomes an accessory or
accomplice, the private person also becomes liable for the same crime. But a private
person acting alone cannot commit the crimes under Article 124 to 132 of this title.
 
Chapter One: ARBITRARY DETENTION OR EXPULSION, VIOLATION OF DWELLING,
PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS AND
CRIMES AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
 
Section One. - Arbitrary detention and expulsion
 
Article 124. Arbitrary detention. - Any public officer or employee who, without legal
grounds, detains a person, shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the
detention has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen
days but not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.
 
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the
compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for
the detention of any person.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He detains a person;
3. The detention is without legal grounds.
 Meaning:
1. No crime was committed by the detained;
2. There is no violent insanity of the detained person; and
3. The person detained has no ailment which requires compulsory confinement in a
hospital.
 
The crime of arbitrary detention assumes several forms:
(1) Detaining a person without legal grounds under;
(2) Having arrested the offended party for legal grounds but without warrant of arrest,
and the public officer does not deliver the arrested person to the proper judicial authority
within the period of 12, 18, or 36 hours, as the case may be; or
(3) Delaying release by competent authority with the same period mentioned in number
2.
 
- public officers here| must be vested with authority to detain or order the detention of
prisoners
 Policemen and other agents of the law, judges or mayors. Barangay captain
and a municipal councilor
 Other public offices --> illegal detention since they are acting in their private
capacity
- includes private individuals
 
Rules, doctrines, cases and concepts
 Detention| actual confinement of a person in an enclosure or in any manner
detaining and depriving him of his liberty
- a person is detained when he is placed in confinement or there is a restraint
on his person
 Even if the persons could move freely in and out of their prison cell, if they
were under the surveillance of the guards and they could not escape for fear of
being apprehended again
 
Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Arrest without
warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:
 
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
 
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
 
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another.
 
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)
 
In flagrante delicto
1. In his presence| when the officer sees the offense being committed although
at a distance, or hears the disturbance created thereby and proceeds at once to the
scene thereof, or when the offense is continuing or has not been consummated at
the time the arrest is made
2. Elements:
 The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has
just committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime
  Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer
 
Plain view doctrine
 Objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position
to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence
- Elements
1. A prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right
to be where they are
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent
4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search
 
Hot Pursuit
1. Must have probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
2. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first
3. Requirements:
 The crime should have been just committed
 Arresting officer's exercise of discretion is limited by the standard of probable
cause\
 Arresting officers are not required to personally witness the commission of the
offense
 There must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense
was committed and the time of the arrest
 If there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the
commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured
 Here, the actual commission of a crime by the person detained is not
necessary to justify his detention
 Legality of the detention here is based on the nature of the deed when its
characterization as a crime may be reasonably inferred by the officer to whom the
law at the moment leaves the decision for the urgent purpose of suspending the
liberty of that person
 No reasonable ground if officer only wants to know the commission of the
crime
 
Other cases, doctrines and rules:
1. Arbitrary detention through negligence|
 US v. Battalones| justice of peace arbitrarily and without investigating
directed the detention of NBI agents who was brought by the police because the agents
weren't able to explain their suspicious conduct
 People v. Misa| chief of police rearrested a woman who was previously
released without verifying that there was an order of release for her
2. the law does not fix any minimum of periods
3. a Barangay Chairman who unlawfully detains another was held to be guilty of the
crime of arbitrary detention.
 This is because he is a person in authority vested with the jurisdiction to
maintain peace and order within his barangay. In the maintenance of such peace
and order, he may cause the arrest and detention of troublemakers or those who
disturb the peace and order within his barangay
 
 Arbitrary detention Illegal detention

The principal offender must be a public officer. Civilians
cannot commit the crime of arbitrary detention except
when they conspire with a public officer committing this
crime, or become an accomplice or accessory to the crime
committed by the public officer; and
The principal offender is a private person.
But a public officer can commit the crime of
illegal detention when he is acting in a
private capacity or beyond the scope of his
official duty, or when he becomes an
accomplice or accessory to the crime
committed by a private person.

The offender who is a public officer has a duty which The offender, even if he is a public officer,
carries with it the authority to detain a person. does not include as his function the power t
arrest and detain a person, unless he
conspires with a public officer committing
arbitrary detention.
 
Arbitrary detention Unlawful arrest

the offender is a public officer possessed with the offender may be any person
authority to make arrests.

the main reason for detaining the offended party the purpose is to accuse the offended party of a
is to deny him of his liberty. crime he did not commit, to deliver the person to the
proper authority, and to file the necessary charges in
a way trying to incriminate him.
Questions and Answers
1. A janitor at the Quezon City Hall was assigned in cleaning the men’s room. One day,
he noticed a fellow urinating so carelessly that instead of urinating at the bowl, he was
actually urinating partly on the floor. The janitor resented this. He stepped out of the
men’s room and locked the same. He left. The fellow was able to come out only after
several hours when people from the outside forcibly opened the door. Is the janitor liable
for arbitrary detention?
--> No. Even if he is a public officer, he is not permitted by his official function to arrest
and detain persons. Therefore, he is guilty only of illegal detention. While the offender is
a public officer, his duty does not include the authority to make arrest; hence, the crime
committed is illegal detention.
 
2. A municipal treasurer has been courting his secretary. However, the latter always
turned him down. Thereafter, she tried to avoid him. One afternoon, the municipal
treasurer locked the secretary inside their office until she started crying. The treasurer
opened the door and allowed her to go home. What crime was committed?
--> Illegal detention. This is because the municipal treasurer has no authority to detain a
person although he is a public officer.
 
3. 2008| After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo founded on the acts of
enforced disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of the complainant allegedly
done by the respondent military officers, the court granted the petition. May the military
officers be criminally charged in court with enforced disappearance and extralegal killing?
Explain fully.
--> Yes, the respondent military officers may be criminally charged in court since
“enforced disappearance” constitutes arbitrary detention under Art. 124 or Unlawful
Arrest under Art. 269 of the RPC. Extralegal killing can also be considered murder and/or
homicide under Art. 248/249, RPC.
---> The petition for the writ of amparo is not a criminal proceeding and will not
determine the guilt of the respondents. If the evidence so warrants, the amparo court
may refer the case to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution (A.M. No. 07-9-
12-SC) of the military officers for the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder or
homicide under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659.
 
4. What is the crime committed by any person who, without reasonable ground, arrests
or detains another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities? (2012 Bar
Question) A) unlawful arrest; B) illegal detention; C) arbitrary detention; D) grave
coercion.
 
5. The offended party was brought to a place which he could not leave because he does
not know where he is, although free to move about. Was arbitrary or illegal detention
committed?
--> Either arbitrary detention or illegal detention was committed. If a person is brought
to a safe house, blindfolded, even if he is free to move as he pleases, but if he cannot
leave the place, arbitrary detention or illegal detention is committed.
 
6. A had been collecting tong from drivers. B, a driver, did not want to contribute to the
tong. One day, B was apprehended by A, telling him that he was driving carelessly.
Reckless driving carries with it a penalty of immediate detention and arrest. B was
brought to the Traffic Bureau and was detained there until the evening. When A returned,
he opened the cell and told B to go home. Was there a crime of arbitrary detention or
unlawful arrest?
--> Arbitrary detention. The arrest of B was only incidental to the criminal intent of the
offender to detain him. But if after putting B inside the cell, he was turned over to the
investigating officer who booked him and filed a charge of reckless imprudence against
him, then the crime would be unlawful arrest. The detention of the driver is incidental to
the supposed crime he did not commit. But if there is no supposed crime at all because
the driver was not charged at all, he was not given place under booking sheet or report
arrest, then that means that the only purpose of the offender is to stop him from driving
his jeepney because he refused to contribute to the tong.
 
Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. -
The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public
officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail
to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of;
twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses
punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent. In every case, the person
detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his
request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. (As
amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He detains a person for some legal ground;
3. He fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within – a. 12 hour for
light penalties; b. 18 hours for correctional penalties; and c. 36 hours for afflictive or
capital penalties.
 
Rules, Doctrines, Cases and concepts:
 If the offender is a private person the crime is illegal detention
 Here, there is a legal ground for the detention
 If there is none, then that would be arbitrary detention under 124
 Article 125 applies only when the arrest is made without warrant an it is
lawful
 When there is a warrant of arrest there is already a complaint or information
filed against him
 Rule 112 Section 7 of ROC| When accused lawfully arrested without
warrant. — When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an
offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information
may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest
has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or
unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended
party or a peace office directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of
the offended party or arresting officer or person.
 
 Last paragraph of rule 113 section 5 |In cases falling under paragraph (a)
and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with
section 7 of Rule 112.
 "shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities"|
does not consist in a physical delivery but in making an accusation or charge or
filing of an information against the person arrested with the corresponding court or
judge
 Deemed fulfilled the moment complaint or information is filed| purpose: the
accused knows what is imputed to him and can apply for bail
- When an information is filed in court, the amount of bail recommended is stated
 Proper judicial authorities| only a judge or justice since only them can issue
an arrest warrant
 If a judge is not available a detained person should be released
 Waiver of provisions of article 125
 Last paragraph of Rule112 section 7 of ROC| Before the complaint or
information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation
in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his
counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation
must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
 Circumstances considered in determining liability of officer
 The means of communication
 The hour of arrest
 Other circumstances such as the time of surrender and the material possibility
for the fiscal to make the investigation and file in time
 Non-office days should not be included in the computation of the period
prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information
 Violation of article 125 does not affect legality of confinement and no
considered also as one of the grounds for a motion to quash information
 However, the illegality of detention is not cured by the filing of the
information in court
 The fiscal would not be liable if he does not file the information within the
period specified unless he has ordered or induced the arresting officer to hold and
not release prisoner
  Remedy where warrant improperly issued
 Set aside warrant of arrest and order discharge without enjoining the judge
from conducting a preliminary examination and afterwards properly issuing a
warrant of arrest
 Rights of the person detained
 Right to be informed of the cause of his detention
 Must be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time
with his attorney or counsel
 Public officer or employee is liable for preventing the exercise of the right of
attorneys to visit and confer with persons arrested --> Arresto mayor (RA 857)
 
Arbitrary detention Under 125
under 124

Illegal from the Legal in the beginning but the illegality of detention starts from the expiration
beginning of the periods of time specified
 
Detention Under Republic Act No. 11479
- The time period for delivery of detained persons prescribed in Article 125 does not
apply to suspected terrorists who are detained under this law
 Deliver said person suspected within a period of 14 calendar days counted
from the moment the said suspected person has been apprehended or arrested,
detained, and taken into custody
 The period of detention may be extended to a maximum period of (10)
calendar days if it is established that (1) further detention of the person/s is
necessary to preserve evidence related to terrorism or complete the investigation;
(2) further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the commission of
another terrorism; and (3) the investigation is being conducted properly and
without delay
 Immediately after taking custody of a person suspected the law
enforcement agent or military personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the
court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest of the following facts: (a) the
time, date, and manner of arrest; (b) the location or locations of the detained
suspect/s and (c) the physical and mental condition of the detained suspect/s. The
law enforcement agent or military personnel shall likewise furnish the ATC and
the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) of the written notice given to the
judge.
 
RA No. 7438| Rights of Persons Arrested Detained or Under Custodial
Investigation
(a) Right to counsel
 Section 2a| Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation
shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
 Section 3 last paragraph| In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial
investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be detained by
the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code.
(b) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel
 Section 2b| Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order
or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an
offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his
rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his
 own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his
own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the
investigating officer.lawphi1Ÿ
© right to be allowed visits
 Section 2f| Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation
shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or
any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his
immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization
duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-
governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's
"immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child,
brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and
guardian or ward.
 
Waiver under Article 125
- Section 2e| Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and
signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null
and void and of no effect.
 
Questions and Answer
1. The arrest of the suspect was done in Baguio City. On the way to Manila, where the
crime was committed, there was a typhoon so the suspect could not be brought to Manila
until three days later. Was there a violation of Article 125?
--> There was a violation of Article 125. The crime committed was arbitrary detention in
the form of delay in the delivery of arrested person to the proper judicial authority. The
typhoon or flood is a matter of defense to be proved by the accused, the arresting
officer, as to whether he is liable. In this situation, he may be exempt under paragraph 7
of Article 12. (Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented
by some lawful insuperable cause)
 
Article 126. Delaying release. - The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified
therein the performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or
detention prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said
prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.
 
Acts punished
1. Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner;
2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner;
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. There is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention
prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person;
3. Offender without good reason delays –
a. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner;
b. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the
prisoner; or
c. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.
 
Article 127. Expulsion. - The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee who, not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any
person from the Philippine Islands or shall compel such person to change his residence.
 
Acts punished
1. Expelling a person from the Philippines;
2. Compelling a person to change his residence
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He either –
a. expels any person from the Philippines; or
b. compels a person to change residence;
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. The essence of this crime is coercion but the specific crime is “expulsion” when
committed by a public officer
 If committed by a private person, the crime is grave coercion.
2. In Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778, the mayor of the City of Manila wanted to
make the city free from prostitution. He ordered certain prostitutes to be transferred to
Davao, without observing due processes since they have not been charged with any
crime at all. It was held that the crime committed was expulsion.
 
Questions and Answers
1. 1. Certain aliens were arrested and they were just put on the first aircraft which
brought them to the country so that they may be out without due process of law. Was
there a crime committed?
--> Expulsion
2. 2. If a Filipino citizen is sent out of the country, what crime is committed?
--> Grave coercion, not expulsion, because a Filipino cannot be deported. This crime
refers only to aliens.
 
Section Two. - Violation of domicile
 
Article 128. Violation of domicile. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized
by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof,
search papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such
owner, or having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being required to
leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.
 
If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers or effects not constituting
evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender,
the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
 
Acts punished
1. Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
2. Searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such
owner; or
3. Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and
after having been required to leave the same
 
Common elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. He is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling or to make a search therein
for papers or other effects.
 
Circumstances qualifying the offense
1. If committed at nighttime; or
2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned
immediately after the search made by offender.
 
Rules Doctrines and Cases
 The offender must be public officers who are possessed of the authority to
execute search warrants and warrants of arrests.
 If committed by a private individual, the crime is trespass to dwelling under
280
 "Not being authorized by judicial order"| No Search Warrant
 Against the will of the owner| presupposes opposition or prohibition by said
owner whether express or implied
 Implied| when for example owner is not in the house (whether he closed the
doors the gates or not)
 Right of officer to break into building or enclosure
 Section 11 of Rule 113| An officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue
of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in section 5, may break into any
building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to
be, if he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose
 An officer without SW cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will of the
owner even if he knew that someone in the dwelling is having unlawful possession
of opium
 No probable cause
 In the plain view doctrine, public officer should be legally entitled to be in the
place where the effects were found. If he entered the place illegally and he saw the
effects, doctrine inapplicable; thus, he is liable for violation of domicile.
 "search papers or other effects found therein without the previous
consent of such owner"
 Person who voluntarily submits cannot complain later on
- right to be secure from unreasonable search can be waived and such waiver may
be made either expressly or impliedly
 Silence| implied waiver
 Failure to object or resist search does not amount to waiver if police officers
were armed with handguns and one of them threatened them
 Nobody prevented police officers from entering and the search was limited to
looking at what was in the sala or kitchen for the pen knife --> not a search under
128
 Owner of the house had objected and bario lieutenant inspected some jars --
> violation
 Even if he is welcome in the dwelling, it does not mean he has permission to
search.
 papers or other effects found therein| Not applicable when a person was
searched outside his dwelling without search warrant and the person was not legally
arrested for an offense
- must be found in the dwelling
--> grave coercion if violence or intimidation is used
--> unjust vexation if there is none
 8. Having surreptitiously entered said dwelling
- may still be liable even if the entrance is effected only without consent of its owner: if
the offender surreptitiously entered the dwelling (Reyes)
 What constitutes the crime is the refusal of the offender to leave the premises
not the entry
 Prosec Bendanillo| If didn't enter surreptitiously and only without consent,
after being required refused to leave --> Unjust vexation
 If the offender upon being directed to eave, followed and left, there is no
crime of violation of domicile
 Entry must be done surreptitiously; without this, crime may be unjust
vexation.
 But if entering was done against the will of the occupant of the house,
meaning there was express or implied prohibition from entering the same, even if the
occupant does not direct him to leave, the crime of is already committed because it
would fall in number 1.
 
Other notes:
- There are only three recognized instances when search without a warrant is considered
valid, and, therefore, the seizure of any evidence done is also valid. Outside of these,
search would be invalid and the objects seized would not be admissible in evidence.
(1) Search made incidental to a valid arrest;
(2) Where the search was made on a moving vehicle or vessel such that the
exigency of he situation prevents the searching officer from securing a search
warrant;
(3) When the article seized is within plain view of the officer making the seizure
without making a search therefore
 
Questions and Answers
1. It was raining heavily. A policeman took shelter in one person’s house. The owner
obliged and had his daughter serve the police some coffee. The policeman made a pass
at the daughter. The owner of the house asked him to leave. Does this fall under Article
128?
--> No. It was the owner of the house who let the policeman in. The entering is not
surreptitious.
 
2. A person surreptitiously enters the dwelling of another. What crime or crimes were
possibly committed? The crimes committed are (1) qualified trespass to dwelling under
Article 280, if there was an express or implied prohibition against entering. This is
tantamount to entering against the will of the owner; and (2) violation of domicile in the
third form if he refuses to leave after being told to.
 
3. 2009| A policeman who, without a judicial order, enters a private house over the
owner’s opposition is guilty of trespass to dwelling. make searches and seizure upon
judicial order. He is therefore acting under color of his official authority (Art. 128, RPC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: False, the crime committed by the policeman in this case is
violation of domicile because the official duties of a policeman carry with it an authority
to
 
4. 2002| Violation of Domicile vs. Trespass to Dwelling (2002) What is the difference
between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling? (2%)
 
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to
dwelling are;
1) The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under color of authority;
in trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer acting in a
private capacity.
2) Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of
another against the will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other effects inside the
dwelling without the previous consent of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises
which he entered surreptitiously, after being required to leave the premises.
3) Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by entering the dwelling of
another against the express or implied will of the latter.
 
Article 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained. - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission
of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without
just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use
unnecessary severity in executing the same.
 
Acts punished
1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause;
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He procures a search warrant;
3. There is no just cause.
2. Exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing a search
warrant legally procured.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. He has legally procured a search warrant;
3. He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same.
 
Notes for Procuring a search warrant without just cause
1. Search warrant defined. — A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name
of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before
the court (Sec.1, Rule 126)
2. Personal property to be seized. — A search warrant may be issued for the search and
seizure of personal property:
 
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. (Sec. 3)
3. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue except upon
probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to
be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (Sec.4)
4. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under
oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to
them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits
submitted (Section 5)
5. Right to break door or window to effect search. — The officer, if refused admittance to
the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break
open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything
therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when
unlawfully detained therein (Sec.7)
6. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two witnesses. — No
search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of
the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter,
two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. (Sec. 8)
 . Time of making search. — The warrant must direct that it be served in the
day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the
place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it
be served at any time of the day or night (Section 9)
7. Validity of search warrant. — A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its
date. Thereafter it shall be void. (Sec.10)
8. Receipt for the property seized. — The officer seizing property under the warrant must
give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose
presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in
the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the
same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. (Sec.11)
9. Probable cause| such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the object
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched
10. Procured without just cause| applicant had every reason to believe that the search
warrant sought for was unjustified
 Test| the affidavit attached in the Search warrant has been drawn in such a
manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant held liable for damages
caused
- oath requires that the truth of the facts was within the personal knowledge of the
applicant and not of the facts reported to me by a person whom I consider to be
reliable
 Irregularly obtained| This means there was no probable cause determined in
obtaining the search warrant.
11. In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other
offense| may also be held liable for perjury if public officers made a willful and deliberate
assertion of falsehood in the affidavits filed in support of the application for SW
 Even if perjury was a means in committing this crime, it cannot be complexed
12. Evidence obtained in violation of Section 2 and 3 of the 1987 constitution are
inadmissible as evidence.
13. Search and seizure without warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest is legal
 Section 13 Rule 126| Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have
been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search
warrant.
 May seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by
which it was committed
14. Peace officers may enter the house of an offender who committed an offense in their
presence
- provided that the unlawful conduct is such as to affect public peace
15. Search and seizure of vessels without a SW is legal
16. Although void, the search warrant is entitled to respect because of presumption of
regularity. One remedy is a motion to quash the search warrant, not refusal to abide by
it.
 
Notes for Exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing
a search warrant legally procured.
 Things having a remote or no connection to the offense
 Contraband articles like firearms without a license can be immediately seized
without warrant
 In searching a house officer destroys furniture without justification
 
Questions and Answer
1. What if a police officer was permitted to enter the house and also permitted to search.
However, the police officer started destroying cabinets and because of that the owner
required him to leave. The officer refused to leave. What is the crime committed?
 
2. 1975| Under Article 129 of the Revised Penal Code, any public officer who shall
procure a search warrant without "just cause" shall be punished by fine and
imprisonment. What do you understand by
"just cause"?
--> Answer "Just cause" means such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances as
will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action, and the means taken in
presenting it, is legally just and proper, (U.S. v. Vallison, 28 Phil. 580).
 
Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who,
in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings
of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their
default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He is armed with search warrant legally procured;
3. He searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person;
4. The owner, or any members of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same
locality are not present.
 
Notes:
1. in cases where a search is proper| there is a search warrant legally procured
 In violation of domicile| the public officers has no authority to make a search
2. shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person|
 Search| to go over or look through for the purpose of finding something; to
examine
- the papers or other belongings must be in the dwelling of the owner
3. 130 does not apply to searches of vehicles or other means of transportation
4. Search without warrant under the Tariff and customs code does not include a dwelling
house
 
Questions and answers
1. what if the owner of the house was present or any member of his family were present
but left the house? If the police officers would proceed with the search without obtaining
the two witnesses, would they still be liable?
 The act of leaving the house may make them qualified in the phrase "or in
default." Default means failure to fulfill an obligation. Here the failed to obligation to
witness the search. If the police officer proceeded with the search without the two
other witnesses, they can still be made liable under this article
 
Section Three. - Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings
 
Article 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings. - The penalty
of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or
employee who, without legal ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful
meeting, or shall dissolve the same.
 
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall hinder
any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings.
 
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall
prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any
petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. prohibiting or by interrupting, without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful
meeting, or by dissolving the same;
b. hindering any person from joining any lawful association, or attending any of its
meetings;
c. 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.
 
Notes
 A private individual cannot commit this crime
 Disturbance of public order in 153
 par. 1| meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for
prohibiting, interrupting or dissolving that meeting
 With legal ground| seditious speeches uttered during the meeting
 There is no legal ground to prohibit the holding of a meeting when the danger
apprehended is not imminent and the evil to be prevented is not a serious one
 There are two criteria to determine whether Article 131 would be violated:
a. Dangerous tendency rule – applicable in times of national unrest such
as to prevent coup d’etat.
b. Clear and present danger rule – applied in times of peace. Stricter
rule.
 The offender must be stranger not a participant in the peaceful meeting
- People v Calera and Cantela| during the meeting of municipal officials called by
the mayor, a heated exchange occurred between the mayor and the chief of police.
The crowd watching the proceeding dispersed and the meeting was eventually
dissolved. Note: chief if police was asked to sit down and still kept on talking
--> chief of police is not guilty of 131 but 287
 Interrupting and dissolving the meeting of a municipal council by a public
officer is a crime against a legislative body, not punished under 131
 Distinguish municipal officials and meeting as municipal council
 The person talking on prohibited subject at public meeting contrary to
agreement that no speaker should touch on politics may be stopped
 Stopping speaker who was attacking certain churches in public meeting is a
violation of 131
 
Prohibition, interruption or dissolution of peaceful meetings Tumults and other disturbances

the public officer is not a participant. As far as the gathering is If the public officer is a participant of
concerned, the public officer is a third party the assembly and he prohibits,
interrupts, or dissolves the same,
Article 153 is violated if the same is
conducted in a public place.

the offender must be a public officer and, without any legal the offender need not be a public
ground, he prohibits, interrupts, or dissolves a peaceful officer. The essence of the crime is tha
meeting or assembly to prevent the offended party from of creating a serious disturbance of any
exercising his freedom of speech and that of the assembly to sort in a public office, public building o
petition a grievance against the government. even a private place where a public
function is being held.
 
Section Four. - Crimes against religious worship
 
Article 132. Interruption of religious worship. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent
or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.
 
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religious are about to take place or are
going on;
3. Offender prevents or disturbs the same.
 
Qualified if committed by violence or threat.
 
Notes:
1. Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a
ceremony or manifestation of a religion but only a meeting of a religious sect
2. But the reading of some verses out of the Bible in a private house by a group of 10 to
20 persons is a religious service
 Persons who meet for the purpose of religious worship by any method which
is not indecent and unlawful have a right to do so without being molested or
disturbed
 
Questions and Answers
1. 2017| In his homily, Fr. Chris loudly denounced the many extrajudicial killings
committed by the men in uniform. Policeman Stone, then attending the mass, was
peeved by the denunciations of Fr. Chris. He immediately approached the priest during
the homily, openly displayed his firearm tucked in his waist, and menacingly uttered at
the priest: Father, may kalalagyan kayo kung hindi kayo tumigil. His brazenness terrified
the priest, who cut short his homily then and there. The celebration of the mass was
disrupted, and the congregation left the church in disgust over the actuations of
Policeman Stone, a co-parishioner. Policeman Stone was subsequently charged. The
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is now about to resolve the case, and is mulling on
what to charge Policeman Stone with. May Policeman Stone be properly charged with
either or both of the following crimes, or, if not, with what proper crime?
A) Interruption of religious worship as defined and punished under Art. 132 of the
Revised Penal Code; and/or
B) Offending the religious feelings as defined and punished under Art. 133 of the Revised
Penal Code
---> A) Policeman Stone may be charged with Interruption of religious worship because
he is a public officer who disrupted the mass and caused the congregation to leave.
Under the Revised Penal Code, a public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb
the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion shall be liable for interruption of
religious worship. In this case, Policeman Stone, a public officer, disrupted the mass and
caused the congregation to leave when he approached and threatened the priest during
his homily.
B) Policeman Stone may not be charged with the crime of offending religious feelings
because his act of threatening the priest was not for the purpose of mocking or ridiculing
the mass. Jurisprudence provides that to be liable for offending religious feelings, the
acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual to ridicule, mock or
scoff at or attempt to damage an object of religious veneration [People v. Baes, (G.R. No.
46000 (1939)]. In this case, however, Policeman Stone threatened the priest because of
the priest’s statements during his homily, and not to mock or ridicule the ceremony.
Hence, he is not guilty of offending religious feelings.
 
Article 133. Offending the religious feelings. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon
anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any
religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
 
Elements
1. Acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to religious worship, or during
the celebration of any religious ceremony;
2. The acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
 
There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful
 
Notes
1. not necessary that there is a religious ceremony going on in a place devoted to
religious worship
2. religious ceremony need not be done in a place dedicated to worship
3. Religious ceremonies| religious acts performed outside of a church such as processions
and special prayers for burying the dead
4. acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful| the act must be directed
against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule, as mocking or
scoffing at or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration
5. There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful
 People v. Gesugla| the procession approached his place because the
procession had to make a detour. There is no evidence to show that defendant
purposely deviated from the topic of his preaching or sermon or that if the
procession had not approached his meeting place, he would not have uttered the
words complained
6. not offensive to religious feelings
 Construction of a fence in front of the chapel
- not notoriously offensive; unjust vexation
 Act of performing burial rites inside a roman catholic church cemetary in
accordance with the rules of a particular sect
- no intent to mock
  A drunk person during a congregation, who attempted to grab the song leader
- unjust vexation
7. Offense to feelings is judged from complainant's point of view
 
 

Crimes Against Public Order

Monday, April 18, 2022
7:31 PM
 
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
1. Rebellion or insurrection (Art. 134);
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion (Art. 136)
3. Disloyalty to public officers or employees (Art. 137);
4. Inciting to rebellion (Art. 138); 5. Sedition (Art. 139);
6. Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141);
7. Inciting to sedition (Art. 142);
8. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies (Art. 143);
9. Disturbance of proceedings of Congress or similar bodies (Art. 144);
10. Violation of parliamentary immunity (Art. 145); 11. Illegal assemblies (Art. 146);
12. Illegal associations (Art. 147);
13. Direct assaults (Art. 148);
14. Indirect assaults (Art. 149);
15. Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its committees, etc., by the
constitutional commissions, its committees, etc. (Art. 150);
16. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person
(Art. 151);
17. Tumults and other disturbances of public order (Art. 153);
18. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances (Art. 154);
19. Alarms and scandals (Art. 155);
20. Delivering prisoners from jails (Art. 156);
21. Evasion of service of sentence (Art. 157);
22. Evasion on occasion of disorders (Art. 158);
23. Violation of conditional pardon (Art. 159); and
24. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous
offense (Art. 160).
 
Art. 134 | Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. - The crime of rebellion or
insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government
for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the
territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other
armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of
any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
 
Elements
1. Public uprising or taking arms against the government (normative element)
2. Purpose of the uprising or movement is either: (subjective element)
a. To remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws:
1. Territory of the Philippines or any part thereof
2. any body of land, naval or other armed forces; or
b. to deprive the chief executive or congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers
or prerogatives
 Can be committed by any person, private or public official or employee
  If against the judiciary, may be sedition
 
Notes:
1. Rebellion and insurrection are not synonymous
 Rebellion| completely overthrow and supersede government
 Insurrection| effect change of minor importance or prevent
Exercise of government authority with respect to particular matters or
Subjects
2. Nature of the crime| multitude
3. Actual clash of arms is not absolutely necessary to convict accused who is in
conspiracy with others actually taking arms against the government
 The mere fact that the accused knowingly identified himself with the Hulk
organization who was openly fighting to overthrow the government was enough
- even those merely acting as couriers or spies for the rebels are also guilty of
rebellion
 Rebellion may be committed even without a single shot being fired. No
encounter needed. Mere public uprising with arms enough.
4. Purpose or the subjective element must be shown
-but not necessary that it be accomplished
5. Rebellion Treason

 Always involves  Levying war is treason when

taking up arms performed to aid the enemy. Would
*always committed through force Also constitute as giving aid or comfort
And violence  May be committed by mere adherence
- Rebellion is a crime against public to the enemy giving
order Aid or comfort
- while treason and subversion is a crime against national
security
6. Giving aid and comfort is not criminal in rebellion
 Carino v. People| merely sending or furnishing cigarettes or food supplies to
a Hulk leader
7. Rebellion Subversion

- a crime against public order - a crime against national security

 Not an element of
subversion
8. rebellion can now be complexed with common crimes
- in Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217, reiterated and affirmed the rule laid down in People
v. Hernandez, 99 Phil 515, that rebellion may not be complexed with common crimes
which are committed in furtherance thereof because they are absorbed in rebellion
 This thinking is no longer correct; there is no legal basis for such rule now.
- The statement in People v. Hernandez that common crimes committed in
furtherance of rebellion are absorbed by the crime of rebellion, was dictated by the
provision of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment by the
Republic Act No. 6968
- it was because Article 135 then punished said acts as components of the crime of
rebellion that precludes the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
thereto (engaging in war against the forces of Government; destroying property;
committing serious violence; exacting contributions, diverting funds for the lawful
purpose for which they have been appropriated.)
---> in enacting Republic Act No. 6968, Congress not only provide for the crime of coup
d’etat in the Revised Penal Code but moreover, deleted from the provision of Article 135
that portion which enumerated said acts
9. In People v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 569, it was held that an accused already convicted of
rebellion may not be prosecuted further for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition,
a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, because this is a necessary element or
ingredient of the crime of rebellion with which the accused was already convicted
 However, in People v. Tiozon, 198 SCRA 368, it was held that charging one of
illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion is proper because this is not
a charge of a complex crime. A crime under the Revised Penal Code cannot be
absorbed by a statutory offense.
 In People v. de Gracia, it was ruled that illegal possession of firearm in
furtherance of rebellion under Presidential Decree No. 1866 is distinct from the
crime of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code and, therefore, Article 135 (2) of
the Revised Penal Code should not apply. The offense of illegal possession of
firearm is a malum prohibitum, in which case, good faith and absence of criminal
intent are not valid defenses.
10. In People v. Lobedioro, an NPA cadre killed a policeman and was convicted for
murder. He appealed invoking rebellion. The Supreme Court found that there was no
evidence shown to further the end of the NPA movement. It held that there must be
evidence shown that the act furthered the cause of the NPA; it is not enough to say it.
11. Article 135, as amended, has two penalties: a higher penalty for the promoters,
heads and maintainers of the rebellion; and a lower penalty for those who are only
followers of the rebellion
12. Rebellion Sedition

there must be taking up or arms against the it is sufficient that the public uprising be tumultuous
government

the purpose is always political. the purpose may be political or social. Example: the
uprising of squatters against Forbes park residents. The
purpose in sedition is to go against established
government, not to overthrow it.
13. When any of the objectives of rebellion is pursued but there is no public uprising in
the legal sense, the crime is direct assault of the first form
 But if there is rebellion, with public uprising, direct assault cannot be
committed.
 
Questions and Answer
1. 1988| An armed group, avowed to overthrow the duly constituted authorities,
captured five officers' and five members of the armed forces and held them in their
mountain lair for seventy-five days and then voluntarily released them in consideration of
the promise of medical treatment to be given to some of their comrades who were under
detention by the authorities. What crime or crimes had been committed? Reasons.
Answer: (a.l) Rebellion was committed because their purpose was to overthrow the
government and all other acts committed in the further of this purpose are absorbed by
rebellion.
(a.2) The armed group committed the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
in violation of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that "kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.— Any private individual who shall kidnap another, or in any
other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death. .."
 
2. 1991| May a ranking leader of the NPA who has taken up arms against the
government be simultaneously prosecuted for violation of Section 1 of RA. 1700 (the
Anti-Subversion Act) and for rebellion under Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended?
Answer; Yes, because the two offenses are punished under separate laws. Besides, the
elements of the two offenses differ.
 
3. 1998| On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre of Laguna was on
board his car traveling along the National Highway of Laguna, Joselito and Vicente shot
him on the head resulting in his instant death. At that time. Joselito and Vicente were
members of the liquidation squad of the New People's Army and they killed the governor
upon orders of their senior officer. Commander Tiago. According to Joselito and Vicente,
they were ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his corrupt practices. If you were
the prosecutor, what crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente? [5%J
Answer: If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente with the crime of
rebellion, considering that the killers were members of the liquidation squad of the New
People's Army and the killing was upon orders of their commander; hence, politically-
motivated. This was the ruling in People us. Avila, 207 SCRA 1568. involving identical
facts which is a movement taken judicial notice of as engaged In rebellion against the
Government.
Alternative Answer: If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente for
the crime of murder as the purpose of the killing was because of his "corrupt practices ",
which does not appear to be politically motivated. There is no indication as to how the
killing would promote or further the objective of the New Peoples Army. The killing is
murder because it was committed with treachery.
 
Alternative Answer: The crime should be rebellion with murder considering that Art.
135 of the Revised Penal Code has already been amended by Rep. Act No. 6968, deleting
from said Article, common crimes which used to be punished as part and parcel of the
crime of rebellion. The ruling in People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1994), that rebellion
may not be completed with common crimes committed in furtherance thereof, was
because the common crimes were then penalized in Art. 135 together with the rebellion,
with one penalty and Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal Code cannot be applied. Art. 135 of said
Code remained exactly the same when the case of Enrile vs, Salazar, 186 SCRA 217
(1990) was resolved. Precisely for the reason that Art. 48 cannot apply because the
common crimes were punished as part of rebellion in Art. 135, that this Article was
amended, deleting the common crimes therefrom. That the common crimes were deleted
from said Article, demonstrates a clear legislative intention to treat the common crimes
as distinct from rebellion and remove the legal impediment to the application of Art. 48.
 
4. 1991| In the early morning of 25 October 1990, the troops of the Logistics Command
(LOGCOM) of the AFP at Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo headed by their Operations
Officer, Col. Rito Amparo, withdrew firearms and bullets and, per prior agreement,
attacked, in separate teams, the offices of the Chief of Staff, the Secretary of National
Defense, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Intelligence and other offices, held hostage the Chief of Staff of LOGCOM and other
officers, killed three (3) pro-Government soldiers, inverted the Philippine flag, barricaded
all entrances and exits to the camp, and announced complete control of the camp.
Because of the superiority of the proGovernment forces, Col. Amparo and his troops
surrendered at 7:00 o'clock in the morning of that day.
 
a) Did Col. Amparo and his troops commit the crime of coup d'etat (Article 134-A,
Revised Penal Code or of rebellion? Answer: a) Under the facts stated, the crime
committed would be coup d'etat (Republic Act No. 6988 incorporating Art. 134-A).
However, since the law was' not yet effective as of October 25, 1990, as the effectivity
thereof [Section 8) is upon its approval (which is October 24, 1990) and publication in at
least two [2] newspapers of general circulation, the felony committed would be rebellion.
 
Comment: If the answer given is coup d'etat, substantial credit should be given as the
tenor of the question seems to indicate that coup d'etat as a felony was already existing.
 
b) Distinguish rebellion from coup d'etat Answers:
Answer: b) Rebellion distinguished from coup d'etat:
AS TO OVERT ACTS:
- In rebellion, there is public uprising and taking up arms against the Government. In
coup d'etat, public uprising is not necessary. The essence of the crime is a swift attack,
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly
constituted authorities of the Government, or any military camp or installation,
communication networks, public utilities or facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of government power;
OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE:
- In rebellion, the purpose is to remove from the allegiance of the Philippines, the whole
or any part or the Philippines or any military or naval camps, deprive the Chief Executive
or Congress from performing their functions. In coup d'etat the objective is to seize or
diminish state powers.
PARTICIPATION In rebellion, any person. In coup d'etat, any person belonging to the
military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian participation.
 
5. 1990| a) Ka Jacinto, who is an NPA commander, was apprehended with unlicensed
firearms and explosives. He was accordingly charged with illegal possession of said
firearms and explosives. He now questions the filing of the charges on the ground that
they are deemed absorbed in a separate charge of rebellion filed against him. Decide the
issue.
b) Suppose Ka Jacinto, using one of the unlicensed firearms, shot and killed his neighbor
in an altercation. May the charge of murder and Illegal possession of firearms be deemed
absorbed in the separate charge of rebellion filed against him? Resolve the matter with
reasons.
--> a) The charge of illegal possession of firearms and explosives is deemed absorbed in
the crime of rebellion, such possession being a necessary means for the perpetration of
the latter crime. (Elias v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659).
b) The charges here could not be absorbed in the separate charge of rebellion as it is
clear that the act of murder, coupled with the possession of an unlicensed firearm, was
not in furtherance of the rebellion.
 
6. Explain the theory of "absorption" in rebellion*
--> "Absorption" in rebellion is enunciated in the leading cases of People vs. Hernandez,
99 Phil. 515 and People perpetrated in furtherance of rebellion, a political offense,
perpetrated in furtherance of rebellion, a political offense, assumes the political
complexion of rebellion of which it is merely ingredient and consequently cannot be
punished separately from rebellion, or complexed with the same to justify the imposition
of a graver penalty. In law such an offense is part and parcel of the rebellion itself and
cannot be considered as giving rise to separate crime. However, this doctrine is modified
now by Article 142-A, incorporated in the Revised Penal Code by Presidential Decree No.
942, which provides that if by reason of or on the occasion of a rebellion, an
offense more serious than rebellion is committed, the offender is to be punished
for the more serious offense, and the penalty is to be imposed in its maximum
 period. Murder is unquestionably more serious than rebellion as it is punishable by
death. So, if during a rebellion, murder is committed to further the ends of rebellion, the
murder cannot be absorbed in rebellion. The penalty for murder in this case will be
imposed in its maximum period as provided in Art. 142-A. (PD 942 was repealed by EO
187)
 
7. (2012 Bar Question) What is the proper charge against public officers or employees
who, being in conspiracy with the rebels, failed to resist a rebellion by all means in their
power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the
rebels, or shall accept appointment to office under them? A) disloyalty of public officers
or employees; B) rebellion; C) conspiracy to commit rebellion; D) dereliction of duty.
 
Art. 134-A| Coup d'etat; How committed. - The crime of coup d'etat is a swift attack
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly
constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communications network, public utilities or other facilities needed for the
exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out
anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police
or holding any public office of employment with or without civilian support or
participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (As amended by R.A.
6968).
 
Elements
1. Offender is a person or persons belonging to the military or police or holding any
public office or employment;
2. It is committed by means of a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth;
3. The attack is directed against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities
or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power;
4. The purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state power.
 
 Trillanes case| third and fourth not present
 Can a mere utility worker commit this? Yes he is a gov employee
 Coup d'etat may be committed with or without civilian participation
 
Notes:
1. The essence of the crime is a swift attack upon the facilities of the Philippine
government, military camps and installations, communication networks, public utilities
and facilities essential to the continued possession of governmental powers
2. It may be committed singly or collectively and does not require a multitude of people
3. The objective may not be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or
paralyze the government through the seizure of facilities and utilities essential to the
continued possession and exercise of governmental powers
4. It requires as principal offender a member of the AFP or of the PNP organization or a
public officer with or without civilian support.
5. Finally, it may be carried out not only by force or violence but also through stealth,
threat or strategy.
 
Questions and Answers:
1. 1998| 1. How is the crime of coup d'etat committed? [3%] 2. Supposing a public
school teacher participated in a coup d'etat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or
crimes did he commit? [2%]
Answer:
1. The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack, accompanied by
violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against the duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, military camps and installations,
communication networks, public utilities and facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power, carried out singly or simultaneously anywhere in
the Philippines by persons belonging to the military or police or holding public
office, with or without civilian support or participation, for the purpose of seizing or
diminishing state power. (Art 134-A, RPC)
2. The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation
therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the
new firearms law (Rep. Act No. 8294).
 
2. 2002|A. If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a swift attack,
accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat against a vital military installation for
the purpose of seizing power and taking over such installation, what crime or crimes are
they guilty of? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed
Forces, would be guilty of the crime of coup d'etat, under Article 134-A of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, because their attack was against vital military
installations which are essential to the continued possession and exercise of
governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize power by taking over such
installations.
B. If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who shall be deemed the leader
thereof? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed
the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their
name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the group shall be deemed the leader
of said coup d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)
 
3. 2005| Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’ etat and
rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, one cannot be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’
etat or frustrated rape because in coup d’ etat the mere attack directed against the
duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp
or installation, communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for
the exercise and continued possession of power would consummate the crime. The
objective may not be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or
paralyze the government through the seizure of facilities and utilities essential to
the continued possession and exercise of governmental powers.
 
On the other hand, in the crime of rape there is no frustrated rape it is either
attempted or consummated rape. If the accused who placed himself on top of a
woman, raising her skirt and unbuttoning his pants, the endeavor to have sex with
her very apparent, is guilty of Attempted rape. On the other hand, entry on the
labia or lips of the female organ by the penis, even without rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina, consummates the crime of rape. More so, it has long
abandoned its ―stray‖ decision in People vs. Erina 50 Phil 998 where the accused
was found guilty of Frustrated rape.
 
 
Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat. - Any person who
promotes, maintains, or heads rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
 
Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. Any person who leads or in any manner directs
or commands others to undertake a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
 
Any person in the government service who participates, or executes directions or
commands of others in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its maximum period.
 
Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner supports,
finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period.
 
When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat shall be under the command of unknown
leaders, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and
other documents issued in their name, as performed similar acts, on behalf or the rebels
shall be deemed a leader of such a rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat. (As amended
by R.A. 6968, approved on October 24, 1990).
 
Following are liable
 
A. Leaders --> reclusion Perpetua
1. any person who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection; or
2. leads, directs, commands others to undertake a coup d'etat
B. participants
1. participates, or executes the commands of others in rebellion or insurrection -->
reclusion temporal
2. in the government service| participates or executes directions or commands of
others in
undertaking a coup --> reclusion temporal in its max
3. not in the government service| participates, supports, finances, abets or aids in
undertaking a coup
--> prision mayor in its max
 
Notes:
1. PO must take active; mere silence or omission is not punishable in rebellion
- municipal president, had the duty to report insurgents but didn't do so nor did he take
steps to pursue or denounce activities --> still not liable
2. Who shall be deemed leader if he is unknown
 Who in fact directed, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents or
performed similar acts on behalf of the rebels
3. It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took the oath of allegiance to, or
that they never recognized the government
4. no complex crime of rebellion with murder and other common crimes
 Note: any acts mentioned in 135 if committed as a means to or in furtherance
of subversive ends described in 134 is absorbed in the crime of rebellion
5. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion through crimes are absorbed in rebellion
6. acquisition, possession or use of loose firearm in furtherance of, or incident to or in
connection with the crime of rebellion, insurrection or attempted are absorbed in
rebellion or attempted coup d'etat
7. Membership does not automatically qualify criminal acts as absorbed in rebellion
 Burden is on the accused to show these were in furtherance of rebellion
8. Political offense doctrine| common crimes perpetrated in furtherance of a political
offense are divested of their character as common offenses and are absorbed in such
offense
 When a killing is committed in furtherance of rebellion, the killing is not
homicide or murder rather, the killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion
as its mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone
9. If killings are politically motivated --> rebellion and not murder
10. killing, robbing, etc. for private purposes or profit, without political motive, would be
separately punished
 What if the person was a member of a rebel group?
11. Use of loose firearms is absorbed in rebellion or attempted coup d'etat
- Section 29 of RA 10591| If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to,
or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat,
such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection,
or attempted coup d’ etat.
12 Political crimes and common crimes

- those directly aimed against the political order as well as such common crimes may be committed to
achieve a political purpose

- the decisive factor is the intent or motive| if a common crime like homicide is perpetrated for the
purpose of removing from the allegiance to the government, the said offense becomes stripped of its
common complexion and acquires the political character of the former
 
Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. -
The conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision mayor in
minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).
 
The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished
respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not
exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by prision correccional in its medium period
and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). (As amended by R.A. 6968,
approved October 24, 1990).
 
Two acts:
1. conspiracy to commit rebellion
2. proposal to commit rebellion
 
Conspiracy| two or more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms
against the government for any purposes of rebellion and decide to commit
Proposal| when the person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms against the
Government for any of the purposes of rebellion proposes its execution to some other
person or persons
 
Notes:
1. Merely agreeing and deciding or merely proposing is subject to punishment
2. No conspiracy when there is no agreement and no decision
 What if they merely agree?
3. Organizing a group of soldiers, soliciting membership in, and soliciting funds from the
people for, the organization, show conspiracy to overthrow the government
4. No conspiracy:
 Mere making and designing flags for a rebel group
 Speech in favor of communism
 
Questions and Answers
1. 1994| VC, JG. GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine Government. VG was
recognized as the titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings were held and the
plan was finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that he,
VG, JG and GG have conspired to overthrow the government. Father Abraham did not
report this information to the proper authorities. Did Father Abraham commit a crime? If
so, what crime was committed? What is his criminal liability?
 Answer; No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the conspiracy
involved is one to commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit treason which
makes a person criminally liable under Art 116, RFC. And even assuming that it will
fall as misprision of treason, Father Abraham is exempted from criminal liability
under Art. 12, par. 7, as his failure to report can be considered as due to
"insuperable cause", as this involves the sanctity and inviolability of a confession.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the coconspirators, but
not to a person who learned of such and did not report to the proper authorities (US
vs. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza. 56 Phil. 353).
 
Article 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon public officers or employees
who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power, or shall continue to
discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept
appointment to office under them. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
 
Acts punished
1. By failing to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power;
2. By continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels; or
3. By accepting appointment to office under them
 
Rules:
1. offender must be a public officer or employee
 Mere acceptance of a private individual to an appointment under the rebels is
not liable under this article
2. article presupposes existence of rebellion
3. Must not be in conspiracy
 
Article 138. Inciting a rebellion or insurrection. - The penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking arms or
being in open hostility against the Government, shall incite others to the execution of
any of the acts specified in article 134 of this Code, by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same
end. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
 
Elements:
1. Offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the government
2. That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion
3. inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or
other representations tending to the same end
 
Notes:
1. shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in article 134 of this
Code| means that offender shall incite others to rise publicly and take arms against the
government
2. Inciting to rebellion Proposal to commit rebellion

 Both induces another to  

commit rebellion

 Not required that  Require

offender has decided d
 Done publicly  Secretl
 In both rebellion should y
not be committed  
3. Rebellion should not be committed
 In both proposal and inciting to commit rebellion
 If commits rebellion because of proposal or the inciting --> principal by
inducement
 
Article 139. Sedition; How committed. - The crime of sedition is committed by persons
who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by other
means outside of legal methods, any of the following
objects:
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular
election;
2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government or
any public officer thereof
from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative
order;
3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer
or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private
persons or any social
class; and
5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the
National Government
(or the Government of the United States), of all its property or any part thereof.
 
 
Elements:
1. Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously
2. they employ force, intimidation, or other means to attain any of the following objects:
a. prevent promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular
election
b. prevent NG or any provincial, municipal government or any public officer 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 despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, of
the NG of all its property or any part thereof
 e. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social class
Notes:
a. Sedition| raising of commotions or disturbances in the state
 Objective| violation of public peace
 does not contemplate the taking up of arms against the government2
because the purpose of this crime is not the overthrow of the government
 What distinguishes sedition from rebellion is the object or purpose of
uprising
Rebellion Sedition

  Public uprising is tumultuous

  Social or political
  Not exactly| merely to attain by force, intimidation, or by
government other meansoutside of legal methods, one object, to wit: to inflict an act of hate
or revenge upon the person or property of a public official

Treason Sedition

  Commotions or disturbances
a. Sedition can't be committed by one person| tumultuous --> more than three
persons who are armed or provided with means of violence
b. No public uprising no sedition
 Must be tumultuous| disturbance shall be deemed such if caused by more
than three persons who are armed or provided with means of violence
 Crowd gathered with some people armed with canes to demand dismissal of a
municipal officer
c. A case of preventing public officers from freely exercising their functions
- Group of moros resisting execution of arrest warrant by a police officer (People v. Tahil
and Tarson)
1. A case of Inflicting an act of hate or revenge upon public officers
- People v. Cabrera| Policeman and constabulary officers had a previous encounter that
resulted to the death of a constabulary private. Out of revenge, they then attacked the
luneta police station and the office of secret service
1. In sedition, the offender need not be private individuals
2. Against private persons or any social class
o Group of armed men raiding several houses and took captives because rich
people were loaning money at usurious terms (Us v. Lapus)
1. No Public uprising, no sedition
 500 residents gathered outside the municipal building to demand the
dismissal of the municipal treasurer and other officials. Few persons were armed
with a crane while the rest were unarmed. The crowd was fairly orderly and well-
behaved --> no public and tumultuous uprising (US v. Apurado)
2. No object of sedition no sedition
 Five armed persons attacking policemen but purpose of attack was
unknown
 Are common crimes absorbed in sedition? No
People v. Umali| sedition, multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and physical injuries
People v. Cabrera|as an act of revenge: murdered 6 policemen and two private citizens
and seriously wounded others--> separate crimes
o Use of firearms absorbed in sedition
 inherent in the crime of sedition
  Becomes an aggravating circumstance
--> section 29 of RA 10591
 
Article 140. Penalty for sedition. - The leader of a sedition shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 10,000 pesos. Other
persons participating therein shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period and a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
 
Persons liable for sedition under Article 140
1. The leader of the sedition; and--> prision mayor in its min period and 2 million pesos
2. Other person participating in the sedition --> prision correctional in its max period
and one million pesos
 
141| Conspiracy to commit sedition
--> prision correctional in its medium period and four hundred thousand pesos
There must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to attain
any of the objects of sedition
No proposal to commit sedition
 
Article 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. - Persons conspiring to commit the crime of
sedition shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not
exceeding 2,000 pesos. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
 
Notes:
1. there must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to attain
any of the objects of sedition
2. an agreement and a decision to attain an object of sedition without any agreement to
rise publicly and tumultuously is not conspiracy to commit sedition.
 Could be conspiracy to commit direct assault
 
Questions and answers:
1. 1987| A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who deserted their command in
Mindanao. Jose and Pedro, two big landowners, called A, B, C, D, and E to a conference.
Jose and Pedro proposed to these former soldiers that they recruit their comrades and
organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging the government by force of aims
in order to prevent the enforcement or implementation of the Land Reform Law in
Cotabato Province. Jose and Pedro promised to finance the group and to buy firearms for
the purpose. The former soldiers agreed. After Jose and Pedro left, A, the leader of the
former soldiers, said that in the meanwhile he needed money to support his family. D
suggested that they rob a bank and agreed to carry out the plan on the 15th day of the
month. Unknown to all of them, as they were conferring with Jose and Pedro and as they
were planning to rob the bank,. Rosauro, a houseboy, was within hearing distance. On
the pretext of buying cigarettes, Rosauro instead went directly to the Police and told
them what transpired. All the former soldiers, as well as Jose and Pedro, were arrested.
(a) What crime, if any, did the former soldiers commit?
(b) What about Jose and Pedro? Answer:
a) The former soldiers committed the crime of conspiracy to commit sedition. What
Jose and Pedro proposed to the soldiers that they recruit their comrades and
organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging the government by force of
arms in order to prevent the implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato
Province is to commit sedition. Proposal to commit sedition is not punished. But
since the soldiers agreed, a conspiracy to commit sedition resulted which is now
 punishable. Conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree (People vs.
Peralta 25 SCRA 759; People vs. Tiongson 12 SCRA 402).
b) Jose and Pedro will also be liable for conspiracy to commit sedition since they are
members of the conspiracy where the act of one is the act of all. If the soldiers did
not agree to their proposal, they would not incur any criminal liability because there
is no proposal to commit sedition.
 
Article 142. Inciting to sedition. - The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who,
without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the
accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to
the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or
speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the (Government of the
United States or the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines) or any of the
duly constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful
officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others
to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite
rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety
and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices.
(Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
 
Acts punished
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by
means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, etc.;
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace;
3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels against the government or any of
the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace.
 
Notes:
1. when words uttered or speech delivered or scurrilous libels published have the
tendency to disturb any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office| it's not
necessary to show the purpose of offender is to commit any objects of sedition
 
Inciting to sedition to accomplish any of its objects
- Elements:
1. offender does not take direct part in the crime of sedition
2. he incites others to the accomplishment of any acts which constitute sedition
3. inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons,
banners, or other representations tending to the same end
--> "should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute
sedition"| it must be proved that the defendant incited the people to rise publicly and
tumultuously
 
Examples
1. utter seditious words| three meet in a municipal building, engaged in a discussion
which resulted one in shouting his desire to kill a governor for killing their people's
independence
2. Utter seditious speech| at a necrological service of a local communist leaders, accused
made a speech calling poor people to cabal and meet for unlawful purposes, rebellious
conspiracies.
  Not necessary that the words used would result in public and tumultuous
uprising
3. Scurrilous libels| photograph of the accused as if in a suicide, with a note accusing
roxas's government of being infested with hitlers and mussolinis
 Disturb public peace| tend to overthrow or undermine security or confidence
of the people
 Conducive to the destruction of government
 scurrilous: low, vulgar, mean or foul
 
Seditious words or speeches, publishing or circulating scurrilous libels are punishable
when:
1. tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office
2. tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes
3. suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots
4. lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace
of the community, the safety and order of the government (2nd par)
 
Other notes:
1. A theatrical play or drama where seditious words or speech made may be punished
under article 142
 Tended to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes
and to stir up people against lawful authorities and to disturb peace of the
community
2. Proposal to throw hand grenades in a public place, intended to cause commotion and
disturbance, as an act of hate and revenge against the police force is inciting to sedition
 Although not intended to hurt and kill people
3. Knowingly concealing such evil practices| ordinary an act of an accessory after
the fact; treated as a principal
4. use of words, emblems, etc., not performance of an act is punished
 Which tend to disturb public peace or to disturb or obstruct any public officer
in executing the functions of his office
5. Disturbance or disorder not necessary| enough that it may endanger public order
 
Two rules relative to seditious words:
1. clear and present danger rule
 Probable cause to believe that danger is imminent or immediate and that the
evil to be prevented is a serious one
 Probability of serious injury
2. dangerous tendency rule
 Words could easily produce disaffection that would make people disloyal to
the government
 
Unlawful rumor-mongering and spreading false information which cause or tend to cause
panic, divisive effects among the people, discredit of or distrust for the duly constituted
authorities, undermine stability of gov and the objectives of the new society, endanger
public order or cause damage to the interest or credit of the state
--> prision correctional
 Gov official| plus accessory penalty of APD from holding any public office
 
Other notes:
1. Considering that the objective of sedition is to express protest against the government
and in the process creating hate against public officers, any act that will generate hatred
against the government or a public officer concerned or a social class may amount to
Inciting to sedition.
 The mere meeting for the purpose of discussing hatred against the
government is inciting to sedition
 Lambasting government officials to discredit the government is Inciting to
sedition
2. But if the objective of such preparatory actions is the overthrow of the government,
the crime is inciting to rebellion.
 
Chapter Two CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION
 
Section One. - Crimes against legislative bodies and similar bodies
 
Article 143. Act tending to prevent the meeting of the Assembly and similar bodies. -
The penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon any person who, by force or fraud, prevents the meeting of the
National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or of 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. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
 
Elements
1. There is a projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board
or city or municipal council or board;
2. Offender, who may be any person, prevents such meetings by force or fraud.
 
Notes:
o Chief if police and mayor who prevented the meeting of a municipal council
are liable when the defect of meeting is not manifest (lack of notice to some
members) and requires investigation
 
Article 144. Disturbance of proceedings. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from
200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who disturbs the meetings of the
National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or of 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, or in the presence of any such
bodies should behave in such manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the
respect due it. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
 
Elements
1. There is a 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. Offender 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.
 
Notes:
1. it must be a meeting of a legislative body or of provincial board or city or municipal
council
 If not, could be unjust vexation| People v. Calera --> meeting of municipal
officials called by the mayor
2. crimes defined and penalized here may be commenced upon written complaint of a
member of the legislative body or similar bodies
 Not one of those crimes which may be prosecuted de officio
3. contempt| coercive
Power to punish crime| punitive
 One act may invite both
 
Section two: Violation of parliamentary immunity
 
Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity. - The penalty of prision mayor shall be
imposed upon any person who shall use force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to
prevent any member of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) from
attending the meetings of the Assembly (Congress) or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from
expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty of prision correccional
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall, while the Assembly
(Congress) is in regular or special session, arrest or search any member thereof,
except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under this Code by a
penalty higher than prision mayor.
 
Acts punishable:
1.Using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to prevent any member of Congress from
attending the meetings of Congress or of any of its committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from expressing his
opinion or casting his vote; --> prision mayor
 
Elements
1. Offender uses force, intimidation, threats or fraud;
2. The purpose of the offender is to prevent any member of Congress from –
a. attending the meetings of the Congress or of any of its committees or
constitutional commissions, etc.;
b. expressing his opinion; or
c. casting his vote.
 
2. Arresting or searching any member thereof 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:
1. Offender is a public officer of employee;
2. He arrests or searches any member of Congress3. that the assembly, at the time
of arrest or search, is in regular or special session
3. Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in regular or special session;
4. The member arrested or searched has not committed a crime punishable under
the Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor
 
Notes:
1. it is enough that the purpose was to prevent a member from exercising any of such
prerogatives
 Not necessary that a member of the assembly is actually prevented from
attending
2. Parliamentary immunity does not protect members of the National assembly from
responsibility before the legislative body itself
3. Under Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution, a public officer who arrests a member
of Congress who has committed a crime punishable by prision mayor (six years and one
day, to 12 years) is not liable Article 145. Constitution| 6 years or less
 According to Reyes, to be consistent with the Constitution, the phrase "by a
penalty higher than prision mayor" in Article 145 should be amended to read: "by
the penalty of prision mayor or higher."
 
Chapter Three ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
 
Article 146. Illegal assemblies. - The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon the organizers or
leaders of any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing
any of the crimes punishable under this Code, or of any meeting in which the
audience is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority or his agents. Persons
merely present at such meeting shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, unless they are
armed, in which case the penalty shall be prision correccional.
 
If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it shall be
presumed that the purpose of said meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts
punishable under this Code, and he shall be considered a leader or organizer of the
meeting within the purview of the preceding paragraph.
 
As used in this article, the word "meeting" shall be understood to include a gathering or
group, whether in a fixed place or moving. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
 
Acts punished
1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the
crimes punishable under the Code;
Elements
1. There is a meeting, a gathering or group of persons, whether in fixed place or
moving;
2. The meeting is attended by armed persons;
3. The purpose of the meeting is to commit any of the crimes punishable under the
Code.
 
2. Any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the
commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault upon
person in authority or his agents.
Elements:
1. There is a meeting, a gathering or group of persons, whether in a fixed place or
moving;
2. The audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime
of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault
 
Persons liable for illegal assembly
 The organizer or leaders of the meeting; --> PC in its max to prision mayor
 merely present and unarmed--> arresto mayor
 merely present and armed --> PC
 Possessing unlicensed firearm| presumed to commit acts punishable under
the code and considered as a leader
 
Notes:
Illegal assemblies:
1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the
crimes punishable under the code
 Requisites:
a. meeting, gathering or group, in a fixed place or moving
b. attended by armed persons
c. purpose is to commit any of the crimes punishable under the code
2. Any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the
commission of the crime of treason, rebellion, or insurrection, sedition or assualt upon a
person in authority or his agents
 Requisites:
a. meeting, gathering or group, in a fixed place or moving
b. audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of
treason, rebellion, or insurrection, sedition or direct assualt
 
3. persons present at the meeting must be armed in the first form of illegal assembly
 40 unarmed persons meet to commit theft| not punishable
 40 persons, seven are armed, to commit robbery --> yes
o Code does not specify the number, at least four (reyes)
4. Not all persons at the meeting of the first form must be armed
5. The unarmed person merely present at the meeting of the first form of illegal
assembly is liable
 Persons merely present at such meeting shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor, unless they are armed, in which case the penalty shall be prision
correccional.
6. "any meeting in which the audience is incited to the commission of the crime of
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault "
 Audience must actually be incited to the commission of any of the crimes
mentioned
 
Inciting to sedition or rebellion 2nd form of illegal assembly

 Actual inciting  In which the audience is

 Only the person who "shall incite incited
others" (138) or should Incite others (142)  Persons liable are
leaders or leaders or persons merely
present
7. If in a meeting the audience is incited to the commission of rebellion or sedition, the
crimes committed are:
1. Illegal assembly --> organizers and leaders; and persons merely present
2. Inciting to sedition or rebellion --> the one inciting
8. persons merely present at the meeting must have a common intent to commit the
felony of illegal assembly
- a person who happens to be present to an illegal assembly out of curiosity is not liable
9. peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime
10. If unlawful purpose is a crime under a special law, there is no illegal assembly
 For example, the gathering of drug pushers to facilitate drug trafficking is not
illegal assembly because the purpose is not violative of the Revised Penal Code but
of The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, which is a special law
 
Batas Pambansa Blg. 880; public assembly act of 1980
When permit required
1. organize and hold a public assembly in a public place
2. no permit required:
A. freedom park
b. private property
c. campus of a government and operated educational institution
3. revocation of permits to rally may only be made after notice and hearing
 
Questions and Answers
1. .A, B, and C organized a meeting in which the audience was incited to the commission
of the crime of sedition. Some of the persons present at the meeting were carrying
unlicensed firearms. What crime, if any, was committed by A, 8 and C, as well as those
who were carrying unlicensed firearms and those who were merely present at the
meeting? (2012 Bar Question)
--> C) Illegal assembly for A, B, C and all those present at the meeting.
 
2. 1985| At a meeting of about fifty (50) residents of Bo. Ta-talon, Quezon City, Juan,
whose son was shot by the marines, told the residents that it was hopeless to seek
redress from the authorities and that the only recourse was to topple it by force. Among
those in the meeting were four (4) Burly looking men in civilian clothes but with
sidearms, all of whom stayed up to the end of the meeting. They even participated
therein by edging and cheering Juan. Quezon City policemen arrived and they arrested
Juan together with Pedro and Jose who were with Juan on the platform. The four (4)
armed persons, however quietly disappeared when the policemen arrived.
(A) As a prosecutor, what case will you file against Juan, Pedro and Jose? State your
reasons.
(B) Would your answer be the same if the four (4) armed men turned out to be
intelligence operatives of the Philippine Constabulary ? Explain your answer.
 
(A) As a prosecutor, I will file against Juan, Pedro and Jose, a charge of Illegal
Assembly under Art. 146 as amended by P.O. 1834. What Juan told the residents
during the meeting, that "it was hopeless to seek redress from the authorities and
that the only recourse was to topple it by force," is an act of propaganda against
the government in order to destabilize the government or to undermine the
authorities by eroding the faith and loyalty of the people
 
(B) The answer is still the same as when the four burly men participated in the
meeting by "edging and cheering" Juan while he was speaking, the crime of Illegal
Assembly was already being committed. In the second form of Illegal Assembly, it
doesn't matter whether there were at least four armed men. As long as the
audience was incited to commit rebellion, sedition etc.
 
Article 147. Illegal associations. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon the
founders, directors, and presidents of associations totally or partially organized for the
purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code or for some
purpose contrary to public morals. Mere members of said associations shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
 
Illegal associations
1. associations totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of the
crime punishable under this code
2. associations totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to public morals
 
Persons liable
1. Founders, directors and president of the association;
2. mere members of the association.
Illegal association Illegal assembly

it is not necessary that there be an actual meeting. it is necessary that there is an actual meeting
  or assembly or armed persons for the purpose
of committing any of the crimes punishable
under the Code, or of individuals who, although
not armed, are incited to the commission of
treason, rebellion, sedition, or assault upon a
person in authority or his agent.

it is the act of forming or organizing and membership it is the meeting and attendance at such
in the association that are punished. meeting that are punished.

the persons liable are (1) the founders, directors and the persons liable are (1) the organizers or
president; and (2) the members. leaders of the meeting and (2) the persons
present at meeting.
*currently: no law punishes the crime of subversion
 
 
Chapter Four ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO,
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS
 
Article 148. Direct assaults. - Any person or persons who, without a public
uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose
enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ
force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while
engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such
performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos, when the assault is committed
with a weapon or when the offender is a public officer or employee, or when the
offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be
present, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not
exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed.
 
Acts punished
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;
Elements
1. Offender employs force or intimidation;
2. The aim of the offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of rebellion
or any of the objects of the crime of sedition;
3. There is no public uprising.
2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force or by seriously intimidating
or by seriously resisting any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in
the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance.
Elements
1. Offender makes an attack, employs force, makes a serious intimidation, or
makes a serious resistance;
2. The person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;
 3. At the time of the assault, the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the
actual performance of official duties, or that he is assaulted by reason of the past
performance of official duties;
4. Offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent
in the exercise of his duties.
5. There is no public uprising.
 
Direct assault Ordinary assault

 A 
gainst public order
 
Notes for the first form
1. police offers compelling a municipal president to go to the municipal building and kept
him there for four hours because their salaries had been in arrears for some time and
was inable to secure payment of them from the president --> act of hate or revenge
upon a public officer
2. Direct assault to prevent popular election --> first form
3. it is not necessary that the offended party is a person in authority or his agent
 Since the purpose is any of the objects of sedition| OP may be a person from
a particular social class
4. In direct assault of the first form, the stature of the offended person is immaterial. The
crime is manifested by the spirit of lawlessness
 In the second form, you have to distinguish a situation where a person in
authority or his agent was attacked while performing official functions, from a
situation when he is not performing such functions.
Notes for the 2nd form
- an attack, employs force, makes a serious intimidation, or makes a serious
resistance;
 Attack| any offensive or antagonistic movement or action
 Employ force| if OP is an agent of PIA --> must be of serious character as to
indicate determination to defy law and its representative at all hazards
2. hitting a policeman in the breast with a fist is not DA
3. Pushing a policeman and giving him fist blows without hitting him is not direct assault
 Only resistance to an agent of PIA
4. the force need not be serious when the offended party is a PIA
5. The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether the offended party is an agent
only or a PIA
 "serious intimidation, or makes a serious resistance"
6. resistance must be active
 Passive| ex: person under arrest throws himself on the ground
 Since the resistance here is grave --> must be active resistance
-ex: Tried to stab a policeman who was about to arrest him
7. Serious intimidation| pointing a gun at a policeman in the performance of his duty
8. intimidation must produce its effects immediately; not threats of future evil
 
The person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent
1. Attack on a clerk is not DA
2. PIA| one directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, the power and authority to govern
and execute the laws.
 In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151, teachers, professors, and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
 colleges and universities and lawyers in the actual performance of their duties or on
the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed a person in authority.
 If to increase penalty| not a PIA
3. status of PIA is a matter of law; ignorance not an excuse
4. Attacking a teacher who had inflicted corporal punishment is direct assault
5. An agent of a person in authority| any person who by direct provision of law or by
election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of
public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as a barangay
councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of a
person in authority.
6. Examples of persons in authority
1. Municipal mayor;
2. Division superintendent of schools;
3. Public and private school teachers;
4. Teacher-nurse;
5. President of sanitary division;
6. Provincial fiscal;
7. Justice of the Peace;
8. Municipal councilor;
9. Barrio captain and barangay chairman.
7. Attacking a special agent of the Manila Railroad Co even while in the performance of
his duty is not direct assault
8. Functions of PIA or his agent must be clearly shown in the information
 
At the time of the assault, the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the
actual performance of official duties, or that he is assaulted by reason of the
past performance of official duties
1. Cases in which the PIA was not engaged in the performance of official duties
 Barrio lieutenant who tried to intervene in a case being investigated by the
justice of peace and was shot
 During a political meeting the accused created the disturbance. Mayor
approached the accused but an encounter between them ensued
 Chief of Police was shot while fetching his two daughters
 Barangay tanod was on his way home when he was shot
2. A teacher who goes out of his classroom to talk to a person on matters not related to
the school or his duties is not engaged in the performance of his official duties
3. A fiscal officially travelling from one place to another is engaged in official duties
 Fiscal investigating a person whom he encountered while travelling and
asking him to show his driver's license is still in the performance of his duties as a
prosecuting officer
4. A school teacher officially travelling from one place to another to deliver school reports
and school properties is performing his official duties
5. When PIA or their agents descended to matters which are private in nature, an attack
made by one against the other is not DA
- PIA or agents against another PIA or agent
6. When the agent of a person in authority agrees to fight, an attack on him is still DA
 Character of a PIA or agent attaches to him until he ceases to be in office
7. a PIA or agent who goes beyond their scope of respective powers and violates rights
of citizens, then the latter may resist
 Resistance however must be coextensive with the excess
 Entitled to self-defense
8. Cases where PIA or agent is not in the performance of official duties
 Exceeds his power or acts without authority
  Makes unnecessary use of force or violence
 Offender and Offended party, both PIA or agents, descended to matters which
are private in nature
9. An assault upon a PIA may be committed by another PIA
10. IF both contend in the exercise of their respective duties| no assault upon or
disobedience can be committed
 No rebellion against an authority but both tries to enforce the authority
 
Offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his
agent in the exercise of his duties.
1. the information must allege such knowledge
 Since the accused must have intention to offend, injure or assault the PIA or
agent
--> No knowledge, no lawlessness or contempt.
 Cannot be cured in the trial even if such element was established
2. defendants must have the intention to defy the authorities
 No intent if done in the heat of the moment
3. Person holding a gun and showing it to a policeman while saying "If you were not a
policeman I would use this on you"
4. Disregard of respect due to OP on account of Rank is inherent in DA
5. if two persons were quarreling and a policeman in civilian clothes comes and stops
them, but one of the protagonists stabs the policeman, there would be no direct assault
unless the offender knew that he is a policeman
6. it is enough that the offender should know that the offended party was exercising
some form of authority.
 It is not necessary that the offender knows what is meant by person in
authority or an agent of one because ignorantia legis non excusat
 
by reason of the past performance of official duties
1. on occasion of such performance| impelling motive of the attack is the performance of
official duty
2. Not necessary that the PIA or agent is in the actual performance of his official duty
when attacked or seriously intimidated
3. Evidence of motive is important in DA when the PIA or agent is attacked while not in
the performance of his official duty
 
without a public uprising
1. If there is public and tumultuous uprising, the crime may be sedition
 The object may be to prevent PIA or agent from freely exercising his functions
 If by reason of past performance of duty, the object may be to inflict an act of
hate or revenge upon the person or property of public officer
 
Qualified assault
1. committed with a weapon
 Not only firearms and sharp or cutting instruments but also stones, clubs and
any other object which some physical injury may be inflicted
2. offender is a public officer or employee
3. Offender lays hands upon a PIA
 
DA can be complexed with homicide, murder or with serious physical injuries
- slight physical injuries is absorbed in DA
 
Additional penalty for attacking ambassador or minister
 
Other notes:
1. The crime of direct assault punishes the spirit of lawlessness and the contempt or
hatred for the authority or the rule of law; not the material consequences
2. So, if an offender who is charged with direct assault and in another court for the slight
physical Injury which is part of the act, acquittal or conviction in one is a bar to the
prosecution in the other
3. Three men broke into a National Food Authority warehouse and lamented sufferings of
the people. They called on people to help themselves to all the rice. They did not even
help themselves to a single grain.
 The crime committed was direct assault. There was no robbery for there was
no intent to gain. The crime is direct assault by committing acts of sedition under
Article 139 (5), that is, spoiling of the property, for any political or social end, of
any person municipality or province or the national government of all or any its
property, but there is no public uprising
 
Questions and Answers
1. 1976| X, a Division Superintendent of Schools of the Bureau of Public Schools, while
working in his office was given a fist blow on the left temple by. Y. As a result of the
blow, he suffered contusion in his head. The assault upon X by Y was due to a standing
grudge of Y for blocking his promotion. Is Y guilty of assaulting a person in authority ?
 Y is liable for direct assault upon a person/in authority. A Division
Superintendent of Schools is a person in authority because under the law, he is
directly vested with jurisdiction since he is given the power of general
superintendence over the schools in his division, with the right to appoint municipal
school teachers and to fix their salaries, aside from the fact that public policy
demands adequate protection to those engaged in education which is a state
function. The fist blow was given while X was in the performance of his duties. The
first blow resulting in contusion constitutes the qualifying aggravating
circumstances of laying hands upon a person in authority. (Art. 148, RPC; People
vs. Benitez, 73 Phil 671).
 
2. 1985| Arthur, a 17 year old student and aggrieved by the death of his only brother in
a previous rally at the hands of the police, fired at a motorcycle cop passing by their
place. He, however, missed his target and instead hit Jason, a passerby, who died
instantaneously.
(A) As an investigating fiscal, what charge or charges will you file against Arthur?
Reasons.
 If I were the investigating fiscal, I would file against Arthur an information for
the complex crime of Direct Assault with Homicide. The motorcycle cop is an agent
of a person in authority. Firing at the peace officer is attacking him, one of the
modes of committing Direct Assault. (Art. 148, Revised Penal Code). Since a third
person was hit instead, resulting in his instantaneous death, the single act of
shooting resulted in two grave felonies, to wit, direct assault and homicide, a
compound complex crime. (Art 48, Revised Penal Code)
 
3. 1987| Jose was charged with slight physical injuries before a Municipal Trial Judge. He
listened attentively as the Judge read the sentence. When the Judge reached the
dispositive portion and pronounced Jose guilty, the latter was enraged, got hold of an
ashtray, and threw it at the Judge hitting him in the eye. As his defense lawyer Pedro
attempted to restrain him, Jose boxed him and knocked him down. The judge became
blind in one eye as a consequence. What crime or crimes did Jose commit?
  Jose is liable for Qualified Direct Assault with Serious Physical Injuries. The
throwing of the ashtray at the Judge hitting him in the eye is laying of hands on the
Judge who is a person in authority while in the performance of duties, Jose is also
liable for qualified direct assault when he boxed his defense lawyer, knocking him
down while in the act of restraining him Under Batas 873 a lawyer is considered a
person in authority if assaulted while in the performance of duties.
 
4. 1993| Pablo, disobeying a judicial order, was punished by an RTC Judge of Manila for
contempt. He waited for the judge to go out into the street. Upon seeing the Judge,
Pablo hurriedly approached him, and without saying a word struck him with his fist
causing a slight contusion on the face of the judge. Rex came to the rescue of the judge
but because he was taller and bigger than Pablo, the latter used a knife in attacking Rex.
Pablo limited his assault to the arms of Rex, inflicting lesiones graves which incapacitated
Rex from labor for forty five (45) days. If you were the prosecutor called to institute a
criminal action against Pablo, with what crime or crimes would you charge him? Explain.
 Answer; The crime of direct assault upon a person in authority with respect to
the slight contusion on the face of the Judge, Direct assault with serious physical
injuries with respect to the assault on Rex.
 
5. A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of his pupils, because
of the latter's throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of
the classroom crying and proceeded home located at the back of the school. He reported
to his parents Y and Z what A had done to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the
school building and because they were running and talking in loud voices, they were seen
by the barangay chairman, B, who followed them as he suspected that an untoward
incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him out to his
father, Y, who administered a fist blow on A, causing him to fall down. When Y was about
to kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter's arms. Seeing his father
being held by B, X went near and punched B on the face, which caused him to lose his
grip on Y. Throughout this incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her
husband, and also threatened to slap A. Some security guards of the school arrived,
intervened and surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be investigated in the
principal's office. Before leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him but
it was deflected by B.
a) What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X Y and Z? (6%)
b) Would your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only? (4%)
 a) X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physical injuries inflicted on
B, the Barangay Chairman, to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the
direct assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC) and in
this case, was performing his duty of maintaining peace and order when attacked. Y
is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault With Less Serious Physical Injuries
for the fist blow on A, the teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For
purposes of the crimes in Arts. 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, a teacher is
considered a person in authority, and having been attacked by Y by reason of his
performance of official duty, direct assault is committed with the resulting less
serious physical injuries completed. Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be
liable as an accomplice to the complex crimes of direct assault with less serious
physical injuries committed by Y. Her participation should not be considered as that
of a co-principal, since her reactions were only incited by her relationship to X and
Y. as the mother of X and the wife of Y
 b) If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying hand on him, being
an agent of a person in authority only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and
Disobedience under Article 151, since X, a high school pupil, could not be
 considered as having acted out of contempt for authority but more of helping his
father get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a person in authority
is not ipso facto direct assault, while it would always be direct assault if done to a
person in authority in defiance to the latter is exercise of authority.
 
6. 2000| Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was
held in Barangay Camias. A, the Barangay Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to
start the dance. While A was delivering his speech. B, one of the guests, went to the
middle of the dance floor making obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife and
challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B and admonished him to keep
quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the
advice of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his back to proceed to the
microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and died. At the time of the
incident A was not armed. What crime was committed? Explain. (2%)
 The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed. A, as a
Barangay Captain, is a person in authority and was acting in an official capacity
when he tried to maintain peace and order during the public dance in the Barangay,
by admonishing B to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the
occasion. When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked the latter, B acted in
contempt and lawless defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault,
which characterized the stabbing of A. And since A was stabbed at the back when
he was not in a position to defend himself nor retaliate, there was treachery in the
stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such stabbing was murder and having been
committed with direct assault, a complex crime of direct assault with murder was
committed by B.
7. 1995| Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato,
a resident of the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher
which he often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers there.
This was bitterly resented by Pascual, One afternoon Pascual, and his two sons
confronted Renato and his men who were operating their mobile rice thresher along a
feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A barangay captain who was fetched
by one of Pascual's men tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent
confrontation. However, Pascual resented the intervention of the barangay captain and
hacked him to death. What crime was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully.
 Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person
in authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is
in law (Art. 152), a person in authority and if he is attacked while in the
performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct
assault is committed.
8. 1991| Two [2] Philippine National Police (PNPJ officers. X and Y, on board on
motorboat with Z, a civilian as motor-man, arrested A and B who were in a banca, for
dynamite fishing. The latter's banca was towed towards the municipality. On the way,
the PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, C, D, and E, tried
to negotiate for the release of A and B and their banca. The PNP officers refused and
instead shouted at C, D. and E that they are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E
simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed X.
A and B also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y
and Z. What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit?
 Suggested Answer: C, D and E are liable for the complex crime of Murder,
qualified by explosion, with direct assault for the death of X. A and B are liable for
the complex crime of Murder Qualified by explosion as to death "of Y, and simple
Murder qualified by explosion for the death of Z. No crime of direct assault can be
filed insofar as the death of Z is concerned, he being a civilian. This, of course,
 assumes that there is no conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E, otherwise all would
have the same criminal liability as the act of one becomes the act of all. Additional
Answer: Firstly, A and B committed a violation of Pres. Decree No. 534 (on illegal
fishing] as amended by Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058. Fishing with the use of
explosives is punishable under said Decree.
 
9. 1989|Edgardo, a policeman, accompanied by Florencio went to serve a warrant of
arrest on Emilio, a professional boxer, at the hitter's apartment. Upon seeing Edgardo,
Emilio immediately boxed him. Edgardo fell flat on the floor. As Florencio tried to help
Edgardo on his feet, Emilio also boxed Florencio. The injuries inflicted upon Edgardo and
Florencio required medical attendance for nine (9) days. What crime or crimes were
committed by Emilio? Give your reasons.
 Answer: If Emilio was not aware that Edgardo was a police officer who was
going serve a warrant of arrest on him, Emilio would be guilty only of slight physical
injuries on two counts, one against Edgardo and the second against Florencio.
If Emilio knew Edgardo as a policeman and of the latter's purpose to serve a
warrant of arrest on him, and that is why he boxed Edgardo, then he will be guilty
of either DIRECT ASSAULT UPON A PERSON IN AUTHORITY or RESISTANCE OR
DISOBEDIENCE TO AN AGENT OF A PERSON in authority, depending on the degree
of force employed by him. A person who attacks, employs force makes a serious
intimidation or makes a serious resistance against a person in authority or his
agent, if at the time of the assault the latter is engaged in the actual performance
of his official duties, the offended party knowing that the person he is assaulting is
a person in authority or his agent, it liable for the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT. A
policeman is an agent of a person in authority.
As for Florencio, the crime committed by Emilio against him would be indirect
Assault provided that Emilio has committed DIRECT ASSAULT against Edgardo, This
is so because any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any
person coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the
commission of the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT, is criminally liable for the crime of
INDIRECT ASSAULT. However, if Emilio is guilty only of RESISTANCE or
disobedience as against Edgardo; then his crime against Florencio would only be
slight physical injuries.
 
10. 1977| When the barangay chairman was presiding over the barrio meeting regarding
cleanliness of the community, he was immediately assaulted by his creditor whom he has
not paid for a long time despite his repeated promises to pay. The barangay chairman
suffered serious physical injuries. The creditor also assaulted a stranger who came to the
aid of the barangay chairman. If you were the fiscal, what crime or crimes will you file
against the creditor? Reason fully
 Under Article 152, as amended, of the Revised Penal Code, a barangay
chairman is a person in authority. Since he was assaulted by his creditor while he
was presiding over a barrio meeting, the assault was committed while the barangay
chairman was actually engaged in the performance of his duties. The motive of the
creditor in assaulting the barangay chairman is therefore immaterial Since the
barangay chairman suffered serious physical injuries, the creditor will be liable for a
complex crime of direct assault with serious physical injuries. The direct assault is
qualified since the creditor laid hands upon a person in authority. (Art. 148, R.P.C.
U.S. v. Balagot, 40 Phil. 385).
 The creditor also committed direct assault upon the stranger who came to the
aid of the barangay chairman because the stranger in doing so was an agent of a
person in authority since the barangay chairman is a person in authority. Any
person coming to the aid of a person in authority shall be deemed an agent of a
 person in authority, (Art. 152 as amended by Rep. Act No. 1978). The scope of Art.
149 which punishes indirect assault is modified by Rep. Act No. 1978.
11. 2002 and 2013| A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B, one
of the students, cheating. She called the student's attention and confiscated his
examination booklet, causing embarrassment to him. The following day, while the class
was going on, the student, B, approached A and, without any warning, slapped her. B
would have inflicted further injuries on A had not C, another student, come to A's rescue
and prevented B from continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C and punched the latter.
What crime or crimes, if any, did B commit? Why? (5%)
 B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for slapping the professor,
A, who was then conducting classes and thus exercising authority; and another one
for the violence on the student C, who came to the aid of the said professor. By
express provision of Article 152, in relation to Article 148 of the Revised Penal
Code, teachers and professors of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges
and universities in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance are deemed persons in authority for purposes of the
crimes of direct assault and of resistance and disobedience in Articles 148 and 151
of said Code. And any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be
deemed an agent of a person in authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the
eyes of the law, an attack on an agent of a person in authority, not just an attack
on a student.
 
12. What is the proper charge against a group of four persons who, without public.
uprising, employ force to prevent the holding of any popular election? (2012 Bar
Question)
 D) direct assault.
13. .Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a
piece of wood commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the back,
causing the latter’s hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it appeared that
Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited
Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his imprisonment for three (3) days.
A) Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why not? (2009 Bar Question)
B) Would your answer be the same if the reason for the attack was that when Judge
Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer ten years ago, he prosecuted Rigoberto and
succeeded in sending him to jail for one year? Explain your answer. (2009 Bar Question)
 
 A) No, Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault because Judge Lorenzo has
ceased to be a judge when he was attacked. He has retired (71 years old) from his
position as a person in authority when he was attacked. Hence, the attack on him
cannot be regarded as against a person in authority anymore.
 B) Yes, Rigorberto would still not be guilty of Direct Assault because a lawyer,
who is deemed a person in authority, must have been assaulted when engaged in
actual performance of his professional duties or on the occasion of such
performance. In this case, however, Judge Lorenzo, who was still a lawyer then,
was celebrating his birthday at the time when Rigoberto assaulted him. He was
neither in the performance of his duties nor attacked on occasion thereof.
14. X, Y and Z agreed among themselves to attack and kill A, a police officer, but they
left their home-made guns in their vehicle before approaching him. What crime have
they committed? (2011 Bar Question)
 D) Illegal possession of firearms.
 
Article 149. Indirect assaults. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person coming to the aid of
the authorities or their agents on occasion of the commission of any of the crimes
defined in the next preceding article.
 
Elements
1. A person in authority or his agent is the victim of any of the forms of direct assault
defined in Article 148;
2. A person comes to the aid of such authority or his agent;
3. Offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person coming to the aid of the
authority or his agent
 
Notes:
1. Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct assault is also committed
 "on occasion of the commission of any of the crimes defined in the next
preceding article."
2. if a private individual who is aiding a policeman in making a lawful arrest is attacked
by the person to be arrested, there is no indirect assault since the policeman is not a
victim of direct assault
- it could not also be direct assault since a private citizen can only be considered an
agent when he comes to the aid of a person in authority
3. Offended party in indirect assaults may be a private person
4. The victim in indirect assault should be a private person who comes in aid of an agent
of a person in authority
 The assault is upon a person who comes in aid of the person in authority. The
victim cannot be the person in authority or his agent.
5. under Article 152, as amended, when any person comes in aid of a person in
authority, said person at that moment is no longer a civilian – he is constituted as an
agent of the person in authority. If such person were the one attacked, the crime would
be direct assault.
6. Due to the amendment of Article 152, without the corresponding amendment in Article
150, the crime of indirect assault can only be committed when assault is upon a civilian
giving aid to an agent of the person in authority. He does not become another agent of
the person in authority.
 
Article 150. Disobedience to Summons Issued by Congress, Its Committees or
Subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, Its Committees, Subcommittees or
Divisions
Acts punished
1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons of Congress, its special or
standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its
committees, subcommittees or divisions, or by any commission or committee chairman
or member authorized to summon witnesses;
-only when without legal excuse| may not apply when papers or documents may be
incriminating against the accused
2. By refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation while being before such legislative
or constitutional body or official;
3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents,
or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their
functions;
 Testimony of the person must be upon matters into which congress has
jurisdiction
- investigation of a crime with a view to prepare the way for a court action does not
come under the province of the legislature
  Note: any act punished by 150 may also constitute contempy
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 by any such body or
official.
 
-court may take any action not amounting to a release of a prisoner of congress
- period of imprisonment for contempt during inquiries in aid of legislation is not indefnite
 May end when legislative inquiry concludes
 
Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such
person. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of the preceding
articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such
person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
 
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature,
the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed
upon the offender.
 
Elements of resistance and serious disobedience under the first paragraph
1. A person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or
gives a lawful order to the offender;
2. Offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent;
3. The act of the offender is not included in the provision of Articles 148, 149 and 150.
 
Elements of simple disobedience under the second paragraph
1. An agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of official duty or
gives a lawful order to the offender;
2. Offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority;
3. Such disobedience is not of a serious nature.
 
Notes for par. 1
1. concept of the offense| failure to comply with orders directly issued by the authorities
in the exercise of their functions
2. accused must have knowledge that the person arresting him is a PIA or agent
3. Justified resistance| accused lay his hands on the customs secret agent who had no
right to make the search --> adequate defense to repel the aggression
4. person who struck policeman in the breast with a fist --> resistance and serious
disobedience
 
Notes for par.2
1. the offended party must only be an agent of a person in authority
2. act of lying on the road and refusing despite the order of the PC major
3. If picketing is lawful, officers cannot dispose of them
4. the order must be lawful
 One who resists a police officer's request for search (which he had no right) is
not guilty of simple disobedience or resistance or serious disobedience
 One who lawfully resists the meddling by a policeman with one's private
business
5. the disobedience should not be of serious nature
 Otherwise, it could fall under the first paragraph
 
Direct assault Resistance or serious disobedience

the person in authority or his agent must the person in authority or his agent must be in actual
be engaged in the performance of official performance of his duties
duties or that he is assaulted by reason
thereof.

Resistance or serious disobedience is Direct assault (the second form) is committed in four ways,
committed only by resisting or seriously that is, (1) by attacking, (2) by employing force, (3) by
disobeying a person in authority or his seriously intimidating, and (4) by seriously resisting a
agent. persons in authority or his agent.

In both resistance against an agent of a  

person in authority and direct assault by
resisting an agent of a person in
authority, there is force employed
-

The attack or employment of force which the use of force in resistance is not so serious, as there is n
gives rise to the crime of direct assault manifest intention to defy the law and the officers enforcing
must be serious and deliberate it.
- in addition
 when the one resisted is a person in authority, the use of any kind or degree
of force will give rise to direct assault
 If no force is employed by the offender in resisting or disobeying a person in
authority, the crime committed is resistance or serious disobedience under the first
paragraph of Article 151
 
Questions and Answers
1. 1979| While on patrol, X, a policeman, spotted Y standing in a dark street corner, X
accosted Y suspecting him to be a long wanted criminal on the basis of appearance. Y
had no identification papers but he gave his name and address. X told Y he would be
brought to headquarters for questioning. When Y refused, X told him to remove his coat
so he could find if he has a tattoo on his left forearm, a mark of the wanted criminal X
was hunting, Y refused again and resisted all efforts of X by pushing and pulling him. X
charged Y with assault. Do you agree?
 The crime committed is not assault but simple resistance. The policeman was
on patrol when he spotted Y standing in a dark street corner, where he had no
reason to be. X was hunting a wanted criminal. A duty of a policeman is to arrest
lawbreakers in order to place them at the disposal of judicial or executive
authorities. One means to achieve this end is the identification of the alleged
lawbreaker. (U.S. vs. Sanches, 27 Phil. 442). A peace officer might arrest for
examination persons walking in the street at night when there's reasonable ground
to suspect that a felony is committed although there is no proof thereof (People vs.
Santos, 36 Phil, 853). Y was not arrested but only accosted on suspicion of being a
long wanted criminal because of his appearance. X's request that Y would be
brought to the headquarters was refused and Y also refused that he remove his
coat to find out if he has a tattoo in his left forearm, a mark of the wanted criminal
whom X was hunting. X was therefore acting in the legitimate performance of his
duties. Y pushed and pull X in resisting his efforts to find out whether he has a
tattoo. The acts committed by Y however do not" constitute assault but simple
resistance because such do not indicate manifest defiance to the authority of the
law (US, vs. Tabiana, 37 Phil. 515, People vs. Baesa, CA 55 O.G. 10291).
 
Article 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be
deemed as such. - In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this
Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a
member of some court or governmental corporation, board, or commission, shall be
deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be
deemed a person in authority.
 
A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent
authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and
security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay
leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be
deemed an agent of a person in authority.
 
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional
duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (As
amended by PD No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985)
 
 
Chapter Five PUBLIC DISORDERS
 
Article 153. Tumults and other disturbance of public orders; Tumultuous disturbance or
interruption liable to cause disturbance. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause any serious disturbance in a public
place, office, or establishment, or shall interrupt or disturb public performances,
functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in the
provisions of Articles 131 and 132.
 
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing any
disturbance or interruption of a tumultuous character.
 
The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be tumultuous if caused by more than
three persons who are armed or provided with means of violence.
 
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who in any meeting,
association, or public place, shall make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or
sedition or in such place shall display placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance
of the public order.
 
The penalty of arresto menor and a fine not to exceed P200 pesos shall be imposed upon
these persons who in violation of the provisions contained in the last clause of Article 85,
shall bury with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.
 
Acts punished
1. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment;
2. Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful
meetings, if the act is not included in Articles 131 and 132;
3. Making any 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
 
--> The essence is creating public disorder. This crime is brought about by creating
serious disturbances in public places, public buildings, and even in private places where
public functions or performances are being held.
 
Notes:
1. Serious disturbance must be planned and intended
- ex: large group were marching down the street and stopped in front of a house where a
public meeting of a candidate was held. No attempt to enter but only disturb the ones
attending the meeting. Slight disturbance and partisan feeling was high --> guilty only
of alarm and scandals under 155
2. to apply 153| the act of disturbing or interrupting a meeting or religious ceremony can
be committed by a private person or a public officer who is merely a participant in
the meeting or religious worship
3. Outcry| to shout subversive or provocative words tending to stir up the people to
obtain by means of force or violence any of the objects of sedition or rebellion.
4. inciting to sedition or rebellion Outcry

- If the speaker, even before he - if the offender had no such criminal intent, but in the course of
delivered his speech, already had his speech, tempers went high and so the speaker started inciting
the criminal intent to incite the the audience to rise in sedition
listeners to rise to sedition, the - more or less an unconscious outburst which is not intentionally
crime would be inciting to sedition. calculated to induce others to commit it.
- should have done the act with the
idea aforethought of inducing his
hearers or readers to commit the
crime of rebellion or sedition
5. Disturbance or interruption of a tumultuous character --> penalty next higher
- tumultuous| more than 3 persons who are armed or provided by means of violence
6. One who fired a submachine gun to cause disturbance, but inflicted serious
physical injuries on another, may be prosecuted for two crimes (homicide and causing
serious disturbance)
- armed| not only firearms but includes big stones capable of causing grave injury
7. It is also disturbance of the public order if a convict legally put to death is buried with
pomp. He should not be made out as a martyr; it might incite others to hatred.
8. The essence is creating public disorder.
9. This crime is brought about by creating serious disturbances in public places, public
buildings, and even in private places where public functions or performances are being
held.
10. It is also disturbance of the public order if a convict legally put to death is buried with
pomp. He should not be made out as a martyr; it might incite others to hatred.
 
Article 154. Unlawful Use of Means of Publication and Unlawful Utterances
Acts punished
1. 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. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or praising,
justifying or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or by words,
utterances or speeches;
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document
without proper authority, or before they have been published officially
4. Printing, publishing or distributing (or causing the same) books, pamphlets,
periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real printer’s name, or which are classified
as anonymous.
 
Rules:
1. Actual public disorder or actual damage to the credit of the State is not necessary.
2. offender must know that the news is false
3. No possibility of danger --> not punished
 
Republic Act No. 248 prohibits the reprinting, reproduction or republication of
government publications and official documents without previous authority.
 
Article 155. Alarms and scandals. - The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding P200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall discharge any firearm,
rocket, firecracker, or other explosives calculated to cause alarm or danger;
2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in any charivari or other
disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility;
3. Any person who, while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other
nocturnal amusements, shall disturb the public peace; or
4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause any disturbance or
scandal in public places, provided that the circumstances of the case shall not make the
provisions of Article 153 applicable.
 
Acts punished
1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any town or
public place, calculated to cause (which produces) alarm of danger;
2. Instigating or taking an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting
offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility;
3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any
other nocturnal amusements;
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise,
provided Article 153 in not applicable
 
Rules:
1. discharge of firearm should not be aimed at a person --> article 254
2. When a person discharges a firearm in public, the act may constitute any of the
possible crimes under the Revised Penal Code:
(1) Alarms and scandals if the firearm when discharged was not directed to any
particular person;
(2) Illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 if the firearm is directed or pointed
to a particular person when discharged but intent to kill is absent;
(3) Attempted homicide, murder, or parricide if the firearm when discharged is
directed against a person and intent to kill is present.
3. Article 155 does not make any distinction as to the particular place in town or public
place.
 Even if committed in one's garden, as long as it produced alarm or danger.
4. Charivari| includes a medley of discordant voices, a mock serenade of discordant
noises made on kettles, tins, horns, etc. designed to annoy or insult
--> If the annoyance is intended for a particular person, the crime is unjust
vexation
5. Scandal here does not refer to moral scandal; that one is grave scandal in Article 200.
The essence of the crime is disturbance of public tranquility and public peace.
6. Even if the persons involved are engaged in nocturnal activity like those playing
patintero at night, or selling balut, if they conduct their activity in such a way that
disturbs public peace, they may commit the crime of alarms and scandals.
7. "Calculated to cause alarm or danger" should be which produces alarm or danger
8. disturbance of serious nature falls under article 153; if not, par. 4 of this article
- a person who hurled general insults at everybody and challenged the owner of the
billiard hall to a fight causing commotion and disorder so that the billiard game has to be
stopped momentarily
 
 
Article 156. Delivery of prisoners from jails. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall remove from any jail or penal establishment any person confined
therein or shall help the escape of such person, by means of violence, intimidation, or
bribery. If other means are used, the penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed
 
If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments by taking the
guards by surprise, the same penalties shall be imposed in their minimum period
 
Elements
1. There is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment;
2. Offender removes therefrom such person, or helps the escape of such person [not
necessary in this case that the offender is in a jail or penal establishment]
 
Penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period is imposed if violence, intimidation or bribery is used.
 Penalty of arresto mayor if other means are used.
 
Penalty decreased to the minimum period if the escape of the prisoner shall take place
outside of said establishments by taking the guards by surprise.
 
Rules
1. Prisoner may be under detention only
2. includes hospital or asylum --> an extension of the penal institution
3. Offender is any person
4. Infidelity in the custody of Delivering persons from jail with infidelity
persons

--> both can be committed by  

a private person or public officer  
--> in both, a prisoner may be a  
convict or detention prisoner  
- offender is a custodian at that - if the offender is not the custodian of the prisoner at that time,
time even though he is a public officer, the crime he committed is
delivering prisoners from jail.
  Liability of the prisoner or detainee who escaped| When these crimes are
committed, whether infidelity in the custody of prisoners or delivering prisoners
from jail, the prisoner so escaping may also have criminal liability and this is so if
the prisoner is a convict serving sentence by final judgment. The crime of
evasion of service of sentence is committed by the prisoner who escapes if such
prisoner is a convict serving sentence by final judgment
 If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention prisoner, he does not incur
liability from escaping if he does not know of the plan to remove him from jail. But
if such prisoner knows of the plot to remove him from jail and cooperates
therein by escaping, he himself becomes liable for delivering prisoners from jail
as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
 If three persons are involved – a stranger, the custodian and the prisoner –
three crimes are committed:
o (1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
o (2) Delivery of the prisoner from jail; and
o (3) Evasion of service of sentence.
5. Employing bribery must be a means of removing the prisoner from jail to constitute a
qualifying circumstance
- receiving or agreeing to receive bribe is a generic AC under 14(11) [in consideration of
price reward or promise]
6. Employment of deceit is not an element of the offense
7. By other means| substituting for a prisoner by taking his place --> deceit
8. Person delivering the prisoner from jail may be an accessory
9. a convict, and not a detention prisoner, who escapes by the commission of this
crime or infidelity in the custody is liable for evasion of service of his sentence
10. Violence, intimidation or bribery is not necessary
11. guard of the jail who is off duty, may be held liable for delivering prisoner from jail
and not infidelity in the custody of prisoners
 
Other notes:
 
Bar questions:
1. 2002. A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for emergency medical
treatment. His followers, all of whom were armed, went to the hospital to take him away
or help him escape. The prison guards, seeing that they were outnumbered and that
resistance would endanger the lives of other patients, deckled to allow Page 189 of 374
the prisoner to be taken by his followers. What crime, if any, was committed by A's
followers? Why?
--> A's followers shall be liable as principals in the crime of delivery of prisoner from Jail
(Art. 156, Revised Penal Code). The felony is committed not only by removing from any
jail or penal establishment any person confined therein but also by helping in the escape
of such person outside of said establishments by means of violence, intimidation, bribery,
or any other means
 
2. 1989. Ernani was accused of estafa. Unable to post a bail bond for his provisional
liberty pending trial of his case, he was detained in the city jail. On the date of the
hearing of the estafa case, Daniel, a policeman detailed in the city jail, escorted Ernani to
the city hall for the trial. Daniel removed the handcuffs of Ernani and allowed him to sit
on one of the chairs inside the courtroom. As Daniel was talking to a lawyer inside the
courtroom, Ernani, with the help of a cigarette vendor, Meynardo, who used his cigarette
container as cover, surreptitiously moved out of the room and escaped, Ernani and
Meynardo went to the comfort room for a while, then went down the stairs and lost
themselves in the crowd. What crime or crimes were committed by Ernani, Daniel and
Meynardo? Give your reasons.
--> 1. Daniel, the policeman, committed the crime of EVASION THRU NEGLIGENCE, one
of the forms of Infidelity in the custody of Prisoner (Art. 224),,
 
The essential elements of which offense are: (1) That the offender is a public officer. (2)
That he has in his custody or charge a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoners by
final judgement. (3) That such prisoner escaped from his custody thru his negligence.
 
All of these elements are present, Daniel, a policeman detailed in the city jail, is a public
officer. As the escort for Ernani in the latter's trial, he had custody of charge of a
detention prisoner, Ernani's escape was thru his negligence because after removing
Ernani's handcuffs and allowing him to sit in one of the chairs inside the courtroom, he
should have taken the necessary precautions to prevent Ernani's escape by keeping an
eye on him. Instead, he provided the opportunity for the escape by talking with a lawyer
and not keeping watch over his prisoner.
 
2. Meynardo, not being a public officer, is guilty of the crime of DELIVERING
PRISONERS FROM JAILS (Art. 156), which is committed by any person who either
removes from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein, or WHO
HELPS the escape of such person by means of violence, intimidation, bribery of
OTHER MEANS. The act of Meynardo in giving to Ernani his cigarette container is
helping in the latter's escape by OTHER MEANS. Page 190 of 374
 
3. Ernani, the escaped prisoner himself is not criminally liable for any offense. The
detention prisoner who escapes from detention does not commit any crime. If he
were a convict by final judgment who is serving a sentence which consists of
deprivation of liberty and he escapes during term of his sentence, he would be
liable for EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE (Art. 157).
 
Chapter Six EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
 
Evasion of service of sentence has three forms:
(1) By simply leaving or escaping from the penal establishment under Article 157;
(2) Failure to return within 48 hours after having left the penal establishment because of
a calamity, conflagration or mutiny and such calamity, conflagration or mutiny has been
announced as already passed under Article 158;
(3) Violating the condition of conditional pardon under Article 159.
 
Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade
service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of
final judgment
 
However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of unlawful entry,
by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false
keys, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
maximum period.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment;
2. He is serving sentence which consists in the deprivation of liberty;
3. He evades service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment.
 
Qualifying circumstances as to penalty imposed If such evasion or escape takes place
–
1. By means of unlawful entry (this should be “by scaling” - Reyes or by climbing);
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors;
3. By using picklock, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation; or
4. Through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution.

Rules:
1. Detention prisoners, minor delinquents or convict escaping within 15 days from
promulgation of judgment or notice of judgment or during pendency of appeal is not
covered
2. Not applicable to sentence executed by deportation - not imprisonment and breaking
jail
3. correct: escaping during the term of his sentence which constitute deprivation of
liberty
- mistranslation of spanish text
4. escape| unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody
--> there must be intention to flee to avoid arrest| mere loitering outside the premises of
a prison facility is not escape
5. It is enough that he left the penal establishment by escaping therefrom. His voluntary
return may only be mitigating, being analogous to voluntary surrender
6. applicable to destierro| a deprivation of liberty by final judgment
- if the sentence violated is destierro, the penalty upon the convict is to be served by
way of destierro also, not imprisonment. This is so because the penalty for the evasion
cannot be more severe than the penalty evaded.
 
Bar question:
1. 1975. The accused was found guilty of a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act and
was deported. After four months, he returned to the Philippines. The fiscal prosecuted
him for Evasion of Service of Sentence but the defense contended that the accused is not
guilty of the charge because he did not break out of a jail. Is the defense tenable? Why?
 
Answer a) The defense is tenable. Evasion of sentence is jail breaking. (Tanega v.
Masakayan, 19 SCRA 564). So, it does not apply to the accused who was deported and
who returned to the Philippines in violation of the sentence, since deportation is not
imprisonment. (17.5. v. Laio Hoc, 36 Phil. 867). b) If the deportation was an act of the
Chief Executive completely of the judgment of conviction, then, there can be no evasion
of sentence.
 
2. 1998. Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and was sentenced by
the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City to suffer the penalty of destierro during which
he was not to enter the city. While serving sentence, Manny went to Dagupan City to
visit his mother. Later, he was arrested in Manila.
 
1. Did Manny commit any crime? [3%]
2. If so, where should he be prosecuted? [2%]
 
Answer: 1. Yes. Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of sentence when he
went to Dagupan City, which he was prohibited from entering under his sentence of
destierro. A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when the convict
enters any of the place/places he is prohibited from entering under the sentence or come
within the prohibited radius. Although destierro does not involve imprisonment, it is
nonetheless a deprivation of liberty. (People vs. Abilong. 82 Phil. 172). 2. Manny may be
prosecuted in Dagupan City or in Manila where he was arrested. This is so because
evasion of service of sentence is a continuing offense, as the convict is a fugitive from
justice in such case. (Parulan vs. Dir. of Prisons, L-28519, 17 Feb. 1968)
 
3. The guard was entrusted with the conveyance or custody of a detention prisoner who
escaped through his negligence. What is the criminal liability of the escaping prisoner?
(2012 Bar Question)
 Evasion of service of sentence (Article 157) can only be committed by a
prisoner by final judgment, and not by mere detention prisoner (Curiano vs. CFI,
G.R. No. L- 8104, April 15, 1955). Hence, “A” is the answer. The escapee does not
incur criminal liability
4.To secure the release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent,
who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to issue
an Order which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. At first, the Clerk
refused, but when Chito gave her P50,000.00, she consented. She then prepared an
Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a
pending case. She forged the judge’s signature, and delivered the Order to the jail
warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an
armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates
unguarded for three minutes and provide them with an opportunity to escape. Thus,
Willy and Vincent were able to escape. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed
by Chito, Willy, Vincent, the Branch Clerk of Court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain
your answer. (2009 Bar Question)
 The crimes committed by Chito, Willy, Vincent, the Branch Clerk of Court,
Edwin, and the jail warden are as follows:
a. Chito committed the crimes of (a) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156,
RPC) for working out the escape of prisoners Willy and Vincent; (b) two counts
of Corruption of Public Officials when he gave Php50,000.00 each to the
Branch Clerk of Court and Edward; Art. 212, RPC); and (c) Falsification of
Public Documents, as a principal by inducement (Art. 172[1], RPC, when he
caused the falsification of the court’s Order by the Branch Clerk of Court.
b. Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC)
as a principal by indispensable participation if he was aware of the criminal
plan of Chito to have them escape from prison and he did escape pursuant to
such criminal plan; otherwise he would not be liable for said crime if he
escaped pursuant to human instinct only.
c. Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final judgment, committed
the crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC) for escaping
during the term of his imprisonment.
d. The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of –
1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00, in
consideration of the Order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out
of jail;
2. Falsification of Public Document for forgoing the judge’s signature on
said Order (Art. 171, RPC);
3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co- principal of
Chito by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and
forgoing the judge’s signature thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out
of jail;
 4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC) as a co- principal of
Vincent by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order that
enable Vincent to evade service of his sentence
 
 
Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion of disorder, conflagrations,
earthquakes, or other calamities. - A convict who shall evade the service of his sentence,
by leaving the penal institution where he shall have been confined, on the occasion of
disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar catastrophe, or
during a mutiny in which he has not participated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of
the time still remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in no case shall
exceed six months, if he shall fail to give himself up to the authorities within forty-eight
hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing the
passing away of such calamity
 
Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall give
themselves up to the authorities within the above mentioned period of 48 hours, shall be
entitled to the deduction provided in Article 98
 
Elements
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment, who is confined in a penal institution;
2. There is disorder, resulting from – a. conflagration; b. earthquake; c. explosion; or d.
similar catastrophe; or e. mutiny in which he has not participated;
3. He evades the service of his sentence by leaving the penal institution where he is
confined, on the occasion of such disorder or during the mutiny;
4. He fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of
a proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity.
 
Rules:
1. The leaving from the penal establishment is not the basis of criminal liability. It is the
failure to return within 48 hours after the passing of the calamity, conflagration or
mutiny had been announced
2. those who return within 48 hours are given credit or deduction from the remaining
period of their sentence equivalent to 1/5 of the original term of the sentence
 But if the prisoner fails to return within said 48 hours, an added penalty, also
1/5, shall be imposed but the 1/5 penalty is based on the remaining period of the
sentence
 In no case shall that penalty exceed six months
3. Those who did not leave the penal establishment are not entitled to the 1/5 credit
4. Mutiny| an organized unlawful resistance to a superior officer; a sedition; a revolt
- does not include riots or disarming the guards and escape (a guard is not a superior
officer)
- one who escapes in such situations --> 157
 that is, simply leaving or escaping the penal establishment
5. People v. Padilla| accused was not held liable under 157 because he acted under the
influence of uncontrollable fear since escapists threatened to shoot everyone
6. offender must be a convict by final judgment
 
Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the convict who, having been
granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of
such pardon. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be higher
than six years, the convict shall then suffer the unexpired portion of his original
sentence.
 
A conditional pardon is a contract between the chief executive and the convict
 
Elements of violation of conditional pardon
1. Offender was a convict;
2. He was granted pardon by the Chief Executive;
3. He violated any of the conditions of such pardon.
 
Two penalties:
1. Prision correccional in its min - if the penalty remitted does not exceed six years
2. Unexpired portion - if the penalty remitted is higher than six years
 
Rules:
1. In violation of conditional pardon, as a rule, the violation will amount to this crime
only if the condition is violated during the remaining period of the sentence
2. when the unexpired portion is less than six years --> PC in its minimum
3. The court cannot require convict to serve the unexpired portion of his original
sentence that does not exceed six years, in addition to PC minimum
--> left to the president
4. violation of conditional pardon is committed where the subsequent offense is
perpetrated
5. condition extends to special laws
6. Offender must be found guilty of the subsequent offense
7. If penalty remitted is destierro, should the penalty for violation of conditional pardon
also be destierro? No. law did not mention that Destierro could be the penalty
8. Offender can be arrested and re-incarcerated without trial under 64 (i) of the revised
administrative code
- no conflict with 159 of RPC. Proceeding of the another does not preclude the other
9. Duration of the conditions subsequent is limited to the remaining period of the
sentence
- X: when the conditional pardon expressly so provides or the language of the conditional
pardon clearly shows the intention to make the condition perpetual even beyond the
unserved portion of the sentence
*in such case, the convict may be required to serve the unserved portion of the sentence
even though the violation has taken place when the sentence has already lapsed.
10. Violation of conditional pardon Evasion of service of sentence

- infringement of the terms stipulated in the - attempt to evade the penalty

Contract between the chief executive and inflicted by the courts
The convict
 Does not cause harm or injury to the right of other
person nor does it disturb the public order
 
Is the violation of conditional pardon a substantive offense?
- the violation is a substantive offense if the remitted portion of the sentence does not
exceed six years because in this case a new penalty is imposed for the violation of the
conditional pardon.
- But if the remitted portion of the sentence exceeds six years, the violation of the
conditional pardon is not a substantive offense because no new penalty is imposed for
the violation
 
*The Supreme Court, however, has ruled in the case of Angeles v. Jose that this is not a
substantive offense. This has been highly criticized.
11. The time during which the convict was out of prison cannot be deducted from the
unexecuted portion of his sentence
 
Chapter Seven COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF
PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE
 
 
Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another
offense; Penalty. - Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall
commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning
to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Any convict of the
class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the
age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he
shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other
circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency
 
Elements
1. 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.
 
Rules:
1. Before beginning to serve
- committed the new felony while being taken to the prison or jail after decision of lower
court in the first offense having been affirmed by the CA and his commitment being
ordered
 
2. Second crime must be a felony
- does not apply when the offense is punished under a special law
3. If committed after serving sentence and offense is embraced in the same title of the
code --> recidivist
4. But the first crime for which the offender is serving sentence need not be a felony
5. new offense need not be of different character from that of the former offense
6. does not require that the two offense be embraced under the same title of the code
7. reiteracion --> has served out previous offenses; quasi-recidivism --> has yet to
serve or while serving his sentence
8. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance that cannot be offset by any
ordinary mitigating circumstance
- law provides "shall be punished by the max period of the penalty prescribed by law for
the new felony"
*what about privileged mitigating circumstance| yes since it lowers degree of penalty. So
the period of the penalty lowered will be in max.
 
A quasi recidivist may be pardoned at the age of 70 and has already served out his
original sentence or when he shall complete it after reaching said age
-X: unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances, he shall not be worthy of
such clemency
 
Bar Questions:
1. 1991
During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing a knife, asked Constancio whether he was
the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the year previous. Vicente [father of Constancio)
shouted at Constancio and his other son, Bienvenido, telling them to run away. When
Bienvenido passed by Rafael Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed him. Bienvenido
parried the blow but fell down, his feet entangled with some vines. While Bienvenido was
lying on the ground, Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting slight injuries on the
shoulder of Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran
(no relation to the Marco brothers), came out of nowhere and, together with Simeon,
stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted fatal wounds resulting in the death of the
victim,
b) Supposing Dulcisimo is a convict out on parole, will the aggravating circumstances of
quasi-recidivism be appreciated against him?
 
Answer: b) No, because quasi-recidivism under Art. 160, RPC occurs when the accused
commits a felony while serving or about to serve sentence (or if he escapes from prison].
A parolee who commits a felony cannot be a quasi-recidivist.
 
2. 1983
X, an unlettered prisoner serving sentence for homicide, killed a coprisoner with evident
premeditation, after which he voluntarily surrendered to the prison guard and confessed
his wrongdoing. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the murder charge. After a brief
trial to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused and the presence or
absence of modifying circumstances, the trial judge imposed the penalty prescribed by
law for murder in its maximum period [death], disregarding the mitigating circumstances
established by the defense. Page 192 of 374
(a) Did the judge act correctly? Why?
(b) If the murder was committed outside of prison before X began to serve his sentence
for homicide, would your answer be different? Reasons.
 
Answer a) The judge acted correctly. The reason is because X was a quasi-recidivist as
he killed his fellow prisoner while he was serving the sentence for homicide. (Art. 160
Rev. Penal Code) The penalty for the second crime is to be imposed in its maximum
period without regard to the attending mitigating and aggravating circumstances. (People
vs. Bautista (1978) of 2 O.G. 2117) b) The same answer because there is quasi-
recidivism since the offender who was convicted by final judgment of homicide
committed the second felony, which in this case is murder, before beginning to serve the
sentence for homicide. (Art. 160 Rev. Penal Code)
 
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or falsity to the public. The essence of
the crime under this title is that which defraud the public in general. There is deceit
perpetrated upon the public. This is the act that is being punished under this title.
 
The first acts of falsification or falsity are
(1) Counterfeiting – refers to money or currency;
(2) Forgery – refers to instruments of credit and obligations and securities issued by the
Philippine government or any banking institution authorized by the Philippine
government to issue the same;
(3) Falsification – can only be committed in respect of documents.
 
 
Illegal possession of firearms bar questions
1. 1975 No. I A shot and killed D with an unlicensed firearm. The Fiscal filed charges
against A — one for Homicide and another for Illegal Possession of Firearm. The defense
counsel contended that only one charge should have been filed —the complex crime of
Homicide with Illegal Possession of Firearm as the use of the unlicensed firearm was a
necessary means to commit the homicide. Is the contention meritorious? Why?
 Answer a) The contention of defense counsel is not meritorious, A complex
crime refers only to felonies. (Art. 48, Revised Penal Code, People vs. Araneta, 48
Phil. 650). The offender will be liable for two crimes. One for homicide, which is a
felony punished in the Revised Penal Code, and another for illegal possession of
firearm, which is an offense punished in a special law.
 b) People vs. Alger, 92 Phil 227.
 
2. Illegal possession of firearms 1998 No V.
1. How is the crime of coup d'etat committed? [3%]
2. Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d'etat using an unlicensed
firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit? [2%]
 Answer: 1. The crime of coup d'etat is committed by ...
 2. The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation
therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the
new firearms law (Rep. Act No. 8294). A prosecution for illegal possession of
firearm under the new law is allowed only if the unlicensed firearm was not used in
the commission of another crime.
 
3. Illegal possession of firearms 2000 No XIII
a) A has long been wanted by the police authorities for various crimes committed by him.
Acting on an information by a tipster, the police proceeded to an apartment where A was
often seen. The tipster also warned the policemen that A was always armed. At the given
address, a lady who introduced herself as the elder sister of A, opened the door and let
the policemen in inside, the team found A sleeping on the floor. Immediately beside him
was a clutch bag which, when opened, contained a .38 caliber paltik revolver and a hand
grenade. After verification, the authorities discovered that A was not a licensed holder of
the .38 caliber paltik revolver. As for the hand grenade, it was established that only
military personnel are authorized to carry hand grenades. Subsequently, A was charged
with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. During trial, A
maintained that the bag containing the unlicensed firearm and hand grenade belonged to
A, his friend, and that he was not in actual possession thereof at the time he was
arrested. Are the allegations meritorious? Explain. (3%)
 
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) A's allegations are not meritorious. Ownership is
not an essential element of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not only
actual physical possession but also constructive possession where the firearm and
explosive are subject to one's control and management. (People us. De Grecia, 233
SCRA 716; U.S. vs. Juan, 23 Phil. 105: People vs. Soyag, 110 Phil. 565).
 
Anti-Wiretapping Bar questions
1. 1993| C told his lawyer, Atty. T, to settle the criminal case he filed against L, and so
Atty. T called up through telephone L, and informed him that C is willing to have the case
dismissed provided that L pays P8,000.00 and makes a public apology. L told Atty. T to
call him up the following day as he would consult his lawyer. The following day when
Atty. T called up L, the latter requested his lawyer Atty. X, who was in his (L's) office at
that time, to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension.
 When the P8,000.00 agreed upon on the telephone was delivered to Atty. T at the
appointed place and time, he (Atty, T) was arrested by the police for Robbery/Extortion
on complaint of L who was accompanied by his lawyer, Atty. X. Atty. X executed an
affidavit stating that he heard Atty. T demanding P8,000.00 for the withdrawal of the
criminal complaint through a telephone extension. On the basis of this affidavit, Atty, T
filed a criminal complaint against Atty. X and L for violation of sec. 1 of RA. No. 4200,
otherwise known as the Anti-Wire Tapping Act. which says: "It shall be unlawful for any
person not being authorized by all the parties to any private conversation or spoken word
to tap any wire or cable or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly
overhear, intercept or record such communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone, walkie talkie or tape
recorder, or however otherwise described." If you were the Judge, would you convict or
acquit L and his lawyer, Atty. X? Support your decision with reasons.
 Answer: No, because it is a telephone extension and those enumerated by
law means an extension with permanent recording of which a telephone extension
is not. (Gaanan vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 112)
 
 

Crimes Against Public Interest

Friday, March 25, 2022
8:29 AM
 
TITLE IV. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
1. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippines (Art. 161);
2. Using forged signature or counterfeiting seal or stamp (Art. 162);
3. Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art. 163);
4. Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of mutilated coins (Art. 164);
5. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without connivance (Art. 165);
6. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer, importing and
uttering of such false or forged notes and documents (Art. 166);
7. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer (Art. 167);
8. Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or bank notes and other instruments of
credit (Art. 168);
9. Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170);
10. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary (Art. 171);
11. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents (Art. 172);
12. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages and use of said
falsified messages (Art. 173); 13. False medical certificates, false certificates of merit or
service (Art. 174);
14. Using false certificates (Art. 175);
15. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification (Art.
176);
16. Usurpation of authority or official functions (Art. 177);
17. Using fictitious name and concealing true name (Art. 178);
18. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia (Art. 179); 19. False testimony against a defendant
(Art. 180);
20. False testimony favorable to the defendant (Art. 181);
21. False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182); 22. False testimony in other cases and
perjury (Art. 183);
23. Offering false testimony in evidence (Art. 184);
24. Machinations in public auction (Art. 185);
25. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Art. 186);
26. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold,
silver, or other precious metals or their alloys (Art. 187);
27. Substituting and altering trade marks and trade names or service marks (Art. 188);
28. Unfair competition and fraudulent registration of trade mark or trade name, or
service mark; fraudulent designation of origin, and false description (Art. 189).
 
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or falsity to the public. The essence of
the crime under this title is that which defraud the public in general. There is deceit
perpetrated upon the public. This is the act that is being punished under this title.
 
Chapter One FORGERIES
Section One. - Forging the seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, the
signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.
 
Article 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands,
forging the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. - The penalty of reclusion temporal
shall be imposed upon any person who shall forge the Great Seal of the Government of
the Philippine Islands or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive
 
Acts punished
1. Forging the great seal of the Government of the Philippines;
2. Forging the signature of the President;
3. Forging the stamp of the President
 
Rules:
1. signature of the president must be forged
- counterfeiting or making an imitation of the signature
 If the president left a document with his signature to his secretary. The crime
is not covered under 161
- 171 or 172 is applicable
2. In the crime of counterfeiting, the law is not concerned with the fraud upon the public
such that even though the coin is no longer legal tender, the act of imitating or
manufacturing the coin of the government is penalized.
 In punishing the crime of counterfeiting, the law wants to prevent people
from trying their ingenuity in their imitation of the manufacture of money.
 
Article 162. Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp. - The penalty of prision
mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall knowingly make use of the
counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp mentioned in the preceding article
 
Elements
1. The great seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the Chief
Executive was forged by another person;
2. Offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery;
3. He used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp.
 
Rules:
1. Offender under this article should not be the forger
2. the act is that of an accessory but penalty is one degree lower
 
Section Two. - Counterfeiting Coins
 
Article 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins. - Any person who makes,
imports, or utters, false coins, in connivance with counterfeiters, or importers, shall
suffer:
1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000
pesos, if the counterfeited coin be silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central
Bank of the Philippines of ten centavo denomination or above.
2. Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not to exceed
P2,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coins be any of the minor coinage of the Philippines or
of the Central Bank of the Philippines below ten-centavo denomination.
3. Prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos, if
the counterfeited coin be currency of a foreign country. (As amended by R.A. No. 4202,
approved June 19, 1965)
 
Elements
1. There be false or counterfeited coins;
2. Offender either made, imported or uttered such coins;
3. In case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connived with the
counterfeiters or importers.
 
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished
1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the Central Bank of the Philippines;
2. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines;
3. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
 
Rules:
1. Coin| a piece of metal stamped with certain marks and made current at a certain value
2. coin is false or counterfeited if it is forged or if it not authorized by the government as
legal tender
3. Counterfeiting means the imitation of a legal or genuine coin
- may contain more silver than the ordinary coin
- there must be an imitation of the peculiar design of a genuine coin
 A person giving a copper cent with the appearance of silver --> estafa
4. Import fake coins| bring them into port
 It is complete before its entry to the customs house
5. Utter| to pass or use counterfeited coins
- includes their deliver or the act of giving them away
 A counterfeited coin is uttered when it is paid, when the offender is caught
counting the counterfeited coins preparatory to the act of delivering them, even
though the utterer may not obtain the gain he intended
6. former coins withdrawn from circulation may be counterfeited
 Par. 1 and 2 mention coin without qualification
 Par. 3| "currency" is incorrect. Spanish word "moneda" embraces not only
those that are legal tender but also those out of circulation
 
In so far as coins in circulation are concerned, there are two crimes that may be
committed:
(1) Counterfeiting coins -- This is the crime of remaking or manufacturing without any
authority to do so.
(2) Mutilation of coins -- This refers to the deliberate act of diminishing the proper metal
contents of the coin either by scraping, scratching or filling the edges of the coin and the
offender gathers the metal dust that has been scraped from the coin.
 
 
Article 164. Mutilation of coins; Importation and utterance of mutilated coins. - The
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall mutilate coins of the legal currency of
the United States or of the Philippine Islands or import or utter mutilated current coins,
or in connivance with mutilators or importers.
 
- the deliberate act of diminishing the proper metal contents of the coin either by
scraping, scratching or filling the edges of the coin and the offender gathers the metal
dust that has been scraped from the coin
 
Requisites of mutilation
(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust abstracted from the coin; and
(3) It has to be a coin.
 
Acts punished
1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirements that there be
intent to damage or to defraud another;
 The coin being of legal tender is still in circulation and which would
necessarily prejudice other people who may come across it
2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the further requirement that there
must be connivances with the mutilator or importer in case of uttering.
 
Rules:
1. Mutilation| means to take off part of the metal either by filing it or substituting it for
another
 To diminish by ingenious means the metal in the coin --> its intrinsic value is
decreased
- interested in the metal abstracted from it.
2. coin must be legal tender
3. coins of foreign currency not included
4. coin must be genuine and has not been withdrawn from circulation
5. In mutilation of coins under the Revised Penal Code, the offender does nothing but to
scrape, pile or cut the coin and collect the dust and, thus, diminishing the intrinsic value
of the coin.
6. The offender must deliberately reduce the precious metal in the coin. Deliberate
intent arises only when the offender collects the precious metal dust from the mutilated
coin.
 If the offender does not collect such dust, intent to mutilate is absent
 but Presidential Decree No. 247 will apply.
7. Presidential Decree No. 247 includes currency notes
 Mutilation under the Revised Penal Code is true only to coins. It cannot be a
crime under the Revised Penal Code to mutilate paper bills because the idea of
mutilation under the code is collecting the precious metal dust
 under Presidential Decree No. 247, mutilation is not limited to coins.
8. Mutilation is being regarded as a crime because the coin, being of legal tender, it is
still in circulation and which would necessarily prejudice other people who may come
across the coin.
 For example, X mutilated a P 2.00 coin, the octagonal one, by converting it
into a round one and extracting 1/10 of the precious metal dust from it. The coin
here is no longer P2.00 but only P 1.80, therefore, prejudice to the public has
resulted.
 
Presidential Decree No. 247 (Defacement, Mutilation, Tearing, Burning or Destroying
Central Bank Notes and Coins)
--> It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface, mutilate, tear, burn, or destroy
in any manner whatsoever, currency notes and coins issued by the Central Bank.
 
Questions/Bar questions:
1. The people playing cara y cruz, before they throw the coin in the air would rub the
money to the sidewalk thereby diminishing the intrinsic value of the coin. Is the crime of
mutilation committed? Mutilation, under the Revised Penal Code, is not committed
because they do not collect the precious metal content that is being scraped from the
coin. However, this will amount to violation of Presidential Decree No. 247.
 
2. When the image of Jose Rizal on a five-peso bill is transformed into that of Randy
Santiago, is there a violation of Presidential Decree No. 247?
--> Yes. Presidential Decree No. 247 is violated by such act.
 
3. Sometime before martial law was imposed, the people lost confidence in banks that
they preferred hoarding their money than depositing it in banks. Former President
Ferdinand Marcos declared upon declaration of martial law that all bills without the
Bagong Lipunan sign on them will no longer be recognized. Because of this, the people
had no choice but to surrender their money to banks and exchange them with those with
the Bagong Lipunan sign on them. However, people who came up with a lot of money
were also being charged with hoarding for which reason certain printing presses did the
stamping of the Bagong Lipunan sign themselves to avoid prosecution. Was there a
violation of Presidential Decree No. 247?
 
--> Yes. This act of the printing presses is a violation of Presidential Decree No. 247.
 
4. An old woman who was a cigarette vendor in Quiapo refused to accept one-centavo
coins for payment of the vendee of cigarettes he purchased. Then came the police who
advised her that she has no right to refuse since the coins are of legal tender. On this,
the old woman accepted in her hands the one-centavo coins and then threw it to the face
of the vendee and the police. Was the old woman guilty of violating Presidential Decree
No. 247?
--> She was guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 247 because if no one ever picks
up the coins, her act would result in the diminution of the coin in circulation.
 
5. A certain customer in a restaurant wanted to show off and used a P 20.00 bill to light
his cigarette. Was he guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 247?
--> He was guilty of arrested for violating of Presidential Decree No. 247. Anyone who is
in possession of defaced money is the one who is the violator of Presidential Decree No.
247. The intention of Presidential Decree No. 247 is not to punish the act of defrauding
the public but what is being punished is the act of destruction of money issued by the
Central Bank of the Philippines.
 
6. X has in his possession a coin which was legal tender at the time of Magellan and is
considered a collector’s item. He manufactured several pieces of that coin. Is the crime
committed?
--> Yes. It is not necessary that the coin be of legal tender. The provision punishing
counterfeiting does not require that the money be of legal tender and the law punishes
this even if the coin concerned is not of legal tender in order to discourage people from
practicing their ingenuity of imitating money. If it were otherwise, people may at the
beginning try their ingenuity in imitating money not of legal tender and once they acquire
expertise, they may then counterfeit money of legal tender.
 
7. Two Japanese were passing through immigration and customs preparatory to their
departure for Japan at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. A bundle of P2,000 peso
bills was discovered in one of them, and to prevent their being delayed, his companion
took the bundle of bills and then and there tore up the bills. As City Fiscal of Pasay, what
crimes, if any, would you charge the two Japanese? Explain.
 c) The two Japanese cannot be charged of any crime. They committed no
crime. Article 164 of the Revised Penal Code on mutilation of coins cannot be
applied to the Japanese because said article refers to coins and not to bills.
 
Article 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. - The person who
knowingly, although without the connivance mentioned in the preceding articles, shall
possess false or mutilated coin with intent to utter the same, or shall actually utter such
coin, shall suffer a penalty lower by one degree than that prescribed in said articles.
 
Acts punished
1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent to utter
the same, knowing that it is false or mutilated;
 Elements
1. Possession;
2. With intent to utter; and
3. Knowledge.
2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false or
mutilated.
 Elements
1. Actually uttering; and
2. Knowledge.
Rules:
1. possession of or uttering false coin does not require that the counterfeited coin is legal
tender
 Coin being uttered or possessed with intent to utter is a mutilated coin, it
must be legal tender coin
2. Constructive possession included
 Subjection of the thing to one's control
3. possession of counterfeiter or importer not punished as separate offense
- the offense punished under this article is the mere holding of the false or uttered coin
with intent to utter
4. still punished even if offender is not in connivance with the counterfeiter or mutilator
 
Section Three. - Forging treasury or bank notes, obligations and securities;
importing and uttering false or forged notes, obligations and securities.
 
Article 166. Forging treasury or bank notes on other documents payable to bearer;
importing, and uttering such false or forged notes and documents. - The forging or
falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities
payable to bearer and the importation and uttering in connivance with forgers or
importers of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall be punished as follows:
1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if
the document which has been falsified, counterfeited, or altered, is an obligations or
security of the United States or of the Philippines Islands.
The word "obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands" shall be
held to mean all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank notes, fractional
notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon
authorized officers of the United States or of the Philippine Islands, and other
representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued
under any act of the Congress of the United States or of the Philippine Legislature.
2. By prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the
falsified or altered document is a circulating note issued by any banking association duly
authorized by law to issue the same.
3. By prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the
falsified or counterfeited document was issued by a foreign government.
4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos, when
the forged or altered document is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly
authorized therefor
 
Acts punished
1. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to
bearer;
2. Importation of such false or forged obligations or notes;
3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or notes in connivance with the forgers or
importers
 
Rules:
1. Forging| by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or
to order the appearance of a true and genuine document
 To forge an instrument is to make false instrument intended to be passed for
the genuine one
Falsification | by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the
figures letters, words or signs contained therein.
2. Importation of false or forged obligations or notes means to bring them into the
Philippines which presupposes that the obligations or notes are forged or falsified in a
foreign country
3. Uttering false or forged obligations or notes
- offering obligations or notes knowing them to be false or forged
 Accepted or not| as long as it was made to appear as genuine with intent to
defraud
4. Uttering forged bill must be with connivance to constitute a violation of article 166
5. A bank note certificate or obligation and security is payable to bearer when it can be
negotiated by mere delivery
 The instrument is payable to the bearer
- when it is expressed to be so payable
- when it is payable to a person named therein or bearer
- 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
- when the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of any person
- when the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in bank
5. Different penalties corresponding to the kind of forged treasury or bank notes
6. code punishes forging or falsification of bank notes and of documents of credit payable
to bearer and issued by the state more severely than it does the counterfeiting of coins
- it's easier to do such than counterfeiting coins
7. Money bills issued by the BSP are national bank notes
8. Philippine National Bank checks are commercial documents not covered by article 166
- covered by 172 in connection with 171 (falsification of commercial documents)
 
Article 167. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer. -
Any person who shall forge, import or utter, in connivance with the forgers or importers,
any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer, shall
suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine
not exceeding P6,000 pesos.
 
Elements
1. There is an instrument payable to order or other documents of credit not payable to
bearer;
2. Offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument;
3. In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer.
 
Rules:
1. 167 is limited to payable to order not payable to bearer
 Instrument is payable to order where it is drawn payable to the order of a
specified person or to him or his order
2. Reyes| article covers instruments or other documents of credit issued by a foreign
government or bank because importing is one of the acts punished without qualification
3. falsification of US treasury warrants not payable to bearer is not covered under this
article but 172
4. Connivance is not required in uttering if the utterer is the forger
 
Article 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other
instruments of credit. - Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of
any of the preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in his
possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this
section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.
 
Elements
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 another person;
2. Offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified;
3. He either –
a. uses any of such forged or falsified instruments; or
b. possesses with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments.
 
Rules:
1. intent to possess is not intent to use
2. Proving bank note is forged| evidence must be presented that number which the
questioned bank note bears does not check with the genuine one issued with the same
number
3. Accused must have knowledge of the forged character of the note
4. Us bills covered| "any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section"
5. A person in possession of falsified document who makes use of it, taking advantage of
it and profiting thereby, is presumed to be material author of falsification
 Person who had a forged note who instead of carrying out his intention, threw
away a forged note
- not liable
6. mere possession of false money bill, without intent to use it to the damage of another
is not a crime
7. Accused has the burden to give the satisfactory explanation of his possession of forged
bills
 Failure of the accused to explain means either:
a. He forged them himself
b. that he knows who falsified them
8. it is not an impossible crime when the act performed would have been a crime of
illegal possession of false treasury notes? (appearance of forged treasury note carries an
impossiblity for anyone to accept them as genuine money)
 Reyes: No; Impossible crimes| against person or property
 Falls within par.2 of article 4 (decision)
9. Intent to use is sufficient to consummate the crime when the offender is in possession
of false or falsified documents
10. possession of 100 falsified 20-peso bills cannot indicate anything except knowledge
and intent to use
 
Questions and Answers
1. 1999| (b) Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under Article 168 of the
Revised Penal Code? Explain. (3%)
(c) The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit P20 bills. He could not
explain how and why he possessed the said bills. Neither could he explain what he
intended to do with the fake bills. Can he be held criminally liable for such possession?
Decide. (3%}
 (b) No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone without an intent to
use it, is not punishable. But the circumstances of such possession may indicate
intent to utter, sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal possession of false
notes.
 (c) Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it may be
shown by the conduct of the accused. So, possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a)
knowledge that the bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same.
 
Article 169. How forgery is committed. - The forgery referred to in this section may be
committed by any of the following means:
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument, payable to bearer or order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a true genuine document.
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters,
words or signs contained therein.
 
Rules:
1. Forgery under the Revised Penal Code applies to papers, which are in the form of
obligations and securities issued by the Philippine government as its own obligations,
which is given the same status as legal tender.
 Generally, the word “counterfeiting” is not used when it comes to notes; what
is used is “forgery.”
 Counterfeiting refers to money, whether coins or bills
 mere change on a document does not amount to this crime. The essence of
forgery is giving a document the appearance of a true and genuine
document.
- Not any alteration of a letter, number, figure or design would amount to forgery.
At most, it would only be frustrated forgery.
 When what is being counterfeited is obligation or securities, which under the
Revised Penal Code is given a status of money or legal tender, the crime committed
is forgery
2. This article includes counterfeiting and falsification but only to obligations and
securities
3. article includes situations involving originally true and genuine documents which have
been withdrawn or demonetized or have outlived their usefulness.
4. Giving fake checks the appearance of true and genuine documents
 Par.1 of 169 and violation of 167
5. Defacement, mutilation, tearing or burning or destroying of central bank notes and
coins penalized under P.D. No. 247
 
Questions/Bar questions:
1. Instead of the peso sign (P), somebody replaced it with a dollar sign ($). Was the
crime of forgery committed?
--> No. Forgery was not committed. The forged instrument and currency note must be
given the appearance of a true and genuine document. The crime committed is a
violation of Presidential Decree No. 247. Where the currency note, obligation or security
has been changed to make it appear as one which it purports to be as genuine, the crime
is forgery. In checks or commercial documents, this crime is committed when the figures
or words are changed which materially alters the document.
 
2. An old man, in his desire to earn something, scraped a digit in a losing sweepstakes
ticket, cut out a digit from another ticket and pasted it there to match the series of digits
corresponding to the winning sweepstakes ticket. He presented this ticket to the
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. But the alteration is so crude that even a child can
notice that the supposed digit is merely superimposed on the digit that was scraped. Was
the old man guilty of forgery?
--> Because of the impossibility of deceiving whoever would be the person to whom that
ticket is presented, the Supreme Court ruled that what was committed was an impossible
crime. Note, however, that the decision has been criticized. In a case like this, the
Supreme Court of Spain ruled that the crime is frustrated. Where the alteration is such
that nobody would be deceived, one could easily see that it is a forgery, the crime is
frustrated because he has done all the acts of execution which would bring about the
felonious consequence but nevertheless did not result in a consummation for reasons
independent of his will
 
3. A person has a twenty-peso bill. He applied toothache drops on one side of the bill. He
has a mimeograph paper similar in texture to that of the currency note and placed it on
top of the twenty-peso bill and put some weight on top of the paper. After sometime, he
removed it and the printing on the twenty-peso bill was reproduced on the mimeo paper.
He took the reverse side of the P20 bill, applied toothache drops and reversed the mimeo
paper and pressed it to the paper. After sometime, he removed it and it was reproduced.
He cut it out, scraped it a little and went to a sari-sari store trying to buy a cigarette with
that bill. What he overlooked was that, when he placed the bill, the printing was inverted.
He was apprehended and was prosecuted and convicted of forgery. Was the crime of
forgery committed?
--> The Supreme Court ruled that it was only frustrated forgery because although the
offender has performed all the acts of execution, it is not possible because by simply
looking at the forged document, it could be seen that it is not genuine. It can only be a
consummated forgery if the document which purports to be genuine is given the
appearance of a true and genuine document. Otherwise, it is at most frustrated.
4. 1999|How are "forging" and "falsification" committed?
 (a) Forging or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or
any instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true and genuine
 document; or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the
figures, letters, words or signs contained therein
 Falsification, on the other hand, is committed by:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements
other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book.
5. Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the
signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or crimes
did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (2008 Bar Question)
 The mail carrier may be guilty of the following crimes: (a) malversation and
falsification (People. v. Villanueva); (b) infidelity in the custody of documents (US v.
Gorospe); (c) qualified theft since the property stolen is a mail matter (Marcelo v.
Sandiganbayan); (d) forgery under Art. 169 (2) RPC because there was a material
alteration on a genuine document (US v. Solito, 36 Phil 785); and (e) falsification
under Art. 171 (1), (2) RPC because he counterfeited signatures to make it appear
that the payees signed the money order and received payment
Section Four. - Falsification of legislative, public, commercial, and private
documents, and wireless, telegraph, and telephone message
 
- The crime of falsification must involve a writing that is a document in the legal sense.
The writing must be complete in itself and capable of extinguishing an obligation or
creating rights or capable of becoming evidence of the facts stated therein.
 Until and unless the writing has attained this quality, it will not be considered
as document in the legal sense and, therefore, the crime of falsification cannot be
committed in respect thereto.
- For example, a customer in a hotel did not write his name on the registry book, which
was intended to be a memorial of those who got in and out of that hotel. There is no
complete document to speak of. The document may not extinguish or create rights but it
can be an evidence of the facts stated therein.
- Note that a check is not yet a document when it is not completed yet. If somebody
writes on it, he makes a document out of it.
- The document where a crime was committed or the document subject of the
prosecution may be totally false in the sense that it is entirely spurious. This
notwithstanding, the crime of falsification is committed.
 It does not require that the writing be genuine. Even if the writing was
through and through false, if it appears to be genuine, the crime of falsification is
nevertheless committed
 
Article 170. Falsification of legislative documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in
its maximum period and a fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who, without proper authority therefor alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance
enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of the Legislature or any
provincial board or municipal council.
 
Elements
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;
 The words "municipal council" should include the city council or municipal
board – Reyes.
2. Offender alters the same;
3. He has no proper authority therefor;
4. The alteration has changed the meaning of the documents
 
Five classes of falsification:
(1) Falsification of legislative documents;
(2) Falsification of a document by a public officer, employee or notary public;
(3) Falsification of a public or official, or commercial documents by a private individual
(4) Falsification of a private document by any person;
(5) Falsification of wireless, telegraph and telephone messages.
 The crime of falsification must involve a writing that is a document in the
legal sense. The writing must be complete in itself and capable of extinguishing an
obligation or creating rights or capable of becoming evidence of the facts stated
therein. Until and unless the writing has attained this quality, it will not be
considered as document in the legal sense and, therefore, the crime of falsification
cannot be committed in respect thereto
Rules
1. Distinction between falsification and forgery:
Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts mentioned in Article 171 on
legislative (only the act of making alteration), public or official, commercial, or private
documents, or wireless, or telegraph messages.
 The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers to the falsification and
counterfeiting of treasury or bank notes or any instruments payable to bearer or to
order.
 Note that forging and falsification are crimes under Forgeries.
2. Bill resolution or ordinance must be genuine
3. Offender is any person who has no proper authority
4. The act of falsification in legislative document is limited to altering it which changes its
meaning
 Any other acts of falsification, even in legislative document, are punished
under 171 or 172
 
There are four kinds of documents:
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a person in authority or notary public has
taken part;
(2) Official document in the execution of which a public official takes part;
(3) Commercial document or any document recognized by the Code of Commerce or any
commercial law; and
(4) Private document in the execution of which only private individuals take part.
- Public document is broader than the term official document
 Before a document may be considered official, it must first be a public
document
- But not all public documents are official documents
 To become an official document, there must be a law which requires a public
officer to issue or to render such document
  
Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. -
The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official
position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other
than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary
to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or
note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit
any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect
to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil
status of persons.
 
Elements
1. 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 persons who have participated in an 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 an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
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 who shall commit any of the offenses
enumerated, with respect to any record or document of such character that its
falsification may affect the civil status of persons
 
Persons liable
- only public officer, employee, or notary public and ecclesiastical minister if he shall
commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in this article with respect to any
record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of
persons
 
Offender takes advantage of his official position
  he has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise intervene in the
preparation of the document
 or has the official custody of the document which he falsified
2. If he did not take advantage --> 172
- court stenographer who deliberately changed transcription of notes and statements of
witnesses --> 171
 If any other public officer like chief of police --> 172
- if it does not pertain to his office --> 172
 Municipal president who falsifies an inscription in the register of births kept by
the municipal secretary
3. If offender commits any acts mentioned in 171 and is a private person or a public
official who does not take advantage of his position, he is liable under 172
 
Offender falsifies a document
- document| any written statement by which a right is established or an obligation
extinguished
 Complete or at least it must have the appearance of a true and genuine
document
 Must be of apparent legal efficacy
- paragraphs 6,7 (f&g) in its second part and 8 must have a genuine document where
intercalation or alterations is made
- documents may be simulated or fabricated
 Simulation| in a manner so as to easily lead to error as to its authenticity
constitutes the crime of falsification
 It is sufficient that the document is given the appearance of or made to
appear similar to the official form
- to cause the arrest of his common-law wife simulated a warrant of arrest
- shall falsify a document| 171 doesn't specify whether public, official, private or
commercial
- any of the eight acts of falsification enumerated may be committed on any document
by a public officer or notary public or by a private individual
 Only that if the offender is a private individual or a public officer who does not
take advantage of his official position, is liable under article 172
 
Par. No. 1| Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
- two ways:
1. counterfeiting, which is imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric
 Must be signed or made by the offender without authority to do so; not
merely drawing up a false document
 There is an original signature
2. Feigning, which is simulating a signature, handwriting or rubric out of one which
does not in fact exist
- Requisites of counterfeiting:
1. intent to imitate or an attempt to imitate
 If there is sufficient resemblance --> if does not bear resemblance then par.2
2. two signatures or handwritings, the genuine and the forged, bear some resemblance
to each other
 Likely to deceive an ordinary person
- how to prove forgery:
 Clear, positive and convincing evidence
 Rules 132 section 22 of the rules of court:
1. by any witness who has personal knowledge
2. By a comparison
- genuineness and due execution of a photocopy cannot be established without a copy of
the original or proof that it was lost, destroyed or under the control of the party against
whom it is offered
- when any of the requisites of counterfeiting are missing: liable under par. 2 of 171| in
causing it to appear tha those person have participated in the act when they did not in
fact so participate
 
Par. No.1| Feigning| simulating a signature, handwriting or rubric out of one
which does not in fact exist
- feigning | represent by a false appearance; to give a mental existence; to imagine
- dead person;
- a person who does not know how to write (not covered under par.2 since it could not
be made to appear that the deceased signed a document since he did not know how to
write)
- circumstantial evidence| consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances which
the main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common sense
 Must be consistent with each other and each and every circumstance must be
consistent with the accused's guilt and inconsistent with this innocence
 Combination of all the circumstances is such to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt
 
Par. No. 2| causing it to appear that persons have participated in an act or a
proceeding
- imitation of the signature is not necessary here
Requisites
1. the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated
in an act or a proceeding
2. such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding
- when committed by a private individual 172 should be applied
 
Par No. 3| Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made by them;
 
Requisites:
1. a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding
2. such person or persons made statements in that act or proceeding
3. Offender, in making a document, attributed to such person or persons statements
other than those in fact made by such person or persons
 
Par No. 4| Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
 
Requisites:
1. offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts
- conclusion of fact not conclusion of law
 Ex: I am qualified to run in a position
2. he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him
 There is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated
Or truth is required by the very nature of the document
 Legal obligations:
- to disclose relationship in government appointments
- to disclose the truth, inherent in residence certificate
3. facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false
  If the statements are not altogether false, that there being some colorable
truth in such statements, the crime of falsification cannot be deemed to have been
committed
 If falsification was meant to correct, not falsification
 must be aware of the falsity of the facts narrated by him
4. the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of
injuring a third person
 Animated by a desire to do wrong to, or injure a third person
 wrongful intent to injure a third person is not essential when the document
falsified is a public document
- damage or intent to cause damage not necessary in falsification of public
document
-What is punished is the undermining of the public faith and the destruction of truth
- applies also to commercial documents
 Good faith is a valid defense
 One's consent to a contract was obtained by means of violence or intimidation
does not make the facts narrated therein false
 There is falsification by omission | bookkeeper who intentionally did not
record in his personal account most of chits and destroyed so that he could avoid
paying the amount.
 Reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents
- reckless imprudence pertains to the modality of the commission of the crime
 
Par. No. 5| Altering true date
- date must be essential in the sense that its alteration affect the veracity of the
document or effects thereof
Examples of alteration that is essential
1. alteration of dates in the police blotter, book of records of arrest, bail bond and the
return of the warrant of arrest
 To make it appear that there was no delay of preliminary investigation
2. Dates of birth, marriage and death are essential since without them the documents
cannot produce any legal effect
3. when the act is committed not by ignorance or mistake, but rather to prevent
discovery of an illegal appropriation of public funds, it is falsification
4. can apply to official receipts to cover up malversation
 
 
Par. No. 6| Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
changes its meaning
Requisites:
1. there be an alteration or intercalation on a document
 Alteration has inherent in it the idea of deception
- does not apply to cases wherein accused altered document to correct it
- alteration must be one which causes the instrument to speak a language different
in legal effect from that which it originally spoke
2. It was made on a genuine document
3. that the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document
 Affects the integrity or change the legal effects thereof
4. change made the document speak something false
5. Altering grades in examination papers involves several acts of falsification (People v.
Romualdez)
 Making alteration on genuine documents
  Making it appear that the correctors had participated in blotting out the
grades and writing new and increased grades opposite to their inititals
 Attributing to the correctors statements other than those in fact made by
them
Example:
1. Accused was arrested for having in his possession a falsified duplicate copy of traffic
violation repot. He made alterations in order to hide his previous pending traffic violation
cases and thereby avoid immediate arrest should he be caught for a fourth time
 
Par No. 7| Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy
of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a
copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original
- cannot be committed by a private individual or by a notary public or a public officer who
does not take advantage of his position
- Purporting to be a copy of an original when no such original exists
 Supposed copy of a deed of sale which did not exist
- including in a copy a statement contrary to, or different from that of genuine original
 Civil registrar stated in a certified copy of birth certificate that the child was
legitimate when there was no such statement in the original
--> intent to gain or prejudice a person is not necessary since it is the interest of the
community which is intended to be guaranteed by the strictest faithfulness of the officials
charged with the preparation and preservation of the acts in which they intervene
 
Further notes:
1. A private person who cooperates with the public officer in the falsification of a public
document is guilty of this crime and incurs the same liability and penalty
 
Questions:
1. A is one of those selling residence certificates in Quiapo. He was brought to the police
precincts on suspicion that the certificates he was selling to the public proceed from
spurious sources and not from the Bureau of Treasury. Upon verification, it was found out
that the certificates were indeed printed with a booklet of supposed residence
certificates. What crime was committed?
--> Crime committed is violation of Article 176 (manufacturing and possession
of instruments or implements for falsification). A cannot be charged of falsification
because the booklet of residence certificates found in his possession is not in the nature
of “document” in the legal sense. They are mere forms which are not to be completed to
be a document in the legal sense. This is illegal possession with intent to use materials or
apparatus which may be used in counterfeiting/forgery or falsification.
 
2. Public officers found a traffic violation receipts from a certain person. The receipts
were not issued by the Motor Vehicle Office. For what crime should he be prosecuted for?
--> It cannot be a crime of usurpation of official functions. It may be the intention but no
overt act was yet performed by him. He was not arrested while performing such overt
act. He was apprehended only while he was standing on the street suspiciously. Neither
can he be prosecuted for falsification because the document is not completed yet,
there being no name of any erring driver. The document remains to be a mere form.
It not being completed yet, the document does not qualify as a document in the legal
sense.
 
4. Can the writing on the wall be considered a document?
--> Yes. It is capable of speaking of the facts stated therein. Writing may be on anything
as long as it is a product of the handwriting, it is considered a document.
 
5. In a case where a lawyer tried to extract money from a spinster by typing on a bond
paper a subpoena for estafa. The spinster agreed to pay. The spinster went to the
prosecutor’s office to verify the exact amount and found out that there was no charge
against her. The lawyer was prosecuted for falsification. He contended that only a
genuine document could be falsified. Rule.
--> As long as any of the acts of falsification is committed, whether the document is
genuine or not, the crime of falsification may be committed. Even totally false documents
may be falsified.
 
6. 1977| A teller of the provincial treasurer's office told the landowner that his real estate
tax due is P500.00 when actually it is only P400. The landowner paid as told. In order
that the landowner will not discover the excess, the teller made it appear in the original
of the official receipt to be given to the landowner that P500.00 was paid but in the
duplicate left with him, the true amount of P400.00 was stated. Thereafter, the teller
misappropriated the entire amount of P500.00. Assuming that you are the investigating
fiscal, what crime will you file against the teller? State your reasons.
 As investigating fiscal, I would file against the teller three crimes, to wit: (1)
illegal exaction or estafa, (2) falsification of public document, and (3) malversation.
By telling the landowner that his real estate tax due was P500.00 which was paid,
when actually it was only P400.00 the teller of the provincial treasurer's office
collected an amount bigger than that authorized by law. The teller is a public officer
and in view of his duties is entrusted with the collection of taxes. Illegal exaction is
committed. The total amount of P500.00 was paid in the concept of tax and forms a
part of the public funds. The misappropriation of P500.00 would constitute
malversation of public funds since the one prejudiced is the government (People v.
Policher, 60 Phil. 771). However, if the teller by means of deceit, collected the sum
of P500.00 to misappropriate the excess of P100.00, estafa and not illegal exaction
is committed (U.S. Lopez, et al, 10 Phil. 480). The falsification of the original of
the official receipt is an independent crime since it was committed in order that
the landowner would not discover the excess. The misappropriation of the P400
being paid as a tax is malversation.
7. 1999| A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the
accused. No evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the
falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the accused of falsification of
official or public document mainly on the proposition that "the only person who could
have made the erasures and the superimposition mentioned is the one who will be
benefited by the alterations thus made" and that "he alone could have the motive for
making such alterations". Was the conviction of the accused proper although the
conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your answer.
(3%)
 Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a presumption in law that the
possessor and user of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same.
 
8. William is the son-in-law of Mercedes who owns several pieces of real property. In
1994, William's wife, Anita, died. In 1996, William caused the preparation of a Special
Power of Attorney (SPA) giving him the authority to sell two (2) parcels of land registered
in the name of Mercedes. The signature of Mercedes in the SPA was forged and, through
this forged SPA and without the consent and knowledge of Mercedes, William succeeded
in selling the two (2) parcels for Php 2,000,000. He pocketed the proceeds of the sale.
Mercedes eventually discovered William's misdeeds and filed a criminal complaint.
William was subsequently charged with estafa through falsification of public document.
Was the criminal charge proper? (2013 Bar Question)
  The criminal charge of estafa through falsification is correct. William forged
the signature of his motherin-law in the Special Power of Attorney, a public
document, as a necessary means to sell her properties to third parties without
delivering the proceeds thereof. Their relationship under Article 332 (1) of the
Revised Penal Code may not be considered as an absolutory cause because the
benefit of Article 332 is strictly limited to the simple crimes of theft, estafa and
malicious mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned is
complexed with another crime.
 
9. Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling debt, Fe
made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing in a
"talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by their customers. Fe
then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, If any? Explain your answer.
(2007 Bar Question)
 Fe committed the crimes of: (a) estafa through abuse of confidence or
unfaithfulness; and (b) falsification of a private document. Damage or intent to
cause damage, would sustain the case for estafa independently of the falsification of
the commercial document. The crime of falsification of a commercial document has
already been consummated and the use of said of document to defraud another
person would constitute estafa, which constitutes the damage. In this case, two (2)
separate crimes are committed; namely, estafa and falsification of the commercial
document. The falsification should not be complexed with the estafa since it was not
committed as a necessary means to commit the estafa.
 
10. Robina bought from Ramsey a seaside property located in Romblon. At that time, she
was in the process of returning to the Philippines as a returning resident, after retiring
from her work in Russia, and was planning to set up a diving school in the area. In a
non-notarized "Kasunduan ng Pagbibili," Ramsey represented the property as alienable
and disposable, and that he had a valid title to the property. When the sale was
completed, and as she was applying for permits and licenses for her school, she found
out that the property was a public non-alienable and non-disposable land which Ramsey
had bought from someone who only had a foreshore lease over the same. As she was
bent on setting up the diving school in the area, having made all the preparations and
having already bought all the equipment, she filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application
(MLA) with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) at the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office in Romblon. In her application,
she stated that she was a Filipino citizen, although she was still a naturalized Russian
citizen at that time. It was only six months after she filed the MLA that she filed her
petition for dual citizenship under R.A. No. 9225. When DENR discovered that, at the
time of filing the MLA, she was still a Russian citizen, her application was denied and she
was charged with falsification of a public document for misrepresenting herself as a
Filipino citizen. Infuriated, Robina also filed charges against Ramsey for falsification of a
private document for stating in their "Kasunduan" that the property was alienable and
disposable.
 
In the case for falsification of a public document, Robina's defense was that, at the time
she filed the MLA, she had every intention to reacquire Philippine citizenship, as in fact
she filed for dual citizenship six months thereafter, and that she had no intent to gain or
to injure the Philippine government since she expected that her application for dual
citizenship would be approved before the MLA could be approved. On the other hand, she
claimed in the action against Ramsey that intent to gain was present since he received
the purchase price as a result of his misrepresentation. Ramsey's defense was that he
had a valid Transfer Certificate of Title in his name, and he had a right to rely on his title.
(a) Will the case for falsification of public document filed against Robina prosper? (2.5%
 Yes, the case for falsification of public document against Robina will prosper.
Under the law, falsification of public document is committed by a private individual
who falsifies public or official document wherein the latter made an untruthful
statement therewith. Here, Robina filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA)
with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) at the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office in Romblon. In her
application, she stated that she was a Filipino citizen, although she was still a
naturalized Russian citizen at that time. As such, Robina made an untruthful
statement in her citizenship . Thus, a case for falsification of public document
against Robina will prosper
(b) Will the case for falsification of private document filed against Ramsey prosper?
(2.5%)
 No, because intent to cause damage is an element of falsification of Private
Document.
Under Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the following are the requisites for
the crime of Falsification of Private Document by any person, to wit:
(a) That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in par.
7 of Article 171;
(b) That the falsification was committed in any Private Document; and
(c) That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification
was committed with the intent to cause such damage.
In this case, there is no showing that Ramsey had the intent to cause damage to
Robina through his act of executing the “Kasunduan ng Pagbibili” and representing
therein that the property is alienable and disposable since he relied on his valid
Transfer Certificate of Title. Robina, on the other hand, after applying for permits
and licenses for her school, found out that the property was a public non-alienable
and non-disposable land but still continued on setting up the diving school in the
area.
11. 1988|Andrea signed her deceased husband's name in endorsing his three treasury
warrants which were delivered to her directly by the district supervisor who knew that
her husband had already died, and she used the proceeds to pay for the expenses of her
husband's last illness and his burial. She knew that her husband had accumulated
vacation and sick leaves the money value of which exceeded that value of the three
treasury warrants, so that the government suffered no damage. Andrea's appeal is based
on her claim of absence of criminal intent and of good faith.
 Andrea should be held guilty of falsification of public documents. Her claim of
absence of criminal intent and of good faith cannot be considered because she is
presumed to know that her husband is dead. The element of damage required in
falsification does not refer to pecuniary damage but damage to public interest.
12. 1992| Jose Dee Kiam, a Chinese citizen born in Macao, having applied with a
recruitment agency to work in Kuwait, went to Quezon City Hall to procure a Community
Tax Certificate, formerly called Residence Certificate. He stated therein that his name is
Leo Tiampuy, A Filipino citizen born in Binan, Laguna. As he paid for the Community Tax
Certificate, Cecille Delicious, an employee in the office recognized him and reported to
her boss that the information written in the Community Tax Certificate were all lies. Treat
each of the above contentions separately. a) Shortly thereafter, an information was filed
against Dee Kiam alias Tiampuy. What crime, if any, may he be indicted for? Why?
 Dee Kiam can be indicted for the felony of Falsification of a Public Document
committed by a private individual under Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code in
relation to Art. 171 thereof. A residence certificate is a public or official document
within the context of said provisions and jurisprudence. Since Dee Kiam made an
 untruthful statement in a narration of facts (Art. 171, par. 4), and he being a
private individual, he is culpable thereunder.
b) The accused moved to quash the information on the ground that it did not allege that
he had the obligation to disclose the truth in the Community Tax Certificate; that the
same is a useless scrap of paper which one can buy even in the Quiapo underpass and
that he had no intent of deceiving anybody, much less the government. If you were the
trial judge, would you grant the motion to quash the information on the basis of Dee
Kiam's allegations?
 b) Falsification of public documents under Arts. 171 and 172, RFC, does not
require that the document is required by law. The sanctity of the public document, a
residence certificate, cannot be taken lightly as being a "mere scrap of paper".
Intent to cause damage, or actual damage, is not an indispensable requisite for
falsification of public document.
 
13. 1993|L, a Municipal Mayor, issued an appointment in favor of his legitimate son. S,
as meat inspector in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer. He also issued a certification
that S is not related to him within the third degree of consanguinity. The Civil Service
Commission approved the appointment. L, was charged and found guilty of falsification of
public document. In his appeal, he argued that his conviction is erroneous because he
had no legal obligation to disclose the truth about his relationship with the appointee and
that he was in good faith as he later on revoked the appointment. Resolve his plea,
supporting your resolution with reasons. Answer:
 The conviction is correct. L had the legal obligation to issue a certification to
the effect that the appointee is not related to him within the third degree of
consanguinity (Laino vs. Sandiganbayan). The revocation of the appointment did
not extinguish the incipient criminal liability of L, the crime having been already
consummated. Besides, good faith may not be invoked in the crime of falsification
of a public document as criminal intent and the will to commit the crime are
presumed to exist unless the contrary appears (Manuel Siquuian vs People. 171
SCRA 223).
 
14. 2000| Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr, Rico Yto, a private Individual,
went to the office of Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and represented themselves
as agents of Moonglow Commercial Trading, an Importer of children's clothes and toys.
Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto to prepare and file with the Bureau of
Customs the necessary Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration covering
Moonglow's shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing list, a
commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration which declared
the shipment as children's toys, the taxes and duties of which were computed at
P60,000.00. Mr. Ocuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the Manila
International Container Port. However, before the shipment was released, a spot check
was conducted by Customs Senior Agent James Bandido, who discovered that the
contents of the van (shipment) were not children's toys as declared in the shipping
documents but 1,000 units of video cassette recorders with taxes and duties computed at
P600,000.00. A hold order and warrant of seizure and detention were then issued by the
District Collector of Customs. Further investigation showed that Moonglow is non-
existent. Consequently, Mr, Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged with and convicted for
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful among others, for public
officers to cause any undue Injury to any party, including the Government. In the
discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. In their motion for reconsideration, the accused alleged that the
decision was erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at an
attempted stage, and that in fact the Government did not suffer any undue injury.
Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is not
punishable, may the accused be nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by the
Revised Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain. (3%)
 Yes, both are liable for attempted estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents, a complex crime. They tried to defraud the Government with the use of
false commercial and public documents. Damage is not necessary.
15. 1997| The accused opened a saving account with Bank A with an initial deposit of
P2,000.00. A few days later, he deposited in the savings account a Bank B check for P
10,000.00 drawn and endorsed purportedly by C. Ten days later, he withdrew P
10,000.00 from his savings account. C complained to Bank B when the check was
deducted from his account. Two days thereafter, the accused deposited another Bank B
check of P 10,000.00 signed and endorsed allegedly by C. A week later, the accused
went to Bank A to withdraw P10,000.00. While withdrawing the amount, he was arrested.
Convicted under two informations of estafa and attempted estafa both through
falsification of commercial documents, he set up the defenses that, except for the
showing that the signature of C had been forged, no further evidence was presented to
establish (a) that he was the forger of the signature of C nor (b), that as to the second
charge C suffered any damage. Rule on the defense.
 The defense is not tenable; (a) the possessor of a falsified document is
presumed to be the author of the falsification (People vs. Sendaydtego, 81 SCRA
120; Koh Tiek vs. People, et al, Dec. 21, 1990); (b) In estafa, a mere disturbance
of property rights, even if temporary, would be sufficient to, cause damage.
Moreover, in a crime of falsification of a commercial document, damage or intent to
cause damage is not necessary because the principal thing punished is the violation
of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
 
Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. - The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not
more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
 
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the
next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any
other kind of commercial document; and
 
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such
damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated
in the next preceding article
 
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the
damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the
false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing
subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
 
Acts punished
1. Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual;
2. Falsification of private document by any person;
3. Use of falsified document.
 
Par. No.1| Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private
individual
Elements under paragraph 1
1. Offender is a private individual or public officer employee, or notary public who did not
take advantage of his official position;
2. He committed any act of falsification;
 Acts of falsification mentioned in 171 except par. 6 & 7
3. The falsification was committed in a public, official, or commercial document or letter
of exchange.
*** damage or intent to cause damage not necessary in falsification of public,
official, or commercial document
 What is punished is the undermining of the public faith and the destruction of
truth
- applies also to commercial documents
 
There are four kinds of documents:
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a person in authority or notary public has
taken part;
 Official receipt prescribed by the government upon the receipt of the money
 Pleadings filed in court
(2) Official document in the execution of which a public official takes part in the exercise
of the functions of his office;
(3) Commercial document or any document recognized by the Code of Commerce or any
commercial law
- used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade
 Cash disbursement vouchers or receipts evidencing payment to borrowers of
the loans extended to them are not negotiable instruments nor are they defined and
regulated by the code of commerce
(4) Private document in the execution of which only private individuals take part --
without intervention of a notary public or other person legally authorized.
 Public document is broader than the term official document. Before a
document may be considered official, it must first be a public document.
 But not all public documents are official documents. To become an official
document, there must be a law which requires a public officer to issue or to
render such document.
- Example: A cashier is required to issue an official receipt for the amount he
receives. The official receipt is a public document which is an official document.
 
Public and private writings under the rules of court
1. Written official acts or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals and public officers
2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public
3. public records kept in the Philippines of private documents required by law to be
entered upon
--> all other documents are private documents
 
Private document considered public document
1. a deed acknowledged by the notary public
 The fact that falsification occurred before the document was presented to the
notary public does not alter the character of the crime as falsification of public
document
2. a private document may acquire the character of a public document when it becomes
part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law
 
Rules:
1. mere blank form of an official document is not in itself a document
 Necessary that blank spaces be filled and signature of a party purported to be
authorized to issue it be written by another
2. Possessor of a falsified document is presumed to be the author of such falsification
 Not applied| petitioner prepared the voucher since it was his official duty
3. Simulation of loan documents constitute falsification of commercial and public
documents
4. Lack of malice or criminal intent might be a defense
 Signing the name of a deceased heir in a deed of sale with authority from the
children of the deceased heir
 
Par. 2|Falsification of private document by any person
 
Elements under paragraph 2
1. Offender committed any of the acts of falsification except Article 171(7), that is,
issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary
to, or different from, that of the genuine original;
2. Falsification was committed in any private document
3. Falsification causes damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such damage.
 Mere falsification is not enough
 Performs some other independent act in order to make use of it — while it
does not necessary prejudice a third party, has done nevertheless with the intention
of causing such prejudice
 Damage need not be material
 Not necessary that offender profited or hope to profit by the falsification
Rules:
1. falsification of private document in Rizal and damage in manila — court of Rizal has
jurisdiction
2. falsification as a necessary means to commit other crimes like estafa, theft or
malversation
 Complex crime
 Document falsified must be public official or commercial
 Crime of falsification of document here is already consummated before it is
used to defraud another
- element of damage is not essential
3. In falsification of a private document the element of damage or intent to cause it is
essential
 Using a falsified document to defraud another constitutes one crime -->
falsification
4. there is a crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document by reckless
imprudence
 Upon request of his former classmate, accused endorsed two PNB checks by
way of identification of the signatures of the supposed payees.
- did not take proper measures to identify the identity of the real claimants
5. falsification of a commercial document through reckless imprudence
 No evidence that accused acted with malice in identifying as the payee of the
check a person whom he did not know and there being no evidence that he shared
in the proceeds thereof.
6. there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document
- the immediate effect of the falsification of private document is the same as that of
estafa
 Fraudulent gain through deceit is more or less the very damage caused by the
falsification of such document
7. If private document is falsified to obtain from the OP the money or other personal
property which the offender later misappropriated --> falsification of private document
8. If a private document is falsified to conceal the misappropriation of the money or other
personal property which has been in the possession of the offender --> estafa with abuse
of confidence only
- here you have already received the money
- falsification of private document here is not punishable because the element of damage
or intent to cause damage is not present
 Accessory?
9. There is no falsification of private document through reckless imprudence
 In this kind of falsfication there must be intent to cause damage --> malice
10. when the private document was falsified before it becomes a part of official record
- only falsification of a private document only
 Municipal president bought a typewriter for use in the office. Then asked for
reimbursement. He prepared the voucher and attached the receipt thereto. Receipt
was altered by raising the amount.
--> at the time it was falsified, it was not yet a part of the public or official
record nor was it certified by any person authorized to certify public
documents
11. crime is falsification of a public document even if the falsification took place before
the private document
 If the document is intended by law to be part of the public or official
record, the preparation of which although it was a private document at that time of
its falsification, is regarded as falsification of a public or official document
12. Falsification of a public document v. private document
- element of damage or intent to cause damage is necessary in private document
- in public document| what is punished is the violation of public faith and perversion of
truth which the document solemnly proclaims
13. generally falsification has no attempted or frustrated stage
 
Par.3| Use of falsified document.
Elements under the last paragraph In introducing in a judicial proceeding –
1. Offender knew that the document was falsified by another person;
2. The false document is in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or 2);
3. He introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding.
 
In use in any other transaction –
1. Offender knew that a document was falsified by another person;
2. The false document is embraced in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or 2);
3. He used such document;
4. The use caused damage to another or at least used with intent to cause damage.
 
Rules:
1. the person who used the falsified document is not the one who falsified the document
- if he is indeed the one, the crime is only falsification and the use of the same is not a
separate crime
2. Use of false document is not necessarily included in the crime of falsification
3. the user of the falsified document is deemed the author of the falsification, if:
 The use was so closely connected in time with the falsification
 The user had the capacity of falsifying the document
--> crime would be falsification of document
 
Questions and Answers
1. 1989| Oscar, a former welder and painter at the Caloocan Motor Works owned by
Arturo, went to the Downtown Hardware Store where Arturo gets materials on credit, and
presented to its manager a typewritten order for two (2) cans of "Dietsler" car paint. The
signature of Arturo on the order was falsified. After receiving the paint, Oscar sold them
and kept the proceeds therefrom. If you were the investigating fiscal, what charge or
charges will you file against Oscar? Explain.
- The proper charge against Oscar is Falsification of a Private Document. This is so for the
following reasons:
 By forging the signature of Arturo on the typewritten purchase order for two
cans of car paint, Oscar committed the crime of falsification. The document falsified
by him, however, is a private document. A typewritten purchase order is neither a
public, official or commercial document. It is a private document. Falsification of a
private document, however, is not a crime unless there is damage or intent to
cause damage. When Oscar used the falsified private document to obtain the two
cans of paint from the hardware store, the element of damage arose, thus
consummating the crime of FALSIFICATION OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT.
 Precisely because damage is an essential element of the crime of falsification
of a private document, Oscar cannot be convicted of the complex crime of ESTAFA
THRU FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT. Only one single crime of
FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT is committed here. The damage to another
is caused by the commission of said crime. The intent to defraud in using falsified
private document is part and parcel of said crime and cannot give rise to the crime
of estafa, because damage, which is also an essential element of estafa, is caused
by, and becomes the element of, the crime of falsification of private document. The
crime of estafa is not committed, as it cannot exist without its own element of
damage.
 If the private document in the case was falsified, not to induce the offended
party to part with something of value but to cover up or conceal a defraudation
previously made, then the crime committed would be ESTAFA, The falsification
would be absorbed in said offense, the element of damage in one being the same as
that required in the other
2. 1975| The accused was a bookkeeper in a department store. He purchased on credit
several items in the store and signed chits for them. In order to avoid paying for the
foods, he did not record in his personal account with the store the items he purchased
and tore up the chits he had signed What crime, if any, did he commit? Why?
 Falsification of a private document by omission. It is the duty of the accused
as bookkeeper to record in his personal account with the store the items he
purchased. By tearing the chits which he signed for the purchases, damage is
present. (People v. Dizon, 47 Phil. 360)
3. 1982| "A", son of "B", knowing that "X" owed "B" Pl,000.00 which had already
matured, wrote a collection letter to "X", falsifying "B'"s signature in the letter which "A"
himself delivered to "X" without "B" 's knowledge. "X" paid the amount to "A" and
thereupon appropriated the money for his personal use. Upon learning of the action of his
son, "B" filed a complaint against the former. If you were the fiscal, for what crime or
crimes would you prosecute "A"?
 If I were, the Fiscal I would prosecute A for the crime of falsification of private
document. Altho, the falsification was used as a means for A to misappropriate the
amount delivered to him by X, a complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a
private document is not committed because the element of damage in estafa is the
same damage which is an element of falsification of a private document. (People vs.
Dizon, CA 48 O.G. 168). The crime is not estafa because without the falsification of
the private document A would not have committed the defraudation. There is no
complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a private document. In spite of the
 relationship there is criminal liability. Relationship is an absolutory cause in the
crimes of theft, estafa and malicious mischief only.
4. 1991| In a civil case for recovery of a sum of money filed against him by A, B
interposed the defense of payment. In support thereof, he identified and offered in
evidence a receipt which appears to be signed by A On rebuttal, A denied having been
paid by B and having signed the receipt. He presented a handwriting expert who testified
that the alleged signature of A on the receipt is a forgery and that a comparison thereof
with the specimen signatures of B clearly shows that B himself forged the signature of A
a) Is B liable for the crime of using a falsified- document in a judicial proceeding (last
paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code)?
b) If he is not, what offense or offenses may he be charged with?
 a) No, B should not be liable for the crime of using a falsified document,
under the last paragraph of Art. 172, Revised Penal Code. He would be liable for
forgery of a private document under the second mode of falsification under Art.
172, Revised Penal Code. Being the possessor and user of the falsified document he
is presumed to be the forger or falsifier and the offense of introducing falsified
document is already absorbed in the main offense of forgery or falsification
 B should be charged for the crime of falsification of a private document, since
the document falsified is a private document and done with intent to cause damage.
Although there was an attempt on the part of B to defraud A thru the use of the
false document, such deceit cannot give rise to estafa because this crime cannot co-
exist or be complexed with the crime of falsification when the document falsified is a
private document.
 b) If he testified on the genuineness of the document, he should also be held
liable under Art. 182, which is false testimony in civil cases.
5.M was forced by a policeman to sign a document entitled "Sinumpaang Salaysay" in
which M implicated X as the brain behind the robbery of a bank where P500,000.00 were
lost. The document was prepared by the policeman upon advice of B, the bank's lawyer,
who was present when the policeman asked M to sign the document. As M refused to
sign it, the policeman held him by the neck and forced him to sign, which he did as he
was afraid he might be bodily harmed. During the hearing of the robbery before the
Fiscal's Office, B submitted the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" as evidence, on the basis of
which X was included in the information filed by the Fiscal in court. When M testified in
court, he repudiated the document and told the court there was no truth to its contents
as he was merely forced to sign it.
(a) May M be held liable for perjury?
(b) Did lawyer B commit any crime when he used the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" as
evidence.
 The lawyer would be liable under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code for the
offense of introducing a false document in a judicial proceeding, as he knew the
same to be false.
 
Article 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages, and use
of said falsified messages. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon officer or employee of the Government or of
any private corporation or concern engaged in the service of sending or receiving
wireless, cable or telephone message who utters a fictitious wireless, telegraph or
telephone message of any system or falsifies the same.
 
Any person who shall use such falsified dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or with
the intent of cause such prejudice, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree
 
Acts punished
1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message;
2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message;
3. Using such falsified message
 
Par.1| Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message;
 
Elements
1. Offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer or employee of a
private corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message;
2. He commits any of the following acts :
1. uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message.
2. Falsifying fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message
 
Par.2 |Use of such falsified message
 
Elements
1. Offender knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message was falsified by
an officer or employee of the government or an officer or employee of a private
corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone
message;
2. He used such falsified dispatch;
3. The use resulted in the prejudice of a third party or at least there was intent to cause
such prejudice.
 
Rules:
1. Private individual, not an employee of a corporation engaged in the business
of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message cannot be a
principal by direct participation in falsification of telegraphic dispatches under
173
 Can be held liable as principal by inducement
 But if he knowingly uses any falsified telegraph, wireless or telephone
messages to the prejudice of a third person or with intent to cause prejudice, it is
not necessary that he be connected with such corporation
Act no. 1851, Section 4, punishes private individuals who forge or alter telegram
 
Section Five. - Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or
services and the like
 
Article 174. False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or service, etc. - The
penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any physician or surgeon who, in connection, with the practice of his profession, shall
issue a false certificate; and
2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or
similar circumstances.
 
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any private person who shall falsify
a certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.
 
Persons liable:
1. Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, issues a
false certificate (it must refer to the illness or injury of a person);
[The crime here is false medical certificate by a physician.]
2. Public officer who issues a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;
[The crime here is false certificate of merit or service by a public officer.]
3. Private person who falsifies a certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the two
preceding subdivisions
 
Rules:
1. Certificate| any writing by which testimony is given that a fact or has not taken place
2. "or similar circumstances" does not seem to cover property because the circumstance
contemplated must be similar to merit service or good conduct
 Certificate of residence for voting purpose is included here
 
Article 175. Using false certificates. - The penalty of arresto menor shall be imposed
upon any one who shall knowingly use any of the false certificates mentioned in the next
preceding article
 
Elements
1. The following issues a false certificate:
a. Physician or surgeon, in connection with the practice of his profession, issues a false
certificate; b. Public officer issues a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or
similar circumstances; c. Private person falsifies a certificate falling within the classes
mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.
2. Offender knows that the certificate was false;
3. He uses the same. (possession with intent to use)
 
Note: when any of the false certificates mentioned here are used in the judicial
proceeding, 172 does not apply because use of false document in judicial proceeding
under 172 is limited to those false documents embraced in 171 and 172
 
Article 176. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for
falsification. - The penalty of prison correctional in its medium and maximum periods and
a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make or
introduce into the Philippine Islands any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or
implements intended to be used in the commission of the offenses of counterfeiting or
falsification mentioned in the preceding sections of this Chapter. Any person who, with
the intention of using them, shall have in his possession any of the instruments or
implements mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalty next lower in
degree than that provided therein
 
Acts punished
1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks, or other
instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification;
2. Possession with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or
falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person.
 
Rules:
1. implements confiscated need not form a complete set
2. it is enough that they may be employed by themselves or together with other
implements to commit the crime of counterfeiting or falsification
3. 165 and 176 also punish constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to one's
control
  The sale of counterfeiting paraphernalia is made subject to the condition that
the vendor must demonstrate how counterfeiting is done and on the way to the
place where the demonstration is to be done, vehicle carrying the paraphernalia
was intercepted
--> vendor has constructive possession
 
Chapter Two OTHER FALSITIES
 
Section One. - Usurpation of authority, rank, title, and improper use of names,
uniforms and insignia.
 
Article 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. - Any person who shall
knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or
who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in
authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or
any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
 
Acts punished
 
1. Usurpation of authority;
Elements
1. Offender knowingly and falsely represents himself;
2. As an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the
Philippine government or of any foreign government.
 Not necessary that he performs any act pertaining to a public officer
 There must be positive express and explicit representation
 False representation may be shown by acts
 
2. Usurpation of official functions.
Elements
1. Offender performs any act;
 Necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a PIA or PO
2. Pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine
government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof;
3. Under pretense of official position;
4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so.
 
Rules:
1. 177 may be committed by public officers (People v. Hilvano)
2. 177 punishes usurper not the occupant under the color of title
 Usurper| one who introduces himself into an office that is vacant or who
without color of title ousts the incumbent and assumes to act as an officer by
exercising some of the functions of the office
3. there is an additional penalty for usurping the authority of diplomatic or any other
official of a foreign government
 Section 1 of RA No. 10
 With intent to defraud
4. RA No.10 is applicable only to members of seditious organization engaged in
subversive activities
 
Questions and Answers
1. While his marriage to Sylvia was subsisting, Rollie took Cynthia, who had been legally
separated from her husband, to Ramon Abad, who, in priestly attire and posing as Fr.
Chavez of the Aglipayan Church, solemnized their marriage. After the marriage, Rollie
took Cynthia to Baguio on a week-long honeymoon. As a fiscal and based on the
foregoing facts, what charge or charges will you file and against whom? Discuss
 As a fiscal, I will file a charge of Usurpation of Official Functions against
Ramon Abad. He merely posed as a priest of the Aglipayan Church and was not
therefore authorized to solemnize a marriage. Solemnization of a marriage is an
official function. (U.S. v. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109).
2. Erwin and Bea approached Mayor Abral and requested him to solemnize their
marriage. Mayor Abral agreed. Erwin and Bea went to Mayor Abral's office on the day of
the ceremony, but Mayor Abral was not there. When Erwin and Bea inquired where Mayor
Abral was, his chief of staff Donato informed them that the Mayor was campaigning for
the coming elections. Donato told them that the Mayor authorized him to solemnize the
marriage and that Mayor Abral would just sign the documents when he arrived. Donato
thereafter solemnized the marriage and later turned over the documents to Mayor Abral
for his signature. In the marriage contract, it was stated that the marriage was
solemnized by Mayor Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral and Donato commit? Explain.
(2015 Bar Question)
 Donato committed Usurpation of Official Functions under Article 177 of the
Revised Penal Code because he performed the act of solemnizing a marriage which
pertained to the mayor, without being lawfully entitled to do so. Mayor Abral is
liable for falsification of public document by a public officer under Article 171.
Making an untruthful statement by stating in a marriage contract, a public
document, that the marriage was solemnized him, is an act of falsification.
 
Article 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true name. - The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not to exceed 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall
publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading the
execution of a judgment or causing damage.
 
Any person who conceals his true name and other personal circumstances shall be
punished by arresto menor or a fine not to exceed 200 pesos.
 
Acts punished
 
1. Using fictitious name
 
Elements
1. Offender uses a name other than his real name;
2. He uses the fictitious name publicly;
3. Purpose of use is to:
a. conceal a crime,
b. to evade the execution of a judgment or
c. to cause damage [to public interest – Reyes].
 
Rules:
1. Fictitious name| any other name which a person publicly applies to himself without
authority of law
2. If it is damage to private interest, estafa
3. signing fictitious name in an application for passport is publicly using such fictitious
name
 4. person who takes place of another who has been convicted by final judgment is
punishable by article 178
 Can be guilty of delivering prisoners out of jail by other means
 Prisoner is also guilty using fictitious name to evade execution of judgment
- the one who takes his place has to use a fictitious name to conceal the crime of
delivering a person from jail
 
2. Concealing true name
 
Elements
1. Offender conceals
a. his true name and
b. other personal circumstances;
2. Purpose is only to conceal his identity.
 
Use of fictitious name Concealing true name

- element of publicity - not necessary

- purpose: - only to conceal identity

a. conceal a crime,
b. to evade the execution of a judgment or
c. to cause damage [to public interest – Reyes].
 
Commonwealth Act No. 142 (Regulating the Use of Aliases)
- No person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered at
birth in the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was registered in the bureau
of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a
competent court. Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio, or
other entertainment and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally
accepted practice.
 Intent to publicly use must be manifest
- made openly, in an open manner or place or to cause it to become generally known
- not just mere communication to another
- does not apply when this was made privately or secretively (people v. estrada)
 Does not apply if such names were not different from each other and not used
for unscrupulous purposes
 
PD 1829 penalizes obstruction of justice by publicly using a fictitious name and
concealing true name, among other acts
- purpose is to conceal a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment or
concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purposes
 
Article 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia. - The penalty of arresto mayor shall be
imposed upon any person who shall publicly and improperly make use of insignia,
uniforms or dress pertaining to an office not held by such person or to a class of persons
of which he is not a member
 
Elements:
1. Offender makes use of insignia, uniforms or dress;
2. The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to an office not held by such person or a class
of persons of which he is not a member;
 3. Said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly.
 
Rules:
1. Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office is not punishable.
2. an exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary
 a colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the common run of people is
sufficient.
3. Using uniform, decoration or regalia of foreign state is punished by RA 75
 With intent to deceive or mislead
 Wearing insignia badge or emblem or AFP or constabulary is punished by RA
493
4. Illegal manufacture sale, distribution and use of PNP uniforms insignias and other
accoutrements are punished by EO 297
 Public censure
 Without prejudice to filing administrative, civil and/or criminal actions
 
Section Two. - False testimony
Three forms of false testimony
1. False testimony in criminal cases under Article 180 and 181;
2. False testimony in civil case under Article 182;
3. False testimony in other cases under Article 183.
 
False Testimony
- committed when being under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a certain
matter at a hearing before a competent authority, shall deny the truth or say something
contrary to it
 
Article 180. False testimony against a defendant. - Any person who shall give false
testimony against the defendant in any criminal case shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the defendant in said case shall have been
sentenced to death;
2. The penalty of prision mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to reclusion
temporal or reclusion perpetua;
3. The penalty of prision correccional, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to any
other afflictive penalty; and
4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a
correctional penalty or a fine, or shall have been acquitted.
In cases provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of this article the offender shall further suffer a
fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos.
 
Elements
1. There is a criminal proceeding;
2. Offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein;
3. Offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false.
4. Defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or convicted in
a final judgment.
 
Rules:
1. penalty depends upon the sentence of the defendant against whom false testimony
was given
 death --> RT
 RT to perpetua --> PM
 any other afflictive penalty --> PC
  correctional penalty or a fine; or shall have been acquitted --> arresto mayor
2. does not apply when defendant was sentenced to arresto menor
3. witness who gave false testimony is liable even if his testimony was not considered by
the court
 
Article 181. False testimony favorable to the defendants. - Any person who shall give
false testimony in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, shall suffer the penalties of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period a fine
not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the prosecution is for a felony punishable by an afflictive
penalty, and the penalty of arresto mayor in any other case.
 
Elements
1. A person gives false testimony;
2. In favor of the defendant;
3. In a criminal case.
 
Rules:
1. reason for punishing: not because of the effect it actually produces but because of its
tendency to favor or to prejudice the defendant
2. false testimony need not directly influence the decisions
 It is sufficient that it was given with the intent to favor the accused
3. False testimony by negative state is in favor of defendant --> punishable
4. False testimony favorable to the defendant need not benefit the defendant
 Sufficient that there was intent to favor the defendant
5. A statement by a witness that he is an expert in handwriting is a statement of mere
opinion the falsity of which is not sufficient to convict him
 but if falsity pertained to his experience, he may be liable
6. conviction or acquittal of defendant in principal case, not necessary
7. defendant who falsely testified in his own criminal case is guilty of false testimony
favorable to the defendant
 If he voluntarily goes upon the witness stand
 Not when here merely denies
 There is an imputation of a grave offense
8. rectification made spontaneously after realizing the mistake is not false testimony
 No sufficient evidence that he acted with malice or with criminal intent to
testify falsely
 
Questions and Answers
1. 1994| Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
Andrew, a prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their
heated argument. While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned down and
the entire records of the case were destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted.
Andrew was again called to the witness stand. This time he testified that his first
testimony was false and the truth was he was abroad when the crime took place. The
judge immediately ordered the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony
favorable to the defendant in a criminal case.
1) Will the case against Andrew prosper?
2) Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on January 10, 1987. On June 18.
1994 a case of giving false testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal
step will you take?
 1) Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181, RFC, it is not necessary
that the criminal case where Andrew testified is terminated first. It is not even
required of the prosecution to prove which of the two statements of the witness is
 false and to prove the statement to be false by evidence other than the
contradictory statements (People vs. Arazola, 13 Court of Appeals Report, 2nd
series, p. 808).
 
Article 182. False testimony in civil cases. - Any person found guilty of false testimony
in a civil case shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a
fine not to exceed 6,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy shall exceed 5,000 pesos,
and the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy shall
not exceed said amount or cannot be estimated
 
Elements
1. Testimony given in a civil case;
2. Testimony relates to the issues presented in said case
3. Testimony is false;
4. Offender knows that testimony is false;
5. Testimony is malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues presented in said
case
 
Rules:
1. 182 is not applicable when FT is given in special proceedings
--> Civil action| ordinary suit in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another
for the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong
 Every other remedy is a special proceeding
 
Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. - The
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any person, who knowingly makes untruthful statements
and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under
oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person
authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires. Any person who,
in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any of the
falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer
the respective penalties provided therein.
 
Acts punished
1. By falsely testifying under oath;
 Should not be in a judicial proceeding
2. By making a false affidavit.
 
Elements of perjury
1. Offender makes a statement under oath or executes an affidavit upon a material
matter;
 Material matter| main fact which is the subject of the inquiry or any
circumstance which tends to prove that fact or any fact or circumstance which tends
to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry or
which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testifies
 Test| whether it could influence the tribunal not whether it does or could
probably influence the result
2. The statement or affidavit is made before a competent officer, authorized to receive
and administer oaths;
 Has the right to inquire into the questions presented to him upon matters
under his jurisdiction
3. Offender makes a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in the statement or
affidavit;
 Knowingly making untruthful statements
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law, that is, it is
made for a legal purpose.
 Even if there is no law requiring the statement to be made under oath, as
long as it is made for a legal purpose, it is sufficient
 People v. Angangco| "that the sworn statement containing falsity is
authorized by law"
- not necessary that there is a specific provision of law requiring such
Rules:
1. Oath| any form of attestation by which a person signified that he is bound in
conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully
2. Affidavit| a sworn statement in writing; a declaration in writing made upon oath before
an authorized magistrate or officer
3. a false affidavit in a criminal complaint may give rise to perjury
4. there must be competent proof of materiality
5. Material Relevant Pertinent

- directed to - tends in any reasonable degree to - concerns collateral matters which

prove a fact in establish the probability of improbability of make more or less probable the
issue a fact in issue proposition at issue
6. no perjury if the statement was made in a pleading which is not required to be verified
7. no perjury if defendant subscribed and swore before a clerk in treasurer's office
- not a competent authority
8. lack of malice or good faith is a defense in perjury
9. perjury covers false oats other than those taken in the course of judicial proceedings
 Judicial proceedings| contemplates an actual trial
10. Subordination of perjury| who knowingly and willfully procures another to swear
falsely and the witness suborned under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury
 Not in RPC| but as principal by inducement under perjury
 
Questions and Answers
1. AA knowingly and willfully induced BB to swear falsely. BB testified as told in a formal
hearing of an administrative case under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury. Is
AA criminally liable? (2012 Bar Question) A) AA is not criminally liable because his
act constitutes subornation of perjury which is not expressly penalized in the
Revised Penal Code. B) AA is not criminally liable because he was not the one who
gave false testimony in the administrative case. C) AA is not criminally liable because the
witness suborned testified in an administrative case only. D) AA is criminally liable for
perjury as principal by inducement with BB as the principal by direct participation
2. 1978| A was defendant in a collection suit for an unpaid loan extended to him by B. In
his answer under oath, A swore he did not owe B anything, much less did he borrow any
amount from him. The court found A's answer to be false and rendered judgment for B. A
was later charged with, and prosecuted for, perjury for making a false statement under
oath. Decide, state your reasons.
 A is not liable for perjury. Verification of the answer is not required by law
(People vs. Tupasi, 36 O.G. 2038). In a recent decision, the Supreme Court also
held that a verified answer pertinent to the issue is absolutely privileged (Flordelis
vs. Himalaloan, et al. L-8088, July 31, 1978). Perjury is any sworn false statement
on any material matter made before a person authorized to administer oath
whenever the law so requires, (Art. 183, R.P.C.)
3. 1984| A executed an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint for estafa he filed
against B. After an amicable settlement under which A was paid the swindled amount, he
made another affidavit wherein he detailed events totally inconsistent with the facts
narrated in the first affidavit. Later, B filed a complaint for perjury against A with the
Fiscal's Office and presented in support thereof the two contradictory affidavits of A. No
other evidence was submitted. If you were the investigating fiscal, how would you
resolve the case? Why?
 A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma| The complaint should be dismissed.
The respondent or accused cannot be convicted of the crime of perjury solely on the
basis of his contradictory sworn statements. It is further necessary to prove which
of the two statements is false by evidence other than the contradictory statements.
B. Comments and Suggested Answer| If I were the fiscal, I would dismiss the
complaint for perjury. There is no perjury solely on the basis of two contradictory
statement. There must be further evidence to show which of the two sworn
statements is false. (U.S. vs. Capistrano 40 Phil. 902).
4. M was forced by a policeman to sign a document entitled "Sinumpaang Salaysay" in
which M implicated X as the brain behind the robbery of a bank where P500,000.00 were
lost. The document was prepared by the policeman upon advice of B, the bank's lawyer,
who was present when the policeman asked M to sign the document. As M refused to
sign it, the policeman held him by the neck and forced him to sign, which he did as he
was afraid he might be bodily harmed. During the hearing of the robbery before the
Fiscal's Office, B submitted the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" as evidence, on the basis of
which X was included in the information filed by the Fiscal in court. When M testified in
court, he repudiated the document and told the court there was no truth to its contents
as he was merely forced to sign it.
(a) May M be held liable for perjury?
 M is not liable for perjury. He did not sign the document freely and voluntarily
but due to the force employed by the policeman. Perjury refers to deliberate
distortion of truth. The facts of the problem do not state that the documents was
signed before an officer authorized to administer oath. It is, therefore, doubtful that
the facts would constitute perjury
5. M is not liable for perjury. He did not sign the document freely and voluntarily but due
to the force employed by the policeman. Perjury refers to deliberate distortion of truth.
The facts of the problem do not state that the documents was signed before an officer
authorized to administer oath. It is, therefore, doubtful that the facts would constitute
perjury
 I will move for the dismissal of the complaint for perjury. The falsity of sworn
statement must be required or authorized by law (Flordeliz v. Himalalaon, 84 SCRA
277).
6. 1996| Sisenando purchased the share of the stockholders of Estrella Corporation in
two installments, making him the majority stockholder thereof and eventually, its
president. Because the stockholders who sold their stocks failed to comply with their
warranties attendant to the sale, Sisenando withheld payment of the second installment
due on the shares and deposited the money in escrow instead, subject to release once
said stockholders comply with their warranties. The stockholders concerned, in turn,
rescinded the sale in question and removed Sisenando from the Presidency of the Estrella
Corporation, Sisenando then filed a verified complaint for damages against said
stockholders in his capacity as president and principal stockholder of Estrella Corporation.
In retaliation, the stockholders concerned, after petitioning the Securities and Exchange
Commission to declare the rescission valid, further filed a criminal case for perjury
against Sisenando, claiming that the latter perjured himself when he stated under oath in
the verification of his complaint for damages that he is the President of the Estrella
Corporation when in fact he had already been removed as such. Under the facts of the
case, could Sisenando be held liable for perjury? Explain.
 No, Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury because It cannot be
reasonably maintained that he willfully and deliberately made an assertion of a
falsehood when he alleged in the complaint that he is the President of the
Corporation, obviously, he made the allegation on the premise that his removal
from the presidency is not valid and that is precisely the issue brought about by his
complaint to the SEC. It is a fact that Sisenando has been the President of the
corporation and it Is from that position that the stockholders concerned purportedly
removed him, whereupon he filed the complaint questioning his removal. There is
no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood which is a requisite of perjury,
7. 1997| A, a government employee, was administratively charged with immorality for
having an affair with B, a co-employee in the same office who believed him to be single.
To exculpate himself, A testified that he was single and was willing to marry B, He
Induced C to testify and C did testify that B was single. The truth, however, was that A
had earlier married D, now a neighbor of C. Is A guilty of perjury? Are A and C guilty of
subordination of perjury?
 No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood asserted by him is
not material to the charge of immorality. Whether A is single or married, the charge
of immorality against him as a government employee could proceed or prosper. In
other words, A's civil status is not a defense to the charge of immorality, hence, not
a material matter that could influence the charge.
 There is no crime of subornation of perjury. The crime is now treated as plain
perjury with the one inducing another as the principal inducement, and the latter,
as principal by direct participation (People vs. Podol 66 Phil. 365). Since in this case
A cannot be held liable for perjury, the matter that he testified to being immaterial,
he cannot therefore be held responsible as a principal by inducement when he
induced C to testify on his status. Consequently, C is not liable as principal by direct
participation in perjury, having testified on matters not material to an
administrative case.
8. 2005| Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for naturalization, with
the Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married to Leni
Chua; that he is living with her in Sampaloc, Manila; that he is of good moral character;
and that he has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during his stay in the
Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Leni Chua was already living
in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila, with whom he has an amorous
relationship. After his direct testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for naturalization.
What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua commit? Explain. (5%)
 Al Chua committed perjury. His declaration under oath for naturalization that
he is of good moral character and residing at Sampaloc, Manila are false. This
information is material to his petition for naturalization. He committed perjury for
this willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood which is contained in a verified
petition made for a legal purpose. (Choa v. People, G.R. No. 142011, March 14,
2003)
9. Raissa and Martin are married to each other but had been separated for the last five
years. Raissa decided to wed Juan, her suitor, who had no inkling that she was married.
Raissa and Juan accomplished an application for marriage license which they subscribed
and swore to before the Local Civil Registrar. Raissa declared in the application that she
is single. The marriage licensed was issued. In due time, the couple were married by the
mayor. Raissa and Juan had their first sexual intercourse later in the evening. What
crime or crimes, if any, did Raissa commit? Explain briefly. (2008 Bar Question)
 Raissa committed bigamy for contracting a second marriage while her first
marriage is still subsisting (Art. 349, RPC). She is also guilty of perjury for making
 untruthful statements under oath or executing an affidavit upon a material matter,
when she declared she was not married in the application for marriage license a
public document (Art. 171, RPC). Lastly, she is also guilty of adultery (Art. 333,
RPC) for having sexual intercourse with Juan although she is a married woman
 
Article 184. Offering false testimony in evidence. - Any person who shall knowingly offer
in evidence a false witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding, shall be
punished as guilty of false testimony and shall suffer the respective penalties provided in
this section.
 
Elements
1. Offender offers in evidence a false witness or testimony;
2 He knows that the witness or the testimony was false;
3. The offer is made in any judicial or official proceeding
 
Rules:
1. "offer of evidence" begins the moment a witness is called to the witness stand and
interrogated by counsel. The witness must testify
2. 184 requires to consummate the offense that the witness or the testimony must be
offered in evidence
 If witness desisted in testifying| desistance --> absolutory cause in attempted
stage
 The party who presented him not having desisted, is criminally liable
3. 184 applies when the offender does not induce a witness to testify falsely
 If he does --> article 7 par.2 in relation to 180, 181,182 will apply
- [light felonies except crimes against persons and properties must be
consummated)
4. penalty is that for false testimony if committed in a judicial proceeding or that for
perjury if committed in other official proceeding
 
 
Article 185. Machinations in public auctions. - Any person who shall solicit any gift or
promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction, and any
person who shall attempt to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts,
promises, or any other artifice, with intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing
auctioned, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine
ranging from 10 to 50 per centum of the value of the thing auctioned.
 
Acts punished
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any
public auction;
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts, promises
or any other artifice.
 
Elements of soliciting gift or promise
1. There is a public auction;
2. Offender solicits any gift or a promise from any of the bidders;
3. Such gift or promise is the consideration for his refraining from taking part in that
public auction;
4. Offender has the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.
 
Rules:
1. consummated by mere solicitation
2. If person to whom solicitation is made agrees to pay or gives the gift or makes a
promise --> principal
 
Elements of attempting to cause bidders to stay away
1. There is a public auction;
2. Offender attempts to cause the bidders to stay away from that public auction;
3. It is done by threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice
4. Offender has the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.
 
Rules:
1. other artifice| by tricks or any other actions that would cause them to stay away from
the public auction
2. consummated by mere attempt
 Threat need not be effective nor the offer or gift accepted for the crime to
arise
3. Diaz v. Kapunan| Execution sales should be opened to free and full competition in
order to secure the maximum benefit for the debtors
- cannot be made by agreement of two parties whereby one offers a money to the other
bidder so that he can purchase it.
 Section 14 [a][2] also prohibits an agreement between competitors to fix a
price at an action or any form of bidding
 
Article 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon:
 
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take 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. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or
shall combine with any other person or persons to monopolize and merchandise or object
in order to alter the price thereof by spreading false rumors or making use of any other
article to restrain free competition in the market;
 
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or processor of any merchandise or
object of commerce or an importer of any merchandise or object of commerce from any
foreign country, either as principal or agent, wholesaler or retailer, shall combine,
conspire or agree in any manner with any person likewise engaged in the manufacture,
production, processing, assembling or importation of such merchandise or object of
commerce or with any other persons not so similarly engaged for the purpose of making
transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or of increasing the market price in any part
of the Philippines, of any such merchandise or object of commerce manufactured,
produced, processed, assembled in or imported into the Philippines, or of any article in
the manufacture of which such manufactured, produced, or imported merchandise or
object of commerce is used.
 
If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food substance, motor fuel or
lubricants, or other articles of prime necessity, the penalty shall be that of prision mayor
in its maximum and medium periods it being sufficient for the imposition thereof that the
initial steps have been taken toward carrying out the purposes of the combination.
 
Any property possessed under any contract or by any combination mentioned in the
preceding paragraphs, and being the subject thereof, shall be forfeited to the
Government of the Philippines.
 
Whenever any of the offenses described above is committed by a corporation or
association, the president and each one of its agents or representatives in the Philippines
in case of a foreign corporation or association, who shall have knowingly permitted or
failed to prevent the commission of such offense, shall be held liable as principals
thereof.
 
Acts punished
1. Combination to prevent free competition in the market;
Elements
1. Entering into any contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise;
2. 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;
Elements
1. By monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or by
combining with any other person or persons to monopolize said merchandise or
object;
2. In order to alter the prices thereof by spreading false rumors or making use of
any other artifice;
3. To restrain free competition in the market
3. Manufacturer, producer, or processor or importer combining, conspiring or agreeing
with any person to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the
market price of merchandise.
Elements
1. Manufacturer, producer, processor or importer of any merchandise or object of
commerce;
2. Combines, conspires or agrees with any person;
3. Purpose is to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the
market price of any merchandise or object of commerce manufactured, produced,
processed, assembled or imported into the Philippines.
 
Article 187. Importation and Disposition of Falsely Marked Articles or
Merchandise Made of Gold, Silver, or Other Precious Metals of Their Alloys
 
Elements
1. Offender imports, sells or disposes articles made of gold, silver, or other precious
metals or their alloys;
2. The stamps, brands, or marks of those articles of merchandise fail to indicate the
actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys;
3. Offender knows that the stamps, brands, or marks fail to indicate the actual fineness
or quality of the metals or alloys.
 
Selling the misbranded articles is not necessary
- one act of the acts punished is importing, which also includes possession after
importing the same, it is not necessary that they be sold and the public deceived.
 
187 does not apply to manufacturer of misbranded articles made of gold, silver,
etc.
- manufacturer who alters the quality or fineness of anything pertaining to his art or
business is liable for estafa
- RA 8293 or Intellectual property code of the Philippines repealed the provisions of 188
and 189 which are inconsistent therewith
 
Anti-Money Laundering
 
‘Covered persons’, natural or juridical, refer to:
(1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, foreign exchange dealers, pawnshops,
money changers, remittance and transfer companies and other similar entities and all
other persons and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
(2) insurance companies, pre-need companies and all other persons supervised or
regulated by the Insurance Commission (IC);
(3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar
persons managing securities or rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or
consultant, (ii) mutual funds, close-end investment companies, common trust funds, and
other similar persons, and (iii) 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 or regulated
by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
(4) jewelry dealers in precious metals, who, as a business, trade in precious metals, for
transactions in excess of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);
(5) jewelry dealers in precious stones, who, as a business, trade in precious stones, for
transactions in excess of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);
(6) company service providers which, as a business, provide any of the following services
to third parties: (i) acting as a formation agent of juridical persons; (ii) acting as (or
arranging for another person to act as) a director or corporate secretary of a company, a
partner of a partnership, or a similar position in relation to other juridical persons; (iii)
providing a registered office, business address or accommodation, correspondence or
administrative address for a company, a partnership or any other legal person or
arrangement; and (iv) acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a nominee
shareholder for another person; and
(7) persons who provide any of the following services:
(i) managing of client money, securities or other assets;
(ii) management of bank, savings or securities accounts;
(iii) organization of contributions for the creation, operation or management of
companies; and
(iv) creation, operation or management of juridical persons or arrangements, and
buying and selling business entities.
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term ‘covered persons’ shall exclude lawyers and
accountants acting as independent legal professionals in relation to information
concerning their clients or where disclosure of information would compromise client
confidences or the attorney-client relationship: Provided, That these lawyers and
accountants are authorized to practice in the Philippines and shall continue to be subject
to the provisions of their respective codes of conduct and/or professional responsibility or
any of its amendments.”
 
Covered transaction
- is a transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total
amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) within one (1) banking
day.
 
Suspicious transaction’
- 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 the Act;
5. any circumstance relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the
profile 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, is being or has been committed; or
7. any transaction that is similar or analogous to any of the foregoing.”
 
"Transaction"
- refers to any act establishing any right or obligation or giving rise to any contractual or
legal relationship between the parties thereto. It also includes any movement of funds by
any means with a covered institution.
 
Punishable acts:
Money laundering is committed by any person who, knowing that any monetary
instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful
activity:
 transacts said monetary instrument or property;
 converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses said
monetary instrument or property;
 conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement
or ownership of or rights with respect to said monetary instrument or property;
 attempts or conspires to commit money laundering offenses referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);
 aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the money laundering
offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above; and
 performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the
offense of money laundering referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.
 Money laundering is also committed by any covered person who, knowing
that a covered or suspicious transaction is required under this Act to be reported to
the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.”
 
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) The prosecution of any offense or violation under this Act shall proceed independently
of any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity.”
 
Questions and Answers
1. 2005| Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He
opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging
from P500,000.00 to P1 Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the
money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all other
municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito was actually a
jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng
operations. What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain. (6%)
 Don Gabito violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9160)
for knowingly transacting moneyas property which involves or relates to the
proceeds of an unlawful activity such as jueteng. In addition, he may be prosecuted
for liability as a jueteng operator. (R.A. No. 9287)
 The mayor who allowed the opening of an account in his name is likewise
guilty for violation of the AMLA. He, knowing that the money instrument or property
involves the proceeds of an unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act
which results in the facilitation of money laundering.
 
2. 2006| Rudy is jobless but is reputed to be a jueteng operator. He hasnever been
charged or convicted of any crime. He maintains several bank accounts and has
purchased 5 houses and lots for his childrenfrom the Luansing Realty, Inc. Since he does
not have any visiblejob, the company reported his purchases to the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC). Thereafter, AMLC charged him with violation of the Anti-
Money Laundering Law. Upon request of the AMLC, the bank disclosed to it Rudy’s bank
deposits amounting to P100 Million. Subsequently, he was charged in court for violation
of the Anti-Money Laundering Law.
 
1. Can Rudy move to dismiss the case on the ground that he has no criminal record?
2.5%
 Rudy would be guilty of a "money laundering crime" committed when the
proceeds of an "unlawful activity," like jueteng operations, are made to appear as
having originated from legitimate sources. The money laundering crime is separate
from the unlawful activity of being a jueteng operator, and requires no previous
conviction for the unlawful activity (See also Sec. 3, Anti-Money Laundering Act 2.
2001)
2. To raise funds for his defense, Rudy sold the houses and lots to a friend. Can
Luansing Realty, Inc. be compelled to transfer to the buyer ownership of the houses and
lots? 2.5%
 Luansing Realty, Inc. is a real estate company, hence it is not a covered
institution under Section 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. Only banking
institutions, insurance companies, securities dealers and brokers, pre-need
companies and other entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency,
commodities or financial derivatives are covered institutions. Hence, Luansing
Realty, Inc. may not use the AntiMoney Laundering Act to refuse to transfer to
3. In disclosing Rudy’s bank accounts to the AMLC, did the bank violate any law? 2.5%
 No, the bank did not violate any law. The bank being specified as a "covered
institution" under the AntiMoney Laundering Law, is obliged to report to the AMLC
covered and suspicious transactions, without thereby violating any law. This is one
of the exceptions to the Secrecy of Bank Deposit Act.
4. Supposing the titles of the houses and lots are in possession of the Luansing Realty,
Inc., is it under obligation to deliver the titles to Rudy? 2.5%
 Yes, it has an obligation to deliver titles to Rudy. As Luansing Realty, Inc. is
not a covered institution under Section 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, it may
not invoke this law to refuse delivery of the titles Banks
 
3. No.X. Name at least five predicate crimes to money laundering. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any five of the following are predicate crimes to money laundering: (1) Kidnapping for ransom under
Article 267 of Act No.3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, as amended; (2) Sections
 3,4,5,7,8 and 9 of Article Two of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972; (3) Section 3 paragraphs B,C,E,G,H and I of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended; otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act; (4) Plunder under Republic
Act No. 7080, as amended; (5) Robbery and extortion under Articles 294,295,296,299,300,301 and
302 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; (6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal gambling
under Presidential Decree No. 1602; (7) Piracy on the high seas under the Revised Penal Code, as
amended and Presidential Decree No. 532; (8) Qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended; (9) Swindling under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. (9)
Swindling under 315 of the Revised Penal code, as amended; (10) Smuggling under Republic Act Nos.
455 and 1937 (11) Violations under Republic Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic
Commerce Act of 2000 (12) Hijacking and other violations under Republic Act No 6235;destructive
arson and murder, as defined under the Revised Penal Code, as amended, including those
perpetrated by terrorist against non-combatant persons and similar targets; (13) Fraudulent practices
and other violations under Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the securities Regulation Code
of 2000 (14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature those are punishable under the penal laws of
other countries. (Sec 3, Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001).
 
 
 
 

CPI other notes

Tuesday, April 19, 2022
12:44 PM
 
Guidelines for Fighting Bid Rigging in Public Procurement
- Bid rigging (or collusive tendering) occurs when businesses, that would otherwise be expected to
compete, secretly conspire to raise prices or lower the quality of goods or services for purchasers who
wish to acquire products or services through a bidding process.
- Common practices:
 Cover bidding. Cover (also called complementary, courtesy, token, or symbolic) bidding is the
most frequent way in which bid-rigging schemes are implemented. It occurs when individuals or
firms agree to submit bids that involve at least one of the following: (1) a competitor agrees to
submit a bid that is higher than the bid of the designated winner, (2) a competitor submits a bid
that is known to be too high to be accepted, or (3) a competitor submits a bid that contains special
terms that are known to be unacceptable to the purchaser. Cover bidding is designed to give the
appearance of genuine competition.
 Bid suppression. Bid-suppression schemes involve agreements among competitors in which one
or more companies agree to refrain from bidding or to withdraw a previously submitted bid so
that the designated winner’s bid will be accepted. In essence, bid suppression means that a
company does not submit a bid for final consideration.
 Bid rotation. In bid-rotation schemes, conspiring firms continue to bid, but they agree to take
turns being the winning (i.e., lowest qualifying) bidder. The way in which bid-rotation agreements
are implemented can vary. For example, conspirators might choose to allocate approximately
equal monetary values from a certain group of contracts to each firm or to allocate volumes that
correspond to the size of each company.
 Market allocation. Competitors carve up the market and agree not to compete for certain
customers or in certain geographic areas. Competing firms may, for example, allocate specific
 customers or types of customers to different firms, so that competitors will not bid (or will submit
only a cover bid) on contracts offered by a certain class of potential customers which are allocated
to a specific firm. In return, that competitor will not competitively bid to a designated group of
customers allocated to other firms in the agreement.
 
Article 186. Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint of Trade
 
Section 14. Anti-Competitive Agreements.[Philippine Competition act]
 
(a) The following agreements, between or among competitors, are per se prohibited:
 
(1) Restricting competition as to price, or components thereof, or other terms of trade;
 
(2) Fixing price at an auction or in any form of bidding including cover bidding, bid suppression, bid
rotation and market allocation and other analogous practices of bid manipulation;
 the per se prohibitions which are in themselves, violations that need not be proved to have
‘substantially prevented, restricted and lessened competition.’
 
(b) The following agreements, between or among competitors which have the object or effect of
substantially preventing, restricting or lessening competition shall be prohibited:
 
(1) Setting, Limiting, or controlling production, markets, technical development, or investment;
 
(2) Dividing or sharing the market, whether by volume of sales or purchases, territory, type of goods or
services, buyers or sellers or any other means;
 In theory, though, the violations under (a) or (b) are similar as to its anti-competitive nature. It is
unclear how fixing prices is more harmful to consumers than controlling supply. A possible
explanation (rationale) for the difference in treatment in the provisions under the Act is that the
negative impact of agreement (collusion) to fix prices is more obvious, while that of controlling
production, dividing markets could have less obvious costs and benefits.
 
(c) Agreements other than those specified in (a) and (b) of this section which have the object or effect of
substantially preventing, restricting or lessening competition shall also be prohibited: Provided, Those
which contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods and services or to promoting
technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefits, may not
necessarily be deemed a violation of this Act.
 
An entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another entity or entities, have
common economic interests, and are not otherwise able to decide or act independently of each other,
shall not be considered competitors for purposes of this section.
 
Criminal penalties
 Section 30. Criminal Penalties. – An entity that enters into any anti-competitive agreement as
covered by Chapter III, Section 14(a) and 14(b) under this Act shall, for each and every violation,
be penalized by imprisonment from two (2) to seven (7) years, and a fine of not less than fifty
million pesos (P50,000,000.00) but not more than two hundred fifty million pesos
(P250,000,000.00). The penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the responsible officers,
and directors of the entity.
  
When the entities involved are juridical persons, the penalty of. imprisonment shall be imposed on
its officers, directors, or employees holding managerial positions, who are knowingly and willfully
responsible for such violation.
 
Nolo Contendere
- Section 36. Nolo Contendere. – An entity charged in a criminal proceeding pursuant to Section 14(a)
and 14(b) of this Act may enter a plea of Nolo Contendere, in which he does not accept nor deny
responsibility for the charges but agrees to accept punishment as if he had pleaded guilty. The plea
cannot be used against the defendant entity to prove liability in a civil suit arising from the criminal
action nor in another cause of action: Provided, That a plea of Nolo Contendere may be entered only up
to arraignment and subsequently, only with the permission of the court which shall accept it only after
weighing its effect on the parties, the public and the administration of justice.
 
 Some parties may choose to enter this plea to avoid further costs in the case and possible
liabilities a civil suit that could arise from the criminal action. Note this plea is available only in
criminal cases for anti-competitive agreement ( Sections 14a and 14b), and only up to
arraignment.
 
Agreement
- Section 4
(b) Agreement refers to any type or form of contract, arrangement, understanding, collective
recommendation, or concerted action, whether formal or informal, explicit or tacit, written or oral;
Cannot be considered as competitors
--> An entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another entity or entities,
have common economic interests, and are not otherwise able to decide or act independently of each
other, shall not be considered competitors for purposes of this section.
- (h) Entity refers to any person, natural or juridical, sole proprietorship, partnership, combination or
association in any form, whether incorporated or not, domestic or foreign, including those owned or
controlled by the government, engaged directly or indirectly in any economic activity;
- (f) Control refers to the ability to substantially influence or direct the actions or decisions of an entity,
whether by contract, agency or otherwise;
 
Prohibited Acts For which administrative penalties shall be imposed
1. Section 15. Abuse of Dominant Position. – It shall be prohibited for one or more entities to abuse
their dominant position by engaging in conduct that would substantially prevent, restrict or lessen
competition:
 
(a) Selling goods or services below cost with the object of driving competition out of the relevant
market: Provided, That in the Commission’s evaluation of this fact, it shall consider whether the entity or
entities have no such object and the price established was in good faith to meet or compete with the
lower price of a competitor in the same market selling the same or comparable product or service of like
quality;
 This is what is known as predatory pricing. The law provides under this clause that the act
should be proven to have been deliberate (with the object of driving out competition) and was not
done in “good faith.”
(b) Imposing barriers to entry or committing acts that prevent competitors from growing within the
market in an anti-competitive manner except those that develop in the market as a result of or arising
from a superior product or process, business acumen, or legal rights or laws;
 An exemption on such exclusionary behavior is when preventing other firms from gaining
market share is done by being more efficient.
(c) Making a transaction subject to acceptance by the other parties of other obligations which, by their
nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the transaction;
 (tying arrangement)
(d) Setting prices or other terms or conditions that discriminate unreasonably between customers or
sellers of the same goods or services, where such customers or sellers are contemporaneously trading
on similar terms and conditions, where the effect may be to lessen competition substantially: Provided,
That the following shall be considered permissible price differentials:
 (price discrimination) (with list of exceptions, e. g. socialized pricing, price differences due to
differences in costs, etc.)
 
(1) Socialized pricing for the less fortunate sector of the economy;
 
(2) Price differential which reasonably or approximately reflect differences in the cost of manufacture,
sale, or delivery resulting from differing methods, technical conditions, or quantities in which the goods
or services are sold or delivered to the buyers or sellers;
 
(3) Price differential or terms of sale offered in response to the competitive price of payments, services
or changes in the facilities furnished by a competitor; and
 
(4) Price changes in response to changing market conditions, marketability of goods or services, or
volume;
 
(e) Imposing restrictions on the lease or contract for sale or trade of goods or services concerning
where, to whom, or in what forms goods or services may be sold or traded, such as fixing prices, giving
preferential discounts or rebate upon such price, or imposing conditions not to deal with competing
entities, where the object or effect of the restrictions is to prevent, restrict or lessen competition
substantially: Provided, That nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit or render unlawful:
 ◦ E.g., fixing prices, giving preferential discounts or rebate upon such price, or imposing
conditions not to deal with competing entities,
 
(1) Permissible franchising, licensing, exclusive merchandising or exclusive distributorship agreements
such as those which give each party the right to unilaterally terminate the agreement; or
 
(2) Agreements protecting intellectual property rights, confidential information, or trade secrets;
 there are provided exceptions which allow these impositions: franchising, licensing, exclusive
merchandising or exclusive distributorship agreements such as those which give each party the
right to unilaterally terminate the agreement; protecting IPR, confidential information or trade
secrets.
(f) Making supply of particular goods or services dependent upon the purchase of other goods or
services from the supplier which have no direct connection with the main goods or services to be
supplied;
 
(g) Directly or indirectly imposing unfairly low purchase prices for the goods or services of, among
others, marginalized agricultural producers, fisherfolk, micro-, small-, medium-scale enterprises, and
other marginalized service providers and producers;
 
(h) Directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling price on their competitors, customers,
suppliers or consumers, provided that prices that develop in the market as a result of or due to a
superior product or process, business acumen or legal rights or laws shall not be considered unfair
prices; and
 
(i) Limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers, provided that
limitations that develop in the market as a result of or due to a superior product or process, business
acumen or legal rights or laws shall not be a violation of this Act:
 As earlier noted, the PCA provides that “any conduct which contributes to improving production
or distribution of goods or services within the relevant market, or promoting technical and
economic progress while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit may not
necessarily be considered an abuse of dominant position.” Also, the clause, “as a result of or due
to a superior product or process, business acumen,” is often repeated as qualifier. In sum, these
illustrate and emphasize the primacy of efficiency and consumer welfare.
 
Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted as a prohibition on having a
dominant position in a relevant market or on acquiring, maintaining and increasing market share
through legitimate means that do not substantially prevent, restrict or lessen competition:
 
Provided, further, That any conduct which contributes to improving production or distribution of goods
or services within the relevant market, or promoting technical and economic progress while allowing
consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit may not necessarily be considered an abuse of dominant
position:
 
Provided, finally, That the foregoing shall not constrain the Commission or the relevant regulator from
pursuing measures that would promote fair competition or more competition as provided in this Act.
 
2. Section 20. Prohibited. Mergers and Acquisitions. – Merger or acquisition agreements that
substantially prevent, restrict or lessen competition in the relevant market or in the market for goods or
services as may be determined by the Commission shall be prohibited.
 M&A is the general term for consolidation of companies or assets. Consolidation could be a
merger of two or more independent companies forming a new entity, or a company acquiring the
assets of another company, in full or in part. The M&A could be ‘horizontal’ involving similar
products, or ‘vertical’ involving related activities within the supply chain.
 greater market concentration could result which would have a negative impact on competition
per se, consolidation might also produce positive efficiency impacts generally arising from
economies of scale or scope
- There are products whose average production cost could be drastically reduced with greater
production scale.
- There are also multiple products (e. g. because of similarity, or related processes) which are
more efficiently produced jointly because of economies of scope or streamlined production.
- A company might also seek to become more competitive by acquiring or merging with an
established business with the needed skills, resources or new technologies
Section 21. Exemptions from Prohibited. Mergers and Acquisitions. – Merger or acquisition agreement
prohibited under Section 20 of this Chapter may, nonetheless, be exempt from prohibition by the
Commission when the parties establish either of the following:
 
(a) The concentration has brought about or is likely to bring about gains in efficiencies that are greater
than the effects of any limitation on competition that result or likely to result from the merger or
acquisition agreement; or
 
(b) A party to the merger or acquisition agreement is faced with actual or imminent financial failure, and
the agreement represents the least anti-competitive arrangement among the known alternative uses for
the failing entity’s assets:
 
Provided, That an entity shall not be prohibited from continuing to own and hold the stock or other
share capital or assets of another corporation which it acquired prior to the approval of this Act or
acquiring or maintaining its market share in a relevant market through such means without violating the
provisions of this Act:
 
Provided, further, That the acquisition of the stock or other share capital of one or more corporations
solely for investment and not used for voting or exercising control and not to otherwise bring about, or
attempt to bring about the prevention, restriction, or lessening of competition in the relevant market
shall not be prohibited.
 
Section 22. Burden of Proof. – The burden of proof under Section 21 lies with the parties seeking the
exemption. A party seeking to rely on the exemption specified in Section 21(a) must demonstrate that if
the agreement were not implemented, significant efficiency gains would not be realized
3. Compulsory Notification For mergers or acquisitions where value exceeds 1 billion
- Section 16. Review of Mergers and Acquisitions. — The Commission shall have the power to review
mergers and acquisitions based on factors deemed relevant by the Commission.
 
-Section 17. Compulsory Notification. – Parties to the merger or acquisition agreement referred to in the
preceding section wherein the value of the transaction exceeds one billion pesos (P1,000,000,000.00)
are prohibited from consummating their agreement until thirty (30) days after providing notification to
the Commission in the form and containing the information specified in the regulations issued by the
Commission: Provided, That the Commission shall promulgate other criteria, such as increased market
share in the relevant market in excess of minimum thresholds, that may be applied specifically to a
sector, or across some or all sectors, in determining whether parties to a merger or acquisition shall
notify the Commission under this Chapter.
 First of all, the Act stipulates mandatory notification of the M&As with transaction value over
PhP1 Billion to the Commission prior to the merger or acquisition. The presumption is that
anything below that would be unlikely to endow a firm with substantial market power. In theory, a
market share threshold is preferred
 
An agreement consummated in violation of this requirement to notify the Commission shall be
considered void and subject the parties to an administrative fine of one percent (1%) to five percent
(5%) of the value of the transaction.
 
Should the Commission deem it necessary, it may request further information that are reasonably
necessary and directly relevant to the prohibition under Section 20 hereof from the parties to the
agreement before the expiration of the thirty (30)-day period referred. The issuance of such a request
has the effect of extending the period within which the agreement may not be consummated for an
additional sixty (60) days, beginning on the day after the request for information is received by the
parties: Provided, That, in no case shall the total period for review by the Commission of the subject
agreement exceed ninety (90) days from initial notification by the parties.
 
When the above periods have expired and no decision has been promulgated for whatever reason, the
merger or acquisition shall be deemed approved and the parties may proceed to implement or
consummate it. All notices, documents and information provided to or emanating from the Commission
under this section shall be subject to confidentiality rule under Section 34 of this Act except when the
release of information contained therein is with the consent of the notifying entity or is mandatorily
required to be disclosed by law or by a valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or of a
government or regulatory agency, including an exchange.
 
In the case of the merger or acquisition of banks, banking institutions, building and loan associations,
trust companies, insurance companies, public utilities, educational institutions and other special
corporations governed by special laws, a favorable or no-objection ruling by the Commission shall not be
construed as dispensing of the requirement for a favorable recommendation by the appropriate
government agency under Section 79 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines.
 
A favorable recommendation by a governmental agency with a competition mandate shall give rise to a
disputable presumption that the proposed merger or acquisition is not violative of this Act.
 
Section 18. Effect of Notification. — If within the relevant periods stipulated in the preceding section,
the Commission determines that such agreement is prohibited under Section 20 and does not qualify for
exemption under Section 21 of this Chapter, the Commission may:
 
(a) Prohibit the implementation of the agreement;
 
(b) Prohibit the implementation of the agreement unless and until it is modified by changes specified by
the Commission.
 
(c) Prohibit the implementation of the agreement unless and until the pertinent party or parties enter
into legally enforceable agreements specified by the Commission.
 Note: Prohibited M&As are those M&As that would “substantially prevent, restrict or lessen
competition in the Philippines in the relevant market or in the market for goods or services”.
(Section 9. Prohibited mergers and acquisitions). Exemptions from prohibited M&As are allowed
on the grounds that there are efficiency (and welfare) gains offsetting impact of lessening
competition. (Section 10)
 
Section 23. Finality of Ridings on Mergers and Acquisitions. – Merger or acquisition agreements that
have received a favorable ruling from the Commission, except when such ruling was obtained on the
basis of fraud or false material information, may not be challenged under this Act.
 
Administrative Fines
- Section 29. Administrative Penalties. –
 
(a) Administrative Fines. – In any investigation under Chapter III, Sections 14 and 15, and Chapter IV,
Sections 17 and 20 of this Act, after due notice and hearing, the Commission may impose the following
schedule of administrative fines on any entity found to have violated the said sections:
 
First offense: Fine of up to one hundred million pesos (P100,000,000.00);
 
Second offense: Fine of not less than one hundred million pesos (P100,000,000.00) but not more than
two hundred fifty million pesos (P250,000,000.00).
 
In fixing the amount of the fine, the Commission shall have regard to both the gravity and the duration
of the violation.
 
(b) Failure to Comply With an Order of the Commission. – An entity which fails or refuses to comply with
a ruling, order or decision issued by the Commission shall pay a penalty of not less than fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) up to two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) for each violation and a similar amount of
penalty for each day thereafter until the said entity fully complies. Provided that these fines shall only
accrue daily beginning forty-five (45) days from the time that the said decision, order or ruling was
received.
 
(c) Supply of Incorrect or Misleading Information. – The Commission may likewise impose upon any
entity fines of up to one million pesos (PI,000,000.00) where, intentionally or negligently, they supply
incorrect or misleading information in any document, application or other paper filed with or submitted
to the Commission or supply incorrect or misleading information in an application for a binding ruling, a
proposal for a consent judgment, proceedings relating to a show cause order, or application for
modification of the Commission’s ruling, order or approval, as the case may be.
 
(d) Any other violations not specifically penalized under the relevant provisions of this Act shall be
penalized by a fine of not less than fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) up to two million pesos
(P2,000,000.00).
 
Provided that the schedule of fines indicated in this section shall be increased by the Commission every
five (5) years to maintain their real value from the time it was set.
 
Leniency Program
Section 35. Leniency Program. – The Commission shall develop a Leniency Program to be granted to any
entity in the form of immunity from suit or reduction of any fine which would otherwise be imposed on
a participant in an anti-competitive agreement as provided in Section 14(a) and 14(b) of this Act in
exchange for the voluntary disclosure of information regarding such an agreement which satisfies
specific criteria prior to or during the fact-finding or preliminary inquiry stage of the case.
 
Immunity from suit will be granted to an entity reporting illegal anti-competitive activity before a fact-
finding or preliminary inquiry has begun if the following conditions are met:
 
(a) At the time the entity comes forward, the Commission has not received information about the
activity from any other source;
 
(b) Upon the entity’s discovery of illegal activity, it took prompt and effective action to terminate its
participation therein;
 
(c) The entity reports the wrongdoing with candor and completeness and provides full, continuing, and
complete cooperation throughout the investigation; and
 
(d) The entity did not coerce another party to participate in the activity and clearly was not the leader in,
or the originator of, the activity.
 
Even after the Commission has received information about the illegal activity after a fact-finding or
preliminary inquiry has commenced, the reporting entity will be granted leniency, provided preceding
conditions (b) and (c) and the following additional requirements are complied with:
 
(1) The entity is the first to come forward and qualify for leniency;
 
(2) At the time the entity comes forward, the Commission does not have evidence against the entity that
is likely to result in a sustainable conviction; and
 
(3) The Commission determines that granting leniency would not be unfair to others.
 
Such program shall include the immunity from any suit or charge of affected parties and third parties,
exemption, waiver, or gradation of fines and/or penalties giving precedence to the entity submitting
such evidence. An entity cooperating or furnishing information, document or data to the Commission in
connection to an investigation being conducted shall not be subjected to any form of reprisal or
discrimination. Such reprisal or discrimination shall be considered a violation of this Act subject to the
sanctions provided in this Act.
 
Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution for entities that report to the Commission false,
misleading, or malicious information, data or documents damaging to the business or integrity of the
entities under inquiry as a violation of said section. An entity found to have reported false, misleading or
malicious information, data, or document may be penalized by a fine not less than the penalty imposed
in the section reported to have been violated by the entity complained of.
 
The DOJ-OFC may likewise grant leniency or immunity as provided in this section in the event that there
is already a preliminary investigation pending before it.
 
Theory of law in penalizing monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade
- competition not combination should be the law of the trade
 
Property is forfeited in favor of the Government
- Any property possessed under any contract or combination contemplated in this article, shall be
forfeited to the government (par. 3, Art. 186)
 Manufacturer, producer, or processor or importer combining, conspiring or agreeing with any
person to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of
merchandise.
 Elements
1. Manufacturer, producer, processor or importer of any merchandise or object of commerce;
2. Combines, conspires or agrees with any person;
 3. Purpose is to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price
of any merchandise or object of commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assembled or
imported into the Philippines.
 
Mere conspiracy or combination is punished
- law intends to punish mere conspiracy or combination
 
If the offense affects any food or substance or other article of prime necessity, it is sufficient that
initial steps are taken
 If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food substance, motor fuel or lubricants, or
other articles of prime necessity, the penalty shall be that of prision mayor in its maximum and
medium periods it being sufficient for the imposition thereof that the initial steps have been taken
toward carrying out the purposes of the combination. (186)
 
When offense is committed by a corporation or association the officers, directors, or managerial
employees are liable
- knowing and willfully (section 30)
 
 

CPI case digests

Wednesday, March 9, 2022
3:59 PM
 
Pangan v. Gatbalite
 
Facts:
Petitioner Pangan was convicted by final judgment and was sentenced to serve a penalty of
two months and one day of arresto mayor. But since the promulgation of the decision until
his arrest that had happened after nine years from the promulgation, he was in hiding.
Petitioner argues that the detention was illegal because the penalty imposed which has a
prescriptive period of 5 years has already prescribed. However, the RTC upheld the
detention for the reason that the essential element of evasion of service was not present
because such presupposes escaping during the service of the sentence consisting in
deprivation of liberty. But petitioner disagrees because if that were the intention of the law,
then the phrase "should evade the service of sentence" in Article 93 would have read:
"should escape during the service of the sentence consisting in deprivation of liberty."
 
Issue: Should the Petitioner be given the benefit of article 93?
 
Held: No. consistent with case law the phrase should evade the service of sentence" in
Article 93 should be supplied with the definition of evasion of service in sentence in article
157 which is "by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment."
Escaping could only mean "unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody." In
the instant case, petitioner was never brought to prison. He is therefore not entitled to
prescription.
 
Bustillo v. Sandiganbayan
 

Facts:
Petitioner Bustillo, who is a mayor of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, is charged with violation of
article par. 2 of art. 171 of the RPC. He conspired with his daughter when they made it
appear in the vouchers that funds worth 300,000 where used to purchase a lumber from
Estigoy Lumber but said funds were actually used to purchase from Rowena Woodcraft
(owned by Rowena Bustillo). Petitioner contends that the Information filed against him and
his co-accused is invalid because it failed to allege the element of gain, the party benefited
or prejudiced by the falsification, or that the "integrity of the [falsified] document was
tarnished." Petitioner next contends that he was illegally suspended from office because the
offense of falsification of official documents is found in Title 4, Book II and not in Title 7,
Book II of the RPC. Petitioner further asserts that this offense does not involve "fraud or
property."

Issue: Whether the element of gain is essential in convicting someone for the crime of
falsification of official documents

Held: No. element of gain is not essential in the crime of falsification of documents.
paragraph 2 of Article 171 makes it punishable for anyone to " [cause] it to appear that
persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate."
the mere fact that the accused allegedly made it appear that Estigoy Lumber delivered the
pieces of lumber to the municipality of Bunawan when it did not, makes him already liable.

Issue: Whether falsification of official documents is covered under RA 3019

Held: Yes. Par. 4 of section 13 covers fraud upon government. And Fraud, as used in
Section 13, is understood in its generic sense, that is, referring to "an instance or an act of
trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation." the charge in the
information which alleges that petitioner made it appear in the vouchers that funds were
used to purchase from estigoy lumber when in fact the purchase was made from rowena
woodcraft already clearly makes fall under par. 4.

 
Bartolo v. Sandiganbayan
 
Facts
Petitioners here and other public officers of DPWH were charged with falsification of public
documents under par. 4 of 171. They falsified Statement of Time Elapsed and Work
Accomplished, Inspection Report for Final Acceptance and Certificate of Acceptance, which
they prepared for flood control, pumping station and drainage projects to make it appear
that these projects were already completed but in fact they were not. They failed to disclose
despite legal obligation to do so, thereby perverting the truth to the damage and prejudice
of the public interest. Petitioners primarily argue that the assailed resolutions were
erroneously issued because the offense of falsification of public documents does not fall
within the purview of Section 13 of Rep. Act No. 3019. Petitioners also argue that their
certification in the Statement of Time Elapsed and Work Accomplished does not constitute a
narration of facts as contemplated under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code since the
said statement merely consisted of a table of figures and numbers19
 
Issue: Whether the crime of falsification of public documents is covered under RA 3019
 
Held: The contentions raised by the petitioners are nothing new. in the case of Bustillo v.
Sandiganbayan, the SC held that "the term fraud as used in Section 13 of Rep. Act No. 3019
is understood in its generic sense, which is, referring to an instance or an act of trickery or
deceit especially when involving misrepresentation. it was on the basis of such false
representation that the government was defrauded or suffered loss because it paid Toyo-
Ebara Joint Venture ₱1,499,111,805.63, the full amount corresponding to the project
despite the non-construction of the 320-m parapet wall on the right bank of Estero De
Sunog Apog.
 
Issue: whether their certification of Statement of Time elapsed and work accomplished does
not constitute narration of facts under 171 (4)
 
Held: Yes. the use of words or figures or numbers or any combination of two or three of said
things, as long as it describes an event or occurrence is sufficient to make a "narration of
facts" as defined under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code. In this case, it is evident
that the questioned statement qualifies as a "narration of facts" as defined under Article
171(4) of the
Revised Penal Code because a reading thereof reveals that not only figures and numbers, as
asserted by the petitioners, but also words were used therein giving an account of the
status of the flood control project.
 
Corpuz v. People
 
Facts:
Petitioner Amado Corpuz who is a mayor of the municiaplity of cuyapo, nueva ecija was
charged with two counts of Falsification of Public Document under Article 171, Paragraph 4
for allegedly stating in the marriage certificates of two couples, married in different
occasions, that he personally solemnized their weddings when in fact it was thelmo Corpuz,
the municipal registrar, who did the solemnization — and who also pleaded guilty for the
crime of usurpation of authority for solemnizing the said marriages without authority to do
so. Aside from Thelmo Corpuz, the witnesses who personally witnessed such event were
photographers of the weddings and one principal sponsor of one of the weddings. Petitioner
contends that he was really the one who solemnized the wedding and that this was
confirmed by the two couples. According Thelmo corpuz was merely facilitating the marriage
counseling and taught them how to act during the actual ceremony before going to the
mayor's office.
 
Issue: Is petitioner guilty for falsification of public document under article 171 par. 4?
 
Held: No. As to the first element, petitioner is indeed a public officer. With regards to the
second element of taking advantage of official position, petitioner is authorized by law to
solemnize marriages and has the legal duty to prepare the marriage certificate and attest to
the truth of the facts narrated thereof. However, as regards to the third element, Supreme
court found that the narration facts in the marriage certificate were not false. The evidence
and testimonies of the prosecution only shows the fact that the couples appeared before
thelmo corpuz for the sole purpose of receiving marriage counselling and marriage
rehearsals, nothing more. The supreme court also doubted the credibility of the witnesses
because: first, it was Arsenio who prepared the judicial affidavits. Second, the son of
Thelmo was separated from the government and sided with petitioner's political rival. Third,
Thelmo Corpuz and his son persuaded Felicisima Almonte to vote for petitioner's opponent.
 
Chua v. People
 
Facts:
Petitioner Richard Chua was charged with Estafa thru falsification of commercial documents.
Petitioner is a general clerk of allied banking corporation tasked to process trust receipts,
accept trust receipt payments and issue the corresponding receipts for these payments. The
internal audit of the bank found two of the twenty-nine (29) fictitious payments backed by
equally bogus foreign remittances went to the Savings Account which is under chua's name.
in order to cover his scheme he issued debit tickets to cover up the subject amounts to his
account. RTC found him guilty of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents. But
the CA him a liable only for falsification of commercial documents since he is a general
clerk and did not acquire official custody over such documents. Although the CA held that he
may not be the author of the falsified commercial documents but he allegedly benefited
from them. It is an established rule that when it is proved that a person has in his
possession a falsified document and makes use of the same, the presumption or inference is
justified that such person is the forger. According to Chua, the CA was merely speculating
when it held that he was the author of the falsified commercial documents because he
allegedly benefited from them. He further argues that the prosecution "failed to show other
facts and circumstances that would prove he is guilty of the crime.
Held:
Regarding evidence concerning his guilt, the Inward Foreign Remittance Advices of Credit
which were used to transfer the excess payments made to the appellant’s account in the
guise of remittances, were fictitious since there were really no Linda Castro or Amado Roque
who sent the same.
 
The absence of a direct proof that Chua was the author of the falsification is of no moment
for the rule remains that whenever someone has in his possession falsified documents and
"uttered" or used the same for his advantage and benefit, the presumption that he authored
it arises.
 
The elements of the crime as found in paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC were present
here. First, chua is a private individual. Second, chua committed an act of falsification
defined in par. 2 of 171 by making it appear that two clients paid the discrepancy. Third, the
falsification was committed in two commercial documents, namely, "inward foreign
remittance advice of credit" and the "debit tickets."
 
Vda. Del Prado, et. al. vs. People,
 
Facts:
Petitioners here were charged with violation of article 172 in relation to par. 4 of 171
Petitioners Norma, Eulogia and Rodelia together with their co-heir Corazon Del-Prado Lim
executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement of the estate of rafael del Prado who was their
late father. Before petitioner notary public Loreto, the signed a deed of succession covering
the distribution of a parcel of land. Corazon, however, later discovered that her right over
the subject parcel of land was never registered by Norma, contrary to the latter’s
undertaking. The petitioners instead executed on a Deed of Succession wherein they,
together with Rafael, Jr. and Antonio, partitioned and adjudicated unto themselves. When
Corazon discovered this, she filed a criminal complaint against now petitioners. MTC, RTC
and CA held that petitioners were guilt of falsification. the petitioners here invoke the
existence and contents of the several documents including the deed of extrajudicial
partition of the estate confirmation of subdivision, deed of exchange and petition in the
guardianship proceedings in which they claim to have indicated and confirmed that Corazon
is also an heir of the late Rafael.
 
Held:
Supreme court is not a trier of facts. SC found no cogent reason to reverse the CA decision
appealed from, considering that the elements of the crime of falsification under Art. 171,
par. 4 (Making untruthful statements in the narration of facts) of the Revised Penal Code, in
relation to Art. 172 thereof, were duly proved during the proceedings below. The first and
third elements, namely —untruthful narration of facts in a document and absolute falsity of
such — were committed by the exclusion of Corazon in the subject deed of succession.
Regarding the second element, the obligation of the petitioners to speak only the truth in
their deed of succession is clear, taking into account the very nature of the document
falsified.
 
 
 
 

CPI special laws

Friday, March 18, 2022
7:51 PM
Ramirez v. CA
 
- private communication| connotes the act of sharing
 
Definition:
Section 4 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
 
“SEC. 4. Money Laundering Offense. – Money laundering is committed by any person who, knowing that
any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful
activity:
 
“(a) transacts said monetary instrument or property;
 
“(b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses said monetary instrument or
property;
 
“(c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership of or
rights with respect to said monetary instrument or property;
 
“(d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);
 
“(e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the money laundering offenses referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above; and
 
“(f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money
laundering referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.
 
“Money laundering is also committed by any covered person who, knowing that a covered or suspicious
transaction is required under this Act to be reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails
to do so.”
 
Bar Questions:
1. No.X. Name at least five predicate crimes to money laundering. (5%)
 
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any five of the following are predicate crimes to money laundering: (1) Kidnapping for ransom under
Article 267 of Act No.3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, as amended; (2) Sections
3,4,5,7,8 and 9 of Article Two of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972; (3) Section 3 paragraphs B,C,E,G,H and I of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended;
otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act; (4) Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080,
as amended; (5) Robbery and extortion under Articles 294,295,296,299,300,301 and 302 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended; (6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal gambling under Presidential Decree
No. 1602; (7) Piracy on the high seas under the Revised Penal Code, as amended and Presidential Decree
No. 532; (8) Qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; (9) Swindling
under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. (9) Swindling under 315 of the Revised Penal
code, as amended; (10) Smuggling under Republic Act Nos. 455 and 1937 (11) Violations under Republic
Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (12) Hijacking and other
violations under Republic Act No 6235;destructive arson and murder, as defined under the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, including those perpetrated by terrorist against non-combatant persons and
similar targets; (13) Fraudulent practices and other violations under Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise
known as the securities Regulation Code of 2000 (14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature those are
punishable under the penal laws of other countries. (Sec 3, Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001).
 
"Section 3. Definitions. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms are hereby defined as follows:
 
"(a) Covered persons', natural or juridical refer to:
 
"(1) x x x;
 
"(9) Real estate developers and brokers;
 
"(10) Offshore gaming operation, as well as their service providers, supervised, accredited or regulated
by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) or any government agency;
 
"(b) 'Covered transactions' is a transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a
total amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) within one (1) banking day; for
covered persons under Section 3(a)(8), a single casino cash transaction involving an amount in excess of
Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) or its equivalent in any other currency.
 
"For covered persons under Section 3(a)(9) herein, a single cash transaction involving an amount in
excess of Seven million five hundred thousand pesos (P7,500,000.00) or its equivalent in any other
currency.
 
"(b-1) 'Suspicious transactions' are transactions with covered persons, 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 the Act
 
"5. Any circumstance relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the profile of the
client and/or the client's past transactions with the covered person;
 
"6. The transaction is in any way related to an unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is about to
be, is being or has been committed; or
 
"7. Any transaction that is similar or analogous to any of the foregoing.
 
 
2. Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He opened an account in
the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to P1 Million.
From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay
clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don
Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng
operations.
 
What crime/s were committed?
 
Who are criminally liable? Explain. (6%)
 
3. Rudy is jobless but is reputed to be a jueteng operator. He has never been charged or convicted of
any crime. He maintains several bank accounts and has purchased 5 houses and lots for his children
from the Luansing Realty I Inc. Since he does not have any visible job, the company reported his
purchases to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). Thereafter, AMLC charged him with violation
of the Anti-Money Laundering Law. Upon request of the AMLC, the bank disclosed to it Rudy's bank
deposits amounting to P100 Million. Subsequently, he was charged in court for violation of the Anti-
Money Laundering Law.
 
Can Rudy move to dismiss the case on the ground that he has no criminal record? 2.5%
 
To raise funds for his defense, Rudy sold the houses and lots to a friend. Can Luansing Realty, Inc. be
compelled to transfer to the buyer ownership of the houses and lots? 2.5%
 
In disclosing Rudy's bank accout:)ts to the AMLC, did the bank violate any law? 2.5%
 
Supposing the titles of the houses and lots are in possession of the Luansing Realty I Inc., is it under
obligation to deliver the titles to Rudy? 2.5%
 
 
 

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs ACt

Wednesday, March 23, 2022
9:03 AM
Acts Punished
1. Importation
2. Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs;
3. Manufacture
4. Manufacture or delivery of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia
5. Failure to maintain and keep original records of transactions
 
Re: Drug den, dive or resort
1. Maintenance
2. equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
3. dangerous drugs during social gatherings, parties or meetings
4. equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs for
social gatherings, parties or meetings
 
Re: Prescription
1. Unnecessary prescription of prohibited drugs;
2. Unlawful prescription of prohibited drugs;
 
Others:
1. Possession or use of prohibited drugs;
2. Cultivation of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs;
3. Illegal chemical diversion of controlled precursors and essential chemicals
 
Dangerous drugs
- Dangerous Drugs. – Include those listed in the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, and in the Schedules
annexed to the 1971 Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in
the attached annex which is an integral part of this Act. Section 3 and 11
 Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the
following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine
(PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma
hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced
drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated
by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
  
Illegal trafficking
- The illegal cultivation, culture, delivery, administration, dispensation, manufacture,
sale, trading, transportation, distribution, importation, exportation and possession of any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical
 
Illegal importation (Section 4)
- any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines
any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity and purity involved, including any and all
species of opium poppy or any part thereof or substances derived therefrom even for
floral, decorative and culinary purposes.
- any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall import any controlled precursor and
essential chemical.
- maximum penalty for|
 any person, who, unless authorized under this Act, shall import or bring into
the Philippines any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical through the use of a diplomatic passport, diplomatic facilities or any other
means involving his/her official status intended to facilitate the unlawful entry of the
same. In addition, the diplomatic passport shall be confiscated and canceled.
 any person, who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the
illegal activities prescribed in this Section
 12 years and 1 day for| any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any
violator of the provisions under this Section
 
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution
and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals
- any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous
drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions
- any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled
precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
 
Sale
– Any act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical whether for money or any other consideration.
 
 Elements of Sale under section 5
1. identity of buyer and the seller, the object of sale and its consideration
2. the delivery of the thing sold and payment thereof
--> offer is accepted by the accused and the crime is consummated by mere delivery
 
 Establishing identity of the subject drug requisites
1. the examination of subject drug must yield positive for DD
2. the DD must be offered in evidence
3. the drug confiscated from or delivered by the accused and submitted for examination
is the same drug presented in court
 
 Establishing identity
1. Rule on chain of Custody
2. Requirements on inventory and Photography
 
The DD is the very corpus delicti of the crime
Penalty for Sale is not dependent on quantity involved
- life imprisonment or death
 
Trading
- Transactions involving the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals using electronic devices such as, but not limited to,
text messages, email, mobile or landlines, two-way radios, internet, instant messengers
and chat rooms or acting as a broker in any of such transactions whether for money or
any other consideration in violation of this Act.
 
Administration
- Any act of introducing any dangerous drug into the body of any person, with or without
his/her knowledge, by injection, inhalation, ingestion or other means, or of committing
any act of indispensable assistance to a person in administering a dangerous drug to
himself/herself unless administered by a duly licensed practitioner for purposes of
medication.
 
Dispense
- Any act of giving away, selling or distributing medicine or any dangerous drug with or
without the use of prescription
 
Deliver
-Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and
by any means, with or without consideration.
 Elements
1. accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or
otherwise and by any means
2. Such delivery is not authorized by law
3. accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration
- proof of payment not necessary
 
Manufacture
- The production, preparation, compounding or processing of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical, either directly or indirectly or by extraction
from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by
a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and shall include any packaging or
repackaging of such substances, design or configuration of its form, or labeling or
relabeling of its container; except that such terms do not include the preparation,
compounding, packaging or labeling of a drug or other substances by a duly authorized
practitioner as an incident to his/her administration or dispensation of such drug or
substance in the course of his/her professional practice including research, teaching and
chemical analysis of dangerous drugs or such substances that are not intended for sale or
for any other purpose
- any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any
dangerous drug.
 
Prima Facie Proof of manufacture of any dangerous drug
- The presence of any controlled precursor and essential chemical or laboratory
equipment in the clandestine laboratory is a prima facie proof of manufacture of any
dangerous drug. It shall be considered an aggravating circumstance if the clandestine
laboratory is undertaken or established under the following circumstances:
 (a) Any phase of the manufacturing process was conducted in the presence or with the
help of minor/s:
(b) Any phase or manufacturing process was established or undertaken within one
hundred (100) meters of a residential, business, church or school premises;
(c) Any clandestine laboratory was secured or protected with booby traps;
(d) Any clandestine laboratory was concealed with legitimate business operations; or
(e) Any employment of a practitioner, chemical engineer, public official or foreigner.
- Clandestine Laboratory. – Any facility used for the illegal manufacture of any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical
 
Illegal Possession
- any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control
any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous
drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various
professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary
implementing guidelines thereof
 
 Elements of illegal possession
1. accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug
2. Such possession is not authorized by law
3. accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug
 
 elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs are
1. Possession or control of the accused by any equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body
2. Such possession is not authorized by law
 
Illegal Possession is necessarily included in illegal sale, trading, administration,
dispensation, delivery distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs
 
Criminal intent is not an essential element
- mala prohibita
 Prosecution however must prove that there was intent to possess
- possessor acted with intelligence and knowledge
o Kids or idiots cannot possess or acquire complete possession
-actual possession| in the immediate possession or control
- constructive possession| drug is under the dominion and control over the place where it
is found
 Exclusive control or possession not necessary
 Accused can't be convicted where his dominion and control over the place
where the contraband was located is shared with another
 
Animus possidendi
- mere possession constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of satisfactory explanation
 
Examples of lack of intent to possess
- wife was ordered to thrown a can beneath a pillow that contained opium
- person had no knowledge of the drugs within his premises. It was under the control and
supervision of someone and the fact that many employees occupied such premises
afforded every opportunity to conceal the opium
 
Illegal possession of prohibited drugs during social gatherings is more severely
punished
- maximum penalty
- at least two persons
 
What the law punishes is present possession of dangerous drugs
- stains of opium in a shirt| past possession
 
Shall possess
- not limited to manual touch or personal custody
- includes a principal acting through an agent
 A boat man carried a sack with opium without knowledge can't be held liable
- a relation between owner and the drug| need not be in actual possession of it; also
includes control and management and subject to his disposition
 
Patent Medicine containing opium
- only for unauthorized use
- there must be prescription
- innocent purchase not guilty
 
Possession of opium on board a vessel is punishable when a Philippine port is
its destination
- does not apply when a vessel is in transit
 
Drug Den Dive or Resort
- A place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is
administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or used in any form
- committed upon:
1. any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any
dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.
2. any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive, or resort where any
controlled precursor and essential chemical is used or sold in any form.
 
Persons liable:
1. Person maintaining a drug den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used or
sold
2. Employee of a den, dive, or resort who is aware of the nature of the place as such
3. Visitor of a den dive or resort who is aware of the nature of the place as such
 
Maintenance of a drug den dive or resort elements
1. The place is a den - A place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor
and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed,
sold or used in any form.
2. The accused maintains the said place
- existence may be proved not only by direct evidence but facts and circumstances
including evidence of the general reputation of the house or its general reputation among
police officers
 
Employee of den dive or resort
- The caretaker, helper, watchman, lookout, and other persons working in the den, dive
or resort, employed by the maintainer, owner and/or operator where any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, distributed,
sold or used, with or without compensation, in connection with the operation thereo
 
Visitor who knowingly visits a drug den dive or resort
- must be shown that he knew the place was a drug den and still visited the place
- prosecution must prove this
- the mere fact that they tested positive does not mean they were aware of the nature of
the suspected drug den
 In the absence of evidence where there were no person using selling or
buying illegal drugs nor packaging nor hiding nor transporting the same
A person who visited another who was smoking opium is not liable if the place
is not a drug den dive or resort
 
USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
Use| Any act of injecting, intravenously or intramuscularly, of consuming, either by
chewing, smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing, drinking or otherwise introducing into the
physiological system of the body, and of the dangerous drugs
 
Prima facie evidence of use
- The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or
intended for any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima
facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to
himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to
have violated Section 15 of this Act.
 
If use and possession co-exist, the penalty for possession shall be imposed
 
Drug trafficking is punished more harshly than drug use
- user given the chance to mend their ways; victims
- traffickers are victimizers
 Life imprisonment to death
 
Use of drugs is a qualifying aggravating circumstances in the commission of a
crime
- Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use
of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a
crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal
Code shall be applicable
 
Prescription of dangerous drugs
 
1. Unnecessary prescription of Dangerous drugs
- committed by a practitioner who shall prescribe any dangerous drug to any person
whose physical or physiological condition does not require the use or in the
dosage prescribed therein, as determined by the Board in consultation with recognized
competent experts who are authorized representatives of professional organizations of
practitioners, particularly those who are involved in the care of persons with severe pain.
- practitioner| Any person who is a licensed physician, dentist, chemist, medical
technologist, nurse, midwife, veterinarian or pharmacist in the Philippines.
 
2. Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs
- any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall make or issue a prescription or any
other writing purporting to be a prescription for any dangerous drug.
 
Cultivation and Culture
- Any act of knowingly planting, growing, raising, or permitting the planting, growing or
raising of any plant which is the source of a dangerous drug.
- committed by any person, who shall plant, cultivate or culture marijuana, opium poppy
or any other plant regardless of quantity, which is or may hereafter be classified as a
dangerous drug or as a source from which any dangerous drug may be manufactured or
derived
- a person who failed to adequately explain his presence at the planation teeming with
fully grown marijuana plants is guilty of illegal cultivation and culture
 
Chemical Diversion
- The sale, distribution, supply or transport of legitimately imported, in-transit,
manufactured or procured controlled precursors and essential chemicals, in diluted,
mixtures or in concentrated form, to any person or entity engaged in the manufacture of
any dangerous drug, and shall include packaging, repackaging, labeling, relabeling or
concealment of such transaction through fraud, destruction of documents, fraudulent use
of permits, misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail fraud.
- committed by any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall illegally divert any
controlled precursor and essential chemical.
 
Buy Bust Operation
- a form of entrapment
- the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or
prodding him to commit the offense
 Its opposite is instigation or inducement where the police or its agent lures
the accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him
 
Objective test in buy-bust operation
- initial contact, the offer to purchase and the promise or payment of the consideration
 
Chains of custody requirement
- "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition
- links to be established:
1. seizure and marking, if practicable of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer
2. turnover of the illegal drugs seized by the AF to the investigating officer
3. The turnover by the IF of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination
4. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist
to the court
- when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated is the same specimen
examined and established to be prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal
possession of a prohibited drug
  
Required Procedure in seizure and custody of drugs
Section 21
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to
the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done
under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24)
hours after the receipt of the subject item/s
- Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's
unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable and easily open to
tampering alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise
 
Marking of Seized Evidence
- the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and
signature on the item/s seized
- where to conduct physical inventory and photograph
1. Seizures covered by search warrants
- the place where SW was served
2. warrantless arrest
- nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team whichever is
practicable
 Can still do it at the place where the items were seized
-marking must be done:
1. in the presence of the apprehended violator
2. immediately upon confiscation
 
Procedure in marking and sealing seized or confiscated substance
-after seizing, must place his marking on its plastic container and seal the same with
adhesive tape
- if not in a plastic container, should place it in one
- chemist should place his mark on the plastic container and seal it again
- if sealing is not made, prosecution would have to present the entire chain of custody
 
Summary:
1. The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph at
the place at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures
 - immediately after seizure and confiscation in People v. Tomawis|
 
2. the physical inventory and photograph taking should be made in the presence of the
following:
a. the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
 b. any elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service
c. OR a representative from the media
--> who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof
- people v. tomawis| witnesses must be present at the time of apprehension and
during inventory
 
3. witnesses should sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof
 
4. the seized substance should be placed in a plastic container and the apprehending
officer should place his marking in the container and seal the same with a seal, e.g.
adhesive tape, that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container
 
5. the marked evidence must then be turned over by the PDEA forensic laboratory
examination within 24 hours from confiscation
 
6. After testing of the seized substance in the crime laboratory the forensic chemist
should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a new seal
 
7. the forensic chemist should turn-over and submit the marked illegal drug to the court
 
Non-compliance with Section 21
- prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized
have been preserved
 Must recognize and explain every lapse or lapses in the prescribed procedure
 
Non-compliance with the three-witness rule when justified
1. attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area
2. their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened
by an immediate retaliatory action
3. The elected officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to
be apprehended
4. earnest efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses required under
article 125 proved futile through no fault of the arresting officers who face the threat of
being charged with arbitrary detention
5. time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations which often rely on tips of
confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the
required witnesses
 
- People v. Tomawis
 Any deviation in the mandatory procedure must be satisfactorily justified by
the buy-bust team. Under Section 21 of the IRR, the Court may allow deviation
from the procedure only where the following requisites are present:
(1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict
compliance; and
(2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending team.
 
Failure to turn-over to laboratory within 24 hours from seizure
- must identify its custodian and the latter must be called to testify.
 State security measures in place to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
value of the confiscated items
  
Mandatory Policy regarding compliance with requirements of Section 21 (1)
- to state in their sworn statements their compliance with the requirements of Section 21
or in case of nonobservance of said prohibition, to state the justification therefor and
steps taken to preserve integrity and evidentiary value on seized items
 
Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement
- buy-bust operation is merely a form of in flagrante delicto arrest
 
Other persons liable
1. Financier| Any person who pays for, raises or supplies money for, or underwrites any
of the illegal activities prescribed under this Act
2. Protector/ coddler| Any person who knowingly and willfully consents to the unlawful
acts provided for in this Act and uses his/her influence, power or position in shielding,
harboring, screening or facilitating the escape of any person he/she knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe on or suspects, has violated the provisions of this Act in
order to prevent the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the violator.
 
Penalties for Unlawful acts
- life imprisonment and a fine 500k to 10 million
 Maintainer owner and/or operator of drug den, dive, or resort should any
dangerous drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in
a drug den dive or resort
- life imprisonment
 Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical, regardless of quantity and purity, shall
suffer the penalty of death.
- Planting of Evidence. – The willful act by any person of maliciously and
surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or attaching directly or indirectly, through
any overt or covert act, whatever quantity of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical in the person, house, effects or in the immediate
vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating, incriminating or
imputing the commission of any violation of this Act.
 
Life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from 500,000 to 10,000,000
1. importation
2. any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous
drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
3. manufacturer
4. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs
5. Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs
6. any public officer or employee who misappropriates, misapplies or fails to account for
confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment including the proceeds or properties obtained from the unlawful
acts as provided for in this Act.
 
Imprisonment from 12 years and one day to 20 years and a fine ranging from
100,000 to 500,000
1. importation of controlled precursors and essential elements
2. any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled
precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
3. any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive, or resort where any
controlled precursor and essential chemical is used or sold in any form
4. Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is aware of the nature of the place as
such;
5. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding,
paragraph, is aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same
6. any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any
dangerous drug.
7. any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall illegally divert any controlled
precursor and essential chemical.
8. any person who shall deliver, possess with intent to deliver, or manufacture with
intent to deliver equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs, knowing, or under circumstances where one reasonably should know,
that it will be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture,
compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store,
contain or conceal any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical in violation of this Act.
9. upon the practitioner, who shall prescribe any dangerous drug to any person whose
physical or physiological condition does not require the use or in the dosage prescribed
therein
10. Protector and coddler of:
a. Importer of drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals
b. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals.
c. maintain a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug and/or essential
chemicals are used or sold is used or sold in any form.
d. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals
c. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources
Thereof
 
Maximum penalty imposed
1. any person, who, unless authorized under this Act, shall import or bring into the
Philippines any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical
through the use of a diplomatic passport, diplomatic facilities or any other means
involving his/her official status intended to facilitate the unlawful entry of the same. In
addition, the diplomatic passport shall be confiscated and canceled.
2. If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or
transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical
transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall
be imposed in every case.
3. For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners,
couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous
drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed in every case.
4. in every case where any dangerous drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor
who is allowed to use the same in the drug den or resort
5. any person, who uses a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual to deliver such
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.
 6. If the land involved in cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs is
part of the public domain
7. any person, who uses a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual to deliver
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.
8. Organizer, manager or financier of:
a. Importer of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals
b. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals
c. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug and/or essential
chemicals used or sold in any form
d. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals
e. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources
Thereof.
9. if those found guilty of such unlawful acts are government officials and employees,
aside from perpetual disqualification
 
Imprisonment ranging from one year and one day to six years and a fine
ranging from 10,000 to 50,000
- practitioner, manufacturer, wholesaler, importer, distributor, dealer or retailer who
violates or fails to comply with the maintenance and keeping of the original records of
transactions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical
 
Imprisonment ranging from 6 months and one day to four years and a fine
ranging from 10, to 50,000
- the Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus, and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
if it will be used to inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a
dangerous drug in violation of this Act
 
Penalties for Possession and/or use of dangerous drugs
A. Possession of Dangerous drugs
 The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous
drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine
(PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma
hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and
their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far
beyond therapeutic requirements
 
 Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:
 (1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than
fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine
ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more
but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA,
TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far
beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than
five (hundred) 500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams
of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous
drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or
less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
 
B. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs
 imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years
and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00)
 any person, who shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body,
during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate company of at least
two (2) persons
 
C. Use of dangerous Drugs
- first offense: A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of
any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum
of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense
- second offense: imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve
(12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00):
 
Additional penalties
1. Disqualfication from exercising civil rights
2. cancellation of diplomatic passport
3. confiscation and escheat of property used as drug den dive or resort
4. confiscation and escheat of land where dangerous drugs are cultivated or cultured
5. revocation of license
6. confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the unlawful act
- every penalty enforced for
 unlawful importation, Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution Transportation or manufacture
  - Cultivation or culture of plants
- possession of equipment, instrument, and other paraphernalia
--> proceeds and properties derived from the unlawful act
- money and other assets obtained
- instruments or tools with which the particular unlawful act commiteed unless they
are property of third persons not involved, but those which are not for lawful
commerce shall be ordered destroyed without delay
 Where the guilt of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the
seized items which do not constitute illegal or prohibited drugs cannot be
confiscated and forfeited
7. Disqualification from public office or employee
- any public officer or employee who misappropriates, misapplies or fails to account for
confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment including the proceeds or properties obtained from the unlawful
acts as provided for in this Act.
8. removal and perpetual disqualification
- Any elective local or national official found to have benefited from the proceeds of the
trafficking of dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, or have received any financial or
material contributions or donations from natural or juridical persons found guilty of
trafficking dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, shall be removed from office and
perpetually disqualified from holding any elective or appointive positions in the
government, its divisions, subdivisions, and intermediaries, including government-owned
or –controlled corporations.
 
Drug Traffickers and pushers may not apply for probation
- Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the
penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law
or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.
 
Attempt or conspiracy penalized with the same penalty as consummated act
- Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by
the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act:
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical;
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of
any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical; and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
 
Criminal Liability of Officers of Partnerships, Corporations, Associations or Other
Juridical Entities.
– In case any violation of this Act is committed by a partnership, corporation, association
or any juridical entity, the partner, president, director, manager, trustee, estate
administrator, or officer who consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be
held criminally liable as a co-principal.
 
- The penalty provided for the offense under this Act shall be imposed upon the partner,
president, director, manager, trustee, estate administrator, or officer who knowingly
authorizes, tolerates or consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or
other facility, as an instrument in the importation, sale, trading, administration,
dispensation, delivery, distribution, transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, or
chemical diversion, if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other instrument is
owned by or under the control or supervision of the partnership, corporation, association
or juridical entity to which they are affiliated.
 
Plea Bargaining
Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain

Posession of dangerous drugs where Possession of paraphernalia (section 12)

quantity of shabu, opium, morphine,
heroin, cocaine is less than 5 grams or
quantity of marijuana is less than 300
grams

Posession| dangerous drugs quantity of Posession of dangerous drugs (section 11 par.3)

shabu, opium, morphine, heroin,
cocaine is more than 5 grams but not
exceeding 5 or quantity of marijuana is
300 grams or more but not exceeding
500 (section 11 par.2)

Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Use of dangerous drugs (section 15)

Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs

Sale, trading etc. of shabu or - possession of drug paraphernalia (section 12)

marijuana only (section 5)
 
Note:
1. where the imposable penalty is life imprisonment to death, plea bargaining is not
allowed
2. not allowed under section 5 involving all other kinds of dangerous drugs except shabu
and marijuana
 
Programs for Drug Dependents
1. Voluntary submission
- who may apply:
a. drug dependent or drug user
b. parent
c. spouse
d. relative within the fourth civil degree
e. guardian
 
-Procedure: If the examination by a DOH-accredited physician results in the issuance of a
certification that the applicant is a drug dependent, he/she shall be ordered by the Court
to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a Center designated by the Board for a period
of not less than six (6) months: Provided, That a drug dependent may be placed under
the care of a DOH-accredited physician where there is no Center near or accessible to the
residence of the drug dependent or where said drug dependent is below eighteen (18)
years of age and is a first-time offender and non-confinement in a Center will not pose a
serious danger to his/her family or the community.
 
- Confinement in a Center for treatment and rehabilitation shall not exceed one (1) year,
after which time the Court, as well as the Board, shall be apprised by the head of the
treatment and rehabilitation center of the status of said drug dependent and determine
whether further confinement will be for the welfare of the drug dependent and his/her
family or the community.
 
Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the Voluntary Submission Program.
- A drug dependent under the voluntary submission program, who is finally discharged
from confinement, shall be exempt from the criminal liability under Section 15 of this act
subject to the following conditions:
(1) He/she has complied with the rules and regulations of the center, the applicable rules
and regulations of the Board, including the after-care and follow-up program for at least
eighteen (18) months following temporary discharge from confinement in the Center or,
in the case of a dependent placed under the care of the DOH-accredited physician, the
after-care program and follow-up schedule formulated by the DSWD and approved by the
Board: Provided, That capability-building of local government social workers shall be
undertaken by the DSWD;
(2) He/she has never been charged or convicted of any offense punishable under this
Act, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 or Republic Act No. 6425, as amended; the
Revised Penal Code, as amended; or any special penal laws;
(3) He/she has no record of escape from a Center: Provided, That had he/she escaped,
he/she surrendered by himself/herself or through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or
relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, within one (1) week from
the date of the said escape; and (4) He/she poses no serious danger to himself/herself,
his/her family or the community by his/her exemption from criminal liability.
 
Filing of Charges Against a Drug Dependent Who is Not Rehabilitated Under the
Voluntary Submission Program.
– A drug dependent, who is not rehabilitated after the second commitment to the
Center under the voluntary submission program, shall, upon recommendation of the
Board, be charged for violation of Section 15 of this Act and prosecuted like any other
offender. If convicted, he/she shall be credited for the period of confinement and
rehabilitation in the Center in the service of his/her sentence
 
2. Compulsory confinement
- Subject: A petition for the confinement of a person alleged to be dependent on
dangerous drugs
- Coverage: a person charged with an offense where the imposable penalty is
imprisonment of less than six (6) years and one (1) day
- Who may file: any person authorized by the DDB or the DDB
- where to file: the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where such person is
found
- procedure:
1. If accused is found by the prosecutor or by the court to be drug dependent, the
proceedings shall be suspended and the records forwarded to the Board
2. If public interest requires that such drug dependent be committed to a center for
treatment and rehabilitation, the Board shall file a petition for his/her commitment with
the regional trial court of the province or city where he/she is being investigated or tried
3. The court shall take judicial notice of the prior proceedings in the case and shall
proceed to hear the petition
4. the court shall order the drug dependent to be examined by two (2) physicians
accredited by the Board.
5. If both physicians conclude that the respondent is not a drug dependent, the court
shall order his/her discharge.
6. If either physician finds him to be a dependent, the court shall conduct a hearing and
consider all relevant evidence which may be offered.
7. If the court finds him a drug dependent, it shall issue an order for his/her commitment
to a treatment and rehabilitation center under the supervision of the DOH.
--> In any event, the order of discharge or order of confinement or commitment shall be
issued not later than fifteen (15) days from the filing of the appropriate petition.
 
Credit in the service of sentence
- period he was confined in the center
- if the offense is for illegal drug use and the accused is not a recidivist, the penalty
thereof shall be deemed to have been served in the Center upon his/her release
therefrom after certification by the Center and the Board that he/she is rehabilitated.
 
Prescription of offense shall not run during confinement, treatment or
rehabilitation
- The period of prescription of the offense charged against a drug dependent under the
compulsory submission program shall not run during the time that the drug dependent is
under confinement in a Center or otherwise under the treatment and rehabilitation
program approved by the Board.
- If the Board certifies to his/her complete rehabilitation, the court shall order his/her
final discharge from confinement and order for the immediate resumption of the trial of
the case for which he/she is originally charged.
- A drug dependent committed under this particular Section who is finally discharged
from confinement shall be exempt from criminal liability under Section 15 of this Act,
without prejudice to the outcome of any pending case filed in court. On the other hand, a
drug dependent who is not rehabilitated after a second commitment to the Center shall,
upon conviction by the appropriate court, suffer the same penalties provided for under
Section 15 of this Act again without prejudice to the outcome of any pending case filed in
court.
 
Disposition of Minor Offenders under RA 9344
Criminal responsibility
- A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program
- A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she
has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings
- The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
 
When bail is a matter of right
- no child charged with an offense punishable by RP or life imprisonment shall be
admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong
 Youth detention home or youth rehabilitation center or in the absence thereof,
to the care of a provincial, city or municipal jail with adequate quarters separate
from adults and prisoners of opposite sex
 
Automatic suspension of sentence
1. If the child is found guilty of the offense charged, the court, instead of executing the
judgments of conviction, shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended
sentence, without need of application.
2. Suspension of sentence can be availed of even if the child is already eighteen years
(18) of age or more but not above twenty-one (21) years old, at the time of the
pronouncement of guilt, without prejudice to the child's availing of other benefits such as
probation, if qualified, or adjustment of penalty, in interest of justice.
3. The benefits of the suspended sentence shall not apply to a child in conflict with the
law who has once enjoyed suspension of sentence, but shall nonetheless apply to one
who is convicted of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of Rep. Act No. 9346 prohibiting the
imposition of the death penalty and in lieu thereof, reclusion perpetua, and after
application of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
 
Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law
- Upon the recommendation of the social worker who has custody of the child, the court
shall dismiss the case against the child whose sentence has been suspended and against
whom disposition measures have been issued, and shall order the final discharge of the
child if it finds that the objective of the disposition measures have been fulfilled.
 
- The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not affect the civil liability
resulting from the commission of the offense, which shall be enforced in accordance with
law.
 
Execution of judgment
- If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child
in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has
willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation
program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution
of judgment.
 
Disposition of the child who reaches 18 while under suspended sentence
- If the child in conflict with the law reaches eighteen (18) years of age while under
suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in
accordance with the provisions of Republic Act 9344, or to extend the suspended
sentence for a maximum period of up to the time the child reaches twenty-one (21)
years of age, or to order service of sentence.
 
Credit of service of sentence
- The child in conflict with the law shall be credited in the services of his/her sentence
with the full time spent in actual commitment and detention under this Act.
 
Probation as an alternative to imprisonment
- The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the
law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of
his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child.
 
 
Bar Questions and Answers:
1. 1990| Rodolfo is an informer who told the police authorities that Aldo is a drug pusher.
Policeman Taba then posed as a buyer and persuaded Aldo to sell marijuana worth
P10.00 to the former. Aldo agreed. He delivered the goods and so was apprehended with
the marked money. He is now prosecuted for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
b) Suppose policeman Taba told Aldo that he (Taba) has a supply of marijuana and he
persuaded Aldo to sell it to him because he (Taba) needed the money badly. Aldo
succeeded in selling P20.00 worth of marijuana to Moye, What is the criminal liability of
Aldo if apprehended in the act? Explain.
 Aldo is liable for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA No, 6425, as
amended) in performing the act of selling narcotics.
2. 1993| Manny was apprehended In a buy-bust operation during which one (1) deck of
shabu (methamphetamine hydro-chloride) was delivered by him to the policeman posing
as buyer and another deck of shabu was taken from his pocket after his body was frisked
before he was actually brought to the police precinct. Convicted of violating sections 15
(sale and distribution of regulated drugs] and 16 (possession or use of regulated drugs]
of the Dangerous Drugs Law, he was sentenced to thirty (30) years of life Imprisonment
and payment of a fine of P20,000.00 (for violating sec. 15) and to imprisonment of eight
(8) years and payment of fine of P6,000.00 (for violating sec. 16). He then sought the
reversal of the decision, on the following grounds: First, he could not be convicted of
having violated sec. 15 because he has not yet received the money from the buyer and
the sale is not yet consummated; Second, his conviction under sec. 16 is erroneous
because his possession of shabu Is absorbed in the charge of illegal sale or delivery; and
Third, it is unbelievable that he would sell the confiscated shabu in a sarisari store near
the national road open to the public view and to a stranger. 1) If you were the Solicitor
General, how would you rebut the arguments of the accused? Discuss fully. 2) Give your
comment with regard to the penalties imposed.
 1) Manny is liable. The law provides, "shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or
distribute".
 2) Yes. he is also liable because the shabu taken from his possession or
pocket is different from the shabu he was to deliver to the seller.
 3) As to the third reason, it is not unbelievable because although it is a public
place, this kind of sale can always be clandestinely be made. [People vs. Rey
Bernardino, Jan. 28, 1991) With respect to the penalty imposed, life imprisonment
should not be limited to 30 years; and 8 years is wrong, it should be indeterminate.
(People us. Angeles, because of Eliginio vs. Alvarez (1992)
3. 1998| Superintendent Al Santiago, Chief of the Narcotics Division, Western Police
District, received information that a certain Lee Lay of-No. 8 Tindalo Street, Tondo,
Manila is a member of the 14K Gang selling shabu and marijuana. SPOl Lorenzo and
SPO3 Peralta were instructed to conduct surveillance and buy-bust operations against
Lay. Their informant contacted Lay and a meeting was arranged at T. Pinpin Restaurant
at 2:00 in the afternoon on February 14, 1993. SPO1 Lorenzo and SPO3 Peralta, acting
as poseur-buyers, purchased from Lay 10 sticks of marijuana and paid P500. Later, Lay
agreed to sell to them one kilo of dried marijuana fruiting tops which he gave them at his
residence. The policemen arrested Lay and a search was conducted. Found were 356
grams of marijuana seeds, 932 grams of marijuana fruiting tops and 50 sticks of
marijuana cigarettes. What offense or offenses did Lay commit?
 Lay committed the offenses of illegal selling of dangerous drugs and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs which should be made subject of separate
informations. The crime of illegal selling of dangerous drugs is committed as
regards the 10 sticks of marijuana and as regards the one (1) kilo of dried
marijuana fruiting tops, which should be subject of two (2) separate informations
because the acts were committed at different times and in different places. The
crime of Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is committed as regards the
marijuana seeds, marijuana fruiting tops and marijuana cigarettes which are not the
subject of the sale. Another Information shall be filed for this.
 
4. 2000| ) At about 9 o'clock in the morning, a Narcom Group laid a plan to entrap and
apprehend A, a long suspected drug dealer, through a "buy-bust" operation. At the
appointed time, the poseur-buyer approached A who was then with B. A marked P100 bill
was handed over to A who in turn, gave the poseur-buyer one (1) tea bag of marijuana
leaves. The members of the team, who were then positioned behind thick leaves, closed
in but evidently were not swift enough since A and B were able to run away. Two days
later, A was arrested in connection with another incident. It appears that during the
operations, the police officers were not able to seize the marked money but were able to
get possession of the marijuana tea bag. A was subsequently prosecuted for violation of
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act, During the trial, the marked money was not presented. Can A be held liable?
Explain. (2%)
 Yes. A can be held liable. The absence of the marked money will not create a
hiatus in the prosecution's evidence as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is
adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the
court. There was a perfected contract of sale of the drug (People vs. Ong Co, 245
SCRA 733; People vs. Zervoulakos, 241 SCRA 625)
5. 1998| Edgardo was charged with importation of prohibited drugs in an information
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City on June 4, 1994. The offense is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Can Edgardo avail of plea-bargaining? [2%]
 No, Edgardo cannot avail of plea-bargaining because the imposable penalty
for his violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425. as amended) is
reclusion perpetua to death. Section 20-A expressly provides that plea-bargaining
shall not be allowed where the imposable penalty for the violation of said law is
reclusion perpetua to death. (Sec. 20-A, R.A. No. 6425, as amended).
6. 1996| Pat. Buensuceso, posing as a buyer, approached Ronnie, a suspected drug
pusher, and offered to buy P300 worth of shabu. Ronnie then left, came back five
minutes later and handed Pat, Buensuceso an aluminum foil containing the shabu.
However, before Pat, Buensuceso was able to deliver the marked money to Ronnie, the
latter spotted a policeman at a distance, whom Ronnie knew to be connected with the
Narcotics Command of the Police. Upon seeing the latter, Ronnie ran away but was
arrested thirty minutes later by other policemen who pursued him. Under the
circumstances, would you consider the crime of sale of a prohibited drug already
consummated? Explain.
 Yes, the sale of prohibited drug is already consummated although the marked
money was not yet delivered. When Ronnie handed the aluminum foil containing the
shabu to Pat. Buensuceso pursuant to their agreed sale, the crime was
consummated. Payment of the consideration is not an element of requisite of the
crime. If ever, the marked money is only evidentiary to strengthen the case of the
prosecution.
7. 2002| A and his fiancee B were walking in the plaza when they met a group of
policemen who had earlier been tipped off that A was in possession of prohibited drugs.
Upon seeing the policemen and sensing that they were after him, A handed a sachet
containing shabu to his fiancee B, telling her to hide it in her handbag. The policemen
saw B placing the sachet inside her handbag. If B was unaware that A was a drug user or
pusher or that what was inside the sachet given to her was shabu, is she nonetheless
liable under the Dangerous Drugs Act? (5%)
 No. B will not be criminally liable because she is unaware that A was a drug
user or pusher or of the content of the sachet handed to her by A, and therefore the
criminal intent to possess the drug in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act is
absent. There would be no basis to impute criminal liability to her in the absence of
animus possidendi.
8. 2006| After receiving reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler,
was arriving on PAL Flight NO. PR 181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a
group of anti-drug agents. When Ong arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and
seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the Immigration holding area, the attache
case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took
the attache case and boarded him in an unmarked car driven by PO3 Pepito Lorbes. On
the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White Plains corner EDSA, Chief Inspector
Gamboa ordered PO3 Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in
the trunk and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the car.
Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised
him to keep silent and go home which the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of
agents had been following them and witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief
Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team followed Ong and
likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged. What are their respective criminal
liabilities? (5%)
 Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Pepito Lorbes who conspired in taking the
attache case are liable for the following crimes defined under RA. 9165: a) Sec. 27
for misappropriation or failure to account for the confiscated or seized dangerous
drugs. b) Sec. 4 in relation to Sec. 3(ee) for their acts as protector/coddler of Dante
Ong who imported drugs In addition, by allowing Ong to escape prosecution for
illegal importation or illegal transportation of dangerous drugs, where the penalty is
life imprisonment to death, they are also liable for qualified bribery under Art. 211-
A of the Revised Penal Code. With respect to Dante Ong, he is guilty of illegal
importation of dangerous drugs under Sec. 4, R.A. 9165, if PR 181 is an
international flight. If PR 181 is a domestic flight, he is liable for violation of Sec. 5,
RA. 9165 for illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.
9. Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a "session". Thinking that it was for a
mahjong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio’s house, Anastacio
discovered that it was actually a shabu session. At that precise time, the place was
raided by the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested. What crime can Anastacio
be charged with, if any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
 Anastacio may not be charged of any crime. Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 9165 punishes
employees and visitors of a den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs are used in
any form. However, to be convicted under said provision, the visitor must be aware
of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same. In this case,
Anastacio may not be charged because he is not aware of the nature of the place.
 
10. Maita was the object of Solito’s avid sexual desires. Solito had attempted many times
to entice Maita to a date in bed with him but Maita had consistently refused. Fed up with
all her rejections, Solito abducted Maita into a Toyota Innova and drove off with her to a
green-painted house situated in a desolated part of the town. There, Solito succeeded in
having carnal knowledge of Maita against her will. Meanwhile, the police authorities were
tipped off that at 11:30 p.m. on that same night Solito would be selling marijuana
outside the green-painted house. Acting on the tip, the PNP station of the town formed a
buy-bust team with PO2 Masahol being designated the poseur buyer. During the buy-
bust operation Solito opened the trunk of the Toyota Innova to retrieved the bag of
marijuana to be sold to PO2 Masahol. To cut the laces that he had tied the bag with,
Solito took out a swiss knife, but his doing so prompted PO2 Masahol to effect his
immediate arrest out of fear that he would attack him with the knife. PO2 Masahol then
confiscated the bag of marijuana as well as the Toyota Innova. (2017 Bar Question) A)
Two informations were filed against Solito in the RTC – one for forcible abduction with
rape, raffled to Branch 8 of the RTC; the other for illegal sale of drugs, assigned to
Branch 29 of the RTC. Was Solito charged with the proper offenses based on the
circumstances? Explain your answer.
 Solito should have been charged of rape. Rape absorbs forcible abduction
where the accused intended at the very outset to rape the victim when he abducted
her (People v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 94128, 3 February 1993). On the hand, the
charge of sale of dangerous drugs is improper, since this crime is consummated
only upon the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the poseur buyer for a
consideration. In this case, Solito has not yet delivered the marijuana to PO2
Masahol when the latter apprehended the former, the crime committed is not sale
of dangerous drugs but attempted sale of dangerous drugs.
11. Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation. Macario, the policeman who
acted as poseurbuyer, inventoried and photographed ten (10) sachets of shabu in the
presence of a barangay tanod. The inventory was signed by Macario and the tanod, but
Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken with flu the day after, he was able to
surrender the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after four (4) days. During pre-
trial, the counsel de officio of Dimas stipulated that the substance contained in the
sachets examined by the forensic chemist is in fact methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu. Dimas was convicted of violating Section 5 of RA 9165. On appeal, Dimas
questioned the admissibility of the evidence because Macario failed to observe the
requisite "chain of custody" of the alleged "shabu" seized from him. On behalf of the
State, the Solicitor General claimed that despite non-compliance with some
requirements, the prosecution was able to show that the integrity of the substance was
preserved. Moreover, even with some deviations from the requirements, the counsel of
Dimas stipulated that the substance seized from Dimas was shabu so that the conviction
should be affirmed. (2016 Bar Question)
A) What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses?
B) Rule on the contention of the State.
 A) To establish the chain of custody, the prosecution must show the
movements of the dangerous drugs from its confiscation up to its presentation in
court. The purpose of establishing the chain of custody is to ensure the integrity of
the corpus delicti (People v. Magat, G.R. No. 179939, 29 September 2008). The
following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third,
the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court (People v. Kamad, G.R.
No. 174198, 19 January 2010). To establish the first link in the chain of custody,
and that is the seizure of the drug from the accused, the prosecution must comply
with Section 21 of RA No. 9165, which requires that the apprehending officer after
the confiscation of drug must immediately physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were
confiscated, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof and within
twenty-four (24) hours upon such confiscation, the drug shall be submitted to the
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for examination.
 B) Yes, the contention of the State is meritorious. Failure to strictly comply
with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an
accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized item. Moreover, the issue of non-compliance with Section 21 of RA No.
 9165 cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (People v. Badilla, G.R. No.
218578, August 31, 2016). Here, Macario, the policeman failed to comply with
Section 21 of RA No 9165 since the inventory and photograph of the drugs was only
made in the presence of barangay tanod and the same was not submitted to the
PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours. However, the failure to strictly comply with
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render the items seized or
confiscated inadmissible since there was preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item. Thus, the contention of the State is
meritorious.
12. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) had intelligence reports about the
drug pushing activities of Rado, but could not arrest him for lack of concrete evidence.
SP03 Relio, a PDEA team leader, approached Ernilo and requested him to act as poseur-
buyer of shabu and transact with Rado. Ernilo refused, saying that he had completely
been rehabilitated and did not want to have anything to do with drugs anymore. But he
was prevailed upon to help when SP03 Relio explained that only he could help capture
Rado because he used to be his customer. SP03 Relio then gave Ernilo the marked
money to be used in buying shabu from Rado. The operation proceeded. After Ernilo
handed the marked money to Rado in exchange for the sachets of shabu weighing 50
grams, and upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from Ernilo, SP03 Relio and his team
members barged in and arrested Rado and Ernilo, who were both charged with violation
of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
(2015 Bar Question) A) What defense, if any, may Ernilo invoke to free himself from
criminal liability? Explain. B) May Rado adopt as his own Ernilo's defense? Explain.
 A) Ernilo may invoke Section 33, Art. II, RA 9165 or the “Comprehensive
Drugs Act of 2002.” He may have violated Section 11 of RA 9165 for possession of
shabu but he is immune from prosecution and punishment because of his role as
the poseur-buyer in the entrapment operation.
 B) No. First, an entrapment operation is a valid means of arresting violators
of RA 9165. It is an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of
committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates
from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the
offense. Second, the immunity does not extend to violators of Section 5 of RA 9165
or the sale of shabu (sec. 33, RA 9165). Lastly, he was the offender of the crime
and the most guilty of the offense
13. George, the 20-year old son of a rich politician, was arrested at the NAIA arrival
lounge and found positive for opium, a dangerous drug. When arrested, 15 grams of
cocaine were found in his backpack. What offense would you charge George under R.A.
No. 9160 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act)? (2013 Bar Question)
 . George shall be held liable possession of dangerous drugs. Section 11 of RA
No. 9165 provides, where a person tested positive for dangerous drug is also found
to have in his possession any dangerous drug, he shall be held liable for possession
of dangerous drug.
14. .The police officer in civilian clothes asked X where he can buy shabu. X responded
by asking the officer how much of the drug he needed. When he told him, X left, returned
after a few minutes with the shabu, gave it to the officer, and took his money. X is:
(2011 Bar Question) A) liable for selling since the police operation was a valid
entrapment
 
15. Distinguish fully between entrapment and instigation in Criminal Law, Exemplify
each. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 In entrapment - 1) the criminal design originates from and is already in the
mind of the lawbreaker even before entrapment; 2} the law enforcers resort to ways and
 means for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto- and 3) this
circumstance is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.
 In instigation: 1) the idea and design to bring about the commission of the
crime originated and developed in the mind of the law enforcers; 2) the law enforcers
induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to commit a crime and would not
otherwise commit it, into committing the crime; and
 
 
 

CDDA case digests

Wednesday, March 23, 2022
1:56 PM
 
Estipona v. Lobrigo
 
Facts:
Petitioner Estipona was charged with illegal possesion of drugs. Estipona filed a Motion to
Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement,5 praying to withdraw his not
guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs) with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time offender
and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his possession. He argued that
Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates: (1) the intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3,
Section 2 thereof; (2) the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5),
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; and (3) the principle of separation of powers among
the three equal branches of the government.
 
Issue: Whether prohibition of plea bargaining violates the rule-making authority of the
Supreme court
 
Held:
Yes. In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, abridges, enlarges, or
modifies any substantive right, the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that
is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for
justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule
takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to
appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of
implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure. Plea bargaining
operates as a means to implement an existing right, that is, the right to a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. Considering the presence of
mutuality of advantage in plea bargaining, whereby the prosecution and the defense make
concessions to avoid potential losses, the rules on plea bargaining neither create a right nor
take away a vested right.
 
 
People vs. Romy Lim, GR No. 231989, September 4, 2018
 
Facts:
Accused-appellant Romy Lim y Miranda (Lim) guilty of illegal possession and sale of illegal
drugs. According to the prosecution, based on a tip from a confidential informant, the police
conducted a buy bust operation in a house where Romy Lim was staying together with a
certain Gorres. A plastic sachet was found in Romy Lim's pocket. The buy-bust team then
brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office where a drug test was conducted on
them— in which Lim tested positive of—   and where a laboratory examination of the shabu
found. There, Intelligence officer Orellan made the Inventory Receipt of the confiscated
items. It was not signed by Lim and Gorres. Also, there was no signature of an elected
public official and the representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media as
witnesses. The defense on the other hand, avers that there was no person who bought
drugs from them: what happened really was that Police immediately entered their house,
pointed firearms at them and arrested them. During the inquest proceedings, Lim admitted,
albeit without the assistance of a counsel, ownership of the two sachets of shabu because
he was afraid that the police would imprison him. Both the RTC and CA convicted Lim of the
charge and acquitted Gorres based on reasonable doubt. Lim maintains that the case
records are bereft of evidence showing that the buy-bust team followed the procedure
mandated in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
 
Held:
 Lim should be acquitted based on reasonable doubt. According to Section 21 (1) of the
pertaining law: "The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof."  The physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further,
that noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds. 
Justifiable grounds could be:
1. when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by
law or of the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger; and
2. when the attendance of the witnesses is impossible. Moreover, the absence of these
required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a
justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure
the required witnesses. 
According to the court, the prosecution failed to explain why or establish the details that
they earnestly secured the presence of any of these witnesses. On this ground Romy Lim
should be acquitted
 
People vs. Tomawis
 
Facts:
Appellant Basher Tomawis was found guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of
Comprehensive Drugs Act 2002. According to the prosecution, initiated by a tip from a
confidential informant, a buy bust operation was conducted in starmall alabang to catch a
certain "salim" who was the Apellant in the act of selling shabu. However, during the arrest
a commotion ensued and this prompted the buy-bust team to conduct the inventory of the
confiscated drugs at the baranggay hall in the presence of barangay officials. The defense
on the other hand, have another version. According to the apellant, He was with his mother
when the incident happened. He was suddenly attacked by the officers, brought to the
parking lot outside and placed in a van. After which, He was then brought to Brgy Pinyahan
and was asked to point to an object wrapped with plastic. His picture was taken then after.
Later, when his wife and mother arrived , the officers then told them that he would be
charged of an illegal drug related crime. Both the RTC and CA found the accused guilty of
the crime charged
 
Held:
Accused-appellant should be acquitted due to failure of the prosecution to follow
requirements under section 21. Prosecution failed to comply with the three-witness rule and
establish the chain of custody. Prosecution did not comply with the three-witness rule
because they did not bring in a representative of the DOJ and a member of the media to
witness the physical inventory and the photograph. Even though they brought in barangay
officials to witness the inventory, they were not present during the buy-bust operation
or at the time the warrantless arrest was made, which is the point at which the three-
witnesses are most needed: as it is their presence at the time of seizure and
confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the
seized drug, Prosecution also failed to establish the chain of custody due to the inconsistent
testimonies of the PDEA officers. Officers Alejandro (poseur buyer) claims that he received
the drugs and handed over the items to Alfonso for inventory; while officer Lacap took
custody of the buy-bust money then received the drugs from Alejandro’s custody. Moreover,
there were other breaches committed by the officers such as no photographs taken of the
seized goods and lack of markings as to the weight and nature of the substance.
 
 
People v. Mario Manabat
 
Facts:
Accused appellant Mario Manabat was found guilty of in violation of section 5 and section 11
of the Comprehensive Dangerouse drugs act. According to the prosecution, based on a tip
from a confidential informant, the police officers monitored Mario's acitivites. They then
planned and conducted a buy-bust operation on Manabat. Right after the exchange of the
marked-money and shabu, police then arrested Manabat. After the arrest, they called for
witnesses to the inventory of items recovered from Mario. Representatives from DOJ, media
and the barangay of Miputak came. In the presence of the witnesses, they then made
markings, made an inventory and took photographs while doing such. Defense on the other
hand avers that there was no buy-bust operation that was conducted. After he alighted from
the motorcab, he was approached by a police officer who pointed a gun at him then
handcuffed him. He was brought to the boulevard, then to the ABC printing press and other
places before he was brought to the police station. He also alleges that the items
confiscated from him where placed on him during the time he was riding the vehicle.
However, both the RTC and CA gave credence to the version of the prosecution and
therefore found him guilty of the crime charged.
 
Held:
The accused should be acquitted. First, it is not disputed whatsoever that the witnesses
were called and eventually arrived at the scene of the crime only after the accused-
appellant was already apprehended by PO2 Barral. Second, the Certificate of Inventory that
was produced by the prosecution was irregularly executed because this was not signed by
accused-appellant or by his counsel or representative. Third, the marking of the plastic
sachets allegedly recovered was irregularly done since only the date and initials of the
seizing officers were inscribed on the specimens. The time and place of the buy-bust
operation were not indicated in the markings, in clear contravention of the PNP's own set of
procedures for the conduct of buy-bust operations. Lastly, it was an error for the RTC to
convict accused-appellant Manabat by relying on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties supposedly extended in favor of the police officers. The presumption
of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused
 
Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that the copies of the inventory should be signed by all the
following persons: (a) accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public
official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department
of Justice (DOJ).
People v. Jomar Castillo
 
Facts:
Appellant Jomar Castillo was found guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited
drugs. According to the prosecution, a week before the buy-bust operation, they received a
tip from a confidential informant that Castillo was selling drugs. After the exchange of the
marked-money and a plastic sachet containing shabu, officers then approached the asset
and castillo and proceeded to arrest Castillo and confiscated the items. The officers then
brought the items inside their vehicle, which was still parked near the place of arrest. There,
the police then marked the confiscated items. After which, they then went to the police
station. It was at the police station that the inventory and photographing of such was
conducted; and this was done in the presence of a DOJ representative, baranggay chairman
and Castillo who all signed the certificate of inventory. On the other hand, defense avers
that Castillo was merely waiting for his basketball companions at the court, when two
officers approach who poked a gun at his side, arrested him and brought him to the police
station. There, Castillo saw what appeared to be shabu on a table. One (1) of the police
officers forced him to point to the substance while his photo was being taken. Afterwards,
he was detained. Both the RTC and CA convicted him.
 
Held:
Accused-appellant should be acquitted. First, the absence of witnesses during seizure and
marking casts doubt on the actual origin and integrity and evidentiary weight of the
confiscated drugs. It was also only at the police station that Limbo, the Department of
Justice representative, and Barangay Chair Latayan were called in to witness the inventory
and photographing. It is clear that the required witnesses themselves had no personal
knowledge of the supposed sale and subsequent apprehension, search, seizure, and
marking. The witnesses were also incomplete since there was no representative from the
media that was present. Moreover, the prosecution has never bothered to prove, let alone
plead, any justifiable ground accounting for the buybust team's deviation from the
prescribed procedure. All it offered were sweeping and self-serving assurances of
compliance and integrity.
 
 
 

CPM
Friday, March 25, 2022
12:45 AM
Crimes against public morals
 
Acts Punished:
1. Gambling (Art. 195);
2. Importation, sale and possession of
lottery tickets or advertisements (Art.
196);
3. Betting in sport contests (Art. 197);
4. Illegal betting on horse races (Art.
198);
5. Illegal cockfighting (Art. 199);
6. Grave scandal (Art. 200);
7. Immoral doctrines, obscene
publications and exhibitions (Art.
201); and
8. Vagrancy and prostitution (Art. 202)
 
Gambling| any game or scheme, whether upon chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting
of money, articles or value or representative of value are at stake or made
 
Illegal gambling
- committed by any person who, in any manner, shall directly or indirectly, take part in
any game scheme, regardless of whether winning thereat is dependent upon chance or
skill or both, wherein wagers consisting of money articles or value or representative of
value are at stake or made, when such game scheme is not authorized by the
government agency duly empowered by law or its charter to license or authorize the
conduct of such games or is conducted in a manner that violates the terms and
conditions prescribed by the government agency
 
Illegal or unauthorized activities or games penalized under P.D. 1602
1. cockfighting, jueteng, jai alai or horse racing to include bookie operations and game
fixing, numbers, bingo and other forms of lotteries;
2. cara y cruz, pompiang and the like;
3. 7-11 and any game using dice;
3. black jack, lucky nine, poker and its derivatives, monte, baccarat, cuajao,
pangguingue and other card games;
4 paik que, high and low, mahjong, domino and other games using plastic tiles and the
likes;
5.. 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, pingpong and other forms of individual or
team contests to include game fixing, point shaving and other machinations;
9. banking or percentage game, or any other game scheme, whether upon chance or
skill, wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative of value are
at stake or made;
 
Persons liable and penalties
1. Any person other than those referred to in the succeeding sub-sections who in any
manner, shall directly or indirectly take part in any illegal or unauthorized activities or
games
 The penalty of prison correccional in its medium period of a fine ranging from
one thousand to six thousand pesos, and in case of recidivism, the penalty of
prision mayor in its medium period or a fine ranging from five thousand to ten
thousand pesos
 
2. Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling referred to in the
preceding subparagraph to be carried on in inhabited or uninhabited place or in any
building, vessel or other means of transportation owned or controlled by him.
 Same as above
 
3. any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling to be carried on in a
place which has a reputation of a gambling place or that prohibited gambling is
frequently carried on therein, or the place is a public or government building or barangay
hall,
  prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of six thousand pesos.
 
4. the maintainer or conductor of the above gambling schemes.
 The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine of six
thousand pesos
 
5. the maintainer, conductor or banker of said gambling schemes is a government
official, or where such government official is the player, promoter, referee,
umpire, judge or coach in case of game fixing, point shaving and machination.
 penalty of prision mayor in its medium period with temporary absolute
disqualification or a fine of six thousand pesos
 
6. any person who shall, knowingly and without lawful purpose in any hour of any day,
possess any lottery list, paper or other matter containing letters, figures, signs or
symbols pertaining to or in any manner used in the games of jueteng, jai-alai or horse
racing bookies, and similar games of lotteries and numbers which have taken place or
about to take place.
 penalty of prision correccional in its medium period or a fine ranging from
four hundred to two thousand pesos
 
7.. any barangay official who, with knowledge of the existence of a gambling house or
place in his jurisdiction fails to abate the same or take action in connection therewith.
 penalty of temporary absolute disqualifications
 
8. any security officer, security guard, watchman, private or house detective of hotels,
villages, buildings, enclosures and the like which have the reputation of a gambling place
or where gambling activities are being held.
 penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine ranging from
five hundred pesos to two thousand pesos
 
Illegal numbers games penalized under RA 9287
 - Illegal Numbers Game. - Any form illegal gambling activity which uses numbers or
combinations thereof as factors in giving out jackpots.
 Includes:
1. Jueteng. - An illegal numbers game that involves the combination of thirty-seven (37)
numbers against thirty-seven (37) numbers from number one (1) to thirty seven (37) or
the combination of thirty-eight (38) numbers in some areas, serving as a form of local
lottery where bets are placed and accepted per combination, and its variants.
2. Masiao. - An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is derived from the
results of the last game of Jai Alai or the Special Llave portion or any result thereof based
on any fictitious Jai Alai game consisting of ten (10) players pitted against one another,
and its variants.
 
3. Last Two. - An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is derived from
the last two (2) numbers of the first prize of the winning Sweepstakes ticket which comes
out during the weekly draw of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), and its
variants.
 
Penalties
 
a) The penalty of imprisonment from thirty (30) days to ninety (90) days, if such person
acts as a bettor;
  Bettor ("Mananaya", "Tayador" or variants thereof). - Any person who places
bets for himself/herself or in behalf of another person, or any person, other than
the personnel or staff of any illegal numbers game operation
b) The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, if
such person acts as a personnel or staff of an illegal numbers game operation;
 Personnel or Staff of Illegal Numbers Game Operation. - Any person, who
acts in the interest of the maintainer, manager or operator, such as, but not limited
to, an accountant, cashier, checker, guard, runner, table manager, usher, watcher,
or any other personnel performing such similar functions in a building structure,
vessel, vehicle, or any other place where an illegal numbers game is operated or
conducted.
The same penalty shall likewise be imposed to any person who allows his vehicle,
house, building or land to be used in the operation of the illegal numbers
games.
 
c) The penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, if
such person acts as a collector or agent;
 Collector or Agent ("Cabo", "Cobrador", "Coriador" or variants thereof). -
Any person who collects, solicits or produces bets in behalf of his/her principal for
any illegal numbers game who is usually in possession of gambling paraphernalia.
d) The penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years, if such person acts as a coordinator, controller or supervisor;
 Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor ("Encargado" or variants thereof). - Any
person who exercises control and supervision over the collector or agent.
e) The penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to ten (10)
fourteen (14) years, if such person acts as a maintainer, manager or operator; and
 Maintainer, Manager or Operator. - Any person who maintains, manages
or operates any illegal number game in a specific area from whom the coordinator,
controller or supervisor, and collector or agent take orders.
f) The penalty of imprisonment from fourteen (14) years and one (1) day to sixteen (16)
years, if such person acts as a financier or capitalist;
 Financiers or Capitalist. - Any person who finances the operations of any
illegal numbers game.
g) The penalty of imprisonment from sixteen (16) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years, if such person acts as protector or coddler.
 Protector or Coddler. - Any person who lends or provides protection, or
receives benefits in any manner in the operation of any illegal numbers game.
 
Liability of Government officials and employees
1. If the collector, agent, coordinator, controller, supervisor, maintainer, manager,
operator, financier or capitalist of any illegal numbers game is a government employee
and/or public official, whether elected or appointed shall suffer the penalty of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
million pesos (P3,000,000.00) to Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) and
perpetual absolute disqualification from public office.
2. In addition to the penalty provided in the immediately preceding section, the
accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office shall be imposed upon
any local government official who, having knowledge of the existence of the
operation of any illegal numbers game in his/her jurisdiction, fails to abate or to
take action, or tolerates the same in connection therewith.
3. In the case of failure to apprehend perpetrators of any illegal numbers game, any law
enforcer shall suffer an administrative penalty of suspension or dismissal, as the case
may be, to be imposed by the appropriate authority.
 
Why gambling is prohibited and punished
- to repress an evil that undermines the social, moral and economic growth of the nation
 Has the effect of causing poverty, dishonesty fraud and deceit
 
Must and all games mentioned in PD 1602 be played for money
- playing for money is not a necessary element
- mala prohibita
 
Any other game or scheme whether upon chance or skill
- makes it punishable even if the winning depends upon skill when wagers consisting of
money, articles or representative of value are at stake or made
- game fixing point-shaving and other machinations in individual and team contests are
punishable
 
Spectators are not liable in gambling
- does not take part therein, directly or indirectly
 
Definition of Lottery
- a scheme for the 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
a. consideration
b. chance
C prize or some advantage or inequality in amount or value which is in the nature of a
prize
- if the scheme is such that human reason, foresight, sagacity or design cannot enable
one to know or determine the result until the same has been accomplished, then it is
lottery
- embraces all schemes for distribution of prizes by chance
 
Guessing competition lottery
Ex: anyone who could, for the nearest approximate, guesses the total number of votes
that will be case for the winning candidates for carnival queen wins 18,000 pesos
 
No lottery where the prize is full value of money
- 500 packages of cigarettes would be sold at .30 centavos a package. In one of the
packages was a coupon. One who would get the coupon will get a gold watch
 Plater obtains full value of money and the watch is a mere incident
 
While the gambling law must be interpreted strictly because it is a penal
statute, the postal law has been interpreted liberally by our supreme court,
following the decisions of the American courts on the subject
- RPC| lottery is associated with the games which are dependent wholly or chiefly upon
chance
- postal law| lottery is classified as a scheme depending in whole or in part upon luck or
chance
 
Knowingly permitting any form of gambling to be carried on in any place owned
or controlled by the offender
- elements:
 1. That a gambling game was carried on in an inhabited or uninhabited place or in any
building, vessel or other means of transportation
2. that the place, building, vessel or other means of transportation is owned or controlled
by the offender
3. that the offender permitted the carrying on of such game, knowing that it is a
gambling game
 
 Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor ("Encargado" or variants thereof). - Any
person who exercises control and supervision over the collector or agent.
 
 Maintainer, Manager or Operator. - Any person who maintains, manages or
operates any illegal number game in a specific area from whom the coordinator,
controller or supervisor, and collector or agent take orders
 
Proof that game took place or is about to take place is not necessary
- jueteng| jueteng list naturally pertains to a game of jueteng and that the accused
would not keep it in his possession but for its connection with such game
 Burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to show that his possession is
lawful and that the jueteng list is in no way connected with the game
 
Proof to the contrary is necessary when the jueteng lists pertain to games
played on other dates
- prosecution must prove that they were used on the date of the raid or immediately
prior to or after said date
 
195-199 are repealed
 
Article 198. Illegal Betting on Horse Race
Acts punished
1. Betting on horse races during periods not allowed by law;
2. Maintaining or employing a totalizer or other device or scheme for betting on races or
realizing profit therefrom during the periods not allowed by law.
 
Racing days
- the Philippine Racing Commission (PHILRACOM) has jurisdiction and control over all
aspects of the conduct of horse racing, including the framing and scheduling or races
- authorized the holding of races on all days of the week except Mondays unless explicitly
authorized
 
When horse races not allowed
1. July 4 (Republic Act No. 137);
2. December 30 (Republic Act No. 229);
3. Any registration or voting days (Republic Act No. 180, Revised Election Code); and
4. Holy Thursday and Good Friday (Republic Act No. 946).
 
Article 199. Illegal Cockfighting This article has been modified or repealed by
Presidential Decree No. 449 (The Cockfighting Law of 1974):
 Only allows one cockpit per municipality, unless the population exceeds
100,000 in which case two cockpits may be established;
 Cockfights can only be held in licensed cockpits on Sundays and legal holidays
and local fiestas for not more than three days;
 Also allowed during provincial, municipal, city, industrial, agricultural fairs,
carnivals, or exposition not more than three days;
 Cockfighting not allowed on December 30, June 12, November 30, Holy
Thursday, Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day, and registration days for
referendums and elections;
 Only municipal and city mayors are allowed to issue licenses for such.
 
Further notes:
1. While the acts under the Revised Penal Code are still punished under the new law, yet
the concept of gambling under it has been changed by the new gambling law
 Before, the Revised Penal Code considered the skill of the player in classifying
whether a game is gambling or not. But under the new gambling law, the skill of
the players is immaterial.
2. Any game is considered gambling where there are bets or wagers placed with the hope
to win a prize therefrom
 Under this law, even sports contents like boxing, would be gambling insofar
as those who are betting therein are concerned. Under the old penal code, if the
skill of the player outweighs the chance or hazard involved in winning the game, the
game is not considered gambling but a sport. It was because of this that betting in
boxing and basketball games proliferated
3. “Unless authorized by a franchise, any form of gambling is illegal.” So said the court in
the recent resolution of the case against the operation of jai-alai.
 There are so-called parlor games which have been exempted from the
operation of the decree like when the games are played during a wake to keep the
mourners awake at night. Pursuant to a memorandum circular issued by the
Executive Branch, the offshoot of the exemption is the intentional prolonging of the
wake of the dead by gambling lords.
4. As a general rule, betting or wagering determines whether a game is gambling or not.
Exceptions: These are games which are expressly prohibited even without bets. Monte,
jueteng or any form of lottery; dog races; slot machines; these are habit-forming and
addictive to players, bringing about the pernicious effects to the family and
economic life of the players.
 
5. Mere possession of lottery tickets or lottery lists is a crime punished also as part of
gambling. However, it is necessary to make a distinction whether a ticket or list refers to
a past date or to a future date.
 Illustration: X was accused one night and found in his possession was a list of
jueteng. If the date therein refers to the past, X cannot be convicted of gambling or
illegal possession of lottery list without proving that such game was indeed played
on the date stated. Mere possession is not enough. If the date refers to the future,
X can be convicted by the mere possession with intent to use. This will already
bring about criminal liability and there is no need to prove that the game was
played on the date stated. If the possessor was caught, chances are he will not go
on with it anymore.
6. There are two criteria as to when the lottery is in fact becomes a gambling game:
1. If the public is made to pay not only for the merchandise that he is
buying, but also for the chance to win a prize out of the lottery, lottery
becomes a gambling game. Public is made to pay a higher price.
 A certain supermarket wanted to increase its sales and sponsored a lottery
where valuable prices are offered at stake. To defray the cost of the prices offered
in the lottery, the management increased their prices of the merchandise by 10
cents each. Whenever someone buys from that supermarket, he pays 10 cents
more for each merchandise and for his purchase, he gets a coupon which is to be
dropped at designated drop boxes to be raffled on a certain period
 - The increase of the price is to answer for the cost of the valuable prices that will
be covered at stake. The increase in the price is the consideration for the
chance to win in the lottery and that makes the lottery a gambling game.
- But if the increase in prices of the articles or commodities was not general, but
only on certain items and the increase in prices is not the same, the fact that a
lottery is sponsored does not appear to be tied up with the increase in prices,
therefore not illegal.
- take note of these: in case of manufacturers, you have to determine whether
the increase in the price was due to the lottery or brought about by the normal
price increase. If the increase in price is brought about by the normal price increase
[economic factor] that even without the lottery the price would be like that, there is
no consideration in favor of the lottery and the lottery would not amount to a
gambling game. If the increase in the price is due particularly to the lottery, then
the lottery is a gambling game. And the sponsors thereof may be prosecuted for
illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No. 1602.
 
2. If the merchandise is not saleable because of its inferior quality, so that
the public actually does not buy them, but with the lottery the public starts
patronizing such merchandise. In effect, the public is paying for the lottery
and not for the merchandise, and therefore the lottery is a gambling game.
Public is not made to pay a higher price.
- A certain manufacturer, Bhey Company, manufacture cigarettes which is not
saleable because the same is irritating to the throat, sponsored a lottery and a
coupon is inserted in every pack of cigarette so that one who buys it shall have a
chance to participate. Due to the coupons, the public started buying the cigarette.
Although there was no price increase in the cigarettes, the lottery can be considered
a gambling game because the buyers were really after the coupons not the low
quality cigarettes.
- take note: If without the lottery or raffle, the public does not patronize the
product and starts to patronize them only after the lottery or raffle, in effect
the public is paying for the price not the product.
7. Under this decree, a barangay captain who is responsible for the existence of gambling
dens in their own locality will be held liable and disqualified from office if he fails to
prosecute these gamblers. But this is not being implemented
 Gambling, of course, is legal when authorized by law.
8. Fund-raising campaigns are not gambling. They are for charitable purposes but they
have to obtain a permit from Department of Social Welfare and Development. This
includes concerts for causes, Christmas caroling, and the like.
 
 
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS
 
Article 200. Grave Scandal - The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be
imposed upon any person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any
highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of this Code.
 
Elements
1. Offender performs an act or acts;
2. Such act or acts be highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs;
3. The highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling within any other article of this
Code; and
4. The act or acts complained of be committed in a public place or within the public
knowledge or view.
 
shall offend against decency or good customs
- decency| propriety of conduct; proper observance of the requirements of modesty,
good taste, etc.
- customs| established usage, social conventions carried on by tradition and enforced by
social disapproval of any violation thereof
 
Grave scandal
- 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
 
The acts must be those that can cause public scandal among the persons
witnessing them
- acts in 200 are those which by their publicity and character can cause public scandal
among the person witnessing them, besides being contrary to morals and good customs
 
If the act or acts of the offender are punished under another article of this code,
article 200 is not applicable
- act of lasciviousness committed publicly
 
The acts must be performed in a public place or within the public knowledge or
view
 
When the acts were performed in a private place and seen by one person, the
crime was not committed
 
Further notes
 
1. Grave scandal Alarms and scandals

the scandal involved refers to moral scandal offensive to the scandal involved refers to
decency, although it does not disturb public peace. But such disturbances of the public tranquility
conduct or act must be open to the public view. and not to acts offensive to decency
2. Any act which is notoriously offensive to decency may bring about criminal liability for
the crime of grave scandal provided such act does not constitute some other crime under
the Revised Penal Code. Grave scandal is a crime of last resort.
3. Distinction should be made as to the place where the offensive act was committed,
whether in the public place or in a private place:
(1) In public place, the criminal liability arises irrespective of whether the immoral act is
open to the public view. In short public view is not required.
(2) When act offensive to decency is done in a private place, public view or public
knowledge is required.
4. Public view does not require numerous persons. Even if there was only one person
who witnessed the offensive act for as long as the third person was not an intruder,
grave scandal is committed provided the act does not fall under any other crime in the
Revised Penal Code.
 Illustrations:
(1) A man and a woman enters a movie house which is a public place and then goes
to the darkest part of the balcony and while there the man started performing acts
of lasciviousness on the woman. If it is against the will of the woman, the crime
 would be acts of lasciviousness. But if there is mutuality, this constitutes grave
scandal. Public view is not necessary so long as it is performed in a public place.
 
(2) A man and a woman went to Luneta and slept there. They covered themselves
their blanket and made the grass their conjugal bed. This is grave scandal.
 
(3) In a certain apartment, a lady tenant had the habit of undressing in her room
without shutting the blinds. She does this every night at about eight in the evening.
So that at this hour of the night, you can expect people outside gathered in front of
her window looking at her silhouette. She was charged of grave scandal. Her
defense was that she was doing it in her own house. It is no defense that she is
doing it in her private home. It is still open to the public view.
 
(4) In a particular building in Makati which stands right next to the house of a
young lady who goes sunbathing in her poolside. Every morning several men in the
upper floors would stick their heads out to get a full view of said lady while in her
two-piece swimsuit. The lady was then charged with grave scandal. Her defense
was that it is her own private pool and it is those men looking down at her who are
malicious. This is an act which even though done in a private place is nonetheless
open to public view.
 
Questions and Answers:
1. 1996| Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condominium in Makati City sunbathed
naked at its penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that the business executives holding
office at the adjoining tall buildings reported to office every Sunday morning and, with the use of
powerful binoculars, kept on gazing at her while she sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing became
the talk of the town.
1) What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain,
2) What crime, if any, did the business executives commit? Explain
 1) Pia did not commit a crime, The felony closest to making Pia criminally liable is Grave
Scandal, but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and offensive against
decency and good customs. In the first place, it was not done in a public place and within public
knowledge or view. As a matter of fact it was discovered by the executives accidentally and
they have to use binoculars to have public and full view of Pia sunbathing in the nude.
 2) The business executives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of
lasciviousness [as there was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of the town,
resulting from her sunbathing, is not directly imputed to the business executives, and besides
such topic is not intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule.
 
2. Amelia, a famous actress, bought the penthouse unit of a posh condominium building in Taguig
City. Every night, Amelia would swim naked in the private, but open air, pool of her penthouse unit. It
must have been obvious to Amelia that she could be seen from nearby buildings. In fact, some
residents occupying the higher floors of the nearby residential buildings did indeed entertain
themselves and their friends by watching her swim in the nude from their windows. What crime did
Amelia commit? (2013 Bar Question)
 Amelia did not commit any crime because the swimming pool is located in her private
home.
 
Article 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent
shows. - The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve
thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
 
(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals;
 
(2) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the
editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling
the same;
 
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or
immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by
virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve
no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend
any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are
contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful
orders, decrees and edicts;
 
(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or
literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969).
 Section 7 of RA 3060| It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to exhibit
or cause to be exhibited in any motion picture theater or public place, or by
television within the Philippines any motion picture, including trailers, stills, and
other pictorial advertisements in connection with motion pictures, not only passed
by the Board; or to print or cause to be printed on any motion picture to be
exhibited in any theater, or public place or by television, a label or notice showing
the same to have been officially passed by the said Board when the same has not
been previously authorized, except motion pictures imprinted or exhibited by the
Philippine Government and/or its departments and agencies, and newsreels.
 
Acts punished
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals;
 
2. a. The authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form, the
editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling
the same
 
b. Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs, or any other place, exhibit indecent or
immoral plays, scenes, acts, or shows, it being understood that the obscene literature or
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are
proscribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which: (1) glorify criminals or condone
crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or
pornography; (3) offend any race, or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of
prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs,
established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts; and
 
3. Those who shall sell, give away, or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculptures, or
literature which are offensive to morals.
 
Rules:
1. Publicity is essential
2. Publicly expounding or proclaiming doctrines openly contrary to public
morals
- moral| conformity with the generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness in
conduct or character, sometimes, specifically to sexual conduct
3. The author of obscene literature is liable only when it is published with his
knowledge
4. test of obsecnity
- whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave or corrupt those
whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands such a
publication may fall and also whether or not such publication or act shocks ordinary and
common sense of men as an indecency.
- indecency is an act against good behavior and a just delicacy
- The test is objective. It is more on the effect upon the viewer and not alone on the
conduct of the performer
- If the material has the tendency to deprave and corrupt the mind of the viewer then the
same is obscene and where such obscenity is made publicly, criminal liability arises.
5. Mere nudity in picture, painting, or sculpture is not obscenity as it may be
considered as art
- but the artistic the aesthetic and the pulchritude in the nude body of a living woman
may readily be transformed into an indecent and obscene object, by posture and
movements of such body which produce perceptible and discernible reaction in the
public or audience.
--> the proper test is whether the motive of the picture, as indicated by it, is pure or
impure; or whether it is naturally calculated to excite impure imaginations
6. Indecent photograph and literature in newspaper
- must be coupled with intention to demoralize and challenge the sensibilities of human
nature
7. Mere possession of obscene materials is not punishable
- there must be intention to sell, exhibit, or give them away
- the law does not require that the accused is caught in the act of selling, giving away or
exhibiting obscene materials
 As long as the said materials are offered for sale, displayed or exhibited
8. Give away --> distribute to many people and not just the merely isolated casual or
occasional act of giving such kind of literature to a single recipient
- the term necessarily includes the act of exhibiting obscene pictures or literature or has
the intention of such
9. Pictures with slight degree of obscenity, not used for art's sake but for
commercial purposes falls under this article
- if those pictures were used for the purpose of letting people satisfy their morbid
curiosity, taste and lust and for their love of excitement, including the youth who because
of their immaturity are not in a position to resist and shield themselves from the ill and
the perverting effects of the pictures
10. purpose of the law in punishing obscene publications and exhibitions
- to protect the morals of the public
 
Disposition of prohibited articles
- The disposition of the literature, films, prints, engravings, sculptures, painting, or other
materials involved in the violation referred to in Section 1 hereof shall be governed by
the following rules:
 
a. Upon conviction of the offender, to be forfeited in favor of the government to be
destroyed.
 
b. Where the criminal case against any violator of this decree results in acquittal, the
obscene/immoral literature, films, prints, engravings, sculpture, paintings or other
materials and articles involved in the violation referred to in Section 1 hereof shall
nevertheless be forfeited in favor of the government to be destroyed, after forfeiture
proceedings conducted as the Chief of Constabulary.
 
c. The person aggrieved by the forfeiture action of the Chief of Constabulary may, within
fifteen (15) days after his receipt of a copy of the decision, appeal the matter to the
Secretary of National Defense for review. The decision of the Secretary of National
Defense shall be final and unappealable.
 
Additional penalties
- In case the offender is a government official or employee who allows the violations of
Section 1 hereof, the penalty as provided herein shall be imposed in the maximum period
and, in addition, the accessory penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, shall likewise be imposed.
 
Obscene publications and indecent shows under RA 7610
- Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to
perform in obscene exhibitions and indecent shows, whether live or in video, or
model in obscene publications or pornographic materials or to sell or distribute the said
materials shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period.
 
If the child used as a performer, subject or seller/distributor is below twelve (12) years of
age, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
 
Any ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child
who shall cause and/or allow such child to be employed or to participate in an obscene
play, scene, act, movie or show or in any other acts covered by this section shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period.
 
--> "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are
unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition
 
Questions and Answers
1. 1993| Juan and Petra are officemates. Later, intimacy developed between them. One
day, Juan sent to Petra a booklet contained in a pay envelope which was securely sealed.
The booklet is unquestionably indecent and highly offensive to morals. Juan was
thereafter charged under par. 3 of Art. 201 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
P.D. 969, which provides that the penalty of prision mayor or a fine from P6,000 to
P12,000, or both such imprisonment and fine shall be imposed upon those who shall sell,
give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive
to morals. Is Juan guilty of the crime charged? Reasons.
 No. Juan is not guilty of the crime charged because the law (Art. 201, RPC)
covers only the protection of public moral and not only the moral of an individual.
 
RA No. 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism act of 2009 prohibits the
taking, copying selling publishing or broadcasting of photos or vides of sexual
acts
-
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual
act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such
as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast
without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the
person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
 
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or
recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration;
 
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or
recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
 
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or
broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other
similar means or device.
 
The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that
consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such
person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or video
voyeurism as defined herein.
 
Penalites
- The penalty of imprisonment of not less that three (3) years but not more than seven
(7) years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not
more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the
court shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of violating Section 4 of this Act.
 
If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise shall be automatically be
deemed revoked and the persons liable shall be the officers thereof including the editor
and reporter in the case of print media, and the station manager, editor and broadcaster
in the case of a broadcast media.
 
If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a professional, he/she shall be
administratively liable.
 
If the offender is an alien, he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after
serving his/her sentence and payment of fines.
 
Use as Evidence in Investigations or Trial
- Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any
peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the court, to use the
record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial
of the crime of photo or video voyeurism: Provided, That such written order shall only be
issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or
affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been
committed or is about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential
to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such, crime.
 
Inadmissibility of Evidence
 - Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any person in
violation of the preceding sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
 
Further notes:
- The law is not concerned with the moral of one person. As long as the pornographic
matter or exhibition is made privately, there is no crime committed under the Revised
Penal Code because what is protected is the morality of the public in general. Third party
is there. Performance of one to another is not
 Illustration: A sexy dancing performed for a 90 year old is not obscene
anymore even if the dancer strips naked. But if performed for a 15 year old kid, then it
will corrupt the kid’s mind. (Apply Kottinger Rule here.)
  
- In some instances though, the Supreme Court did not stick to this test. It also
considered the intention of the performer.
 In People v. Aparici, the accused was a performer in the defunct Pacific
Theatre, a movie house which opens only at midnight. She was arrested because
she was dancing in a “different kind of way.” She was not really nude. She was
wearing some sort of an abbreviated bikini with a flimsy cloth over it. However, on
her waist hung a string with a ball reaching down to her private part so that every
time she gyrates, it arouses the audience when the ball would actually touch her
private part. The defense set up by Aparici was that she should not be criminally
liable for as a matter of fact, she is better dressed than the other dancers. The
Supreme Court ruled that it is not only the display of the body that gives it
a depraved meaning but rather the movement of the body coupled with the
“tom-tom drums” as background. Nudity alone is not the real scale.
(Reaction Test)
 A sidewalk vendor was arrested and prosecuted for violation of Article 201. It
appears that the fellow was selling a ballpen where one who buys the ballpen can
peep into the top of the pen and see a girl dancing in it. He put up the defense that
he is not the manufacturer and that he was merely selling it to earn a living. The
fact of selling the ballpen was being done at the expense of public morals. One does
not have to be the manufacturer to be criminally liable. This holds true for those
printing or selling Playboy Magazines
 
Article 202. Vagrants and prostitutes; Penalty. - The following are vagrants:
 
1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to
work and who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling;
 
2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places or trampling
or wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of support;
 
3. Any idle or dissolute person who ledges 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 indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes.
 
Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this articles shall be punished
by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism, by arresto
mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine
ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
 
RA 10158 Decriminalized vagrancy
- vagrancy in 202 is anti-poor as it fails to see that vagrants are victims of poverty and
the lack of opportunities for employment and access to decent standards of living and
quality life
- also has been used to discriminate women, particularly suspected prostitutes
 
Article 202 not applicable to minors
- Persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be exempt from prosecution
for the crime of vagrancy and prostitution under Section 202 of the Revised Penal
Code, of mendicancy under Presidential Decree No. 1563, and sniffing of rugby under
Presidential Decree No. 1619, such prosecution being inconsistent with the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Provided, That said persons shall undergo
appropriate counseling and treatment program.
 
Prostitutes are women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in: (1)
sexual intercourse or (2) lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes.
- one sexual intercourse with a man for money or profit does not make a woman a
prostitute. And several intercourse with different men do not make her a prostitute if
there is no evidence that she indulged in sexual intercourse for money or profit
 
- sexual intercourse is not absolutely necessary, as lascivious conduct is necessary
 Intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia of any
person, with intent to abuse or gratify sexual desire falls under the definition of
"lascivious conduct"29 under Section 2 (h) of the rules and regulations of R.A. No.
7610.
 
- The term prostitution is applicable to a woman who for profit or money habitually
engages in sexual or lascivious conduct. A man if he engages in the same conduct – sex
for money – is not a prostitute, but a vagrant.
 
- In law the mere indulging in lascivious conduct habitually because of money or gain
would amount to prostitution, even if there is no sexual intercourse. Virginity is not a
defense. Habitually is the controlling factor; it has to be more than one time.
 There cannot be prostitution by conspiracy. One who conspires with a
woman in the prostitution business like pimps, taxi drivers or solicitors of
clients are guilty of the crime under Article 341 for white slavery.
- Article 341. White slave trade. - The penalty of prision mayor in its medium and
maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or under
any pretext, shall engage in the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist
the services of any other for the purpose of prostitution (As amended by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 186.)
 

Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2021

 
Trafficking in persons
- Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the
victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat, or
use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or
of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving
of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another
person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or
the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services,
slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
 
 The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a
child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of
consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in
persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the
preceding paragraph
 
* Definition of terms
"(b) Child – refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over
eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability
or condition.
 
"(c) Prostitution – refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of
a person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money,
profit or any other consideration.
 
"(d) Forced Labor – refers to the extraction of work or services from any person by
means of enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use of, force or coercion, including
deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral ascendancy, debt-bondage or
deception including any work or service extracted from any person under the menace of
penalty.
 
"(e) Slavery – refers to the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the
powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.
 
"(f) Involuntary Servitude – refers to a condition of enforced and compulsory service
induced by means of any scheme, plan or pattern, intended to cause a person to believe
that if he or she did not enter into or continue in such condition, he or she or another
person would suffer serious harm or other forms of abuse or physical restraint, or threat
of abuse or harm, or coercion including depriving access to travel documents and
withholding salaries, or the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.
 
"(g) Sex Tourism – refers to a program organized by travel and tourism-related
establishments and individuals which consists of tourism packages or activities, utilizing
and offering escort and sexual services as enticement for tourists. This includes sexual
services and practices offered during rest and recreation periods for members of the
military.
 
"(h) Sexual Exploitation – refers to participation by a person in prostitution,
pornography or the production of pornography, in exchange for money, profit or any
other consideration or where the participation is caused or facilitated by any means of
intimidation or threat, use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, debt bondage, abuse of power or of position or of legal process, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or giving or receiving of payments or
benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person; or in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct caused or facilitated by any means as provided
in this Act.
 
"(i) Debt Bondage – refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her personal services or
labor or those of a person under his/her control as security or payment for a debt,
when the length and nature of services is not clearly defined or when the value of the
services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of the
debt.
 
"(j) Pornography – refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition,
cinematography, indecent shows, information technology, or by whatever means, of a
person engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the
sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual purposes.
 
Acts of trafficking in persons
 
"(a) To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer, transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or
receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or
overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, or sexual exploitation;
 Elements:
1. offender recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer, transport, transfer, maintain, harbor,
or receives a person
2. The act is done by any means including those done under the pretext of domestic
or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship
3. the person is intended to be used for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or
sexual exploitation
 
"(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other
consideration, any person or, as provided for under Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino
woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
offering, selling or trading him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
 Elements:
1. Offender introduces or matches any person to a foreign national under the
pretext of marriage
2. the act of introducing or matching is done for money, profit, or material,
economic or other consideration
3. the purpose of introducing or matching the person is to acquire, buy, offer, sell
or trade him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage
 
"(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
offering, selling, or trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.
 Elements:
1. the offender proposes marriage or marries a person, whether real or simulated
2. the purpose of such proposal is to acquire buy offer sell or trade the fiancee or
spouse to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage
 
"(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or
activities for the purpose of utilizing and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or
sexual exploitation;
 Elements:
1. offender undertakes or organizes tours and travel packages
2. Such tours and travel packages are arranged for the purpose of utilizing and
offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation
 
"(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
 Elements:
1. offender maintains or hires a person
2. the person maintained or hired is engaged in prostitution or pornography
 
"(f) To adopt persons by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes or to
facilitate the same for purposes of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
 Elements:
1. offender adopts or facilitates the adoption of a person
2. the adoption was done for any form of consideration
3. the adopted person is intended to be exploited in prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage
 
"(g) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
 Elements
1. offender adopts or facilitates the adoption of persons
2. the adopted person is intended to be exploited in prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondagee
 
"(h) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport, transfer, obtain, harbor, maintain, provide, offer,
receive or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence,
coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person;
 Elements:
1. the offender recruits, hires, adopts, transports, transfers, obtains, harbors,
maintains, provides, offers, receives or abducts a person
2. the act/s are done by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence,
coercion, or intimidation
3. the acts are done for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person
 
"(i) To recruit, transport, obtain, transfer, harbor, maintain, offer, hire, provide, receive
or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad;
 Elements
1. the offender recruits, transports, obtains, harbors, maintains, offers, hires,
provides, receives or adopts a child
2. the child is intended to be engaged in armed activities in the Philippines or
abroad
 
"(j) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, obtain, maintain, offer, hire, provide or
receive a person by means defined in Section 3 of this Act for purposes of forced labor,
slavery, debt bondage and involuntary servitude, including a scheme, plan, or pattern
intended to cause the person either:
 
"(1) To believe that if the person did not perform such labor or services, he or she or
another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
 
"(2) To abuse or threaten the use of law or the legal processes; and
 
 Elements
1. the offender recruits, transports, transfers, harbors, obtains, maintains, offers,
hires, provides or receives a person
2. the offender commits the acts through threat, or use of force, or other forms of
coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments
or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person
3. The act/s are done for the purpose
of forced labor, slavery, debt bondage and involuntary servitude, including a
scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person either:
o To believe that if the person did not perform such labor or services, he or she
or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
o To abuse or threaten the use of law or the legal processes
 
"(k) To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain, transfer, maintain, hire, offer, provide, adopt or
receive a child for purposes of exploitation or trading them, including but not limited to,
the act of baring and/or selling a child for any consideration or for barter for purposes of
exploitation. Trafficking for purposes of exploitation of children shall include:
 
"(1) All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, involuntary servitude, debt
bondage and forced labor, including recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
 
"(2) The use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of
pornography, or for pornographic performances;
 
"(3) The use, procuring or offering of a child for the production and trafficking of drugs;
and
 
"(4) The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal activities or work which, by its
nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm their health, safety
or morals; and
 Elements
1. offender recruits, transports, transfers, harbors, obtains, maintains, offers,
hires, provides or receives a child
2. the offender intends to exploit or trade the child including but not limited to, the
act of baring and/or selling a child for any consideration or for barter for purposes
of exploitation which shall include:
o All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, involuntary servitude, debt
bondage and forced labor, including recruitment of children for use in armed
conflict;
o The use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of
pornography, or for pornographic performances;
o The use, procuring or offering of a child for the production and trafficking of
drugs; and
o The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal activities or work which, by
its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm their
health, safety or morals
 
"(l) To organize or direct other persons to commit the offenses defined as acts of
trafficking under this Act."
 
In General: elements of trafficking in persons under RA 10634
1. The act of recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer,
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders
 
2. The means used include "by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of
coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of
the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another person"
 
3. The purpose of trafficking includes "exploitation which includes at a minimum, the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced
labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs."
 
Consent is immaterial
- even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor's consent is not
given out of his or her own free will
 
 
Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons. -
The following acts which promote or facilitate trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful:
 
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house, building or
establishment for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
 
(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake counseling
certificates, registration stickers, overseas employment certificates or other certificates of
any government agency which issues these certificates, decals and such other markers
as proof of compliance with government regulatory and pre-departure
requirements for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
 
(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the advertisement,
publication, printing, broadcasting or distribution by any means, including the use of
information technology and the internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any propaganda
material that promotes trafficking in persons;
 
(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of facilitating
the acquisition of clearances and necessary exit documents from government
agencies that are mandated to provide pre-departure registration and services for
departing persons for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
 
(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the country at
international and local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports who are in possession
of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons;
 
(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel documents, or personal
documents or belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance of trafficking or to prevent
them from leaving the country or seeking redress from the government or appropriate
agencies; and
 
(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or
services of a person held to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor, or slavery.
 
(h) To tamper with, destroy, or cause the destruction of evidence, or to influence or
attempt to influence witnesses, in an investigation or prosecution of a case under this
Act;
 
"(i) To destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate or possess, or attempt to destroy, conceal,
remove, confiscate or possess, any actual or purported passport or other travel,
immigration or working permit or document, or any other actual or purported
government identification, of any person in order to prevent or restrict, or attempt to
prevent or restrict, without lawful authority, the person’s liberty to move or travel in
order to maintain the labor or services of that person; or
 
"(j) To utilize his or her office to impede the investigation, prosecution or execution of
lawful orders in a case under this Act.
 
Qualified Trafficking in Persons
- The following are considered as qualified trafficking:
 
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
 
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as
the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
 
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
 
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who
exercises authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a
public officer or employee;
 
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of
the military or law enforcement agencies;
 
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and
 
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party
dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
 
Attempted trafficking in persons
- Where there are acts to initiate the commission of a trafficking offense but the offender
failed to or did not execute all the elements of the crime, by accident or by reason of
some cause other than voluntary desistance, such overt acts shall be deemed as an
attempt to commit an act of trafficking in persons. As such, an attempt to commit any of
the offenses enumerated in Section 4 of this Act shall constitute attempted
trafficking in persons.
 
"In cases where the victim is a child, any of the following acts shall also be deemed as
attempted trafficking in persons:
 
"(a) Facilitating the travel of a child who travels alone to a foreign country or territory
without valid reason therefor and without the required clearance or permit from the
Department of Social Welfare and Development, or a written permit or justification from
the child’s parent or legal guardian;
 
"(b) Executing, for a consideration, an affidavit of consent or a written consent for
adoption;
 
"(c) Recruiting a woman to bear a child for the purpose of selling the child;
 
"(d) Simulating a birth for the purpose of selling the child; and
 
"(e) Soliciting a child and acquiring the custody thereof through any means from among
hospitals, clinics, nurseries, daycare centers, refugee or evacuation centers, and low-
income families, for the purpose of selling the child."
 
Accomplice liability
– Whoever knowingly aids, abets, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous
or simultaneous acts defined in this Act shall be punished in accordance with the
provisions of Section 10(c) of this Ac
 
Accessories. – Whoever has the knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without
having participated therein, either as principal or as accomplices, take part in its
commission in any of the following manners:
 
"(a) By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
 
"(b) By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or effects or instruments thereof,
in order to prevent its discovery;
 
"(c) By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime,
provided the accessory acts with abuse of his or her public functions or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
 
"Acts defined in this provision shall be punished in accordance with the provision of
Section 10(d) as stated thereto."
 
Confidentiality
- At any stage of the investigation, rescue, prosecution and trial of an offense under this
Act, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, court personnel, social workers and
medical practitioners, as well as parties to the case, shall protect the right to privacy of
the trafficked person. Towards this end, law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges
to whom the complaint has been referred may, whenever necessary to ensure a fair and
impartial proceeding, and after considering all circumstances for the best interest of the
parties, order a closed-door investigation, prosecution or trial. The name and personal
circumstances of the trafficked person or any other information tending to
establish the identity of the trafficked person and his or her family shall not be
disclosed to the public.
 
"It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed
materials, announcer or producer in case of television and radio, producer and director of
a film in case of the movie industry, or any person utilizing tri-media facilities or
electronic information technology to cause publicity of the name, personal circumstances,
or any information tending to establish the identity of the trafficked person except when
the trafficked person in a written statement duly notarized knowingly, voluntarily and
willingly waives said confidentiality.
 
"Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, court personnel, social workers and
medical practitioners shall be trained on the importance of maintaining confidentiality as
a means to protect the right to privacy of victims and to encourage victims to file
complaints.
 
Dismissal should not be based on affidavit of desistance executed by the victims
or their parents or legal guardians
- Cases involving trafficking in persons should not be dismissed based on the affidavit of
desistance executed by the victims or their parents or legal guardians. Public and private
prosecutors are directed to oppose and manifest objections to motions for dismissal.
 
"Any act involving the means provided in this Act or any attempt thereof for the
purpose of securing an Affidavit of Desistance from the complainant shall be
punishable under this Act.
 
Use of Trafficked Persons
-
Use of Trafficked Persons. – Any person who buys or engages the services of a trafficked
person for prostitution shall be penalized with the following: Provided, That the Probation
Law (Presidential Decree No. 968) shall not apply:
 
"(a) Prision Correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor or six (6) years to
twelve (12) years imprisonment and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00): Provided,
however, That the following acts shall be exempted thereto:
 
"(1) If an offense under paragraph (a) involves sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua or seventeen (17) years to forty (40) years imprisonment and a fine
of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00);
 
"(2) If an offense under paragraph (a) involves carnal knowledge of, or sexual
intercourse with, a male or female trafficking victim and also involves the use of
force or intimidation, to a victim deprived of reason or to an unconscious victim,
or a victim under twelve (12) years of age, instead of the penalty prescribed in the
subparagraph above the penalty shall be a fine of not less than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) and imprisonment
of reclusion perpetua or forty (40) years imprisonment with no possibility of parole;
except that if a person violating paragraph (a) of this section knows the person that
provided prostitution services is in fact a victim of trafficking, the offender shall
not be likewise penalized under this section but under Section 10 as a person violating
Section 4; and if in committing such an offense, the offender also knows a qualifying
circumstance for trafficking, the offender shall be penalized under Section 10 for
qualified trafficking. If in violating this section the offender also violates Section 4,
the offender shall be penalized under Section 10 and, if applicable, for qualified
trafficking instead of under this section;
 
"(b) Deportation. – If a foreigner commits any offense described by paragraph (1) or
(2) of this section or violates any pertinent provision of this Act as an accomplice or
accessory to, or by attempting any such offense, he or she shall be immediately
deported after serving his or her sentence and be barred permanently from entering the
country; and
 
"(c) Public Official. – If the offender is a public official, he or she shall be dismissed
from service and shall suffer perpetual absolute disqualification to hold public, office, in
addition to any imprisonment or fine received pursuant to any other provision of this
Act."
 
Legal Protection
- Trafficked persons shall be recognized as victims of the act or acts of trafficking
and as such, shall not be penalized for unlawful acts committed as a direct result
of, or as an incident or in relation to, being trafficked based on the acts of trafficking
enumerated in this Act or in obedience to the order made by the trafficker in relation
thereto. In this regard, the consent of a trafficked person to the intended exploitation set
forth in this Act shall be irrelevant.
 
"Victims of trafficking for purposes of prostitution as defined under Section 4 of this Act
are not covered by Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code and as such, shall not be
prosecuted, fined, or otherwise penalized under the said law."
 
- Temporary Custody of Trafficked Victims. – The rescue of victims should be done
as much as possible with the assistance of the DSWD or an accredited NGO that services
trafficked victims. A law enforcement officer, on a reasonable suspicion that a person is a
victim of any offense defined under this Act including attempted trafficking, shall
immediately place that person in the temporary custody of the local social welfare and
development office, or any accredited or licensed shelter institution devoted to protecting
trafficked persons after the rescue.
 
- Irrelevance of Past Sexual Behavior, Opinion Thereof or Reputation of Victims
and of Consent of Victims in Cases of Deception, Coercion and Other Prohibited
Means. – The past sexual behavior or the sexual predisposition of a trafficked person
shall be considered inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving consent of the
victim to engage in sexual behavior, or to prove the predisposition, sexual or otherwise,
of a trafficked person. Furthermore, the consent of a victim of trafficking to the intended
exploitation shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in Section 3(a) of this
Act has been used.
 
Immunity from Suit, Prohibited Acts and Injunctive Remedies.
– No action or suit shall be brought, instituted or maintained in any court or tribunal or
before any other authority against any: (a) law enforcement officer; (b) social worker; or
(c) person acting in compliance with a lawful order from any of the above, for lawful acts
done or statements made during an authorized rescue operation, recovery or
rehabilitation/intervention, or an investigation or prosecution of an anti-trafficking case:
Provided, That such acts shall have been made in good faith.
 
"The prosecution of retaliatory suits against victims of trafficking shall be held in
abeyance pending final resolution and decision of criminal complaint for trafficking.
 
"It shall be prohibited for the DFA, the DOLE, and the POEA officials, law enforcement
officers, prosecutors and judges to urge complainants to abandon their criminal, civil and
administrative complaints for trafficking.
 
"The remedies of injunction and attachment of properties of the traffickers, illegal
recruiters and persons involved in trafficking may be issued motu proprio by judges.
 
Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
– The State shall exercise jurisdiction over any act defined and penalized under this Act,
even if committed outside the Philippines and whether or not such act or acts constitute
an offense at the place of commission, the crime being a continuing offense, having been
commenced in the Philippines and other elements having been committed in another
country, if the suspect or accused:
 
"(a) Is a Filipino citizen; or
 
"(b) Is a permanent resident of the Philippines; or
 
"(c) Has committed the act against a citizen of the Philippines.
 
"No prosecution may be commenced against a person under this section if a foreign
government, in accordance with jurisdiction recognized by the Philippines, has
prosecuted or is prosecuting such person for the conduct constituting such offense,
except upon the approval of the Secretary of Justice.
 
"The government may surrender or extradite persons accused of trafficking in the
Philippines to the appropriate international court if any, or to another State pursuant to
the applicable extradition laws and treaties.
 
Who may file
1. Any person who has personal knowledge of the commission of any offense under this
Act,
2. the trafficked person,
3. the parents, spouse, siblings, children or legal guardian
 
When can you file
- Trafficking cases under this Act shall prescribe in ten (10) years: Provided, however,
That trafficking cases committed by a syndicate or in a large scale as defined under
Section 6, or against a child, shall prescribe in twenty (20) years.
 
"The prescriptive period shall commence to run from the day on which the trafficked
person is delivered or released from the conditions of bondage, or in the case of a
child victim, from the day the child reaches the age of majority, and shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information and shall commence to run again
when the proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted or are
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to the accused."
 
Where can you file
- A criminal action arising from violation of this Act shall be filed where the offense was
committed, or where any of its elements occurred, or where the trafficked person
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That the court
where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other
courts
 
Cases:
- people v. shirely casio
 
Questions and answers
1. Loko advertised on the internet that he was looking for commercial models for a TV
advertisement. Ganda, a 16-year-old beauty, applied for the project. Loko offered her a
contract, which Ganda signed. She was asked to report to an address which turned out to
be a high-end brothel. Ganda became one of its most featured attraction. What is Loko’s
liability, if any? What effect would Ganda’s minority have on Loko’s liability? (2014 Bar
Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Loko is liable for violating the provisions of Republic
Act (RA) No. 9208 He recruited, offered and hired Ganda by means of fraud or
deception for the purpose of exploitation or prostitution. By means of deceit, i.e., in
the guise of making her a commercial model, Loko recruited Ganda for the purpose
of prostitution. Under Section 6, RA 9208, when the trafficked person is a child, the
crime committed is Qualified Trafficking in Persons, penalized by life imprisonment.
Thus, Ganda’s minority is a qualifying circumstance
2. When the adoption of a child is effected under the Inter-Country Adoption Act for the
purpose of prostitution, what is the proper charge against the offender who is a public
officer in relation to the exploitative purpose? (2012 Bar Question)
 Adoption or facilitating the adoption of child for the purpose of prostitution
constitutes trafficking in person (Section 4 [f] of RA No. 9208)
3. Case Study 1: Marita
 
Marita is 21 years old, single mother of two children, ages 3 and 5. She did not finish
high school after she fell pregnant at 16 years old. Her common law husband left her
when their youngest was one year old. Marita and her two children live with her mother
in a shanty in Tondo, Manila. The latter takes care of the children while Marita
occasionally helps out in a carinderia.
 
Marita is increasingly pressed for money to support her two children and her mother. She
could barely afford to buy food every day, much less eat three full meals a day. When
Conrado approached her and told her to apply as GRO in Pegasus KTV Bar and
Restaurant, Marita did not need much persuasion. Marimar, who was introduced by
Conrado as the owner of Pegasus KTV Bar, interviewed Marita, and told her,
“matutulungan ka namin dito, basta maging masunurin at mabait ka”.
 
Marita was told by Marimar to wear skimpy clothes and to serve drinks to customers,
where a small percentage is given to her for every ladies’ drink she would consume.
Marita had to learn to drink as much as she can without getting drunk, but it was not
enough to support the needs of her growing children and mother. She wants to earn
more. Conrado told her that there is good money for her if she will engage in sexual
activity with customers. Initially, Marita was hesitant, but seeing how the other women
are doing well and taking home much bigger paychecks, Marita decided to tell Conrado
that she’s accepting the offer. After a while, Conrado supplies Marita with illegal drugs to
help her perform better and earn more. Conrado also takes a percentage from the nightly
earnings of Marita.
 
Questions:
1.        Do the facts constitute a prosecutable trafficking offense?
2.        Is consent relevant in TIP?
3.        Can Marissa’s customers be held liable under the TIP law?
 
4.
Case Study 3: Benedict, Jason and Ismael
 
Benedict, Jason and Ismael are cousins, best friends and classmates. They are 8 years
old and live in one barangay in Taguig City. The mother of Benedict has a boyfriend,
Daniel, who lives with them in a tiny windowless room that looks more like a hole than a
home - dark, stuffy and cramped.
 
Daniel and Rhoda, the mother of Benedict, have a laptop in their house, and they would
ask the boys to show their private parts to the webcam as a joke because someone
wants to see them. Many times, the boys would be asked to hold Daniel’s penis. The
person on the laptop would also promise to give them money if they would hold Daniel’s
penis and put it in their mouth. This happens almost every day after school.
 
 
Questions:
1.        Do the facts constitute a prosecutable trafficking offense?
2.        Who can be the complainant in this case?
3.        Suppose Rhoda, Benedict’s mother, attempts to secure an affidavit of desistance
from the boys, would she be liable under the TIP law for such act?
 
5. Case Study 1: Marita
 
Marita is 21 years old, single mother of two children, ages 3 and 5. She did not finish
high school after she fell pregnant at 16 years old. Her common law husband left her
when their youngest was one year old. Marita and her two children live with her mother
in a shanty in Tondo, Manila. The latter takes care of the children while Marita
occasionally helps out in a carinderia.
 
Marita is increasingly pressed for money to support her two children and her mother. She
could barely afford to buy food every day, much less eat three full meals a day. When
Conrado approached her and told her to apply as GRO in Pegasus KTV Bar and
Restaurant, Marita did not need much persuasion. Marimar, who was introduced by
Conrado as the owner of Pegasus KTV Bar, interviewed Marita, and told her,
“matutulungan ka namin dito, basta maging masunurin at mabait ka”.
 
Marita was told by Marimar to wear skimpy clothes and to serve drinks to customers,
where a small percentage is given to her for every ladies’ drink she would consume.
Marita had to learn to drink as much as she can without getting drunk, but it was not
enough to support the needs of her growing children and mother. She wants to earn
more. Conrado told her that there is good money for her if she will engage in sexual
activity with customers. Initially, Marita was hesitant, but seeing how the other women
are doing well and taking home much bigger paychecks, Marita decided to tell Conrado
that she’s accepting the offer. After a while, Conrado supplies Marita with illegal drugs to
help her perform better and earn more. Conrado also takes a percentage from the nightly
earnings of Marita.
 
 Questions:
1.        Do the facts constitute a prosecutable trafficking offense?
2.        Is consent relevant in TIP?
3.        Can Marissa’s customers be held liable under the TIP law?
 
Addition: Torture
1. AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense and detained in solitary
confinement. He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks of detention. During the period
of detention, he was not given any food. Such deprivation caused him physically
discomfort. What crime, if any, was committed in connection with the solitary
confinement and food deprivation of AA? Explain your answer. (2012 Bar Question)
 The crime of physical torture was committed. Section 4 (2) R.A. No. 9745
provides that food deprivation and confinement in solitary cell are considered as
physical torture. In addition to torture, the crime of maltreatment of prisoner is
committed.
 
6. Case Study 2: Bernabe
 
Bernabe is 16 years old from Catbalogan, Samar. Due to poverty and malnutrition, he
looks like a 13 year-old. Florensia, a known recruiter in their barangay offered him a job
as “errand boy” at a hardware store in Manila. Florensia gave Bernabe’s mother
Php3,000.00 as “advance payment”.
 
Bernabe was brought to Manila by Florensia . They took a ferry going to Matnog,
Sorsogon, then a bus going to Manila. When they reached Manila, Florensia took Bernabe
to Quiapo, and he was introduced to his employer, Joel, who happens to be a cousin of
Florensia.
 
Bernabe worked from dawn until night, but he was not given any salary. He was made to
sleep on cardboard boxes in front of the J’s Hardware Store, and was told by Joel,
“bantayan mo tindahan”. He was given small amount of food, sometimes stale rice, that
at nighttime, he could not sleep because of hunger. He thought of running away, but he
did not know anyone or where to go. He does not know how he can go home. He also
does not have any money with him.
 
At night, he would walk along Quiapo, and search for food. Sometimes, he would steal
food from stores and vendors. One evening, Barangay Tanods chanced upon him where
he told them of his situation. He was then rescued and taken to the DSWD shelter.
 
 
Questions:
1.        Do the facts constitute a prosecutable trafficking offense?
2.        Is consent relevant in TIP?
3.        Is the “means” employed in trafficking Bernabe need to be proven?
 
 

Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2021

Wednesday, March 30, 2022
8:04 PM
Trafficking in persons
- Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the
victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat, or use
of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of
position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person
for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
 
 The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child
for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of
consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in
persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding
paragraph
 
* Definition of terms
"(b) Child – refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over
eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition.
 
"(c) Prostitution – refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a
person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money,
profit or any other consideration.
 
"(d) Forced Labor – refers to the extraction of work or services from any person by means
of enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use of, force or coercion, including
deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral ascendancy, debt-bondage or deception
including any work or service extracted from any person under the menace of penalty.
 
"(e) Slavery – refers to the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the
powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.
 
"(f) Involuntary Servitude – refers to a condition of enforced and compulsory service
induced by means of any scheme, plan or pattern, intended to cause a person to believe
that if he or she did not enter into or continue in such condition, he or she or another
person would suffer serious harm or other forms of abuse or physical restraint, or threat of
abuse or harm, or coercion including depriving access to travel documents and withholding
salaries, or the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.
 
"(g) Sex Tourism – refers to a program organized by travel and tourism-related
establishments and individuals which consists of tourism packages or activities, utilizing and
offering escort and sexual services as enticement for tourists. This includes sexual services
and practices offered during rest and recreation periods for members of the military.
 
"(h) Sexual Exploitation – refers to participation by a person in prostitution, pornography
or the production of pornography, in exchange for money, profit or any other consideration
or where the participation is caused or facilitated by any means of intimidation or threat,
use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, debt bondage, abuse
of power or of position or of legal process, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
person, or giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person; or in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct caused or
facilitated by any means as provided in this Act.
 
"(i) Debt Bondage – refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her personal services or
labor or those of a person under his/her control as security or payment for a debt, when
the length and nature of services is not clearly defined or when the value of the
services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of the debt.
 
"(j) Pornography – refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition,
cinematography, indecent shows, information technology, or by whatever means, of a
person engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the
sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual purposes.
 
Acts of trafficking in persons
 
"(a) To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer, transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or receive
a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or
sexual exploitation;
 Elements:
1. offender recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer, transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or
receives a person
2. The act is done by any means including those done under the pretext of domestic or
overseas employment or training or apprenticeship
3. the person is intended to be used for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or
sexual exploitation
 
"(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other consideration,
any person or, as provided for under Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign
national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading
him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
 Elements:
1. Offender introduces or matches any person to a foreign national under the pretext
of marriage
2. the act of introducing or matching is done for money, profit, or material, economic
or other consideration
3. the purpose of introducing or matching the person is to acquire, buy, offer, sell or
trade him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage
 
"(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
offering, selling, or trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation,
forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.
 Elements:
1. the offender proposes marriage or marries a person, whether real or simulated
2. the purpose of such proposal is to acquire buy offer sell or trade the fiancee or
spouse to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage
 
"(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or
activities for the purpose of utilizing and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or
sexual exploitation;
 Elements:
1. offender undertakes or organizes tours and travel packages
 2. Such tours and travel packages are arranged for the purpose of utilizing and
offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation
 
"(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
 Elements:
1. offender maintains or hires a person
2. the person maintained or hired is engaged in prostitution or pornography
 
"(f) To adopt persons by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes or to facilitate
the same for purposes of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
 Elements:
1. offender adopts or facilitates the adoption of a person
2. the adoption was done for any form of consideration
3. the adopted person is intended to be exploited in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage
 
"(g) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
 Elements
1. offender adopts or facilitates the adoption of persons
2. the adopted person is intended to be exploited in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondagee
 
"(h) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport, transfer, obtain, harbor, maintain, provide, offer,
receive or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence,
coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person;
 Elements:
1. the offender recruits, hires, adopts, transports, transfers, obtains, harbors,
maintains, provides, offers, receives or abducts a person
2. the act/s are done by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence,
coercion, or intimidation
3. the acts are done for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person
 
"(i) To recruit, transport, obtain, transfer, harbor, maintain, offer, hire, provide, receive or
adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad;
 Elements
1. the offender recruits, transports, obtains, harbors, maintains, offers, hires,
provides, receives or adopts a child
2. the child is intended to be engaged in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad
 
"(j) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, obtain, maintain, offer, hire, provide or receive a
person by means defined in Section 3 of this Act for purposes of forced labor, slavery, debt
bondage and involuntary servitude, including a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause
the person either:
 
"(1) To believe that if the person did not perform such labor or services, he or she or
another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
 
"(2) To abuse or threaten the use of law or the legal processes; and
 
 Elements
 1. the offender recruits, transports, transfers, harbors, obtains, maintains, offers,
hires, provides or receives a person
2. the offender commits the acts through threat, or use of force, or other forms of
coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage
of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another person
3. The act/s are done for the purpose
of forced labor, slavery, debt bondage and involuntary servitude, including a scheme,
plan, or pattern intended to cause the person either:
o To believe that if the person did not perform such labor or services, he or she or
another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
o To abuse or threaten the use of law or the legal processes
 
"(k) To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain, transfer, maintain, hire, offer, provide, adopt or
receive a child for purposes of exploitation or trading them, including but not limited to, the
act of baring and/or selling a child for any consideration or for barter for purposes of
exploitation. Trafficking for purposes of exploitation of children shall include:
 
"(1) All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, involuntary servitude, debt bondage
and forced labor, including recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
 
"(2) The use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of
pornography, or for pornographic performances;
 
"(3) The use, procuring or offering of a child for the production and trafficking of drugs; and
 
"(4) The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal activities or work which, by its nature
or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm their health, safety or
morals; and
 Elements
1. offender recruits, transports, transfers, harbors, obtains, maintains, offers, hires,
provides or receives a child
2. the offender intends to exploit or trade the child including but not limited to, the act
of baring and/or selling a child for any consideration or for barter for purposes of
exploitation which shall include:
o All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, involuntary servitude, debt
bondage and forced labor, including recruitment of children for use in armed
conflict;
o The use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of
pornography, or for pornographic performances;
o The use, procuring or offering of a child for the production and trafficking of
drugs; and
o The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal activities or work which, by its
nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm their
health, safety or morals
 
"(l) To organize or direct other persons to commit the offenses defined as acts of trafficking
under this Act."
 
In General: elements of trafficking in persons under RA 10634
1. The act of recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer,
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders
 
2. The means used include "by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another person"
 
3. The purpose of trafficking includes "exploitation which includes at a minimum, the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor
or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs."
 
Consent is immaterial
- even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor's consent is not
given out of his or her own free will
 
 
Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons. -
The following acts which promote or facilitate trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful:
 
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house, building or
establishment for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
 
(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake counseling
certificates, registration stickers, overseas employment certificates or other certificates of
any government agency which issues these certificates, decals and such other markers as
proof of compliance with government regulatory and pre-departure requirements for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
 
(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the advertisement,
publication, printing, broadcasting or distribution by any means, including the use of
information technology and the internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any propaganda material
that promotes trafficking in persons;
 
(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of facilitating the
acquisition of clearances and necessary exit documents from government agencies that are
mandated to provide pre-departure registration and services for departing persons for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
 
(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the country at
international and local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports who are in possession of
unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of promoting trafficking
in persons;
 
(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel documents, or personal
documents or belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance of trafficking or to prevent
them from leaving the country or seeking redress from the government or appropriate
agencies; and
 
(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or services
of a person held to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor, or slavery.
 
(h) To tamper with, destroy, or cause the destruction of evidence, or to influence or attempt
to influence witnesses, in an investigation or prosecution of a case under this Act;
 
"(i) To destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate or possess, or attempt to destroy, conceal,
remove, confiscate or possess, any actual or purported passport or other travel,
immigration or working permit or document, or any other actual or purported government
identification, of any person in order to prevent or restrict, or attempt to prevent or restrict,
without lawful authority, the person’s liberty to move or travel in order to maintain the labor
or services of that person; or
 
"(j) To utilize his or her office to impede the investigation, prosecution or execution of lawful
orders in a case under this Act.
 
Qualified Trafficking in Persons
- The following are considered as qualified trafficking:
 
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
 
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the
"Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
 
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
 
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercises
authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or
employee;
 
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the
military or law enforcement agencies;
 
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and
 
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party
dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
 
Attempted trafficking in persons
- Where there are acts to initiate the commission of a trafficking offense but the offender
failed to or did not execute all the elements of the crime, by accident or by reason of
some cause other than voluntary desistance, such overt acts shall be deemed as an
attempt to commit an act of trafficking in persons. As such, an attempt to commit any of
the offenses enumerated in Section 4 of this Act shall constitute attempted trafficking in
persons.
 
"In cases where the victim is a child, any of the following acts shall also be deemed as
attempted trafficking in persons:
 
"(a) Facilitating the travel of a child who travels alone to a foreign country or territory
without valid reason therefor and without the required clearance or permit from the
Department of Social Welfare and Development, or a written permit or justification from the
child’s parent or legal guardian;
 
"(b) Executing, for a consideration, an affidavit of consent or a written consent for adoption;
 
"(c) Recruiting a woman to bear a child for the purpose of selling the child;
 
"(d) Simulating a birth for the purpose of selling the child; and
 
"(e) Soliciting a child and acquiring the custody thereof through any means from among
hospitals, clinics, nurseries, daycare centers, refugee or evacuation centers, and low-income
families, for the purpose of selling the child."
 
Accomplice liability
– Whoever knowingly aids, abets, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts defined in this Act shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of
Section 10(c) of this Ac
 
Accessories. – Whoever has the knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without
having participated therein, either as principal or as accomplices, take part in its
commission in any of the following manners:
 
"(a) By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
 
"(b) By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery;
 
"(c) By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime,
provided the accessory acts with abuse of his or her public functions or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
 
"Acts defined in this provision shall be punished in accordance with the provision of Section
10(d) as stated thereto."
 
Confidentiality
- At any stage of the investigation, rescue, prosecution and trial of an offense under this
Act, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, court personnel, social workers and
medical practitioners, as well as parties to the case, shall protect the right to privacy of the
trafficked person. Towards this end, law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges to
whom the complaint has been referred may, whenever necessary to ensure a fair and
impartial proceeding, and after considering all circumstances for the best interest of the
parties, order a closed-door investigation, prosecution or trial. The name and personal
circumstances of the trafficked person or any other information tending to establish the
identity of the trafficked person and his or her family shall not be disclosed to the public.
 
"It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed
materials, announcer or producer in case of television and radio, producer and director of a
film in case of the movie industry, or any person utilizing tri-media facilities or electronic
information technology to cause publicity of the name, personal circumstances, or any
information tending to establish the identity of the trafficked person except when the
trafficked person in a written statement duly notarized knowingly, voluntarily and willingly
waives said confidentiality.
 
"Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, court personnel, social workers and medical
practitioners shall be trained on the importance of maintaining confidentiality as a means to
protect the right to privacy of victims and to encourage victims to file complaints.
 
Dismissal should not be based on affidavit of desistance executed by the victims or
their parents or legal guardians
- Cases involving trafficking in persons should not be dismissed based on the affidavit of
desistance executed by the victims or their parents or legal guardians. Public and private
prosecutors are directed to oppose and manifest objections to motions for dismissal.
 
"Any act involving the means provided in this Act or any attempt thereof for the
purpose of securing an Affidavit of Desistance from the complainant shall be
punishable under this Act.
 
Use of Trafficked Persons
-
Use of Trafficked Persons. – Any person who buys or engages the services of a trafficked
person for prostitution shall be penalized with the following: Provided, That the Probation
Law (Presidential Decree No. 968) shall not apply:
 
"(a) Prision Correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor or six (6) years to twelve
(12) years imprisonment and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) but
not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00): Provided, however, That the
following acts shall be exempted thereto:
 
"(1) If an offense under paragraph (a) involves sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua or seventeen (17) years to forty (40) years imprisonment and a fine of
not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00);
 
"(2) If an offense under paragraph (a) involves carnal knowledge of, or sexual
intercourse with, a male or female trafficking victim and also involves the use of
force or intimidation, to a victim deprived of reason or to an unconscious victim, or
a victim under twelve (12) years of age, instead of the penalty prescribed in the
subparagraph above the penalty shall be a fine of not less than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) and imprisonment of
reclusion perpetua or forty (40) years imprisonment with no possibility of parole; except
that if a person violating paragraph (a) of this section knows the person that provided
prostitution services is in fact a victim of trafficking, the offender shall not be likewise
penalized under this section but under Section 10 as a person violating Section 4; and if in
committing such an offense, the offender also knows a qualifying circumstance for
trafficking, the offender shall be penalized under Section 10 for qualified trafficking. If in
violating this section the offender also violates Section 4, the offender shall be
penalized under Section 10 and, if applicable, for qualified trafficking instead of under this
section;
 
"(b) Deportation. – If a foreigner commits any offense described by paragraph (1) or (2)
of this section or violates any pertinent provision of this Act as an accomplice or
accessory to, or by attempting any such offense, he or she shall be immediately
deported after serving his or her sentence and be barred permanently from entering the
country; and
 
"(c) Public Official. – If the offender is a public official, he or she shall be dismissed from
service and shall suffer perpetual absolute disqualification to hold public, office, in addition
to any imprisonment or fine received pursuant to any other provision of this Act."
 
Legal Protection
- Trafficked persons shall be recognized as victims of the act or acts of trafficking and
as such, shall not be penalized for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of, or as
an incident or in relation to, being trafficked based on the acts of trafficking enumerated in
this Act or in obedience to the order made by the trafficker in relation thereto. In this
regard, the consent of a trafficked person to the intended exploitation set forth in this Act
shall be irrelevant.
 
"Victims of trafficking for purposes of prostitution as defined under Section 4 of this Act are
not covered by Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code and as such, shall not be prosecuted,
fined, or otherwise penalized under the said law."
 
- Temporary Custody of Trafficked Victims. – The rescue of victims should be done as
much as possible with the assistance of the DSWD or an accredited NGO that services
trafficked victims. A law enforcement officer, on a reasonable suspicion that a person is a
victim of any offense defined under this Act including attempted trafficking, shall
immediately place that person in the temporary custody of the local social welfare and
development office, or any accredited or licensed shelter institution devoted to protecting
trafficked persons after the rescue.
 
- Irrelevance of Past Sexual Behavior, Opinion Thereof or Reputation of Victims
and of Consent of Victims in Cases of Deception, Coercion and Other Prohibited
Means. – The past sexual behavior or the sexual predisposition of a trafficked person shall
be considered inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving consent of the victim to
engage in sexual behavior, or to prove the predisposition, sexual or otherwise, of a
trafficked person. Furthermore, the consent of a victim of trafficking to the intended
exploitation shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in Section 3(a) of this Act
has been used.
 
Immunity from Suit, Prohibited Acts and Injunctive Remedies.
– No action or suit shall be brought, instituted or maintained in any court or tribunal or
before any other authority against any: (a) law enforcement officer; (b) social worker; or
(c) person acting in compliance with a lawful order from any of the above, for lawful acts
done or statements made during an authorized rescue operation, recovery or
rehabilitation/intervention, or an investigation or prosecution of an anti-trafficking case:
Provided, That such acts shall have been made in good faith.
 
"The prosecution of retaliatory suits against victims of trafficking shall be held in abeyance
pending final resolution and decision of criminal complaint for trafficking.
 
"It shall be prohibited for the DFA, the DOLE, and the POEA officials, law enforcement
officers, prosecutors and judges to urge complainants to abandon their criminal, civil and
administrative complaints for trafficking.
 
"The remedies of injunction and attachment of properties of the traffickers, illegal recruiters
and persons involved in trafficking may be issued motu proprio by judges.
 
Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
– The State shall exercise jurisdiction over any act defined and penalized under this Act,
even if committed outside the Philippines and whether or not such act or acts constitute an
offense at the place of commission, the crime being a continuing offense, having been
commenced in the Philippines and other elements having been committed in another
country, if the suspect or accused:
 
"(a) Is a Filipino citizen; or
 
"(b) Is a permanent resident of the Philippines; or
 
"(c) Has committed the act against a citizen of the Philippines.
 
"No prosecution may be commenced against a person under this section if a foreign
government, in accordance with jurisdiction recognized by the Philippines, has prosecuted or
is prosecuting such person for the conduct constituting such offense, except upon the
approval of the Secretary of Justice.
 
"The government may surrender or extradite persons accused of trafficking in the
Philippines to the appropriate international court if any, or to another State pursuant to the
applicable extradition laws and treaties.
 
Who may file
1. Any person who has personal knowledge of the commission of any offense under this Act,
2. the trafficked person,
3. the parents, spouse, siblings, children or legal guardian
 
When can you file
- Trafficking cases under this Act shall prescribe in ten (10) years: Provided, however, That
trafficking cases committed by a syndicate or in a large scale as defined under Section 6, or
against a child, shall prescribe in twenty (20) years.
 
"The prescriptive period shall commence to run from the day on which the trafficked person
is delivered or released from the conditions of bondage, or in the case of a child victim, from
the day the child reaches the age of majority, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the
complaint or information and shall commence to run again when the proceedings terminate
without the accused being convicted or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason
not imputable to the accused."
 
Where can you file
- A criminal action arising from violation of this Act shall be filed where the offense was
committed, or where any of its elements occurred, or where the trafficked person actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That the court where the
criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts
 
Cases:
- people v. shirely casio
 
 

CCPO
Wednesday, April 6, 2022
10:09 AM
 
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
 
Article 203. Who are public officers. - For the purpose of applying the provisions of
this and the preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of
the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in
the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands,
or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to
be a public officer.
 
-Public officers| embraces every public servant from the highest to lowest
 Obliterates the standard distinction between officer and employee (maniego v.
People)
- whether your work is casual or temporary, as long as you perform public functions
- Under Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), the term
public officer is broader and more comprehensive because it includes all persons whether an
official or an employee, temporary or not, classified or not, contractual or otherwise. Any
person who receives compensation for services rendered is a public officer.
 
Requisites
- to be a public officer one must be:
1. Taking part in the performance of public functions in the government; or
Performing in said government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent
or subordinate official, or any rank or class;
2. His authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public
duties must be –
a. By direct provision of the law;
b. By popular election; or
c. By appointment by competent authority.
 
Rules:
1. one appointed as laborer in the government is not a public officer
- Maniego v. People and People v. Paloma
2. Temporary performance of public functions by a laborer makes him a public officer
 Sorter and filer of money orders and was appointed by the acting director
 A mere emergency helper on a daily basis, without any appointment as janitor
or messenger is a PO having entrusted with the custody of official document
 
CHAPTER TWO: MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
 
Breach of oath of office partakes of three forms:
(1) Malfeasance - when a public officer performs in his public office an act prohibited by law.
Example: bribery.
 Reyes| performance of some act which ought not to be done
 Article 210 and 211
(2) Misfeasance - when a public officer performs official acts in the manner not in
accordance with what the law prescribes.
 The improper performance of some act which might be lawfully be done
 Articles 204 - 207
(3) Nonfeasance - when a public officer willfully refrains or refuses to perform an official
duty which his office requires him to perform.
  Omission of some act which ought to be performed
 Article 208
 
DERELICTION OF DUTY
Important note: The crime of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, or knowingly issuing
an unjust interlocutory order, may be committed only by a judge of a trial court and never
of an appellate court.
 
Article 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a judge;
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
3. Judgment is unjust;
4. The judge knows that his judgment is unjust .
 
Rules:
1. Judgment final consideration and determination of matters submitted to it in an action or
proceeding
2. unjust judgment is one which is contrary to law, or is not supported by evidence or
both
3. When rendered knowingly| made deliberately and maliciously
 Knowingly| sure knowledge, conscious and deliberate intention to do an injustice
(Heirs of Yasin v. Felix, 1995)
4. Source of unjust judgment: error, ill-will or revenge or bribery
5. Bad Faith is the ground for liability since a judicial officer cannot be held liable for a mere
error
6. There must be evidence that the judgment is unjust — it cannot be presumed
7. Judgment must be contrary to law and not supported by the evidence (Sta. Maria v.
Ubay)
8. There must be evidence that the judge knew that the judgment is unjust (case above
plus US v. Gacutan)
9. the article 204 does not apply to members of a collegiate court
--> "any judge"| in appellate court, not only one magistrate renders or issues the
interlocutory order
 An appellate court functions as a division and the resolutions thereof are handed
down only after deliberations among the members of a division so that it cannot be
said that there is malice or inexcusable negligence or ignorance in the rendering of a
judgment or order that is supposedly unjust
(In re: Wenceslao Laureta and In re: Joaquin T. Borromeo)
 
Article 205. Judgment rendered through negligence.
Elements:
1. Offender is a judge;
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
3. The judgment is manifestly unjust;
4. It is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
 
Rules:
1. manifestly unjust judgment
- manifestly contrary to law, that even a person having a meager knowledge of the law
cannot doubt the injustice
2. Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment, not punishable
  Abuse of discretion doesn't necessarily mean ulterior motive, arbitrary conduct or
willful disregard or improper consideration (Evangelista v. Hon Judge Rubio)
 There must be allegation of bad faith or ill motive or improper consideration
(Yaranon v. Judge Rubio
3. there is an inexcusable disregard of a litigant's rights
 
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a judge;
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 inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
 
Rules
1. interlocutory order| issued by the court between the commencement and end of a suit or
action an which decides some point or matter, but which, however, is not a final decision of
the matter in issue
 Test: "does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits
of the case?
(Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Maynila Railroad company v. Yard Crew Union, et
al)
 
Article 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice.
Elements
1. Offender is a judge;
2. There is a proceeding in his court;
3. He delays in the administration of justice;
4. The delay is malicious, that is, with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in
the case.
 
Rules:
1. Mere delay without malice is not a felony under this article
2. Malice must be proven. Malice is present where the delay is sought to favor one party to
the prejudice of the other.
3. These have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to refer only to judges of the trial
court.
 
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance.
 
Acts Punished
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law;
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses.
 
Elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses
1. Offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution
of, or to prosecute, offenses;
2. There is a dereliction of the duties of his office, that is, knowing the commission of the
crime, he does not cause the prosecution of the criminal, or knowing that a crime is about
to be committed, he tolerates its commission;
3. Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law.
 
Rules:
1. the offender is either a public officer or officer of the law
 Officer of the law| all those who by reason of the position held by them, are duty-
bound to cause the prosecution and punishment of offenders
 Public officer| extends to officers of the prosecution department whose duty is to
institute criminal proceedings for felonies upon being informed of their perpetration
2. Public officer must have a duty to prosecute or to move the prosecution of the
violations of law
 Chief of police (People v. Rosales and Peope v. Mina)
 Barrio lieutenant or barrio captain (US v. Mendoza)
3. maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution
 If for example a fiscal who knows that the evidence against the accused is more than
sufficient to secure conviction in court
- remedy of injured party (Vda. De Bagatua et al. v. Revilla and Lombos)
4. Shall tolerate the commission of offenses
 A chief of police asked policemen not to raid a friend's house were gambling games
were played
5. When a policeman tolerates the commission of a crime or otherwise refrains from
apprehending the offender, such peace officer cannot be prosecuted for this crime but they
can be prosecuted as:
(1) An accessory to the crime committed by the principal in accordance with Article 19,
paragraph 3; or
(2) He may become a fence if the crime committed is robbery or theft, in which case
he violates the Anti-Fencing Law; or
(3) He may be held liable for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
6. Maliciously signifies deliberate evil intent
 Municipal president who held cockfights on days not authorized by law to raise
revenue for construction of a ward in a hospital
- only illegal cockfighting since there is no malice (People v. Malabanan)
7. A dereliction of duty caused by poor judgment or honest mistake is not punishable
8. Crime must be proved before conviction for dereliction
9. Public officer who having the duty of prosecuting the offender, harbored, concealed or
assisted in the escape of the latter is that of the principal in the crime of dereliction of duty
 
Further notes:
1. in Article 208, dereliction of duty refers only to prosecuting officers, the term
prevaricacion (a crime under the spanish codigo penal wherein a PO regardless of his duty
violates the oath of his office) applies to public officers in general who is remiss or who is
maliciously refraining from exercising the duties of his office.
 The offender was caught for white slavery. The policeman allowed the offender to go
free for some consideration. The policeman does not violate Article 208 but he
becomes an accessory to the crime of white slavery.
 But in the crime of theft or robbery, where the policeman shared in the loot and
allowed the offender to go free, he becomes a fence. Therefore, he is considered an
offender under the Anti-Fencing Law.
2. the crime of qualified bribery may be committed only by public officers “entrusted
with enforcement” whose official duties authorize then to arrest or prosecute
offenders.
 But this crime arises only when the offender whom such public officer refrains from
arresting or prosecuting, has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death.
- If the crime were punishable by a lower penalty, then such nonfeasance by the
public officer would amount to direct bribery, not qualified bribery.
3. If the crime was qualified bribery, the dereliction of the duty punished under Article 208
of the Revised Penal Code should be absorbed
 because said article punishes the public officer who “maliciously refrains from
instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law or shall tolerate the
commission of offenses”.
4. On the other hand, if the crime was direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code, the public officer involved should be prosecuted also for the dereliction of duty, which
is a crime under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code, because the latter is not absorbed
by the crime of direct bribery
 Illustration: A fiscal, for a sum of money, refrains from prosecuting a person charged
before him. If the penalty for the crime involved is reclusion perpetua, the fiscal
commits qualified bribery. If the crime is punishable by a penalty lower than
reclusion perpetua, the crime is direct bribery. In the latter situation, three crimes
are committed: direct bribery and dereliction of duty on the part of the fiscal; and
corruption of a public officer by the giver.
 
Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor.
 
Acts punished
1. Causing damage to his client, either—
a. By any malicious breach of professional duty;
Note: The breach of professional duty must be malicious. If it is just incidental, it would
not give rise to criminal liability, although it may be the subject of administrative discipline
b. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
Note: When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of his employment or inexcusable
negligence or ignorance, there must be damage to his client.
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity;
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of
his first client, after having undertaken the defense of said first client of after having
received confidential information from said client.
Note: If the client consents to the attorney's taking the defense of the other party, there is
no crime
 
Further notes:
1. Under the rules on evidence, communications made with prospective clients to a lawyer
with a view to engaging his professional services are already privileged even though the
client-lawyer relationship did not eventually materialize because the client cannot
afford the fee being asked by the lawyer. The lawyer and his secretary or clerk cannot
be examined thereon
 That this communication with a prospective client is considered privileged, implies
that the same is confidential
2. if the lawyer would reveal the same or otherwise accept a case from the adverse party,
he would already be violating Article 209
3. Mere malicious breach without damage is not violative of Article 209; at most he will be
liable administratively as a lawyer, e.g., suspension or disbarment under the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
4. Under the circumstances, it is necessary that the confidential matters or information was
confided to the lawyer in the latter’s professional capacity.
5. It is not the duty of the lawyer to give advice on the commission of a future crime
 It is only confidential information relating to crimes already committed that are
covered by the crime of betrayal of trust
6. The nominal liability under this article may be constituted either from breach of
professional duties in the handling of the case or it may arise out of the confidential relation
between the lawyer and the client.
 Breach of professional duty
- Tardiness in the prosecution of the case for which reason the case was dismissed for
being non-prosecuted; or tardiness on the part of the defense counsel leading to
declaration of default and adverse judgment.
- If the prosecutor was tardy and the case was dismissed as non-prosecuted, but he
filed a motion for consideration which was granted, and the case was continued, the
lawyer is not liable, because the client did not suffer damage
- If lawyer was neglectful in filing an answer, and his client declared in default, and
there was an adverse judgment, the client suffered damages. The lawyer is liable.
 Breach of confidential relation
- Revealing information obtained or taking advantage thereof by accepting the
engagement with the adverse party. There is no need to prove that the client
suffered damages. The mere breach of confidential relation is punishable.
- In a conjugal case, if the lawyer disclosed the confidential information to other
people, he would be criminally liable even though the client did not suffer any damage.
- The client who was suing his wife disclosed that he also committed acts of
unfaithfulness. The lawyer talked about this to a friend. He is, thus, liable.
Illustrations:
1. B, who is involved in the crime of seduction wanted A, an attorney at law, to handle his
case. A received confidential information from B. However, B cannot pay the professional
fee of A. C, the offended party, came to A also and the same was accepted.
 A did not commit the crime under Article 209, although the lawyer’s act may be
considered unethical. The client-lawyer relationship between A and B was not yet
established. Therefore, there is no trust to violate because B has not yet actually
engaged the services of the lawyer A. A is not bound to B.
 However, if A would reveal the confidential matter learned by him from B, then
Article 209 is violated because it is enough that such confidential matters were
communicated to him in his professional capacity, or it was made to him with a view to
engaging his professional services. Here, matters that are considered confidential must
have been said to the lawyer with the view of engaging his services. Otherwise, the
communication shall not be considered privileged and no trust is violated.
2. A went to B, a lawyer/notary public, to have a document notarized. A narrated to B the
detail of the criminal case. If B will disclose what was narrated to him there is no betrayal of
trust since B is acting as a notary public and not as a counsel. The lawyer must have
learned the confidential matter in his professional capacity.
 
Bar Questions
1.What is the proper charge against a lawyer who reveals the secrets of his client learned
by him in
his professional capacity? (2012 Bar Question)
 . Betrayal of trust is committed by an attorney-at-law who, by any malicious breach
of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence, shall reveal any of the secrets of his
client learned by him in his professional capacity (Article 209 of the Revised Penal
Code).
 
 
SECTION TWO: BRIBERY
 
Article 210. Direct bribery.
Acts punished
1. Agreeing to perform, or 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 gift or promise.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer within the scope of Article 203;
2. Offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through
another;
3. Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the public officer –
a. With a view to committing some crime; or
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.
4. The act which offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the
performance of his official duties.
 
First element| the offender is a public officer
- Public officers| embraces every public servant from the highest to lowest
 Obliterates the standard distinction between officer and employee (maniego v.
People)
 For the purpose of punishing bribery, the temporary performance of public
functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public officer (Maniego, People v.
Paloma, People v. Bulangao)
- made applicable to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or
any other persons performing public duties.
 any other persons performing public duties| does it cover a private individual who in
consideration of a sum of money given to him, released a person under arrest and
entrusted to his custody?
- not applicable| special temporary disqualification has no practical application to him
 But may be disqualified from holding the office of assessors, arbitrators, appraisal
and claim commissioners, experts
 
Second element| Gift is received personally or through intermediary
- gift is either:
1. voluntarily offered by a private person or
2. solicited by a public officer and the private person voluntarily delivers it to the public
officer
3. solicited by a PO as the consideration for his refraining from the performance of an
official duty and the private person gives the gift for fear of the consequences which could
result if the officer performs his functions (People v. Scope)
-Gift or present need not be actually received since an accepted offer or promise is
sufficient
 The offer of gift or promise must be accepted by the public officer
- only the person offering the gift or present is criminally liable for attempted
corruption of public officer (212)
- gift or present must have a value or be capable of pecuniary estimation
 Agreement to reinstate a friend of a mayor who was dismissed provided that the
mayor would execute a certain act in connection with his official duty (People ex rel
dickinson v. Van De Carr)
  Under RPC, fine is based on value of the gift| here reinstatement seems not capable
of estimation
 
Third element| three ways of committing direct bribery
- the act to be performed must constitute a crime in the first form of direct birbery
 
1. elements of the first form
1. Offender is a public officer within the scope of Article 203;
2. Offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or
through another;
3. Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the public officer
with a view to committing some crime
4.The act which offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the
performance of his official duties
--> all these must concur (US v. Giminea)
- A promise to give gift to and a promise to commit an unlawful act by a public
officer will be sufficient in direct bribery under the first paragraph of 210
- not necessary that the evidence shows an express promise
 It is sufficient if from all the circumstances in the case, such promise can be implied
(US v. Richard)
- can be held liable for the crime he promised to commit and the crime of direct bribery
- the act which the public officer agrees to perform must be connected with the
performance of official duties
 Mayor is duty bound to obey the orders of the provincial governor requiring prisoner
to send to the provincial capital (US. v. Valdehueza
 The act need not be statutory duty if duty is part of procedure of a governmental
agency (Cohen v. US)
 It is not bribery if the act is in discharge of a mere moral duty (Dishon v. Smith)
 That the act is in excess of his power, jurisdiction or authority is no defense (Glover
v. State)
- if the cat is so foreign to the duties of the office as to lack even color of authority,
there is no bribery (Gunning v. People)
 
2. elements of the second form
- same as those in the first except that the act intended by the public officer does not
amount to a crime though it is unjust
- examples in page 462
- the act does not amount to a crime and is connected with the performance of official duty
 Marifosque v. People| police officer received bribe in exchange for the recovery of
stolen cylinder tanks and his act of receiving money was connected with his duty as a
police officer
 
- under the 2nd paragraph, if the gift was accepted by the public officer in consideration of
the execution of an act which does not amount to a crime, two penalties are provided:
1. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act
which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer
the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have
been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its
medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.
 
2. If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public
officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer
 the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than
the value of the gift and not less than three times the value of such gift.
 
- accomplish| overt act is brought to completeness
 A mere agreement or promise on to execute an act does not constitute as a crime
 A mere promise to give a gift is not sufficient
- if the information does not allege whether the PO executed the act or not, the case would
fall under par.2 which distinguishes between the act which was executed and that which
was not accomplished (People v. Abesamis)
 
3. Elements of third form of bribery
- the difference is that the object for which the gifts is received or promised is to make the
public officer refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do
- if the act of refraining from doing something constitutes a crime in itself, offender is liable
under the first paragraph of 210
 Refraining from instituting an action for the punishment of an offense for example
 
Bribery Prevaricion

- refrained from doing official duty in - not a necessary element

consideration of a gift received or a gift
promised
- In bribery, the gift or present must be given to the public officer to corrupt him
 US v. Jader| Pos accepted cocks, hens, bamboo and etc., under promise to relieve
the persons from whom he had obtained them of the obligation to perform certain
duties
- given not to corrupt him and to induce him to omit the performance of his duty but
were demanded by hi,
 Estafa because by promising such, the accused pretended to possess authority to do
so
- Direct bribery is a crime involving moral torpitude
 Base it on the third element (Magno v. Commission on elections)
 
Further notes:
1. If he simply accepts a gift or present given to him by reason of his public position, the
crime is indirect bribery. Bear in mind that the gift is given "by reason of his office", not
"in consideration" thereof. So never use the term “consideration.” The public officer in
Indirect bribery is not to perform any official act
2. what may begin as an indirect bribery may actually ripen into direct bribery.
 Illustration: Without any understanding with the public officer, a taxi operator gave
an expensive suiting material to a BLT registrar. Upon receipt by the BLT registrar of
his valuable suiting material, he asked who the giver was. He found out that he is a
taxi operator.
- As far as the giver is concerned, he is giving this by reason of the office or position
of the public officer involved. It is just indirect bribery .
- If the BLT registrar calls up his subordinates and said to take care of the taxis of the
taxi operator so much so that the registration of the taxis is facilitated ahead of the
others, what originally would have been indirect bribery becomes direct bribery.
3. In direct bribery, consider whether the official act, which the public officer agreed to do,
is a crime or not.
- If it will amount to a crime, it is not necessary that the corruptor should deliver the
consideration or the doing of the act. The moment there is a meeting of the minds, even
without the delivery of the consideration, even without the public officer performing the act
amounting to a crime, bribery is already committed on the part of the public officer
- The reason is that the agreement is a conspiracy involving the duty of a public officer. The
mere agreement is a felony already. If the public officer commits the act which constitutes
the crime, he, as well as the corruptor shall be liable also for that other crime.
 If the corruptor offers a consideration to a custodian of a public record to remove
certain files, the mere agreement, without delivery of the consideration, brings about
the crime of direct bribery and corruption of public official.
- If the records were actually removed, both the public officer and the corruptor
will in addition to the two felonies above, will also be liable for the crime committed,
which is infidelity in the custody of the public records for which they shall be liable as
principals; one as principal by inducement, the other as principal by direct
participation.
 A party litigant approached the court’s stenographer and proposed the idea of
altering the transcript of stenographic notes. The court stenographer agreed and he
demanded P 2,000.00.
- Under Article 210, the mere agreement to commit the act, which amounts to a
crime, is already bribery. That stenographer becomes liable already for
consummated crime of bribery and the party who agreed to give that money is already
liable for consummated corruption, even though not a single centavo is delivered yet
and even though the stenographer had not yet made the alterations.
- If he changed the transcript, another crime is committed: falsification.
4. The same criterion will apply with respect to a public officer who agrees to refrain from
performing his official duties.
 If the refraining would give rise to a crime, such as refraining to prosecute an
offender, the mere agreement to do so will consummate the bribery and the
corruption, even if no money was delivered to him.
 If the refraining is not a crime, it would only amount to bribery if the consideration
be delivered to him
- Mere agreement, is not enough to constitute the crime because the act to be done in
the first place is legitimate or in the performance of the official duties of the public
official.
- Here, the public officer actually performed what he is supposed to perform. It is just
that he would not perform what he is required by law to perform without an added
consideration from the public which gives rise to the crime
5. Direct bribery may be committed only in the attempted and consummated stage
- In direct bribery, it is possible only if the corruptor concurs with the offender. Once there
is concurrence, the direct bribery is already consummated. In short, the offender could not
have performed all the acts of execution to produce the felony without consummating the
same
- you cannot have a giver unless there is one who is willing to receive and there cannot be a
receiver unless there is one willing to give. So this crime requires two to commit. It cannot
be said, therefore, that one has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but for reasons independent of the will, the crime was not
committed.
 If the public official accepted the corrupt consideration and turned it over to his
superior as evidence of the corruption, the offense is attempted corruption only and
not frustrated. The official did not agree to be corrupted.
- If the public officer did not report the same to his superior and actually accepted it,
he allowed himself to be corrupted. The corruptor becomes liable for consummated
corruption of public official. The public officer also becomes equally liable for
consummated bribery.
  If a public official demanded something from a taxpayer who pretended to agree and
use marked money with the knowledge of the police, the crime of the public official is
attempted bribery.
- The reason is that because the giver has no intention to corrupt her and
therefore, he could not perform all the acts of execution. Be sure that what is
involved is a crime of bribery, not extortion. If it were extortion, the crime is not
bribery, but robbery. The one who yielded to the demand does not commit corruption
of a public officer because it was involuntary.
 
Bar Questions:
1. Bribery & Corruption of Public Official (2001) Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the
RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada
vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer's office
where he was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses for
execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of prompt
enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced. a)
What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit? (3%) b) Was there any crime committed by
Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what crime? (2%)
 
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under
the second paragraph of Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since the P2,000 was
received by him "in consideration" of the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution
which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.
 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER; a) On the premise that even without the P2,000, Sheriff Ben
Rivas had to carry out the writ of execution and not that he would be implementing
the writ only because of the P2,000.00, the receipt of the amount by said sheriff may
be regarded as a gift received by reason of his office and not as a "consideration" for
the performance of an official duty; hence, only indirect Bribery would be committed
by said sheriff. b) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribe-
money, the crime is Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal
Code.
2. Direct Bribery: Infidelity in the Custody of Documents (2005) During a PNP buy-bust
operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence
Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the amount of P500,000.00 in
consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the
drug. State with reasons whether Patrick committed the following crimes: (7%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Patrick committed the crimes of Direct Bribery and Infidelity
in the Custody of Documents. When a public officer is called upon to perform or refrain
from performing an official act in exchange for a gift, present or consideration given to
him (Art. 210, Revised Penal Code), the crime committed is direct bribery. Secondly,
he destroyed the shabu which is an evidence in his official custody, thus, constituting
infidelity in the custody of documents under Art. 226 of the Revised Penal Code.
 
Article 211. Indirect bribery.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He accepts gifts;
3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
 
Rules:
1. Gift is usually given to the public officer in anticipation of future favor from the public
officer
 Gift received now might corrupt him or make him omit the performance of his official
duty
- example: US v. Richards
 A veterinarian of the board of health accepted money from the vendor of mules
- tasked with the duty of examining mules to be sold
- no evidence that money given was for the purpose of preventing him from doing his
duty or do something pertaining to his office
2. "who shall accept gifts offered to him"
- what if a PO accepts a promise of gifts made to him by reason of his office?
 Formilleza v. Sandiganbayan| essential ingredient of direct bribery is that the PO
accepted the gift or material consideration
- there must be clear intention on the part of the PO to take the gift so offered and
consider the same as his own property from then on
--> not mere physical receipt of such| easy to frame Pos
3. no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery
 Acceptance| consummated
4. direct Bribery Indirect Bribery

- in both, PO receives gifts  

- there is an agreement between PO and gift giver - none

- offender agrees to perform or performs an act or refrains - not necessary since it is enough that he
from doing something because of the gift or promise accepted such gift by reason of his office
(Pozar v. CA)
5. Considered indirect bribery, even if there was a sort of an agreement between PO and
giver of gift
- receiving money for his services or work assigned to him as an employee of a government
(People v. Pamplona)
 Here the act executed was not unjust nor a crime.
6. Presidential Decree No. 46 prohibits giving and acceptance of gifts by a public officer or
to a public officer, even during anniversary, or when there is an occasion like Christmas,
New Year, or any gift-giving anniversary.
 The Presidential Decree punishes both receiver and giver. The prohibition giving and
receiving gifts given by reason of official position, regardless of whether or not the
same is for past or future favors.
 The giving of parties by reason of the promotion of a public official is considered a
crime even though it may call for a celebration. The giving of a party is not limited to
the public officer only but also to any member of his family
7. Criminal penalty of imprisonment is distinct from the administrative penalty of separation
from the judicial service (Cabrera v. Pajares)
 
Further note:
1. The Supreme Court has laid down the rule that for indirect bribery to be committed, the
public officer must have performed an act of appropriating of the gift for himself, his family
or employees.
- It is the act of appropriating that signifies acceptance.
 Merely delivering the gift to the public officer does not bring about the crime.
Otherwise it would be very easy to remove a public officer: just deliver a gift to him.
 
Article 211-A. Qualified bribery.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement;
2. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime;
3. Offender has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death;
4. Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting in consideration of any offer, promise,
gift, or present
 
- Note that the penalty is qualified if the public officer is the one who asks or demands such
present.
 
Bar Questions
1. May a judge be charged and prosecuted for the felony of qualified bribery? How about a
public prosecutor? A police officer? Explain. (2010 Bar Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, a judge may not be charged of this felony because his
official duty as a public officer is not law enforcement but the determination of cases
already filed in court. A public prosecutor may be prosecuted for qualified bribery
should he refrain from prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable
by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present. A police officer who refrains from arresting such offender for the same
consideration above stated, may be prosecuted for this felony since he is a public
officer entrusted with law enforcement.
 
 
Article 212. Corruption of public officials.
Elements
1. Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer
2. that 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 bribery or indirect
bribery
 
- the offender here is the giver of gift or offeror's of promise
 Public officer sought to be bribed is not criminally liable unless he accepts the gift or
consents to the offer of the offender
 Even if the gift was demanded by PO and the offer was not made voluntarily prior to
the said demand by the public officer
- Bribery is usually proved by evidence acquired in entrapment
 (People v. Vinzol)
- there must be aground of suspicion or belief of the existence of official graft in that
office
Presidential Decree No. 749
- The decree grants immunity from prosecution to a private person or public officer who
shall voluntarily give information and testify in a case of bribery or in a case involving a
violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
It provides immunity to the bribe-giver provided he does two things:
(1) He voluntarily discloses the transaction he had with the public officer constituting
direct or indirect bribery, or any other corrupt transaction;
(2) He must willingly testify against the public officer involved in the case to be filed
against the latter.
- Before the bribe-giver may be dropped from the information, he has to be charged
first with the receiver.
- Before trial, prosecutor may move for dropping bribe-giver from information and be
granted immunity. But first, five conditions have to be met:
(1) Information must refer to consummated bribery;
 (2) Information is necessary for the proper conviction of the public officer involved;
(3) That the information or testimony to be given is not yet in the possession of the
government or known to the government;
(4) That the information can be corroborated in its material points;
(5) That the information has not been convicted previously for any crime involving
moral turpitude.
- other limitations:
1. The immunity granted the bribe-giver is limited only to the illegal transaction where
the informant gave voluntarily the testimony. If there were other transactions where
the informant also participated, he is not immune from prosecution.
2. The immunity in one transaction does not extend to other transactions. The
immunity attaches only if the information given turns out to be true and correct. If the
same is false, the public officer may even file criminal and civil actions against the informant
for perjury and the immunity under the decree will not protect him.
 
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses.
Acts punished
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 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
 
under paragraph 1
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has taken advantage of his office, that is, he intervened in the transaction in his
official capacity;
 Has the duty to deal with any person with regard to such acts
3. He entered into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or made use of any
other scheme with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the
adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds;
 Consummated by mere agreement with intent to defraud
4. He had intent to defraud the government.
 
Elements of illegal exactions under paragraph 2
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other
imposts;
 Must issue official receipts (Ganaden v. bolasco)
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than
those authorized by law; or
 mere demand will consummate the crime, even if the taxpayer shall refuse to come
across with the amount being demanded
 In the demand, it is not necessary that the amount being demanded is bigger than
what is payable to the government.
  this is often committed with malversation or estafa because when a public officer
shall demand an amount different from what the law provides, it can be expected that
such public officer will not turn over his collection to the government
 If no demand| indirect bribery
b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected
by him officially; or
 The act of receiving payment due the government without issuing a receipt
will give rise to illegal exaction even though a provisional receipt has been
issued. What the law requires is a receipt in the form prescribed by law, which means
official receipt.
c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or
objects of a nature different from that provided by law.
 Under the rules and regulations of the government, payment of checks not belonging
to the taxpayer, but that of checks of other persons, should not be accepted to settle
the obligation of that person.
 
Rules
1. when there is deceit in demanding greater fees than those prescribed by law, the crime
committed is estafa and not illegal exaction
 US v. Lopez| collected from several residents of the municipality greater fees than
those prescribed by law, with prejudice to the owners
2. tax collector need not account for tax collected
- the moment he receives the payment --> money acquires the character or forms part of
the public funds (People v. Policher)
3. Person who collected a sum larger than that authorized by law
 Illegal exaction| demander a greater amount
 Malversation, for misappropriation
--> difference between amount authorized by law and amount collected forms part of public
funds
4. Article 213 is not applicable when the offender is an employee of BIR and BoC
 
Question:
1. A taxpayer goes to the local municipal treasurer to pay real estate taxes on his land.
Actually, what is due the government is P400.00 only but the municipal treasurer demanded
P500.00. By that demand alone, the crime of illegal exaction is already committed even
though the taxpayer does not pay the P500.00.
2. Suppose the taxpayer came across with P500.00. But the municipal treasurer, thinking
that he would abstract the P100.00, issued a receipt for only P400.00. The taxpayer would
naturally ask the municipal treasurer why the receipt was only for P400.00. The treasurer
answered that the P100.00 is supposed to be for documentary stamps. The taxpayer left.
 He has a receipt for P400.00. The municipal treasurer turned over to the government
coffers P400.00 because that is due the government and pocketed the P100.00.
 The mere fact that there was a demand for an amount different from what is due the
government, the public officer already committed the crime of illegal exaction.
 
Article 214. Other Frauds -
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He takes advantage of his official position;
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in Article 315 to 318.
 
Rules:
1. public officer must take advantage of his official position
  Not when he performed such in his private capacity (US v. Torrida)
2. RTC has jurisdiction when this article is involved
 
Article 215. Prohibited Transactions -
Elements
1. 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.
 
Rules
1. exchange or speculation| buying and selling stocks, commodities, land, etc., hoping to
take advantage of an expected rise and fall in rice
2. purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simply an investment
 Not: buying regularly securities for resale --> speculation
4. Appointive officers | article 14 of code of commerce
 Justices, judges or fiscals
 Employees engaged in the collection and administration of public funds
 
Article 216. Possession of Prohibited Interest By A Public Officer
Persons liable
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became interested in any contracts or business in
which it was his 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 had acted;
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or the
estate.
 
Rules:
1. Example of no.1|mayor who took direct part in the lease of fish ponds to himself which is
he has an official duty to intervene (US v. Udarbe)
2. Actual Fraud is not necessary
3. Official who intervenes in contracts or transactions which have no connection with his
office cannot commit this crime (People v. Meneses)
 
Article 217. Malversation
 
Acts punished
1. Appropriating public funds or property;
2. Taking or misappropriating the same;
3. Consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take
such public funds or property; and
4. Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.
 
Penalty for malversation is the same whether it was committed with malice or
through negligence or imprudence
 
Elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office;
 Official custody or duty to collect or receive funds due to the government
3. Those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable;
 Had the obligation to account for them
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take them.
 
Nature of the duties of the public officer not name of office is controlling
- US v. velasquez
 
Accountable officer
- who has custody or control of public property by reason of the duties of his office (not by
the name of his position)
 To have custody or control
- tasked with taking of money or property from the public (Panganiban v. People)
- those whose signatures are needed for disbursement and release of public funds
(Manuel v. Sandiganbayan)
Certain officials held guilty of malversation
- page 525 of Reyes book
 
Funds must be received in his official capacity
- when a public officer had no authority to receive the money for the government and
upon receipt of the same has misappropriated it, the crime committed is estafa and not
malversation
 US v. Radaza & US v. Solis
 
A Public officer having only a qualified charge of government property without
authority to part with its physical possession cannot be held liable for
malversation
- under the orders
 Guilty of theft (US v. webster)
- clerk who had no authority to open safe or control over its contents --> theft (US v.
Wickersham)
- these case are not applicable when the accused have authority to receive money
pertaining to the government (US. v. Velasquez)
 
Liability of private individuals in conspiracy with public officers guilty of
malversation under 217
- well-settled in jurisprudence (cases in page 527)
- Article 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. - The provisions of this chapter
shall apply to private individuals who in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular,
provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or property and to any administrator or depository
of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such
property belongs to a private individual
 
Considered public funds
1. Red cross, anti-tuberculosis and boy scout funds| trus funds placed in the custody of
accountable public officer (People v. Velasquez and People v. De la Serna)
2. Postal money orders (People v. Villanueva)
3. redemption price received by sheriff (People v. Benito)
4. money received by sheriff to indemnify him (People v. ramos)
5. NARIC funds received by municipal treasurer (People v, Aquino)
6. proceeds of sweepstakes tickets (People v, Angco)\
7. Coconut levy funds (COCOFED v. Republic)
 
Public property
1. Firearms or explosives seized (People v. Magsino)
2. Timber of of Bureau of commerce and industry (People v. Mariño)
3. government funds withdrawn corresponding to an endorsed check
 Estafa| non-delivery --> estafa and not malversation (People v. Concepcion)
 
Private property may be involved in malversation
-refer to article 222
- applies to funds or property belonging to private persons
 As long as funds or property are placed in their custody (People v. de la Serna)
 
Different acts of malversation under 217
 
1. Appropriating public funds or property
- includes every attempt to dispose of the same without right
 Accused who was a municipal treasurer without authority transferred money to
advance his salary (US v. Calimag)
 A municipal treasurer who gave out unofficial and unauthorized loans to several com-
employees (Manuel v. Sandiganbayan)
 
2. Taking or misappropriating public funds or property
 Taking need not be misappropriated| it is separated by the word "or" from the word
misappropriation
 Taking| an act without consent from the owner
 Misappropriation| spending it for your own benefit
 
3. Consenting or permitting, through abandonment or negligence, any other
person to take public funds or property
- violation of regulations of his office is evidence of negligence
 Ex: cashing of private checks drawn in favor of his wife with public funds (People v.
Luntao)
- the negligence of accountable public officer must be positively and clearly shown
to be inexcusable, approximating malice or fraud
 People v. Bernas| municipal treasurer selling rice on credit before the advent of the
typhoon and the reason of which was to swiftly dispose large stock of rice for he had
no safe place to keep the rice
- excusable although against existing regulations; he may nonetheless be held civilly
liable
 
Malversation may be committed through dolo or culpa
- criminal intent or criminal negligence
- the felony involves breach of public trust
- malversation through negligence is included in the charge of intentional malversation
(Torres v. People)
 
Malversation by culpa
1. sarimguba v. sandiganbayan| Mayor distributed money to each baranggay captains
without bothering to inform them that the amount was from his CDF
 Baranggay captains thought that the money received was from his personal account
 All that is essential is proof that the accountable officer has received public funds but
that when demand thereof is made, he is unable to satisfactorily account for the same
2. People v. Pili| defendant lost checks, cash warrants because he failed to place it in the
combination safe after he spent overtime to put books in order to deposit it.
  Could've asked the policeman on duty to provide him with another light of petromax
 
Test to determine negligence
- did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution
which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation?
(Leaño v. domingo)
 
The measure of negligence is the standard of care commensurate with the
occasion
Ex:
1. US v. Garces| muncipal treasurer entrusted with safekeeping of opium put the said pipe
in the drawer of an apparador in his office and such was stolen
 Not guilty since the SC believed he took steps to guard the opium
 Reyes| even if he had a safe he cannot be expected to keep the opium pipe there
2. People v. Torres| Authorized his subordinate officer to remit money for insurance
premiums and salary loans
 Didn't even bother to investigate if remittances were made from the government
insurance system
- even though he knew that the subordinate officer was sporting a car and had another
woman aside from his lawful wife
 His defense that his let his personal driver supervise the subordinate officer the
proper delivery of money is inexcusable
 
In malversation not committed through negligence, lack of criminal intent or good
faith is a defense
1. People v. Elvina| wrong payment through honest mistake as to the law or to the facts
concerning his duties --> only civilly liable
 Paid out public funds pursuant to a resolution from the municipal council; it however
lack vouchers or had improper evidence
2. Full liquidation of cash advance by means of agreement (Panganiban v. People)
 
Presumption of malversation
- failure of a 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 missing funds or property to personal uses
 (Wa-acon v. People)
Examples:
1. made cash advances allegedly to the mayor during eruption of mt. pinatubo. Date when
the eruption happened was way before the period of the subject of the audit. (Legrama v.
sandiganbayan)
2. failure or inability to refund the shortage of public funds upon demand (Us v. Kalingo)
3. disappearance of public funds in the hands of an accountable officer (People v. Velasco)
4. an accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct
evidence of misappropriation as long as he fails to explain the shortage in his accounts
(People v.Mingoa)
 
Presumption may be rebutted
1. cabello v. sandiganbayan| funds were not used for his personal interest but were
extended as cash advances to his co-employees in the belief that they were for
legitimate purposes
2. Villacorta v. People and Quizo sandiganbayan| cash advances were made but were
disallowed by the audit team. This lead to shortage of funds in their accounts. However,
upon demand by the audit team these individuals were able to reimburse the balance. And
no evidence was presented that they used such money for their personal interest because
these funds actually went to their co-employees
3. Madarang v. People| Petitioner was able to prove that he didn't receive the advance
rentals which were allegedly used by him for his personal use
 Presented resolutions from the baranggay to appropriate said money for a water
system of the baranggay hall and baranggay police uniforms
 Advance rentals from the lease agreement with a certain person went to such
purpose
 
Funds were lost or stolen
- could be overcome by satisfactory evidence of loss or robbery committed by a person
other than the accused (US v. Kalingo)
1. cash was lost while on her way to her office when she suffered a stroke (Agullo v.
sandiganbayan)
2. said amounts were collected and converted by his secretary without evidence he was in
conspiracy with her (US v. Acebedo)
 
Money presented upon demand
- at the very moment the shortage was discovered and then the accountable officer is
notified thereof and he at once presents the money, no prima facie evidence of the crime of
malversation can be established
1. municipal treasurer took out money from his pocket and reimbursed the shortage (US v.
feliciano)
 Examination was made in the presence of the municipal president and the municipal
secretary
 
Obedience to a lawful order
- Tabuene GM of Manila international airport authority was directed by Marcos to pay
directly to the president\s office what the MIAA owed to the PNP and received a
memorandum order reiterating such instruction (Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan)
 55 million pesos
 Memorandum was patently legal, marcos was clearly his superior officer and he
acted under an honest belief
 
Prima facie evidence does not arise if the fact that the funds are missing is not
clearly established
- audit team couldn't unequivocally state whether cash or check was missing (Enriquez v.
People)
- the amount alleged to be appropriated was still unaccounted for (Rizon v. sandiganbayan)
 
Payment or reimbursement is not a defense but may be considered a mitigating
circumstance
-even before the institution of criminal prosecution (US v. reyes)
- analogous to voluntary surrender (Perez v. People)
Ex:
1. when books were examined, he was not able to produce the amount. Later assistant
cashier offered to and did actually return the money (People v. Velasquez)
2. Took several years before he returned the money (Cimafranca Jr. v. Sandiganbayan)
 
Borrowing money to replace missing funds
- not a defense in malversation (People v. divino)
- but if he is obliged to borrow money outside and later on said money was found in some
unaccustomed place in his office --> not liable (Us v. Pascual)
 
Demand not necessary in malversation
- it merely raises a presumption that missing funds must have been put to personal use
(Moron Water district v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman)
- Javier et al v. People| a person can be held as principal by indirect cooperation in the
complex crime of malversation through falsification through reckless imprudence
 Not verifying the correctness of the payrolls
 
Damage to the government not necessary
-lack of proof of such would affect the civil liability only (People v. chavez)
- amount alleged: 17,000,ooo; amount recovered 11,000,000 --> par. 4 and not 3
 
Other notes:
1. The crime of malversation can be committed only by an officer accountable for the funds
or property which is appropriated
2. The offender, to commit malversation, must be accountable for the funds or property
misappropriated by him. If he is not the one accountable but somebody else, the crime
committed is theft. It will be qualified theft if there is abuse of confidence.
3. Accountable officer does not refer only to cashier, disbursing officers or property
custodian. Any public officer having custody of public funds or property for which he is
accountable can commit the crime of malversation if he would misappropriate such fund or
property or allow others to do so.
4. When private property is attached or seized by public authority and the public officer
accountable therefor misappropriates the same, malversation is committed also.
5. If a sheriff levied the property of the defendants and absconded with it, he is not liable of
qualified theft but of malversation even though the property belonged to a private person.
The seizure of the property or fund impressed it with the character of being part of the
public funds it being in custodia legis. For as long as the public officer is the one accountable
for the fund or property that was misappropriated, he can be liable for the crime of
malversation. Absent such relation, the crime could be theft, simple or qualified.
6. A private person may also commit malversation under the following situations:
(1) Conspiracy with a public officer in committing malversation;
(2) When he has become an accomplice or accessory to a public officer who commits
malversation;
(3) When the private person is made the custodian in whatever capacity of public
funds or property, whether belonging to national or local government, and he
misappropriates the same; (4) When he is constituted as the depositary or
administrator of funds or property seized or attached by public authority even though
said funds or property belong to a private individual.
7. Note that damage on the part of the government is not considered an essential element.
It is enough that the proprietary rights of the government over the funds have been
disturbed through breach of trust
 It is not necessary that the accountable public officer should actually misappropriate
the fund or property involved. It is enough that he has violated the trust reposed on
him in connection with the property.
 
Question and Answer:
1. What crime under the Revised Penal Code carries the same penalty whether committed
intentionally or through negligence?
 Malversation under Article 217. There is no crime of malversation through
negligence. The crime is malversation, plain and simple, whether committed through
dolo or culpa
2. An unlicensed firearm was confiscated by a policeman. Instead of turning over the
firearm to the property custodian for the prosecution of the offender, the policeman sold the
firearm. What crime was committed?
 The crime committed is malversation because that firearm is subject to his
accountability. Having taken custody of the firearm, he is supposed to account for it as
evidence for the prosecution of the offender
3. Can the buyer be liable under the Anti-fencing law?
 No. The crime is neither theft nor robbery, but malversation.
4. A member of the Philippine National Police went on absence without leave. He was
charged with malversation of the firearm issued to him. After two years, he came out of
hiding and surrendered the firearm. What crime was committed?
 The crime committed was malversation. Payment of the amount misappropriated or
restitution of property misappropriated does not erase criminal liability but only civil
liability.
5. There was a long line of payors on the last day of payment for residence certificates.
Employee A of the municipality placed all his collections inside his table and requested his
employee B to watch over his table while he goes to the restroom. B took advantage of A’s
absence and took P50.00 out of the collections. A returned and found his money short.
What crimes have been committed?
 A is guilty of malversation through negligence because he did not exercise due
diligence in the safekeeping of the funds when he did not lock the drawer of his table.
Insofar as B is concerned, the crime is qualified theft.
6. A government cashier did not bother to put the public fund in the public safe/vault but
just left it in the drawer of his table which has no lock. The next morning when he came
back, the money was already gone.
 He was held liable for malversation through negligence because in effect, he has
abandoned the fund or property without any safety.
7. Municipal treasurer connives with outsiders to make it appear that the office of the
treasurer was robbed. He worked overtime and the co-conspirators barged in, hog-tied the
treasurer and made it appear that there was a robbery.
 Crime committed is malversation because the municipal treasurer was an
accountable officer.
 
Bar Questions
1.Malversation (1994) Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an armalite rifle (Ml6)
and a Smith and Wesson Revolver. Cal. 38. After a year, the NBI Director made an
inspection of all the firearms issued. Randy, who reported for work that morning, did not
show up during the inspection. He went on absence without leave (AWOL). After two years,
he surrendered to the NBI the two firearms issued to him. He was charged with
malversation of government property before the Sandiganbayan. Randy put up the defense
that he did not appropriate the armalite rifle and the revolver for his own use, that the delay
in accounting for them does not constitute conversion and that actually the firearms were
stolen by his friend, Chiting. Decide the case.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is
accountable for the firearms they issued to him in his official capacity. The failure of
Randy to submit the firearms upon demand created the presumption that he converted
them for his own use. Even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation, his
failure to account for the government property is enough factual basis for a finding of
malversation. Indeed, even his explanation that the guns were stolen is incredible. For
if the firearms were actually stolen, he should have reported the matter immediately
to the authorities. (People vs. Baguiran , 20 SCRA 453; Felicilda us. Grospe, GR No.
10294, July 3, 1992)
2. Malversation (1999) A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or property,
encashed with public funds private checks drawn in favor of his wife. The checks bounced,
the drawer not having enough cash in the drawee bank. The Municipal Treasurer, in
encashing private checks from public funds, violated regulations of his office.
Notwithstanding restitution of the amount of the checks, can the Municipal Treasurer
nevertheless be criminally liable? What crime did he commit? Explain. (2%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the
check, the Municipal Treasurer will be criminally liable as restitution does not negate
criminal liability although it may be considered as a mitigating circumstance similar or
analogous to voluntary surrender. (People vs. Velasquez, 73 Phil 98), He will be
criminally liable for malversation. However, if the restitution was made immediately,
under vehement protest against an imputation of malversation and without leaving the
office, he may not be criminally liable.
3. Malversation (2001) Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former warehousemen
of the Rustan Department Store. In 1986, the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund and
properties of the ownersincorporators of the store, alleging that they constitute "Illgotten
wealth" of the Marcos family. Upon their application, Reyes and Santos were appointed as
fiscal agents of the sequestered firm and they were given custody and possession of the
sequestered building and its contents, including various vehicles used in the firm's
operations. After a few months, an inventory was conducted and it was discovered that two
(2) delivery vans were missing. After demand was made upon them, Reyes and Santos
failed to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing or to turn them over
to the PCGG; hence, they were charged with Malversation of Public Property. During the
trial, the two accused claimed that they are not public accountable officers and, if any crime
was committed, it should only be Estafa under Art. 315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
What is the proper offense committed? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The proper offense committed was Malversation of Public
Property, not estafa, considering that Reyes and Santos, upon their application, were
constituted as "fiscal agents" of the sequestered firm and were "given custody and
possession" of the sequestered properties, including the delivery vans which later they
could not account for. They were thus made the depositary and administrator of
properties deposited by public authority and hence, by the duties of their
office/position, they are accountable for such properties. Such properties, having been
sequestered by the Government through the PCGG, are in custodia legis and therefore
impressed with the character of public property, even though the properties belong to
a private individual (Art. 222, RPC). The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any
satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing, is prima facie evidence that they
had put the same to their personal use.
4. Malversation (2006) 1. In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a government
banking institution, hired Henry dela Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he
resigned and was employed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC),
another government-owned and controlled corporation. In 1995, after the PNB management
unearthed many irregularities and violations of the bank's rules and regulations, dela Renta
was found to have manipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time deposits of
depositors. After investigation, he was charged with malversation of public funds before the
Sandiganbayan. He filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an employee of
the PNB but of the PDIC. Is dela Renta's contention tenable? (2.5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The contention of Henry dela Renta is not tenable. Dela Renta
may be prosecuted for malversation even if he had ceased to be an employee of the
PNB. At the time of the commission of the offense, PNB was a government owned and
controlled corporation and therefore, any crime committed by the Regional Bank
Auditor, who is a public officer, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (See
R.A. 7975 as amended by RA. 8249).
After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for his suspension pendente lite, to
which he filed an opposition claiming that he can no longer be suspended as he is no longer
an employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC. Explain whether he may or may not be
suspended. (2.5%)
 Dela Renta may still be suspended pendente lite despite holding a different public
office, the PDIC, when he was charged. The term "office" in Sec. 13 of R.A. 3019
applies to any office which the officer might currently be holding and not necessarily
the office or position in relation to which he is charged (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 122740, March 30,1998).
5. Malversation vs. Estafa (1999) How is malversation distinguished from estafa?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is committed by
an accountable public officer involving public funds or property under his custody and
accountability; while estafa is committed by non-accountable public officer or private
individual involving funds or property for which he is not accountable to the government.
6. Malversation: Anti-Fencing: Carnapping (2005) Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the
Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to return to his office after a day-long official
conference. He alighted from the government car which was officially assigned to him,
leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander,
drove off with the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20,000.00,
although the car was worth P800,000.00. What are the respective crimes, if any, committed
by Allan, Danny and Jules? Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for malversation
committed through negligence or culpa. The government car which was assigned to
him is public property under his accountability by reason of his duties. By his act of
negligence, he permitted the taking of the car by another person, resulting in
malversation, consistent with the language of Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
Danny violated the Anti-Fencing Law. He is in possession of an item which is the
subject of thievery. P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) under Section 5 provides that
mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything of value which has been
the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie, evidence of fencing. Jules is
guilty of carnapping. He took the motor vehicle belonging to another without the
latter's consent. (R.A. No. 6539)
6. Malversation; Properties; Custodia Legis (2001) Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in
a Regional Trial Court, levied on the personal properties of a defendant in a civil case before
said court, pursuant to a writ of execution duly issued by the court. Among the properties
levied upon and deposited inside the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court for Multiple RTC
Salas were a refrigerator, a stock of cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs and several
lampshades. Upon the defendant's paying off the judgment creditor, he tried to claim his
properties but found out that several items were missing, such as the cassette tapes, chairs
and lampshades. After due and diligent sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the
case, these missing items were found in the house of accused Santos, who reasoned out
that he only borrowed them temporarily. If you were the fiscal /prosecutor, what would be
the nature of the information to be filed against the accused? Why? (5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an information for
Malversation against Juan Santos for the cassette tapes, chain and lampshades which
he, as deputy sheriff, levied upon and thus under his accountability as a public officer.
Said properties being under levy, are in custodia legis and thus impressed with the
character of public property, misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of
malversation although said properties belonged to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC).
Juan Santos misappropriated such properties when, in breach of trust, he applied them
to his own private use and benefit. His allegation that he only borrowed such
properties is a lame excuse, devoid of merit as there is no one from whom he
borrowed the same. The fact that it was only "after due and diligent sleuthing by the
 police detectives assigned to the case", that the missing items were found in the house
of Santos, negates his pretension.
 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: An information for Theft may be filed, considering that the
sheriff had already deposited the properties levied upon in the "evidence room" of the
Clerk of Court and may have already been relieved of his accountability therefor. If
Juan Santos was no longer the public officer who should be accountable for the
properties levied upon and found in his house, his taking of such properties would no
longer constitute Malversation but Theft, as there was taking with intent to gain, of
personal property of another without the consent of the latter.
7. Malversation; Technical Malversation (1996) Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of
Masinloc, Zambales. On January 10, 1994, she received, as municipal treasurer, from the
Department of Public Works and Highways, the amount of P100,000.00 known as the fund
for construction, rehabilitation, betterment, and Improvement (CRBI) for the concreting of
Barangay Phanix Road located in Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on proposal of
the Barangay Captain. Informed that the fund was already exhausted while the concreting
of Barangay Phanix Road remained unfinished, a representative of the Commission on Audit
conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth who failed to account for the Pl00,000 CRBI fund.
Elizabeth, who was charged with malversation of public funds, was acquitted by the
Sandiganbayan of that charge but was nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal case,
for illegal use of public funds. On appeal, Elizabeth argued that her conviction was
erroneous as she applied the amount of P50,000.00 for a public purpose without violating
any law or ordinance appropriating the said amount for any specific purpose. The absence of
such law or ordinance was, in fact, established. Is the contention of Elizabeth legally
tenable? Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Elizabeth's contention that her conviction for illegal use of
public funds (technical malversation) was erroneous, is legally tenable because she
was charged for malversation of public funds under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code
but was convicted for Illegal use of public funds which is defined and punished under
Art. 220 of said Code. A public officer charged with malversation may not be validly
convicted of illegal use of public funds (technical malversation) because the latter
crime is not necessarily included nor does it necessarily include the crime of
malversation. The Sandiganbayan should have followed the procedure provided in Sec.
11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and order the filing of the proper Information.
(Parungao us. Sandiganbayan. 197 SCRA 173.) From the facts, there is no showing
that there is a law or ordinance appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose.
As a matter of fact, the problem categorically states that the absence of such law or
ordinance was, in fact, established." So, procedurally and substantially , the
Sandiganbayan's decision suffers from serious Infirmity.
8. Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners (1996) A chief of police of a
municipality, believing in good faith that a prisoner serving a ten-day sentence in the
municipal jail, would not escape, allowed said prisoner to sleep at the latter's house because
the municipal Jail was so congested and there was no bed space available. Accordingly, the
prisoner went home to sleep every night but returned to jail early each morning, until the
ten-day sentence had been fully served. Did the Chief of Police commit any crime? Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC,
consenting or conniving to evasion, the elements of which are (a) he is a public officer,
(b) he is in charge or custody of a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment,
(c) that the prisoner escaped, and (d) there must be connivance. Relaxation of a
prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making the penalty ineffectual; although the
convict may not have fled (US vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. 459) it is still violative of the
provision. It also includes a case when the guard allowed the prisoner, who is serving
a six-day sentence in the municipal Jail, to sleep in his house and eat there (People vs.
Revilla).
9. Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners (1997) During a town fiesta. A, the chief
of police, permitted B, a detention prisoner and his compadre, to leave the municipal jail
and entertain visitors in his house from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. B returned to the municipal
jail at 8:30 p.m. Was there any crime committed by A?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a
prisoner. Since B is a detention prisoner. As Chief of Police, A has custody over B.
Even if B returned to the municipal Jail at 8:30 p.m. A, as custodian of the prisoner,
has maliciously failed to perform the duties of his office, and when he permits said
prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner
escaping the punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be considered real
and actual evasion of service under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs.
Leon Bandino 29 Phil. 459).
 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only
an act of leniency or laxity in the performance of his duty and not in excess of his duty
(People vs. Evangelista (CA) 38 O.G. 158)
10. .To aid in the rebuilding and revival of Tacloban City and the surrounding areas that had
been devastated by the strongest typhoon to hit the country in decades, the Government
and other sectors , including NGOs, banded together in the effort. Among the NGOs was
Bangon Waray, Inc. (BaWI), headed by Mr. Jose Ma. Gulang, its President and CEO. BaWI
operated mainly as a social amelioration and charitable institution. For its activities in the
typhoon-stricken parts of Leyte Province, BaWI received funds from all sources, local and
foreign, including substantial amounts from legislators, local government officials and the
EU. After several months, complaints were heard about the very slow distribution of relief
goods and needed social services by BaWI. The COA reported the results of its audit to the
effect that at least P10 Million worth of funds coming from public sources channeled to BaWI
were not yet properly accounted for. The COA demanded reimbursement but BaWI did not
respond. Hence, Mr. Gulang was criminally charged in the Office of the Ombudsman with
malversation of public funds as respectively defined and punished by Art. 217 and Art.218
of the Revised Penal Code. He was also charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for
causing undue injury to the Government. In his defense, Mr. Gulang mainly contended that
he could not be held liable under the various charges because he was not a public officer.
(2017 Bar Question) A) Who is a public officer? B) Discuss whether the crimes charged
against Mr. Gulang are proper. Explain your answer.
 A) A public officer is any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election
or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public
functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said
Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank or class.
 B) Mr. Gulang, although a private person, may be charged with malversation and
failure of accountable officer to render accounts because he was in made in charge of
public funds. Malversation and failure to render accounts shall also apply to private
individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any national, provincial or
municipal funds, revenues or property. Mr. Gulang may not be held liable for RA No.
3019 because it was not shown that he conspired with a public officer in committing
the crime. As a general rule, a private individual can be held liable for violation of if he
conspired with a public officer in committing this crime.
11. A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the inhabitants of X Municipality.
Thereafter, X Municipality operated a shelter assistance program whereby construction
materials were provided to the calamity victims, and the beneficiaries provided the labor.
The construction was partially done when the beneficiaries stopped helping with the
construction for the reason that they needed to earn income to provide food for their
families. When informed of the situation, Mayor Maawain approved the withdrawal of ten
boxes of food from X Municipality's feeding program, which were given to the families of the
beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program. The appropriations for the funds pertaining
to the shelter assistance program and those for the feeding program were separate items
on X Municipality's annual budget. (2015 Bar Question)
A) What crime did Mayor Maawain commit? Explain.
B) May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense of good faith and that he had no evil intent when
he approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the feeding program to the shelter
assistance program? Explain
 A) Mayor Maawain committed the crime of Illegal use of public funds or property or
Technical Malversation under Art. 220 of the RPC, because as an accountable public
officer, he applied public funds and property under his administration, which were
supposedly for the feeding program, to some other public use, i.e., the beneficiaries of
the shelter assistance program.
 B) No. Since the offense of Technical Malversation is mala prohibita, good faith is not
a defense. The law punishes the mere act of diverting public property earmarked by
law or ordinance for a particular purpose to another public purpose.
12. Filthy, a very rich businessman, convinced Loko, a clerk of court, to issue an order of
release for Takas, Filthy’s cousin, who was in jail for a drug charge. After receiving
P500,000.00, Loko forged the signature of the judge on the order of release and
accompanied Filthy to the detention center. At the jail, Loko gave the guard P10,000.00 to
open the gate and let Takas out. What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and the guard
commit? (2014 Bar Question
 Filthy committed the following crimes: (a) Delivery of prisoners from Jail, Article 156,
RPC, because he assisted in the removal of Takas, a detention prisoner, from jail. (b)
Corruption of Public Officials, Article 212, RPC, because he gave P500,000.00 to the
clerk of court, under circumstances in which said public officer would be liable of direct
bribery. (c) Falsification of Public Document, Article 172(1), RPC, as a principal by
inducement because he gave the clerk of court P500,000.00 to induce him to forge the
signature of the judge in the order of release.
 Loko committed the following crimes: (a) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because
he accepted P500,000.00 in consideration of the execution of an act which constitutes
a crime, i.e., forging the signature of the judge in the order of release that would
enable Takas to get out of jail, in connection with the performance of his duty as a
clerk of court. (b) Falsification of Public Document, Article 171, RPC, because he took
advantage of his position as a clerk of court in forging the signature of the judge in the
order of release. (c) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he
assisted in the removal of Takas from jail by forging the signature of the judge in the
in the falsified order of release.
 The guard committed the following crimes: (a) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC,
because in consideration of P10,000.00, he agreed to open the gate and let Takas out.
(b) Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, Article 223, RPC, because as the custodian of
Takas, connived or consented to his escape by opening the gate.
13. What crime is committed by a public officer who, having control of public funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office and for which he is accountable, permits any
other person through abandonment to take such public funds or property? (2012 Bar
Question)
 It is settled that a public officer is liable for malversation even if he does not use
public property or funds under his custody for his personal benefit, if he allows another
to take the funds, or through abandonment or negligence, allow such taking
14. Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael, Leyte,
caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local development programs for
2008. Records show that the amount of P2-million was purportedly used as financial
assistance for a rice production livelihood project. Upon investigation however, it was found
that Roger and Jessie falsified the disbursement vouchers and supporting documents in
order to make it appear that qualified recipients who, in fact, are non-existent individuals,
received the money. Roger and Jessie are charged with malversation through falsification
and violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 for causing undue injury to the government.
Discuss the propriety of the charges filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (2009 Bar
Question)
 The charge of complex crime of malversation through falsification is incorrect
because the act of falsification was not a necessary means to malverse the money. The
falsifications were committed to cover up or hide the malversation and therefore,
should be separately treated from malversation. Moreover, they should be charged of
violation of section 3(e) of RA 3019 for the breach of public trust and undue injury
cause to the Government.
15. Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring along
Roxas Blvd. Knowing that it was not his, he went to a nearest police station to seek help in
finding the owner of the bag. At the precinct PO1 Melvin attended to him. In the
investigation Eman proposed to PO1 Melvin, "in case you don't find the owner let's just
pawn straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000.00 Eman never saw PO1
Melvin again. What is the criminal liability of PO1 Melvin, if any? Explain. (2008 Bar
Question)
 PO1 Melvin committed the crime of theft when he took the bag of another, evidently
with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things. Although he is not the one who found the property, he is considered as
finder in law since the property was surrendered to him by the actual finder (People v.
Avila, G.R. No. L-19786, 31 March 1923).
 N.B.: There is no malversation of public funds property in this case because PO1 is
not an accountable officer for public funds or property whose duties permit or require
the possession or custody of government funds or property, and who shall be
accountable therefor and for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with law (Arriola v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165711, 30 June 2006).
16. Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the execution sale of the property of Andres to
satisfy the judgment against him in favor of ABC Corporation, a government-owned or
controlled corporation with an original charter. However, the representative of the
corporation failed to attend the auction sale. Gonzalo, the winning bidder, purchased
property for P100,000 which he paid to Eliseo. Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk
of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Eliseo lent the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who
promised to repay the amount within two months, with interest thereon. However, Myrna
reneged on her promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation, Eliseo failed to remit the
said amount. A) State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, committed by Eliseo. (2008
Bar Question) B) Would your answer to the first question be the same if ABC Corporation
were a private corporation? Explain. (2008 Bar Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: A) Eliseo committed malversation for allowing Myrna to
misappropriate the money for which he, as Sheriff, is accountable for (Art. 217, RPC).
In this case, the act of Eliseo of lending the amount to his officemate is tantamount to
permitting any other person to take the public funds, considering that the P100,000
involved is a public funds, it should be turned-over to the Office of the Clerk of Court.
 B) The answer would be the same since even if ABC is a private corporation, Eliseo is
still accountable for it, and the same should be delivered to the Court.
17. Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the
signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or crimes
did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (2008 Bar Question)
 The mail carrier may be guilty of the following crimes: (a) malversation and
falsification (People. v. Villanueva); (b) infidelity in the custody of documents (US v.
Gorospe); (c) qualified theft since the property stolen is a mail matter (Marcelo v.
Sandiganbayan); (d) forgery under Art. 169 (2) RPC because there was a material
 alteration on a genuine document (US v. Solito, 36 Phil 785); and (e) falsification
under Art. 171 (1), (2) RPC because he counterfeited signatures to make it appear
that the payees signed the money order and received payment
 
Article 218. Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts -
Elements
1. Offender is public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or
any other cause;
2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or property;
3. He is required by law or regulation to render account to the Commission on Audit, or to a
provincial auditor;
4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered.
 
Rules, Doctrines and Cases
1. demand for accounting is not necessary
2. in malversation of public funds, the payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of the
funds misappropriated is merely a mitigating circumstance
3. misappropriation is not necessary here
 
Article 219. Failure of A Responsible Public Officer to Render Accounts before Leaving the
Country -
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or property;
3. He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a
certificate from the Commission on Audit showing that his accounts have been finally
settled.
 
Rules:
1. the act of leaving is not authorized or permitted by law
 
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property --> technical malversation
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. There are public funds or property under his administration;
3. Such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance;
4. He applies such public fund or property to any public use other than for which it was
appropriated for.
 
Rules:
1. there is no technical malversation if there is no law or ordinance appropriating
public funds or property for a particular pupose
 But the accused can be held liable under 217 --> disposing without right
2. Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation
 Public law prohibits based on consideration of public policy, order and convenience
 
3. Illegal use Malversation under 217

- does not derive personal gain or - In certain cases profits from the proceeds of the crime
profit

- applied to another public use - applied to personal use and benefit of the offender or of
 another person
4. Technical malversation is not included in nor does it necessarily include the
crime of malversation of public funds
 
Other notes:
1. Illegal use of public funds or property is also known as technical malversation
2. The offender is entrusted with such fund or property only to administer or apply the same
to the public purpose for which it was appropriated by law or ordinance.
 Instead of applying it to the public purpose to which the fund or property was
already appropriated by law, the public officer applied it to another purpose.
3. Since damage is not an element of malversation, even though the application made
proved to be more beneficial to public interest than the original purpose for which the
amount or property was appropriated by law, the public officer involved is still liable for
technical malversation.
4. If public funds were not yet appropriated by law or ordinance, and this was applied to a
public purpose by the custodian thereof, the crime is plain and simple malversation,
not technical malversation.
5. If the funds had been appropriated for a particular public purpose, but the same was
applied to private purpose, the crime committed is simple malversation only
 
Question and Answer
1. The sheriff, after having levied on the property subject of a judgment, conducted a public
auction sale. He received the proceeds of the public auction. Actually, the proceeds are to
be delivered to the plaintiff. The sheriff, after deducting the sheriff’s fees due to the office,
spent part of that amount. He gave the balance to the plaintiff and executed a promissory
note to pay the plaintiff the amount spent by him. Is there a crime committed?
 The Supreme Court ruled that the sheriff committed the crime of malversation
because the proceeds of the auction sale was turned over to the plaintiff, such
proceeds is impressed with the characteristic of being part of public funds. The sheriff
is accountable therefore because he is not supposed to use any part of such proceeds.
 
Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property.
 
Acts punished
1. Failing to make payment by a public officer who is under obligation to make such
payment from government funds in his possession;
2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has been ordered by competent
authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his administration.
 
Elements of failure to make payment
1. Public officer has government funds in his possession;
2. He is under obligation to make payment from such funds;
3. He fails to make the payment maliciously.
 
Rules:
1. Refusal to make delivery of property must be malicious
 
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions.
Rules:
1. Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term administrator
2. Judicial administrator, appointed to administer the estate of a deceased person, is not
covered under this article because he is not in charge of any property attached,
impounded or placed in deposit by public authority
3. Private property is included, provided it is: attached seized or deposited by public
authority
4. Private individual under article 222 is not deemed a public officer
5. Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over a private individual if the individual is not charged
as co-prinicpal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer
 
Chapter Five
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
 
Section One. - Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
 
Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He had in his custody or charge a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment;
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
4. He was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape.
 
Classes of prisoners involved
1. If the fugitive has been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty;
2. If the fugitive is held only as detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or
municipal ordinance.
 
Rules:
1. it is necessary that the public officer had consented to or connived in the escape of
prisoner under his custody or charge
2. a policeman who allowed a prisoner under his guard to go and buy some
cigarettes at a nearby store, thereby making possible the escape of the prisoner is not
in connivance with the latter, the policeman not knowing his escape
3. a detention prisoner is a person in legal custody, arrested for and charged with some
crime or public offense
4. Release of detention prisoner who could not be delivered to the judicial authority within
the time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of prisoner
5. Leniency or laxity is not infidelity
6. Relaxation of imprisonment is considered infidelity (one-time or occassional)
- escaping the punishment of being deprived of his liberty
 
Article 224. Evasion through negligence.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
3. Such prisoner escapes through negligence.
 
Rules:
1. in shifts, the custody of the prisoner must be transferred to the guard. Time does not
really determine when the transfer of custody takes place
2. not every little mistake or distraction of a guard leading to prisoner's escape is negligence
3. If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place| prisoner must be a convict by
final judgment
4. nonetheless, supreme court has included detention prisoners under this article
5. What is punished in evasion through negligence is such a definite laxity as all but
amounts to deliberate non-performance of duty on the part of the guard
6. there is only one penalty under this article
7. the fact that the public officer recaptured the prisoner who had escaped from his custody
does not afford complete exculpation
- three days after escape (People v. quisel)
8. Liability of escaping prisoner
 Serving sentence by reason of final judgment| evasion of service of sentence under
article 157
 Detention prisoner| no criminal liability
 
Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer.
Elements
1. 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. Offender consents to the escape, or that the escape takes place through his negligence.
 
Rules:
1. Article 225 is not applicable if a private person was the one who made the arrest
and he consented to the escape of the person he arrested
2. the penalty for a private person liable under article 225 is only imprisonment one degree
lower than that prescribed for the public officer in Article 223 or article 224
 
Other notes for this section:
1. The crime is infidelity in the custody of prisoners if the offender involved is the
custodian of the prisoner
2. If the offender who aided or consented to the prisoner’s escaping from confinement,
whether the prisoner is a convict or a detention prisoner, is not the custodian, the crime is
delivering prisoners from jail under Article156.
3. The crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners can be committed only by the custodian
of a prisoner.
4. If the jail guard who allowed the prisoner to escape is already off-duty at that
time and he is no longer the custodian of the prisoner, the crime committed by him
is delivering prisoners from jail.
5. Note that you do not apply here the principle of conspiracy that the act of one is the
act of all. The party who is not the custodian who conspired with the custodian in allowing
the prisoner to escape does not commit infidelity in the custody of the prisoner. He commits
the crime of delivering prisoners from jail.
6. This crime can be committed also by a private person if the custody of the prisoner has
been confided to a private person.
7. A higher degree of vigilance is required. Failure to do so will render the custodian liable.
The prevailing ruling is against laxity in the handling of prisoners.
 
Questions and answers
1. If a private person approached the custodian of the prisoner and for a certain
consideration, told the custodian to leave the door of the cell unlocked for the prisoner to
escape. What crime had been committed?
 It is not infidelity in the custody of prisoners because as far as the private person is
concerned, this crime is delivering prisoners from jail. The infidelity is only committed
by the custodian.
2. A policeman escorted a prisoner to court. After the court hearing, this policeman was
shot at with a view to liberate the prisoner from his custody. The policeman fought the
attacker but he was fatally wounded. When he could no longer control the prisoner, he went
to a nearby house, talked to the head of the family of that house and asked him if he could
give the custody of the prisoner to him. He said yes. After the prisoner was handcuffed in
his hands, the policeman expired. Thereafter, the head of the family of that private house
asked the prisoner if he could afford to give something so that he would allow him to go.
The prisoner said, “Yes, if you would allow me to leave, you can come with me and I will
give the money to you.” This private persons went with the prisoner and when the money
was given, he allowed him to go. What crime/s had been committed
 Under Article 225, the crime can be committed by a private person to whom the
custody of a prisoner has been confided.
 Where such private person, while performing a private function by virtue of a
provision of law, shall accept any consideration or gift for the non-
performance of a duty confided to him, Bribery is also committed. So the crime
committed by him is infidelity in the custody of prisoners and bribery.
 Other notes:
a. If the crime is delivering prisoners from jail, bribery is just a means, under
Article 156, that would call for the imposition of a heavier penalty, but not a
separate charge of bribery under Article 156.
b. But under Article 225 in infidelity, what is basically punished is the breach of
trust because the offender is the custodian. For hat, the crime is infidelity. If he
violates the trust because of some consideration, bribery is also committed.
3. A prison guard accompanied the prisoner in the toilet. While answering the call of nature,
police officer waiting there, until the prisoner escaped. Police officer was accused of
infidelity.
 There is no criminal liability because it does not constitute negligence. Negligence
contemplated here refers to deliberate abandonment of duty.
 Note, however, that according to a recent Supreme Court ruling, failure to
accompany lady prisoner in the comfort room is a case of negligence and therefore the
custodian is liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner.
- Prison guard should not go to any other place not officially called for. This is a case of
infidelity in the custody of prisoner through negligence under Article 224.
 
Section Two. - Infidelity in the custody of document
Article 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or papers;
3. Said document or papers should have been entrusted to such public officer by reason of
his office;
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public interest has been
caused.
 
Rules:
1. if any of these circumstances be not present, the crime disappears, or rather, does not
arise.
2. the public officer must be officially entrusted with the documents or papers
3. The document must be complete and one by which a right could be established or an
obligation could be extinguished
4. Books, periodicals, pamphlets, etc., are not documents
 A document is a written instrument by which something is proven or made of record.
5. not only documents but also papers (checks, promissory notes, and paper money)
6. Post office who retained the mail without forwarding the letters to their destination is
guilty of infidelity in the custody of papers
 Even without opening or taking the money contained
7. Infidelity, malversation and falsification (the latter crime being used to conceal the
malversation)
 Postmaster who received money orders, signed the signatures of payees, collected
and appropriated the amount --> malversation through falsification
 Postmaster who receives letters or envelopes containing money orders for
transmission and the money orders are not sent to the addressees, the postmaster
cashing the same for his own benefit --> infidelity in the custody of papers
8. why taking of contents of mail by postmaster is infidelity in the custody of documents or
papers
- in addition to the injury to the owner, the uncertainty as to the safety of such letters
amounts to an injury to public interests
9. if culprit is an employee or officer of the Bureau of posts --> 226
 Any other person --> section 2756 of revised administrative code
10. Money bills received as exhibits in court are papers
11. Acts punishable
 Removing
 Destroying
 Concealing, documents or papers officially entrusted to the offending public officer
12. removal must be for illicit purpose
 Not when it is made lawful or commendable motives
13. removal is for an illicit purpose when the intention of the offender is
 To tamper with it
 To profit by it
 To commit an act constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof
14. consummated upon its removal or secreting away from its usual place and after the
offender had gone out and locked the door
15. destroying or concealing does not require proof of illicit purpose
16. Delivering document to the wrong party is infidelity in the custody thereof
17. there must be damage great or small
 The fourth element exists when
- serious damage is caused thereby to a third person or to the public interest
- damage is caused thereby to a third person or to the public interest is not serious
18. damage may consist of mere alarm or the alienation of its confidence (of the
government)
19. damage caused to a third party or to the public interest
20. With respect to official documents, infidelity is committed by destroying the document,
or removing the document or concealing the document.
21. Damage to public interest is necessary. However, material damage is not necessary.
22. Distinction between infidelity in the custody of public document, estafa and malicious
mischief
· In infidelity in the custody of public document, the offender is the custodian of the official
document removed or concealed.
· In estafa, the offender is not the custodian of the document removed or concealed.
· In malicious mischief, the offender purposely destroyed and damaged the
property/document
 
Questions and Answers:
1. A letter is entrusted to a postmaster for transmission of a registered letter to another.
The postmaster opened the letter and finding the money, extracted the same.
  The crime committed is infidelity in the custody of the public document because
under Article 226, the law refers also to papers entrusted to public officer
involved and currency note is considered to be within the term paper although it is
not a document.
2. Where in case for bribery or corruption, the monetary considerations was marked as
exhibits, such considerations acquires the nature of a document such that if the same would
be spent by the custodian
 the crime is not malversation but Infidelity in the custody of public records, because
the money adduced as exhibits partake the nature of a document and not as money
 Although such monetary consideration acquires the nature of a document, the best
evidence rule does not apply here. Example, photocopies may be presented in
evidence.
 
Article 227. Officer breaking seal. - .
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
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 seal or permits them to be broken.
 
Rules:
1. it is the breaking of seals, not the opening of envelope which is punished under this
article
2. the public officer must be the one who breaks the seals without authority to do so
3. damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary nor misappropriation of the contents
is an element
 Just trying to discover or look what is inside is infidelity already.
4. The act is punished because if a document is entrusted to the custody of a public officer
in a sealed or closed envelope, such public officer is supposed not to know what is inside the
same.
 If he would break the seal or open the closed envelop, indications would be that he
tried to find out the contents of the document. For that act, he violates the confidence
or trust reposed on him.
5. A crime is already committed regardless of whether the contents of the document
are secret or private.
 It is enough that it is entrusted to him in a sealed form or in a closed envelope and
he broke the seal or opened the envelop. Public trust is already violated if he managed
to look into the contents of the document.
6. Infidelity Theft

There is infidelity if the offender opened the letter There is theft if there is intent to gain when the
but did not take the same. offender took the money.

   
7. Note that he document must be complete in legal sense. If the writings are mere
form, there is no crime
8. As regard the payroll, which has not been signed by the Mayor, no infidelity is committed
because the document is not yet a payroll in the legal sense since the document has not
been signed yet.
  In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking" should not be given a literal meaning.
Even if actually, the seal was not broken, because the custodian managed to open the
parcel without breaking the seal
 
Article 228. Opening of closed documents.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. Any closed papers, documents, or object are entrusted to his custody;
3. He opens or permits to be opened said closed papers, documents or objects;
4. He does not have proper authority.
 
Rules:
1. custody| a guarding or keeping safe; care
 "officially entrusted to him"
2. closed documents must be entrusted to the custody of the accused by reason of his office
3. the act should not fall under 227
- in opening, there was breaking --> 277 | because of the phrase: Any public officer not
included in the provisions of the next preceding article
4. Damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of the offense
 
Section Three. - Revelation of secrets
 
Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer.
Acts punished
1. Revealing any secrets known to the offending public officer by reason of his official
capacity;
 Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity;
3. He reveals such secret without authority or justifiable reasons;
4. Damage, great or small, is caused to the public interest.
2. Delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which
should not be published.
 Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has charge of papers;
3. Those papers should not be published;
4. He delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person;
5. The delivery is wrongful;
6. Damage is caused to public interest.
 
Rules for No.1
1. if the secret revealed does not affect public interest the revelation would constitute no
crime at all
2. espionage not included
 This article punishes minor officials betrayals, infidelities of little consequence,
affecting usually the administration of justice, executive or official duties or the general
interest of the public order
3. secret of private persons not included
Rules for No.2
1. the offender must have charge of papers or copies of paper
 Charge| control or custody
 - may not be liable if merely entrusted
2. distinguished from infidelity in the custody of document or papers
 If papers contain secrets and public officer removes and delivers them
wrongfully to a third person, the crime is revelation of secrets
3. damage is an essential element (to public interest)
 Not necessary that material damage would be caused to a third person
 
Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He knows of the secrets of a private individual by reason of his office;
3. He reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reason.
Rules:
1. revelation to one person is sufficient, for public revelation is not required
2. when the offender is an attorney-at-law or a solicitor, Article 230 is not applicable
 But under 209
3. Damage to private individuals is not necessary
 
Chapter Six OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
 
Article 231. Open disobedience.
Elements
1. Officer is a judicial or executive officer;
2. There is a judgment, decision or order of a superior authority;
3. Such judgment, decision or order was made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the
superior authority and issued with all the legal formalities;
4. He, without any legal justification, openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision
or order, which he is duty bound to obey.
 
Act constituting the crime
- Open disobedience is committed by any judicial or executive officer who shall openly
refuse to execute the judgment, decision or order of any superior authority
 
Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was suspended by
inferior officer.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. An order is issued by his superior for execution;
3. He has for any reason suspended the execution of such order;
4. His superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of the order;
5. Offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the suspension.
 
- article does not apply if the order of superior is illegal
 
Art. 233. Refusal of assistance.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. A competent authority demands from the offender that he lend his cooperation towards
the administration of justice or other public service;
3. Offender fails to do so maliciously.
 
Notes
1. there must be a demand from a competent authority
 If chief of police received from a private party a subpeona, issued by a fiscal, with a
request to serve it upon a person to be a witness and he maliciously fails to do so, he
is not liable
2. There must be damage to public interest or to a third party, great or small
3. failure to lend cooperation results in serious damage to public interest or third party --> a
higher penalty
4. Any refusal by the public officer to render assistance when demanded by competent
public authority, as long as the assistance requested from them is within their duty to
render and that assistance is needed for public service, the public officers who are refusing
deliberately may be charged with refusal of assistance.
 Note that the request must come from one public officer to another.
- Illustration: A fireman was asked by a private person for services but was refused by the
former for lack of “consideration”.
 It was held that the crime is not refusal of assistance because the request did not
come from a public authority. But if the fireman was ordered by the authority to put
out the fire and he refused, the crime is refusal of assistance.
- If he receives consideration therefore, bribery is committed. But mere demand
will fall under the prohibition under the provision of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
 
Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office.
Elements
1. 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 such refusal to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said
office.
 
Art. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention prisoner;
3. He maltreats such 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 –
(1) By the imposition of punishment not authorized by the regulations; or
(2) By inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel and humiliating
manner; or
b. By maltreating such prisoners to extort a confession or to obtain some information
from the prisoner.
 
Notes
1. This is committed only by such public officer charged with direct custody of the
prisoner. Not all public officer can commit this offense.
 If the public officer is not the custodian of the prisoner, and he manhandles the
latter, the crime is physical injuries.
2. The maltreatment does not really require physical injuries. Any kind of punishment not
authorized or through authorized if executed in excess of the prescribed degree.
4. To be a detention prisoner, the person arrested must be placed in jail even for a
short while
  The mere fact that a private citizen had been apprehended or arrested by a
law enforcer does not constitute him a prisoner. To be a prisoner, he must have
been booked and incarcerated no matter how short it is
 A certain snatcher was arrested by a law enforcer, brought to the police precinct,
turned over to the custodian of that police precinct. Every time a policeman entered
the police precinct, he would ask, “What is this fellow doing here? What crime has he
committed?”. The other policeman would then tell, “This fellow is a snatcher.” So every
time a policeman would come in, he would inflict injury to him. This is not
maltreatment of prisoner because the offender is not the custodian. The crime is only
physical injuries.
- But if the custodian is present there and he allowed it, then he will be liable
also for the physical injuries inflicted, but not for maltreatment because it was not the
custodian who inflicted the injury.
- But if it is the custodian who effected the maltreatment, the crime will be
maltreatment of prisoners plus a separate charge for physical injuries
5. If a prisoner who had already been booked was make to strip his clothes before
he was put in the detention cell so that when he was placed inside the detention cell, he
was already naked and he used both of his hands to cover his private part, the crime of
maltreatment of prisoner had already been committed.
6. After having been booked, the prisoner was made to show any sign on his arm, hand
or his neck; “Do not follow my footsteps, I am a thief.” That is maltreatment of
prisoner if the offended party had already been booked and incarcerated no matter how
short, as a prisoner
 Before this point in time, when he is not yet a prisoner, the act of hanging a
sign on his neck will only amount to slander because the idea is to cast dishonor.
Any injury inflicted upon him will only give rise to the crime of physical injuries.
7. the maltreatment must relate to the correction or handling of the prisoner or must be for
the purpose of exorting a confession or of obtaining some information from the prisoner
- injuries through personal grudge --> physical injuries
8. Offender may also be liable for physical injuries or damage caused
 
Bar Questions
1. A jailer inflicted injury on the prisoner because of his personal grudge against the latter.
The injury caused illness of the prisoner for more than thirty (30) days. What is the proper
charge against the jailer? (2012 Bar Question)
 A) The jailer should be charged with maltreatment of prisoner and serious physical
injuries.
 
Art. 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office.
Elements
1. 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 should first 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.
 
Art. 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers.
Elements
1. Offender is holding a public office;
2. The period provided by law, regulations or special provision for holding such office, has
already expired
3. He continues to exercise the duties and powers of such office.
 
- officers contemplated| a public officer who has been suspended, separated declared
overaged or dismissed cannot continue to perform the duties of his office
 
Article 238. Abandonment of office or position.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
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.
 
Art. 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. -
Elements
1. Offender is an executive or judicial officer;
2. He (a) makes general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority or (b)
attempts to repeal a law or (c) suspends the execution thereof.
 
Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions.
Elements
1. Offender is a judge;
2. He (a) assumes a power pertaining to the executive authorities, or (b) obstructs the
executive authorities in the lawful exercise of their powers.
--> legislative officers not liable
 
Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions.
Elements
1. Offender is an officer of the executive branch of the government;
2. He (a) assumes judicial powers, or (b) obstructs the execution of any order or decision
rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction.
 
- mayor is guilty under this article if he investigates a case while justice of the peace is in
the municipality
 
Art. 242. Disobeying request for disqualification.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. A proceeding is pending before such public officer;
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 continues
the proceeding.
 
Art. 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority
 
Elements
1. 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.
 
--> legislative or judicial officers are not liable under 243
 
Art. 244. Unlawful appointments.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a public office;
3. Such person lacks the legal qualifications therefore;
4. Offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the qualification at the time he made
the nomination or appointment.
 
- nominate is different from recommending
 
Section Four. - Abuses against chastity
 
Article 245. Abuses against chastity;
 
Acts punished
1. 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. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman under the offender’s
custody;
3. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to the wife, daughter, sister or relative
within the same degree by affinity of any person in the custody of the offending warden or
officer.
 
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman;
3. Such woman is –
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 other public officer directly
charged with the care and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest; or
c. the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity of the
person in the custody of the offender.
Notes
1. solicit| to propose earnestly and persistently something unchaste and immoral to a
woman
2. consummated by mere proposal
3. proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is sexual intercourse
4. the essence of the crime is mere making of immoral or indecent solicitation or advances.
5. This crime cannot be committed if the warden is a woman and the prisoner is a man. Men
have no chastity.
6. If the warden is also a woman but is a lesbian, it is submitted that this crime could be
committed, as the law does not require that the custodian be a man but requires that the
offended be a woman.
7. Immoral or indecent advances contemplated here must be persistent. It must be
determined. A mere joke would not suffice.
8. This crime is also committed if the woman is a prisoner and the offender is her jail
warden or custodian, or even if the prisoner may be a man if the jail warden would make
the immoral solicitations upon the wife, sister, daughter, or relative by affinity within the
same degree of the prisoner involved.
 
 
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices act
Friday, April 8, 2022
1:16 PM
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
 
"Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding
subparagraph.
 
Corrupt Practices of public officers (Section 3)
A. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules and regulations by competent authority or an offense
in connection with the official duties of the latter or allowing himself to be persuaded
with the official duties of the latter or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced or
influenced to commit such violation or offense
 
Persons liable
1. public officer who persuades, induces or influences another PO to to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules and regulations by competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duties of the latter
2. the PO who allows himself to be persuaded with the official duties of the latter or allowing
himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced to commit such violation or offense
- illustration (Villa v. Sandiganbayan)
 Failure to ascertain the reputability of a supplier (Rocen Enterprises) constituted a
violation of the rules and regulations
 Government officers certified that it was a reputable supplied
--> they were persuaded, induced or influenced and persuaded, induced or influenced
each other to award the purchase of electrical items to such entity
 
-requesting or receiving any gift present or benefit is not required in this provision
 
There must be deliberate intent to violate rules and regulations
- Reyes v. Atienza
 
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
 
Person liable has to intervene under the law in any contract or transaction
between government and other party
- elements (Mejia v. Pamaran)
 
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. who requested or received a gift, a present, a share, a percentage or a benefit
3. on behalf of the offender or any other person
4. In connection with a contract or transaction with the government
5. In which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene
 
- Merencillo v. People| accused demanded 20,000 in consideration of the approval of the
complainant's application for Certificate Authorizing registration (CAR)
 
Three distinct acts
1. Demanding or requesting
2. Receiving; or
3. demanding, requesting and receiving
- these modes are distinct and different from one another. Proof of existence of one of them
suffices to warrant conviction (Palacious v. People)
 
 
Preliminary investigation by a fiscal is not a contract or transaction
- element of consideration in credit transactions is not present in preliminary investigation
 
Direct Bribery and Section 3 (b)
Acceptance of promise or offer Mere request or demand

Has a wider and broader scope (refer to three acts Limited to contracts or transactions involving
under bribery) monetary consideration

Malum in se Malum prohibita

 
C. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, 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 or obtain any government
permit or license in consideration for the help given, without prejudice to section 13
 
Elements (Tecson v. Sandiganbayan)
1. accused is a public officer
2. that in any manner or capacity, he secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain any
government permit or license
3. That he Directly or indirectly requested or received from said person any gift, present or
other pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for another
4. That he requested or received any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit in
consideration for the help given or to be given
 
Section 3 b and c
Both| there's a request or receipt
In connection with any contract or transaction For the help given in securing permit or
license
 
Receiving any gift (Sec.2)
- value of the gift is manifestly excessive
 
Unsolicited gifts
- Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere
token are exempted (Sec. 14)
 
Value of the gift is not an element of the offense
- Menodza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan
 Applies whether the gift's value is manifestly excessive or not and regardless of the
occasion
 - what is important is whether the gift is received in consideration for help given or to
be given by the public officer
 
D. Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private
enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or
within one year after his termination
 
prohibition does not apply to government agency or department
 
Family
- spouses or relatives within the 3rd civil degree
 Brother-in-law
- mere acceptance by a member of his family of employment with a private enterprise which
has pending official business with the official involved is considered a corrupt practice
 (Valera v. Office of the Ombudsman)
 
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.
 
Elements (Lihaylihay v. People)
1. PO must be discharging official administrative or judicial functions
2. must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence
3. His action caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
 
Illustrations
1. Ong v. People| procuring a subject truck through a negotiated price without public
bidding
 Mayor is duty bound to follow procedure of procurement and failure of such
constitutes gross and inexcusable negligence
2. Garcia v. Office of the Ombudsman
 Issued certain documents and certifications which caused diversion of funds to a
project without proper allotment
 undue injury because diversion affected the execution of other projects
 A private party was given unwarranted benefits
 
Two ways of Violating Sec. 3€
1. by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government
2. by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference
 Velasco v. Sandiganbayan
- Accused may be charged with either or both acts punishable under section 3(3)
 Presence of one would suffice conviction
 
Damage is not required under the second mode
- it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another
- Ambit, Jr. v. sandiganbayan & Sison v. People
 
Arias Doctrine
- All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the
good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies or enter into negotiations
 There should be other grounds than mere signature or approval appearing on a
voucher
- Arias v. Sandiganbayan
- applied in Magsuci v. sandiganbayan| signing accomplishment report and certification
when in fact the contractor had not yet accomplished the work
 no intimation at all that he had foreknowledge of any irregularity
 Conspiracy needs a conscious design to commit an offense
 Not a product of negligence
 
The Arias doctrine cannot be applied where circumstances exist which should
prompt a higher degree of circumspection
1. Lihaylihay v. People| circumstances that would arouse a reasonable sense of suspicion or
curiosity
 Tampered dates, incomplete certification on the date of receipt, missing details on
the reports of property purchased and 16 checks payable to PNP
2. Cruz v. sandiganbayan| should wave warranted inspection: checks issued were not
payable to the supplier but to the petitioner himself even if the disbursement vouchers were
in the name of Kelly Lumber
 This should have warranted alert
3. Escara v. People) signing inspection report and disbursement voucher despite the fact the
he had foreknowledge that the logs to which they pertained were confiscated by the DENR
 
Public officer| construed to mean the inclusion of officers and employees of offices or
government corporations (Mejorada v. sandiganbayan)
 
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 indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some
pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest
or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
 
Elements (coronado v. sandiganbayan)
1. Offender is a public officer
2. said officer has neglected or has refused such demand or request, without sufficient
justification, to act after due demand or request has been made
3. reasonable time has elapse from such demand or request without the PO having acted on
the matter pending before him
4. Such failure to so act is for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any
person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, in favor of
an interested party or discriminating against another
 
Illustration:
- Lacap v. Sandiganbayan
 Mayor didn't act on an application of business permit and this prompted plaintiff to
go to the ombudsman. Despite receipt from the ombudsman a request for immediate
action, he didn't act and simply referred the matter to plaintiff's lawyer. Referral not
equal to disapproval
 Inaction need not always be for some gain; it may also be for the purpose of
discriminating against another
 
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.
 
Elements: (Go v. sandiganbayan)
1. accused is a PO who has the duty under law to enter on behalf of government into any
contract or transaction with any person
2. he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of government
3. such contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government
 
-illustration (Castillo-Co v. sandiganbayan)
 Purchased second-hand equipment despite resolution from SP to purchase only
brand new ones
 Advancing 40% of contract price in violation of LGC code
 Paying the remaining balance despite non-compliance of company
 Despite full payment, gov did not receive every unit under the contract
 
The act is malum prohibitum
- the act as defined by law and not the character or effect thereof that determines whether
the provision was violated or not
- enough that PO entered into a contract or transaction and such is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous
 
H. Directly or indirectly having financing 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.
 
- persons liable:
1. any public officer who intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in any business,
contract or transaction or
2. any public officer who is prohibited by the constitution or by any law from having any
interest
- act constituting the crime:
 Directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract
or transaction
 
Elements: (Tevez v. sandiganbayan)
1. Accused is a public officer
2. He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction
3. He either:
a) intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such interest
b) is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having such interest.
 
- illustration (Domingo v. Sandiganbayan)
 Mayor approved payment and co-signed two checks for a construction company
which turned out to be a front and his business was actually the one doing the work
 Project was for a multi-purpose pavement project for 18 baranggays
 Mayor intervened or took part in his official capacity in connection with his financial
or pecuniary interest in the transaction
- contract must be in relation to his office
 
Actual intervention required
- law aims to prevent the dominant use of influence, authority and power (Trieste v.
sandiganbayan)
- Caballero v. Sandiganbayan| mayor did not use such to award contracts to his wife's
business nor did he ask committee assigned. Merely signed the disbursement vouchers
- tevez v. sanidganbayan| Even if he transferred ownership of cockpit (prohibited to own as
a Public official) he would still have an interest (CPG)
 
I. Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest
in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of 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 transaction or acts by the
board, panel or group to which they belong.
 
Person liable
- any PO who is a member of board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which
exercises discretion in approval of transactions or act
 
Act constituting the offense
- Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest
in any transaction or act requiring the approval of such board panel or group
 
PO is still liable even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of
the board, committee, panel or group.
 
PO is responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable or irregular
transactions or acts by board, committee, panel or group to which they belong are
presumed to have acquired for personal gain
 
Board panel or group must exercise discretion in approving the same
- Villa v. Sanidganbayan
 A bidding committee does not exercise discretion in the award of a contract, which
has to be given to the lowest bidder
 
J. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor 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 or entitled.
 
Person liable
- PO who has the duty of approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit
 
Act constituting the crime
- approving such to person not qualified or legally entitled
 Requesting or receiving benefit, gift, present is not required
 
K. Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by
him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information
in advance of its authorized release date.
 
Person liable
- any PO who on account of his official position or whose office, acquired valuable
information of a confidential character
 
Acts constituting the crime
1. Divulging valuable information of a confidential character to unauthorized persons
2. Releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date
 
Disqualification from transacting business with the government
- The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in
subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the employment
mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the
confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with
the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be
permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from
transacting business in any form with the Government. (Section 3, last par.)
 
Prohibition in Private individuals
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any
public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal
relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or
pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application,
request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene.
Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the
third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close personal
friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to
intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
 
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to
commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof. (Sec.4)
 
Taking advantage of family or close personal relation with public official is
punished
- person liable: offender who has family or close personal relation with a public official who
has to intervene in some business, transaction, application, request or contract of the
government with any other person
- act constituting the crime: capitalizing or exploiting or taking advantage of such family or
close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present gift or
material or pecuniary advantage from the person having the business, transaction
application request or contract with the government
 
Elements (Disini v. sandiganbayan)
1. offender has family or close personal relation with a public official
2. He capitalizes or exploits or takes advantage of such family or close personal relation by
directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary
advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or
contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene
3. public official with whom the offender has family or close personal relation with has to
intervene in the business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government
 
- llustration: Disini case
 Disini is the husband of the first cousin of Imelda Marcos and at the same time the
family physician of the marcoses
 Requested 1,000,000 from Burns and roe and 17,000,000,000 from Westinghouse
  Entities have business with the government: construction of nuclear power plant
 Marcos, public officer who disini has a close family and personal relationship
intervened to secure a contract for Burns and Roe
 
Prohibition on relatives of the President, vice-President, Senate President and
House Speaker
- Section 5
It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity,
within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the Vice-President of the
Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to
intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application
with the Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any person who,
prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has
been already dealing with the Government along the same line of business, nor to any
transaction, contract or application already existing or pending at the time of such
assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval of which is
not discretionary on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends upon
compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law,
nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.
 
Persons covered
1. spouse
2. any relative by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree
 Includes great-grandparents, great-grandchildren and their spouses, uncles and
aunts and their spouses
 
Exceptions:
1. any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to
whom he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along the same
line of business, nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing or
pending at the time of such assumption of public office
2. any application filed by him the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of
the official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided
by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law
3. any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession
 
Prohibition on Members of Congress
- It shall be unlawful hereafter for any Member of the Congress during the term for which he
has been elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific
business enterprise which will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any
law or resolution authored by him previously approved or adopted by the Congress during
the same term.
 
The provision of this section shall apply to any other public officer who recommended
the initiation in Congress of the enactment or adoption of any law or resolution, and
acquires or receives any such interest during his incumbency.
 
It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer, who,
having such interest prior to the approval of such law or resolution authored or
recommended by him, continues for thirty days after such approval to retain such
interest.
 
Statement of Assets and Liabilities
- section 7
Every public officer, within thirty days after assuming office, thereafter, on or before the
fifteenth day of April following the close of every calendar year, as well as upon the
expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall
prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a
Head of department or Chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, a
true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the
amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and
the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, That public
officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file
their first statement on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of the said
calendar year. (As amended by RA3047, PD 677, January 24, 1978).
 
Prima facie evidence of and dismissal due to unexplained wealth
- section 8
1. property or money acquired during incumbency that is grossly disproportionate to his
salary and other lawful income
2. Properties in the name of spouses and other dependents of such public official shall be
taken into consideration when acquisition of such through legitimate means cannot be
satisfactorily shown
3. Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by the public
official, his spouse or any of their dependents including but not limited to activities in any
club or association or any ostentatious display of wealth including frequent travel abroad of
a non-official character by any public official when such activities entail expenses evidently
out of proportion to legitimate income
 
Penalty for violations
1. Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions
enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6
 not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual
disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the
Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of
proportion to his salary and other lawful income.
 Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution was initiated
shall, in case of conviction of the accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal
action with priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the amount of
money or the thing he may have given to the accused, or the fair value of such thing.
2. Any public officer violating any of the provisions of Section 7
 a fine of not less than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, or by
imprisonment not exceeding one year and six months, or by both
 The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be
sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal
prosecution is instituted against him.
3. Private persons acting in conspiracy with PO in committing offenses under section 3
 Gregorio Singian Jr v. sandiganbayan; santillano v. People
 
Perpetual disqualification and confiscation or forfeiture in section 9 can hardly be
imposed on a private person
 
All prosecution under this act shall be within the original jurisdiction of the sandiganbayan
 Section 10
 
Prescription
-15 years| all offenses (Section 11)
 
Prohibition against resignation or retirement
- No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or
administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under this Act or
under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery.
 
Suspension and loss of benefits
- suspension| a valid information pending before the court:
 under this Act or under Title Seven Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any
offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a
simple or as complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of
participation
- loss of retirement and gratuity benefits under any law| by final judgment
- acquittal| reinstatement and salaries and benefits failed to receive during suspension
- In the event that such convicted officer, who may have been separated from the service
has already received such benefits he shall be liable to restitute the same to the
government.
- preventive suspension is mandatory upon sandiganbayan to impose (Libanan v.
Sandiganbayan)
- Not automatic although mandatory| there must be someone who shall exercise the act of
suspension
 under a valid information
 Noromor v. Mun. of Oras, Samar & Luciano v. Provincial Governor)
 
Suspension cannot be automatic
- there must be a hearing on the issue on the validity of the information before suspension
(People v. Albano)
 
Maximum duration of preventive suspension is 90 days
- elective public official (Deloso v. sandiganbayan)
- injunction against unreasonable length of preventive suspension (same case
 
Acquittal under section 13 (Malanyon v. Lising)
- guilt not proven beyond reasonable doubt after hearing and consideration of evidence
 Dismissal of the case does not amount to acquittal
 
Section 14. Exception.
— Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere
ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be
excepted from the provisions of this Act.
 
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice or prohibit the practice of any
profession, lawful trade or occupation by any private person or by any public officer who
under the law may legitimately practice his profession, trade or occupation, during his
incumbency, except where the practice of such profession, trade or occupation involves
conspiracy with any other person or public official to commit any of the violations penalized
in this Act
 
Other notes:
1. The mere act of a public officer demanding an amount from a taxpayer to whom he is to
render public service does not amount to bribery, but will amount to a violation of the Anti-
graft and Corrupt Practices Act
  A court secretary received P500 .00 from a litigant to set a motion for an early
hearing. This is direct bribery even if the act to be performed is within his official duty
so long as he received a consideration therefor.
 If the secretary persuaded the judge to make a favorable resolution, even if the
judge did not do so, this constitutes a violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Sub-Section A.
 
2. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, particularly Section 3, there are several
acts defined as corrupt practices. Some of them are mere repetitions of the act already
penalized under the Revised Penal Code, like prohibited transactions under Article 215 and
216. In such a case, the act or omission remains to be mala in se.
- But there are acts penalized under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which are not
penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Those acts may be considered as mala prohibita.
Therefore, good faith is not a defense.
- Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
 In this case, good faith is not a defense because it is in the nature of a malum
prohibitum. Criminal intent on the part of the offender is not required. It is enough
that he performed the prohibited act voluntarily
 Even though the prohibited act may have benefited the government. The crime is
still committed because the law is not after the effect of the act as long as the act is
prohibited.
- Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
 If a public officer, with his office and a private enterprise had a transaction and he
allows a relative or member of his family to accept employment in that enterprise,
good faith is not a defense because it is a malum prohibitum. It is enough that that the
act was performed
- Section 3(i)
 His only course of action to avoid prosecution under the Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act is to sell his interest in the enterprise which has filed an application
before that board, panel or group where he is a member. Or otherwise, he should
resign from his public position.
 Sen. Dominador Aytono had an interest in the Iligan Steel Mills, which at that time
was being subject of an investigation by the Senate Committee of which he was a
chairman. He was threatened with prosecution under Republic Act No. 3019 so he was
compelled to sell all his interest in that steel mill; there is no defense. Because the law
says so, even if he voted against it, he commits a violation thereof.
3. These cases are filed with the Ombudsman and not with the regular prosecutor’s office.
Jurisdiction is exclusively with the Sandiganbayan. The accused public officer must be
suspended when the case is already filed with the Sandiganbayan.
 
4. As long as the court has not ordered the suspension of the public officer involved, the
superior of that public officer is not authorized to order the suspension simply because of
the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The court will not order the
suspension of the public officer without first passing upon the validity of the information
filed in court. Without a hearing, the suspension would be null and void for being violative of
due process.
5. Where the public officer is still incumbent, the prosecution shall be with the Ombudsman.
 Where the respondent is separated from service and the period has not yet
prescribed, the information shall be filed in any prosecution’s office in the city where
the respondent resides
 The prosecution shall file the case in the Regional Trial Court unless the violation
carries a penalty higher than prision correccional, in which case the Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction.
6. Section 3 (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
- The law itself additionally requires that the accused’s dereliction, besides being without
justification, must be for the purpose of obtaining from any person interested in the matter
some pecuniary or material benefit or for the purpose of favoring any interested party, or
discriminating against another interested party. This element is indispensable.
 In other words, the neglect or refusal to act must motivated by gain or benefit, or
purposely to favor the other interested party as held in Coronado v. SB, decided on
August 18, 1993.
7. administrative actions are barred by the official's re-election (from lecture)
 Criminal prosecutions are not barred
 Pendency of criminal case under a valid information, the re-elected official can still
be suspended
 
Questions and Answers:
1. A public officer was assigned to direct traffic in a very busy corner. While there, he
caught a thief in the act of lifting the wallet of a pedestrian. As he could not leave his post,
he summoned a civilian to deliver the thief to the precinct. The civilian agreed so he left
with the thief. When they were beyond the view of the policeman, the civilian allowed the
thief to go home. What would be the liability of the public officer?
 The liability of the traffic policeman would be merely administrative. The civilian has
no liability at all. Firstly, the offender is not yet a prisoner so there is no accountability
yet. The term “prisoner” refers to one who is already booked and incarcerated no
matter how short the time may be
 The policeman could not be said as having assisted the escape of the offender
because as the problem says, he is assigned to direct traffic in a busy corner street. So
he cannot be considered as falling under the third 3rd paragraph of Article 19 that
would constitute his as an accessory.
 The same is true with the civilian because the crime committed by the offender,
which is snatching or a kind of robbery or theft as the case may be, is not one of those
crimes mentioned under the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices - RA 3019 (1997) A is charged with the crime defined in
Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in an Information that reads: That
from 01 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the accused, being then employed in the Office of the District Engineer, Department
of Public Works andHighways and in the discharge of his official administrative functions, did
then and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of B's claim for
the payment of the price of his land which the government had expropriated, and after the
claim was approved, the accused gave B only P1,000.00 of the approved claim of P5,000
and willfully and unlawfully appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000, thus causing
undue injury to B and the Government." A has filed a motion to quash the information,
contending that it does not charge an offense. Is he correct?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to
allege that the undue injury to B and the government was caused by the accused's
manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross Inexcusable negligence, which are
necessary elements of the offense charged, ie., violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused is employed in the Office of the District
Engineer of the DPWH which has nothing to do with the determination and fixing of the
price of the land expropriated, and for which expropriated land the Government is
legally obligated to pay. There is no allegation in the information that the land was
overpriced or that the payment of the amount was disadvantageous to the
Government. It appears that the charge was solely based on the accused having
followed up the payment for B's land which the Government has already appropriated,
and that the accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land,
 the amount of P4,000 for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the accused should be merely charged
administratively
3. Ra 3019; Preventive Suspension (1999) A public officer was accused before the
Sandiganbayan of a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Just after arraignment and even before evidence was presented, the
Sandiganbayan issued an order for his suspension pendente lite. The accused questioned
the said Order contending that it is violative of the constitutional provision against an ex
post facto law. Will you sustain the objection of the accused? Why? [2%]
(c) What pre-conditions are necessary to be met or satisfied before preventive suspension
may be ordered? (2%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: (b) No, I will not sustain the objection of the accused.
Suspension of the accused pendente lite is not violative of the constitutional provision
against ex-post facto law. Ex-post facto law means making an innocent act a crime
before it is made punishable.
 (c) The pre-conditions necessary to be met or satisfied before a suspension may be
ordered are: (1) there must be proper notice requiring the accused to show cause at a
specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered suspended from office pursuant
to RA 3019, as amended; and (2) there must be a determination of a valid information
against the accused that warrants his suspension.
4. RA 3019; Preventive Suspension (2000) A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit
Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, who was charged with
violation of Section 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019 [Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before
the Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to Suspend Accused
Pendente Lite pursuant to Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Law. The Court granted the motion
and suspended accused Brad Kit for a period of 90 days. Accused assailed the constitutional
validity of the suspension order on the ground that it partakes of a penalty before Judgment
of conviction is reached and is thus violative of his constitutional right to be presumed
innocent. He also claimed that this provision of the law on suspension pendente lite applies
only to elective officials and not to appointed ones like him. Rule with reasons. (5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The suspension order does not partake of a penalty and is
thus not violative of Brad Kit's constitutional right to be presumed innocent. Under the
law, the accused public officers shall be suspended from office while the criminal
prosecution is pending in court (Sec. 13, RA. 3019). Such preventive suspension is
mandatory to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the
investigation (Rios vs. Sandiganbayan,279 SCRA 581 (1997); Bunye vs. Escareal 226
SCRA 332 (1993)). Neither is there merit in Brad Kit's claim that the provision on
suspension pendente lite applies only to elective officials and not to appointed ones
like him. It applies to all public officials Indicted upon a valid information under RA.
No. 3019, whether they be appointive or elective officials; or permanent or temporary
employees, or pertaining to the career or noncareer service (Segovia vs.
Sandiganbayan, 288 SCRA 328 [1998])
5. RA 3019; Public Officer (2003) The Central Bank (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas}, by a
resolution of the monetary board, hires Theof Sto Tomas, a retired manager of a leading
bank as a consultant. Theof later receives a valuable gift from a bank under investigation by
the Central Bank. May Theof be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) for accepting such a gift? Explain. 8%
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Theof may not be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019, but
may be prosecuted for violation of Pres, Decree No. 46, under which such act of
receiving a valuable gift is punished. Although Theof is a "public officer" within the
application of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), yet his act of
receiving such gift does not appear to be included among the punishable acts under
Rep. Act 3019 since he is not to intervene in his official capacity in the investigation of
 the bank which gave the gift. Penal laws must be strictly construed against the State.
In any case, Theof is administratively liable.
 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER Yes, Theof may be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019 because
he is a "public officer" within the purview of said law, and Theof received the valuable
gift from a bank which is under investigation by the Central Bank where he is
employed as a "public officer". Receiving gift, directly or indirectly by a public officer
from a party who has a transaction with the Government is wrong, more so when the
gift-giver is under investigation by the government office to which the public officer is
connected.
 
6. Ra 6713; Coverage (2001) Robert Sy, a well-known businessman and a founding
member of the Makati Business Club, aside from being a classmate of the newly-elected
President of the Philippines, had Investments consisting of shares of stocks in the Urban
Bank, the PNB, the Rural Bank of Caloocan City and his privately-owned corporation, the RS
Builders Corporation and Trans-Pacific Air. After the 85 of 86 President had taken his oath
and assumed his office, he appointed Robert as Honorary Consul to the Republic of Vietnam.
Robert took his oath before the President and after furnishing the Department of Foreign
Affairs with his appointment papers, flew to Saigon, now Ho Chi Min City, where he
organized his staff, put up an office and stayed there for three months attending to trade
opportunities and relations with local businessman. On the fourth month, he returned to the
Philippines to make his report to the President. However, the Anti-Graft League of the
Philippines filed a complaint against Robert for (1) falling to file his Statement of Assets and
Liabilities within thirty (30) days from assumption of office; (2) failing to resign from his
businesses, and (3) falling to divest his shares and investments in the banks and
corporations owned by him, as required by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees. Will the complaint prosper? Explain. (5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complaint will not prosper because the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Rep. Act. No. 6713),
expressly exempts those who serve the Government in an honorary capacity from
filing Statements of Assets and Liabilities, and from resigning and divesting themselves
of interest from any private enterprise (Secs. 8A and 9).
 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, the complaint will prosper under Sec. 7 of the AntiGraft
and Corrupt Practices Act (Rep. Act No. 3019, as amended], which requires all public
officers within 30 days from assuming public office to file a true, detailed sworn
statement of assets and liabilities. Violations of this law are mala prohibita which
admits of no excuses.
7. Dr. Chow, a government doctor, failed to submit his Daily Time Record (DTR) from
January to March 2000 and did not get approval of his sick leave application for April
because of evidence that he was actually moonlighting elsewhere. Thus, the medical
Director caused the withholding of his salary for the periods in question until he submitted
his DTRs in May 2000. Can Dr. Chow prosecute the medical director for causing him undue
injury in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? (2011 Bar Question)
 No, since Dr. Chow brought it upon himself, having failed to submit the required
DTRs
8. Proserfina, an assistant public high school principal, acted to facilitate the release of
salary differentials and election duty per diem of classroom teachers with the agreement
that they would reimburse her for her expenses. Did Proserfina commit a crime? Explain.
(2010 Bar Question)
 Yes, Proserfina committed a violation of Sec. 3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019, which
considers as a corrupt practice, the act of: “(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 contact or transaction between the Government and
any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity ha to intervene under
 the law.” As the assistant public high school principal, it Proserfina’s duty to intervene
in the release of salary differentials and per diem of classroom teachers under her and
her request for a share or benefit in the salary differentials and per diem of classroom
teachers constitutes graft or corrupt practices under Sec. 3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019
9. Charina, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch, promised the plaintiff in a case pending before
the court that she would convince the Presiding Judge to decide the case in plaintiff’s favor.
In consideration therefor, the plaintiff gave Charina P20,000.00. Charina was charged with
violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, prohibiting any public officer from
directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in
connection with any contract or transaction x x x wherein the public officer, in his official
capacity, has to intervene under the law. While the case was being tried, the Ombudsman
filed another information against Charina for Indirect Bribery under the Revised Penal Code.
Charina demurred to the second information, claiming that she can no longer be charged
under the Revised Penal Code having been charged for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is
Charina correct? Explain. (2009 Bar Question)
 No, Charina is not correct. The elements for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019
and Indirect Bribery are not the same, even if the charge for said cases arose from the
same act. In view of the different elements of both crimes, said crimes are separate
and distinct from each other. The two charges do not constitute a ground for a motion
to dismiss or motion to quash, as there is no jeopardy against the accused.
 
 

Anti-plunder law
Sunday, June 19, 2022
6:40 PM
 
RA 7080
- This crime somehow modified certain crimes in the Revised Penal Code insofar as the
overt acts by which a public officer amasses, acquires, or accumulates ill-gotten wealth are
felonies under the Revised Penal Code like bribery (Articles 210, 211, 211-A), fraud against
the public treasury [Article 213], other frauds (Article 214), malversation (Article 217),
when the ill-gotten wealth amounts to a total value of P50,000,000.00. The
amount was reduced from P75,000,000.00 by Republic Act No. 7659 and the penalty
was changed from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua to death.
 
- Short of the amount, plunder does not arise. Any amount less than P50,000,000.00 is a
violation of the Revised Penal Code or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Under the
law on plunder, the prescriptive period is 20 years commencing from the time of the last
overt act.
 
Plunder
- 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
criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of
at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua to death.
 
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. (Sec.2)
 
 
Ill-gotten wealth, defined
- (Sec. 1. d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material
possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (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
enumerate in the said section
 
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his
family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other
persons
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination of the
follower over or criminal acts:
(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 by reason of the office or
position of the public officer;
(3) By illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of asset belonging to the
national government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or
governmentowned 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 or participation including the promise of
future employment in any business or undertaking;
(5) By establishing agricultural, industrial, or commercial monopolies or other
combinations and/or implementations 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 himself or themselves at the expense and to
the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people, and the Republic of the Philippines.
 
- While the crime appears to be malum prohibitum, Republic Act No. 7080 provides that “in
the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
aggravating circumstances shall be considered by the court”
 
Reason behind Anti-Plunder Law
- punishes use of high office for personal enrichment, committed thru a series of acts done
not in the public eye but in stealth and secrecy over a period of time that may involve many
persons and which touch so many states and territorial units
- the acts and/or omissions sought to be penalized do not involve simple cases of
malversation of public funds, bribery extortion theft and graft but constitute plunder of an
entire nation resulting in material damage to the national economy
 
Act punished
- the act of a public officer in amassing or accumulating ill-gotten wealth of at least 50,000
through a series or combination of acts enumerated in Section 1 par d of the plunder law
 
Definition of combination, series and pattern
- at least two acts falling under the same category of enumeration provided in section 1,
par. (d)
- pattern in section 4, in relation to section 1 par. (d) and Section 2
1. pattern consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated
in subsections 1 to 6 of Sec.1 (d)
2. pursuant to sec.2 of the law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a
common purpose or goal which is to enable the public officer to amass accumulate or
acquire ill-gotten wealth
3. there must be an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to achieve said common goal
 overall unlawful scheme| indicates a general plan of action or method which the
principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to achieve the
aforesaid common goal
- if there is such no overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple
accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common
goal
 
Predicate acts must be proved
- only a number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series which would
constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at least 50,000
 No need to prove each and every act alleged in the information
 
The main plunderer should be identified
- Arroyo v. People| plunder is a crime that only a public official can commit by amassing or
accumulating ill-gotten wealth of at least 50,000 through a series or combination of acts,
the identification of the main plunderer is logically necessary
- illustration of the crime of plunder in page 508 - 509 of the book
 
Rule of Evidence
- Section 4. For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, 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 overall unlawful
scheme or conspiracy.
 
Revised Penal code applicable
- In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating
and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered
by the court. (Sec.2)
 
Forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth
- 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 favor of the State.
 
Plunder is malum in se
- requires proof of criminal intent
 Application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances indicates that mens rea is an
element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by
his criminal intent
- the declartion in the law that plunder is a heinous crime implies that it is mala in se
 When acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se
and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in
the case of plunder, the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se
--> Estrada v. sandiganbayan
 
Bar Questions
1. Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions and other fraudulent schemes
/conveyances and taking advantage of his position, Andy, a former mayor of a suburban
town, acquired assets amounting to P10 billion which is grossly disproportionate to his
lawful income. Due to his influence and connections and despite knowledge by the
authorities of his Ill-gotten wealth, he was charged with the crime of plunder only after
twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last elections he participated in. 1) May Andy still
be held criminally liable? Why? 2) Can the State still recover the properties and assets that
he illegally acquired, the bulk of which is in the name of his wife and children? Reason out
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1) Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of RA
7080 provides that the crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty years
and the problem asked whether Andy can still be charged with the crime of plunder
after 20 years.
 2) Yes, because Section 6 provides that recovery of properties unlawfully acquired by
public officers from them or their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by
prescription, laches or estoppel.
2. Overjoyed by the award to his firm of a multi-billion government contract for the
development of an economic and tourism hub in the Province of Blank, Mr. Gangnam
allotted the amount of P100 Million to serve as gifts for certain persons instrumental in his
firm’s winning the award. He gave 50% of that amount to Governor Datu, the official who
had signed the contract with the proper authorization from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan;
25% to Bokal Diva, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan member who had lobbied for the award
of the project in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan; 25% to Mayor Dolor of the Municipality
where the project would be implemented. Governor Datu received his share through his
wife, Provincial First Lady Dee, who then deposited the amount in her personal bank
account. Previously, upon facilitation by the Bokal Diva, Mr. Gangnam concluded an
agreement with Mayor Dolor for the construction of the Blank Sports Arena worth P800
Million. The project was highly overpriced because it could be undertaken and completed for
not more than P400 Million. For this project, Mayor Dolor received from Mr. Gangnam a gift
of P10 Million, while Bokal Diva got P25 Million. In both instances, Bokal Diva had her gifts
deposited in the name of her secretary, Terry, who personally maintained a bank account
for Bokal Diva’s share in government projects. (2017 Bar Question)
A) May each of the above-named individuals be held liable for plunder? Explain your
answer.
 No, Governor Datu is not liable for plunder. To be held liable for plunder, the
pubic officer must amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt or criminal acts. The word “combination” means at least
two different predicate crimes; while the term “series” means at least two predicate
crimes of the same kind. A single predicate crime amounting to 50 million pesos is not
plunder. The act of receiving P50 Million by Governor Datu in connection with any
government contract or project for the development of an economic and tourism hub is
a predicate crime of plunder. As regards, Mayor Dolor Kickback, the series acts of
receiving by or gift in the amount of P25 million and P10 million in connection with any
government contract or project for the development of an economic and tourism hub
and for the construction of the Blank Sports Arena, respectively, are predicate crimes
of plunder. However, the aggregate amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired is less than
P50 million. Hence, plunder is not committed since element that the aggregate amount
of ill-gotten wealth is at least P50 million is not present. Bokal Diva is liable for
plunder because he acquired ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of P50 million
through a series of predicates crimes consisting of receipts of kickback or gift in the
amount of P25 million and P25 million in connection with any government contract or
project for the development of an economic and tourism hub and for the construction
of the Blank Sports Arena, respectively. Mr. Gangnam, is liable for plunder for
giving kickbacks to Bokal Diva, and Terry for depositing the money in his account for
 Bokal Diva are also liable for plunder. Under RA No. 7080, 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.
B) Define wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy. Is either or both kinds existent herein?
Explain your answer
 In the case at bar, both type of conspiracy exists. The distribution of commissions or
gifts by Mr. Gangnam and the acceptance of Governor Datu, Bokal Diva, Mayor Dolor
is a type of wheel conspiracy where a single person, Mr. Gangnam, dealt individually
with the public officials to commit the overt acts. The chain conspiracy, on the other
hand, is evident in the overpricing of the sports complex through the facilitation of
Bokal Diva, the conclusion of the agreements by Mayor Dolor, and the distribution of
the gifts by Mr. Gangnam.
 
C) What provisions of RA no. 3019 (Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act), if any, were violated
by any of the above-named individuals, specifying the persons liable therefore? Explain your
answer
 Governor Datu, Mayor Dolor and Bokal Diva are liable for violation of Section 3 (b) of
RA No. 3019 for receiving money in connection with government contract or
transaction for the development of an economic and tourism hub where they have the
right to intervene under the law. Likewise, Mr. Gangnam, is also liable for violation of
Section 3 (b) of RA No. 3019 on the basis of conspiracy. Mayor Dolor and Bokal Diva
are liable for violation of Section 3 (b) of RA No. 3019 for receiving money in
connection with government contract or transaction for the construction of the Blank
Sports Arena or violation of Section 3 (e) for giving Mr. Gangnam, a private party,
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifest partiality and evident
bad faith by entering an agreement for such construction, which is highly overpriced,
or violation of Section 3 (g) for entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction for such construction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the same. Likewise, Mr. Gangnam for giving money to the said public officers or for
entering such contract is also liable for violation of Section 3(b) of RA No. 3019 on the
basis of conspiracy
D) What crimes under the Revised Penal Code, if any, were committed, specifying the
persons liable therefor? Explain your answer.
 Governor Datu, Mayor Dolor and Bokal Diva are liable for indirect bribery under Art.
211, RPC for receiving money from Mr. Gangnam. Meanwhile, Mr. Gangnam is liable
for corruption of public officer under Article 212 of the RPC because of his act of giving
gifts to the public officers.
3. City Engr. A, is the city engineer and the Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee
(BAC) of the City of Kawawa. In 2009, the City of Kawawa, through an ordinance, allotted
the amount of P100 million for the construction of a road leading to the poblacion. City
Engr. A instead, diverted the construction of the road leading to his farm. Investigation
further showed that he accepted money in the amount of P10 million each from three (3)
contending bidders, who eventually lost in the bidding. Audit report likewise showed that
service vehicles valued at P2 million could not be accounted for although reports showed
that these were lent to City Engr. A’s authorized drivers but the same were never returned.
Further, there were funds under City Engr. A’s custody amounting to P10 million which were
found to be missing and could not be accounted for. In another project, he was instrumental
in awarding a contract for the construction of a city school building costing P10 million to a
close relative, although the lowest bid was P8 million. Investigation also revealed that City
Engr. A has a net worth of more than P50 million, which was way beyond his legitimate
income. (2014 Bar Question)
A) If you are the Ombudsman, what charge or charges will you file against City Engr. A?
B) Suppose the discovered net worth of City Engr. A is less than P50 million, will your
answer still be the same?
 If I am the Ombudsman, I would file a case for Plunder under RA 7080 against City
Engineer A. Engr. A is a public officer who amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten
wealth through a combination of overt or criminal acts of misuse, misappropriation,
conversion, or malversation of public funds, receiving kickbacks from persons in
connection with a government contract or project by reason of his of office or position,
and illegally or fraudulently conveying or disposing of assets belonging to the national
government, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least P50 million.
 Yes, my answer will still be the same. City Engr. A’s net worth being less than P50
million is not determinative of his liability. What is the material is the fact that he
acquired, amassed and accumulated ill-gotten wealth of more than P50 million. The
basis of plunder is the combination of criminal acts or series of acts that accumulated
at least P50million. The predicate crimes are already absorbed in the crime of plunder
 
 

Civil Forfeiture
Sunday, June 19, 2022
7:46 PM
 
RA 1379
 
Prima facie presumption
- whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an
amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public
officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately
acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully
acquired.
 
Procedure
1. Filing of Petition
The Solicitor General, upon complaint by any taxpayer to the city or provincial fiscal who
shall conduct a previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases and
shall certify to the Solicitor General that there is reasonable ground to believe that there
has been committed a violation of this Act and the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
shall file, in the name and on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, in the Regional Trial
court of the city or province where said public officer or employee resides or holds office, a
petition for a writ commanding said officer or employee to show cause why the
property aforesaid, or any part thereof, should not be declared property of the
State:
 
no such petition shall be filed within one year before any general election or within three
months before any special election
 
- Any taxpayer having knowledge that a public officer has amassed wealth out of proportion
to this legitimate income may file a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of the place where
the public officer resides or holds office.
- The prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation just like in a criminal case and he will
forward his findings to the office of the Solicitor General.
- The Solicitor General will determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the
respondent has accumulated an unexplained wealth
  If the Solicitor General finds probable cause, he would file a petition requesting the
court to issue a writ commanding the respondent to show cause why the ill-gotten
wealth described in the petition should not be forfeited in favor of the government
- This is covered by the Rules on Civil Procedure. The respondent is given 15 days to answer
the petition. Thereafter trial would proceed. Judgment is rendered and appeal is just like in
a civil case.
- Remember that this is not a criminal proceeding. The basic difference is that the
preliminary investigation is conducted by the prosecutor.
 
2. Hearing
- The Court shall set a date for a hearing, which may be open to the public, and during
which the respondent shall be given ample opportunity to explain, to the satisfaction of the
court, how he has acquired the property in question.
 
3. Judgment
— If the respondent is unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that he has
lawfully acquired the property in question, then the court shall declare such property,
forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of such judgment the property aforesaid shall
become property of the State:
 
Provided, That no judgment shall be rendered within six months before any general election
or within three months before any special election. The Court may, in addition, refer this
case to the corresponding Executive Department for administrative or criminal action, or
both.
 
What must be proved during forfeiture proceedings
1. Public official or employee acquired personal or real properties during his or her
incumbency
2. Acquisition is manifestly and grossly disproportionate to this/her salary or other
legitimate income
3. The existence of which give rise to a presumption that these same properties were
acquired prima facie unlawfully (Bugarin v. republic)
 
Resignation, dismissal or separation would not bar the filling of the petition
-section 2
 
Prescription
- the right to file such petition shall prescribe after four years from the date of the
resignation, dismissal or separation or expiration of the term of the officer or employee
concerned (sec. 2)
 
Protection against self-incrimination. (Sec. 8)
— Neither the respondent nor any other person shall be excused from attending and
testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, memoranda and other records
on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him
may tend to incriminate him or subject him to prosecution; but no individual shall be
prosecuted criminally for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning
which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination,
to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so
testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and conviction for perjury or false testimony
committed in so testifying or from administrative proceedings.
 
Immunity (Sec. 9)
— The Solicitor General may grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who
testifies to the unlawful manner in which the respondent has acquired any of the property in
question in cases where such testimony is necessary to prove violations of this Act.
 
Laws on prescription
- the laws concerning acquisitive prescription and limitation of actions cannot be invoked by,
nor shall they benefit the respondent, in respect of any property unlawfully acquired by him
 
Penalties
- Section 12. Penalties. Any public officer or employee who shall, after the effective date of
this Act, transfer or convey any unlawfully acquired property shall be repressed with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding ten thousand
pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine. The same repression shall be imposed upon any
person who shall knowingly accept such transfer or conveyance.
 
Is the Proceeding Criminal or Civil
- not a criminal proceeding since it does not terminate in the imposition of penalty but
merely in the forfeiture of the properties illegally acquired in favor of the state (Section 6)
(Almeda, Sr. v. Perez)
- However it has also been held that forfeiture partakes of the nature of a penalty
 While the procedural aspect of these proceedings remain civil inform, the very
forfeiture of property found to be unlawfully acquired is inescapably in the nature of a
penalty
 
Ultimate end of forfeiture
- to abandon and surrender the properties unlawfully acquired in favor of the government
 Not simply to satisfy some certain or specific amount which can be done by merely
proceeding with the personal properties first and real properties next
 
The courts are not bound by the statement of assets and liabilities filed
- in determining whether there is unexplained wealth or not
 On that contrary, this statute affords the respondent every opportunity to explain
how head had acquired the property in question
 
Penalty of forfeiture cannot be applied retroactively
- Katigbak v. solicitor General
 
 

Crimes Against Persons

Monday, April 18, 2022
10:37 PM
 
Article 246. Parricide.
 
Elements
1. A person is killed;
2. The deceased is killed by the accused;
3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a
legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse, of the accused.
 
Essential element
-relationship of the offender and the victim
 
Parents and children are not included in the term ascendants or descendants
- the law should read "or any other ascendant or descendant"
 Correct translation from the spanish text
 
The other ascendant or descendant must be legitimate
- illegitimate children embraces all children born out of wedlock
 
The father mother or child may be legitimate or illegitimate
- law is clear: Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate
 
The child should not be less than three years old
- infanticide if it is less
- note: only relatives by blood (father mother or child) may be legitimate or illegitimate
 Ascendants and descendants must be legitimate --> must be relatives by blood
--> an adoptive father or adopted son or father-in-law or son-in-law are not included
 
Presumption of marriage in parricide
- People v. Sukarno| marriage certificate is the best proof
 In the absence thereof, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered
 
Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in a criminal case for parricide
- even if marriage is void ab initio
- Pimentel v. Pimentel| a declaration of the nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity is absolutely of no moment insofar as the State's penal law are
concerned
 
Killing illegitimate spouse and illegitimate daughter
- woman --> homicide
- daughter --> parricide
 
Article 33. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities
may be performed validly without the necessity of marriage license, provided they are
solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites or practices.
 
Relationship must be alleged
- if not alleged in the information, it would only serve as an aggravating circumstance
(People v. Jumawan)
 
Parricide through reckless imprudence
- People v. Recote| husband while struggling for possession of his gun with his children
accidentally pulled the trigger and hit his wife
 
Parricide by mistake
- if a person wanted to kill a stranger but by mistake killed his own father, will it be
parricide? Yes
 Article 49 applies as regards the proper penalty to be imposed
- note article 49 does not apply to mistake in the blow and praeter intentionem
- if a person killed another, not knowing that the latter was his son, will he be guilty of
parricide? Yes
 Law does not require knowledge between them
 
Liability of stranger cooperating in parricide
- homicide or murder (People v. Patricio)
- The rule of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all does not apply here because of
the personal relationship of the offender to the offended party.
 Illustration: A spouse of B conspires with C to kill B. C is the stranger in the
relationship. C killed B with treachery. The means employed is made known to A and A
agreed that the killing will be done by poisoning
- As far as A is concerned, the crime is based on his relationship with B. It is therefore
parricide. The treachery that was employed in killing Bong will only be generic
aggravating circumstance in the crime of parricide because this is not one crime that
requires a qualifying circumstance.
- But that same treachery, insofar as C is concerned, as a stranger who cooperated in
the killing, makes the crime murder; treachery becomes a qualifying circumstance
 
Further notes:
1. The relationship between the offender and the offended party must be legitimate, except
when the offender and the offended party are related as parent and child
2. If the offender and the offended party, although related by blood and in the direct line,
are separated by an intervening illegitimate relationship, parricide can no longer be
committed
 The illegitimate relationship between the child and the parent renders all relatives
after the child in the direct line to be illegitimate too.
3. The only illegitimate relationship that can bring about parricide is that between parents
and illegitimate children as the offender and the offended parties.
 Illustration: A is the parent of B, the illegitimate daughter. B married C and they
begot a legitimate child D. If D, daughter of B and C, would kill A, the grandmother,
the crime cannot be parricide anymore because of the intervening illegitimacy. The
relationship between A and D is no longer legitimate. Hence, the crime committed is
homicide or murder.
4. The Supreme Court has also ruled that Muslim husbands with several wives can be
convicted of parricide only in case the first wife is killed. There is no parricide if the other
wives are killed although their marriage is recognized as valid. This is so because a Catholic
man can commit the crime only once. If a Muslim husband could commit this crime more
than once, in effect, he is being punished for the marriage which the law itself authorized
him to contract
 
Bar Questions:
1. Complex Crime; Parricide w/ unintentional abortion (1994) Aldrich was dismissed from
his Job by his employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant wife, Carmi, nagged him about
money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and angered by the nagging of his
wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her
unborn baby died. What crime was committed by Aldrich?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion. When Aldrich struck his wife, Carmi, with his fist, he committed the crime of
maltreatment under Art, 266, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, Since Carmi died
because of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is criminally liable of parricide under Art.
246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of the same Code. Since the unborn baby of
Carmi died in the process, but Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his
wife, Aldrich committed unintentional abortion as defined in Art. 257, RPC. Inasmuch
as the single act of Aldrich produced two grave or less grave felonies, he falls under
Art, 48, RPC, ie. a complex crime (People vs. Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401).
2. Parricide (1999) Who may be guilty of the crime of parricide? (3%) SUGGESTED
ANSWER: Any person who kills his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or his ascendants or descendants, or spouse, shall be guilty of parricide. (Art.
246, RPC)
3. Parricide (1999) In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, abandoned his wife and their
son, Ricky, who was then only three years old. Twenty years later, an affray took place in a
bar in Olongapo City between Pedro and his companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his
friends, upon the other, without the father and son knowing each other. Ricky stabbed and
killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out, a week later, when his mother arrived from Manila
to visit him in jail, that the man whom he killed was his own father. 1) What crime did Ricky
commit? Explain. 2) Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, but he
nevertheless killed him out of bitterness for having abandoned him and his mother, what
crime did Ricky commit? Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1) Ricky committed parricide because the person killed was
his own father, and the law punishing the crime (Art. 246, RPC) does not require that
the crime be "knowingly" committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted and found guilty of
parricide, the penalty to be imposed is Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code for Homicide
(the crime he intended to commit) but in its maximum period.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2) The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky knew
before the killing that Pedro is his father, because the moral basis for punishing the
crime already exists. His having acted out of bitterness for having been abandoned by
his father may be considered mitigating.
4. A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired to kill C, her husband, to whom
she was lawfully married, A and B bought pancit and mixed it with poison. A gave the food
with poison to C, but before C could eat it. D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate
son, arrived. C. D and E shared the food in the presence of A who merely watched them
eating. C, D and E died because of having partaken of the poisoned food. What crime or
crimes did A and B commit?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the killing of
C, her lawful husband, D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son. All these
killings constitute parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code because of her
relationship with the victims. B committed the crime of murder as a co-conspirator of
A in the killing of C because the killing was carried out by means of poison (Art. 248.
par. 3, Revised Penal Code). But for feloniously causing the death of D and E, B
committed two counts of homicide. The plan was only to kill C
5. After a heated argument over his philandering, Higino punched on the head his wife Aika,
who was six and a half months pregnant. Because of the impact, Aika lost her balance, fell
on the floor with her head hitting a hard object. Aika died and the child was expelled
prematurely. After thirtysix hours, the child died. (2015 Bar Question) A) What crime(s)
did Higino commit? Explain. B) Assuming that when the incident occurred, Aika was only six
months pregnant, and when she died, the fetus inside her womb also died, will your answer
be different? Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: A) Higino committed two counts of parricide for the death of
his wife and his child. Article 246 of Revised Penal Code is committed because of the
qualifying circumstance of relationship. This is a complex crime because the single act
of punching the victim constitutes two grave felonies (Article 48). B) Yes. If the child
died inside the womb of Aika, who was only six months, the crime committed is
complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. Killing the unborn child as a
result of the violence employed against the mother without intent to abort is
unintentional abortion. Because the same violence that killed the mother also caused
unintentional abortion, the crime committed is a complex crime
6. The key element in a crime of parricide other than the fact of killing is the relationship of
the offender to the victim. Which one of the following circumstances constitutes parricide?
(2012 Bar Question) A) Offender killing the illegitimate daughter of his legitimate son. B)
Offender killing his illegitimate grandson. C) Offender killing his common-law wife. D)
Offender killing his illegitimate mother.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Killing his granddaughter, grandson or wife shall not be
considered as parricide since the relationship is not legitimate. In parricide, the
legitimacy of the relationship is an essential element thereof if the victim is
the wife or the second-degree direct relative of the offender. . On the other
hand, killing his illegitimate mother is parricide. In parricide, the legitimacy of the
relationship is not an essential element thereof if the victim is the first-degree direct
relative of the offender.
 
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. .
 
Elements
1. A legally married person, or a parent, surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter
under 18 years of age and living with him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person
2. He or she kills any or both of them, or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious
physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter;
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or
she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.
 
Article 247 does not define and penalize a felony
- but grants a privilege or benefit to the accused (a legally married person or parent who
shall surprise his spouse or daughter in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another or shall inflict upon them any serious injury
- requisites of article 247 must be established by the evidence of the defense (People v.
Araquel)
 And cannot immediately enter into a conditional plea of guilty (People v. sabilul)
 
The accused must be a legally married person
 
Must the parent be legitimate
- this article does not require it
 It only requires that the daughter be under 18 years old
 That she is living with her parents
 
Does this article apply even if the daughter is married?
- Reyes: No. while under 18 years old, the daughter is under parental authority
 If she is married, her husband alone can claim the benefits of article 247
 
Meaning of the word surprise in the phrase "having surprised his spouse in the act
of committing sexual intercourse with another person"
- surprise| to come upon suddenly and unexpectedly
 People v. Gabriel| husband was peeping through a hole. Husband then attacked
when the wife and the paramour commenced the sexual intercourse
 
The killing of his spouse by the accused must be by reason of having surprised her
in the act of sexual intercourse with another person
1. People v. Oyanib| Accused caught her wife and her paramour. He also stabbed her
wife for reacting in defense of her paramour --> given the benefit
2. People v. Rabandaban| Husband at first only reprimanded her wife and asked her to
leave. Wife then gathered clothes and went to the kitchen and picked up a bolo. Wife
 attacked her when he followed her. Husband was able to wrest away the bolo and
stabbed her --> not given the benefit
 Reason: he did not kill her on account of having surprised them
 
Surprising the spouse or young daughter in the act of sexual intercourse,
indipensible requisite
- People v. Macal| wife and man were merely conversing in the bedroom seated beside each
other
 Husband killed wife --> parricide
 
Article 247 is not applicable when the accused did not see his spouse in the act of
sexual intercourse with another person
- does not include merely sleeping on the same bed (People v. Bituanan)
- neither does it include a situation where the accused surprised his wife after the fact as
when he saw her already rising up and the man buttoning his drawers (People v. gonzales)
 
But it is enough that the circumstances show reasonable that the carnal act is
being committed or has just been committed
- concurring opinion in People v. gonzales
 
The Killing or inflicting of serious physical injuries must be: in the act of sexual
intercourse or immediately after surprising them
 
Meaning of immediately after
- US v. Alano| husband surprisingly caught them in the act when he stumbled. Wife and
paramour immediately arose after they heard the noise of the stumble. Paramour ran
immediately and the husband wasn't able to pursue him. When he returned to his house he
caught his wife in the act of climbing the stairs. He then stabbed her multiple times
--> given the benefit
 U.S. v. Vargas| the discovery, the escape, the pursuit and the killing must all form
part of one continuous act
- People v. coricor| he looked through a hole in the room where he saw his wife and her
paramour having sex
 He stealthily approached them and managed to stabbed the paramour. Paramour
then jumped through the window but the husband was able to ran after and killed him
--> given the benefit
 
The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage
- People v. Abarca| shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter| does not mean instantly thereafter
 Only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing upon the spouse in the basest act of
infidelity
 But the skilling should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse and
must not have been influenced by external factors
 Here an hour has passed
 
Article 247 applies in the case of a husband only when he surprises his wife in
flagrant authority
- People v. Ammalun| husband caught a man having sexual intercourse with the former's
wife against her will
 Wife was not committing adultery here since she was not voluntarily having sexual
intercourse
  Attack upon that man is a defense against relative under art. 11 par.2
 
What is the justification for Article 247
- justified burst of passion (People v. Gonzales)
- no crim liab for less serious or slight physical injuries
 If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt
from punishment.
 
Liability for physical injuries suffered by third persons
- Article 4 No.1| Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.
- People v. Abarca| inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder and
therefore cannot be guilty of frustrated murder for injuries sustained against third persons
 Less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence
 
Not applicable to person who consented to the infidelity of spouse or who
facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter
- husband after hearing from his wife that she was in love with another man and signed a
document wherein he ordered his wife to look for and live with another man
 Cannot claim benefits of article 247 (People v. Dumon)
 
Destierro not intended as penalty
- more to protect the accused from retaliation
 People v. Coricor
 
In what cases is a person who committed parricide not to be punished with
reclusion perpetua to death
1. When parricide is committed through negligence - 365
2. Committed by mistake - 249
3. Committed under exceptional circumstances - 247
 
Bar Questions:
1. Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2001) A and B are husband and wife. A is
employed as a security guard at Landmark, his shift being from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
One night, he felt sick and cold, hence, he decided to go home around midnight after
getting 54 of 86 permission from his duty officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home,
he noticed that the light in the master bedroom was on and that the bedroom window was
open. Approaching the front door, he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the
bedroom. He opened the door very carefully and peeped inside where he saw his wife B
having sexual intercourse with their neighbor C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the
latter managed to wrest himself free and jumped out of the window, A followed suit and
managed to catch C again and after a furious struggle, managed also to strangle him to
death. A then rushed back to his bedroom where his wife B was cowering under the bed
covers. Still enraged, A hit B with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. The police
arrived after being summoned by their neighbors and arrested A who was detained,
inquested and charged for the death of C and serious physical Injuries of B. a) Is A liable for
C's death? Why? (5%) b) Is A liable for B's injuries? Why? (5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional
circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, where only destierro is
prescribed. Article 247 governs since A surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual
intercourse with C, and the killing of C was "Immediately thereafter" as the discovery,
escape, pursuit and killing of C form one continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)
 b) Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he inflicted on his wife B but
under the same exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, for
the same reasons.
2. Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2005) Pete, a security guard, arrived home late
one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Flor, his wife, and Benjie, his
best friend, completely naked having sexual intercourse. Pete pulled out his service gun and
shot and killed Benjie. Pete was charged with murder for the death of Benjie. Pete
contended that he acted in defense of his honor and that, therefore, he should be acquitted
of the crime. The court found that Benjie died under exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Pete of the crime, but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247
of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Pete to pay indemnity to the heirs of the
victim in the amount of P50,000.00. (5%) Is the defense of Pete meritorious? Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. A person who commits acts penalized under Article 247
of the Revised Penal Code for death or serious physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances is still criminally liable. However, this is merely an
exempting circumstance when the victim suffers any other kind of physical injury. In
the case at bar, Pete will suffer the penalty of destierro for the death of Benjie.
3. Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, is destierro a penalty? Explain. SUGGESTED
ANSWER: In the case of People v. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433, September 14, 1987, the Court
ruled that Article 247 does not define a felony. However, it went on to state that the penalty
is merely banishment of the accused, intended for his protection. Punishment, therefore, is
not inflicted on the accus
4. Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity despite his exoneration under Article
247 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, because the privilege
defined under this Article exempts the offender from criminal liability but not from civil
liability. (People v. Abarca, G.R, No. L-74483, September 14, 1987; Art. 12, Revised Penal
Code)
4. Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a lawyer is sufficient to
provide for the needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay- at-home mom and
care for their children. One day, Jojo arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in
the act of having sexual intercourse with their female nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial
bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom cabinet and shot
Alma, immediately killing her. (2016 Bar Question) A) Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries
inflicted under exceptional circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code applicable in this case
given that the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse? B) Is Felipa liable for
adultery for having sexual relations with Alma?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 A) No, Article. 247 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable because the offender
must catch his or her spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person. Sexual intercourse presupposes the penetration of the man’s sexual organ into
that of a woman’s. In this case, the paramour was of the same gender as the erring
spouse. As such, there is legally, no sexual intercourse to speak of, hence, Art.
247 is not applicable.
 B) No. Under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by any
married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a “man” not her husband.
Thus, Felipa, in having homosexual intercourse with Alma, a “woman”, is not
committing adultery
5. Procopio, a call center agent assigned at a graveyard shift, went home earlier than usual.
He proceeded immediately to their bedroom to change his clothes. To his surprise, he found
his wife Bionci in bed making love to another woman Magna. Enraged, Procopio grabbed a
knife nearby and stabbed Bionci, who died. (2015 Bar Question) A) What crime did Procopio
commit, and what circumstance attended the case? Explain. B) Assuming that Procopio and
Bionci were common-law spouses, will your answer be the same? Explain.
  SUGGESTED ANSWER: A) Procopio commited parricide for killing his wife. This case
does not fall under death by exceptional circumstance under Article 247 of the Revised
Penal Code because Bionci was caught having homosexual intercourse, which is not
“sexual intercourse” under the law. The crime was attended by the circumstance of
passion arising from a lawful sentiment as a result of having caught his wife in the act
of infidelity with another woman (People v. Belarmino, G.R. No. L-4429, April 18,
1952, En Banc).
 B) The crime committed is Homicide if Procopio and Bionci were common law
spouses. Parricide contemplates killing by a spouse who is legally married to the
victim.
6. X killed B, mistakenly believing that she was his wife, upon surprising her having sex with
another man in a motel room. What is the criminal liability of X? (2011 Bar Question)
 Homicide
7. The accused was shocked to discover his wife and their driver sleeping in the master’s
bedroom. Outraged, the accused got his gun and killed both. Can the accused claim that he
killed the two under exceptional circumstances? (2011 Bar Question)
 B) No, since the accused did not catch them while having sexual intercourse
 
Article 248. Murder. -
 
Elements
1. A person was killed;
2. Accused killed him;
3. The killing was attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances –
a. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid or armed men,
or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity;
b. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
c. 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 and ruin;
d. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of
an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other
public calamity;
e. With evident premeditation;
f. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim,
or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide
 
Doctrines and cases
1. not falling within the provisions of Article 246 and also 255 (less than 3 years old)
2. In murder, victim must be killed to consummate the crime
3. To prove the felony of homicide or murder, there must be incontrovertible evidence,
direct or circumstantial, that the victim was deliberately killed (with malice)
 People v. Delim
 
Rules for the application of the circumstances which qualify the killing to murder
1. Murder will exist with only one of the circumstances described in article 248 (US v. Labai)
 When more than one of said circumstances are present, the others must be
considered as generic aggravating circumstances (People v. Dueño)
2. That when the other circumstances are abosrbed or included in one of the qualifying
circumstances, they cannot be considered as aggravating
  Abuse of superior strength and aid of armed men are absorbed in Treachery
(People v. Sespeñe)
3. Any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in article 248 must be alleged in the
information
 If not, but was proved in trial --> generic aggravating circumstances
 US v. Ocampo
 
- The qualifying circumstances of murder, except "outraging or scoffing at his person or
corpse" are among those defined in Article 14.
 
Treachery
- article 14 No. 16| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
- an unexpected and sudden attack which renders the victim unable to put up a defense is
the essence of treachery (People v. Agacer)
- People v. Dayaday| suddenm deliberate and unexpected attack from behind
 Use of firearm showed deliberate intent to kill him defenseless and incapable of
retaliation
- Killing of a child of tender years is murder
 even if the manner of the assault is not shown because the weakness of the victim
due to her tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused (People v.
Ganohon)
 
Taking advantage of superior strength
- People v. Baduya, Valenzuela v. People| present whenever there is a notorious inequality
of forces between the victim and the aggresor
 Evidence must be shown that the accused purposely sought the advantage
- examples:
1. Attack by a man with a weapon and a girl| sex and weapon gave him superiority of
strength (People v. Quesada)
2. Accused was already wounded and treated in his house while the three accused,
armed, dragged him from the stairs and stabbed and striked him mercilessly. (People
v. Mendoza)
3. Accused chased, ganged up and eventually killed Rolando and deliberately used
weapons (Ramos v. People)
 
With the aid of armed men
- People v. ortiz| If the accused had companions who were armed when he committed the
crime, this circumstance is considered present
-People v. Pinca| at least two of the accused were armed with carbine and bolo when the
five accused perpetrated the crime
- US v. Abaigar| the armed men must take part in the commission of the crime directly or
indirectly and the accused must avail of their aid or rely upon them
 
Employing means to weaken the defense
- person who suddenly throws a cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this
situation he kills him (US v. Devela)
- one who suddenly cast sand or dirt upon the eyes of the victim and then kills him (People
v. Siaotong)
 
Employing means or persons to insure or afford immunity
- means or persons employed by the accused who killed the deceased to prevent his being
recognized or to secure against detection and punishment
- one who covered his face with handkerchief before killing his victim
 
In consideration of a price, reward or promise
- were it not for the price, reward or promise the person would not have killed the victim --
> principal by direct participation
- one who gave price, reward or promise --? Principal by inductio
- when this circumstance is alleged in the information for murder and proved by the
prosecution --> Both are guilty of murder (US v. alim)
 
By means of fire, poison, explosion, etc.
- there should be an actual design to kill and that the use of fire should be purposely
adopted as a means to that end to qualify homicide to murder
- if the offender's objective is to kill and he uses arson to that end --> murder only
 If the offender's objective is to kill and arson is resorted to as a means to cover the
crime --> two separate crimes of homicide or murder and arson (People v. cedenio)
- single act of burning the house which killed two people, with the main objective of killing
them --> complex crime of double murder (People v. Gaffud)
- paramour allowed wife to take quantity of arsenic powder and placed it in the coffee of the
husband; who died because of that --> paramour was guilty of murder (People v. Bonifacio)
- a person who threw a hand grenade at his victim who was killed as a result of the
explosion is guilty of murder (People v. guilen)
 
Treachery and premeditation are inherent in murder by poison
- People v. Galura| to excite a woman sexually, so that he could easily consummate his
dastardly lewd desire, the accused gave her chocolate with an overdose of cantharide which
resulted to her death. But he had no intent to kill her
 Apply article 4 par. 1 --> Homicide
- Reyes, in response to dissenting opinion in this case
 The use of poison only becomes inherent in murder when the accused had intent to
kill and he uses poison as a means to kill him
- the phrase "by means" presuppose an objective to bring about a result
 In murder qualified by treachery, it is required only that there is tendency in the
attack and this is true even if the offender has no intent to kill the person assaulted
- (People v. cagoco)
 
On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of
an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other
public calamity
- must be taken advantage of
 
With evident premeditation
- exists when the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection
upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to
arrive at a calm judgment
- elements:
1. The time when the offender has determined to commit the crime
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
3. A sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the
crime has lapsed to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act
 
With cruelty
- when other injuries or wounds are inflicted deliberately by the offender, which are not
necessary for the killing of the victim
 The victim must be alive when the other injuries or wounds are inflicted
- no cruelty when the offender in inflicting several other wounds on the victim has only a
decided purpose to kill him
 
Outraging or scoffing at the person or corpse of the victim
- a person was found dead with wounds in the back, neck and other parts of the body
 Murder. This is either cruely if the victim was still alive when other wounds were
inflicted or otherwise, outraging or scoffing at his corpse (People v. Lozada)
- scoffing| to jeer and implies a showing of irreverence
 contemptuously ridiculing or mocking someone or something.
- examples of outraging at the corpse of the victim
1. having anal intercourse with the woman after killing her (People v. butler)
2. Weighing the victims' bodies with a cement boulder and hub cap and tying their
wrists and ankles with nylon card and wire constitute an outrage on their corpse
(People v. Maguddatu)
3. Corpse was outraged when it was dismembered and opened to remove organs
(People v. carmina)
4. Mere decapitation of the victim's head (People v. Whisenhunt)
- example of scoffing of the dead
- People v. Carmina| intestines were removed and hunged around the neck of the victim's
brother and the lungs and liver were facetiously described as pulutan
 
Penalty for murder
- the effect of abolishment of death penalty| now reclusion temporal in its maximum to
reclusion perpetua (People v. Gavarra)
- RA 7659 resoted death penalty and increased penalty for murder to reclusion perpetua to
death
- but RA 9346 which prohibited imposition of death penalty --> it is now reclusion perpetua
 
Bar Questions:
1. Murder & Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165 (2005) Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who
accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido
was arrested and was tested to be positive for the use of ―shabu‖ at the time he committed
the stabbing. What should be the proper charge against Candido? Explain. (3%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances enumerated under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The killing,
however, constitutes murder because the commission of a crime under the influence of
prohibited drugs is a qualifying, aggravating circumstance. (Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165)
2. Murder (1999) The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim
while the victim was turning his back to him. He aimed at and hit the victim only on the leg.
The victim, however, died because of loss of blood. Can the accused be liable for homicide
or murder, considering that treachery was clearly involved but there was no attempt to kill?
Explain your answer.
 (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The accused is liable for the death of the victim even
though he merely aimed and fired at the latter's leg, "not intending to kill the victim",
considering that the gunshot was felonious and was the proximate cause of death. An
offender is liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his felonious
act although different from what he intended. However, since specific intent to kill is
absent, the crime for said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs. Pugay
and Samson, 167 SCRA 439)
  ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The accused is liable for the death of the victim in as much
as his act of shooting the victim at the leg is felonious and is the proximate cause of
death. A person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for all the direct, natural,
and logical consequences of such act although different from what he intended. And
since such death was attended by treachery, the same will constitute murder but the
accused should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13(3), RPC)
3.
4. Murder; Evident Premeditation (1996) Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge
against Jorge who refused to marry their sister Lorna, after the latter got pregnant by
Jorge. After weeks of surveillance, they finally cornered Jorge in Ermita, Manila, when the
latter was walking home late at night. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought Jorge to Zambales
where they kept him hog-tied in a small nipa house located in the middle of a rice field. Two
days later, they killed Jorge and dumped his body into the river. What crime or crimes did
Fidel and Fred commit? Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Art 248,
RPC, the killing being qualified by evident premeditation. This is due to the long
standing grudge entertained by the two accused occasioned by the victim's refusal to
marry their sister after impregnating her. In People vs. Alfeche. 219 SCRA 85, the
intention of the accused is determinative of the crime committed. Where the intention
is to kill the victim and the latter is forcibly taken to another place and later killed, it is
murder. There is no indication that the offenders intended to deprive the victim of his
liberty. Whereas, if the victim is kidnapped, and taken to another situs and killed as an
afterthought, it is kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RPC.
 
5. Murder; Homicide; Infanticide; Parricide (1999) A killed: (1) a woman with whom he
lived without benefit of clergy, (2) their child who was only two days old, (3) their daughter,
and (4) their adopted son. What crime or crimes did A commit? (3%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: A committed the following crimes:
1.] HOMICIDE or murder as the case may be, for the killing of his common-law wife
who is not legally considered a "spouse"
2.] INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child as said child is less than three (3) days old.
(Art. 255, RPC) However, the penalty corresponding to parricide shall be imposed
since A is related to the child within the degree defined in the crime of parricide.
3.] PARRICIDE for the killing of their daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as
long as she is not less than three (3) days old at the time of the killing.
4.] MURDER for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship between A and the
said son must be by blood in order for parricide to arise
6. Murder; Reckles Imprudence (2001) Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his
ten-year old grandson along Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at the intersection of
Makati Avenue but both were hit by a speeding CRV Honda van and were sent sprawling on
the pavement a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo, stopped his car after hitting the
two victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose's prostrate body anew and
third time by advancing his car forward. The grandson suffered broken legs only and
survived but Mang Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs, causing his instant
death. The driver was arrested and charged with Murder for the death of Mang Jose and
Serious Physical Injuries through Reckless Imprudence with respect to the grandson. Are
the charges correct? Explain. (5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the charges are correct. For deliberately running over
Mang Jose's prostrate body after having bumped him and his grandson, the driver
indeed committed Murder, qualified by treachery. Said driver's deliberate intent to kill
Mang Jose was demonstrated by his running over the latter's body twice, by backing
up the van and driving it forward, whereas the victim was helpless and not in a
 position to defend himself or to retaliate. As to the serious physical injuries sustained
by Mang Jose's 10-year old grandson, as a result of having been hit by the speeding
vehicle of said driver, the same were the result of reckless imprudence which is
punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge of
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries is correct. The penalty next
higher in degree to what ordinarily should be imposed is called for, since the driver did
not lend help on the spot, which help he could have given to the victims.
7. Murder; Treachery (1995) On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found
himself surrounded by four men. One of them wrestled the police officer to the ground and
disarmed him while the other three companions who were armed with a hunting knife, an
ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman died as a result of the
multiple stab wounds inflicted by his assailants. What crime or crimes were committed?
Discuss fully.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified
by treachery, (which absorbed abuse of superior strength) as the attack was sudden
and unexpected and the victim was totally defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the
concerted acts of the assailants. Direct assault would not complex the crime, as there
is no showing that the assailants knew that the victim was a policeman; even if there
was knowledge, the fact is that he was not in the performance of his official duties,
and therefore there is no direct assault.
8. Murder; Use of Illegal Firearms (2004) PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election
campaign for Mayor of their town. The Information against PH alleged that he used an
unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim, and this was proved beyond reasonable doubt
by the prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder and illegal
possession of firearms. Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly. (5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal
possession of firearm is not correct. Under the new law on illegal possession of
firearms and explosives, Rep. Act No. 8294, a person may only be criminally liable for
illegal possession of firearm if no other crime is committed therewith; if a homicide or
murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. PH therefore may only be convicted of
murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in its commission may only be
appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance, provided that such use is alleged
specifically in the information for Murder.
9. Lina worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses John and
Joana. When Lina learned that her 70-year old mother was seriously ill, she asked John for
a cash advance of P20,000.00, but the latter refused. In anger, Lina gagged the mouth of
the child with stockings, placed him in a box, sealed it with masking tape, and placed the
box in the attic. Lina then left the house and asked her friend Fely to demand a P20,000.00
ransom for the release of the spouses' child to be paid within twenty-four hours. The
spouses did not pay the ransom. After a couple of days, John discovered the box in the attic
with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation
barely minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or crimes, if any, did Lina and Fely
commit? Explain. (2016 Bar Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Lina is liable for murder committed by killing the child
qualified by the circumstance of treachery. She took advantage of the child’s tender
age. Killing a child of tender age is held to be attended by treachery. Fely is not liable
for any crime. Fely did not participate in the actual killing of the child, and it was not
shown that there is conspiracy nor community of design to commit murder since her
criminal intention pertains to kidnapping for ransom. Moreover, her participation of
demanding ransom for the release of the child is not connected to murder. Mens rea
without actus reus is not a crime.
  N.B. Lina is not guilty of kidnapping with murder because the child was not deprived
of liberty. The child was essentially not deprived of liberty. The demand for ransom did
not convert the offense into kidnapping. The demand for ransom is only a part of the
diabolic scheme of the defendant to murder the child, to conceal his body and then
demand money before the discovery of the cadaver.
10. What crime is committed by a person who kills his legitimate brother on the occasion of
a public calamity? (2012 Bar Question)
 Killing his legitimate brother is not parricide since he is just a collateral relative of
the accused. However, killing a person on occasion of public calamity is qualifies the
killing to murder.
11. When is a crime deemed to have been committed by a band? (2012 Bar Question)
 There are three elements of band under Article 14 (6) of the Revised Penal Code, to
wit: (1) there must be at least four malefactors, (2) at least four of them are armed
(People v. Solamillo, GR No. 123161, June 18, 2003, En Banc), and (3) at least four of
them take part or acted together in the commission of crime. In People v. Lozano,
September 29, 2003, GR Nos. 137370-71, the Supreme Court En Banc stated that the
four armed persons contemplated in the circumstance of band must all be principals by
direct participation who acted together in the execution of the acts constituting the
crime
12. With intent to kill, GGG burned the house where F and D were staying. F and D died as
a consequence. What is the proper charge against GGG? (2012 Bar Question)
 If the main objective of the offender is to kill a particular person who may be in a
building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the
crime committed is murder only.
13. On hearing a hospital ward patient on the next bed, shrieking in pain and begging to
die, Mona shut off the oxygen that was sustaining the patient, resulting in his death. What
crime if any did Mona commit? (2011 Bar Question)
 B) Murder if she deliberated on her action.
14. .Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by
Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as "protection money". With
the monthly payment, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his
business, and his employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would
either be killed or his establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection
money. Days later, at round 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal
syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the
bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their 3-year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of
them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded. State, with reason, the crime or
crimes that had been committed as well as the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant
thereto. (2008 Bar Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Roger and Mauro conspired to commit the crime of murder
qualified by treachery, with the use of means involving great waste and ruin. In this
case, Mauro is liable as a principal by direct participation by using a grenade and
hurled into an open window of the victim’s bedroom. Killing the victims while they
were sleeping and in no position to defend themselves, is a treacherous act (People v.
Aguilar, 88 Phil 693, 1951). The following are the aggravating circumstances: (1)
Treachery (Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code) (2) Special Aggravating Circumstances:
(a)Sec. 3, R.A. 8294 – when a person commits any of the crime under the RPC or
special laws with the use of explosive, etc. and alike incendiary devices which resulted
in the death of any person. (b) Art. 23, R.A. 7659 – organized/syndicated crime group.
15. Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faith healer known as "Mother Himala." He was
diagnosed by the faith healer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon
authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the spirit from the boy’s body.
Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy’s death. The faith healer and
tree others who were part of the healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted by
the lower court. If you are appellate court Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon
appeal? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the conviction of murder should not be sustained because
there was no intent kill. The intent of the accused, on the contrary is to treat Randy of
his illness. However, considering that proximate cause of Randy’s death is the ritual,
accused may be held criminally liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.
 
Article 249. Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246,
shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the
next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion
temporal.
 
Elements
1. A person was killed;
2. Offender killed him without any justifying circumstances;
3. Offender had the intention to kill, which is presumed;
4. The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that
of parricide or infanticide.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. victim must be killed to consummate the crime; if not, either attempted or frustrated
2. Reclusion perpetua when the victim is under 12 years of age (Sec.10 RA 7610)
3. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted (US v. Gloria)
4. Evidence of intent to kill is important only in attempted or frustrated homicide
- if there is no intent to kill --> physical injuries
5. Intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon used and the parts of the victim's body
at which the weapon was aimed
 People v. Penesa| Here the purpose of the accused in going to the house (to ask his
wife to live with him again) and not the kind of weapon he carried nor the parts of the
bodies of the victims on which the wounds were inflicted (indiscriminate rather than
deliberate since he was provoked) is determinative and indicative of his intention
- note: the bolo which the accused carried with him is one ordinarily used by farm
laborers
 
Intent to Kill must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- the inference should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such
intent beyond reasonable doubt (Mondragon v. People)
 
That the death of the deceased was due to his refusal to be operated on, not a
defense
- People v. Sto. Domingo; People v. Flores
- art. 4 par. 1
 
The killing must not be justified
- Art. 11
 
"without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next
preceding article" or of the qualifying circumstance of parricide or infanticide
- In the absence of clear proof of any circumstance that would qualify as murder the killing
of the deceased, the guilty person should be sentenced for homicide (People v. Cuaresma)
- offender should not be the father, mother or child or legitimate other ascendant or
legitimate other descendant or spouse
- the person killed should not be less than three days old
 
No Offense of frustrated homicide through imprudence
- pharmacist prepared medicine and gave it to the someone who nearly died
 Element of intent to kill is not compatible with negligence or imprudence
--> physical injuries through reckless imprudence (People v. Castillo)
 
Where the wounds that caused death were inflicted by two different persons, even
if they were not in conspiracy, each one of them is guilty of homicide
- People v. Abiog| since either wound could cause death of C, both are liable and each one
of them is guilty of homicide. The burden of proof is on each to show that the wound
inflicted by him did not cause death
- the one who inflicted the wound that contributed to the death of the victim is equally liable
(People v. Mallon)
 
When the act of mortally wounding and the fact of suicide by the victim concur
- here the deceased was actually dying when he cut his throat (People v. Lewis)
 
Use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance in homicide
- Sec. 29 of RA1059
- People v. Gaborne
 
Accidental homicide
- death of a person brought about by a lawful act performed with proper care and skill and
without homicidal intent
- boxing game| death of a boxer during a bout falls under this
 If the death was caused by a flagrant and foul blow --> homicide through negligence
 If there was homicidal intent --> intentional homicide
 
Corpus delicti in crimes against persons
- People v. Madrid| the actual commission of the crime charged
 Includes the objective and subjective element of the crime (People v. Manliguez)
 
Bar Questions:
1. Complex Crime; Homicide w/ Assault-Authority (1995) Pascual operated a rice thresher
in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato, a resident of the neighboring Barangay
Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he often brought to Barangay Napnud
to thresh the palay of the farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, One
afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were operating
their mobile rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A
barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual's men tried to appease Pascual and
Renato to prevent a violent confrontation. However, Pascual resented the intervention of the
barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime was committed by Pascual? Discuss
fully.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art, 48, RPC). A
barangay chairman, is in law (Art. 152), a person in authority and if he is attacked
while in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of
direct assault is committed. Art. 48, RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single
act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed.
Here, the single act of the offender in hacking the victim to death resulted in two
felonies, homicide which is grave and direct assault which is less grave.
2. Homicide; Fraustrated; Physical Injuries (1994) At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante
forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay, Mamerto's son, saw Dante and accosted
him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion
and went out of his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay
suffered injuries which, were it not for the timely medical attendance, would have caused
his death. Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime or
crimes did Dante commit?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated
homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on
Mamerto. The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with
frustrated homicide ... Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay
because he had already performed all the acts of execution which would have
produced the intended felony of homicide were it not for causes independent of the act
of Dante. Dante had the intent to kill judging from the weapon used, the manner of
committing the crime and the part of the body stabbed. Dante is guilty of less serious
physical injuries for the wounds sustained by Mamerto. There appears to be no intent
to kill because Dante merely assaulted Mamerto without using the knife.
3. Rape; Statutory Rape; Mental Retardate Victim (1996) The complainant, an eighteen-
year old mental retardate with an intellectual capacity between the ages of nine and twelve
years, when asked during the trial how she felt when she was raped by the accused, replied
"Masarap, it gave me much pleasure." With the claim of the accused that the complainant
consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the
complainant, would you convict the accused of rape if you were the judge trying the case?
Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a
mental retardate with an intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is
legally incapable of giving a valid consent to the sexual Intercourse. The sexual
intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the level of intelligence is that of
a child less than twelve years of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate,
violence or Intimidation is not essential to constitute rape. (People us. Trimor, G,R.
106541-42, 31 Mar 95) As a matter of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law,
amended Art. 335, RPC, by adding the phrase "or is demented."
 
4.Sixteen year old Aliswan prodded Ametyst, his girlfriend, to remove her clothing while
they were secretly together in her bedroom late one evening. Failing to get a positive
response from her, he forcibly undressed her. Apprehensive about rousing the attention of
the household who did not know of his presence inside her room, she resisted him with
minimal strength, but she was really sobbing in a muffled manner. He then undressed
himself while blocking the door. Yet, the image of a hapless and sobbing Amethyst soon
brought him to his senses, and impelled him to leave her room naked. He did not notice in
his hurry that Amante, the father of Amethyst, who was then sitting alone on a sofa in the
sala, saw him leave his daughter’s room naked. Outside the house, the now-clothed Aliswan
spotted Allesso, Amethyst’s former suitor. Knowing how Allesso had aggressively pursued
Amethyst, Aliswan fatally stabbed Allesso. Aliswan immediately went into hiding afterwards.
Upon learning from Amethyst about what Aliswan had done to her, an enraged Amante
wanted to teach Aliswan a lesson he would never forget. Amante set out the next day to
look for Aliswan in his school. There, Amante found a young man who looked very much like
Aliswan. Amante immediately rushed and knocked the young man unconscious on the
pavement, and then draped his body with a prepared tarpaulin reading RAPIST AKO HUWAG
TULARAN. Everyone else in the school was shocked upon witnessing what had just
transpired, unable to believe that the timid and quiet Alisto, Aliswan’s identical twin brother,
had committed rape. (2017 Bar Question
 
A) A criminal complaint for attempted rape with homicide was brought against Aliswan in
the Prosecutor’s Office. However, after preliminary investigation, the Investigating
Prosecutor recommended the filing of two separate informations – one for attempted rape
and the other for homicide. Do you agree with the recommendation? Explain your answer.
B) Before the trial court, Aliswan moved that the cases should be dismissed because he was
entitled to the exempting circumstance of minority. Is his motion correct? Explain your
answer.
C) After receiving medical attendance for 10 days, Alisto consulted you about filing the
proper criminal complaint against Amante. What crimes, if any, will you charge Amante
with? Explain your answer.
D) Answering the criminal complaint filed by Alisto, Amante contended that he had incurred
no criminal liability for lack of criminal intent on his part, his intended victim being Aliswan,
not Alisto. What is this defense of Amante, and explain if the same will prosper?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: A) I disagree with the charge of attempted rape, while I
agree on the separate crime of homicide. I do not agree with the charge of attempted
rape because of the failure to show that Aliswan had done acts to have sex with
Amethyst. Undressing the victim with lewd design merely constitutes acts of
lasciviousness [People v. Sanico, (G.R. No. 208469, Aug. 13, 2014)]. I agree with
the separate charge of homicide because the homicide is not even connected with the
acts of lasciviousness. Homicide was committed motivated by a personal grudge of
Aliswan against Alesso, which has no link to the crime of acts of lasciviousness against
Amethyst.
 B) Since Aliswan’s age is above 15 but below 18, being the twin brother of 16 year
old Aliswan, the exempting circumstance of minority shall be appreciated in his favor
unless it is shown that he acted with discernment.
 C) Amante shall be charged with Less Serious Physical Injuries under Art. 265 of the
Revised Penal Code because he needed medical attendance for a period of ten (10)
days only. However, the circumstance of adding ignominy to the offense shall be
appreciated to add the penalty of a fine not exceeding Php500.00 because the injuries
were inflicted to insult or offend the offended party.
 D) The defense raised by Amante is error in personae. This defense is not proper
because of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a person
committing a felony is liable criminally although the wrongful act done be different
from unlawful intent. Thus, under this provision, Amante is liable for the wrongful act
done, and that is child abuse against Alisto, although it differs from the wrongful act
intended, and that is abusing Aliswan
5. Macho married Ganda, a transgender. Macho was not then aware that Ganda was a
transgender. On their first night, after their marriage, Macho discovered that Ganda was a
transgender. Macho confronted Ganda and a heated argument ensued. In the course of the
heated argument, a fight took place wherein Ganda got hold of a knife to stab Macho.
Macho ran away from the stabbing thrusts and got his gun which he pointed at Ganda just
to frighten and stop Ganda from continuing with the attack. Macho had no intention at all to
kill Ganda. Unfamiliar with guns, Macho accidentally pulled the trigger and hit Ganda that
caused the latter’s death. What was the crime committed? (2014 Bar Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Macho did not commit any crime because he acted in self-
defense [Art. 13 (1)].
6. Explain and illustrate the stages of execution of the crime of homicide, taking into
account the nature of the offense, the essential element of each of the stages of execution
and the manner of committing such international felony as distinguished from felony
committed through reckless imprudence. (2012 Bar Question)
 Elements of the crime – homicide as an intentional felony has three stages,
attempted, frustrated and consummated. In whatever stages homicide is committed,
intent to kill must be established for being an indispensable element thereof. However,
 if the victim died as a consequence of wound cause by an act committed with malice,
intent to kill in conclusively presumed and the crime committed is consummated
homicide. But if the victim did not die as a consequence of wounds cause by an act
committed with malice, intent to kill must be established beyond reasonable doubt. If
intent to kill is proven, the crime committed is frustrated or attempted homicide. If
intent to kill is not proven, the crime committed is physical injuries. Thus, lack of
intent to kill is a defense in attempted or frustrated homicide.
 
 Nature of the crime – if the offender with intent to kill attempted to inflict or inflicted
non-mortal wounds upon the victim, he already directly commenced an overt act to
commit homicide. Hence, the crime committed is attempted homicide if he failed to
inflict mortal wounds upon the victim by reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance. If the offender with intent to kill inflicted mortal
wounds upon the victim, he already performed all acts of execution which would have
produced the homicide as a consequence. If death is not produced despite the mortal
character of the wounds due to causes independent to the will of the offender, the
crime committed is frustrated homicide. If death is produced, the crime committed is
consummated homicide.
 
 Intentional felony and culpable felony – homicide regardless of stages must be
committed with malice (general intent) and intent to kill (specific intent). Even if there
is no intent to kill and evil intent, the offender is liable for culpable felony if the victim
died or injured as a result of the recklessness of the former. If there is no intent to kill,
evil intent and recklessness on the part of the accused, he is not liable for his
intentional act, which cause the death of or injury upon the victim because of the
exempting circumstance of accident.
 
 
Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide.
 
Courts may impose a penalty two degrees lower for frustrated parricide, murder or
homicide
- court may impose a penalty lower by one degree than that imposed under article 50
- permissive, not mandatory
 
Courts may impose a penalty three degrees lower for attempted parricide, murder
or homicide
- court may reduce by one degree the penalty imposed under article 51 for attempted
 
An attempt on or a conspiracy against the life of the Chief Executive, etc., is
punishable by life imprisonment
- PD No.1110-A as amended by PD No. 1743
- Sec. 2 of RA No. 9436
 
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. -
Elements
1. There are several persons;
2. They do not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and
attacking each other reciprocally;
3. These several persons quarreled 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 the deceased;
6. The person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be
identified.
 
Tumultuous affray exists when at least four persons took part
- several| more than two but not very many
- tumultuous| more than three persons who are armed or are provided with means of
violence (153)
- Wacoy v. People| there were only two persons taking turns in inflicting wounds on the
victim. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray nor there was a reciprocal
aggression in that fateful incident
 
When there are two identified groups of men who assaulted each other, then there
is no tumultuous affray
- US v. Tandoc| the accused and their companions were united in their common purpose to
attack, as is shown by the circumstances that they rallied together under the signal of two
sounds of the horn in order to commence the aggression and they withdraw from the filed
also under the signal of one sound of the horn
 
When there was confusion in the fight and the person who inflicted the wounds
could not be identified, the crime is death caused in a tumultuous affray
- people v. Bandojo| the four accused did not help each other and the person inflicted
couldn't be identified
 Although they formed two groups, there was no unity of purpose and intention
among the persons who used the violence
 
Someone is killed in the course of the affray
- doesn't need to be one of the participants in the affray
 
and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased
- if the one who inflicted the fatal wound was identified is known, the crime is not homicide
in tumultuous affray
 But homicide under 249
 The serious physical injuries if inflicted by one of the participants should not be the
cause of death of the deceased
 
Who are liable for death in a tumultuous affray?
1. Person or person who inflicted the serious physical injuries are liable under 251 par.1
2. If it is not known who infliceted serious physical injuries, all person who used
violence upon the person of the victim are liabile but with lesser liabilitiy (par.2)
 Illustration: all the stab wounds sustained by the deceased were inflicted by
protagonists and was not really shown that it was the defendant who inflicted such and
cause his death a day after the affray
- defendant is still guilty for using violence against the deceased
 
Bar Questions:
1. Criminal Liability; Tumultous Affray (1997) During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight
erupted in the public plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray, A sustained one fatal and
three superficial stab wounds. He died a day after. B, C, D and E were proven to be
participants in the "rumble", each using a knife against A, but it could not be ascertained
who among them inflicted the mortal injury. Who shall be held criminally liable for the death
of A and for what?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous affray and
having been proven to have inflicted serious physical injuries, or at least, employed
 violence upon A, are criminally liable for the latter's death. And because it cannot be
ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury on A, there being a free-for-all
fight or tumultuous affray. B, C, D, and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in
a tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Criminal Liability; Tumultuous Affray (2003) In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after
some customers inside a night club became unruly, guns were fired by a group, among
them A and B, that finally put the customers back to their senses. Unfortunately, one
customer died. Subsequent investigation revealed that A's gunshot had inflicted on the
victim a slight wound that did not cause the deceased's death nor materially contribute to it.
It was B's gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. A contended that his
liability should, if at all, be limited to slight physical injury. Would you agree? Why? 6%

 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, I would agree to A's contention that his criminal liability
should be for slight physical injury only, because he fired his gun only to pacify the
unruly customers of the night club and therefore, without intent to kill. B's gunshot
that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased may not be imputed to A because
conspiracy cannot exist when there is a free-for-all brawl or tumultuous affray. A and
B are liable only for their respective act
3. A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While eating in a seaside restaurant, they
were attacked by X, Y and Z, members of a rival fraternity. A rumble ensued in which the
abovenamed members of the two fraternities assaulted each other in a confused and
tumultuous manner resulting in the death of A. As it cannot be ascertained who actually
killed A, the members of the two fraternities who took part in the rumble were charged for
death caused in a tumultuous affray. Will the charge prosper? Explain. (2010 Bar Question)
 No, the charge of death caused in a tumultuous affray will not prosper because the
persons involved in this case composed groups organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally. The killer of A, a member of SFC
Fraternity could not be any other but member of the rival fraternity. Conspiracy is
therefore present among the attackers form the rival fraternity and thus rules out the
idea of an affray. The liability of the attackers should be collective for the crime of
homicide or murder as the case may be.
 
Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. -
Elements
1. There is a tumultuous affray;
2. A participant or some participants thereof suffered serious physical injuries or physical
injuries of a less serious nature only;
3. The person responsible thereof cannot be identified;
4. All those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party are
known.
 
When in a tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding article, only serious
physical injuries are inflicted
- article applies only when serious or physical injuries of a less serious nature are inflicted
 When a person is killed and the one who inflicted the fatal wound is identified, article
252 cannot apply to those who used violence
 
inflicted upon the participants thereof
- the injured party must be one or some of the participants in the affray
 
Penalty is one degree lower than that for physical injury inflicted
- all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party shall
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided for the physical injuries so
inflicted.
 
Only the one who used violence is liable
- if the one who caused the physical injuries is known, he will be liable for the physical
injuries actually committed (263,265 and 266)
 
Are slight physical injuries included
- it is believed that in providing the penalty of arresto mayor from five to 15 days for
physical injuries of a less serious nature in a tumultuous affray, the legislature intended to
exclude slight physical injuries
- slight physical injuries is inherent in tumultuous affray
 
Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide. - .
 
Acts punished
1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is consummated or not;
2. Lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing
himself.
 
Penalty for giving assistance to suicide, if the offender is the father, mother, child
or spouse of the one committing suicide
- article 253 does not distinguish and does not make any reference to the relation of the
offender
 Penalty would be the same as that provided in the said article
 
A person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally liable
 
Is a pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide by means of poison but instead
of dying, the fetus in her womb was expelled, liable for abortion?
- no. in order to incur criminal liability for the result not intended, the person must be
committing a felony (Art. 4 par.1)
 A woman who commits suicide does not commit a felony
- therefore she cannot be held liable for abortion
 
Assistance to suicide is different from mercy-killing
- euthanasia| person killed does not want to die
 Murder by means of poison
 
Further notes:
1. does not only refer to physical act but also intelligent suggestions
2. if a person saw someone who he thought would commit suicide and push him off the
bridge
 Murder qualified by treachery
 
Bar Questions:
1. Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their parents had objected to their relationship
because they were first cousins. They forged a pact in writing to commit suicide. The
agreement was to shoot each other in the head which they did. Joan died. Due to medical
assistance, Francis survived. Is Francis criminally liable for the death of Joan? Explain.
(2008 Bar Question)
  SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Francis is criminally liable for assisting in the suicide of
Joan, as evidenced by their written pact (Art. 253, RPC).
 
Article 254. Discharge of firearms. -
 
Elements
1. Offender discharges a firearm against or at another person;
2. Offender had no intention to kill that person.
 
Shall shoot another
- if the person is not discharged at a person, there is no crime of discharge of firearm
- discharge towards the house of the victim is not illegal discharge of firearm
 It must be shown that the discharge was directed precisely against the offended
party (People v. Cupin)
Firing a gun against the house of the offended party at random, not knowing in
what part of the house the people inside were, is only alarm under 155
- People v. hinolan
 
There must be no intent to kill
- the purpose of discharge of firearm under this article is only to intimidate or frighten the
offended party
 (dado v. People)
 
Intent to kill is negatived by distance of 200 years between the offender and
victim
- (People v. Agbuya)
- People v. Kalalo| accused not contended with firing once, fired successive shots at the
offended party, added to the circumstance immediately before, he had already killed a
cousin of the offended party
 There is intent to kill| attempted homicide
 
Complex crime of illegal discharge of firearm with serious physical injuries
- hit and wounded (US v. Marasigan)
- not when there is only slight physical injuries --> light felony
 
The crime is discharge of firearm, even if the gun was not pointed at the offended
party when it fired, as long as it was initially aimed by the accused at or against
the offended party
- illustrations at page 639 of the book
- but a public officer who fired his revolver in the air in order to capture some gamblers and
to prevent them from escaping was acquitted (US v. samonte)
 
Section Two. - Infanticide and abortion.
 
Article 255. Infanticide.
 
Elements
1. A child was killed by the accused;
2. The deceased child was less than 72 hours old.
 
Rules doctrines and cases
1. Infanticide| killing of any child less than three days of age whether the killer is the parent
or grandparent any other relative of the child or a stranger
2. penalty must be taken from 246 or 248
3. Father or mother or legitimate other ascendant (grandparent) who kills a child less than
three days old to suffer penalty for parricide --> parricide will give way for infanticide
4. other person who kills a child less than 3 days old to suffer penalty for murder
5. concealing dishonor is not an element of parricide
 It merely mitigates the liability of the mother or maternal grandparents who
committed the crime
6. only the mother and maternal grandparents of the child are entitled to the MC of
concealing the dishonor
7. reasons for the MC: excited and obfuscated out of fear of dishonor
8. Delinquent mother who claims concealing dishonor must be of good reputation
9. Stranger cooperating with the mother in killing a child less than 3 days old is guilty of
infanticide but the penalty is that for murder (US v. Aquino)
10. No crime of infanticide is committed where the child was born dead or although born
alive it could not sustain an independent life when it was killed
 
Bar Questions:
1. What crime is committed when a mother kills the three-day old child of her husband with
their daughter? (2012 Bar Question) A) parricide; B) infanticide; C) murder; D) homicide
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: C. The crime committed is not infanticide since the victim
killed is not less than three days of age. As the child of her daughter, the baby is the
illegitimate grandchild of the offender. Killing her illegitimate grandchild is not
parricide. However, killing of a 3-day-old baby constitutes murder qualified by
treachery.
 
Article 256. Intentional abortion.
 
Acts punished
1. Using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman;
2. Acting, but without using violence, without the consent of the woman. (By administering
drugs or beverages upon such pregnant woman without her consent.)
3. Acting (by administering drugs or beverages), with the consent of the pregnant woman.
 
Elements
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the accused otherwise
acts upon such pregnant woman;
3. As a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her, or any other act of the
accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom;
4. The abortion is intended.
 
Notes:
1. If abortion is intended but the fetus does not die --> frustrated intentional aborition
- if abortion is not intended and the fetus does not die --> may only be physical injuries
--> no frustrated unintentional abortion
2. Fetus may be over or less than six months old
3. persons liable:
 Who intentionally cause abortion --> 256
 If woman consented --> 258
4. is par. No. 3 applicable if she consented to the abortion by violence? Provision must be
construed in relation to No.2 because absence of consent of the woman is mentioned in
connection with a case where the offender acted without using violence
5. expelled fetus had already acquired a human form and about six months but it did not
have its own life independently of the mother
 Abortion not infanticide| if the fetus could sustain an independent life after its
separation from the maternal womb and it is killed, the crime is infanticide
(People v. detablan)
6. violence here could be by dolo or culpa
 
Bar Questions:
1. Infanticide (2006) Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more than 2 years.
She fell in love with Oniok, the bartender, who impregnated her. But Ana did not inform him
about her condition and instead, went home to Cebu to conceal her shame. However, her
parents drove her away. So she returned to Manila and stayed with Oniok in his boarding
house. Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in an advanced state, Oniok tried to
persuade her to undergo an abortion, but she refused. Because of their constant and bitter
quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and gave birth prematurely to a live baby girl while Oniok
was at his place of work. Upon coming home and learning what happened, he
prevailed upon Ana to conceal her dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a
shoe box and threw it into a nearby creek. However, an inquisitive neighbor saw them
and with the help of others, retrieved the infant who was already dead from drowning. The
incident was reported to the police who arrested Ana and Oniok. The 2 were charged with
parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, they were convicted of the
crime charged. Was the conviction correct?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The conviction of Ana and Oniok is not correct. They are
liable for infanticide because they killed a child less than three days of age (Art. 255,
Revised Penal Code).
2.
Article 257. Unintentional abortion. - T
 
Elements
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion;
3. The violence is intentionally exerted;
4. As a result of the violence, the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been
expelled therefrom.
 
Rules, Doctrines and Cases
1. violence --> there is actual physical force; to distinguish it from intimidation
 Must be intentionally exerted (US v. Jeffrey)
2. People v. Jose| Unintentional abortion
 Truck driver hit a calesa with a pregnant woman riding
3. accused can be held liable even if he did not know that the woman was pregnant
 US v. Jeffrey
 People v. Carnaso| in the absence of proof that the accused knew of the pregnancy,
in his favor must be considered that for the crime of abortion, even unintentional, to
be held committed, the accused must have known of the pregnancy
4. Complex crime of homicide with unintentional abortion
 People v. Genoves| beating caused premature delivery of one of her twin babies and
the other was not born because the woman died
 People v. Salufrania| appellant merely intended to kill the victim but not necessarily
to cause abortion
5. In infanticide, it is necessary that the child be born alive and be viable, that is capable of
independent existence (US v. Vedra)
6. No Intention to cause abortion, no violence --> Article 256 or 257 does not apply| no
abortion of any kind
- husband who gave pregnant wife a bitter substance to cure her stomache
 But resulted in the expulsion of the fetus
 
Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. -
 
Elements
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion;
2. The abortion is intended;
3. Abortion is caused by –
a. The pregnant woman herself;
b. Any other person, with her consent; or
c. Any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of concealing her dishonor.
 
Notes:
1. the woman is liable if she consent that any other person should do so
2. Only the woman or any of her parents is liable under 258 of the purpose of the latter is to
conceal her dishonor
 If the purpose of the parents was not to conceal her dishonor, the case does not fall
under 258 but 256
3. Liability of pregnant woman is mitigated if purpose is to conceal dishonor
4. No mitigation of parents of pregnant woman even if the purpose is to conceal dishonor
 
Bar Questions:
1. What is the criminal liability, if any, of a pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide by
poison, but she did not die and the fetus in her womb was expelled instead? (2012 Bar
Question)
 D. The pregnant woman cannot be held liable for abortion under Article 258 of the
Revised Penal Code because intent to abort, which is an essential element of this
crime, is lacking. Neither can she be held liable for unintentional abortion under Article
257, because the element of violence is wanting.
Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. -
Elements
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion;
2. The abortion is intended;
3. Offender, who must be a physician or midwife, caused or assisted in causing the
abortion;
4. Said physician or midwife took advantage of his or her scientific knowledge or skill.
 
As to the pharmacist, the elements are:
1. Offender is a pharmacist
2. There is no proper prescription from a physician
3. Offender dispenses any abortive
 
Notes:
1. Penalty for intentional abortion is imposed in its maximum period on physician or midwife
2. Not necessary that the pharmacist knows that the abortive would be used to cause an
abortion
 What is punished is the dispensing of abortive without proper prescription from the
physician
 
Section Three. - Duel
 
Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. - .
 
Acts punished
1. Killing one’s adversary in a duel;
2. Inflicting upon such adversary physical injuries;
3. Making a combat although no physical injuries have been inflicted.
 
Persons liable
1. The person who killed or inflicted physical injuries upon his adversary, or both
combatants in any other case, as principals.
2. The seconds, as accomplices
 
Notes:
1. if death results, penalty is the same as that for homicide
2. when there is an agreement to fight to the death, there is intent to kill on the
part of combatants
 However, the code disregards the intent to kill in considering the penalty for duel
when only physical injuries are inflicted upon the adversary
3. If no physical injuries are inflicted in a duel, the penalty to be imposed upon the
combatants is arresto mayor
4. reyes| penaly of arresto menor, not arresto mayor, pursuant to second paragraph of
article 260 should apply when a person inflicted upon his adversary in a duel slight physical
injuries only
- the third paragraph applies only when no physical injuries are inflicted either of the
combatants on the other, in which case, both combatants shall be punished by arresto
mayor
5. Duel| a formal or regular combat previously concerted between two parties in the
presence of two or more seconds of lawful age on each side, who makes the selection of
arms and fix all the other conditions of the fight
 
Article 261. Challenging to a duel. -.
 
Acts punished
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.
 
Notes:
1. a challenge to fight, without contemplation of a duel, is not challenging to a duel
2. People v. Tacomoy| accused challenged offended party to a duel but the offended party
refused to come down and accept the challenge. When the accused saw the offended party
running toward a nearby house, the former ran after the latter but desisted upon seeing
that the offended party had a companion
 Not challenging to a duel, but only light threats under article 285
3. persons responsible
 Challenger
 Instigators
 
Chapter Two PHYSICAL INJURIES
 
Article 262. Mutilation. - The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon any person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either
totally or partially, or some essential organ of reproduction.
 
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and
maximum periods
 
Acts punished
1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some
essential organ for reproduction;
Elements
1. There be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation, such
as the penis or ovarium;
2. The mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended
party of some essential organ for reproduction
2. Intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by lopping or clipping off any part of the
body of the offended party, other than the essential organ for reproduction, to deprive him
of that part of his body.
 
Notes:
1. Mutilation is the lopping or clipping off of some part of the body.
2. US v. bogel| putting out of an eye does not fall under this definition
3. mutilation of the first kind is castration which must be done purposely
 Law does not look only on the result but also the intention of the act (US v. Esparcia)
4. Vasectomy is not mutilation
- such procedure denies a man his power of reproduction but it does not deprive him
either totally or partially of some essential organ for reproduction
5. Any other intentional mutiliation
 If the mutilation involves a part of the body, other than an organ for reproduction,
such as the cutting of the outer ear or arm of the offended party, with a
deliberate purpose of depriving him of that party of his body, it is other intentional
mutilation
6. penalty for article 262 par.2 shall be Reclusion perpetua when the victim is under 12
years of age (Sec. 10 RA No. 7610)
7. if no intention to mutilate
 Par. 1 of 263 (becoming impotent)
 Par.2 (loss of hand foot, arm or leg)
 
Article 263. Serious physical injuries.
 
How committed
1. By wounding;
2. By beating;
3. By assaulting; or (263)
4. By administering injurious substance (264)
 
- US v. Villanueva| the accused, while conversing with the offended party, drew the latter’s
bolo from its scabbard. The offended party caught hold of the edge of the blade of his bolo
and wounded himself. It was held that since the accused did not wound, beat or assault the
offended party, he cannot be guilty of serious physical injuries
 
Serious physical injuries
1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind in consequence of
the physical injuries inflicted;
2. When the injured person –
a. Loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell or loses an eye, a hand,
afoot, an arm, or a leg;
b. Loses the use of any such member; or
c. Becomes incapacitated for the work in which he was theretofore habitually engaged,
in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted;
3. When the person injured –
a. Becomes deformed; or
b. Loses any other member of his body; or
c. Loses the use thereof; or
d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was
habitually engaged for more than 90 days in consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted;
4. When the injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days
(but must not be more than 90 days), as a result of the physical injuries inflicted.
 
Notes:
1. May be committed by reckless imprudence or by simple imprudence
2. this article is divided into several paragraphs with specifications in each case of
 Consequence of injuries inflicted
 The nature and character of the wound inflicted
 The proper penalty
3. there must be no intent to kill
4. Physical injuries Attempted or frustrated homicide

In both, offender inflicts physical Attempted homicide may be committed even if no physical injuries
injuries are inflicted

No intent to kill Has intent to kill

 
Par. 1: injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind in consequence
of the physical injuries inflicted
1. impotence| inability to copulate or loss of power to procreate --> should include sterility
2. penalty here when committed against a person under 12 years of age --> reclusion
perpetua
 (Sec. 10, RA 7610)
3. par.1| blindness must be of two eyes (complete blindness distinguished from weakness of
vision)
Par. 2| loss of one eye only
 
Par.2| the person injured shall have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or
to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have
lost the use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work
in which he was therefor habitually engaged
1. must be loss of power to hear of both ears.
 If only one ear| par.3 (People v. Hernandez)
2. Loss of use of hand or incapacity for usual work must be permanent
 Prosecution must prove by clear and conclusive evidence that the offended party
actually cannot make use of his hand and that such impairment is permanent (People
v. Reli)
3. all those mentioned in par.2 are principal members of the body
 
Par. 3| the person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any
other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or
incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he as habitually engaged
for a period of more than ninety days
1. covers any member which is not principal member of the body
- other than the eye, hand, foot, arm or leg mentioned in par.2
 Ex: fingers; but if the loss of three fingers resulted in the loss of the use of the hand
itself --> par.2 (US v. Punsalan)
2. Deformity| physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. It must be
conspicuous and visible
- if the scar is usually covered by dress or clothes --> not conspicuous or visible
 Upper part of the neck --> par.3
3. loss of teeth is a deformity
 Only one incissor| not a deformity
4. Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which cannot be repaired by the action of
nature
 Artificial teeth does not repair the injury by nature
 The case of a child or an old man is an exception to the rule (People v. Balubar)
5. loss of one tooth which impaired appearance is deformity
 Left upper central incisor (People v. Lagrosas)
6. A front tooth is a member of the body (People v. Balubar)
7. loss of both ears constitutes deformity and also loss of power to hear
--> par.2 (US v. Mañaul)
8. loss of lobule of the ear is deformity (US v. Solis)
9. Loss of index and middle fingers is either deformity or loss of a member, not principal
one
- here offended party was not rendered incapable of working in the fields (US v. Bugarin)
10. Loss of power to hear of right ear is only loss of use of other part of the body
- par.3 (People v. Hernandez)
11. there is illness for a certain period of time, when the wound inflicted did not heal within
that period
12. in par. 2 and 3, offended party must have an avocation or work in which he was
habitually engaged
 Work| includes studies and preparation for a profession
 
Par. 4| the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for
labor of the injured person for more than thirty days.
1. incapacity is for any kind of labor (any physical activity and not just for employment for
gain)
2. requiring hospitalization for more than 30 days
 Mean either illness or incapacity
3. People v. de Castro| months after the offense, injury to the offended party's left eye has
not been entirely cured
4. Medical attendance is not important in serious physical injuries
- if there is no evidence on the length of period of illness or incapacity --> slight physical
injuries
5. lessening of efficiency due to injury is not incapacity (US v. Bugarin)
6. special intention in mutilation, to purposely and deliberately lop or clip off some party of
the body, is not present here in serious physical injuries
7. law provides higher penalties for physical injuries committed against any of the persons
enumerated in Article 246, or with attendance of any of the circumstances mentioned in
Article 248
8. Serious physical injuries by excessive chastisement by parents are not qualified
 
Bar Questions:
1. Why is there no crime of frustrated serious physical injuries? (2017 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime of Serious Physical Injuries is a formal crime
consummated by a single act. Once the injuries are inflicted, the offense is consummated.
 
Article 264. Administering injurious substances or beverages. - The penalties established
by the next preceding article shall be applicable in the respective case to any person who,
without intent to kill, shall inflict upon another any serious, physical injury, by knowingly
administering to him any injurious substance or beverages or by taking advantage of his
weakness of mind or credulity.
 
Elements
1. Offender inflicted upon another any serious physical injury;
2. It was done by knowingly administering to him any injurious substance or beverages or
by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity;
3. He had no intent to kill.
 
Notes:
1. It is frustrated murder when there is intent to kill
2. if the accused did not know of the injurous substance, he is not liable
3. introducing = administering; not throwing of chemicals or poison to the face (US v.
Chion Songco)
4. does not apply when the physical injuries that result are slight or less serious
5. taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity| may take place in witchcraft,
philters, magnetism, etc.
 
Article 265. Less serious physical injuries.
Matters to be noted in this crime
1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or more (but not more than 30
days), or needs medical attendance for the same period of time;
2. The physical injuries must not be those described in the preceding articles.
 
Qualified as to penalty
1. A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition to arresto mayor, shall be imposed for less
serious physical injuries when –
a. There is a manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person; or
b. There are circumstances adding ignominy to the offense.
2. A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is either
a. The offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers; or
b. Persons of rank or person in authority, provided the crime is not direct assault.
 
Notes:
1. medical attendance or incapacity is required in less serious physical injuries
 Although the wound required medical attendance for only two days; yet if the injured
party was prevented form attending to his ordinary labor for a period of 29 days, the
physical injuries are denominated as less serious (US v. trinidad)
2. the crime is less serious physical injuries even if there was no incapacity but the medical
treatment was for 13 days (People v. anastacio)
3. It is only slight physical injury when there is no medical attendance or incapacity of labor
4. if the injuries without medical assistance were healed after two months, this would be
illness for more than 30 days under par. 4 article 263 (People v. De Castro)
5. "Shall require"| actual medical attendance. There must be proof as to the period required
medical attendance (People v. Penesa)
 
Bar Questions:
1. Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assiduously courting Lily,
Charlie’s girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext
that it would be used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use the poison
on Brad. The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when mixed
with Brad’s food, did not kill Brad. Would your answer be the same if Brad proved to be
allergic to the powder, and after ingesting it with his food, fell ill and was hospitalized for
ten (10) days? Explain. (2009 Bar Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the answer would not be the same. Charlie would be
criminally liable for less serious physical injuries because his act of mixing the powder
with Brad’s food was done with felonious intent and was the proximate cause of Brad’s
illness for 10 days.
2. During a concert of Gary V. and in order to prevent the crowd from rushing to the stage,
Rafael Padilla (a security guard) pointed his gun at the onrush of people. When the crowd
still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into air to scare them off. However, the bullet hit
one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted and then hit one of the stage crew members,
causing injuries which resulted in the latter’s confinement in a hospital for twelve days.
What crime/s did Rafael commit? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rafael is guilty of Simple Negligence Resulting in Less Serious
Physical Injuries because the physical injuries, which required only twelve (12) days of
medical attention resulting therefrom, shows a lack of precaution in a situation where
the danger to the discharge of the firearm is not clearly manifest. Moreover, since the
discharge of the firearm was to ward off the unruly crowd, and not to cause alarms or
was not directed to a particular person, it is neither Alarms and Scandal under Art. 155
nor Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Art. 254 of the Revised Penal Code.
 
Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.
 
Acts punished
1. Physical injuries incapacitated the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or
required medical attendance during the same period;
2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual
work or which did not require medical attendance;
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury.
 
Notes:
1. Some hours after nine days, not amounting to 10 days| is slight physical injuries
2. in the absence of proof as to the period of incapacity for labor or required medical
attendance --> slight physical injuries (People v. Penesa)
3. Where conspiracy of murder is not proved and the gravity or duration of the physical
injury resulting from the fist blows were not established --> slight physical injuries (People
v. Tilos)
4. in the absence of evidence to show actual injury, as when the deceased died of other
causes and there is no evidence of how many days the deceased lived after the injury, the
crime is only slight physical injuries, it appearing that the wounds inflicted by the accused
could not have caused death (People v. Amarao)
5. Any physical violence which does not produce injury such as slapping the face of the
offended party, without causing dishonor
6. Supervening event converting the crime into serious physical injuries after the filing of
the information for slight physical injuries can still be the subject of a new charge
 Wouldn't place the accused in double jeopardy (People v. Manolong)
- during filing of information fiscal thought that the wound would require only eight
days of medical attendance
- but during preliminary investigation fiscal found that the wound would heal after 30
days
 
Bar Questions:
1. What crime is committed when a person ill-treats another by deed without causing any
injury? (2012 Bar Question)
 Maltreatment is committed by an offender, who shall ill-treat another by deed
without causing any injury (Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code).
 
 
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed.
 
--> RA 11648
d) When the offended party is under sixteen (16) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present: Provided, That there shall be no
criminal liability on the part of a person having carnal knowledge of another person sixteen
(16) years of age when the age difference between the parties is not more than three (3)
years, and the sexual act in question is proven to be consensual, non-abusive, and non-
exploitative: Provided, further, That if the victim is under thirteen (13) years of age, this
exception shall not apply.
 
"As used in this Act, non-abusive shall mean the absence of undue influence, intimidation,
fraudulent machinations, coercion, threat, physical, sexual, psychological, or mental injury
or maltreatment, either with intention or through neglect, during the conduct of sexual
activities with the child victim.৷ On the other hand, non-exploitative shall mean there is no
actual or attempted act or acts of unfairly taking advantage of the child's position of
vulnerability, differential power, or trust during the conduct of sexual activities."
 
 
Article 266-B. Penalty.
Elements under paragraph 1 --> rape through sexual intercourse
1. Offender is a man;
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;
3. Such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation;
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented
 
Elements under paragraph 2 --> Rape by sexual assault, instrument or object
rape, or gender-free rape
1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault;
2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice; or
 b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another
person;
3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.
 
If the crime of rape / sexual assault is committed with the following
circumstances, the following penalties are imposed:
1. Rape committed under any of the four circumstances -- RP/Prision Mayor
.
2. Reclusion perpetua to death/ prision mayor to reclusion temporal --
(a) Where rape is perpetrated by the accused with a deadly weapon; or
(b) Where it is committed by two or more persons.
 
3. Reclusion perpetua to death/ reclusion temporal -- Where the victim of the rape has
become insane;
 
4. RP to Death/RT to RP-- Where the rape is attempted but a killing was committed by the
offender on the occasion or by reason of the rape.
 
5. Death / reclusion perpetua -- Where homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of a
consummated rape.
 
6. Death/reclusion temporal --
(a) Where the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is her ascendant,
stepfather, guardian, or relative by affinity or consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree,
or the common law husband of the victim’s mother; or
(b) Where the victim was under the custody of the police or military authorities, or
other law enforcement agency;
(c) Where the rape is committed in full view of the victim’s husband, the parents, any
of the children or relatives by consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree;
(d) Where the victim is a religious, that is, a member of a legitimate religious vocation
and the offender knows the victim as such before or at the time of the commission of
the offense;
(e) Where the victim is a child under 7 yrs of age;
(f) Where the offender is a member of the AFP, its paramilitary arm, the PNP, or any
law enforcement agency and the offender took advantage of his position;
(g) Where the offender is afflicted with AIDS or other sexually transmissible diseases,
and he is aware thereof when he committed the rape, and the disease was
transmitted;
(h) Where the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation;
(i) Where the pregnancy of the offended party is known to the rapist at the time of the
rape; or
(j) Where the rapist is aware of the victim’s mental disability, emotional disturbance or
physical handicap.
 
Notes
1. First mode Second mode

Offender is always a man Offender may be a man or a woman

OP is always a woman Man or woman

Through penile penetration Inserting a penis into another's mouth or anal orifice or any other instrument
of a vagina or object into the genital or anal orifice of another

Higher penalty  
2. A woman can be a principal by direct participation in rape under the first mode
- provided that she be charged together with the man
 
Paragraph 1: Rape by sexual intercourse notes
1. the contact of the male penis with the woman's vagina is referred to as rape by sexual
intercourse
2. for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape, there must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ and
note merely stroked the external surface thereof.
3. the labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated
- the outer lips of the female organ
 A grazing of the surface of the organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is
not sufficient to constitute consummated rape
4. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ by the penis, there
can be no consummated rape, but only attempted rape
5. If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of lasciviousness are performed, the crime
may be rape through sexual assault or acts of lasciviousness
6. A broken hymen is not an essential element of rape
- negative findings of lacerations are of no significance as the hymen may not be torn
despite repeated coitus
7. Exact date of sexual assault is not an essential element of rape
- sufficient that the date of commission alleged is as near as possible to the actual date
8. Only one of the four circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 is sufficient
 
Paragraph 2: Rape through Sexual Assault notes
1. A violation of the body orifices by the fingers is within the expanded definition of rape
2. Compared to sexual assault rape is severely penalized because it may lead to unwanted
procreation
 
By Using force and intimidation notes
1.forced used is sufficient to consummate the culprit's purpose of copulating with the
offended woman
2. Evidence of lack of consent| any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the
rape in any degree from the victim
 Tenacious resistance is not required
3. resistance when futile, does not amount to consent
- test: whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the
victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be
carried out
4. Unexplainable silence amount to tacit consent
- People vs Tionloc| accused never employed the slightest force, threat or intimidation
Victim never gave the slightest hint of rejection
Accused stopped when the victim felt the slightest pain and tried to move during their
sexual congress
5. circumstantial evidence may prove rape
- an accused can be convicted even if the sole witness against him is the victim
6. Intimidation includes the moral kind such as the fear caused by threatening the girl with
a knife or pistol
7. Moral ascendancy or influence, held to substitute for the element of physical force or
intimidation in rape and even in acts of lasciviousness
 Father against their daughters
 Stepfathers against their stepdaughters
 Godfather against his goddaughter
 Uncles against their nieces
 First cousin of the victim's mother
8. Test of credibility of witness| straightforward, clear positive and convincing
9. where the complainant remained silent entirely during the incident where the accused
allegedly laid on top of her at around noontime while fully clothed and did not call for help
when she knew her family was just outside of the house --> doubtful
 
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious notes
1. Victim has no will
2. rape of a mental retardate falls under paragraph 1(b) because the provision refers to a
rape of a female deprived of reason, a phrase that refers to mental abnormality, deficiency
or retardation
3. Being a deaf-mute does not necessarily take the place of force or intimidation or having
been deprived of reason, unconscious or demented
4. Instances where there is rape because the woman is unconscious
 Asleep
 Lethargy produced by sickness
 Unconscious and extremely intoxicated
 Narcotic was administered to the woman
- but where consent is induced by the administration of drugs and liquor which incites
her passions but does not deprive her of her will power, the accused is not guilty of
rape
 When a potion is given to a woman
5. Offended party with a mental disability either deprived of reason or demented
- mental age of six years and two months at 21 years of chronological age and an IQ of 38
 Par. 1 b has been interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormally,
deficiency or retardation
 
Consummated rape, attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness notes
1. there is no crime of frustrated rape
- because the moment offender has carnal knowledge, he actually attains his purpose and
from that moment also, all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished
2. The intent to lie with the woman distinguishes attempted rape from acts of lasciviousness
3. Resignation to consummated act is not consent
- rape her while asleep, victim did not offer resistance when she woke up
4. Guidelines in appreciating the age of victim in rape cases
1. Birth certificate
2. similar authentic documents -- baptismal certificates and school records
3. testimony of the mother or any relative by consanguinity or affinity qualified to
testify
4. testimony of the victim provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the
accused
5. character of the offended woman is immaterial in rape
6. Each of the accused who rapes the victim, having conspired with others to rape her, is
responsible not only for the rape committed personally by him, but also for those committed
by the others, because each sexual intercourse had, through force by each one of them with
the victim, was consummated separately and independently from that they had by each of
the others
7. The first mode of rape is not necessarily included in the second mode of rape
 Would violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him
 Accused may be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness under the
variance docrine under Section 4 in relation to section 5, rule 120 of the RCP
8. When rape is punished by reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole
 Where homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of a consummated rape
 Where the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is her ascendant,
stepfather, guardian, or relative by affinity or consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree,
or the common law husband of the victim’s mother; or
 Where the victim was under the custody of the police or military authorities, or other
law enforcement agency;
 Where the rape is committed in full view of the victim’s husband, the parents, any of
the children or relatives by consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree;
 Where the victim is a religious, that is, a member of a legitimate religious vocation
and the offender knows the victim as such before or at the time of the commission of
the offense;
 Where the victim is a child under 7 yrs of age;
 Where the offender is a member of the AFP, its paramilitary arm, the PNP, or any law
enforcement agency and the offender took advantage of his position;
 Where the offender is afflicted with AIDS or other sexually transmissible diseases,
and he is aware thereof when he committed the rape, and the disease was
transmitted;
 Where the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation;
 Where the pregnancy of the offended party is known to the rapist at the time of the
rape; or
 Where the rapist is aware of the victim’s mental disability, emotional disturbance or
physical handicap.
 
Special complex crime of Rape with homicide notes
1. Rape with homicide is a special complex crime
2. where homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the rape, there is rape with
homicide even if the deceased is not the victim of the rape
3. Homicide is understood in its generic sense
- includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on occasion of the
rape
- thus even if any or all circumstances alleged in the information have been proven, the
same would not qualify the killing to murder
- any aggravating circumstance shall be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance
only
4. When the homicide committed is not by reason or on the occasion of rape
- accused murdered two sisters. When the elder sister was dying, she raped her
--> two separate murders and rape
5. Where the rapist, who was suffering from gonorrhea, infected the victim who died as a
result
 
Indemnity and damages
1. Civil indemnity - mandatory upon finding that rape took place
2. Moral damages - automatically grated
3. exemplary damages- awarded when one or more aggravating circumstances are present
 
For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:
 
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA
9346:
 
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages111 – ₱100,000.00
 
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated but merely attempted:112
 
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
 
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
 
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
 
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, but merely attempted:
 
a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
 
Additional notes:
1. Where the victim is over 12 years old, it must be shown that the carnal knowledge with
her was obtained against her will.
 It is necessary that there be evidence of some resistance put up by the offended
woman. It is not, however, necessary that the offended party should exert all her
efforts to prevent the carnal intercourse. It is enough that from her resistance, it
would appear that the carnal intercourse is against her will.
 Mere initial resistance, which does not indicate refusal on the part of the offended
party to the sexual intercourse, will not be enough to bring about the crime of rape.
2. Note that it has been held that in the crime of rape, conviction does not require
medicolegal finding of any penetration on the part of the woman. A medico-legal certificate
is not necessary or indispensable to convict the accused of the crime of rape.
3. On testimony of sole witness
 Daughter accuses her own father of having raped her
 allegation of several accused that the woman consented to their sexual intercourse
with her is a proposition which is revolting to reason that a woman would allow more
than one man to have sexual intercourse with her in the presence of the others.
 Rape can be committed in a standing position because complete penetration is not
necessary. The slightest penetration – contact with the labia – will consummate the
rape.
4. as long as there is an intent to effect sexual cohesion, although unsuccessful, the crime
becomes attempted rape. However, if that intention is not proven, the offender can only be
convicted of acts of lasciviousness.
 In a case where the accused jumped upon a woman and threw her to the ground,
although the accused raised her skirts, the accused did not make any effort to remove
her underwear. Instead, he removed his own underwear and placed himself on top of
 the woman and started performing sexual movements. Thereafter, when he was
finished, he stood up and left. The crime committed is only acts of lasciviousness and
not attempted rape. The fact that he did not remove the underwear of the victim
indicates that he does not have a real intention to effect a penetration. It was only to
satisfy a lewd design
 
 
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. – The subsequent valid marriage between the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.

In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife
as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the
crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab
initio.
 
Notes
1. marriage not only extinguishes the penal action but likewise the penalty that might be
imposed
2. In crimes against chastity, such effect benefits not only the principals but also the
accomplices and accessories (344 of RPC)
 However since rape is now a crime against persons, the effect only extends to
principals
3. this principle does not apply in case of multiple rapes
- only marriage with the defendant
4. Rape of wife by husband is penalized under second paragraph
- unless subsequently forgiven by the husband
5. In crimes against chastity, pardon/forgiveness by the offended party shall bar the
prosecution of the offense
- however since rape is now a crime against persons, the provision "subsequent forgiveness
by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty" is the
exception to the rule that forgiveness of OP shall not extinguish the penal action in crimes
against persons
 
Article 266-D. Presumptions. – Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the
act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so
situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as
evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A.
 
Bar Questions
1. Criminal Liabilities; Rape; Homicide & Theft (1998 No) King went to the house of Laura
who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three bottles of beer. King
made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and
took her jewelry. Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to
Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the
room. Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura.
Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities.
[10%]
 King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible
offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is
already dead is only theft.
2. Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him. He then violently threw her on
the floor and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered
serious physical injuries. (a) Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain. (b) Can Gavino be
charged with serious physical injuries? Explain (c) Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the
same if before the incident Gavino and Alma were legally separated? Explain.
(a) No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife because of the matrimonial
consent which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law will not
permit her to retract in order to charge her husband with the offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11
La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441 RA 837). --> wrong answer
(b) Yes, he may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense is specially mentioned in
Art. 263 [4], paragraph 2 which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical injuries
in cases where the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons
enumerated in Art 246 (the crime of parricide). (c) No, my answer will not be the same. If
Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at the time of the incident, then Gavino could be
held liable for rape. A legal separation is a separation of the spouses from bed and board
(U.S. vs. Johnson, 27 Phil. 477, cited in II Reyes, RFC, p. 853. 1981 edition), In the crime
of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction of physical injuries suffered by the victim on
the occasion of the rape, is absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries suffered by the
victim may, however, be considered in determining the proper penalty which 58 of 86 shall
be imposed on the offender. Serious physical injuries cannot be absorbed in rape; it can be
so if the injury is slight.
 
3. Rape; Absence of Force & Intimidation (1995) Three policemen conducting routine
surveillance of a cogonal area in Antipole chanced upon Ruben, a 15-year old tricycle driver,
on top of Rowena who was known to be a child prostitute. Both were naked from the waist
down and appeared to be enjoying the sexual activity. Ruben was arrested by the policemen
despite his protestations that Rowena enticed him to have sex with her in advance
celebration of her twelfth birthday. The town physician found no semen nor any bleeding on
Rowena's hymen but for a healed scar. Her hymenal opening easily admitted two fingers
showing that no external force had been employed on her. Is Ruben liable for any offense?
Discuss fully. Answer;
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation is not
present. The gravamen of the offense is the carnal knowledge of a woman below
twelve years of age (People vs. Dela Cruz, 56 SCRA 84) since the law doesn't consider
the consent voluntary and presumes that a girl below twelve years old does not and
cannot have a will of her own. In People us. Perez, CA 37 OG 1762, it was held that
sexual intercourse with a prostitute below twelve years old is rape. Similarly, the
absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation as the important
consideration is not the emission but the penetration of the female body by the male
organ (People vs. Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs. Carandang. 52 SCRA 259)
4. Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002) What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-
Rape Law of 1997, amending the Revised Penal Code? (3%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of
1997 are: 1.] having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority, 2.] having carnal knowledge of a demented
woman by a man even if none of the circumstances required in rape be present; and
3.] committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person's penis into the victim's
mouth or anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person.
5. Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002) The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a
crime against honor, a private offense, to that of a crime against persons. Will the
subsequent marriage of the offender and the offended party extinguish the criminal action
or the penalty imposed? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, the subsequent valid marriage between the offender and offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed, although rape has been
reclassified from a crime against chastity, to that of a crime against persons.
6. Rape; Consented Abduction (2002) A with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa
hut in his farm and there had sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any
resistance because she was infatuated with the man, who was good-looking and belonged to
a rich and prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why?
(2%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: A committed the crime of consented abduction under Article
343 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The said Article punishes the abduction of
a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd
designs. Although the problem did not indicate the victim to be virgin, virginity should
not be understood in its material sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of good
reputation, since the essence of the crime is not the injury to the woman but the
outrage and alarm to her family (Valdepenas vs. People,16 SCRA 871 [1966]).
 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A committed "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610. As
defined in said law, "child abuse" includes sexual abuse or any act which debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being,
whose age is below eighteen (18) years.
7. Rape; Effect; Affidavit of Desistance (1993) 1 Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental
retardate, with a bolo into having sexual Intercourse with him. Rachel's mother immediately
filed a complaint, supported by her sworn statement, before the City Prosecutor's Office.
After the necessary preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor
but did not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC
(prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve
with reasons. 2 After the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel presented a sworn affidavit
of desistance executed by Rachel and her mother stating that they are no longer interested
in prosecuting the case and that they have pardoned Ariel. What effect would this affidavit
of desistance have on the criminal and civil aspects of the case? Explain fully.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1) The case should not be dismissed. ... 2) The affidavit of
desistance will only amount to the condonation of civil liability but not criminal liability
hence the case should still proceed.
8. Rape; Male Victim (2002) A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there,
through threat and intimidation, succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if
any, is A’s criminal liability? Why?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of
sexual assault against B, by inserting his penis into the anus of the latter. Even a man
may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, "when the offender's penis is inserted into his mouth or anal
orifice."
9. Rape; Multiple Rapes; Forcible Abduction (2000) Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way
home to Quezon City which was driven by Roger, Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always
placing his car freshener in front of the car aircon ventilation but did not bother asking
Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious. Instead of bringing her
to Quezon City, Roger brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for
two (2) weeks. She was raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be
charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain. (5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of
rape with serious illegal detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple
rapes. Each rape is a distinct offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his
principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to the
rape.
 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of
rape with serious illegal detention, since the detention was incurred in raping the
 victim during the days she was held. At most, Roger may be prosecuted for forcible
abduction for taking Flordeluna to Cavite against the latter's will and with lewd
designs. The forcible abduction should be complexed with one of the multiple rapes
committed, and the other rapes should be prosecuted and punished separately, in as
many rapes were charged and proved.
10. Rape; Proper Party (1993) Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into
having sexual Intercourse with him. Rachel's mother immediately filed a complaint,
supported by her sworn statement, before the City Prosecutor's Office. After the necessary
preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor but did not contain
the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC (prosecution of the
crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law
(People us. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11). It is enough that a complaint was filed by the
offended party or the parents in the Fiscal's Office.
11. Rape; Statutory Rape; Mental Retardate Victim (1996) The complainant, an eighteen-
year old mental retardate with an intellectual capacity between the ages of nine and twelve
years, when asked during the trial how she felt when she was raped by the accused, replied
"Masarap, it gave me much pleasure." With the claim of the accused that the complainant
consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the
complainant, would you convict the accused of rape if you were the judge trying the case?
Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a
mental retardate with an intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is
legally incapable of giving a valid consent to the sexual Intercourse. The sexual
intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the level of intelligence is that of
a child less than twelve years of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate,
violence or Intimidation is not essential to constitute rape. (People us. Trimor, G,R.
106541-42, 31 Mar 95) As a matter of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law,
amended Art. 335, RPC, by adding the phrase "or is demented."
12. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates Rape by Carnal
Knowledge, how does the accused commit Attempted Rape by Carnal Knowledge? (2017 Bar
Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: To be held liable for attempted rape by carnal knowledge the
acts must be committed with clear intention to have sexual intercourse, but the penis
of the accused must not touch the labia of the pudendum of the victim. Intent to have
sexual intercourse is present if is shown that the erectile penis of the accused is in the
position to penetrate or the accused actually commenced to force his penis into the
victim's sexual organ.
13. Charlie was charged for the qualified rape of AAA. The Information alleged that AAA was
14 years old at the time the crime was committed and that Charlie was AAA's stepfather.
The presentation of AAA's birth certificate during the trial duly established the following:
( 1) that AAA was indeed 14 years old at the time of the rape; and (2) that AAA's mother is
BBB and her father was the late CCC. BBB and Charlie only became live-in partners after
CCC's death. The RTC found Charlie guilty of qualified rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
convicted Charlie of simple rape. Charlie appealed before the Supreme Court. How will you
rule and why? (2015 Bar Question)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Court of Appeals’ ruling is wrong because the crime of
qualified rape was proven. Minority and steprelationship as qualifying circumstances
are alleged in the information and proven by the evidence.
14..Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because of her looks and charms, attracted
many suitors. Having decided that she would become a nun, Pretty turned down all her
suitors. Guapo, one of her most persistent suitors, could not handle rejection and one night,
decided to accost Pretty as she walked home. Together with Pogi, Guapo forced Pretty into
his car and drove her to an abandoned warehouse where he and Pogi forced Pretty to dance
for them. Later, the two took turns in raping her. After satisfying their lusts, Guapo and Pogi
dropped her off at her house. (2014 Bar Question) A) What crime or crimes did Guapo and
Pogi commit? B) Pretty, after the ordeal, decided to take her own life by hanging herself one
hour after the rape. Would Guapo and Pogi be liable for Pretty’s death? Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: A) Guapo and Pogi committed the complex crime of Forcible
Abduction with Rape, and another count of rape. They abducted Pretty against her will
with lewd design, and thereafter raped her. Forcible abduction was a necessary means
to commit the crime of Rape. Since there is conspiracy, Guapo and Pogi are
responsible not only for the rape each personally committed but also for the rape
committed by his co- conspirator. B) Guapo and Pogi would not be held liable for the
death of Pretty. Suicide is an efficient intervening cause that has broken the causal
connection between the rapes and the death.
15. Choose the correct circumstance when a woman may be held liable for rape: (2013 Bar
Question)
A) With the use of force or intimidation.
B) When the rape is committed by two or more persons.
C) When the offender uses an instrument and inserts it in the mouth of the victim.
D) When she befriends and puts a sleeping pill in the victim's drink to enable her
husband to have intercourse with the victim.
16. If Rod killed Irene, his illegitimate daughter, after taking her diamond earrings and
forcing her to have sex with him, what crime/s should Rod be charged with? (2013 Bar
Question) A) Robbery and rape with parricide. B) Robbery, rape and parricide. C) Rape with
homicide and theft. D) Rape with homicide. E) None of the above.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: D. Rod committed theft and the special complex crime of rape with
homicide.
17. For treachery to qualify killing to murder, the evidence must show: (2012 Bar Question)
 C) That the accused employed such means, methods or manner to ensure his safety
from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, and the mode of attack was
consciously adopted.
18. .Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying different
rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered
Loretta’s room with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao ravished
Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before
leaving the room, took her jewelry. What crime or crimes, if any, did Wenceslao commit?
Explain. (2009 Bar Question)
 Wenceslao committed the following crimes: (1) the special complex crime of rape
with homicide because his act of having carnal knowledge of Loretta against her will
and with the use of force and violence constituted rape, and death of Loreta was by
reason or on the occasion of the rape; (2) theft because the taking of jewelry is a
mere afterthought; and (3) unlawful possession of picklocks and similar tools under
Art. 304 of the Revised Penal Code, because of his possession and use of the picklock
“without lawful cause.”
 
Would your answer to [a] [above] be the same if, despite the serious stab wounds she
sustained, Loretta survived? Explain. (2009 Bar Question)
 No, the answer will be different. There will be four separate crimes of: (1) rape; (2)
frustrated homicide or murder; (3) theft; and (4) unlawful possession and use of
picklocks under Art. 304 of the Revised Penal Code. The special complex crime of rape
with homicide is constituted only when both of them are consummated.
 
 
VAWC
Monday, June 20, 2022
12:07 AM
 
Republic Act No. 9262
Anti-Violence Act Against Women Their Children Act of 2004
 
Notes:
1. A single act of sending an offensive picture constitutes violence against women
 Section 3 (a) of the law punishes any act or series of acts that constitute violence
against women
2. the offender need not be related to the victim by marriage since the offender could be
someone who has or had a sexual or dating relationship or has a common child with the
victim
3. VAWC may be committed by a woman
-"against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship
4. dating relationship exists even without sexual intercourse
- the law distinguishes between dating relationship (Section 3 e ) and sexual relationship
(section 3 f)
 The latter refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in bearing a
common child
5. it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient
evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender
and the victim
6. deprivation or denial of financial support may be penalized under Sections 5 e and I
- variance doctrine| the accused may be convicted of section 5 e as the deprivation or denial
of support, by itself and even without the additional element of psychological violence is
already specifically penalized therein
7. Illegitimate children are entitled to support if filiation is admitted or proved
8. Protection orders
 Baranggay Protection Order - issued by the Punong Baranggay
 Temporary protection order - issued by the court; ex parte application
 Permanent protection order - issued by the court after hearing and notice
9. Parents-in-aw may be included in a petition for the issuance of a protective order
- while section 3 provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by
marriage, former marriage or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the
application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC
- the law recognizes that acts of VAWC may be committed by an offender through another
10. Sec. 27| Being under the influence of alcohol or any illicit drug or any mind-altering
substance shall not be a defense under RA no. 9262
11. Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense
12. Persons intervening are exempt from liability
- any private person or public officers who responds or intervenes without using violence or
restraint greater than necessary to ensure the safety of the victim --> Sec. 34
13. a VAWC victim shall be entitled to actual compensatory, moral and exemplary damages
 
Bar Questions
1. Romeo and Julia have been married for twelve (12) years and had two (2) children. The
first few years of their marriage went along smoothly. However, on the fifth year onwards,
they would often quarrel when Romeo comes home drunk. The quarrels became
increasingly violent, marked by quiet periods when Julia would leave the conjugal dwelling.
During these times of quiet, Romeo would "court" Julia with flowers and chocolate and
convince her to return home, telling her that he could not live without her; or Romeo would
ask Julia to forgive him, which she did, believing that if she humbled herself, Romeo would
change. After a month of marital bliss, Romeo would return to his drinking habit and the
quarrel would start again, verbally at first, until it would escalate to physical violence. One
night, Romeo came home drunk and went straight to bed. Fearing the onset of another
violent fight, Julia stabbed Romeo while he was asleep. A week later, their neighbors
discovered Romeo's rotting corpse on the marital bed. Julia and the children were nowhere
to be found. Julia was charged with parricide. She asserted "battered woman's syndrome"
as her defense. (2016 Bar Question) Explain the "cycle of violence."
 The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence,”
which has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering
incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase. During the
tension-building phase, minor battering occurs – it could be verbal or slight physical
abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman tries to pacify the batterer
through a kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. The acute
battering incident is characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death.
The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During
this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. The
final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends.
During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief.
 
Is Julia's "battered woman's syndrome" defense meritorious? Explain.
 Yes. The defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman in
marital relationship with the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery
involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and psychological or
emotional distress. (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004). RA No.
9262 states that Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code such as unlawful aggression (Section 26 of RA No. 9262). In this case,
because of the battering episodes, Julia, feared the onset of another violent fight and
honestly believed the need to defend herself even if Romeo had not commenced an
unlawful aggression. Even in the absence of unlawful aggression, Battered Woman
Syndrome is a defense.
2. Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he lost his job a
couple of months ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from Dion. One night, in
addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the
injury that he had inflicted upon Talia and promised her that he would stop drinking and
never beat her again. However, Dion did not make good on his promise. Just after one
week, he started drinking again. Talia once more endured the usual verbal abuse. Afraid
that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion with a kitchen knife while he was
passed out from imbibing too much alcohol. Talia was charged with the crime of parricide.
(2015 Bar Question) A) May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free
herself from criminal liability? Explain. B) Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia
killed Dion after being beaten up after a second time? Explain.
 A) No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed by Dion against Talia
resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress on her part is not
sufficient to avail of the benefit of the justifying circumstance of “Battered Women
Syndrome”. The defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman
with marital relationship with the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery
involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and psychological or
emotional distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum,
there must be “at least two battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate
partner and such final episode produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of
 an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force
in order to save her life (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).
 B) Yes, Talia can invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself
from criminal liability for killing her husband since she suffered physical and emotional
distress arising from cumulative abuse or battery, Under Section 26 of RA 9262, victim
survivors of Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability
despite the absence of the requisites of self-defense
3. Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage, Mr. B had been
jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his “barkadas” until the wee hours of the
morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner and attended to the needs of their three (3) growing
children. Many times, when Mr. B was drunk, he would beat Ms. A and their three (3)
children, and shout invectives against them. In fact, in one of the beating incidents, Ms. A
suffered a deep stab wound on her tummy that required a prolonged stay in the hospital.
Due to the beatings and verbal abuses committed against her, she consulted a psychologist
several times, as she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. B arrived
dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives against her.
Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for the possession of a knife and she
succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B several times which caused his instantaneous death.
Medico-Legal Report showed that the husband suffered three (3) stab wounds. Can Ms. A
validly put up a defense? Explain. (2014 Bar Question)
 Yes. Ms. A is suffering from physical and psychological or emotional distress which
resulted from cumulative abuse by her husband. She even consulted a psychologist
several times, as she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. Section 26 of Republic
Act No. 9262 states that “victim survivors who are found by the court to be suffering
from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for the justifying circumstance of
self- defense under the Revised Penal Code.”
 
 

7610
Monday, June 20, 2022
12:33 AM
 
Republic Act No. 7610
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act
 
Sec. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, whether male or female, who
for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any
adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to
be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
 
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the following:
Xxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim
is under sixteen (16) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
paragraph 2, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as
"The Revised Penal Code", for rape, or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided,
That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under sixteen (16) years of age
shall be reclusion perpetua in its medium period; and;
 
Rape and Sexual assault under the RPC and Sexual Intercourse and Lascivious
conduct under section 5 b
1. Statutory rape| if sexual intercourse is committed with an offended party who is a child
less than 16years old or is demented, whether or not exploited in prostitution, it is always
the crime of statutory rape
- "when the victims is under 16 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under
Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape"
- lascivious conduct does not include sexual intercourse
- the purpose of indicating the phrase under 16 years is to provide for statutory lascivious
conduct or statutory rape
- here, violence or intimidation or consent is immaterial
2. Rape| When the OP is 16 years old or below 18 and the charge against the accused is
carnal knowledge through force threat intimidation then he will be prosecuted for
rape under 266-A(1)(a)
3. Sexual abuse under section 5(b)| in case of sexual intercourse with a child who is 16
years old or below 18 and who is deemed exploited in prostitution or subject to
other sexual abuse, the crime could not be any more fall under rape under the RPC
because it is not any more statutory rape and the victim indulged in sexual intercourse
either for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of
any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct which
deemed the child as one exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse
4. Sexual Assault under 266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to section 5 (b)
- If the acts constituting sexual assault are committed against a victim under 16 years of
age or is demented, the nomenclature would be Sexual Assault under par.2, Article
266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b)
5. Lascivious conduct under Section 5(b)
- If the victim is 16 years old and under 18 years old or 18 years old and above under
special circumstances, the nomenclature would be "Lascivious conduct under Section 5
b" --> RT in its medium to RP
- if the charge against the accused where the victim is 16 years old or below 18 is sexual
assault under par.2 Article 266-A = lascivious conduct under Section 5(b)
 Lascivious conduct includes the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or
mouth of any person
6. Sexual Assault under par.2 266-A of the RPC
- only when the victim is 18 years old above and not demented
7. Nomenclature of crimes against a child under 16 years of age who is deemed to be
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse and the imposable penalties for
principals by force or inducement or indispensable cooperation
 Acts of Lasciviousness under 336 in relation to section 5(a) or (c ) --> RT in its med
to RP
 Rape under 266-A(1) in relation to Article 17 and section 5(a) or (c ) --> RP,
pursuant to 266-B
- except when the victim is below seven years old --> Qualified rape, Death
 Sexual Assault under article 266-A(2) in relation to Section 5(b) --> RT in its med to
RP
 
Liability of principals
- If sexual intercourse is committed with a child under 16 years of age, who is deemed
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse
 Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution under section
5(a) shall be liable as principal by force or inducement under article 17 in the crime of
statutory rape under 266-a(1)
  Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom under section 5(c ) shall be liable as
prinsipl by indispensable cooperation under Art.17
 
Designation of Crime and Imposable Penalty
 
Crime committed Victim under 16 years old or Victim is 16 years old or 18 years old
demented older but below 18 or is and above
18 years old but under
special circumstances

Acts of Lasciviousness Acts of Lasciviousness under Article Lascivious conduct under NA

committed against 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
children exploited in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: 7610: reclusion temporal
prostitution or other reclusion temporal in its medium in its medium period to
sexual abuse period reclusion perpetua

Sexual Assault Sexual Assault under Article 266- Lascivious Conduct under NA
committed against A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
children exploited in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: 7610: reclusion temporal
prostitution or other reclusion temporal in its medium in its medium period to
sexual abuse period reclusion perpetua

Sexual Intercourse Rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Sexual Abuse under NA
committed against RPC: reclusion perpetua, except Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
children exploited in when the victim is below 7 years 7610: reclusion temporal
prostitution or other old in which case death penalty in its medium period to
sexual abuse shall be imposed reclusion perpetua

Rape by carnal Rape under Article 266-A(1) in Rape under Article 266- Rape under
knowledge relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC: A(1) in relation to Art. Article 266-A(1)
reclusion perpetua, except when 266-B of the RPC: of the RPC:
the victim is below 7 years old in reclusion perpetua reclusion
which case death penalty shall be perpetua
imposed

Rape by Sexual Sexual Assault under Article 266- Lascivious Conduct under Sexual Assault
Assault A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. under Article
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: 7610: reclusion temporal 266-A(2) of the
reclusion temporal in its medium in its medium period to RPC: prision
period reclusion perpetua mayo
 
Notes:
1. Over 18 years old under special circumstances refers to those who are unable to fully
take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition
2. When consent may be a defense for violation of section 5
 A defense| when OP is 16 years old or over but below 18 or above 18 under special
circumstances
- may be implied for failure to prove that the said victim engage in sexual intercourse
either due to money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group
 But if the victim is 16 years old or below 18 and is deemed to be a child exploited in
prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse because she agreed to indulge in sexual
 intercourse for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group --> the crime could not be rape
--> offender should be penalized under Section 5 (b)
 If consent was vitiated by force threat or intimidation --> par.1, article 266-A
 If same victim consented to sexual intercourse and no money profit consideration,
coercion or influence is involved then there is no crime of rape except in those cases
where force, threat or intimidation as an element of rape is substituted by
moral ascendancy or moral authority like in cases of incestuous rape and unless it
is punished under the RPC as qualified seduction under 337 or simple seduction under
338
3. Coercion and influence under Section 5 b refers to the means through which any adult,
syndicate or group compels a child to indulge in sexual intercourse
- the other mode is the use of profit money or any other consideration by which a child
indulges in sexual intercourse without participation of any adult syndicate or group
- not exerted by the offender but by any adult, syndicate or group whose liability is found
under section 5 (a) for engaging in, promoting, facilitating or inducing child prostitution
- offender section 5 (b)
4. Rape under Article 266-A(1)(a,b,c) under the Section 5(1) of R.A. No. 7610
RPC

1. Offender is a man; 1. Offender is a man;

2. Carnal knowledge of a woman; 2. Indulges in sexual intercourse with a female
3. Through force, threat or intimidation; when the child exploited in prostitution or other sexual
offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise abuse, who is 12 years old or below 18 or above
unconscious; and by means of fraudulent 18 under special circumstances;
machination or grave abuse of authority 3. Coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group is employed against the child
to become a prostitute
5. Coercion or influence is not the reason why the child submitted herself to sexual
intercourse but was utilized in order for the child to become a prostitute
6. There could be no information where the same accused is charged with the crime of rape
under RPC where force, threat, intimidation is the element and at the same time a violation
of Section 5(b) where the victim indulged in sexual intercourse because she is exploited in
prostitution either because of the two modes mentioned above
7. When the elements of both violations of section 5 b and article 266-A (1) are mistakenly
alleged in the information, the accused should still be prosecuted under the RPC (as
amended by RA No, 8353, the more recent and special penal legislation)
8. A violation of section 5 b occurs even though the accused committed sexual abuse
against the child victim only once
 Section 3 (b) does not require that the victim suffer a distinct and separate
act of sexual abuse
- “Child abuse” refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the
child which includes any of the following:

(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment;
 
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth
and dignity of a child as a human being;
 
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter;
or
  
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in
serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or
death.
 
Award of Civil indemnity and damages, summarized in People v. Tulagan
 
Crime Civil Indemnity Moral Damages Exemplary
Damages

Acts of Lasciviousness under Article P20,000.00 P20,000.00 P20,000.00

336 of the RPC [Victim is of legal age]

Acts of lasciviousness in relation to P50,000.00 P50,000.00 P50,000.00

Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 [Victim
is a child under 12 years old or is
demented]

Sexual Abuse or Lascivious Conduct P75,000.00 (If penalty P75,000.00 (If penalty P75,000.00 (If
under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 imposed is reclusion imposed is reclusion penalty
[Victim is a child 12 years old and perpetua) perpetua) imposed
below 18, or above 18 under special is reclusion
circumstances] perpetua)

P50,000.00 (If penalty imposed is P50,000.00 (If penalty P50,000.00 (If penalty  
within the range of reclusion temporal imposed is within the imposed is within the
medium) range of reclusion range of reclusion
temporal medium) temporal medium)

Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) P30,000.00 P30,000.00 P30,000.00

of the RPC [Victim is of legal age]

Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) P50,000.00 P50,000.00 P50,000.00

of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b)
of R.A. No. 7610 [Victim is a child
under 12 years old or is demented]
 
Bar Questions
1. CHILD ABUSE; RA 7610 (2004) Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from
the evidence that she failed to give immediately the required medical attention to her
adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally bumped by her car, resulting in his head
injuries and impaired vision that could lead to night blindness. The accused, according to
the social worker on the case, used to whip him when he failed to come home on time from
school. Also, to punish him for carelessness in washing dishes, she sometimes sent him to
bed without supper. She moved to quash the charge on the ground that there is no
evidence she maltreated her adopted child habitually. She added that the accident was
caused by her driver's negligence. She did punish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness,
but only mildly. Is her motion meritorious? Reason briefly. (5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not
necessary that movant's maltreatment of a child be "habitual" to constitute child
abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to
the maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual or not": this is expressly stated in
Sec. 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be liable for child abuse.
2. Child Abuse; RA 7610 (2006) Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that
his retirement at the age of 70 gave him the opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime
— voyeurism. If not using his high-powered binoculars to peep at his neighbor's homes and
domestic activities, his second choice was to follow sweet young girls. One day, he trailed a
teenage girl up to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia. While ascending the stairs, he stayed
one step behind her and in a moment of bravado, placed his hand on her left hip and gently
massaged it. She screamed and shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and charged with
acts of lasciviousness. Is the designation of the crime correct? (5%)
 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The crime should be Other Acts of Child Abuse under
Section 10 of RA. 7610, par. b of Section 3 that refers to child abuse committed by
any act, deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being. In relation thereto, Section 10 provides criminal
liability for other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation, or for other conditions
prejudicial to the child's development. The reaction of the victim, screaming for help
upon the occurrence of the touching indicates that she perceived her dignity was being
debased or violated.
2. Arnold, 25 years of age, was sitting on a bench in Luneta Park watching the statue of
Jose Rizal when, without his permission, Leilani, 17 years of age, sat beside him and asked
for financial assistance, allegedly for payment of her tuition fee, in exchange for sex. While
they were conversing, police operatives arrested and charged him with violation of Section
10 of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act), accusing him of having in his company a minor, who is not related to
him, in a public place. It was established that Arnold was not in the performance of a social,
moral and legal duty at that time. Is Arnold liable for the charge? Explain. (2016 Bar
Question)
 No, Arnold is not liable. To be liable under Section 10 (b) of RA No. 7610, it is
indispensable that the child in the company of the offender must be 12 years or under
or 10 years or more his junior in a public place or private place, hotel, motel, beer
joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or
other tourist resort or similar places. In this case, Leilani is 17 years of age, who is 8
years younger than Arnold. Additionally, Leilani sat beside Arnold without his
permission. Hence, Arnold is liable for the crime charged
 
 

Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security

Wednesday, May 11, 2022
8:50 AM
 
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
Elements
1. Offender is a private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. The kidnapping lasts for 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; or
d. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
 
Rules, Doctrines and cases
1. if the offender is a public officer who has a duty under the law to detain a person, the
crime is arbitrary detention
2. When the victim is a minor and accused is one of the parents - penalty is arresto mayor
or a fine not exceeding 300 (271 par. 2)
3. Intention to deprive the victim of his liberty for purpose of extorting ransom on the part
of the accused is essential in the crime of kidnapping
4. People v. Remalante, People v. Sacayanan| interval of detention was short that negative
the idea of intent to deprive liberty. The short detention forms part of murder
5. People v. deduyo| the carrying away of the victim in the crime of kidnapping can either
be made forcibly or fraudulently
 What is controlling is the act of the accused in detaining the victim against his or hr
will after the offender is able to take the victim in his custody
6. Actual demand for ransom is not necessary as long as kidnapping or detention was for
the purpose of ransom
7. accused not liable when there is lack of motive to resort to kidnapping
- officers brought victim from his house to answer for the murder of some persons who had
disappeared (People v. soriano)
8. Detention or locking up of victim is essential
- there must be actual confinement or restriction of the person of the offended party
- or that the accused instilled fear into her mind in order to compel and force her to remain
in where she was confined
9. It is not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure
- illegal detention could also consist in detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his
liberty (People v. Crisostomo)
10. People v. Acosta| Leaving a child in the house of a mother, where he had freedom of
locomotion but cannot leave at will because he does not know the way back home, deprives
him of liberty
11. Restraint need not be permanent
- US v. Peralta| tied until brother returns to their service because brother had ran away
12. the detention must be illegal
13. People v. Tamorro| lawful to detain| a boy who was locked up in their lobby after he had
been caught stealing sugar canes from the plantation. Was not fed.
 No injury or disturbance of right
 To a certain extent it was justified
--> light coercion
14. Detention is illegal when not ordered by competent authority or not permitted by law
15. essential element of kidnapping| the deprivation of an offended party's liberty under any
of the four instances mentioned in article 267 par.1
 Circumstances mentioned here are not needed if the kidnapping or detention was for
the purpose of extorting ransom
16. Detention for more than three days is not necessary when any of the other
circumstances is present
17. US v. Sol| Restraint by robbers not illegal detention if the purpose was to delay or
prevent assistance being rendered by authorities
18. the purpose of detention is immaterial when any of the circumstances in the first
paragraph is present
19. Special complex crime of kidnapping with murder (RA 7659)
- whether the killing was purposely sought for or merely as an afterthought
20. People v. Gungon| Kidnapping with frustrated murder
- premediated
- restraint was evident from the moment she was taken from quezon city at gunpoint and
brought to batangas to insure impunity for their execution of her.
21. Where the victim is taken from one place to another solely for the purpose of killing him
--> murder
- if detention or kidnapping is incidental to the killing
22. the actual specific intent of the malefactor is to deprive the offended party of his liberty
and not where such restraint of his freedom of action is merely an incident in the
commission of another offense primarily intended by the malefactor.
23. Specific intent, determinative of whether the crime is murder or kidnapping
- definition| a state of mind which exists where circumstances indicate that an offender
actively desired certain criminal consequences or objective desired a specific result to follow
his act or failure to act.
- must be alleged in the information
- not synonymous with motive| motive is the reason which prompts the accused to engage
in a particular criminal activity
24. Murder| specific intent is to kill
Kidnapping| to deprive the victim of his/her liberty
25. ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured
person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity.
- even if the purpose is to compel alleged payment (People v. Kamad Akiran)
26. Corpus delicti of kidnapping of ransom| detention or kidnapping was for the purpose of
extorting ransom; doesn't matter whether the ransom is actually paid or received
27. People v. Mirandila| regardless of how many times the victim who was illegally
detained was raped, it is still a single offense of the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape/
28. The crime is forcible abduction with rape if offender took the victim with lewd
designs
29. there is no complex crime of rape with illegal detention under article 28
- there is also no complex crime of kidnapping with attempted rape under 48 since
there is no single act which results in two or more grave or less grave felonies.
- neither is illegal detention a necessary means of committing rape (People v.
Gonzales, People v. Leonardo Nuguid)
30. Illegal detention Arbitrary detention

- committed by a private individual who unlawfully Committed by a public officer or employee

kidnaps or detains or otherwise deprives a person of who detains a person without legal ground
liberty
 
Lecture notes:
1. regardless of the number of victims are killed, there can only be one special
complex crime
2. if there is forcible abduction where the offender brought a person to a place to be raped
--> complex crime of forcible abduction with rape
- if there is three excess rapes --> three separate crimes
- if there is attempted rape --> absorbed
 Nature of forcible abduction is taking away of a victim with lewd design
3. use of loose of firearms is aggravating in kidnapping and serious illegal detention
 Section 29 of the comprehensive firearms law
 
Article 268. Slight Illegal Detention
 
Elements
1. Offender is a private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives him of his liberty.
3. The act of kidnapping or detention is illegal;
4. The crime is committed without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated
in Article 267.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. accomplice who furnished the place for the perpetration of the crime --> principal
 Act or acts other than furnishing --> two degrees lower than that provided
2. Privileged mitigating circumstance (2nd paragraph)
- The penalty is lowered if –
(1) The offended party is voluntarily released within three days from the start of illegal
detention;
(2) Without attaining the purpose;
(3) Before the institution of the criminal action.
- offender must show that he was in a position to prolong the detention
3. last paragraph of 268 applies to slight illegal detention only and not to 267
 If the victim is a minor
 Voluntary release therefore is not mitigating in 267
 
Article 269. Unlawful Arrest
 
Elements
1. Offender arrests or detains another person;
2. The purpose of the offender 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.
 
Rules doctrines and cases
1. if the private person makes an arrest without reasonable ground --> unlawful arrest
2. unlawful arrests by public officers --> arbitrary detention
3. if the public officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person, or if he did not act in
his official capacity --> unlawful arrest
4. there is warrant but the affidavit seems to be perjurous
- no unlawful arrest
- at most, perjury (People v. Lim)
5. Illegal detention Unlawful arrest

In any other case Purpose of locking up or detaining is to deliver to the

proper authorities

6. Delay in the delivery of detained person Unlawful arrest

- detention is for some legal ground - not authorized by law

- what constitutes the act is the failure of - making an arrest not authorized by law
delivery
7. No period of detention is fixed by law in article 269, but motive of the offender is
controlling
- unlawful arrest| to deliver to proper authorities
 
Article 270. Kidnapping and Failure to Return A Minor
 
Elements
1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person (whether over or under seven
years but less than 21 years of age);
2. He deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians.
 
Rules, Doctrines, cases:
1. the age of majority is 18 years old under RA 6809
2. What is punished is the deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to restore the
latter to his parents
3. when the crime is committed by the father or mother of the minor, the penalty is arresto
mayor or a fine not exceeding 300 or both --> 271 par. 2
4. 270 267

- offender has custody of the minor Offender has no custody of the minor

- what is punished is the deliberate failure to return the minor  

5. kidnapping and failure to return a minor under 270 is necessarily included in
kidnapping and serious illegal detention of minor under 270 par.4
- both constitute a form of detention
6. essential element which qualifies the crime of kidnapping a minor under 270
- offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor
 It is not necessary that the purpose of the offender is to permanently
separate the minor from his parents or guardians.
 This requirement was abolished by RA No. 18
 
Article 271. Inducing A Minor to Abandon His Home
Elements
1. A minor (whether over or under seven years of age) is living in the home of his parents
or guardians or the person entrusted with his custody;
2. Offender induces said minor to abandon such home.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1 age of minor is under 18 years of age
2. the inducement must be actual, committed with criminal intent and determined by a will
to cause damage
 To induce| to influence, to prevail on; to move by persuasion; to incite by motives
 People v. Paalam| age difference --> no ascendancy
- girls were not moved by the offer and promise but by their spirit of restlessness
3. what constitutes the crime is the act of inducing a minor to abandon his home and it is
not necessary that he actually abandons his home
- so long as the inducement is done maliciously and with criminal intent
4. the minor should not leave his home of his own free will
5. parent who, not entrusted custody, kidnaps the minor from the other parent is liable
under this article
6. "any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles| should be read "if the person
committing any of the crimes covered by the preceding article and the first paragraph of
this article shall be the father or the mother of the minor"
 
Article 272. Slavery
 
Elements
1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human being;
2. The purpose of the offender is to enslave such human being.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. qualifying| purpose of assigning OP to some immoral traffic
2. when the act or manner of committing the offense is by kidnapping or detaining
 If the purpose is to enslave --> slavery
 Otherwise -> kidnapping or illegal detention
3. employment or custody of minor with the consent of parent or guardian although against
the will of the minor is not involuntary servitude.
 But where it is proven that the defendant was obliged to render service without
remuneration and to remain there so long as she has not paid her deb --> slavery
(reyes v. alojado)
 
Lecture notes:
1. if you hire detain a person it could be anti-trafficking as long as the means enumerated
are present in the law
2. in this crime you don't need to prove anymore the element of means in the anti-
trafficking law
 
Article 273. Exploitation of Child Labor
 
Elements
1. Offender retains a minor in his services;
2. It is against the will of the minor;
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian or person entrusted with the custody of such minor.
- if it is with consent of the child. Not liable under this article
 Exploitation under child abuse| consent is immaterial
 
Article 274. Services Rendered under Compulsion in Payment of Debt
 
Elements
1. Offender compel a debtor to work for him, either as household servant or farm
laborer;
2. It is against the debtor’s will;
3. The purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt
 
Notes:
1. article does not distinguish whether the victim is a minor or not
2. 274| it is the debtor himself which is the one compelled to work
273| it is the minor who is compelled to render services for the supposed debt of his parent
or guardian
273| services of the minor is not limited to household or farm work
 
Chapter Two CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
Section One. - Abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors.
 
Article 275. Abandonment of Persons in Danger and Abandonment of One’s Own
Victim
 
Acts punished
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
1. The place is not inhabited;
2. Accused found there a person wounded or in danger of dying;
3. Accused can render assistance without detriment to himself;
4. Accused fails to render assistance
2. Failing to help or render assistance to another whom the offender has accidentally
wounded or injured;
3. By failing to deliver a child, under seven years of age, whom the offender has found
abandoned, to the authorities or to his family, or by failing to take him to a safe place.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. if the offender wounded another --> par.1 does not apply
2. omission not constituting a more serious offense
- ex: offender who has custody of the minor who is injured and in danger of dying in an
uninhabited place --> par. 2 of 276
3. par.2 only applies when someone is accidentally injured by the accused
4. it is immaterial that the offender knows that the child is under seven years of age under
par. 3
5. the child under seven years of age must be found in an unsafe place
 
Article 276. Abandoning A Minor
 
Elements
1. Offender has the custody of a child;
2. The child is under seven years of age;
3. He abandons such child;
4. He has no intent to kill the child when the latter is abandoned.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. when there is intent to kill this article does not apply
 Last paragraph
2. the ruling that intent to kill is presumed from the death of the child only applies to crimes
against persons and not crimes against security
3. a permanent, conscious and deliberate abandonment is required under this article
4. qualifying circumstances:
 Death of the minor resulted from such abandonment
 If the life of a minor was in danger because of the abandonment
5. parents guilty of abandoning the child shall be deprived of PA (Article 332 of CC)
 
Lecture notes:
1. relate 275-276 to RA 7610, Section 10 (a)
 
Article 277. Abandonment of Minor by Person Entrusted with His Custody;
Indifference of Parents
 
Acts punished
1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or other persons without the consent of the one
who entrusted such minor to the care of the offender or, in the absence of that one, without
the consent of the proper authorities
Elements
1. Offender has charge of the rearing or education of a minor;
2. He delivers said minor to a public institution or other persons;
 3. The one who entrusted such child to the offender has not consented to such act; or
if the one who entrusted such child to the offender is absent, the proper authorities
have not consented to it
2. Neglecting his (offender’s) children by not giving them the education which their station
in life requires and financial condition permits.
Elements:
1. Offender is a parent;
2. He neglects his children by not giving them education;
3. His station in life requires such education and his financial condition permits it.
[just from the internet, not a reliable source: Your 'station in life' includes such things as
age bracket, marital status, whether or not you have children, whether you are a priest,
religious or layperson, perhaps your work status (ie if you are an employer or not)]
 
Rules doctrines and cases
1. Only the person charged with rearing or education of the minor is liable
- rear| to bring to maturity by educating, nourishing, etc.
2. abandonment of minor by person Abandonment of a minor under 276
entrusted with custody

- custody of offender is specific: for Custody of offender is stated in general

rearing or education

- under 18 years of age Under seven years of age

- minor is delivered to a public Minor is abandoned in such a way as to deprive him of the care
institution or other person and protection that his tender years need
3. obligation to educate children terminates if mother and children refuse without good
reason to live with the accused
- accused had to go to another province where he was able to earn a living (People v.
Miraflores)
4. Failure to give education must be due to deliberate desire to evade such obligation
 
Article 278. Exploitation of Minors
 
Acts punished
1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 years of age to perform any dangerous feat of
balancing, physical strength or contortion, the offender being any person;
2. Employing children under 16 years of age who are not the children or descendants of the
offender in exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, or wild-animal tamer, the
offender being an acrobat, etc., or circus manager or engaged in a similar calling;
3. Employing any descendant under 12 years of age in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in
the next preceding paragraph, the offender being engaged in any of the said callings;
4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age gratuitously to any person following any of the
callings enumerated in paragraph 2, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender
being an ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of
such child; and
5. Inducing any child under 16 years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings
mentioned in paragraph 2 or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender
being any person.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. Exploitation of minors Inducing a minor to abandon his home

- if inducing is for the purpose mentioned in par. 5 - to abandon his home

Victim is a minor under 16 years of age Victim is a minor under 18

2. made in consideration of price, compensation or promise
3. offender shall be deprived of parental authority or guardianship
4. the exploitation of the minor must be of such nature as to endanger his life or safety in
order to constitute the offense described in this article
 
Lecture notes:
1.
 
Article 279. Additional penalties for other offenses. - The imposition of the penalties
prescribed 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 this Code.
 
Article 280. Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
 
Elements
1. Offender is a private person;
2. He enters the dwelling of another;
3. Such entrance is against the latter’s will.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. if the offense is committed by means of violence or intimidation the penalty is higher
2. offender must be a private person; if it is a public officer --> violation of domicile
(128)
3. dwelling| any building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort as
distinguished from places devoted to business, offces, etc.
 People v. lamahang| a store of cheap goods was also considered the dwelling place
of the owner
 Depends upon the use to which it is put
- temporary place to stay is considered as dwelling (lecture)
4. entrance by the accused should be against presumed or express prohibition of the
occupant
5. lack of permission does not amount to prohibition
6 in general, all members of a household must be presumed to have authority to extend
an invitation to enter the house
7. there must be opposition on the part of the owner of the house to the entry of the
accused
8. Implied prohibition| it is a well-settled rule that whoever enters the dwelling of another
at late hour of the night after the inmates have retired and closed their doors does so
against their will
9. there is an implied prohibition when entrance is made through means not intended
for ingress
10. prohibition must be in existence prior to or at the time of entrance
 US v. Arceo| violence was used immediately after entrance without consent
 US v. dionisio| accused entered a house by the principal door, which they found half-
open. There was no opposition of any kind from the occupant at the time of entrance
of the accused
11. Violence does not only refer to a person only
12. examples of trespass by means of intimidation
 Firing a revolver in the air by persons attempting to force their way
 Flourishing of a bolo against inmates of the house upon gaining entrance
13. violence or intimidation may take place immediately after the entrance
14. prohibition not necessary when violence or intimidation is employed by the
offender
- even if the door was already open and there was not express prohibition
15. trespass to dwelling may be committed by the owner of the dwelling
- against the will of the actual occupant
 He should invoke the aid of the court
16. If there is no overt act of the any other crime intended to be committed --> only
trespass
- offender before he could take any personal property with him, was caught by the owner --
> only trespass and not attempted robbery
- caught in the act of forcibly attempting to enter a dwelling, crime is attempted trespass to
dwelling
17. People v. Medina, page 773-773| a case of separate crimes of trespass to dwelling
through violence, frustrated homicide and less serious physical injuries
- if the purpose of the accused was to kill the person injured| frustrated homicide,
unlawful entry would be an AC
- had no intent to kill when he came inside, but only when he was being arrested by
the occupants, --> trespass to dwelling is a separate and distinct offense
18. Cases when Article 280 does not apply: --> will probably asked in the exam
(1) When the purpose of the entrance is to prevent serious harm to himself, the
occupant or third persons;
(2) When the purpose of the offender in entering is to render some service to
humanity or justice;
(3) Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses while they are
open .
19. Gabriel v. People| Meralco suspecting that the householder was hiding a transformer -->
not rendering service to justice
 
Lecture
1. if the place is inhabited --> trespass to dwelling
Uninhabited --> other forms of trespass
 
Article 281. Other forms of trespass
 
Elements
1. Offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another;
2. The entrance is made while either of them is uninhabited;
3. The prohibition to enter is manifest;
4. The trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
 
Rules doctrines and cases
1. premises| signifies distinct and definite locality
2. Entering a warehouse may be trespass under this article
 Warehouse is a closed premise
3. Trespass to dwelling Other forms

- private person - any person

- enters the dwelling house - enters closed premises or fenced estate

- act constituting the crime is entereing the - entering closed premises or the fenced estate without
dwelling against the will of the owner securing permission of the owner or caretaker thereof

- prohibition is express or implied - prohibition to enter is manifest

 
Article 282. Grave Threats
 
Acts punished:
1. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of this
family of any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or imposing any other
condition, even though not unlawful, and the offender attained his purpose;
2. Making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose;
3. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his
family of any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not being subject to a condition.
 
Rules:
1. threat must be to inflict a wrong amounting to a crime upon the person, honor or
property of the offended party or that of his family
 
Elements of grave threats where the offender attained his purpose
1. offender threatens another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that
of this family of any wrong
2. such wrong amounts to a crime
3. there is a demand of money or any other condition, even though not unlawful
4. offender attained his purpose
 
Rules:
2. condition may lawful, but if the threat would amount to a crime, still liable
3. imposing other condition -- no demand for money
4. if the offender attained his purpose --> one degree lower for the crime threatened to be
committed
5. does not attain his purpose| two degrees lower than the crime threatened
6. if the threat is not subject to a condition --> penalty is fixed
7. if the threat is made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty to be imposed in its
maximum period
 
Elements of grave threats not subject to a condition
1. Threatens another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of this
family of any wrong
2. such wrong amounts to a crime
3. Threat is not subject to condition
 
Rules:
1. third form of grave threats must be serious and deliberate
 Creating in the mind of the person threatened the belief that the threats will be
carried into effect
2. should not be made in the heat of anger --> 285 par.2
3. no condition imposed or there is no demand for money
4. if the condition is not proved --> par. 2 of article 282
 
Rules:
1. essence of the crime of threat is intimidation
- there is a promise of some future harm or injury either to the person, honor, or property
of the offended party or of his family
2. the act threatened must be wrong
- filing a complaint against a person is not wrong
3. Grave threats may be committed by indirect challenge to a gunfight even if the
complainant was absent when the challenge was made
- it is sufficient that the threats after they have been made in complainant's absence, came
to the knowledge of the offended party
4. consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened
5. threats made in connection with the commission of other crimes are absorbed by the
latter
 If there is another crime actually committed or the objective of the offender is
another crime, and the threat is only a means to commit it or a mere incident in
its commission, the threat is absorbed by the other crime
 But if the threat was made with the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the
person threatened, the belief that the threat would be carried into effect, the crime
committed is grave threats and the minor crime which accompanied it should be
disregarded.
6. the offender in grave threats does not demand delivery one the spot or other
personal property asked by him
- robbery with intimidation
 
Article 283. Light Threats
 
Elements
1. Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong;
2. The wrong does not constitute a crime;
3. There is a demand for money or that other condition is imposed, even though not
unlawful;
4. Offender has attained his purpose or, that he has not attained his purpose.
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. same manner as grave threats but the act threatened does not amount to a crime
2. does not include threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, which is not
subject to a condition
3. blackmailing or unlawful extortion of money by an appeal to the fear of the victim or by
threats of accusation or exposure
 
Article 284. Bond for good behavior
 
Case where a person is required to give bail not to molest anoher
- when he threatens another under circumstances mentioned in 282 and 283
Article 35 Article 284

Not made applicable to any particular case Applicable to only grave and light
threats

If he fails to give bond, detained or a period not exceeding six destierro

months or 30 days
- giving of bail is and additional penalty
 
Article 285. Other Light Threats
 
Acts punished
1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be
in lawful self-defense;
2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some harm constituting a crime,
without persisting in the idea involved in his threat;
3. Orally threatening to do another any harm not constituting a felony.
 
Rules:
1. no demand for money or that there is no condition imposed when the offender threatens
another with a weapon and the case does not fall under subdivision no.2 of article 282
2. interpretation of par.2| threatened to kill another without persisting in the idea involving
in his threat
 The word "not" should be eliminated
3. the difference between other light threats, and grave threats and light threats is that
here there is no demand for money or that there is no condition imposed or that the threat
is not deliberate
4. threats which ordinarily are grave threats, if made in the heat of anger may be
other light threats
5. when threats are directed to a person who is absent and uttered in a temporary fit of
anger --> light threats
 
Article 286. Grave Coercions
 
Acts punished
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 be right or wrong.
 
Elements
1. A person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law, or that he
compelled him to do something against his will; be it right or wrong;
2. The prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and
3. The person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so
 
Rules:
1. what is prevented must not be prohibited by law
2. the act of preventing by force must be made at the time the offended party was doing or
about to do the act to be prevented. If the act was already done when the violence is
exerted the crime is unjust vexation
3. coercion is committed by the unauthorized compelling whether just or unjust; its essence
being an attack on the individual liberty
4. compelling another to do something includes the offender's act of doing it himself while
subjecting another to his will
5. when the complainant is in the actual possession of a thing, even if he has no
right to that possession, compelling him by means of violence to give up the
possession, even by the owner himself is grave coercion
 It is a maxim of the law that no man is authorized to take the law into his own hands
and enforce his rights with threats or violence except in certain well-defined cases
where one acts in the necessary defense of one's life, liberty or property
6. the taxi driver who threatened to bump his car to kill himself and his female passenger, if
she would not go with him to a night club is guilty of grave coercion
7. the crime of grave coercion is consummated even if the offender failed to
accomplished his purpose
8. the crime is not grave coercion when the violence is employed to seize anything
belonging to the debtor of the offender --> light coercion under 287
9. Not intimidation by display of force if arms are not used
10. Surrounding complainant in a notoriously threatening attitude is sufficient
- accused here presented themselves armed
11. the force or violence must be immediate, actual or imminent
12. without authority of law to prevent or to compel| no right to do so as a private person
or does not act in the exercise of duty in the case of a person with a duty to perform or with
authority as a public functionary
13. the owner of a thing has no right to prevent interference with it when interference is
necessary to avert greater damage
14. there is no coercion committed by a father who with violence prevents his
unemancipated son from leaving his home just to roam around the streets
15. a tenant who used force to prevent himself from being deprived of the possession of a
parcel of land which he had already cultivated is not guilty of grave coercion
16. doctor attending to a sick person who threatened to shoot insane man who attempted
to enter the house has a right to compel --> acted in accordance with the exercise of his
profession
17. policeman has a right to compel with violence a person who committed a crime in his
presence to go with him to the police station
18. no grave coercion when the accused acts in good faith in the performance of his duty
19. a person who take the law into his own hands with violence is guilty of grave coercion
20. coercion is consummated even if the offended party did not accede to the purpose of
the coercion
21. if the offended party was compelled against her will to leave her mother's house and
go with the accused to the latter's house, there is coercion not illegal detention
- although she was free to leave the accused house where she served as servant
22. Grave coercion Frustrated illegal detention

- person who was dragged and carried three meters from where - essential element of illegal
she was first grabbed --> not frustrated illegal detention but detention: actual confinement or
consummated grave coercion restraint of the person
23. coercion is distinguished from illegal detention, when there is no clear deprivation
of liberty, by the purpose of the offender
- People v. Dauatan| dragged to a place; she was not confined in closed doors but
only watched so that she could not leave --> graver coercion and not illegal detention
24. when the purpose is to prevent the inmates from leaving the premises --> grave
coercion and not illegal detention
- warned them not to leave under the threat of death (People v. Peralta)
25. Coercion Maltreatment of prisoner

Not a prisoner Offended party is a prisoner

26. US v. alexander| woman was arrested for a an alleged violation of an ordinance (there
was actually none); was dragged along the street for 40 or 50 feet --> grave coercion
27. when there is prevention of the meeting of a legislative body or provincial board or city
or municipal council or board, the offenders are not liable for grave coercion through
arbitrary detention, even if there is compulsion and detention
28. the 2nd paragraph of article 286 prevents and punishes religious intolerance.
 Essential element: intent to coercively control the religious beliefs of another
 
Bar Questions:
1. A entered the house of B. Once inside the house of B, A took and seized personal
property by compulsion from B with the use of violence and force upon things, believing
himself to be the owner of the personal property so seized. What is the criminal liability of
A? (2012 Bar Question)
 A is not criminally liable for robbery since the presumption of intent to gain, an
element of this crime, is rebutted because he took the personal property under a bona
fide belief that he owns the property. However, A is liable for grave coercion because
he used violence in seizing the property by reason of his mistaken belief that he owned
it.
 
Questions
1. Grave Coercion (1998) Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy
wearing the said necklace. Isagani asked Roy to return to him the necklace as it belongs to
him, but Roy refused. Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, "If you will not give back the
necklace to me, I will kill you!" Out of fear for his life and against his will, Roy gave the
necklace to Isagani, What offense did Isagani commit? (5%)
 
287. Light coercion
 
Elements:
1. Offender must be a creditor;
2. He seizes anything belonging to his debtor:
3. The seizure of the thing 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.
 
Rules doctrines and cases
1. If the offender seized anything belonging to his debtor by means of violence to hold It
merely as security, first paragraph is not applicable.
2. US vs Caballero| did not act as creditor but a co-owner --> not guilty of light coercion
3. People vs Reyes| through deceit and misrepresentation --> not first paragraph but unjust
vexation
4. People vs London| actual physical violence need not be employed
 Enough that the attitude is notoriously menacing as to amount to grave intimidation
 
Rules doctrines and cases
1. Unjust vexation| any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical
or material harm would, however, unjustly annoy or vex an innocent person
2. Kissing a girl, without performing acts of lasciviousness is unjust vexation
3. It will be unjust vexation if the third element of the crime under the 1st paragraph is
missing
 People v. Banzon| accused nailed wooden barricades one of the sides of the stall
market for failure of the offended party to pay rentals
- told her that not to open it or else something might happen to her
4. When the act of the accused has no connection with his previous acts of violence, it is
only unjust vexation
- People v. Picunada| upon instruction of liutenant, struggled with OP in taking the rice
 The two went to the lieutenant but later the accused went to the place and took the
sack of rice
 
288. Other Similar Coercions
 
Acts punished:
1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or knowingly permitting the forcing or
compelling of the laborer or employee of the offender to purchase merchandise of
commodities of any kind from him;
Elements:
1. Offender is any person, agent or officer of any association or corporation;
2. He or such firm or corporation has employed laborers or employees;
3. He forces or compels, directly or indirectly, or knowingly permits to be forced or
compelled, any of his or its laborers or employees to purchase merchandise or
commodities of any kind from him or from said firm or corporation.
 
2. Paying the wages due his laborer or employee by means of tokens or object other than
the legal tender currency of the Philippines, unless expressly requested by such laborer or
employee.
Elements:
1. Offender pays the wages due a laborer or employee employed by him by means of
tokens or object
2. Those tokens or objects are other than the legal tender currency of the Philippines;
3. Such employee or laborer does not expressly request that he be paid by means of
tokens or objects.
 
- inducing an employee to give up any part of his wages by force, stealth, intimidation,
threat or by any other means is unlawful under 116 of the labor code and not under the RPC
 
Article 289. Formation, Maintenance, and Prohibition of Combination of Capital or Labor
through Violence or Threats
 
Elements
1. Offender employs violence or threats, in such a degree as to compel or force the laborers
or employers in the free and legal exercise of their industry or work;
2. The purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent coalitions of capital or labor, strike of
laborers or lockout of employers.
- the act should not constitute a more serious offense under the RPC
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. Peaceful picketing is not prohibited
2. employing violence or making threat by picketers may make them liable for coercion
3. Preventing employee from joining any registered labor organization is punished under the
Labor code and not under the RPC
 
Chapter Three: Discovery and Revelation of Secrets
 
Article 290. Discovering Secrets through Seizure of Correspondence
 
Elements
1. Offender is a private individual or even a public officer not in the exercise of his official
function;
2. He seizes the papers or letters of another;
3. The purpose is to discover the secrets of such another person;
4. Offender is informed of the contents of the papers or letters seized.
 
Rules doctrines and cases
1. Seize| to place in the control of someone a thing or to give him the possession thereof
- not necessary that there is violence employed
2. Before opening a closed paper, the accused must be dictated by the desire to discover
secrets and not through mistake
3. the offender must be informed of contents of papers or letters not merely holding it in
trust.
4. prejudice is not element of the offense
5. revealing secrets is a qualifying element not an essential element
6. 290 not applicable to letters of minors or spouses --> par.3
7. 230 290

- public offcer comes to know the secrets of Offender is a private individual who seizes the papers or
any private individual by reason of his office letters of another to discover the secrets of the latter

Not necessary that the secrets are contained Not necessary that there be a secret
in papers or letters

Discloses it without justifiable reason If there is a secret discovered, it is not necessary that it
be revealed
8. 2756 of the administrative code punishes the unlawful opening of mail matter
 
Article 291. Revealing Secrets with Abuse of Office
 
Elements
1. 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
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. Secrets must be learned by reason of their employment
2. Secrets must be revealed by the offender
3. damages is not necessary
 
Article 292. Revelation of Industrial Secrets
 
Elements
1. Offender is a person in charge, employee or workman of a manufacturing or industrial
establishment;
2. The manufacturing or industrial establishment has a secret of the industry which the
offender has learned;
3. Offender reveals such secrets;
4. Prejudice is caused to the owner
 
Rules, doctrines and cases
1. Secrets must be related to manufacturing processes
2. The act of constituting the crime is revealing the secret of the industry and not where he
used the secret for his own benefit
3. the revelation of the secret might be made after the employee or workman had ceased to
be connected with the establishment
4. Prejudice is an element of the offense
 
Other notes:
Penalty to be imposed in its maximum period when torture attends the Commission of any
crime punishable under crimes against persons and crimes against personal liberty and
security
 
 

Crimes Against Property

Tuesday, May 24, 2022
8:10 PM
 
Article 293
 
Robbery
- taking of property with violence and intimidation
 
Elements in general
1. There is personal property belonging to another;
2. There is unlawful taking of that property;
3. The taking must be with intent to gain; and
4. There is violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon anything.
 
Notes:
1. Property must be personal property
- real property --> usurpation
2. Prohibitive articles may be the subject of robbery
- police robbing victims of their opium
- prohibitive article is private property
3. one who takes his property of another is not guilty of robbery
- property must belong to the victim
- neither does a co-owner or partner can commit a robbery
4. person whom property is taken need not be the owner
5. taking clothes from a dead person is robbery
6. even the owner may be guilty if he takes it from a bailee in order to charge him with
its value
7. naming the owner is an essential description of the crime when robbery is with homicide
8. Robbery can be committed only when it is against the will of the owner
9. If someone mistakenly delivered property to another and the offender threatens the
owner
 Not guilty of robbery| did not take it
10. When the taking was lawful and the unlawful misappropriation was subsequent to such
taking, the crime is estafa or malversation
11. agents of authorities acting apparently in compliance with law, but really with intent to
obtain gain and with intimidation or violence --> robbery
 
Consummation
12. Robbery with violence or intimidation is consummated the moment the offender
gains possession of the thing even if the culprit has no opportunity to dispose of it
 Without animus revertendi| with intention to relocate
13. Robbery with force upon things is consummated after the accused had taken
material possession of the thing with intent to appropriate the same, although his act of
making use of the thing is frustrated.
 
Taking
14. Taking| depriving the offended party of ownership of the thing taken with character of
permanency
15. The taking should not be under claim of ownership even though such claim is untenable.
 
Intent to gain
16. Intent to gain (animus lucrandi) is presumed in the unlawful taking
17. absence of intent to gain will make the taking of personal property grave coercion
18. Element of personal property belonging to another and intent to gain must concur
 If accused with intent to gain took personal property which turned out to be his
cannot be guilty of robbery
 If he took property from another believing it to be his --> no robbery
- no intent to gain
 
Violence or intmidation
19. must be against the person of the offended party
20. violence or intimidation must be used in the unlawful taking
- ex: mere snatching without violence or intimidation of person or with force upon things is
not robbery
21. Intimidation exist when it causes the fear or fright of the victim
 Need not be threat of bodily harm| ex: threatening not to return driver's license if
offended party would not give 2000 pesos
22. The violence or intimidation must be present before the taking of personal property is
complete
 Exception: when the violence results in homicide, rape, intentional mutilation
or any of the serious physical injuries penalized in paragraphs 1 and 2 of article
263, the taking of personal property is robbery complexed with any of those crimes
under 294, even f the taking was already complete when the violence used by the
offender
23. special complex crimes penalized in paragraphs 1,2 and 3 are indicated by the phrase
by reason or accompanied by
24. Taking of personal property need not be immediately after the intimidation
 
Using of force upon things
25. culprit here must use force upon things to enter a house or building
26. entrance into the building must be affected by any of the means described in 299 and
302
27. but the entrance into the building is not necessary when the robbery is committed by
breaking any wardrobe, chest or any kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle in an in
inhabited house, a public building or an edifice devoted to religious worship (299 sub par b)
Or when robbery in an uninhabited building, other than a public building or edifice devoted
to religious worship is committed by breaking any wardrobe, chest or any sealed or closed
furniture or receptacle or by removing a closed or sealed receptacle even if the same is
broken open elsewhere (pars 4 and 5 of 302)
28. if there is violence or intimidation of any person is used, the taking of personal property
is always robbery. But if there is no violence or intimidation against any person, the taking
is robbery only when the use of force upon things is used either to enter the building or to
break doors, wardrobes, chests or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle
inside the building or to force them open outside after taking the same from the building
(299 and 302)
29. In robbery with violence against or intimidation of any person, the value of personal
property is immaterial. However, in robbery with use of force upon things, penalty is based
on the value of property taken and or whether the offenders carry arms
30. When the elements of both robbery with violence against or intimidation of person and
robbery with use of force upon thins are present, the penalty is that imposed for robbery
with violence or intimidation in its maximum period
- complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed persons and robbery with
violence or intimidation
 Robbery in an inhabited house, the more serious crime
30. 294 applies only where the violence or intimidation of person takes place without
entering an inhabited house
 
 
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Penalties. - Any person
guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
 
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have
been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
 
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, when or if
by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in
subdivision I of Article 263 shall have been inflicted.
 
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of
the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next
preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
 
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium
period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall have
been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when in
the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible
for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article
263.
 
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
period in other cases.
 
Acts punished
1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery (taking of personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain), the crime of homicide is committed;
2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson;
3. When by reason of on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting in
insanity, 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 or to smell, or the loss of an eye, a hand, a
foot, an arm, or a leg or the loss of the use of any such member or incapacity for the work
in which the injured person is theretofore habitually engaged is inflicted;
5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery is carried to a
degree unnecessary for the commission of the crime;
6. When in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery any of the physical injuries in consequence of
which the person injured becomes deformed or loses any other member of his body or loses
the sue thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he
is habitually engaged for more than 90 days or the person injured becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days;
7. If the violence employed by the offender does not cause any of the serious physical
injuries defined in Article 263, or if the offender employs intimidation only.
 
Notes:
1. the crime defined in this article is a special complex crime
2. on occasion or by reason| homicide or serious physical injuries must be committed before
or because of the robbery
3. robbery with homicide| motive of the offender in killing a person before the robbery is to
deprive the victim of his personal property which is sought to be accomplished by
eliminating the obstacle
 When homicide is committed to:
1. facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit
2. prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery
3. to eliminate the witnesses to the commission of the crime
4. to defend possession of stolen goods
5. remove opposition or supress evidence
4. when the original design comprehends robbery and homicide is perpetrated by reason or
on occasion of the consummation of the former, the crime is robbery with homicide
5.
 
Par.1: Robbery with Homicide notes
1. Homicide: includes parricide and murder
2. all homicides or murders merged in the composite so long as the killings were
perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of robbery
3. robbery with homicide committed by a band| band is only an AC
- so as with treachery; since there can be no robbery with murder
4. Robbery with homicide in a dwelling does not require that robbery with force upon things
is first committed
5. an intent to take personal property belonging to another with intent to gain must precede
the killing
6. the crime is robbery with homicide even if the motive of the offenders was that of
robbery as well as vengeance
7. homicide may precede robbery or may occur after robbery as long as the offender had
the intent to take personal property before the killing
8. Is it robbery with homicide if the person killed is a robbery himself? Yes
- the law does not require that the person killed is the owner of the property taken
9. It is robbery with homicide even if the death of a person supervened by mere accident
- provided that the homicide was produced by reason or on occasion of robbery
10. attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during or on the occasion of the
robbery is absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide
11. When homicide is not proved, it is only robbery
12. when robbery is not proved, it is only homicide
13. In robbery with homicide, the person charged as accessory or accomplice must have
knowledge of the commission of not only robbery but also homicide as well
 Reyes: if the consummated felony is robbery with homicide, there is no legal basis
for imposing upon the accessory the penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed
for robber only
- robbery with homicide cannot be separated --> one penalty
14. all who participated in the robbery as principals are principals in robbery with homicide
15. robbery with homicide Highway robbery

When homicide is committed by reason Requires proof that several accused were organized for the
or on occasion of robbery purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately
 
Par.2 Robbery with Rape notes
1. like in robbery with homicide, the offender must have the intent to take personal
property belonging to another with intent to gain and such intent must precede the rape
2. example of rape committed on the occasion of robbery
- some robbers were ransacking the other is raping a woman in the house
3. Even if the rape was committed in another place, it is still robbery with rape
- not necessary that the rape be committed prior to or simultaneously with the robbery
 Law only says that when robbery is accompanied by rape or mutilation
4. But if the rape is committed against a woman in a house other than that were the
robbery is committed, the rape should be considered a separate offense
5. If the intention of the accused was to rob but rape was also committed even before the
asportation, the crime is robbery with rape
6. If the original plan was to rape but the accused after committing the rape also committed
the robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the offenses should be viewed as
separate and distinct
7. When the taking of personal property of a woman is an independent act following
defendant's failure to consummate rape, there are two distinct crimes: attempted rape and
theft
8. Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty
9. When the taking of property after the rape is not with intent to gain, there is neither theft
nor robbery committed
10. Civil liability for robeery with rape
- value of the stolen property
- 100,000
11. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery
- crime is robbery with homicide and rape; rape being an AC
 
Par. 3 Robbery with serious physical injuries notes
- in a case where the victim lost the hearing of one ear as a result of one of the blows he
received from the robber, SC held that accused is liable under 294 par. 3 because physical
injuries inflicted were covered by 263 par.2
 Inconsistent with Hernandez case where loss of hearing in one ear only falls under
263 par. 3
 
Par. 4 Robbery with Unnecessary violence and intimidation notes
1. tying the victim after wounding him and leaving him tied to the trunk of the tree after
being robbed
2. violence need not result in physical injuries
3. When the violence or intimidation is necessary, par. 4 does not apply
4. inflicting serious physical injuries in subdivisions 3 and 4 upon any person not responsible
for its commission
- the offender who inflicted on another robber physical injuries would be liable for two
crimes: robbery and physical injuries
5. The serious physical injuries defined in subdivisions 3 and 4 of 263, inflicted in connection
with the robbery, must be inflicted in the course of its execution
- if they were inflicted after the taking of the personal property had been complete, the
serious physical injuries mentioned should be considered as separate offense
 Note: by reason is not used here
6. Requisites:
  Any of the physical injuries defined in paragraphs 3 and 4 of 263 was inflicted in the
course of the robbery
 Any of them was inflicted upon any person not responsible for the commission of the
robbery
 
Paragraph 5 Simple Robbery notes
1. Violence or intimidation need not be present before or at the exact moment when the
object is taken
 Violence or intimidation may enter at any time before the owner is finally deprived
of his property
- ex: where a person picked the pocket of another who becoming aware of it, tried to
recover his property but a companion of the thief prevented him by using force or
violence
2. Robbery with violence or intimidation in other cases referred in par.5 is committed by:
 Snatching money from the hands of the victim and pushing here to prevent here
from recovering the seized property
 Grabbing pawn ticket from the hands of another and intimidating him
3. In robbery with intimidation, there must be acts done by the accused which, either by
their own nature or by reason of the circumstances under which they are executed, inspire
fear in the person against whom they are directed
4. Robbery with intimidation Threats to extort money

Intimidation is actual and Intimidation is conditional or future

immediate

personal May be through an intermediary

Directed only to the person of the Intimidation may refer to the person, honor or property of OP or
victim that of his family

Gain of culprit is immediate Not immediate

 
5. Robbery with violence Grave coercion

- in both, there is violence used by the  

offender

Intent to gain No intent to gain; compels another to do something against

his will
 
6. Robbery Bribery

Transaction is neither voluntary nor mutual Mutual or voluntary

OP is deprived of his money Offender parts his money in a sense voluntary

 
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in on uninhabited place and by a band,
or with the use of firearm on a street, or road or alley. – If the offenses mentioned in
subdivisions three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall have been committed
in an uninhabited place or by a band, or by attacking a moving train, street, car motor
vehicle or airship, or by entering the passengers' compartments in a train or, in any
manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a
street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of a firearm,
the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the proper penalties
 
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person is qualified if any of the offenses
defined in subdivisions 3,4 and 5 of 294 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 thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances; or
5. On a street, road, highway or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of
firearms, the offender shall be punished by the maximum periods of the proper penalties
prescribed in Article 294
 
Notes:
1. any of the qualifying circumstances of robbery must be alleged in the information
2. Being qualifying, it cannot be offset by a generic Mitigating circumstances
3. if robbery by a band is committed in an uninhabited place, by a band is qualifying and
uninhabited place would be generic AC
4. the intimidation with the use of firearm qualified only robbery on a street, road, highway,
or alley
5. 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide or robbery with rape or robbery with serious
physical injuries under par.1 of 263
6. robbery with homicide or rape or mutilation was committed by attacking a motor vehicle
or moving train or on the street, highway or alley with the use of firearms
- penalty under 294 would not be increased in the maximum
- note: by a band and uninhabited place are ACs
7. If the foregoing classes of robbery which are described in article 294 (1) and (2) are
perpetrated by a band, they would not be punishable under 295
 
Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof. - When
more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be
deemed to have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the commission
of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors
shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice of
the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearms.
 
Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be
punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that
he attempted to prevent the same
 
Outline of the provisions
1. When at least four armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall
be deemed to have been committed by a band
2. When any of the arms used in the commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm,
the penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the
corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice of the criminal liability for illegal
possession of such unlicensed firearms.
3. When any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band,
shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be
shown that he attempted to prevent the same
 
Requisites for liability for the acts of the other members of the band
1. He was a member of the band;
2. He was present at the commission of a robbery by that band;
3. The other members of the band committed an assault;
4. He did not attempt to prevent the assault
 
Notes:
1. clubs are arms
2. When the robbery was not committed by a band, the robber who did not take part in the
assault by another is not liable for that assault
- three persons: two robbers committed rape upstairs while the other guarded the owner of
the house downstairs
- two - robbery with rape
- one - robbery only
3. when there is conspiracy to commit homicide and robbery, all the conspirators, even if
less than four armed men, are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
4. A principal by inducement, who did not go with the band at the place of the
commission of the robbery is not liable for robbery with homicide but only for robbery in
band, there being no evidence that he gave instruction to kill the victim or intended that
this should be done
- "any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery"
5. Conspiracy was for robbery only but homicide was also committed on the occasion
thereof - all members of the band are liable for robbery with homicide
- Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall
be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band
6. proof of conspiracy is not necessary when four or more armed persons committed the
robbery
7. there is no crime as robbery with homicide in band
8. a case where rape is not considered any of the assaults committed by the band
- in the course of robbery with a band, the offended woman was taken by one of the
accused to a place away from the house where the robbery was committed and there he
raped her without knowledge of his companions (People v. hamiana)
 The members of the band liable for the assault must be present at the commission of
the robbery, not necessarily at the commission of the assault
9. without prejudice of the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed
firearms.
 In addition to his criminal liability for robbery by a band, the accused is also liable for
unlawful possession of firearm which is penalized under RA No. 10591
10. Ra No. 10591 penalizes the use of loose firearm in the commission of a crime
 SEC. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. – The use of a loose
firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the
Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a
loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that
prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for
illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime
charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm
is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under
the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in
its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime
punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is
found guilty.
11. The use of firearm, whether licensed or unlicensed, in making the intimidation is a
qualifying circumstance when the robbery defined in any of the paragraphs 3,4 and 5 of 294
is committed on a street, road, highway or alley
- refer to 295
 
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances. -
When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is
committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a
higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.
 
Notes
1. the term homicide is used in a generic sense which includes multiple homicides, murder,
parricide, or even infanticide
2. penalty is the same whether the robbery is attempted or frustrated
3. unless the homicide shall deserve a higher penalty under provisions of this code
- if killing is qualified by treachery or relationship, the proper penalty shall be imposed for
murder or parricide because it is more severe
4. When there is no over act of robbery
- killing should be a separate offense
5. Article 296 is applicable to attempted robbery with homicide by a band
6. when the offense committed is attempted or frustrated robbery with serious physical
injuries, artcle 48 is applicable
7. when the crime committed is robbery with frustrated homicide, the penalty for the more
serious crime, which is frustrated homicide should be imposed in its maximum period as
provided in article 48
8. There is only one crime of attempted robbery with homicide even if slight physical
injuries were inflicted on other person on the occasion or by reason of the robbery
 
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation. - Any person who,
with intent to defraud another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to
sign, execute or deliver any public instrument or documents, shall be held guilty of robbery
and punished by the penalties respectively prescribed in this Chapter.
 
Elements
1. Offender has intent to defraud another;
2. Offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or document.
3. The compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation
 
Notes:
1. Shall be held guilty of robbery and punished by the penalties respectively prescribed in
this Chapter.
 If the violence resulted in the death of the person defrauded --> penalty in par. 1 of
294
 If the execution of deeds by means of violence is only in the attempted or frustrated
stage and the violence resulted in the death of the person to be defrauded --> penalty
in 297
2. adjective public describe the word instrument only
- so even if the document signed or delivered is a private or commercial document, 298
applies
3. 298 is not applicable if the document is void
- physical injuries if violence resulted in such
- grave threats under subdivision no.2 of article 282 if there is only intimidation
4. When the offender party is under obligation to sign, execute or deliver the document
under the law, there is no robbery
- there will be coercion if violence is used in compelling the offended party to sign or deliver
the document
 
Section Two. - Robbery by the use of force upon things
 
The person liable for robbery with the use of force of things does not use violence against or
intimidation of any person in taking personal property belonging to another with intent to
gain for, otherwise, he will be liable under 294
 
Robbery by the use of force upon things is committee only when either:
1. offender entered a house or building by any of the means specified in 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 or closed or sealed furniture or receptacle in the house or building or he
took it away to be broken or forced open outside
 
Two kinds of robber with use of force upon things
1. robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious worship
2. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building
 
Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. -
Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or
edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of
the property taken shall exceed Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000), and if—
 
(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery was committed,
by any of the following means:
 
1. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.
3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools.
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.
 
Or if—
 
"(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances:
 
1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle.
2. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced upon outside the place of
the robbery.
 
When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the property taken exceeds Fifty
thousand pesos (₱50,000), the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.
 
The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed, but the value of the property
taken does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000).
 
When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not exceed
Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000), they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two (2) next
preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period.
 
"If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public
building, or building dedicated to religious worship, the penalties next lower in degree than
those prescribed in this article shall be imposed.
 
Elements under subdivision (a)
1. Offender entered an inhabited house, public building
2. The entrance was effected by any of the following means:
a. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress
b. By breaking any wall, roof or floor, or breaking any door or window;
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools; or
d. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.
3. Once inside the building, offender took personal property belonging to another with intent
to gain
 
Notes:
1. offender must enter the house or building in which robbery is committed
- not merely inserted his hand through an opening in the wall or used a pole through the
window
2. There must be evidence or the facts must show that the accused entered the dwelling
house or building by any of the means enumerated in subdivision a of 299
3. In entering the building, the offender must have intention to take personal property
4. The place entered must be a house or building
5. inhabited house| any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more
persons even though the inhabitants thereof are temporarily absent therefrom
6. Public building| every building owned by the government or belonging to a private person
but used or rented by the government although temporarily unoccupied (301)
7. if building belonged to a private school --> 302
8. any of the four means described in subdivision a of article 299 must be resorted to by the
offender to enter a house or building, not to get out
- people v. Co Cho| offender passed through the window of the closet and once inside, took
the watch and money of OP --> convicted for robbery
8. The whole body of the culprit must be inside the building to constitute entering
9. The wall must be an outside wall and not a wall between rooms in a house
10. but if a room is occupied by a person as his separate dwelling, the breaking of its inside
wall may constitute robbery
11. the outside door must be broken
- not merely removing hinges or hooks to which the padlocks were attached or using an
article to open the lock attached to the door knob
 There must be an actual breaking or smashing in opening the door
12. False keys are genuine keys stolen from the owner or any keys other than those
intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender (305)
Pick locks or similar tools are those specially adopted to the commission of the crime of
robbery (304)
13. the genuine key must be stolen, not taken by force or with intimidation from the owner
--> robbery with intimidation
14. The false key or picklock must be used to enter the building
15. It is only theft when the false key is used to open wardrobe or locked receptacle or
drawer or inside door
 If the room is a separate dwelling place of a person or a family, the use of false key
to open its door may give rise to robbery
16. the use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise authority must be to enter
the building
- Reyes: it seems that using fictitious name or pretending to exercise public authority must
be the efficient cause of the opening by the OP of the door of his house to the accused
 
Elements under subdivision (b):
1. Offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious
worship, regardless of the circumstances under which he entered it;
2. Offender takes personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, under any of
the following circumstances:
a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle; or
b. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the
place of the robbery.
 
Notes:
1. entrance into the building by any of the means mentioned in subdivision a of article 299
is not required in robbery under subdivision b of same article
2. Breaking a keyhole of the door of a wardrobe, which is locked, is breaking a locked
furniture
3. when sealed box o receptacle is taken out of the house or building for the purpose of
breaking it outside, it is not necessary that it is actually opened
- the phrase to be broken or forced open outside only indicates the objective element of the
offense
4. It is estafa or theft if the locked or sealed receptacle is not forced open in the building
where it is kept or taken therefrom to be broken outside
 Estafa| given to his custody and take the money therein
 Theft| locked receptacle is found on the street and it is forcibly opened
5. A bolo is not an arm when used by a servant to open a trunk in his master's house
6. Weapon carried must not be used to intimidate
- once used in the commission of the crime, crimes falls under 294
7. Even those without arms are liable to the same penalty
- the liability for carrying arms while robbing an inhabited house is extended to each of the
offenders who take part in the robbery
 
Article 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 provided therefor.
 
Notes:
1. robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship is
qualified when committed by a bad and in an uninhabited house
 The two qualifications: uninhabited place and by a band must concur
2. the inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship must be
located in an uninhabited place
3. To qualify two classes of robbery:
Robbery with use of force upon things, 299 Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons, 295

Must be committed in an uninhabited place and by must be committed in an uninhabited place or by a

a band band
 
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious
worship and their dependencies. - Inhabited house means 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.
 
All interior courts, corrals, waterhouses, granaries, barns, coach-houses, stables or other
departments or inclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior
entrance connected therewith, and which form part of the whole, shall be deemed
dependencies of an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious
worship.
 
Orchards and other lands used for cultivation or production are not included in the terms
of the next preceding paragraph, even if closed, contiguous to the building and having
direct connection therewith.
 
The term "public building" includes every building owned by the Government or belonging to
a private person not included used or rented by the Government, although temporarily
unoccupied by the same.
 
Notes
1. Robbery in a sunken ship
- money contained in sealed boxes which was broken. Owner did not yet abandon
ownership
 299 subdivision n, No.2
2. the place is still inhabited even if the occupant was absent
3. dependencies requisites:
 Must be contiguous to the building
 Must have an interior entrance connected therewith
 Must form part of the whole
 
Art. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building. - Any robbery committed
in an uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of
Article 299, if the value of the property taken exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000), shall
be punished by prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods provided that any
of the following circumstances is present:
 
1. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or
egress.
2. If any wall, roof, floor or outside door or window has been broken.
3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar
tools.
4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been
broken.
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has been
removed, even if the same be broken open elsewhere.
 
When the value of the property taken does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000), the
penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.
 
In the cases specified in Articles 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 302 of this Code, when the
property taken is mail matter or large cattle, the offender shall suffer the penalties next
higher in degree than those provided in said articles.
 
 
Elements
1. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which was not a dwelling house,
not a public building, or not an edifice devoted to religious worship;
2. Any of the following circumstances was present:
a. The entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or egress
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window was broken;
c. The entrance was effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar
tools;
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle was broken;
or
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the same be broken open
elsewhere.
3. Offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another with intent to gain
 
Notes:
1. uninhabited place is an uninhabited building
2. Building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of article 299
 If store in the ground floor is not alleged to be used and occupied as a dwelling -->
could robbery in an uninhabited place
3. building| any kind of structure used for storage or safekeeping of personal property
 A pigsty is not a building within the meaning of 302 which refers to habitable building
4. entrance through an opening not intended for entrance or egress, or after breaking a
wall, roof, floor or window or through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar tools
is not necessary, if there is breaking of wardrobe, chest, or sealed or closed furniture or
receptacle or removal thereof to be broken open elsewhere
5. Unnailing of cloth over door of freight car is breaking by force
6. Breaking of padlock is use of force upon things
- does not seem to be justified by any paragraphs of 302. cannot be breaking outside door
since only a padlock is broken. Cannot be also under use of false key because no false key
is used --> Reyes
7. Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority not in this
article
8. the receptacle must be closed or sealed
9. reyes| breaking of a crate containing a television set inside a building at the pier and
taking its contents is robbery
10. servant of the owner of an oil mill who takes away the key of the warehouse and hands
it to another who in turn opens the warehouse with that key and steals and takes away oil
from the warehouse is also guilty of robbery in an uninhabited house as principal by
conspiracy --> Reyes
11. It seems that the mere removal of closed or sealed receptacle under par. 5 is not
sufficient
- the phrase "even if the same be broken open elsewhere" does not indicate a condition or
requisite that the closed or sealed receptacle be broken after removing it
 Requires at least an intention to open it by force
12. taking of mail matter in any kind of robbery makes the penalty higher by one degree --
> last paragraph
13. Taking of large cattle is not punished under the RPC
14. Motor vehicle, coconuts and fish are not included
- if the culprit breaks the door of the garage which is a dependency of a dwelling house and
took a jeepney, the crime committed is punished under the anti-carnapping act
 Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things.
15. Penalty is based only on value of property taken
- offender's being armed is not important under this article for there is no person who can
be klled or injured
 Important under 299 for graduating penalty
16. robbery in a store| when punsihable under 299 or 302
 If store is used as a dwelling - 299
 Store was not actually occupied and was not used as a dwelling since the owner lived
in a separate house --> 302
 If the store is located on the ground floor of the house, having an interior entrance
connected therewith, it is a dependency of an inhabited house --> last par of 299
 
Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an uninhabited place or private
building. - In the cases enumerated in Articles 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 said articles.
 
Notes
1. only when robbery is committed with use of force upon things, without violence or
intimidation of any person can the penalty next lower in degree prescribed under this article
be imposed
-> otherwise it would fall under 294
2. cereals are seedlings which are the immediate product of the soil
 Palay must be kept by the owner as seedling or taken for that purpose by the
robbers
 
Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools. - Any person who shall without lawful
cause have in his possession picklocks or similar tools especially adopted to the commission
of the crime of robbery, shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period.
 
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall make such tools. If the
offender be a locksmith, he shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods.
 
Elements
1. Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools;
2. Such picklock or similar tools are especially adopted to the commission of robbery;
3. Offender does not have lawful cause for such possession.
 
Notes:
1. actual use of picklocks or similar tools is not necessary in illegal possession thereof
2. if the person who makes such tools is a locksmith, the penalty is higher
 
Article 305. False keys. - The term "false keys" shall be deemed to include:
1. The tools mentioned in the next preceding articles.
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
 
Notes
1. possession of false keys under par. 2 and 3 are not punishable
2. the key must be stolen, not having merely entrusted to him to be liable for robbery
 
Chapter Two BRIGANDAGE
 
Article 306. Who are brigands; Penalty. - When more than three armed persons form a
band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping
persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be
attained by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed highway robbers or
brigands.
 
Persons found guilty of this offense shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium period
to reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act or acts committed by them are not
punishable by higher penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such high penalties.
 
If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearms, it shall be
presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and in case of convictions the
penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period.
 
Elements of brigandage
1. There are least four armed persons;
2. They formed a band of robbers;
3. The purpose is any of the following:
a. To commit robbery in the highway;
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom; or
c. To attain by means of force and violence any other purpose
 
Notes:
1. Brigandage – This is a crime committed by more than three armed persons who form a
band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway or kidnapping
persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be
attained by means of force and violence.
2. Must be a band of robbers
3. The existence of any of the purposes mentioned in 306 is sufficient
4. purpose of organization must be any of purposes mentioned in this article
5. Presumption of law as to brigandage -- all are presumed highway robbers or brigands if
any of them carries unlicensed firearms -> max penalty
6. the arms carried by the members of the band of robbers may be any deadly weapon
7. The only things to prove
 Organization of at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers
 Purpose of the band is any of those enumerated
 That they went upon the highway or roamed upon the country for that purpose
 Accused is a member of such band
8. Previous activities considered in determining the existence of brigandage since they
prove purpose of the band
9. Highway includes city streets
- Philippine Highway. It shall refer to any road, street, passage, highway and bridges or
other parts thereof, or railway or 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.
- streets within as well as roads outside the cities are covered
10. prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period are for
brigandage only
- if they committed robbery with homicide or kidnapping with a demand for ranso, -->
penalty of these two offenses
11. Brigandage Robbery
Purpose: Robbery in band| purpose is only to commit robbery, not
a. To commit robbery in the highway; necessarily in the highway
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom; or
c. To attain by means of force and
violence any other purpose
 

Purpose is indiscriminate highway If the purposes is only a particular robbery, crime is only robber
robbery or robbery in band if there are at least four armed participants

Mere formation of a band for any of the Necessary to prove that the band actually committed robbery
enumerated purpose is sufficient
 
Article 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands. - Any person knowingly and in any
manner aiding, abetting or protecting a band of brigands as described in the next preceding
article, or giving them information of the movements of the police or other peace officers of
the Government (or of the forces of the United States Army), when the latter are acting in
aid of the Government, or acquiring or receiving the property taken by such brigands shall
be punished by prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum
period.
 
It shall be presumed that the person performing any of the acts provided in this article has
performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
 
Elements
1. There is a band of brigands;
2. Offender knows the band to be of brigands;
3. Offender 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 officers of
the government; or
c. He acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands.
 
Distinction between brigandage under the Revised Penal Code and highway
robbery/brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532:
(1) Brigandage as a crime under the Revised Penal Code refers to the formation of a band of
robbers by more than three armed persons for the purpose of committing robbery in the
highway, kidnapping for purposes of extortion or ransom, or for any other purpose to be
attained by force and violence. The mere forming of a band, which requires at least four
armed persons, if for any of the criminal purposes stated in Article 306, gives rise to
brigandage.
(2) Highway robbery/brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532 is the seizure of any
person for ransom, extortion or for any other lawful purposes, or the taking away of 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.
 
Brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532 refers to the actual commission of the
robbery on the highway and can be committed by one person alone. It is this brigandage
which deserves some attention because not any robbery in a highway is brigandage or
highway robbery. A distinction should be made between highway robbery/brigandage under
the decree and ordinary robbery committed on a highway under the Revised Penal Code.
 
In People v. Puno, decided February 17, 1993, the trial court convicted the accused of
highway robbery/ brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532 and sentenced them to
reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and found the
accused guilty of simple robbery as punished in Article 294 (5), in relation to Article 295,
and sentenced them accordingly. The Supreme Court pointed out that the purpose of
brigandage “is, inter alia, indiscriminate highway robbery. And that PD 532 punishes as
highway robbery or Brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately
against any person or persons on a Philippine highway as defined therein, not acts
committed against a predetermined or particular victim”. A single act of robbery against a
particular person chosen by the offender as his specific victim, even if committed on a
highway, is not highway robbery or brigandage.
 
In US v. Feliciano, 3 Phil. 422, it was pointed out that highway robbery or brigandage is
more than ordinary robbery committed on a highway. The purpose of brigandage is
indiscriminate robbery in highways. If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is
only robbery or robbery in band, if there are at least four armed participants.
 
Presidential Decree No. 532 introduced amendments to Article 306 and 307 by increasing
the penalties. It does not require at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers. It
does not create a presumption that the offender is a brigand when he an unlicensed firearm
is used unlike the Revised Penal Code. But the essence of brigandage under the Revised
Penal Code is the same as that in the Presidential Decree, that is, crime of depredation
wherein the unlawful acts are directed not only against specific, intended or preconceived
victims, but against any and all prospective victims anywhere on the highway and whoever
they may potentially be
 
Chapter Three: THEFT
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
 
Article 308. Who are liable for theft. - 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.
 
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove
or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or
which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the
same or shall gather cereals, or other forest or farm products.
 
Persons liable
1. Those who with intent to gain, but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor
force upon things, take personal property of another without the latter’s consent;
2. Those who having found lost property, fails to deliver the same to the local authorities or
to its owner; 3. Those who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another,
remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by them;
4. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another and, without the consent of its owner, hunt or fish upon the same or
gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products.
 
Elements
1. There is taking of personal property;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking was done with intent to gain;
4. The taking was done without the consent of the owner;
5. The taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons
of force upon things.
 
Notes:
1. snatching a shoulder bag hanging on the victim's left shoulder. Offender did not use any
violence, intimidation or force --> theft
2. stealing six roosters from their coop or cages in the yard of the OP's house --> theft
 Coop is not inside Op's house nor can it be considered as an dependency thereof
3. taking| taking away or carrying away of personal property is not required
 It is enough that the culprits have taken possession of the thing
4. there is no frustrated theft| only attempted or frustrated
 The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a
constitutive element of theft
 Theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property due to tits taking by
one with intent to gain
5. the offender must have the intention of making himself the owner of the thing taken
6. There is taking even if the offended party received the thing from the OP
 The actual transfer of possession may not always and by itself constitute the
unlawful taking, but an act done soon thereafter by the offender which may results in
unlawful taking or asportation
7. but if the accused received from another person in trust or on commission or for
administration or under a quasi-contract or a contract of bailmen, and later misappropriated
or converted the thing to the prejudice of another -> estafa
 Here the juridical possession is transferred to the offender
8. If there is not taking of personal property, the crime of theft is not committed
- People v. De los Reyes| wife who delivers to the husband property in her lawful possession
as depositary or pledgee, without knowledge or consent of the owner
 Husband pawned the property and used the proceeds as per understanding with this
wife
 He knew that the property did not belong to his wife
--> no theft: not taking or abstracting of the article from the owner
9. Personal property includes electricity and gas| valuable article of merchandise bought and
sold like other personal property and is capable or appropriation of another
- meter reader, in consideration of money, knowingly misread the electric meter --> theft
10. promissory note and check may be the object of theft
- of value to the OP
11. Theft of Checks
1. Payable to cash| Fund collections through check payments are personal properties
2. Payable to order| no commercial value
- not necessary that there is real or actual gain; it is enough that there is intent to
gain
3. dishonored check| taking of a dishonored check is an impossible crime (Jacinto v.
People)
12. subject of the crime of theft is any personal property belonging to another
 As long as the property taken does not belong to the accused who has a valid claim
there over, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a mere
possessor or even a thief of the property
13. selling the share of a partner or join owner is not theft
- before dissolution of the partnership or the division of the property held in common, no
part of the property of the partnership or the property held in common truly belongs to a
partner or a co-owner
14. employee is not the owner of separation pay which is not actually delivered to him
 Entitlement of such under the law does not automatically vest ownership of the
money to them
15. Ownership not transferred before goods are weighed or measured
16. Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to
another
 If a person takes personal property believing it to be his own, no theft
 One who takes personal property and avowedly under claim of title made in good
faith is not guilty of theft even though the claim of ownership is later found to be
untenable
 But where the accused took the harvested crops on the land cultivated by the
complainant who had been adjudged the owner of said land in a civil case brought by
the accused against him --> theft
- accused was not acting in good faith
18. there is still theft even if defendant did not take them for his own use but for another
19. Is there intent to gain when the employee took the papers of his employer and
delivered them to the government investigators as an act of revenge? Yes
 Gain is meant not only the acquisition of a thing useful to the purpose of life but also
the benefit which in any other use may be derived or expected from the act which is
performed
20. Actual or real gain not necessary in theft
 It is enough that on taking personal property, offender is actuated by the desire or
intent to gain
21. The consent contemplated in this element of theft refers to consent freely given and not
to one which may only be inferred from mere lack of opposition on the part of the owner of
the property taken
 Even if owner knew the taking but he did not consent to it, accused is still liable for
theft
22. allegation of owner's lack of consent cannot be dispensed with in charging an ordinary
theft
23. there is no theft when the taking of personal property is with the consent of the owner
 Accused took possession of the cattle in the presence of the cattleman charged with
the care thereof without any opposition or protest on his party --> not guilty of theft
 A taking which is done with consent or acquiescence of the owner is not felonious
24. Robbery Theft

Taking is against the will of the owner Enough that consent on the part of the owner is lacking
25. Taking of personal property must be accomplished without violence against or
intimidation of person
 A picked pocket of B, having taken b's wallet, A walked away. B felt that his wallet
was gone. He looked around and saw A just a few meters away. B approached A and
asked for his wallet. A threatened B with bodily harm, boxed the latter and ran away.
--> reyes| Theft
- the taking was already complete when A used violence against and intimidation of B
 The rule is different when the violence used resulted in homicide, rape, intentional
mutilation or serious physical injuries under par. 1 and 2 of 263
26. When no force or violence was employed in the taking, as the victim was already heavily
wounded
- taking was carried out after accused successfully carried out his primary criminal intent of
killing the victim --> separate charge of theft
27. It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely foreign to the fact of taking
- ex: a constabulary officer suspecting that B concealed and aided a band of robbers, tied b
in his house as a punishment. Several hours later, he took the money with intent to gain
from an open drawer of B
28. Unless the force is employed to enter a building the taking of personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain is theft and not robbery
 Except when force upon things is used on a furniture, chest or other locked or sealed
receptacle in the house or building or taken therefrom and broken outside
 Taking committed after destroying a part of the coral --> theft
 
Par No.1 Stolen property notes
29. when a person has in possession part of the recently stolen property, he is presumed to
be the thief of all, in the absence of satisfactory explanation of his possession
- the rule applies only when all the goods where lost at the same time
- did not apply in this case| when all recently stolen effects, like carabaos, have been found
and recovered, one in possession of the accused and another in the pasture, untied
30. Presumption of intent to steal is rebutted by showing that the accused took the personal
property under a bona fide belief that he owns the property
31. lost property under par. 1 embraces loss by stealing
- lost used in a generic sense| embraces loss by stealing or by any act of a person other
than the owner as well as the act by the owner himself or through some casual occurrence
32. In this kind of theft, it is necessary to prove
 Time of the seizure of the thing
 That it was a lost property belonging to another
 That the accused having had the opportunity to return or deliver the lost property to
its owner or to the local authorities, refrained from doing so
33. 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 his house to get it
34. Par No.1 of 308 is not limited to actual finder
- finder in law| one given possession of lost property in order to give it to another (like a
policeman)
- finder acquires physical custody only and does not become vested with the legal
possession of the thing
- the gist of this offense is the furtive taking and misappropriation of the property found
25. the law does not require knowledge of the owner of the lost property
- as long as the accused knew or had reason to know that the property was lost, it was his
duty to turn it over to the authorities
26. Intent to gain is inferred from deliberate failure to deliver lost property to the proper
person
27. finder of hidden treasure who misappropriated the share pertaining to the owner of the
property is guilty of theft as regards that share
 
Paragraph No.3 Hunting fishing or gathering fruits, etc., in enclosed estate notes
1. Elements:
 That there is an enclsed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another
 The offender enters the same
 The offender hunts or fishes upon the same or gathers fruits, cereals or other forest
or farm products in the estate or field
 The hunting or fishing or gathering of products is without consent of the owner
2. fishing should not be in the fishpond or fishery within the field or estate
- this would be qualified theft under 310
 
PD 534
1. fishing with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by the use of
electricity is penalized under this law
2. Dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products is penalized also under this law
 
PD 581
1. highgrading or theft of gold is punished here
2. section 1: Any person who shall take gold-bearing ores or rocks from a mining claim or
mining camp or shall remove, collect or gather gold-bearing ores or rocks in place or shall
extract or remove the gold from such ores or rocks, or shall prepare and treat such ores or
rocks to recover or extract the gold contents thereof, without the consent of the operator of
the mining claim, shall be guilty of "highgrading" or theft of gold and shall suffer a penalty
of prision-correccional in its minimum period, but if the accused is an employee or laborer of
the operator of the mining claim, the penalty shall be prision-correccional in medium period
without prejudice to the imposition of the higher penalties provided in Article 309 of the
Revised Penal Code if the value of the goods stolen so warrants. The penalty next lower in
degree than that prescribed hereinabove shall be imposed if the offense is frustrated, and
the penalty two degrees lower if the offense is attempted.
3. Section 3| buyer of stolen gold-bearing ores or rocks or gold removed therefrom shall be
guilty of theft as an accessory
 
PD No. 401
1. use of tampered water or electrical meters is punished here
2. theft of electricity can be effected without illegal or unauthorized installations
 Turning back the dials of the electric meter
 Fixing the electric meter in such a manner that it will not register the actual electric
consumption
 Under reading of electric consumption
 Tightening the screw of rotary blades to slow down rotation of the same
 
Additional notes:
1.theft is not a continuing offense since carrying away is not an essential element of theft
 
Art. 309. Penalties. - Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
 
"1. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
thing stolen is more than One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000) but does
not exceed Two million two hundred thousand pesos (₱2,200,000); but if the value of the
thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one
prescribed in this paragraph, and one (1) year for each additional One million pesos
(₱1,000,000), but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty
(20) years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be
termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
 
"2. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of
the thing stolen is more than Six hundred thousand pesos (₱600,000) but does not exceed
One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000).
 
"3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of
the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000) but does not exceed Six
hundred thousand pesos (₱600,000).
 
"4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if the
value of the property stolen is over Five thousand pesos (₱5,000) but does not exceed
Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000).
 
"5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over Five hundred pesos (₱500) but does
not exceed Five thousand pesos (₱5,000).
 
"6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed Five
hundred pesos (₱500).
 
"7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000), if the theft is
committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding
article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed Five hundred pesos (₱500). If such
value exceeds said amount, the provisions of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be
made applicable.
 
"8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine of not exceeding Five thousand pesos
(₱5,000), when the value of the thing stolen is not over Five hundred pesos (₱500), and the
offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a
livelihood for the support of himself or his family."
 
 
Art. 310. Qualified theft. The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher
by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed
by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor
vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a
plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of
fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or
civil disturbance.
 
Theft is qualified if
1. Committed by a domestic servant;
2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence;
3. The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or large cattle;
4. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation;
5. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; or 6. If property is taken on
the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident, or civil disturbance
 
Elements of Qualified Theft
1. that there is taking of personal property
2.That the said property belongs to another
3. that the said taking be done with intent to gain
4. Accomplished without the owner's consent
5. that it be accomplished without use of violence or intimidation against persons nor use of
force upon things
6. that it be done with grave abuse of confidence
 
Notes:
1. theft by domestic servant is always qualified
- it is not necessary to show that he committed the crime with grave abuse of confidence
2. the abuse of confidence must be grave
- there must allegation in the information and proof of a relation, by reason of dependence,
guardianship or vigilance, between the accused and OP, that has created a high degree of
confidence between them, which the accused abused
3. accused who was permitted to sleep in the house of the OP out of charity and then stole
the latter's money
4. Not QT: employed never given him the possession of the machines stolen or allowed him
to take hold of them and it does not appear that the former had any special confidence in
him
5. Simple theft, not qualified theft when there was no confidence reposed on the accused
- accused is the caretaker of complainant's pets
- main doors of her house were destroyed and properties were stolen
--> the fact that doors were forced open negates the presence of confidence reposed on the
accused
6. theft by housemate is not always qualified
- the fact of living together might be accidental and the goods stolen might not have been
entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused
7. Theft by laborer is not qualified theft
8. theft by one who had access to the place where the stolen property is kept is qualified
theft
9. theft of any material, spare part, product or article by employees and laborers is heavily
punished
- prision correction to prision mayor --> PD No. 133
 It is essential and necessary to aver in the body of the information that the articles
stolen were materials or products which the accused was working on, using or
producing
10. Use of safe combination learned by confidential clerk is a grave abuse of confidence
11. taking of money in his possession by receiving teller of bank is qualified theft
- his possession was the possession of the bank
- no juridical possession
12. Qualified theft through falsification of commercial document
- forged the signature of officers authorized to sign the subject check and had the check
deposited a fictitious payee without any legitimate transaction with Metrobank
- as assistant cashier, had custody of the aforesaid checks and had access not only in the
preparation but also in the release of metrobank cashier's checks
13. the confidence gravely abused must be that existing between the offended party and
the offender
14. Industrial partner is not liable for qualified theft
- has material and juridical possession of the property to be soled
15. the novation theory applies only when there Is contractual relationship between the
accused and the complainant
16. If the property stolen is mail matter, it is qualified regardless whether the offender is a
postal employee or a private individual
17. but a postmaster, to whom a letter containing posta money order was delivered to be
forwarded by registered mail, who opened it and abstracted the postal money order
enclosed therein, was held guilty of faithlessness in the custody of documents --> 226
18. if the person who took the letter containing postal money order is a private individual,
the crime would be qualified theft, the property taken being a mail matter
19. Is it qualified theft if the mail matter is taken from the possession of the addressee
- law is silent on this point: all that is says is "if the property stolen is xxx mail matter"
 
Art. 311. Theft of the property of the National Library and National Museum.— If the
property stolen be any property of the National Museum, the penalty shall be arresto mayor
or a fine ranging from Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) to One hundred thousand pesos
(₱100,000), 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
 
- theft of property of national library or museum has a fixed penalty regardless of its value
 
Chapter Four: USURPATION
 
Art. 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. - Any person
who, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any
real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another, in addition to
the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him, shall be punished by a fine
from fifty (50) to one hundred (100) per centum of the gain which he shall have obtained,
but not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (₱15,000).
 
If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine from Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000)
to One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000) shall be imposed.
 
Acts punished:
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. Offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights in property;
2. The real property or 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.
 
Notes
1. real property or real rights must belong to another
- if Defendant had shown he was the owner and the OP was merely a possessor --> not
usurpation
 If defendant used violence or intimidation --> grave coercion
2. There is only civil liability if there is no violence or intimidation in taking possession of
real property
3. violence or intimidation must be the means used in occupying real property or usurping
real right belonging to another
4. 312 does not apply to a case of open defiance of the writ of execution issued in forcible
entry case
5. Criminal action for usurpation of real property, not a bar to civil action for forcible entry
6. Nature of crime
- not a complex crime as defined under 48
 Provides a single albeit two-tiered penalty consisting of a principal penalty for acts of
violence and an additional penalty of fine based on the value of gain obtained
7. in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him
- accused may still be held liable for violation of 312 but the accused may still suffer
sentences for other acts of violence, intimidation, physical injuries.
8. theft and robbery Usurpation

Taking or asportation Occupation or usurpation

Personal property Real property or real right

Intent to gain Intent to gain

9. RA No. 947 punishes entering or occupying public agricultural land including public lands
granted to private individuals
 
Art. 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks. - Any person who shall alter the boundary
marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same, shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000), or both
 
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. Offender alters said boundary marks.
3. Intent to gain or fraudulent intent is not necessary for the crime to exist
 Offense consist in carrying out a felonious intent to usurp realty
4. alter| any alteration of boundary marks is enough to constitute the material element of
the crime
- destruction of stone monument or taking it to another place or removing a fence is
altering
 
Chapter Five CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
 
Article 314. Fraudulent insolvency. - Any person who shall abscond with his property to the
prejudice of his creditors, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor, if he be a merchant and
the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
period, if he be not a merchant.
 
Elements
1. Offender is a debtor, that is, he has obligations due and payable;
2. He absconds with his property;
3. There is prejudice to his creditors.
 
Notes
1. actual prejudice, not intention alone is required
2. Being a merchant is not an element of the offense; merely deserves a higher penalty
3. Real property could be involved
4. The person prejudiced must be the creditor of the offender
 
Chapter Six: SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
 
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
 
1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand
pesos (₱2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos
(₱4,400,000), and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional Two
million pesos (₱2,000,000); but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed
twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be
termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
 
2nd. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount
of the fraud is over One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000) but does not
exceed Two million four hundred thousand pesos (₱2,400,000).
 
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its
minimum period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) but does not
exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000).
 
4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed
Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000): Provided, That in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be
committed by any of the following means:
 
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
 
(a) altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value which the offender shall
deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an
immoral or illegal consideration.
 
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any
other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond;
or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
 
(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by
writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party
or any third person.
 
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
 
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits.
 
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.
 
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action
for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In
this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
 
(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. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three (3) clays from receipt of notice from the bank
and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
funds shall be prime facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
 
Any person who shall defraud another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts as
defined in paragraph 2(d) hereof shall be punished by:
 
1st The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, if the amount of fraud is over
Four million four hundred thousand pesos (₱4,400,000) but does not exceed Eight million
eight hundred thousand pesos (₱8,800,000). If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua.
 
2nd. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount
of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos (₱2,400,000) but does not
exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (₱4,400,000).
 
3rd. The penalty of prisión mayor in its maximum period, if the amount of the fraud is over
One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000) but does not exceed Two million four
hundred thousand pesos (₱2,400,000).
 
4th. The penalty of prisión mayor in its medium period, if such amount is over Forty
thousand pesos (₱40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos
(₱1,200,000).
 
5th. By prisión mayor in its minimum period, if such amount does not exceed Forty
thousand pesos (₱40,000).
 
3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
 
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
 
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.
 
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files,
document or any other papers.
 
Elements in general
1. Accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit;
- and This covers the three different ways of committing estafa under Article 315; thus,
estafa is committed –
a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
b. By means of false pretenses or fraudulents acts; or
c. Through fraudulent means.
 
(The first form under subdivision 1 is known as estafa with abuse of confidence; and the
second and third forms under subdivisions 2 and 3 cover estafa by means of deceit.)
 
2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person
 
Notes:
1. Deceit is not an essential requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence
2. Where there is fraudulent conversion or misappropriation of the property received in
trust, on commission, for administration, or under any other obligation involving duty to
make delivery of or to return the same, deceit is not an essential element of estafa
3. The second element is the basis of the penalty
 
With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
 
(a) altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value which the
offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such
obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration.
 
1.Elements of estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Article 315 (1)
paragraph (a)
1. Offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value;
2. He alters its substance, quantity, or quality;
3. Damage or prejudice is caused to another.
2. there must be an existing obligation to deliver something of value
3. the delivery of anything of value must be by virtue of an onerous obligation to do so
 Thus, if the thing delivered had not been fully or partially paid for when it was
received by the other party, the person making the delivery is not liable for estafa
4. Altering substance| tin cans: others contained opium while some contained molasses
5. Altering substance may constitute a violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics act
6. altering the quantity of the thing the accused promised to deliver
7. Altering quality| first class rice promised but B received a poor kind of rice
8. When there is no agreement as to the quality of the thing to be delivered, the delivery of
the thing not acceptable to the complainant is not estafa
9. the Crime of estafa may arise even if the thing to be delivered under the obligation to
deliver it, s not a subject of lawful commerce
 
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods,
or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission,
or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or
partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods,
or other property.
 
1. Elements:
1. Money, goods, or other personal property is received by the offender is trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return, the same;
2. There is misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender,
or denial on his part of such receipt;
3. Such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
4. There is a demand made by the offended party to the offender. (The fourth element
is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the
defendant. [Tubb v. People, et al., 101 Phil. 114] ).
2. Check is included in the word money
 Commercial usage| a substitute for cash and capable of appropriation
 Delivery of check has the effect, when cashed, of transferring as of the date and in
that place where and when it was delivered (civil law)
 Acceptance of the check note merely signified transfer of money but also the creation
of a fiduciary relation between the parties
3. Money goods or other personal property must be received by the offender
 When the offender receives from OP in trust or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the
same, he acquires juridical possession and not just physical or material possession of
the thing
4. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the trasnferee a right over the thing
which the trasnferee may set up even against the owner
5. When the delivery of chattel has not the effect of transferring the juridical possesion
thereof or title thereto, it is resumed that the possession of and title to the thing so
delivered remain in the owner
6. an agent, unlike a servant or messenger, has both the physical and juridical possession
of the goods received in agency or the proceeds thereof
7. The thing received in trust, example: tenants received from the sale of the abaca
harvested by them a sum of money but did not deliver half of the share of the proceeds to
the landowner
- note: the share of the purchase is what is received in trust for the landowner here not the
abaca
8. Under Presidential Decree No. 115, the failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds
of the sale of the goods, documents, or instruments covered by a trust receipt, to the extent
of the amount owing to the entruster, or as appearing in the trust receipt; or the failure to
return said goods, documents, or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in
accordance with the terms of the trust receipt constitute estafa.
 A trust receipt is one where the entrustee has the obligation to deliver to the
entruster the price of the sale or if the merchandise is not sold, to return the
merchandise to the entruster
 When the goods subject of the receipt are not intended for sale, the transaction is a
loan
8. The thing was received on commission, example:
- A received .25 P from B with obligation to pay it as slaughter fee to the municipal
treasurer. A received some pork from C, promising to pay .25P, representing the cost of the
pork, to the municipal treasurer as slaughter fee in the name of C. A failed to make the
payment for C and B and spent the money of B
 .25P received from B, there is estafa
 As to his promise to pay .25 to the municipal treasurer in consideration of some pork
received from C, there is no estafa
- the title under which A received the .25 from B was that of a commission consisting
in the instruction to deliver the same to the municipal treasurer
- as regards the failure of A to pay to the treasurer, the .25 representing the cost of
the pork received from C, there is no estafa since the law requires that the thing
received must be the same thing to be delivered, and not to another
--> note: A did not receive any money from C to be delivered to the treasurer. What A
received from C was a kilo of pork
9. the thing was received for administration
- adminstrator appointed by the court, received money or other personal property in such
capacity and misappropriated it for his personal benefit
- accused collected a sum of money as rentals from tenants but did not account and turn
over to his employer upon demand
10. the phrase "or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same" includes quasi-contracts and certain contracts of bailment
 In quasi-contracts, the person who receives the thing also acquires juridical
possession of the thing received
 In contracts of baliment, (deposit, lease of personal property, commodatum, etc) the
depositor or borrower acquires also juridical possession of the thing deposited with him
or leased to him or loaned to him
11. The thing was received under a quasi-contract
- mistakenly received a box of sinamay and declared that he knew nothing about it
 He received such under such circumstances to give rise to an obligation to return it
or make delivery to the owner
12. The thing was received under a contract of bailment
 Deposit| accused indorsed a stock certificate received from the OP -- as a guarantee
for the payment of certain shares of crown mines -- to a bank and because of such the
OP could not recover her certificate of stock
- used the pledge for a distinct purpose --> estafa
 Lease of personal property| hired a truck for 10 pesos from OP. but the truck was
never returned but sold to another person
- people v Isaac| owner of a jeepney hired the accused on a temporary basis and
entrusted the vehicle for pasada; arrangement was to turn in not all the fare collected
but a certain some of money
--> accused did not acquire juridical possession but only an employee or agent of the
owner; his possession was only an extension of the latter
 Commodatum| a loan for use. Here, the bailor retains the ownership of the thing
loaned
- example: A borrowed a book from b but despite repeated demands to return it after
two days, he failed to return such because he had sold it already.
13. The obligation to return or deliver the thing must be contractual without transferring to
the accused the ownership of the thing
- 315 No. 1 (b) does not apply when the contract between the accused and the complainant
has the effect of transferring to the accused the ownership of the thing received
 Loan of money| ownerhsip passes to the borrower
 Contract of purchase and sale| transfer of ownership
--> in these cases, the accused did not receive the money or thing under the obligation to
return or make delivery of the same
14. When the ownership of the thing is transferred to the person who has received it, his
failure to return it will give rise to civil liability only
 Contract of purchase and sale
 Cash advance| money advanced to the employee is actually a loan to him; thus, he
has no obligation to return the same cash or money
15. In estafa with abuse of confidence under par. B subdivision no.1, the very same thing
received must be returned, if there is an obligation to return it. If there is no obligation
to return the very same thing received, because ownership is transferred, there is only civil
liability
 Sale of property on trial basis| retaining it will revert such transaction to a contract
of sale --> no estafa
 Money market transaction| partakes of a nature of a loan and nonpayment of such
would not give rise to criminal liability
- in money market transaction, the investor is a lender who loans his money to a
borrower through a middleman or dealer
16. When the transaction of purchase and sale fails, there is no estafa if the accused
refused to return the advance payment
- note: advance payment is subject to the disposal of the vendor
17. there is no estafa when the money received by the accused is not to be used for a
particular purpose or to be returned
- a person receiving money from another and failing to return it does not commit the crime
of estafa unless it is clearly demonstrated that he received it for safekeeping, or on
commission, or for administration or under any other circumstances giving rise to
the obligation to make delivery or to return the same
 US v. villareal| money paid in advance to purchase hats was actually a loan -- civil
liability only
18. Amounts paid by the students to the school to answer for the value of materials broken
are not mere deposits
- if there's no showing that the college undertook to keep safe the money in question and
return it later to each student in the very same coins or bills in which it had been originally
receved
- debtor and creditor and not one of depositor and depository
--> loan, and not a deposit
19. there is no estafa if the thing is received under a contract of sale on credit
20. Criminal liability of estafa not affected by novation of contract
-People vs. benitez| collector of rent, failed to turn over or account for it. Offered to wok
and agreed that his salary will be deducted for the unaccounted rentals. Reported for a few
days and did not report any more after that
 He had already misappropriated the amount
 Rule: in order that novation may relieve the offender of estafa, the novation must
take place before he incurred criminal liability
21. Novation is not one of the means recognized by the RPC to extinguish criminal liability;
its role is merely to either prevent the rise of criminal or to cast doubt upon the true nature
of the original petition
 Civil law| acceptance of partial payments does not give rise to novation since in
novation there must be proof of intent to extinguish the original relationship
 
Second element of estafa under par. b, subdivision no. 1, 315: There is
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his
part of such receipt
22. converting connotes the act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were
one's own. Misappropriating means to own, to take something for one's own benefit
--> both connote the act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own
or devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon
23. Pledging a thing by the accused which was received by him only to be sold on
commission, constitutes the crime of estafa
 Sold for a lower price than the one fixed, not estafa
24. Deposit of money received in trust by accused in his personal account and his failure to
account for it on demand is estafa
25. Where petitioner sold jewelry on credit despite the explicit terms of the agreement
prohibiting selling on credit, petitioner used the property for a purpose other than that
agreed upon
26. The law makes no distinction between permanent and temporary misappropriation
- US vs Sevilla| accused took a sum of money out of the funds of manila railroad and
replaced it with his personal check. He sued said amount for his own personal benefit
27. does the momentary use by the agent of funds belonging to his principal constitute
estafa?
- reyes: in such momentary use, agent has no intention to defraud his principal
 Fraudulent intent is necessary in estafa
28. The crime of estafa under 315 par. 1 (b) is not committed when there is neither
misappropriation nor conversion
 Used only a part of money for materials and nothing for labor agreed upon; no proof
of misappropriaton or conversion --> no estafa
 Delay in the fulfillment of a trust or in the delivery of the sum received on such
account only involves civil liability
29. When is an agent who gave to a sub-agent the thing received from his principal, guilty
of misappropriation or conversion?
- the law on agency allows the appointment by an agent of a substitute or sub-agent in the
absence of an express agreement to the contrary between the agent and the principal
- if the agent acted in conspiracy or in connivance with the one who carried out the actual
misappropriation, then the accused would be answerable for the acts of his co-conspirators
30. Witholding of money received by agent
- depends on good faith or bad faith
31. Can an agent with a right to a commission who collected money for the principal be held
liabe for estafa, if he failed to turn over that part of his collection to the latter? It depends
 If he is authorized to retain his commission out of the amounts collected, there is no
estafa
 Otherwise, he will be guilty because a right to a commission does not make an agent
a joint owner
- People v. Jumawan| accused retained an amount collected by him since the larger amount
due and payable to him were not paid
 Not guilty of estafa| unjustly exploited; no damage or prejudice to his principal
 
Third element of estafa with abuse of confidence: Damage or prejudice is caused
to another
32. "to the prejudice of another| not necessarily of the owner of the property
- a third party could also suffer damage
 
Partnership
33. When the money or property had been received by a partner for specific purpose and he
later misappropriated it, such partner is guilty of estafa
34. A co-owner is not liable for estafa, but he is liable if, after the termination of co-
ownership, he misappropriates the thing which has become the exclusive property of the
other
- Mercado v. People| accused advanced a portion to the selling the land provided that the
buyer would pay it back with interest. She then registered title in her own name instead of
the buyer then sold it to another buyer. But before the said sale, the first buyer had already
paid the accused the amount advanced by her with interest
 At the time of the sale to the other buyer, the accused had no more interest in the
property
 
Fourth element of estafa with abuse of confidence: There is a demand made by the
offended party to the offender.
35. The mere failure to return the thing received for safekeeping or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same, does not constitute estafa
36. Demand is not necessary in estafa through misappropriation or conversion
27. demand need not be formal, it may be verbal
 A query as to the whereabouts of the money is tantamount to a demand
28. demand is not required by law but it is necessary because failure to account upon
demand is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation
29. there is no estafa through negligence
 Profit or gain must be obtained by the accused personally through his own acts, and
his mere negligence in permitting another to take advantage or benefit from the
entrusted chattel cannot constitute estafa
30.even though such obligation be totally r partially guaranteed by a bond
 A mortgage executed by the agent or salesman or a surety bond filed by the agent
to answer for damages advances does not relive him from criminal liability for this
undertaking refers only to his civil liability
31 Gravity of the crime of estafa is determined on the basis of the amount not returned
before the institution of criminal action
32. estafa with abuse of confidence Theft
Juridical possession Received but acquired only physical or material possession

Receives the thing from OP Takes the thing

33. The test to distinguish estafa from theft
- in theft upon the delivery of the thing to the offender, the owner expects an immediate
return of the thing to him
- when the owner does not expect immediate return of the thing he delivered to the
accused, the misappropriation of the same is estafa
 Exception: when the servant received money or other personal property from the
master, with an obligation to deliver it to a third person and instead of doing so
misappropriated it --> qualified theft
34. servant, domestic or employee who misappropriates the thing he received from his
master or employer is not guilty of estafa
- only material possession
25. Possession of an agent Possession of teller of bank

Can assert as against his principal a independent autonomous right to Mere custodian or keeper of
retain the money or goods received in consequence of the agency the funds received
26. selling the thing received to be pledged for the owner is theft, when the intent to
appropriate existed at the time it was received
- such intent to appropriate existing at the time it was received could be shown by the
accused act of immediately offering the thing pledged for sale --> People v. trinidad
27. estafa with abuse of confidence Malversation

In both, offenders are entrusted with funds  

Private funds Public funds

Both are continuing offenses  

Offender is a private individual or even a public Usually a public officer who is accountable for public
officer who is not accountable for public funds or funds or property
property

Committed by misappropriating, converting or Committed by appropriating, taking or

denying havin received money goods or other misappropriating or consenting or through
personal property abandonment or negligence, permitting any other
person to take the public funds or property
28. When in the prosecution for malversation, the public officer accountable for public funds
is acquitted, the private individual allegedly in conspiracy with him may be held liable for
estafa
- estafa through falsification of documents is necessarily included in a charge of
malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents
29. when the policeman asked for the pistol of the OP on the pretext that it should be
delivered for examination but later on sold it -> estafa
30. Policeman having custody of a firearm seized from a person without permit to possess
it, is guilty of malversation
 
Estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature of the bank
1. Elements
 1. The paper with the signature of the offended party is in blank;
 2. Offended party delivered it to the offender;
  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 offended
party or any third person.
2. The paper with the signature in blank must be delivered by the offended party to the
offender
 If not, could be falsification
 
Estafa by means of deceit (subdivisions No.2 and 3)
1. elements
 There must be false pretenses or fraudulent acts or fraudulent means
 Such false pretense , fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud
 The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means that he was induced to part with his money or property because of
the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
 That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage
2. there is no deceit if the complainant was aware of the fictitious nature of the pretense
3. Acts punished under paragraph (a)
1. Using fictitious name;
2. Falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions; or
3. By means of other similar deceits.
4. Indispensable requirement for 315 No. 2(a)| deceit or false pretense must be the efficient
cause which induced the OP to part with his money or property
5. there is use of fictitious name when a person uses a name other than his real name
6. estafa by pretending to possess power
- piece of paper sa payment, believed to be an instrument of converting could make coin
and paper money
- pretending to be a magician endowed with power to discover hidden treasures
7. estafa by falsely pretending to have influence
- representation that he had influence in malacanang and because of that representation OP
give him money so that he could establish permanent residence in the philippines
8. estafa by falsely pretending to have qualifications
- fake lawyer; obtained title deeds of lands
9. Estafa by falsely pretending to possess property
- ordered materials on the pretense that he was building a house and had sufficient funds to
pay
 Disposed of the materials
- misrepresenting he was the owner of legarda pine home but was only a general manager;
offered to sell two units for a town house to be built; collected down payments but said
town houses were never built
10. A creditor who deceived his debtor is liable for estafa
- People v. Rubato| accused conceived of a plan by which he could obtain from Jaud the
sum of 3,00 which jaud owed to him
 Still guilty| the plan carried a criminal intent to defraud
11. Estafa by falsely pretending to possess credit
- stating to be employees of a certain photo supply and that they were merchants or credit
12.estafa by falsely pretending to possess agency
- pretended to be the depositary of certain goods; and because of such he succeeded in
obtaining the goods which he converted for his own use.
13. Estafa by falsely pretending to possess business
- falsely pretending to be in the businesses of buying and selling hogs; for this reason OP
departed money
- a branch manager of an insurance company who still accepted a fire insurance application
despite his knowledge from newspapers that the insurance company has been suspended
 Liable for estafa for not returning the premium he received
 Deliberate concealment
14. Illegal recruitment under RA no. 8042, is committed by persons who without authority
from government give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for
employment purposes
15. Illegal recruitment is also punishable under 315 par. 2(a) --> accused can be held liable
for both
16. In estafa by means of deceit, there must be evidence that the pretense of the accused
that he possesses power, influence, etc., is false
17. the fact that make the false pretense must exist prior to or simultaneous with the
execution of the fraud
18. the offended party must be deprived of his property by any of the false pretenses
mentioned in paragraph 2(a)
19 estafa by means of deceit Theft

Receives; there is juridical possession of Taking; but may receive property but only has material
the thing possession of it
20. Where commission salesman took back the machines from prospective customers and
misappropriated them, the crime is theft, not estafa
21. estafa through falsification of document
- when the offender comits on a public official or commercial document any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in 171 as a necessary means to commit another crime like estafa,
theft or malversation, the two crimes form a complex crime.
22. No complex crime of estafa and falsification of private documents
- damage essential to both is the same
23. Estafa through false pretense made in writing is only a simple crime of estafa, not a
complex crime of estafa through falsification
 People v. samonte| represented herself to be unmarried by adding to her maiden
name the family name of her deceased husband in order to cash pension checks.
- her remarriage could have barred her from receiving such pension
- she knew of such
24. Attempted estafa through forgery
- forging a sweepstakes ticket; but when presented to PCSTO the forgery was noticed and
accused failed to get the prize
25. Fraud in estafa by means of deceit must be proved with clear and convincing evidence
26. Estafa by means of other similar deceits
- presenting a deed of donation mortis causa known to be vitiated by lack of consent
 
Under paragraph (b) Altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything
pertaining to his art or business.
- giving a lower quality of diamond in a ring
- Fraudulent manipulation of scale is punished under the consumer act of the Philippines
 
Under paragraph (c) Pretending to have bribed any government employee,
without prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem
proper to bring against the offender.
- committed by any person who would ask money from another for the alleged purpose of
bribing a government employee, when in truth and in fact the offender intended to convert
the money to his own personal benefit
 But if he gives to really to a public officer, the crime is corruption of public officer
- without prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to
bring against the offender.
 In addition to estafa, the offender may still be liable for defamation which the
government employee allegedly bribe may deem proper to bring against the offender
 
Estafa by means of fraudulent acts
- act must be characterized by or founded on deceit, trick or cheating
- false pretenses --> use of deceitful words
- fraudulent acts --> principally in deceitful acts
 Performed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud
 Like other forms of deceit, offender must be able to obtain something from the OP
because of the fraudulent acts, that is, without which, the OP would not have parted
with it
 
(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. The failure of the drawer of the check
to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) clays from
receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has
been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prime facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
1. elements:
 Offender postdated a check, or issued a check in payment of an obligation;
 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.
2. The check issued must be genuine and not falsified
 If the check is falsified and the same is cashed with the bank or exchanged for cash
then it is estafa through falsification of a commercial document
 Signing a check with a fictitious name and pretending that said check could be
cashed at the bank -> estafa by means of false pretenses
3. The check must be postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the
time of the issuance and delivery of the check
 Paragraph d applies if:
(1) The obligation is not pre-existing;
(2) The check is drawn to enter into an obligation; (Remember that it is the
check that is supposed to be the sole consideration for the other party to have entered
into the obligation. For example, Rose wants to purchase a bracelet and draws a check
without insufficient funds. The jeweler sells her the bracelet solely because of the
consideration in the check.)
(3) It does not cover checks where the purpose of drawing the check is to guarantee a
loan as this is not an obligation contemplated in this paragraph
4. the false pretense or fraudulent act must be executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; and because of such the OP was able to obtain money, goods or
other personal property from OP
5.Must not be promissory note or guaranties| since this is in payment of an existing
obligation
6. When accused did not have to assure the payee that checks would be sufficiently funded
on maturity, there is no estafa
- People v. Cardenas| issuance of the check was not the means to obtain jewelry
 Accused and OP had prior transactions and one some of such, some checks were
dishonored
--> to constitute estafa, issuance of the check should be the means to obtain
money or property from the payee
7. the accused must be able to obtain something from the OP by means of the check he
issues and delivers
8. The general rule is that the accused must be able to obtain something from the offended
party by means of the check he issued and delivered.
 Exception: when the check is issued not in payment of an obligation
- Pacheco v. CA| checks here were not issued for encashment with the bank but were
delivered as mere security for the payment of the loan and under an agreement that
the checks would be redeemed with cash as they fell due
10. When the check is issued by a guaranto, there is no estafa
- not in payment of an obligation
11. it is not a defense that the drawer, through oversight, did not know that he had
insufficient or no funds in the bank. He should verify first the amount of his deposit before
postdating or issuing a check
 Deceit is presumed if the drawer fails to deposit the amount necessary to cover the
check within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor or insufficiency of funds in
the bank.
 Not sufficient to convict accused of estafa but merely establishes prima facie
evidence
 Note: if the drawer of the check is able to deposit the amount necessary to cover his
check within three days from receipt of notice , he is not liable for estafa
12. good faith is a defense
- may be shown by a debtor's offer to make arrangement to pay
13. If the checks were issued by the defendant and he received money for them, then
stopped payment and did not return the money, and he had an intention to stop payment
when he issued the check, there is estafa.
14. DAIF DAUD

Lacks funds in his account to pay the Has on its face sufficient funds but not available at the time the
check check was drawn

Subjects liability to estafa or BP 22 Does not

15. The person who uses the check issued by another, knowing that the drawer had no
sufficient funds, and used the same in the purchase of goods, is guilty of estafa
16. The payee or person receiving the check must be defrauded
17. Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing crime
 
 
Estafa through any of the following fraudulent means under Article 315 (3)
 
Under paragraph (a)
1. Offender induced the offended party to sign a document;
2. Deceit was employed to make him sign the document;
3. Offended party personally signed the document;
4. Prejudice was caused.
 
Notes
1. the offender must induce the Op to sign the document
  If the Op is willing and ready to sign the document and there is deceit as to the
contents of the document --> falsification
 Estafa| there is misrepresentation to mislead the complainant as to the character of
the documents executed by them
2. Deceit must be employed
- there must be misrepresentation
 
Under paragraph (b) Resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling
game;
- the rule in civil law that no action can be filed on an immoral or illegal contract has no
application in the prosecution of estafa
 
Under paragraph (c)
1. Offender removed, concealed or destroyed;
2. Any court record, office files, documents or any other papers;
3. With intent to defraud another.
 
Notes
1. If there is no intent to defraud, the act of destroying court record will be malicious
mischief
- if the offender destroys the record of a criminal case for the purpose of affording immunity
to the persons accused
2. The act of destroying a promissory note given to cover losses in gambling is prima facie
guilty of estafa
3. Infidelity in the custody of documents Estafa

Offender is a public officer who is officially Offender is a private individual or even a public officer who
entrusted with the documents is not officially entrusted with the documents

Not required Intent to defraud

4. elements of deceit and abuse of confidence may co-exist
5. if there is no deceit, no abuse of confidence, there is no estafa, even if there is damage;
there is only civil liability
 
Second element in general: Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused to the offended party or third person
1. element damage may consist in:
 OP being deprived of his money or property, as result of the defraudation
 Disturbance in property rights
- typewriter rented but sold to another
 Temporary prejudice
- issued a check to the accused who misrepresented to be an employee; while said
check was in his possession, OP could not withdraw it
2. Payment made subsequent to the commission of estafa does not extinguish criminal
liability or reduce the penalty
3. A private person who procures a loan by means of deceit through a falsified public
document of mortgage, but who effects full settlement of the loan within the period agreed
upon does not commit the crime of estafa
- no disturbance of property rights, no prejudice to third party
4. accused cannot be convicted of estafa with abuse of confidence under an information
alleging estafa by means of deceit
5. complex crime of estafa and theft
- took pawnshop tickets of another without his consent and used such tickets in redeeming
jewels using (using a fictitious name)
 
Article 316. Other forms of swindling. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium period and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more
than three times such value, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real property, shall convey, sell,
encumber or mortgage the same.
2. Any person, who, knowing that real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same,
although such encumbrance be not recorded.
3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor,
to the prejudice of the latter or any third person.
4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract.
5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him under the belief that it was in
payment of services rendered or labor performed by him, when in fact he did not actually
perform such services or labor.
6. Any person who, while being a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action, without
express authority from the court or before the cancellation of his bond or before being
relieved from the obligation contracted by him, shall sell, mortgage, or, in any other
manner, encumber the real property or properties with which he guaranteed the fulfillment
of such obligation.
 
Under paragraph 1 – By conveying, selling, encumbering, or mortgaging any real
property, pretending to be the owner of the same
1. elements
1. There is an immovable, such as a parcel of land or a building;
2. Offender who is not the owner represents himself as the owner thereof;
3. Offender executes an act of ownership such as selling, leasing, encumbering or
mortgaging the real property;
4. The act is made to the prejudice to the owner or a third person.
2. if the property is a chattel, the act is punishable as estafa under 315
3. buildings are real property
4. there must be real existing property| non-existent land --> estafa by means of false
pretenses
5. deceit consisting in false pretenses as to ownership of the real property must be
employed by the offender
 316 No. punishes the person who pretends to be the owner of a property and not
one who claims to be the owner
6. even if the deceit is practiced against the second purchaser and the damage is incurred
by the first purchaser, there is violation no.1 316
7. is mere intent to cause damage enough? No.
- "value of the damage caused"
8. Article 315 par. 2(a) covers only cases of personal property
361 par.1 covers a specific situation where the offender exercises or executes as part of the
false representation some act of dominion or ownership over the property to the damage
and prejudice of th real owner of the thing
 Machinery remains immovable while installed for industry and work; becomes
personal property when sold --> claiming ownership here falls under 315 par.2
 
Under paragraph 2 – by disposing of real property as free from encumbrance,
although such encumbrance be not recorded
 
Elements
1. The thing disposed is a real property:
2. Offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is
recorded or not; 3. There must be express representation by offender that the real property
is free from encumbrance;
4. The act of disposing of the real property is made to the damage of another.
 
Notes
1. shall dispose includes encumbering or mortgaging
2. encumbrance| includes every right or interest in the land which exists in favor of third
persons
3. the offended party must have been deceived, that is, he would not have granted the loan
had he known that the property was already encumbered
4. when the loan had already been granted when defendant offered the property as security
for the payment of the loan, 316 par.2 is not applicable
5. an enforceable verbal agreement previously made to mortgage real property as a
security for a loan is not an encumbrance on the property, because a promise to mortgage
is not an encumbrance
6. Usurious loan with equitable mortgage is not an encumbrance on the property
- null and void --> no legal encumbrance
7. the thing disposed of must be real property
 Personal property -> 319
8. the offender must know that the real property is encumbered
9. Real property may be registered under any system of registration
 Note: attachment does not constitute encumbrance until it is registered
10. the third element requires misrepresentation, fraud or deceit
- fraud cannot be presumed from the mere fact that there was a second sale
 Fraud or deceit must be proven in the second disposition
11. the fraud contemplated in the law must be the result of some overt acts
12. although such encumbrance be not recorded| crime is committed whether the first
disposition is recorded or not
13. there must be damaged caused
- mere intention to cause damage is not enough| "value of the damage caused"
- it is not necessary that the act be made to the prejudice of the owner of the land
14. omission of the phrase" shall dispose the same as free from encumbrance"
 Basis of the ruling that silence to such encumbrance does not involve a crime
 
Under paragraph 3 – by wrongfully taking by the owner of his personal property
from its lawful possessor
 
Elements
1. Offender is the owner of personal property;
2. Said personal property is in the lawful possession of another;
3. Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor;
4. Prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or third person.
 
Notes
1. if the owner took personal property from its lawful possessor
without the latter's knowledge and later charged him with the value of the property -->
theft
 By charging the possesor, he intends to take the possessor's money
- isn’t this estafa by false pretense?
- only taking --> not theft
2. personal property must be in the lawful possession of another
- finder of lost property has no right to possess the same
3. taking is wrongful when it is without consent of the possessor or when deceit is employed
by the owner of the persona property in inducing the possessor to give it to thim
4. if the owner takes the thing from the bailee by means of violence and charges him with
the value of the property --> robbery
- if without intent to gain --> grave coercion
5. no prejudice example: A pledged his watch to B for a loan. Took it secretly for a party. A
then returned it to the drawer but B surprised him
 
Under paragraph 4 – by executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of
another
- ex: simulating a conveyance of his property to another for the purpose of defrauding
another
 Would fraudulent insolvency if the conveyance is real and made for a consideration
and not simulated, to the prejudice of the creditor
- but in a case SC has held that it was a violation of 314
- People v. tan Diong| consideration was fictitious and made for the purpose of putting the
property out of reach from his creditors
 
Under paragraph 5 – by accepting any compensation for services not rendered or
for labor not performed
 
- requires fraud; if no fraud, it would become a case of solutio indebti
- what would seem to constitute estafa here is the malicious failure to return the
compensation wrongfully received
- if the money in payment of a debt was delivered to a wrong person, 316 par.5 is not
applicable, in case the person who received t later refused or failed to return it --> 315
subdivision 1(b)
 
Under paragraph 6 – by selling, mortgaging or encumbering real property or
properties with which the offender guaranteed the fulfillment of his obligation as
surety
 
Elements
1. Offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action;
2. He guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real property or properties
3. He sells, mortgages, or in any manner encumbers said real property;
4. Such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is without express authority from the court, or
made before the cancellation of his bond, or before being relieved from the obligation
contracted by him.
 
- there must be damage caused under 316
 Cannot be merely potential or speculative l nor does the case referring to
disturbance to property rights apply here since property involved is the accused's
property
 
Article 317. Swindling a minor. - Any person who taking advantage of the inexperience or
emotions or feelings of a minor, to his detriment, shall induce him to assume any obligation
or to give any release or execute a transfer of any property right in consideration of some
loan of money, credit or other personal property, whether the loan clearly appears in the
document or is shown in any other form, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine
of a sum ranging from 10 to 50 per cent of the value of the obligation contracted by the
minor.
 
Elements
1. Offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor;
2. He induces such minor to assume an obligation or to give release or to execute a transfer
of any property right;
3. The consideration is some loan of money, credit or other personal property;
4. The transaction is to the detriment of such minor.
 
Notes
1. actual proof of deceit or misrepresentation is not essential as it is sufficient that the
offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions of a minor
2. Real property not included
3. minor --> under 18 years of age
 
Art. 318. Other deceits. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the
amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon
any person who shall defraud or damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in the
preceding articles of this Chapter.
 
"Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes, or
take advantage of the credulity of the public in any other similar manner, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000)
 
Acts punished
1. Defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding
articles;
2. Interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, by telling fortunes, or by taking advantage or
the credulity of the public in any other similar manner, for profit or gain.
 
Notes
1. necessarily included in estafa under 315 (2)(a)
2. accused solicited private complainant's money to be invested in philam life but deposited
in another company which caused complainant's insurance to lapse
3. A railroad conductor who collected 1.22 from a passenger and issued a ticket for a short
journey; pocketed the difference
4. sold the landlord's share in the harvest and failed to deliver proceeds of the sale to the
landlord
5. estafa by hiring and using public vehicle without money to pay the fare
6. deceits in this article include false pretenses and fraudulent acts
7. the false or fraudulent representation by a seller that what he offers for sale is brand new
when in fact it is not is one of those deceitful acts envisaged under 318, par.1
 
Chapter Seven CHATTEL MORTGAGE
 
Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property. - The penalty or arresto
mayor or a fine amounting to twice the value of the property shall be imposed upon:
 
1. Any person who shall knowingly remove any personal property mortgaged under the
Chattel Mortgage Law to any province or city other than the one in which it was located at
the time of the execution of the mortgage, without the written consent of the mortgagee, or
his executors, administrators or assigns.
 
2. Any mortgagor who shall sell or pledge personal property already pledged, or any part
thereof, under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the consent of the
mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and noted on the record hereof in the office
of the Register of Deeds of the province where such property is located.
 
Acts punished
1. Knowingly removing any personal property mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage law to
any province or city other than the one in which it was located at the time of execution of
the mortgage, without the written consent of the mortgagee or his executors,
administrators or assigns;
 
Elements:
1. Personal property is mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law;
2. Offender knows that such property is so mortgaged;
3. Offender removes such mortgaged personal property to any province or city other than
the one in which it was located at the time of the execution of the mortgage;
4. The removal is permanent;
5. There is no written consent of the mortgagee or his executors, administrators or assigns
to such removal.
 
Notes
1. the chattel must valid and subsisting
2. the offender is any person so a third party may be liable
3. the chattel mortgage must be registered; if not, there would be no violation of article 319
4. no felonious intent when transfer of personal property is due to change of residence
5. the removal of the mortgaged personal property must be coupled with intent to defraud
6. filing a civil action for collection, not for foreclosure of chattel mortgage, relieves the
accused of criminal responsibility
 
2. Selling or pledging personal property already pledged, or any part thereof, under the
terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the consent of the mortgagee written on the
back of the mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the office of the register of deeds
of the province where such property is located.
 
Elements:
1. Personal property is already pledged under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law;
2. Offender, who is the mortgagor of such property, sells or pledges the same or any part
thereof;
3. There is no consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and noted on
the record thereof in the office of the register of deeds.
 
notes
1. House may be subject of chattel mortgage by agreement of the parties
2. Second mortgage is included
3. the consent of the mortgage must be in writing, on the back of the mortgage and noted
on the record thereof in the office of the register of deeds
4. damage is not necessary
5. chattel mortgage may constitute estafa by means of deceit
- People v. Calsim| accused obtain a loan and to secure such loan he executive a mortgage
of a two-
storey house. Such house in question was already mortgaged
- because it was already encumbered, register of deeds refused to register it,complainant
then demanded the money from the accused but accused failed to return it
--> appellant obtained the loan through false representation
7. 316 319

In both there is selling of mortgaged property  

In par.2, property involved is real property Personal property

To protect the purchaser The mortgagee

8. to constitute the crime of estafa, it is sufficient that the real property mortgaged be sold
as free even though the vendor may have obtained consent from the mortgagee in writing
- selling or pledging personal property already pledged or mortgaged is
Committed by the mere failure to obtain consent of the mortgagee in writing even if the
offender should inform the purchaser that the thing sold is mortgaged
 
Chapter Eight ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTIONS
 
Art. 320. Destructive Arson. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed
upon any person who shall burn:
 
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as a
result of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasions.
 
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or where
people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not limited to,
official governmental function or business, private transaction, commerce, trade, workshop,
meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited
to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops or terminals, regardless
of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in said building or edifice at
the time it is set on fire and regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or
not.
 
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation or
conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure.
 
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which are
devoted to the service of public utilities.
 
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence
of another violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding
creditors or to collect from insurance.
 
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is
perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless
of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely
constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.
 
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall
burn:
 
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordnance,
storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government.
 
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials.
 
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article, death
results, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
 
Kinds of arson
1. Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1613;
2. Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659;
3. Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1613.
 
Notes
1. Simple Arson under PD 1613 Destructive Arson

Covers houses dwellings
government buildings, farms mills
plantations, railways, bus stations,
airports, wharves and other
industrial establishments
Contemplates malicious burning of structures both public and
private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories,
and other military, government or commercial establishments by any
person or group of persons

Contemplate crimes with less Heinous crimes

significant social, economic,
political and national security
implications
 
 
Chapter Nine MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
- malicious mischief is the willful damaging of another's property for the sake of causing
damage due to hate revenge or other evil motive
 
Article 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. - Any person who shall deliberately
cause the property of another any damage not falling within the terms of the next preceding
chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief
 
Elements
1. 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 was committed merely for the sake of damaging
it;
 
Notes
1. accused should act under an impulse of a specific desire to inflict injury to another
 Cannot be committed through negligence
2. Burning the car of another due to hatred is malicious mischief
3. Killing the cow of another as an act of revenge is malicious mischief
- with no intention of dividing the meat among themselves
- People v. valiente| because the cow entered the property of the accused
4. it is still malicious mischief if the act of damaging another's property was inspired by the
mere pleasure of destroying it
 Defendant shot two pigs because the animals were then loose inside his rice
plantation
--> not guilty of malicious mischief| not prompted by hatred or a desire for revenge
nor did he shoot them for the mere pleasure of destroying it
5. if no malice in causing the damage, there is only civil liability (2176)
 Ex: A cut coconut trees on a disputed land to clear it and for the purpose of
cultivating that portion of the land
- defendants cut 80 coconut shoots producing tuba, causing serious damage out of hate,
grievance or revenge because one of them and the father of the other defendant was
expelled by the landowner
6. damage means not only loss but also diminution of what is man's own
7. It is theft when there is intent to gain
- after damaging the property, the offender removes or makes use of the fruits or objects of
the damage, it is theft
8. damaging of property must not result from crime
9. a person charged with malicious mischief can be found guilty of damage of property
through reckless imprudence
 
Art. 328. Special cases of malicious mischief. - Any person who shall cause damage to
obstruct the performance of public functions, or using any poisonous or corrosive
substance; or spreading any infection or contagion among cattle; or who causes damage to
the property of the National Museum or National Library, or to any archive or registry,
waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public, shall be
punished:
 
1. By prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the damage
caused exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000);
 
2. Bv arresto mayor if such value does not exceed the abovementioned amount but is over
Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000); and
 
3. By arresto menor, if such value does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000).
 
Acts punished
1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions;
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance;
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle;
4. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or National Library, or to any
archive or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used is common by
the public.
 
Notes
1. Qualified malicious mischief
2. element of public and tumultuous uprising is not present in this crime
 
Art. 329. Other mischiefs. - The mischiefs not included in the next preceding article shall be
punished:
 
1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the damage caused
exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000);
 
2. By arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value is over Forty
thousand pesos (₱40,000) but does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000);
and
 
3. By arresto menor or a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more
than Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000), if the amount involved does not exceed Forty
thousand pesos (₱40,000) or cannot be estimated.
 
Examples:
1. a groom who allowed a horse under his care to die of hunger or a servant who released a
bird from a cage out of hatred or revenge
2. killing cows of another for the cows destroyed property of the accused is punishable
under this article
3. Scattering human excrement in public building is other mischief
 
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of communication. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who
shall damage any railway, telegraph or telephone lines.
 
If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision or other accident, the penalty
of prision mayor shall be imposed, without prejudice to the criminal liability of the offender
for the other consequences of his criminal act.
 
For the purpose of the provisions of the article, the electric wires, traction cables, signal
system and other things pertaining to railways, shall be deemed to constitute an integral
part of a railway system.
 
notes
1. damage and obstructions to means of communication is committed by damaging any
railway, telegraph or telephone lines
2. if the damage result in any derailment of cars, collision or other accident, a higher
penalty shall be imposed
3. the derailment or the collision of cars should not have been purposely sought for by the
offender
 It must have resulted from damage to railway, telegraph or telephone lines
4. if the rails are removed from a railway track to cause destruction the act constitutes the
crime involving destruction under 324
5. objective of the offender is merely to cause damage while in 324, his object is to cause
destruction
6. Not applicable when the telegraph or telephone lines do not pertain to railways
7. If there is no intent to kill, it is damages to means to communication with homicide
because of the first part of article 4 and article 48
8. If there is intent to kill, and damaging the railways was the means to accomplish the
criminal purpose, it is murder
 248 par.3 also says that murder is committed also by means of derailment
 
Art. 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or paintings. - Any person
who shall destroy or damage statues or any other useful or ornamental public monument,
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its
minimum period.
 
"Any person who shall destroy or damage any useful or ornamental painting of a public
nature shall suffer the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand
pesos (₱40,000), or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court
 
 
 
Anti-car napping law
Monday, June 20, 2022
10:25 AM
 
Anti-car napping law
- Ra 10883, the new anti-carnapping act of 2016 is the law applicable for unlawful taking
of motor vehicles and not the provisions on robbery or qualified theft
 Punishes the unlawful taking of motor vehicle without the owner's consent whether
the taking was done with or without the use of force upon things or with or without
violence of intimidation
 Without such law, the act would fall under robbery or theft
 
Rules doctrines and cases
1. Motor vehicle| any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the
public highways
-exceptions
 Used on rails or tracks
 Used solely for agricultural purposes
- trailers propelled by attachment to a motor is classified as a separate motor vehicle with
no power rating
--> Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power
using the public highways, except road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers,
lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on
public highways; vehicles which run only on rails or tracks; and tractors, trailers and
traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any
number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor
vehicle, shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle with no power rating;
2. Tricycle is covered by the term motor vehicle
3. Carnapping is a non-bailable offense
 Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime of carnapping is committed
by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or by means of violence or intimidation of any
person or persons or forced upon things; or when the owner, driver, passenger or
occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the carnapping
shall be denied bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.
4. Qualified carnapping
- carnapping with homicide| prosecution must prove that the killing was perpetrated in the
course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof
- the killing or rape merely qualifies the carnapping
5. carnapping with homicide is a special complex crime similar to robbery with homicide
- if the attempted or frustrated murder or homicide is committed in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof then it must be deemed to fall
under the clause when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons
6. Where the elements of carnapping are not proved, the homicide or murder is punishable
under the RPC
7. when the purpose of taking the car is to destroy by burning it, the crime is arson
8. offender is liable for carnapping of whole car taken to another place even if only parts are
taken away
 
Bar Questions:
1.A, B, and C agreed to rob a house of its cash. A and B entered the house while C
remained outside as lookout. After getting the cash, A and B decided to set the house on
fire to destroy any evidence of their presence. What crime or crimes did C commit? (2011
Bar Question)
 C) Just for robbery since he only agreed to it and served as lookout.
 
 
 

BP 22
Monday, June 20, 2022
10:51 AM
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.22
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person who makes or draws and issues
any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of
such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment,
shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1)
year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which
fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
 
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep
sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented
within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank.
 
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who
actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
 
 
How violated
A.
1. A person makes or draws and issues any check;
2. The check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value;
 Thus, it can apply to pre-existing obligations, too.
3. The person who makes or draws and issued the check knows at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such
check in full upon its presentment;
4. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
 
B.
1. A person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws
and issues a check;
2. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the
check if presented within 90 days from the date appearing;
3. The check is dishonored by the drawee bank.
 
Notes:
1. Gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance of a check, not the nonpyment of an obligation
2. the check may be issued to apply on account or for value
 BP 22 does not make a distinction as to whether the bad check is issued in payment
of an obligation or to merely guarantee an obligation
 Punishes the making or drawing and issuing of any check that is subsequently
dishonored, even in the payment of a pre-existing obligation
3. There is variance in the elements of esatfa and BP 22
 BP 22 crime against public interest; estafa, crime against property
 Deceit is an element in estafa
 In BP22 it is not
4. knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment
-requires that the person who makes or draws and issues a check must have knowledge at
the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank
- if he had sufficient funds in or credit at the time he issued a check but withdrew all his
funds or lost credit with the drawee bank and subsequently gets dishonored
 May be liable under the second paragraph
5. It is of no defense that the drawer of the check ordered the bank to stop payment if he
had no sufficient funds or credit and the check would have been dishonored had he not
made the order
 The order to the bank to stop payment of the check must be without any valid
reason
6. When is there prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds?
- There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds when the check was
presented within 90 days from the date appearing on the check and was dishonored.
- Exceptions
1. When the check was presented after 90 days from date;
2. When the maker or drawer --
a. Pays the holder of the check the amount due within five banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee;
b. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within
five banking days after notice of non-payment
7. Defenses
- creditor had collected more than a sufficient amount to cover the value of the checks
- exercise of statutory right to suspend installment under PD 957
- issuance of post-dated checks in payment of a warranty deposit
- failure to encash checks within a reasonable time
- issuance of SEC order for suspension of payments prior to presentment of check for
payment
 Suspensive condition
- check signatory had no knowledge of insufficiency of funds in corporate account
8. notice of dishonor is required for prosecution
 Must be written notice
9. Service via registered mail of notice of dishonor
- receipts for registered letters and return must be authenticated
 Requires affidavit of the person mailing the notice of dishonor
- it must appear that the same was served on the addressee or a duly authorized agent of
the addressee
10. notice of dishonor is still required even for closed accounts
11. Notice of dishonor, not required when account was closed even before issuance of check
12. No disputable presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds when there is no
receipt of notice of dishonor
13. Where there insufficient proof that notice of dishonor was received, the presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise
  It must be shown that the drawer of the check received the said notice
14. Notice of dishonor to corporation is not notice to officer who issued the check
- responsibility under BP 22 is personal to the accused
15. Rule of preference in imposing penalties in BP 22
 Impose a fine, not imprisonment, when the accused clearly indicate good faith or a
clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence
16. subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency must be expressly stated in the judgment
of conviction
 
Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, drawing and issuance
of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in
or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of
the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or
credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof 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.
 
Notes
1. There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds when the check was
presented within 90 days from the date appearing on the check and was dishonored.
- Exceptions
1. When the check was presented after 90 days from date;
2. When the maker or drawer --
a. Pays the holder of the check the amount due within five banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee;
b. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within
five banking days after notice of non-payment
2. the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit does not lie when the
check is presented after 90 days from the date of the check
3. the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit is not present when the
drawer either
a. Pays the holder of the check the amount due within five banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee;
b. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five
banking days after notice of non-payment
4. Prima facie evidence does not arise where notice of nonpayment is not sent to the maker
or drawer of the check
 
Section 3. Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. - It shall be the duty of the drawee of any
check, when refusing to pay the same to the holder thereof upon presentment, to cause to
be written, printed, or stamped in plain language thereon, or attached thereto, the reason
for drawee's dishonor or refusal to pay the same: Provided, That where there are no
sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly
stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. In all prosecutions under this Act, the
introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check, having the drawee's refusal to
pay stamped or written thereon or attached thereto, with the reason therefor as aforesaid,
shall be prima facie evidence of the making or issuance of said check, and the due
presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof, and that the same was
properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee on such
dishonored check.
 
Not with standing receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee shall state in the notice
that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of such
check, if such be the fact.
 
Notes
1. if the drawee refuses to pay the check to the holder, he must cause to be written, printed
or stamped in plain language or attached thereto the reason for drawee's dishonor or
refusal to pay the same
2. If the drawee bank received an orderto stop payment from the drawer, the former shall
state in the notice that there were no sufficient funds or credit for the payment of the full
check
3 the introduction of any unpaid and dishonored check with the drawee's refusal to pay
stamped or written thereon or attached shall be prima facie evidence of
 Making or issuance of a check
 Due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof
 The fact that the same was properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or
attached by the drawee on such dishonored check
 
Section 4. Credit construed. - The word "credit" as used herein shall be construed to mean
an arrangement or understanding with the bank for the payment of such check.
 
Section 5. Liability under the Revised Penal Code. - Prosecution under this Act shall be
without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code.
 
Notes
1. The issuance of check with insufficient funds may be held liable for estafa and Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22.
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 expressly provides that prosecution under said law is
without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision in the Revised Penal
Code
 Double Jeopardy may not be invoked because a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
is a malum prohibitum and is being punished as a crime against the public interest for
undermining the banking system of the country, while under the RevisedPenal Code,
the crime is malum in se which requires criminal intent and damage to the payee and
is a crime against property.
2. In estafa, the check must have been issued as a reciprocal consideration for parting of
goods (kaliwaan). There must be concomitance. The deceit must be prior to or simultaneous
with damage done, that is, seller relied on check to part with goods
 If it is issued after parting with goods as in credit accommodation only, there is no
estafa.
 f the check is issued for a pre-existing obligation, there is no estafa as damage had
already been done
- The drawer is liable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
3. For criminal liability to attach under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, it is enough that the check
was issued to "apply on account or for value" and upon its presentment it was dishonored
by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds, provided that the drawer had been notified of
the dishonor and in spite of such notice fails to pay the holder of the check the full amount
due thereon within five days from notice
4. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a drawer must be given notice of dishonor and given five
banking days from notice within which to deposit or pay the amount stated in the check to
negate the presumtion that drawer knew of the insufficiency. After this period, it is
conclusive that drawer knew of the insufficiency, thus there is no more defense to the
prosecution under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
5. The mere issuance of any kind of check regardless of the intent of the parties, whether
the check is intended to serve merely as a guarantee or as a deposit, makes the drawer
liable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 if the check bounces. As a matter of public policy, the
issuance of a worthless check is a public nuisance and must be abated.
6. In De Villa v. CA, decided April 18, 1991, it was held that under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,
there is no distinction as to the kind of check issued. As long as it is delivered within
Philippine territory, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction.
7. In People v. Nitafan, it was held that as long as instrument is a check under the
negotiable instrument law, it is covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. A memorandum check
is not a promissory note, it is a check which have the word “memo,” “mem”,
“memorandum” written across the face of the check which signifies that if the holder upon
maturity of the check presents the same to the drawer, it will be paid absolutely.
8. But overdraft or credit arrangement may be allowed by banks as to their preferred clients
and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not apply. If check bounces, it is because bank has been
remiss in honoring agreement
9. The check must be presented for payment within a 90-day period. If presented for
payment beyond the 90 day period and the drawer’s funds are insufficient to cover it, there
is no Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 violation
10. Where check was issued prior to August 8, 1984, when Circular No. 12 of the
Department of the Justice took effect, and the drawer relied on the then prevailing Circular
No. 4 of the Ministry of Justice to the effect that checks issued as part of an
arrangement/agreement of the parties to guarantee or secure fulfillment of an obligation
are not covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, no criminal liability should be incurred by the
drawer. Circular should not be given retroactive effect. (Lazaro v. CA, November 11, 1993,
citing People v. Alberto, October 28, 1993)
11. Distinction between estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code and
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22:
(1) Under both Article 315 (2) (d) and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, there is criminal
liability if the check is drawn for non-pre-existing obligation.
- If the check is drawn for a pre-existing obligation, there is criminal liability only
under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
(2) Estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) is a crime against property while Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 is a crime against public interest. The gravamen for the former is the deceit
employed, while in the latter, it is the issuance of the check. Hence, there is no double
jeopardy
(3) In the estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), deceit and damage are material, while in
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, they are immaterial.
(4) In estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), knowledge by the drawer of insufficient funds is
not required, while in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, knowledge by the drawer of insufficient
funds is required.
Bar Questions
1. Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a post-
dated check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. Two days before
maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had insufficient funds and requested that the
deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it was
dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law). Was the charge brought
against Frank correct? (2013 Bar Question)
 Yes, the charge of Violation of BP 22 is correct. Being malum prohibitum, it is
committed by mere issuance of a worthless check, and the conditions relating to the
issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. Frank’s request to defer the
deposit of the check as it has insufficient funds will not militate against his prosecution
for BP Blg. 22
 
 

Anti-Arson LAw
Monday, June 20, 2022
11:22 AM
 
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1613
Amending Law on Arson
 
Section 1. Arson. Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall be
punished by Prision Mayor.
 
The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property under
circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of another.
 
Section 2. Destructive Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to
Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
 
1. Any ammunition factory and other establishment where explosives, inflammable or
combustible materials are stored.
 
2. Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any edifice devoted to culture,
education or social services.
 
3. Any church or place of worship or other building where people usually assemble.
 
4. Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft, or conveyance for transportation
of persons or property
 
4. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial, administrative or
other official proceedings.
 
5. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing tenement, shopping center, public
or private market, theater or movie house or any similar place or building.
 
6. Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated in a populated or congested
area.
 
Section 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua
shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
 
1. Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies;
 
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
 
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
 
4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or
forest;
 
4. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and
 
5. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse.
 
Section 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson. The penalty in any case of arson
shall be imposed in its maximum period;
 
1. If committed with intent to gain;
 
2. If committed for the benefit of another;
 
3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the
property burned;
 
4. If committed by a syndicate.
 
The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is planned or carried out by a group of three
(3) or more persons.
 
Section 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the occasion of the
arson death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed.
 
Section 6. Prima Facie evidence of Arson. Any of the following circumstances shall
constitute prima facie evidence of arson:
 
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or establishment.
 
2. If substantial amount of flammable substances or materials are stored within the building
note necessary in the business of the offender nor for household us.
 
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or
materials soaked therewith or containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical, chemical, or
electronic contrivance designed to start a fire, or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are
found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or property.
 
4. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the
time of the issuance of the policy.
 
4. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance policy more than two fires have
occurred in the same or other premises owned or under the control of the offender and/or
insured.
 
5. 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.
 
6. If a 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.
 
Section 7. Conspiracy to commit Arson. Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished by
Prision Mayor in its minimum period.
 
Section 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. The building which is the object of arson
including the land on which it is situated shall be confiscated and escheated to the State,
unless the owner thereof can prove that he has no participation in nor knowledge of such
arson despite the exercise of due diligence on his part.
 
Section 9. Repealing Clause. The provisions of Articles 320 to 326-B of the Revised Penal
Code and all laws, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent
with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
 
Section 10. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately upon publication thereof at
least once in a newspaper of general circulation.
 
notes
1. PD1613 governing law for simple arson
- covers malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless of size, not included
in article 320
2. Burning of houses considered simple arson under PD No.1613
3. Attempted, frustrated and consummated arson
 About to light the rag placed beside the wooden wall of a building, he was caught by
someone and ran away --> attempted arson
- commences commission of the crime by overt acts (soaking the rags in gasoline) but
failed to perform all the acts of execution (setting of fire to the rags) due to the timely
intervention of another
 If the person was able to light or set fire the rags but before any part of the building
was burned the fire on the rags was put out --> frustrated
 But if before the fire was put out a part of the building was already burned -->
consummated
- any charring of the wood of a building, whereby the fiber of the wood is destroyed is
sufficient
- the mere fact that the building was scorched or discolored by heat is not sufficient to
consummate arson
 Setting fire to the contents of a building constitutes the consummated crime of
setting fire to a building even if no part of the building was burned
4. sec 3, par.2| if the property burned is an inhabited house or dwelling, it is not required
that the house be occupied by one or more persons and the offender knew it when the
house was burned
5. Arson, distinguished from homicide/murder
-it is necessary to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:
 If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by
reason or on occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson and the resulting homicide is
absorbed
 If the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice,
when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal --> murder only
 If the objective is to kill a particular person and in fact the offender has already done
so but fire is resorted as a means to cover up the killing --> homicide/murder and
arson
6. There is no complex crime of arson with homicide
- presidential decree provides that if by reason or on the occasion of arson death results,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed
 Crime of homicide is absorbed
7. Prima facie evidence of arson
- any of the seven circumstances enumerated in section 6
 
 
Crimes Against Chastity
Saturday, June 11, 2022
10:37 AM
Chapter One: Adultery and Concubinage
 
Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery
 
Elements
1. The woman is married;
2. She has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;
3. As regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be
married.
 
Notes:
1. Woman must be married
2. Offended party must be legally married to the offender at the time of the criminal case
- one who (foreigner) secured a divorce before adultery proceedings no longer has the right
to institute such case
3. There is adultery even if the marriage of the guilty woman with the offended husband is
subsequently declared void
- reason: until marriage is declared to be null and void, offense to the vows and the family
remains
4. direct proof of carnal knowledge is not necessary in adultery; it can be proved by
circumstantial evidence
- however, this kind of evidence is not sufficient for the application of 247 which requires
that a married person should surprise his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with
another person
5. Each sexual intercourse constitutes or consummates the crime of adultery
6. gist of the crime is the introduction of spurious heirs into the family
7. abandonment without justification is not exempting but only mitigating
8. Sheer necessity (believed her husband to be dead), is a mitigating liability of the married
woman
- man lend her a helping hand
9. Both defendants are entitled to this mitigating circumstance
- 62 par.3 is not applicable since the individual act itself does not constitute the felony
10. Pari delcito is not a defense
- not found in the revised penal code but only in 1411 of the civil code
11. the man to be guilty of adultery, must have knowledge of the married status of the
woman
- the man may still be guilty of adultery of the sexual intercourse after having such
knowledge
12. married man might not be guilty of adultery but he may be held liable for concubinage
 The married woman is guilty of adultery. If she knew the man was married she
would be liable for concubinage also
13. Effect of acquittal of one of the defendants does not cause the acquittal of the other
14. Death of paramour does not bar prosecution against the unfaithful wife
15. Death of offended party after criminal proceedings commence does not bar the
prosecution for adultery
16. Pardon from the OP must be done before the institution of criminal
proceedings and must be extended to both defendants
17. act of intercourse subsequent to adulterous conduct is an implied pardon.
18. consent of husband of the adulterous relations of his wife and another man may bar him
from instituting a criminal complaint
19. No accomplice in adultery
 
Bar Questions:
1. Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a lawyer is sufficient to
provide for the needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay- at-home mom and
care for their children. One day, Jojo arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in
the act of having sexual intercourse with their female nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial
bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom cabinet and shot
Alma, immediately killing her. (2016 Bar Question) A) Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries
inflicted under exceptional circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code applicable in this case
given that the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse? B) Is Felipa liable for
adultery for having sexual relations with Alma?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 A) No, Article. 247 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable because the offender
must catch his or her spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person. Sexual intercourse presupposes the penetration of the man’s sexual organ into
that of a woman’s. In this case, the paramour was of the same gender as the erring
spouse. As such, there is legally, no sexual intercourse to speak of, hence, Art. 247 is
not applicable.
 B) No. Under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by any
married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a “man” not her husband.
Thus, Felipa, in having homosexual intercourse with Alma, a “woman”, is not
committing adulter
 
Art. 334. Concubinage
 
Acts punished
1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
2. Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances;
3. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
 
Elements
1. The man is married;
2. He is either –
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not
his wife; or c. Cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any other place
3. As regards the woman, she knows that the man is married.
 
Notes:
1. a violation of the marital vow
- unlike adultery, infidelity of the husband does not bring into the family spurious offspring
2. A married man is not liable for concubinage for mere sexual relations with a woman not
his wife
3. In concubinage by keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, proof of actual intercourse
is not necessary
4. Mistress| woman taken by the married man into the conjugal dwelling as a concubine
5. conjugal dwelling| meant or intended to be the home of the husband and wife even if the
wife happens to be temporarily absent on any account
6. the phrase under scandalous circumstances refers to the act of sexual intercourse which
may be proved by circumstantial evidence
7. scandal consists in any reprehensible word or deed that offends public conscience,
redounds to the detriment of the feelings of honest persons and gives occasion to the
neighbor's spiritual damage or ruin
8.The people in the vicinity are the best witnesses to prove scandalous circumstances
9. When spies are employed and none of the people living in the vicinity has observed any
suspicious conduct, there is no evidence of scandalous circumstances
10. In concubinage by cohabiting with a woman in any other place, mere cohabitation is
sufficient
- proof of scandalous circumstances is not necessary
11. Cohabit| to dwell together in the manner of husband and wife for some period of time
 Not transient or occasional interviews for unlawful intercourse
12. Adultery is more severely punished than concubinage
 
Chapter two: Rape and Acts of lasciviousness
*Article 335 has been modified by RA No. 8353
 
Art. 336. Acts of Lasciviousness
 
Elements
1. Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. The act of lasciviousness is committed against a person of either sex
3. It is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived or reason of otherwise unconscious; or
c. When the offended party is another person of either sex
 
Notes:
1. Lewd| obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous
2. Compelling a girl to dance naked before a group of men is an act of lasciviousness even if
the dominant motive is revenge for her failure to pay a debt
3. Distinguished from grave coercion
- compulsion by beating a girl in the Bailoses case is included in the constructive element of
force while in the Fernando case the very act constituting the offense of grave coercion is
the compulsion of the offended party to admit theft
4. Motive of lascivious acts is not important because the essence of lewdness is in the very
act itself
5. Embracing, kissing and holding girl's breast is act of lasciviousness
6. In some casse, touching the breast of a man is considered unjust vexation
- in the absence of lewd designs (can be inferred from the nature of the acts themselves
and the environmental circumstances
7. The rule is different when the act is committed in a theater
- cases where unjust vexation was upheld, the embrace and kiss were merely out of passion
or other (amorous advances) motive and incidental
8. Kissing and embracing a woman against her will are acts of lasciviousness when
prompted by lust or lewd designs
9. Lover's embraces and kisses are not acts of lasciviousness
 Even if there are indications that the girl did not want the accused as her accepted
lover
10. Placing a man's private parts over a girl's genital organ is an act of lasciviousness
11. Moral compulsion amounting to intimidation is sufficient --> annuls the free exercise of
the will of the offended party
12. Abuses against chastity Offenses against chastity
Committed by a public officer and a mere immoral or The offender in majority of cases, is a
indecent proposal made earnestly and persistently is private individual and it is necessary that
sufficient some actual act of lasciviousness should
have been executed by the offender
13. Distinguished from attempted rape
- if the purpose by the offender clearly indicate that his purpose was to lie with the offended
woman, it is attempted or frustrated rape
- in attempted rape| the lascivious acts are preparatory
- Act of lasciviousness| they are themselves the final objective of the offender
14. Before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under section 5
(b) of RA No. 7610, the requisites of the crime of AOL under 336 must be met in addition
to requirements under the provision:
 Accused commits act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
 Said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse
 The child whether male or female is below 18 years of age
15. The mere fact of squeezing the private part of the child signifies lewd design
- where several years prior he had raped AAA
 Lewd signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity or that
which is carried on a wanton manner
16. Desistance in the commission of attempted rape may constitute acts of lasciviousness
17. No attempted or frustrated stages of acts of lasciviousness
18. Acts of lasciviousness is distinguished from unjust vexation based on the presence of
lewd designs
19. Lascivious conduct punished under RA no. 7610, when performed on a child below 18
years of age exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
 Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, whether male or
female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
 
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the following:
Xxx
 (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted
under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended,
the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided,
That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of
age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period;
20. “Lascivious conduct” means the intentional touching, either directly or through
clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of
any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or
opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
pubic area of a person
21. Acts of lasciviousness under 336 of RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610| if the
victims is under 12 years old; RT in its medium period
Lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b)| If the victim is 12 years or older but below 18 or is
18 years old or older but is unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect
herself/himself from abuse neglect cruelty exploitation or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition; Rt in its medium period to RP
22. If the acts constituting sexual assault under 266-A are committed against a victim under
12 years of age or is demented, the nomenclature would be: sexual assault under par.2.
article 266-A in relation to section 5(b)
23. elements under Section 5 (b)
 Accused commits act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
 Said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse
 The child whether male or female is below 18 years of age
24. Acts found to constitute a violation of Section (b)
 Touching the complainant's vagina and poking her vagina with a cotton bud
 Kissing the lips, licking the vagina, and mashing the breasts of the complainant
 Touching the breasts of the complainant
 Caressing the thigh and touching the vagina of AAA
 
Chapter Three: Seduction, corruption of minors and white slave trade
 
"Article 337. Qualified seduction. - The seduction of a minor, sixteen and over but under
eighteen years of age, committed by any person in public authority, priest, home-servant,
domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with the
education or custody of the minor seduced, shall be punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods.
 
"The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon any person who shall seduce his
sister or descendant, whether or not she be a virgin or over eighteen years of age.
 
"Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction is committed when the offender have carnal
knowledge of any of the persons and under the circumstances described therein."
 
 
Acts punished
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years of age by certain persons, such
as a person in authority, priest, teacher; and (RA 1168| virgin to minor)
Elements
1. Offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good
reputation;
2. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
3. Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
4. There is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender.
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her
age or reputation.
 
Person liable
1. Those who abused their authority –
a. Person in public authority;
b. Guardian;
c. Teacher;
d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of the
woman seduced;
2. Those who abused confidence reposed in them –
a. Priest;
b. House servant;
 c. Domestic;
3. Those who abused their relationship –
a. Brother who seduced his sister;
b. Ascendant who seduced his descendant
- includes brother-in-law
 
Notes
1. seduction| enticing a woman to unlawful sexual intercourse by promise of marriage or
other means of persuasion without using force
2. if the woman is married and the offender knows it --> sexual intercourse is adultery
3. less than 12 (16) years of age --> rape
4. over 18 years, qualified seduction is not committed
 No crime at all if there is no force or intimidation employed or the woman is not
unconscious or otherwise deprived of reason
5. the virginity to which the RPC refers is not to be understood in so material a sense as to
exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of good reputation
6. Casten| offender has sex the girl| still a virgin
Suan| had carnal relations with other men --> not a virgin
7. If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of lewdness are performed, the crime is act
of lasciviousness under 339
8. Deceit is not an essential element of qualified seduction but in simple seduction
9. The fact that the girl gave consent to the sexual intercourse is no defense
 Lack of consent is not an element of the offense
10. it is sufficient that the offender is a teacher in the same school
11. a master is covered under the phrase "any person who, in any capacity, shall be
entrusted with xxx the custody of the woman seduced"
12. Qualified seduction by head of the family| sexual intercourse with the cousin of his wife
then living with them in the house and a virgin under 18 years of age but over 12
 Took advantage of his authority and abused the confidence and trust reposed in him
as head of family and master of the house
13. Qualified seduction by a brother-in-law| if moral ascendancy was used for immoral
purposes
14. Qualified seduction committed by a priest| when the girl confessed to the church to
confess, the priest, upon meeting her, embraced and kissed her
15. Qualified seduction by house servant
- sexual intercourse with the master's daughter a virgin over 12 but less than 18 years of
age
16. Domestic; | a person usually living under the same roof pertaining to the same house
 Regardless if their stay is temporary or paying for board and lodging
 But if a man is merely stopping at a public inn or tavern, he is not a domestic
- such man is not tendered or expected to receive those sentimental and confidential
manifestations of intimacy exchanged between members of the same household
17. domestic is distinct from house servant
18. If any of the circumstances in the crime of rape is present, the crimes is not to be
punished under this article
19. Qualified seduction by seducing a sister or descendant| penalty is next higher in degree
- relationship must be by consanguinity; but need not be legitimate
- no need that the sister is a virgin and she may be over 18 years of age
20. the accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of qualified seduction under the
same information
21. When the victim is under 16 years of age, one degree higher (RA No. 7610)
 This is already statutory rape
 
Article 338. Simple seduction. - The seduction of a minor, sixteen and over but under
eighteen years of age, committed by means of deceit, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
 
Elements
1. Offender party is 16 or over 16 and under 18 years of age;
2. Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
3. It is committed by means of deceit
 
Notes
1. there must be sexual intercourse; if none but only acts of lewdness are performed, the
crime is acts of lasciviousness under 339
2. deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise of marriage
 Promise of marriage must be the inducement and the woman must yield because of
the promise or other inducement
3. May the man who is willing and ready to marry the girl seduced by him be held liable for
simple seduction?
--> yes| willingness to marry may still amount to deceit as when the man knows that the
girl cannot legally give consent to marriage and yet he makes a promise to her
4. Deceit consisting in unfulfilled promise of material things
- no seduction since she proves to be a woman of loose morals
5. Promise of marriage by a married man is not a deceit
- whom woman knew to be married; could not have induced her to do so
6. promise after sexual intercourse does not constitute deceit
 
Article 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party. - The penalty of
arresto mayor shall be imposed to punish any other acts of lasciviousness committed by the
same persons and the same circumstances as those provided in Articles 337 and 338.
 
Elements
1. Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. The acts are committed upon a minor 16 or over 16 but under 18 years of age but, or a
sister or descendant, regardless of her reputation or age;
3. Offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence, relationship, or deceit.
 
Ex: girl 16 years of age and B were lovers. In a theater, B kissed touched her breast
including her private parts
 Not guilty of acts of lasciviousness| it is necessary that the crime be committed
under circumstances mentioned in qualified or simple seduction
- B did not accomplish the act by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship
4. consent here must be obtained because of the abuse of authority, confidence or
relationship
 
Article 340. Corruption of minors. - Any person who shall promote or facilitate the
prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall be
punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic officer or employee, including those
in government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall also suffer the penalty of
temporary absolute disqualification. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 92).
 
1. Habituality or abuse of authority or confidence not necessary
2. It is not required that the offender be the guardian or custodian of the minor
3. It is not necessary that the minor be prostituted or corrupted as the law merely punishes
the act of promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of said minor and that he
acted in order to satisfy the lust of another.
4. under age --> below 18 years of age
 
Child prostitution under RA No. 7610
 
Sec. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, whether male or female, who
for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any
adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to
be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
 
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which include,
but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;

 
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
 
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
 
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
 
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to
engage such child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is
under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code,
for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious
conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its
medium period; and
 
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the
establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place
of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in
addition to the activity for which the license has been issued to said establishment.
 
The elements of paragraph (a) are:
1. the accused engages in, promotes, facilitates or induces child prostitution;
2. the act is done through, but not limited to, the following means:
a. acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
b. inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
c. taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as a prostitute;
d. threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute or
e. giving monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with
intent to engage such child in prostitution;
3. the child is exploited or intended to be exploited in prostitution and
4. the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
 
Paragraph (a) essentially punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution. It
contemplates sexual abuse of a child exploited in prostitution. In other words, under
paragraph (a), the child is abused primarily for profit.
 
Attempt to commit child prostitution under RA no. 7610
 
Sec. 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution. – There is an attempt to commit child
prostitution under Section 5, paragraph (a) hereof when any person who, not being a
relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the room or cubicle of a house,
an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel,
vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under circumstances which would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse.
 
There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution, under paragraph (b) of Section 5
hereof when any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath,
massage clinic, health club and other similar establishments. A penalty lower by two (2)
degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Section 5 hereof shall be
imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution under
this Act, or, in the proper case, under the Revised Penal Code.
 
Article 341. White slave trade. - The penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum
period shall be imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or under any pretext, shall
engage in the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist the services of any other
for the purpose of prostitution (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 186.)
 
Acts punished
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution;
2. Profiting by prostitution;
3. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution
 
notes
1. one of the abovementioned acts is sufficient to constitute the offense
2. habituality is not a necessary element of the crime of white slave trade
3. offender need not be the owner of the house
4. maintainer or manager of ill-repute need not be present therein at the time of raid or
arrest
5. under any pretext
- one who engaged the services of a woman ostensibly as a household maid but in reality
for purpose of prostitution
6. penalty when the victim is under 16 years of age
--> one degree higher
 
Chapter Four ABDUCTION
 
Abduction| taking away of a woman from her house or the place where she may be for the
purpose of carrying her to another place with intent to marry or to corrupt her
 
Article 342. Forcible abduction. - The abduction of any woman against her will and with
lewd designs shall be punished by reclusion temporal.
 
The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the female abducted be under twelve
years of age
 
Elements
1. The person abducted is any woman, regardless or her age, civil status, or reputation;
2. The abduction is against her will;
3. The abduction is with lewd designs
 
Notes
1. woman abducted may be married| any woman
2. Crimes against chastity where age and reputation of victim are immaterial
 Rape (now under persons)
 Acts of lasciviousness against the will or without consent of the OP
 Qualified seduction of sister or descendant
 Forcible abduction
3. The taking away of the woman must be against here will
4. The taking away of the woman may be accomplished by means of deceit first and then by
means of violence and intimidation
5. if the female abducted is 12 years of age, the crime is forcible abduction even if she
voluntarily goes with her abductor
6. Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible abduction
- if there was sexual intercourse after the abduction and the offender used violence or
intimidation, or when the woman was deprived of reason or is demented or otherwise
unconscious or the victim was under 12 years of age, the offender is liable for the complex
crime of forcible abduction with rape
7. Lewd designs may be shown by the conduct of the accused
- if the accused only kissed the woman when he had the opportunity to do further unchaste
designs, did not constitute lewd designs
8. Lewd designs present in hurried ceremony of marriage by force
- marriage is merely an artifice to let the accused escape the consequences of his acts, the
intention to contract marriage constitute lewd designs
 Ex: offenders knows that the girl cannot legally give consent because of minority
9. Intention to marry does not constitute unchaste designs when both the defendant and
the woman have the required age for consenting to marriage
10. When there are several defendants it is enough that one of them had lewd designs
11. husband is not liable for abduction of his wife as lewd design is wanting
12. nature of the crime of forcible abduction
- violative of the individual liberty of the abducted, her honor and reputation, and of public
order
13. In grave coercion and forcible abduction, offender employs violence or intimidation and
the OP is compelled to do something against her will
14. When there is no lewd design, it is coercion, provided that there is no deprivation of
liberty for an appreciable length of time
15. where a 13 year old minor was abducted by the accused without lewd designs on her
part but for the purpose of lending her to illicit intercourse with others --> corruption of
minors
16. When there is deprivation of liberty and no lewd designs, it is kidnapping and serious
illegal detenton
17. When the violent taking of a woman is motivated by lewd designs, it is forcible
abduction under 342
 When it is not so motivated such taking constitutes kidnapping under 267
--> A, B, C and others grabbed a girl 15 years of age and then dragged her to a nearby
forest where they then ravished her. --> not kidnapping with rape but forcible abduction
with rape
18. there can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and other acts of
rape are separate crimes
19. There is no complex crime of forcible abduction with attempted rape because
rape is absorbed in this case
20. Commission of other crimes during confinement of victim is immaterial to charge of
kidnapping with serious illegal detention
 People v. Abaza| the main purpose was to coerce the OP into withdrawing her
previous charges against Ablaza. The acts of rape here were incidental and used as a
means to coerce her to break her spirit and induce her to dismiss the criminal charge
21. People v. domingo, 2017| there is no complex crime forcible abduction with rape
if the primary objective of the accused is to commit rape. Forcible abduction is
absorbed --> rape only
22. conviction of acts of lascivious ness not a bar to conviction of forcible abduction
Forcible abduction Acts of lasciviousness

May not commit acts of lasciviousness since libidinous designs is Offender actually performs
sufficient lecherous acts

Upon a woman Either sex

23. Forcible abduction Illegal detention

When a woman is kidnapped with lewd or unchaste designs, the crime When the kidnapping is
committed is forcible abduction. without lewd
designs, the crime committed
is illegal
detention
.
 But where the offended party was forcibly taken to the house of the defendant to
coerce her to marry him, it was held that only grave coercion was committed and not
illegal detention.
 
Article 343. Consented abduction. - The abduction of a virgin over twelve years and under
eighteen years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd designs, shall be punished
by the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
 
Elements
1. Offended party is a virgin;
2. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
3. Offender takes her away with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery;
4. The taking away is with lewd designs.
 
Notes
1. virginity| not to be understood ins so material sense as to exclude the idea of abduction
of a virtuous woman of good reputation
2. If virgin is under 12 years old, it is forcibe abduction
3. No matter how short the taking the crime still exists
4. Offended party need not be taken from her house
5. Consent of the minor to being taken away may be due to honeyed promises of marriage
by the offender
6. When there was no solicitation or cajolery and no deceit and the girl voluntarily wen with
the man, there is no crime committed even if they had sexual intercourse
  The female must be removed from the custody of her parents by means of promises
made to, or cajolery or enticement exerted upon her by her abductor
7. The taking away must be with lewd designs
 Kissing and holding the body of the girl while being abducted with her consent is
indicative of lewd designs
 Intention to marry may show lewd designs if offender knew that a minor cannot give
legal consent to marriage
8. purpose of the law| to prescribe punishment for the disgrace to her family and the alarm
caused therein
9. there can be a crime of consented abduction with rape
 
Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape
and acts of lasciviousness. - The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be
prosecuted except 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, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or
pardoned the offenders. The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness,
shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by
the above named persons, as the case may be.
 
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the
offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty
already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the
co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.
 
Notes
1. Rape may now be prosecuted de officio since it is now a crime against persons
2. Prosecution of rape may be made upon complaint by any person
3. the imputation of a crime of prostitution against a woman can be prosecuted de officio
4. only the offended spouse can file the complaint against adultery and concubinage
- not even the parents can file the complaint even if the OP is underage
5. Both guilty parties if both alive must be included in the complaint for adultery and
concubinage
6. offended party even if she is a minor has the right to file a complaint for secution
abduction or acts of lasciviousness
 Parents, grandparents or guardians shall be exclusive to all other persons and shall
be exercised successively
6. When Op is a minor and she does not file the case, parents may file the complaint
7. if the offended woman is of age and in complete possession of her mental and physical
faculties, she alone can file the complaint
8. no preference between mother or father or grandfather or grandmother
9. Guardian is one appointed by the court
10. When complex with another crime (public), complaint need not be signed by the
offended woman
11. Pardon in adultery and concubinage is a bar to prosecution
 Must come before the institution of criminal action and both offenders must be
pardoned by the OP
 Applies to cases of seduction, abduction or acts of lasciviousness
12. Parent of the OP in adultery or concubinage cannot validly pardon the offenders
13. Agreement to live separately is evidence of consent in adultery or concubinage
14. Pardon refers to the offense after its commission
Consent refers to the offense prior to its commission
--> prior consent is as effective as subsequent consent
15. affidavit showing consent, basis for new trial
16. condonation is not pardon in concubinage or adultery
- condonation is forgiveness based upon the presumption and belief that the guilty party
has repented, any subsequent acts of the offender showing that there was no repentance
will not bar the prosecution of the offense
- but when the complaint is based on acts already pardoned, complaint will be dismissed
17. permitting wife to live in conjugal home after filing a complaint for adultery the second
day after he surprised her, is not implied consent
-failure of husband to look for his wife who abandoned her does not amount to consent to
her adulterous acts
18. Delay in the filing of complaint, if satisfactorily explained, does not indicate pardon
- spying, gathering evidence
19. Pardon must be express in seduction, abduction or acts of lasciviousness
- girl's father allowed her to stay with the accused on the faith of his assurance that he
would marry her
 Not pardon
20. the pardon must be granted directly by the OP; it is only when she is dead or otherwise
incapacitated to grant it, that her parents, grandparents or guardian may do so for her
21. Pardon by the offended party who is a minor must have the concurrence of parents
 Exception: when the Op has no parents who could concur in the pardon, she can
validly extend a pardon even if she is a minor
22. Marriage of the offender with the OP in seduction abduction and acts of lasciviousness
extiniguishes criminal action or remits the penalty already imposed
- applies to co-principals (by inducement and by indispensable cooperation), accomplices
and accessories
23. Actual marriage, not desire to marry
 Marriage must be entered into in good faith and with intent of fulfilling the marital
duties and obligations
 
Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. - Person guilty of
rape, seduction or abduction,
shall also be sentenced:
1. To indemnify the offended woman.
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing.
3. In every case to support the offspring.
The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided for in Articles 333 and 334 may also
be sentenced, in the same proceeding or in a separate civil proceeding, to indemnify for
damages caused to the offended spouse.
 
Article 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians, teachers, or other persons entrusted with
the custody of the offended party. - The ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and any
person who, by abuse of authority or confidential relationships, shall cooperate as
accomplices in the perpetration of the crimes embraced in chapters, second, third and
fourth, of this title, shall be punished as principals.
 
Teachers or other persons in any other capacity entrusted with the education and guidance
of youth, shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum
period to perpetual special disqualification.
 
Any person falling within the terms of this article, and any other person guilty of corruption
of minors for the benefit of another, shall be punished by special disqualification from filling
the office of guardian.
 
REPUBLIC ACT No. 9995
 
AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PHOTO AND VIDEO
VOYEURISM, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
 
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act
of 2009".
 
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State values the dignity and privacy of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Toward this end, the State shall
penalize acts that would destroy the honor, dignity and integrity of a person.
 
Section 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term:
 
(a) "Broadcast" means to make public, by any means, a visual image with the intent that it
be viewed by a person or persons.
 
(b) "Capture" with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by
any means, or broadcast.
 
(c) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast.
 
(d) "Photo or video voyeurism" means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person
or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of
the private area of a person or persons without the latter's consent, under circumstances in
which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling,
copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video
coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet,
cellular phones and similar means or device without the written consent of the person/s
involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same
was given by such person's.
 
(e) "Private area of a person" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area,
buttocks or female breast of an individual.
 
(f) "Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means
believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a
private area of the person was being captured; or circumstances in which a reasonable
person would believe that a private area of the person would not be visible to the public,
regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
 
Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any person:
 
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act
or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the
naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the
consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a
reasonable expectation of privacy;
 
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or
recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration;
 
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording
of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
 
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or
broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other
similar means or device.
 
The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent
to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any
person who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism as defined
herein.
 
Section 5. Penalties. - The penalty of imprisonment of not less that three (3) years but not
more than seven (7) years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), or both, at
the discretion of the court shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of violating
Section 4 of this Act.
 
If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise shall be automatically be deemed
revoked and the persons liable shall be the officers thereof including the editor and reporter
in the case of print media, and the station manager, editor and broadcaster in the case of a
broadcast media.
 
If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a professional, he/she shall be
administratively liable.
 
If the offender is an alien, he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after serving
his/her sentence and payment of fines.
 
Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or
punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the court, to use
the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the
crime of photo or video voyeurism: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or
granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is
about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of
any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such, crime.
 
Section 7. Inadmissibility of Evidence. - Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof,
obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation.1avvphi1

 
 
Crimes Against Civil Status
Monday, June 13, 2022
11:06 AM
Crimes against the civil status of persons
1. Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or
abandonment of a legitimate child (art. 347);
2. Usurpation of civil status (Art. 348);
3. Bigamy (Art. 349);
4. Marriage contracted against provisions of law (Art. 350);
5. Premature marriages (Art. 351);
6. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony (Art. 352).
 
 
Article 347. Simulation of Births, Substitution of One Child for Another, and Concealment
of Abandonment of A Legitimate Child - The simulation of births and the substitution of one
child for another shall be punished by prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding Two
hundred thousand pesos (200,000).
 
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall conceal or abandon any
legitimate child with intent to cause such child to lose its civil status.
 
Any physician or surgeon or public officer who, in violation of the duties of his profession or
office, shall cooperate in the execution of any of the crimes mentioned in the two next
preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalties therein prescribed and also the penalty of
temporary special disqualification
 
Acts punished
1. Simulation of births;
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.
 
Notes
1. purpose of any of the acts: creation of a false civil status
2. Simulation of birth takes place when the woman pretends to be pregnant when in fact
she is not and on the day of the supposed delivery, takes the child of another as her own
3. The simulation which is a crime is that which alters the civil status of a person
4. The fact that the child will be benefited by the simulation of its birth is not a defense
5. substitution of a child may be effected by substituting a live child of a woman in place of
a dead one of another woman
6. Requisites for concealing or abandoning any legitimate child
 Child must be legitimate
 Offender conceal or abandons such child
 Offender has intent to cause such child to lose its civil status
7. the child must be legitimate and a fully developed and living being
- the child who is not capable of living has no status nor can he transmit any rights
whatsoever
8. the unlawful sale of a child by its father is not a crime under this article
- not abandonment as contemplated in article 347
- abandon: leaving the child at a public place where other people may find it and causing
the child to lose its civil status
9. purpose must be causing the child to lose its civil status or to cause the loss of any trace
as to the filiation of the child
10. in article 276, the offender must be the one who has custody of the child; in this
article, the offender is any person
- in this article, purpose it to lose the child's civil status
In 276, purpose is to avoid the obligation of rearing and caring for the child
11. Problems:
 A woman who has given birth to a child abandons the child in a certain place to free
herself of the obligation and duty of rearing and caring for the child. What crime is
committed by the woman?
- The crime committed is abandoning a minor under Article 276
 Suppose that the purpose of the woman is abandoning the child is to preserve the
inheritance of her child by a former marriage, what then is the crime committed?
- The crime would fall under the second paragraph of Article 347. The purpose of the
woman is to cause the child to lose its civil status so that it may not be able to share in
the inheritance.
 Suppose a child, one day after his birth, was taken to and left in the midst of a lonely
forest, and he was found by a hunter who took him home. What crime was committed
by the person who left it in the forest?
- It is attempted infanticide, as the act of the offender is an attempt against the life of
the child. See US v. Capillo, et al., 30 Phil. 349.
12. physician or surgeon is liable if he cooperated in any of the acts mentioned in this article
 
 
Questions and Answers:
1. 2002| A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call their own. C, an
unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused their names to
be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his parents. This was done in connivance
with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are the criminal liabilities, if any, of
the couple A and B, C and the doctor?
--> The couple A and B, and the doctor shall be liable for the crime of simulation of birth,
penalized under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The act of making it
appear in the birth certificate of a child that the persons named therein are the parents of
the child when they are not really the biological parents of said child constitutes the crime of
simulation of birth. C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for "child trafficking", a violation
of Article IV, Sec. 7 of Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia the act of buying and
selling of a child
 
 
Article 348. Usurpation of Civil Status - The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed
upon any person who shall usurp the civil status of another, should he do so for the
purpose of defrauding the offended part or his heirs; otherwise, the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed
 
Notes:
1. This crime is committed when a person represents himself to be another and assumes
the filiation or the parental or conjugal rights of such another person
2. Usurpation of profession may be punished under 348
 The term "civil status" includes one's public station, or the rights, duties, capacities
and incapacities which determine a person to a given class. It seems that the term
"civil status" includes one's profession.
3. it is necessary that the offender enjoys the rights arising from the civil status of the
person impersonated
  Otherwise: it will fall under 178 for assuming or using fictitious names or as estafa
under 315
4. the purpose of defrauding the offended party qualifies the crime
 
Chapter two: Illegal Marriages
 
Article 349. Bigamy - The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who
shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally
dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a
judgment rendered in the proper proceedings
 
Elements
1. Offender has been legally married (must be a valid marriage - pulido case);
2. The marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
3. He contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
4. The second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
 
Notes:
1. first marriage must be valid
- parties cannot presume their marriage to be void, there must be a declaration of nullity of
marriage
2. Nullity of first marriage is not a defense in bigamy charge
3. where there is no semblance of a valid marriage (no ceremony), there is no need for a
declaration of nullity of marriage
 The requirement for judicial nullity only applies to marriage that are void ab initio
due to the circumstances set forth in articles 35 - 38 of the FC.
4. Void marriages:
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
 
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of
parents or guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages
unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith
that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered the preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the
other; and
(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.
 
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization. (As amended by Executive Order 227)
 
Art. 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning,
whether relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
 
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood. (81a)
 
Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public
policy:
 
(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth
civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other
person’s spouse, or his or her own spouse. (82)
 
5. voidable marriages
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage
shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior
spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-
founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where
there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of
the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
 
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the
spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse. (83a)
 
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of
the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen
years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the
consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the
party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely
cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason,
freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards,
with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as
husband and wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence,
unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with
the other as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other,
and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious
and appears to be incurable. (85a)
 
6. 349 punishes the act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage before the former
marriage had been dissolved
7. Death of the spouse during the pendency of the bigamy case does not extinguish the
crime, because when the accused married the second spouse, the first marriage was still
subsisting
8. if the spouse leaves the family domicile and goes to another state for the sole purpose of
obtaining a divorce, and with no intention of remaining, his residence there is not sufficient
to confer jurisdiction on the court of that state
 The rule is applicable to those domiciled in the Philippines although they contracted
marriage elsewhere
 If the accused, in contracting the second marriage, acting on the honest belief that
he was lawfully divorced from his first wife, he is liable for bigamy through reckless
imprudence
 Could also be intentional bigamy| everybody is presumed to know the law
9. divorce obtained abroad by alien spouse
- par.2 of article 26 of FC
- requirements:
 There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner
 A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry
*note: the reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration
of the marriage but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating the latter to remarry
- naturalized as an american citizen, applicable (republic vs Orbecido)
10. defense has the burden of proof of dissolution of first marriage
12. Under 41 of Fc, a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the
absent spouse is required before the surviving spouse can remarry
 4 years
 If disappearance where there is danger of death --> 2 years
13. One who contracted a subsequent marriage before the declaration of presumptive death
of the absent spouse is guilty of bigamy
14. The second marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity
 
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
 
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer. (53a)
 
Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
 
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties
before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as
husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. (53a, 55a)
 
Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage
void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).
 
14. tenebro v. CA| nullity of the second marriage is immaterial in bigamy
- stray decision
15. Validity of second marriage is a prejudicial question to liability for bigamy
16. judgment of annulment precludes verdict of guilt in charge of bigamy
17. The second spouse is not necessarily liable for bigamy
- the crime of bigamy can be committed by one person who contracts a subsequent
marriage
18. The second husband or wife who knew of first marriage is an accomplice
19. the witness who falsely vouched for the capacity of either of the contracting parties is
also an accomplice
20. bigamy is not a private crime. It is a public offense which can be denounced not only by
the person affected but also by a civic-spirited citizen who may come to know the same
21. A person convicted of bigamy can still be prosecuted for concubinage
 
Additional notes:
1. Distinction between bigamy and illegal marriage
Bigamy Illegal marriage

Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. The
offender must have a valid and subsisting
marriage. Despite the fact that the marriage
is still subsisting, he contracts a subsequent
marriage
Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages which
are performed without complying with the requirements
of law, or such premature marriages, or such marriage
which was solemnized by one who is not authorized to
solemnize the same

For bigamy to be committed, the second  

marriage must have all the attributes of a
valid marriage.
 
New Ruling in Bigamy case
𝗪𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱 𝗮𝗯 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁
𝗼𝗯𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗹𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟰𝟬 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲.
𝗢𝗹𝗱 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴:
Supreme Court consistently ruled in a long line jurisprudence that the judicial
declarations of absolute nullity of the first and second marriage are not valid
defenses in the criminal prosecution for bigamy. The only valid defense recognized by the
Supreme Court is a judicial declarations of absolute nullity of the first marriage obtained by
the accused prior to the celebration of the second marriage.
Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of
the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
But this ruling is abandon in the case Pulido v. People of the Philippines.
𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴:
In the case of 𝗟𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗼 𝗚. 𝗣𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗼 𝘃. 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀, 𝗚.𝗥. 𝗡𝗼. 𝟮𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟰𝟵, Supreme Court
ruled that the parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity of a void ab initio first and subsequent marriages in order to raise it as a
defense in a bigamy case. The same rule now applies to all marriages celebrated under
the Civil Code and the Family Code.
Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial declaration of absolute nullity for purposes
of 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗚𝗘 but not as a defense in bigamy. Thus, an accused in a bigamy case should
be allowed to raise the defense of a prior void ab initio marriage through competent
evidence (testimonial or documentary) other than the judicial decree of nullity.
𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴
Supreme court stressed out that the nullity of a void ab initio marriage, being inexistent
under the eyes of the law can be maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage
may be material, either direct or collateral, in any civil court between parties at any time,
whether before or after death of either or both the spouses. A void marriage is ipso facto
void without need of any judicial declaration of nullity.
𝗟𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴
However, if the first marriage is merely voidable, the accused cannot interpose an
annulment decree as a defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy since the
voidable first marriage is considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage was
contracted. The crime of bigamy, therefore, is consummated when the second marriage was
celebrated during the subsistence of the voidable first marriage. The same rule applies if the
second marriage is merely considered as voidable.
 
 
Bar questions
1. 1994| Issa and Bobby, who were first cousins, were married in 1975. In 1993, Bobby was
told that his marriage to Issa was incestous under the law then in force and therefore void
ab initio. He married Caring. Charged with bigamy, Bobby raised the defense that his first
marriage is void ab initio and therefore, there is no previous marriage to speak of. Will you
sustain Bobby's defense?
 No. I will not sustain Bobby's defense, Bobby remarried in 1993, or after the Family
Code took effect on August 3, 1988, and therefore his capacity to marry in 1993 shall
be governed by said Code. In Art. 40 of the Family Code, it is mandated that the
absolute nullity of a previous marriage maybe invoked for purposes of remarriage on
the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. In short,
there is a need of a judicial declaration of such nullity before Bobby may validly
remarry (Dorothy Terre vs. Jordan Terre, 211 SCRA 6).
2. 1996| Joselito married Ramona in July, 1995, only to learn later on that Ramona was
previously married to David, from whom Ramona had been separated for more than ten
years. Believing that his marriage to Ramona was an absolute nullity, Joselito contracted a
subsequent marriage with Anabelle. Can Joselito be prosecuted for bigamy? Explain.
 Yes, Joselito can be prosecuted for bigamy for his subsequent marriage with Anabelle
even though his marriage with Ramona was an absolute nullity. Despite the nullity of
the first marriage, Joselito should have filed a case of dissolution of such marriage
under Art. 40, Family Code, before contracting a second marriage with Anabelle.
3. 2004| CBP is legally married to OEM. Without obtaining a marriage license, CBP
contracted a second marriage to RST. Is CBP liable for bigamy? Reason briefly. (5%)
 Whether CBP could be held liable for bigamy or not, depends on whether the second
marriage is invalid or valid even without a marriage license. Although as a general
rule, marriages solemnized without license are null and void ob initio, there are
marriages exempted from license requirement under Chapter 2, Title 1 of the Family
Code, such as in Article 27 which is a marriage in articulo mortis. If the second
marriage was valid even without a marriage license, then CBP would be liable for
bigamy
Otherwise, CBP is not liable for bigamy but for Illegal Marriage in Art. 350 for the
Revised Penal Code, specifically designated as "Marriage contracted against provisions
of laws."
4. 1995| Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955. After two years, Joe left Marcy
and settled in Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 June 1960. The second
marriage was registered in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its celebration.
On 10 October 1975 Marcy who remained in Batanes discovered the marriage of Joe to
Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy against Joe. The crime of
bigamy prescribed in fifteen years computed from the day the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities or their agents. Joe raised the defense of prescription of the
crime, more than fifteen years having elapsed from the celebration of the bigamous
marriage up to the filing of Marcy's complaint. He contended that the registration of his
second marriage in the civil registry of Davao City was constructive notice to the whole
world of the celebration thereof thus binding upon Marcy. Has the crime of bigamy charged
against Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully
 No. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the
crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The
principle of constructive notice which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes
should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property. Thus when
 Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well within the
reglamentary period as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 10
October 1975. (Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155)
5. 2012| What are the elements of Bigamy
 The elements of bigamy are as follows: (1) the offender has been legally married;
(2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3)
the offender contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would
have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.
6. 2012| If you were the judge in a bigamy case where the defense was able to prove that
the first marriage was null and void or a nullity, would you render a judgment of conviction
or acquittal? Explain your answer. (2012 Bar Question)
 I will render a judgment of conviction. Proof that the first marriage is null and void is
not a defense in bigamy. As long as the previous marriage was not lawfully dissolved
or judicially declared as null and void, contracting a new marriage constitute bigamy.
7. Assuming the existence of the first marriage when accused contracted the second
marriage and the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity, would you render a judgment of conviction or acquittal?
Explain your answer. (2012 Bar Question)
 I will render a judgment of conviction. A declaration of the nullity of the second
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is not material insofar as the
State’s penal laws are concerned. Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence
of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of his second marriage is not per
se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy.
8. The prescriptive period for bigamy is 15 years counted from the date of the: (2011 Bar
Question)
 A) discovery of the second marriage by the offended spouse.
9. Raissa and Martin are married to each other but had been separated for the last five
years. Raissa decided to wed Juan, her suitor, who had no inkling that she was married.
Raissa and Juan accomplished an application for marriage license which they subscribed and
swore to before the Local Civil Registrar. Raissa declared in the application that she is
single. The marriage licensed was issued. In due time, the couple were married by the
mayor. Raissa and Juan had their first sexual intercourse later in the evening. What crime or
crimes, if any, did Raissa commit? Explain briefly. (2008 Bar Question)
 Raissa committed bigamy for contracting a second marriage while her first marriage
is still subsisting (Art. 349, RPC). She is also guilty of perjury for making untruthful
statements under oath or executing an affidavit upon a material matter, when she
declared she was not married in the application for marriage license a public document
(Art. 171, RPC). Lastly, she is also guilty of adultery (Art. 333, RPC) for having sexual
intercourse with Juan although she is a married woman.
 
Article 350. Illegal Marriage - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who, without being included in the
provisions of the next proceeding article, shall have not been complied with or that the
marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment.
 
If either of the contracting parties shall obtain the consent of the other by means of
violence, intimidation or fraud, he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty
provided in the next preceding paragraph.
 
Elements
1. 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 the offense: If either of the contracting parties obtains the consent of the other
by means of violence, intimidation or fraud
 
Marriages contracted against the provisions of laws
1. The marriage does not constitute bigamy.
2. The marriage is contracted knowing that the requirements of the law have not been
complied with or in disregard of legal impediments.
3. One where the consent of the other was obtained by means of violence, intimidation or
fraud.
4. If the second marriage is void because the accused knowingly contracted it without
complying with legal requirements as the marriage license, although he was previously
married.
5. Marriage solemnized by a minister or priest who does not have the required authority to
solemnize marriages.
 
Notes:
1. under this article, the offender must not be guilty of bigamy
2. Requirements under the law for valid marriage
- refer to article 2 and 3 of FC
3. Legal impediment
- uncles and nieces cannot marry
- undissolved first marriage is a legal impediment to a second marriage
4. Marriage contracted by minors who had legal capacity is valid
- 18
5. conviction for violation of article 350 involves moral turpitude
 
Article 351. Premature Marriage
- repealed by RA No. 10655
 
Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony - Priests or ministers of any
religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal
marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law
 
Notes:
1. Offender must be authorized to solemnize marriages
2. no prescribed form or religious rite for solemnization
 Minimum requirements:
1. personal appearance of the contracting parties before a solemnizing officer
2. their declaration in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age
3. A clergyman who performed marriage ceremony, not knowing that one of the contracting
parties is a minor, is not liable
 
 

Crimes Against Honor

Monday, June 13, 2022
1:14 PM
 
Chapter One: Libel
 
1. Libel by means of writings or similar means (Art. 355);
2. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation (Art.
356);
3. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings (Art. 357);
4. Slander (Art. 358);
5. Slander by deed (Art. 359);
6. Incriminating innocent person (Art. 363);
7. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).
 
Article 353. Definition of Libel - A libel is 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 dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
 
Elements:
1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
2. The imputation must be made publicly;
3. It must be malicious;
4. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead;
5. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person
defamed.
 
Notes:
1. Defamation| includes libel and slander
- the offense of injuring a person's character, fame or reputation through false and
malicious statements
- proper term used for article 353
2. seditious libel is punished not in this chapter but in article 142
3. defamatory imputation
 Crime allegedly committed
 Vice or defect, real or imaginary
 Any act, omission, status of, or circumstance relating to the offended party
4. test of the defamatory character of the words used
- words are construed in their entirety and taken in their plain, natural and ordinary
meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears
that they were used and understood in another sense
5, the meaning of the writer is immaterial
- the libelous article must be construed as a whole
 
Notes for first element: There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance
1. Imputation of a crime may be implied from the acts and statements of the accused
2. Imputation of criminal intention not libelous
3. an expression of opinion by one affected by the act of another and based on actual facts
is not libelous
 Although Not enough to say it is the author's opinion or belief
 Communication must be made in the performance of a legal moral or social duty
4. Vice| ex: lascivious and immoral habits
5. imputation of an act or omission
- ex: OP used to borrow money without intention to pay and ordered fixing his teeth without
paying the fees
6. Imputation of conditions status or circumstance
 Bastard or leper
  Coward, vile, soul, dirty sucker, savage, hog who always looks toward the ground
 Lousy, inutile, carabao English, stupidity and satan
 Mangkukulam
 
Notes for second element: there must be publication
1. Publication| making the defamatory matter, after it has been written, known to someone
other than the person to whom it has been written
2. sending a letter in a sealed envelope through a messenger is not publication
3. There is publication of defamatory letter not shown to be sealed when sent to the
addressee
 
Notes for Third element: Publication must be malicious
1. Malice is a term used to indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by ill-will or spite
and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person
defamed
2. Malice in fact may be shown by proof of ill-wil, hatred or purpose to injure
 A republication of defamatory matter subsequent to the commencement of an action
based thereon is inadmissible to establish malice in fact
3. there is actual malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with
the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not
- requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity
4. Malice in law| presumed from a defamatory imputation
- proof of malice not required
5. Malice is not presumed in privileged communication mentioned in no 1 and 2 of
354
6. Malice in law disappears upon proof of good intention and justifiable motive
7. there is no libel in interchange of captions of pictures made by mistake, because malice is
absent
 
Fourth element: The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one
who is dead
1. Identification of the offended party is required
2. but publication need not refer by name to the offended party. It is sufficient if it is
shown that the OP is the person meant or alluded to therein
3. defamatory imputations directed at a class or group of persons in general language are
not actionable unless the statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for the victim
to be identifiable
4. Each reputation is personal in character to every person
5. Libel published in different parts may be taken together to establish the identification of
the offended party
6. Innuendo| a clause in the indictment or other pleading containing an averment which is
explanatory of some preceding word or statement
7. purpose must be to injure the reputation of the offended party
8.if the matter charged as libelous is only an incident in an act which has another objective,
the crime is not libel
- ex: filing a complaint which the accused was acquitted
 
Fifth element:
1. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person
defamed.
- includes to blacken the memory of one who is dead
2. Dishonor - disgrace, shame or ignominy
Discredit - loss of credit, reputation; disesteem
Contempt - state of being despised
3. If the utterance is made but one against a family of lawyers, designated by their
common surname, not separately mentioned, there is only one offense
4. Decision in People v. del rosario
- where the alleged slanderous utterances were committed on the same date and at the
same place but against two different persons, the situation has given rise to two separate
and individual causes for prosecution
- controlling
5. Section 4, c (4) of RA No.10175: (4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as
defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a
computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.
- merely establishes the computer system as another means of publication
- involves essentially the same elements and are in fat one the same offense
6. Section 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications
technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the
penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
7. Identical material cannot be subject to two separate libels: RPC and cyberlibel
 
Article 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 proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of
any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act
performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions
*jurisprudence: doctrine of fair commentary
 
Notes:
1. Malice in law is presumed from every defamatory imputation
2. Even if what was imputed is true, the crime of libel is committed unless one acted with
good motives or justifiable end
3. Poof of truth of a defamatory imputation is not even admissible in evidence,
unless what was imputed pertains to an act which constitutes a crime and when the person
to whom the imputation was made is a public officer and the imputation pertains to the
performance of official duty
 Other than these, the proof of a defamatory imputation is not admissible.
4. 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 individual or a public officer;
2. When the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission
imputed does not constitute a crime, provided if its related to the discharged of his
official duties.
*applies to public figure
 A public figure has been defined as a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, or
mode of living, or by adopting a professi
 on or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs, and
his character, has become a 'public personage.' He is, in other words, a celebrity.
Obviously to be included in this category are those who have achieved some degree of
reputation by appearing before the public, as in the case of an actor, a professional
 baseball player, a pugilist, or any other entertainer. The list is, however, broader than
this. It includes public officers, famous inventors and explorers, war heroes and even
ordinary soldiers, an infant prodigy, and no less a personage than the Grand Exalted
Ruler of a lodge. It includes, in short, anyone who has arrived at a position where
public attention is focused upon him as a perso
5. Requisites of defense in defamation
1. If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, in case the law allows proof
of the truth of the imputation
2. It was published with good motives;
3. It was for justifiable ends.
6. Malice is not presumed 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 proceedings which are not of confidential
nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any
other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
7. When the privileged character is said to be absolute, the statement will not be actionable
whether criminal or civil because that means the law does not allow prosecution on an
action based thereon
- limited to legislative and judicial proceedings and other acts of state, including
communications made in the discharge of a duty under express authority of law, by or to
heads of executive departments
8. conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communication| although containing defamatory
imputations, would not be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith
9. If the case is not covered by absolute privilege, it may be tested in the light of qualified
privilege extended to a private communication made by any person to another in the
performance of legal, moral or social duty
10. Article 354 does not cover absolutely privileged communication because the privilege is
lost upon proof of malice
 
Par. 1 of article 354
1. predicated on the duty and right of a citizen to make a complaint against any
mischievous conduct on the part of public officials, even if the charges are not substantiated
upon investigation, unless it appears that the charges were made maliciously and without
any reasonable ground for believing them to be true
2. Accusation aired in a public meeting, not a private communication
3. communication need not be in private document
- ex: affidavit
- covers also complaints against individuals who are not public officers, like the priests
4. requisites:
 That the person who made the communication had a legal, moral or social duty to
make the communication, or, at least, he had an interest to be upheld
 Communication is addressed to an officer or a board or superior, having some
interest or duty in the matter
 Statements in the communication are made in good faith without malice
5. Private communication in the performance of a legal duty
- there must be a provision in law to that effect
6. Private communication in the performance of a moral duty
- depends upon the relationship between the giver and receiver of the communication and
whether said communication is voluntarily given or not
7. Private communication in the performance of a social duty
- depends upon the relationship between the giver and receiver of the communication
8. The communication must be addressed to an officer or superior having some interest or
duty in the matter
9. Applying to the wrong person due to honest mistake does not take the case out of the
privilege
10. Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith
11. the privileged character simply does away with the presumption of malice
- can be overcome
12. the rule is that a communication loses its privileged character and is actionable on proof
of actual malice
- a letter written and sent in the usual course of business for the purpose of upholding the
writer's interest was held to be prima facie privileged communication
13. A privileged communication is a matter of defense and must be established by the
accused
- exception: when in the information itself it appears that the communication alleged to be
libelous is contained in an appropriate pleading in a court proceeding, the privilege at once
becomes apparent and defendant need not wait until the trial and produce the evidence
before he can raise the question of privilege.
14. to overcome the defense:
 Defendant acted with malice in fact
 No reasonable ground for believing the charge to be true
15. the existence of malice in fact may be shown by extrinsic evidence that:
 Defendant bore a grudge
 There was rivalry or ill-feeling at the date of publication
 There is intent to injure the reputation of the offended party as shown by the words
used and the circumstance attending the publication of the defamatory imputation
16. 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, privilege may still cover the mistake
 
Par.2 article 354
1. Requisites:
 There must be a fair and true report of any judicial, legislative or other official
proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the
exercise of their functions.
 Made in good faith
 Without any comments or remarks
2. fair and true report| only narrating what had taken place
3. a report with comments or remarks is not privileged
- even if it were true, accused should stop at reciting the facts only
4. Judicial proceedings
 Report of judicial proceedings is privileged. Prosecution must show malice as it is the
very gist of the offense involving publication of a true report of a judicial proceeding
 Allegations and averments in pleadings are absolutely privileged only insofar as they
are relevant and pertinent to the issues
 An action for libel on a defamatory matter uttered in the course of a judicial
proceeding might be instituted even if the defamatory matter had not yet been
stricken out of the record
 Parties counsels and witnesses are exempted from liability in libel or slander for
words otherwise defamatory published in the course of judicial proceedings, provided
the statement are pertinent or relevant to the case
5. Defaming client through his lawyer is sufficient publication
- no relation of principal and agent between the accused and the lawyer
6. A reporter can publish records of proceedings of the committees of the congress provided
he does not give any comment and provided further that they are not confidential in nature
7. Other official proceedings
- by other public officers in the exercise of their functions
8. Only matters "which are not of confidential nature" may be published
 When the court in any special case, has forbidden the publication of certain records
in the interest of morality or decency, the same should not be published
 Proceedings for disbarment of attorneys are private and confidential except the final
order of the court
9. what public record may be published
- cases in which the right of access is secured by law and in which the purpose and object of
the law is to give publicity to the contents of the record
10. enumeration under article 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged
communication
- rendered more expansive by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press
11. defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of public officers which are
related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if the defendant proves
the truth of the imputation
12. but any attack upon the private character of the public officer on matters which are not
related to the discharge of their official functions may constitute libel
13. doctrine of fair comment| 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 a false
supposition
14. the mental, moral and physical fitness of candidates for public office may be the object
of comment and criticism unless actuated by actual or express malice and is defamatory in
its nature
15. Criticism deals only with such things that shall invite public attention or call for public
comment. It does not follow a public man into his private life nor pry into his domestic
concerns
17. the policy of a public official may be attacked rightly or wrongly
18. statements made in self-defense (to vindicate oneself and his own interests) are often
privileged
- provided that the reply is made in good faith, without malice and is not unnecessarily
defamatory of his assailant
19. Retaliation or vindictiveness cannot be a basis of self-defense 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
20. Cases might arise wherein the advertisement of one's shortcomings, faults, and sins,
would not result in penal or even civil liability under the inherent right based on necessity
and self-defense
 
Additional notes:
1. In the crime of libel, which includes oral defamation, there is no need for the prosecution
to present evidence of malice
 It is enough that the alleged defamatory or libelous statement be presented to the
court verbatim.
 It is the court which will prove whether it is defamatory or not. If the tenor of the
utterance or statement is defamatory, the legal presumption of malice arises even
without proof
2. Malice in fact becomes necessary only if the malice in law has been rebutted. Otherwise,
there is no need to adduce evidence of malice in fact. So, while malice in law does not
require evidence, malice in fact requires evidence
3. Malice in law can be negated by evidence that, in fact, the alleged libelous or defamatory
utterance was made with good motives and justifiable ends or by the fact that the utterance
was privileged in character
 
Questions:
1. As regards the statements made by Congressmen while they are deliberating or
discussing in Congress, when the privileged character is qualified, proof of malice in fact will
be admitted to take the place of malice in law
2. When the defamatory statement or utterance is qualifiedly privileged, the malice in law is
negated
3. The utterance or statement would not be actionable because malice in law does not exist.
 Therefore, for the complainant to prosecute the accused for libel, oral defamation or
slander, he has to prove that the accused was actuated with malice (malice in fact) in
making the statement
4. When a libel is addressed to several persons, unless they are identified in the same libel,
even if there are several persons offended by the libelous utterance or statement, there will
only be one count of libel
5. If the offended parties in the libel were distinctly identified, even though the libel was
committed at one and the same time, there will be as many libels as there are persons
dishonored.
 If a person uttered that “All the Marcoses are thieves," there will only be one libel
because these particular Marcoses regarded as thieves are not specifically identified
 If the offender said, “All the Marcoses – the father, mother and daughter are
thieves.” There will be three counts of libel because each person libeled is distinctly
dishonored
6. If you do not know the particular persons libeled, you cannot consider one libel as giving
rise to several counts of libel. In order that one defamatory utterance or imputation may be
considered as having dishonored more than one person, those persons dishonored must be
identified. Otherwise, there will only be one count of libel.
7. Note that in libel, the person defamed need not be expressly identified. It is enough that
he could possibly be identified because “innuendos may also be a basis for prosecution for
libel. As a matter of fact, even a compliment which is undeserved, has been held to be
libelous.
 
Article 355. Libel by Means of Writings or Similar Means . - A libel committed by means of
writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in
addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.
 
A libel may be committed by means of –
1. Writing; 2. Printing; 3. Lithography; 4. Engraving; 5. Radio; 6. Photograph; 7. Painting;
8. Theatrical exhibition; 9. Cinematographic exhibition; or 10. Any similar means.
 
Notes:
1. Defamation through amplifier is not libel but oral defamation
 Radio used in said article should be considered in relation to the terms with which it
is associated -- all of which have a common characteristic, their permanent nature as a
means of publication
2. Defamation made in the television program is libel
3. Administrative circular No. 08-2008
- fine is preferred
-prison correctional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 40,000 to
1.2 million or both
4. A civil action may still be brought by the offended party simultaneously or separately
5. People v. yebra| the letter is more threatening than libelous and the intent to threaten is
the principal aim and object of the letter
- libelous remarks were preparatory remarks culminating in the final threat
--> can be liable only for the threats
 
Article 356. Threatening to Publish and Offer to Prevent Such Publication for A
Compensation - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 40,000 to 400,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning
him or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter or upon
anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money
consideration.
 
Acts punished
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 of such libel for compensation or money consideration.
 
Notes:
1. Blackmail – In its metaphorical sense, blackmail may be defined as any unlawful
extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure.
2. Two words are expressive of the crime – hush money. (US v. Eguia, et al., 38 Phil. 857)
3. Blackmail is possible in (1) light threats under Article 283; and (2) threatening to publish,
or offering to prevent the publication of, a libel for compensation, under Article 356.
 
Article 357. Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred to in the Course of Official Proceedings
- The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 40,000 to 200,000 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any reporter, editor or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall
publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue
and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or
under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative
proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.
 
Elements
1. 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 honor, virtue and reputation of said person.
 
Notes
1. Prohibition applies even if the facts are involved in official proceedings
2. Gag law
- requisites:
 Article published contains facts connected with the private life of an individual
- usually to cases pertaining to adultery, divorce, issues about the legitimacy of
children, etc., will necessarily be barred from publication
 Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person
3. facts that are intimately related to one's family and home do not at all interest the public
4. it must not only be offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of the accused but also
connected with his private life.
- not covered: testimony of a prosecuting witness regarding the commission of theft or
homicide
- covered: while the case pending trial, the local weekly published the complaint verbatim
including the defamatory expressions used by A against a priest (savage, had a concubine)
 Affects the priest's private life
5. RA No. 1477| source of news may not be revealed unless the court or a house or
committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the state
- leakage of bar examination questions affects the interest of the state but not security
 
Article 358. Slander - Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature;
otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20,000 pesos.
 
Notes:
1. slander is libel committed by oral means instead of in writing
2. Two kinds of slander:
(1) Simple slander; and
(2) Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting nature.
3. Gravity depends on:
 Expressions used
 Personal relations of the accused and the offended party
 Circumstances surrounding the case
4. social standing and the position of the offended party are also taken into account
- former public official
- public school teacher
5. Examples:
 Accusation that the OP is living successively and with several men in order to correct
an improper conduct --> simple slander
 Calling a person a gangster --> simple
 Uttering defamatory words in the heat of ager with some provocation on the party of
OP --> simple
 Defamation uttered in political meeting; tensions and feelings running high -->
simple slander
6. the word puta does not impute that the complainant is a prostitute
7. The slander need not be heard by the offended party
 
Article 359. Slander by Deed - The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 20,000 to 100,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in
this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If said act is
not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20,000
pesos
 
Two kinds of slander by deed
1. Simple slander by deed; and
2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a serious nature.
 
Elements
1. Offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor
2. Such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons;
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party.
 
Notes:
1. Slander by deed is a crime against honor which is committed by performing any act
which casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person
2. gravity depends on the social standing of the offended party, the circumstances under
which the act was committed, the occasion, etc.
3. slapping the face of another is slander by deed if the intention of the accused is to cause
shame and humiliation
4. fighting the OP with intention to insult him is slander by deed
5. Pointing a dirty finger constitutes simple slander by deed
- fuck you = puta or putang ina mo
- used by the defendant to express anger or displeasure at complainant for procrastinating
the approval of his leave monetization
6. if making motions of spitting is deliberately done, it would constitute the crime of grave
slander by deed
7. Kissing a girl in public and touching her breast without lewd designs, committed by a
rejected suitor to cast dishonor on the girl --> slander by deed
8. Nature and effects of maltreatment determine the crime committed
 If OP suffered from shame and humiliation from the maltreatment, it is slander by
deed
9. slander by deed, unjust vexation and acts of lasciviousness
 If merely irritation or annoyance --> unjust vexation
 If publicity and dishonor or contempt is attendant --> slander by deed
 In addition to annoyance or irritation, if there was present any of the circumstances
provided for in 335, on rape, together with lewd designs the crime would be acts of
lasciviousness
10. under the last paragraph of 360, only defamation imputing crimes which may not be
prosecuted de officio (adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness) must be prosecuted upon complaint by the offended party
- other than this, complaint of OP is not necessary
11. Moral damages awarded do not determine the jurisdiction of the court
 
Section two: General provisions
 
Art. 360. Persons responsible. - Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the
publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be
responsible for the same.
 
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations
contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.
 
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in
this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of
the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of
the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided,
however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the
City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the
Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city or province where the
libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does
not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the
offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the
offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission
of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided, further,
That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and
vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or civil action for
damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And,
provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the
civil and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of
this law.
 
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as provided for in the
chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the
municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such action may be instituted in
accordance with the provisions of this article.
 
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot
be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint
expressly filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A. 1289, approved June 15, 1955,
R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965).
 
Persons responsible
1. Person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation
in writing or similar means
2. the author or editor of a book or pamphlet
3. the editor or business manager of a daily newspapers 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 participate in or have connection with its publication
 
Notes:
1. the person who publishes a libelous letter written by the offended party is liable
 Note: the prime requisite of libel is not necessarily the composing of the article but
the publishing of it
2. Liability of the editor is the same as that of the author
3. Lack of participation in the preparation of libelous article does not shield the persons
responsible for libel from liability
4. Municipal court of a municipality cannot conduct preliminary investigation of
criminal action for written defamation
- must be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city or by the
municipal (now city) court of the city or capital of the province where the actions may be
instituted
 A judge, who is neither a judge of the municipal court of the city or capital of the
province, has no jurisdiction
5. the criminal and civil actions for damages in case of written defamation shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city
 Where the libelous article is printed and first published
 Where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of
the offense
6. one of the offender parties is a public officer
 PO whose office is in the city of manila --> court of first instance of the city of
manila OR of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first
published
 PO does not hold office in the city of Manila --> court of first instance of the
province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or
where the libelous article is printed and first published
7. In case of one the OPs is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the court of first
instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of
the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published
8. civil and criminal actions must be filed in the same court
9. the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed shall acquire
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts
10. offended party must file a complaint for defamation imputing a crime which cannot be
prosecuted de officio
- applies not only to written defamation but also to oral defamation
11. the alleged marital relations of the offended husband and wife could be a vice or defect
but it is not an imputation of adultery or concubinage or any other crimes which may not be
prosecuted de officio
 If adultery is not definitely imputed, the libel may be prosecuted upon information
signed and filed by the fiscal
12. Actual damages need not be proven
-arises as a natural and probable consequence in libel
- liability for damages in a civil action for libel is an obligation ex delicto and the damages
are compensatory and recoverable under 104 of RPC
13. an action for exemplary damages in libel may be awarded if the action is based
on quasi-delict
14. for liability to arise from an alleged libelous publication, there is need to prove that the
publication was made with actual malice --> knowledge of its falsity or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not
15. No remedy for damages or slander or libel in case of absolutely privileged
communication
 
Art. 361. Proof of the Truth - In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given
in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and,
moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants
shall be acquitted.
 
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not
be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees
with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.
 
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be
acquitted
 
Notes:
1. 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 individual or a public officer;
2. When the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission
imputed does not constitute a crime, provided if its related to the discharged of his
official duties.
2. When the imputation involves the private life of a government employee which is
not related to the discharge of his official duties, the offender cannot prove the truth thereof
3. "In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him"
- this must be referred to the two cases referred to in the second paragraph where proof of
the truth may be admitted
4. 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
5. in a case where defendant made imputations against Felix Manalo; some insinuated
commission of crimes and some did not constitute crimes
 He was only allowed to prove the truth of the imputations constituting crimes
6. Requisites of defense in defamation
1. If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, in case the law allows proof
of the truth of the imputation
 Limited only to :
o An act or omission imputed constituting a crime regardless of whether the
offended party is a private individual or a public officer;
o To an act or omission that does not constitute a crime, related to the
discharged of his official duties.
2. It was published with good motives;
o Consider not only the intention of the author but also all the other circumstances
of each particular case
3. It was for justifiable ends.
o Note: goodness of the end is not always a sufficient motive to warrant the
employment of illicit means to obtain it
6. People vs Chavez| accused the husband for contaminating his wife of a disease where
several persons downstairs overheard the conversation
- done in private and as a precautionary measure to prevent further contamination
 Not done out of ill-will or spite
7. Retraction may mitigate damages
- should contain admission of the falsity
8. Publication of the article was an honest mistake is not a complete defense but serves only
to mitigate damages where the article is libelous per se
 
Art. 362. libelous remarks - Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter
privileged under the provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the
author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability
 
Notes:
1. Libelous remarks on matters privileged, if made with malice in fact, do not exempt the
author and editor
2. Liability of newspaper reporter for distorting facts connected with official proceedings
- must publish the whole case and not merely state the conclusion which he himself draws
from the evidence
- author who distorts, mutilates or discolors the official proceedings reported by him or add
comments thereon to case aspersion on the character of the parties concerned is guilty of
libel
 
Chapter Two: Incriminatory Machinations
 
Article 363. Incriminating Innocent Persons - Any person who, by any act not constituting
perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a
crime, shall be punished by arresto menor
 
Elements
1. Offender performs an act;
2. By such an act, he incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a
crime;
3. Such act does not constitute perjury.
 
Notes:
1. This article is limited to planting evidence and the like which tend to directly cause false
prosecution
2. Under the RPC, one who falsely accuses another of a crime may be held liable either for
libel or for perjury, depending upon the manner or form in which the act is committed
 But not for 363
3. Incriminating an innocent person Perjury

Committed by performing an act by which the offender The gravamen of the offense is the
directly imputes to an innocent person the commission of a imputation itself, falsely made, before an
crime officer

Limited to the act of planting evidence and the like Giving of false statement under oath or
the making of a false affidavit, imputing
to the person the commission of a crime
 
4. Incriminatory machinations Defamation

Offender does not avail himself of written or Imputation made by the offender must be public and
spoken words in besmirching the victim's malicious and must be calculated to cause the
reputation dishonor, discredit or contempt of the aggrieved
party
 
5. There can be a complex crime of incriminating an innocent person through unlawful
arrest
- People vs. Alagao| the unlawful arrest was a necessary means to commit the planting of
evidence
6. This crime cannot be committed through verbal incriminatory statements. It is defined as
an act and, therefore, to commit this crime, more than a mere utterance is required.
7. If the incriminating machination is made orally, the crime may be slander or oral
defamation.
8. If the incriminatory machination was made in writing and under oath, the crime may be
perjury if there is a willful falsity of the statements made
9. If the statement in writing is not under oath, the crime may be falsification if the crime is
a material matter made in a written statement which is required by law to have been
rendered
 
Article 364. Intriguing against Honor - The penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding
20,000 pesos shall be imposed for any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to
blemish the honor or reputation of a person.
 
Notes:
1. committed by any person who shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose
to blemish the honor or reputation of another person
2. any scheme or plot by means which consist of some trickery designed to blemish the
reputation of a person
- akin to slander by deed, but offender uses some ingenious, crafty and secret plot
3. Incriminating an innocent person Intriguing against Honor

- performs an act by which he directly incriminates or - resorts to an intrigue for the purpose of
imputes to another a crime blemishing the honor or reputation
4. Gossiping is not intriguing against honor
- intriguing against honor consists of some tricky and secret plot
5. Slander Intriguing against honor
- Where the source of the information can be pinpointed - But here the source or the author of the
and definitely determined and the offender adopted as derogatory information cannot be determined
his own information and passes it to another for the and the defendant borrows the same and
purpose of causing dishonor to complainant's reputation, without subscribing to the truth thereof,
the act is not intriguing against honor but slander passes it to oothers --> intriguing against
honor
 
Bar Questions
1. 2002| A. A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the Executive Branch of the
government. His nomination was thereafter submitted to the Commission on Appointments
for confirmation. While the Commission was considering the nomination, a group of
concerned citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a full-page statement
objecting to A's appointment They alleged that A was a drug dependent, that he had several
mistresses, and that he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors from parties
transacting business in his previous office, and therefore he was unfit for the position to
which he had been nominated. As a result of the publication, the nomination was not
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The official sued the concerned citizens and
the newspapers for libel and damages on account of his non-confirmation. How will you
decide the case? (3%)
 I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers involved, from the crime of
libel, because obviously they made the denunciation out of a moral or social duty and
thus there is absence of malice. Since A was a candidate for a very important public
position of a Department Secretary, his moral, mental and physical fitness for the
public trust in such position becomes a public concern as the interest of the public is at
stake. It is pursuant to such concern that the denunciation was made; hence, bereft of
malice.
- B. If defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the newspapers but by
broadcast over the radio, do they constitute libel? Why? (2%)
 Yes, because libel may be committed by radio broadcast Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code punishes libel committed by means, among others, of radio broadcast,
inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio is public and may be defamatory.
2. 2003| During a seminar workshop attended by government employees from the Bureau
of Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the course of his
lecture, lamented the fact that a great majority of those serving in said agencies were
utterly dishonest and corrupt. The following morning, the whole group of employees in the
two bureaus who attended the seminar, as complainants, filed a criminal complaint against
A for uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory statements of the lecturer. In court,
A filed a motion to quash the information, reciting fully the above facts, on the ground that
no crime were committed. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the motion? 8%
 I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, since there is no definite person or persons dishonored. The
crime of libel or slander, is a crime against honor such that the person or persons
dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendoes: otherwise the crime against
honor is not committed. Moreover, A was not making a malicious imputation, but
merely stating an opinion; he was delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a
seminar workshop. Malice being inherently absent in the utterance, the statement is
not actionable as defamatory.
3. 2005| In an interview aired on television, Cindee uttered defamatory statements against
Erika, a successful and reputable businesswoman. What crime or crimes did Cindee commit?
Explain. (3%)
 Cindee committed libel for uttering defamatory remarks tending to cause dishonor or
discredit to Erika. Libel can be committed in television programs or broadcasts, though
 it was not specifically mentioned in the article since it was not yet in existence then,
but is included as "any similar means." Defamatory statements aired on television is
similar to radio, theatrical exhibition or cinematographic exhibition, which are among
the modes for the commission of libel. (Arts. 353 and 355, RPC)
4. 1988| For some time, bad blood had existed between the two families of Maria Razon and
Judge Gadioma who were neighbors. First, there was a boundary dispute between them
which was still pending in court. Maria's mother also filed an administrative complaint
against the judge which was however dismissed. The Razons also felt intimidated by the
position and alleged influence of their neighbor. Fanning fire to the situation was the
practice of the Gadiomas of throwing garbage and animal excrement into the Razon's
premises. In an explosion of anger, Maria called Judge Gadioma "land grabber",
"shameless", and "hypocrite." What crime was committed by Maria, if any? Explain briefly
 Maria committed the crime of slander or slight defamation only because she was
under the influence of anger. When Maria called Judge Gadioma a hypocrite and 77 of
86 land grabber she imputed to him the commission of crimes.
5. 1996|Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condominium in Makati City
sunbathed naked at its penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that the
business executives holding office at the adjoining tall buildings reported to office every
Sunday morning and, with the use of powerful binoculars, kept on gazing at her while she
sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing became the talk of the town. 1) What crime, if any,
did Pia commit? Explain, 2) What crime, if any, did the business executives commit?
Explain.
 1) Pia did not commit a crime, The felony closest to making Pia criminally liable is
Grave Scandal, but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and
offensive against decency and good customs. In the first place, it was not done in a
public place and within public knowledge or view. As a matter of fact it was discovered
by the executives accidentally and they have to use binoculars to have public and full
view of Pia sunbathing in the nude.
 2) The business executives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of
lasciviousness [as there was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of
the town, resulting from her sunbathing, is not directly imputed to the business
executives, and besides such topic is not intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule.
6. 1994| Distinguish slander by deed from maltreatment
 SLANDER BY DEED is a crime committed when a person publicly subjects another to
an act intended or calculated to cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the latter.
Absent the intent to cast dishonor, discredit, contempt, or insult to the offended party,
the crime is only MALTREATMENT under Art, 266. par. 3, where, by deed, an offender
ill-treats another without causing injury.
7. 2004| Distinguish clearly but briefly between oral defamation and criminal conversation.
 Oral defamation, known as SLANDER, is a malicious imputation of any act, omission,
condition or circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause
dishonor, discredit, contempt, embarrassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime
against honor penalized in Art. 358 of the Revised Penal Code
 CRIMINAL CONVERSATION. The term is used in making a polite reference to sexual
intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape, seduction and adultery. It has no definite
concept as a crime.
 
 

Quasi-Offenses
Wednesday, June 15, 2022
10:39 PM
 
Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence.— Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall
commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its medium
period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony,
the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.
 
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would
otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of
arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.
 
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in
damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging
from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three (3) times such value, but
which shall in no case be Less than Five thousand pesos (₱5,000).
 
A fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (₱40.000) and censure shall be imposed upon
any person, who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if
done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
 
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, without
regard to the rules prescribed in Article 64.
 
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
 
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the
first two (2) paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next
lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem
proper to apply.
 
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, the death
of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prisión
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
 
Reckless imprudence consists in 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 in which the
damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
 
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon
the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in his
hands to give.
 
Quasi-offenses punished
1. Committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would
constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony;
2. Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise
constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
3. Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple
imprudence or negligence;
4. Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done maliciously,
would have constituted a light felony.
 
Notes:;
1. Parricide or homicide if committed with intent to kill is a grave felony (RP and RT -->
afflictive penalties)
 If committed through reckless imprudence 366 applies
2. less serious physical injuries is a less grave felony (arresto mayor, a correctional penaly)
Slight physical injuries is a light felony (arresto menor)
- with malice 265 or 266
- through reckless imprudence --> 366
3. firing a warning shot without taking necessary precaution and in the process hit a
bystander
 If the accused is a policeman, cannot be held liable under 249 for intentional
homicide but 365 --> homicide through reckless imprudence
4. If the act performed would not constitute a grave or less grave or light felony
under any provision of the code, 365 is not applicable.
 Neither an intentional felony or a culpable felony
- accused suddenly without saying a word, drew the bolo from the sheat which another was
carrying. The person caught the bolo to retain it and his palm was wounded
 The only act performed was to take or attempt to take from its sheath the bolo which
he was carrying and that was an act which is not defined in any law as being a crime
 It was not the defendant who wound him but his own act of catching hold of the
edge of the bolo
4. Quasi-offenses are distinct species of crime and not a modality or a way of
committing a crime
- RPC fixes the penalty for reckless imprudence if the intentional act would result in grave,
less grave or light felonies
- actual penalty for criminal negligence bears no relation to the individual willful crime, but
is set in relation to a whole class or series of crimes
5. it should be reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or simple imprudence causing
damages to property
6. In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is
penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness lack of care or foresight
7. A negligent act may produce civil liability arising from crime or create an action for quasi-
delict under the CC
- but the injured party cannot claim or recover damages from both for the same act or
omission
8. Negligence Imprudence

Deficiency of perception Deficiency of action

Failure in advertence Failure in precaution

Could be avoided by paying proper attention and using By taking the necessary precaution once
diligence in foreseeing them they are foreseen
9. Reckless imprudence| consists in 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
10. simple imprudence| consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in
which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest
11. Elements of reckless imprudence
1. Offender does or fails to do an act
2. the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary
3. That it be without malice
4. that material damage results
5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender taking into
consideration
o employment or occupation,
o degree of intelligence, physical condition and
o other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place
12. Test of negligence
- The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be
stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable
care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation?
If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
13. reckless imprudence Force majeure

Immediate personal harm or damage to property is preventable Cannot be foreseen or which being
by the exercise of reasonable care foreseen is inevitable
14. Tire blowout is not a fortuitous event if the mechanical defect could be discoverable
through thorough and rigid check-up
15. Failure to detect mechanical defect is negligence, if accused driver assumed the duty of
inspecting the vehicle
- if the defect would be detected by an ordinary experienced driver
16.when the driver could not have known the defect of the brakes, he is not liable
17. The doing of the act or the failure to do the act must be voluntary
- not compelled or prevented because of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear
- not when he is insane or a minor under 9 (or 15 years of age) or a minor over 15 but
under 18 incapable of acting with discernment
18. Without malice
- 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
- intent to kill is proved --> homicide
- intent to cause damage due to hate revenge or other evil motive in damage to property --
> malicious mischief
19. There must be injury to person or damage to property as a consequence of
reckless imprudence
20. Basis for determining the inexcusable lack of precaution
 employment or occupation,
 degree of intelligence, physical condition and
 other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place
21. Cabugao v. People| Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide arising from medical
malpractice
- guilty of seemingly indifference to the deteriorating condition of JR, ruled out surgery,
which was supposed to be done, for no apparent reason
--> conscious indifference to the consequences of the conduct is all that is required from
the standpoint of the frame of mind of the accused
22. Pharmacy demands care and skill and druggists must exercise care of a specially high
degree
23. Duty of the accused when an approaching vehicle is running on the wrong side
of the road
- conduct expected of a reasonably prudent man| slow, stop or further turn to the right
24. Right of way| the right of one vehicle to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to
another approaching vehicle under such circumstances of direction, speed and proximity as
to give rise to a danger of collision unless one of the vehicles grants precedence to the other
 Where no ordinance or statute governs the matter, the rule is that the vehicle
first entering an intersection is entitled to the right of way
25. Section 42 of RA No. 4316:
(a) When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection at approximately the same
time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle
on the right, except as otherwise hereinafter provided. The driver of any vehicle
traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right of way which he might otherwise
have hereunder.
 
(b) The driver of a vehicle approaching but not having entered an intersection, shall
yield the right of way to a vehicle within such intersection or turning therein to the left
across the line of travel of such first-mentioned vehicle, provided the driver of the
vehicle turning left has given a plainly visible signal of intention to turn as required in
this Act.
- this applies only where the vehicles are approaching the intersection at
approximately the same time and not where one of the vehicles enter the junction
substantially in advance of the other.
26. It is said that two vehicles are approaching the intersection at approximately the same
time where it would appear to a reasonable person of ordinary prudence in the
position of the driver approaching from the left of another vehicle that if two
vehicles continued on their courses at their speed, a collision would likely occur
- vehicle on the left is merely required to approach the intersection under control; he is not
bound to wait until there is no other vehicle on his right in sight before proceeding to enter
27. Section 49. Right of way for police and other emergency vehicles. - Upon the approach
of any police or fire department vehicle, or of an ambulance giving audible signal, the driver
of every other vehicle shall immediately drive the same to a position as near as possible and
parallel to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway, clear of any intersection of highways,
and shall stop and remain in such position, unless otherwise directed by a peace officer,
until such vehicle shall have passed.
28. Section 41. Restrictions on overtaking and passing.
(a) The driver of a vehicle shall not drive to the left side of the center line of a highway in
overtaking or passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, unless such left
side is clearly visible, and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to
permit such overtaking or passing to be made in safety.
29. Overtaking a vehicle from the right shows recklessness and disregard of traffic laws and
regulations
 b) The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake or pass another vehicle proceeding in
the same direction, when approaching the crest of a grade, not upon a curve in the
highway, where the driver's view along the highway is obstructed within a distance of
five hundred feet ahead, except on a highway having two or more lanes for movement
of traffic in one direction where the driver of a vehicle may overtake or pass another
vehicle: Provided, That on a highway within a business or residential district, having
two or more lanes for movement of traffic in one direction, the driver of a vehicle may
overtake or pass another vehicle on the right
30. when a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a corner or curve there is a special
necessity for keeping to the right-hand side of the road
- overtaking or upon approaching curves is in itself a violation
31. Driving within speed limit is not a guaranty for due care
- due care is determined by circumstances and conditions obtaining at a particular time
32. there is a complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide
with serious physical injuries and less serious physical injuries
33. Prior conviction or acquittal of reckless imprudence bars subsequent prosecution for the
same quasi-offense
- the law penalizes the negligent or careless act and not the result thereof
- Ivler v. Modesto| accused conviction for Reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries bars a second prosecution for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and
damage to property arising from the same incident
34. Motor vehicle may be on the left side of the road temporarily if an obstruction exists on
the right hand side of a highway
35. elements of Simple imprudence
 There is a lack of precaution on the part of the offender
 The damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly
manifest
36. Placing a loaded pistol in one's pocket from which it fell, resulting in the injury of
another when it fired, is not negligence for which one is liable
- People| firing of the pistol was purely accidental. It took place precisely while appellant
was making an effort to prevent it from causing injury
37. When the reckless imprudence or the simple imprudence or negligence resulted in the
damage to the property of another, the penalty is only fine
38. The measure of damage should be the difference in value of the property
immediately before the incident and immediately after the repair
39. Article 64 relative to MC and AC is not applicable to crimes committed through
negligence
40. Penalties provided in Article 365 are not applicable in the following cases
 When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided
in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall impose the
penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed
 When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile
Law, the death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be
punished by prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
41. the proper penalty for the crime of slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence is public censure which is next lower in degree to arresto menor
- note: par.1 prescribes the penalty of 21-30 days of arresto menor for light felonies
committed through reckless imprudence; graver
42. Section 56 (n) of RA 4136| When death or injury to any person has resulted, the motor
vehicle driver at fault shall punished under the RPC
23. contributory negligence is not a defense but only mitigates criminal liability
- but where the proximate cause of death is the negligence of the deceased himself, the
driver cannot be held liable for homicide
44. where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons,
although acting independently of each other are in combination, the direct or proximate
cause of a single injury to a third person and it is impossible to determine in what
proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury,
even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury
- -reason: negligence of one persons is in no sense justified by the concurring negligence of
another
45. Doctrine of Last clear chance
- where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciable later in time
than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof
- stated differently, an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of
damages for supervening negligence of or bar a defense against the liability sought by
another if the latter who had the last fair chance could have avoided the impending arm
by the exercise of due diligence.
46. Emergency rule: An automobile driver 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 a collision or injury is not guilty of 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
- applies only where the situation which arises to confront the actor is sudden and
unexpected and is such as to deprive him of all opportunity for deliberation
 Distinguished from last clear chance: in last clear chance there is an opportunity for
deliberation while in emergency doctrine, there is none
47. A person violating a traffic regulation is presumed negligent
- 2185 of CC
48. but negligence cannot be predicated upon the mere fact of minority or lack of a
driver's license
49. The penalty next higher in degree to be imposed if the offender fails to lend on the spot
help to the injured parties or the victims of his act of negligence
- last paragraph of 365
- article 275 penalizes with arresto mayor anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance
to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured
50. failing to lend help is a qualifying circumstance and must be alleged in the
information
51. defendant is not criminally liable for the death or injuries caused by his recklessly
negligent acts to trespassers whose presence in the premises he was not aware of
- Even if he was aware of the presence of a trespasser, he does not owe to the trespasser
the duty of ordinary or reasonable care but merely the duty to refrain from wantonly or
willfully causing injury to him
52. a quack doctor who treated a sick man, resulting in the latter's death is guilty of
homicide through reckless imprudence
53. Where or not a physician has committed inexcusable lack of precaution in the treatment
of his patient is determined according to the standard of care observed by other
members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing
in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or present state
of medical science
54. burden of proof in litigation involving medical negligence is with the plaintiff
 
Bar Questions:
1. Art 365; imprudence & negligence 1983 No. 9
A jeep recklessly driven by A went out of control and hit the wall of a house and a
bystander, wrecking the wall and injuring the person hit. In two separate informations, the
driver was charged with damage to property thru reckless imprudence and slight physical
injuries thru reckless imprudence. Was the charge proper? If you were the Fiscal, for what
crimes would you prosecute A? Explain.
 Answer The charge is not proper. If I were the Fiscal I would prosecute A in a single
information for the crimes of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and
slight physical injuries. The essence of the quasi-offense of criminal negligence or
imprudence lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that if intentionally
 done would be punishable as a felony. For the law punishes the negligent or imprudent
act and not the result thereof. In other words, negligence or imprudence is the crime
itself. So if two informations are filed, one for damage to property thru reckless
imprudence and the other for slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence, and the
offender is acquitted or convicted of the crime of slight physical injuries thru reckless
imprudence, such conviction or acquittal will constitute double jeopardy in the
prosecution for damage to property thru reckless imprudence as such refers to the
same act of reckless imprudence. (People vs. Buan (1968) 22 SCRA 1383 Buerano vs.
Court of Appeals (1982) 115 SCRA 82)
 Alternative Answer — The charge is proper. A should be prosecuted for two
informations, one for damage to property thru reckless imprudence and another for
slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. A single information cannot be filed
because the slight physical injuries had it been intentional would be a light felony.
There is, therefore, no complex crime. The reckless imprudence is not the crime itself
but only a means or modality to commit the crime. (People vs. Fallar 39 O.G. 1369;
Lontoc, Jr. vs. Judge Gorgonio, L37396, April 30, 1979)
 
2. Art 365; imprudence & negligence 1977 No. X-b In a children's party, G left his loaded
and cocked pistol on a chair amidst children playing around to meet visitors. All of a sudden,
the chair was bumped by a child being chased by his playmates, causing the pistol to fall
on. the ground and fired. This created considerate shock and fear among the persons
present thereat, especially the children, who scampered for safety. What crime, if any, was
committed by G? State your reasons.
 No crime is committed by G. Reckless negligence is present since G left his pistol
loaded and cocked on a chair where there were children playing as there was a
children's party (II Viada p. 629). G could have foreseen that any child might bump
the chair while playing with others which was what actually happened. G failed to
exercise the necessary precaution taking into consideration the place and the children
present. But such reckless negligence is Page 344 of 374 not punished because there
is no material damage which is an element of the quasi-offense of reckless negligence.
(Art 365, R.P.C.).