EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

REA MAY G. HERMOSURA

Chairperson

JANINE NICOLE C. ORCENA TRISHA ALEXIS R. MAINGAT JAYNIE P. PAJARILLAGA

Vice Chairperson for Academics Secretary Creative Director

SHASHLEY R. BERNARDEZ LANIE GRACE S. LIM IRISH ANA A. SALINAS

Vice Chairperson for Administration Treasurer Volunteer Core Head

CRISTOBAL N. RABINO GRACE PEREZ-SONIDO TIMOTHY JAMES D. PACSON

Operations Head Auditor Ways and Means Officer

CRIMINAL LAW (AND PRACTICAL EXERCISES) COMMISSION

Adrian G. dela Cruz Dannah Francesca B. Mantuano Sarah Joy T. Bumanglag

Commissioner Subject Head – Crimes Under the Revised Armand Jerome B. Carada
Penal Code (Revised Penal Code – Book 2) Michelle Ann S. Ferriol
Geron G. Bueno Benedick C. Garcia
Deputy Commissioner Felix B. Tumbali Ritz R. Merida
Subject Head – Special Penal Laws (A-I)
Myra Andrea D. Olalia
Ruby Ann M. Pardiñas Miko Angelo U. Palmos
Subject Head – Principles of Criminal Law Charisse Ayra C. Clamosa
Kane Eroll D. Pascual
(Revised Penal Code – Book 1) Subject Head – Special Penal Laws (J-QI)
Maria Elena T. Pineda
Trisha M. Tatlonghari
Members

LEGAL ETHICS AND PRACTICAL EXERCISES COMMISSION

Donald Adrian M. Castillo

Commissioner
Michael Renz Alambra
Nikka Mae B. Morales Alyssa M. Aquino
Deputy Commissioner Araceli Marie M. De Guzman
Gladys C. de Vera
Ma. Dhelltria G. Garner John Angelo M. Gabrillo
Subject Head – Legal Ethics, Suspension, Shiela May Noceda
Disbarment and Discipline of Lawyers (Rule Jona B. Pranes
139; Rule 139-B) John Louie Pariñas
Joy Marie Sevilleno
Mikyla Janiene V. Cordero Lourdes Tuozo
Subject Head – Practical Exercises (Civil Gina B. Quintal
Law and Criminal Law) Members
 CENTER FOR LEGAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
ATTY. RODERICK M. VILLOSTAS
Director

ATTY. ANTONY J. PARREÑO

ATTY. LESTER NAZARENE V. OPLE
ATTY. RICKSON M. BUENVIAJE
Research Fellows

BRANDO F. DE TORRES
MARICAR S. ASUNCION
Research Staff

PHILIPPINE COPYRIGHT

This material is an intellectual creation of the Arellano Law Bar Operations Commission 2022. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is
prohibited. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including but not
limited to photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without the express written consent of both Arellano Law bar
Operations Commission 2022 and the Arellano University School of Law.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2022

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PRINCIPLE OF CRIMINAL LAW (Revised Penal Code – Book 1)

A. General Principles ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1. Mala in se and mala prohibita …………………………………………………………………..… 1
2. Applicability and effectivity of the RPC ............................................................ 2
3. Interpretation of penal laws ……………………………………………………………………..… 7
4. Retroactive effect of penal laws ………………………………………………………………….. 7

B. Felonies …………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….. 9
1. Criminal Liabilities and felonies …………………………………………………………………… 9
2. Circumstances affecting criminal liability ……………………………………………………… 21
3. Persons liable and degree of participation …………………………………………………… 56
4. Penalties ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 68
5. Execution and service of sentence ……………………………………………………………… 86
6. Extinction of criminal liability (as amended by R.A. No. 10592) ………………………. 93
7. Civil liability in criminal cases ………………………………………………......................... 96

II. CRIMES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE (Revised Penal Code – Book 2)

A. Crimes against national security and laws of nations …………………………………………… 100

B. Crimes against the fundamental law of the state …………………………………….............. 107
C. Crimes against public order …………………………………………………………...................... 115
D. Crimes against public interest ………………………………………………………...................... 132
E. Crimes against public morals ……………………………………………………………………………. 145
F. Crimes committed by public officers ………………………………………………………………….. 147
G. Crimes against persons ……………………………………………………………………………………. 166
H. Crimes against personal liberty and security ………………………………………………………. 181
I. Crimes against property …………………………………………………………………………………… 195
J. Crimes against chastity ……………………………………………………………………………………. 217
K. Crimes against the civil status of persons …………………………………………………………… 225
L. Crimes against honor ………………………………………………………………………………………. 227
M. Quasi-offenses ………………………………………………………………………........................... 233

III. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

A. Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (Secs. 3[a-c], 4 and 5, R.A. No. 9775) ………….. 235
B. Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Secs. 2 to 6, P.D. No. 1612) ……………………………………... 237
C. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 3047,
P.D. No. 677, P.D. No. 1288, B.P. Blg. 195 and R.A. No. 10910) ………………….......... 239
D. Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 (R.A. No. 8049, as amended by R.A. No. 11053) …………….. 243
E. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (R.A. No. 9160) …………………………………………… 247
F. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (Secs. 3 and 4, R.A. No. 9995) ……...... 251
G. Anti-Plunder Act (Secs. 1, 2 and 6, R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659) ... 252
H. Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (Secs. 3 [a-b], 4 and 5, R.A. No. 9745) …………………………. 254
I. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Secs. 3 to 12, R.A. No. 9208) ………………….. 259
 J. Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Secs. 3, 5 and 26, R.A.
No. 9262) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 265
K. Anti-Wire Tapping Act (Secs. 1 to 4, R.A. No. 4200) …………………………………………… 268
L. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22) ……………………………………………….................... 270
M. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A.
No. 10640) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 274
N. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. No. 10175) ………………………………………….. 281
O. New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (Secs. 3 to 4, R.A. No. 10883) …………………………. 287
P. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act
(Secs. 3(a), 5 and 10, R.A. No. 7610) ……………………………………………..................... 289
Q. Swindling by Syndicate (P.D. No. 1689) …………………………………………………………….. 292

IV. PRACTICAL EXERCISES

A. Drafting of Complaint, Information, Affidavits of Desistance, etc. ………………............ 293

 REVISED PENAL CODE and OTHER Mala in Se Mala Prohibita
RELATED SPECIAL PENAL LAWS As to Basis
The moral state of the The voluntariness of the
offender. offender.
I. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
As to Nature
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES Wrong from its very Wrong merely because
nature, or inherently there is a law prohibiting
Criminal Law is the branch or division of law, immoral. the same.
which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
As to Laws Violated
provides for their punishment. (Reyes, The Revised
Generally, punishable Generally, punishable by
Penal Code: Book One, 2017, p.1)
by the RPC. Special Laws.
As to Intent
Crime – the generic term used to refer to a Requires criminal intent Generally, mere intent to
wrongdoing punished either by the Revised Penal on the part of the perpetrate the act or done
Code (RPC) or by a special law which includes offender. freely and consciously is
municipal or city ordinances; an act committed or enough.
omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or Exception: Temporary,
commanding it. (I Bouviers Law Dictionary, Rawle’s incidental, casual or
Third Revision, p. 729) harmless possession or
control of a firearm is not
a violation of a statute
Felony – an act or omission punishable by the prohibiting the possessing
Revised Penal Code by means of deceit (dolo) or or carrying of this kind of
fault (culpa). (Art. 3, Revised Penal Code; CICL XXX weapon. (People vs.
vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 237334, August Estoista, G.R. No. L-5793,
14, 2019, J. Caguioa) August 27, 1953)

Offense – crimes that are punishable under As to use of Good Faith or Lack of Criminal
special laws. However, offenses are now being Intent as Defense
used to refer to crimes in general. (Campanilla, Good faith or lack of Good faith or lack of
Criminal Law Reviewer: Voulme I, 2019, p. 39) criminal intent is a criminal intent is NOT
defense. accepted as a defense,
UNLESS this is an element
Misdemeanor – a minor infraction of law. of the crime such as in
Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019
1. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA [evident bad faith] or the
law specifically provides.
Mala In Se (“Evil in itself”) As to Modifying Circumstances (e.g
mitigating or aggravating circumstances) as
Crimes mala in se refers generally to felonies consideration
defined and penalized by the RPC. When the acts These circumstances These circumstances are
are taken into account not considered because
are inherently wrong, they are mala in se, even if
in imposing the penalty the law intends to
punished by special laws. (Reyes, The Revised Penal of the offender discourage the
Code: Book One, 2017, p.56) precisely because his commission of the act
moral trait is the basis specially prohibited.
Mala Prohibita (“Prohibited evil”) of the crime. Exception: When the
special law provides for
Crimes mala prohibita are those punished by such mitigating or
aggravating
special laws whereby criminal intent is not
circumstances.
necessary, as a rule, it being sufficient that the
offender has the intent to perpetrate the act As to Degree of Participation
prohibited by special law. (Reyes, The Revised Penal This determines the This does not affect their
Code: Book One, 2017, p.56) penalty imposable so liability, hence, the
that it is computed on penalty on all of them are
the basis of whether he the same whether they

1
 is principal offender, or are principals or merely absorbing predicate crimes such as child
merely an accomplice accomplices or abuse or rape, VAWC or murder, parricide,
or accessory. accessories. homicide, or felonies with greater
As to Stage of Accomplishment punishment); or
Can be attempted, Generally, always 3. One crime absorbing the others as an
frustrated, or consummated; the stages
element, or as an aggravating
consummated; the of execution are not
stages of execution considered. circumstance. (Illegal possession of
affect the penalty firearms absorbed by rebellion, or
imposable. Exception: When the aggravating murder, or homicide; terrorism
specific provision of law absorbing the predicate crimes; plunder
provides for mere attempt absorbing the predicate crimes) (Reyes, The
or mere frustration. Revised Penal Code Book One, 2017, p.755)
As to Involvement of Moral Turpitude
Generally, crimes mala Generally, crimes mala Note: The crime of terrorism is no longer
in se involves moral prohibita do not involve
predicate crimes under RA. No. 11479.
turpitude. moral turpitude.

Exception: there are 2. APPLICABILITY AND EFFECIVITY OF

mala prohibita offenses THE REVISED PENAL CODE
which was treated by the
SC a crime involving moral Characteristics of Criminal Law:
turpitude e.g., violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 (People vs. i. Generality
Tuanda, G.R. No. 3360,
ii. Territoriality
January 30, 1990)
(Id.) iii. Prospectivity

General Rule: Special laws are considered mala
prohibita.
Exception: When the 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. (Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001)
NOTE:
Generally, crimes mala in se cannot absorb a
crime mala prohibitum e.g., no absorption of
crimes between B.P. 22 and estafa.
Exception: When the special law expressly
allow absorption.
When an act that has been committed is a
crime under RPC and a special law, the
offender can be prosecuted for:
1. Two crimes. (Estafa and BP22; estafa and
illegal recruitment; torture and crime
resulting from torture) RATIO: No
absorption of crimes.
2. One crime. When the special law bars the
prosecution for other offenses. (Terrorism
a. GENERALITY (persons to be governed)
Basis: Art. 14, New Civil Code; Art. III(1), 1987
Constitution
General Rule: The penal law is binding and
obligatory to all persons who live or sojourn in the
Philippines whether citizens or not (Art. 14, New
Civil Code).
Exceptions:
1. Treaties or Treaty Stipulations
An example of a treaty stipulation is the
Agreement between the United States of America
and the Republic of the Philippines Regarding the
Treatment of United States Armed Forces Visiting
the Philippines which was signed on 10 February
1998 ("RP-US Visiting Forces Accord").
Here, the Philippines agreed that:
US military authorities shall have the right to
exercise within the Philippines all criminal and
disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the
military law of the US over US personnel in PH;

2
Authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US
personnel with respect to offenses, including
offenses relating to the security of the US
punishable under the law of US, but not under
the laws of PH;
The US shall have primary right to exercise
jurisdiction over US military in relation to:
NOTE: Offenses solely against the property or
security of the US or offenses solely against the
property or person of US personnel.
Offenses arising out of any act or omission done
in the performance of an official duty.
NOTE: Generally, the Philippines cannot refuse
the request of the US for waiver of jurisdiction
and has to approve the request for waiver
except if the crime is of national importance:
1. Those crime defined under R.A. 7659
(Heinous crimes);
2. Those crime defined under R.A. 7610 (Child
Abuse cases); and
3. Those crime defined under R.A. 9165
(Dangerous Drugs cases).
2. Law of Preferential Application
a. Republic Act No. 75 – It penalizes acts
which would impair the proper observance
by the Republic and inhabitants of the
Philippines of the immunities, rights and
privileges of duly accredited foreign
diplomatic representatives in the
Philippines.
General Rule: The following persons are
exempted from any writ or process or prosecution
in any court of the Republic of the Philippines, or
by any judge or justice:
a.) Ambassador or public minister of any foreign
state;
b.) Any domestic or domestic servant of any
such ambassador or minister.
Exceptions:
a.) Where the person against whom the process
is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the
Republic of the Philippines, in the service of
an ambassador or a public minister, and the
process is founded upon a debt contracted
before he entered upon such service;
b.) Where the person against whom the process
is issued is a domestic servant of an
ambassador or a public minister UNLESS the
name of the servant has been registered in
the Department of Foreign Affairs.
NOTE: Rule on reciprocity applies. RA 75 is
applicable only where the country of the
adversely affected diplomatic representative,
provides similar protection to duly accredited
diplomatic representatives of the Republic of the
Philippines.
b. Presidential Decree No. 1083 (Code of
Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines) – Provides that the provisions
of the RPC relative to the crime of bigamy
shall not apply to a person married in
accordance with the provisions of this Code,
before its effectivity, under Muslim law.
3. Principles of Public International Law
a. Art. 31, Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations
The following are not subject to the operation of
our criminal laws:
1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state;
2. Ambassadors, minister’s plenipotentiary,
ministers resident and charges d’affaires.
(1) Only the heads of missions, as well as
members of the diplomatic staff, excluding
the members of the administrative, technical
and service staff of the mission, are accorded
diplomatic rank. Only diplomatic
agents under the terms of Vienna Convention
are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity
from civil and criminal suits. The main
yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is
a diplomat entitled to immunity is the
determination of whether or not he performs
his duties of diplomatic nature. (Minucher vs.
CA, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003)
General Rule: Diplomatic representatives, such
as ambassadors or public ministers and their
official retinue, possess immunity from the
criminal jurisdiction of the country of their
3
sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested, or
punished by the law of that country.
Exception: The doctrine of immunity from suit
will not apply and may not be invoked where the
public official is being sued in his private and
personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. (Shauf vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90314, November 27, 1990)
NOTE: Under the generality principle, penal laws
shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
the Philippines territory. The foreign
characteristic of an offender and offended party
does not exclude offender from operation of
penal laws.
b. Art. 27, United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea
Warship Rule: a warship of another country
even though docked in the Philippines is
considered as an extension of the territory of their
respective country. Same rule applies to foreign
embassies in the Philippines. Philippine warship
and embassies abroad are deemed extra
territories of the Philippines.
 Warships are always reputed to be the
territory of the country to which they belong
and cannot be subjected to the laws of
another state. (US vs. Fowler, G.R. No. L-496,
December 31. 1902)
b. TERRITORIALITY (jurisdiction or the place
where applicable)
Article 2 of the RPC states that the provisions of
the Code shall be enforced within the Philippine
archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone.
General Rule: Penal laws of the Philippines are
enforceable only within its territory.
Exceptions: Penal laws shall be enforced
outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines
against those who commit the following
extraterritorial crimes: (SCIEN)
a. Commission of an offense while on a
Philippine Ship or airship;
b. Forging or Counterfeiting any coin or
currency note of the Philippines or obligations
4
and securities issued by the Government of
the Philippines;
c. Introduction into the Philippines of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number;
d. Commission of public officers or employees
of an offense in the Exercise of their
functions; or
e. Commission of any of the crimes against
National security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of the RPC.
(Art. 2, RPC)
Exceptions:
1. RPC shall not be enforced within or outside
the Philippine territories if so provided under:
a. Treaties; or
b. Laws of preferential application.
2. Extraterritoriality – the provisions of the 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:
i. Should commit an offense while on
a Philippine ship or airship
A Philippine ship or airship is one that is
duly registered in the Philippine and
under the Philippine laws.
Rules on crimes committed on ships or
airships:
1. In case of merchant ships or airships:
a. Philippine ship or airship is in the
Philippine waters or in high seas –
the Philippines has jurisdiction.
b. Philippine ship or airship is in the
foreign territory – generally, the
foreign State has jurisdiction except
if that foreign country will not take
cognizance of the issue, the
Philippines can assume jurisdiction.
c. Foreign ship or airship is in the
Philippines waters - the English rule
shall apply. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code Criminal Law Book One, 2017, p.
29).
 2. In case of warships or airships -
the nationality of such warship or
airship determines the applicable
penal laws since it is considered to an
extension of the territory of the
country to which they belong. (Id.)
French Rule vs. English Rule
French Rule – Such crimes are not triable in the
courts of that country, unless their commission
affects the peace and security of the territory or
the safety of the state is endangered. The French
Rule is not territorial in character.
English Rule – Such crimes are triable in that
country, unless they merely affect things within
the vessel or they refer to the internal
management thereof. In the PH, we observe the
English Rule. (Estrada, supra)
Rules on Foreign Merchant Vessels
A foreign vessel which began committing an
offense as defined by the Philippine laws (failure
to provide suitable means for securing animals
while transporting them from a foreign port to a
Philippine port) in foreign waters and the
forbidden condition existed during the time the
ship entered the Philippine territorial waters
would fall under the jurisdiction of Philippine
courts. It is a continuing crime.
1. Illegal smoking of marijuana aboard a foreign
merchant vessel anchored in the Philippine
waters falls under our jurisdiction. The
release of the marijuana smoke disturbs the
public peace. Smoking the drug within our
territorial limits constitutes a breach of public
order because of the disastrous effects
entailed by the use of such drug. (People vs.
Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, October 19,
1922)
2. A foreign merchant vessel in transit through
local waters which brings opium into the
Philippine territory violates local laws since it
can be assumed that they were intended to
be sold here, even if opium has not actually
left vessel. (U.S. vs. Ah Sing, G.R. No. L-13005,
October 10, 1917)
Rule on Foreign Warships – they are not
subject to the territoriality laws because they are
deemed extensions of the territory of the country
where they belong.
ii. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippine Islands
or obligations and securities issued by
the Government of the Philippine
Islands
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 genuine
document or by erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting or altering, by any means, the
figures, letters, words, or signs contained
therein.
NOTE: If forgery was committed abroad, it must
refer only to Philippine coin, currency note, or
obligations and securities, i.e. these objects of
the crime must be issued by the government.
iii. Should be liable for acts connected
with the introduction into these
Islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the preceding
number
NOTE: The introduction of forged or
counterfeited obligations and securities into the
Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or
counterfeiting of the same, to the economic
interest of the country. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book One, 2017).
iv. While being public officers or
employees, should commit an offense
in the exercise of their functions.
NOTE: Without the intimate relation between the
office and the crime committed, the officers are
acting in their private capacity and hence, bound
by the law of the host country. (Reyes, supra)
v. Should commit any of the crimes
against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book
Two of the RPC
NOTE: It includes treason, espionage, provoking
war and disloyalty in case of War, and piracy and
mutiny. Rebellion is NOT included because it is a
crime against public order. Hence, if rebellion is
5
planned abroad and acts of rebellion were
committed there, there is no criminal liability over
which the Philippine courts can assume
jurisdiction because rebellion is not one of those
in Title I of Book II.
Terrorism, as defined by R.A. No. 9372, otherwise
known as the Human Security Act of 2007, is now
a crime against national security and the law of
nations which is retained by RA 11479, otherwise
known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020,
repealing law of the former.
c. PROSPECTIVITY (when the law shall be
applicable)
Basis: Art. 21 and 22, RPC; Art. III (22), 1987
Constitution; Art. 4, New Civil Code
General Rule: A penal law cannot make an act
punishable in a manner in which it was not
punishable when committed.
Article 21 of the RPC provides that no felony shall
be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by
law prior to its commission. Likewise, Article 366
of the RPC provides that crimes are punished
under the laws in force at the time of their
commission.
Exception: Whenever a new statute dealing
with crimes establishes conditions more lenient or
favorable to the accused, it can be given a
retroactive effect.
Exceptions to the exception:
a) Where the new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or existing
causes of action;
b) Where the offender is a habitual delinquent
under Article 62 (5) of the RPC.
Rules on Repeal of Penal Laws
 Effects of EXPRESS REPEAL of penal
law:
a) If a penal law is expressly repealed by
another law, the crime is obliterated.
b) If there is a pending criminal case at
the time of the repeal, the same must be
dismissed.
6
c) The retroactivity of the repeal extends
even to the one already convicted under
the repealed law and serving the
sentence by virtue of final judgment. The
convict should be released from prison.
(People vs. Avecilla, G.R. No. 117033,
February 15, 2001)
2. Effects of IMPLIED REPEAL of penal law
a) If there is only an implied repeal, the
pending criminal action at the time the
repealing law took effect will not be
dismissed because the act punished in
the first law is still punished in the new
law which impliedly repealed the former.
Both laws apply to the same subject
matter. (United States vs. Cuna, G.R. No.
4504. December 15, 1908) This is also
known as repeal with reenactment.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
b) However, the penalty under the
repealing law will be applied if it is
favorable to the accused; otherwise, the
penalty under the old law shall apply.
(Estrada, supra)
3. Effect of the repeal of the law which
EXPRESSLY repealed a prior law:
When the law which expressly repealed a
prior law is also repealed, the law first
repealed is not revived except:
1. Inclusion of a saving clause in the
repealing statute that provides that the
repeal shall have no effect on pending
actions.
2. Where the repealing act re-enacts the
former statute and punishes the act
previously penalized under the old law.
(Benedicto vs. CA, G.R. No. 125359,
September 4, 2001)
4. Effect of the repeal of the law which
IMPLIEDLY repealed a prior law:
When the law which impliedly repealed a
prior law is repealed, the repeal of the
repealing law revives the prior law if the
accused is a habitual delinquent or if the
favorable second law prohibits retroactivity,
unless the contrary is provided. While the
 second law will govern if it is favorable to the
offender who is not a habitual delinquent or
the law is silent as to the retroactivity.
3. INTERPRETATION OF PENAL LAWS
(1) Construction:
As a rule, if the provision of the penal law
is clear, the same shall be interpreted in its
strictest sense.
In cases where there’s an ambiguity,
penal laws are strictly construed against the
Government and liberally in favor of the
accused. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2017, p.18)
(2) Spanish text of the RPC prevails
over the English text
 The Spanish version of Art. 267 uses the
term “lockup” rather than “kidnap”
(secuestrar or raptar). Lock-up is
included in the broader term of
“detention” which refers not only to the
placing of a person in an enclusure which
cannot leave, but also to any other
deprivation of liberty which does not
necessarily involve locking up. (People vs.
Astorga, G.R. No. 110097, December 22,
1997)
 The word “immediate” is an incorrect
translation into English of the controlling
Spanish text for the word “proxima.” The
Spanish text allows for a lapse of time
between the grave offense and the actual
vindication. (People vs. Ignas, G.R. No.
140514-15, September 30, 2003)
(3) Suppletory application of the RPC to
Special Penal Laws (Art. 10)
General Rule: RPC provisions are
supplementary to special laws.
Exceptions:
a. Where the special law provides
otherwise; and
b. When the provisions of the RPC are
impossible of application, either by
express provision or by necessary
implication.
 B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the
suppletory application of the provisions of the
RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary
provision in BP 22, the general provisions of
the RPC which, by their nature, are
necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletory. (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No.
141066, February 17, 2005)
(4) The text of the provision prevails over
its title.
Note: There is a crime called qualified
mutiny. Art. 123 specifies that it covers
“any of the crimes referred to in the
preceding article.” Although the title of the
article specifies “qualified piracy”, since its
text refers to both piracy and mutiny, the
text should prevail.
🕮 Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine has
been formulated in various ways, but
is most commonly stated to the effect
that a statute establishing a criminal
offense must define the offense with
sufficient definiteness that persons of
ordinary intelligence can understand
what conduct is prohibited by the
statute – it can only be invoked
against the specie of legislation that is
utterly vague of its face, i.e., that
which cannot be clarified by a saving
clause or by construction. (Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001)
4. RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS
(Art. 22)
General Rule: Penal laws are applied
prospectively.
Exception: When retrospective application is
favorable to the accused, provided that:
1. the offender is NOT a habitual delinquent; or
2. the new or amendatory law does NOT provide
against its retrospective application
7
Reason for the exception: The sovereign, in
enacting a subsequent penal law more favorable
to the accused, has recognized that the greater
severity of the former law is unjust.
NOTE: Matters relating to procedural or remedial
law can be applied retroactively so long as it is
favorable to the accused. “Be it procedural,
substantive or remedial for as long as the law is
favorable to the accused who is not a habitual
delinquent, the law must be given a retroactive
application. (People vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 136094,
April 20, 2001)
 No retroactive effect of penal laws as regards
Habitual Delinquent – He is a person who,
within a period of 10 years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of
(FRETS) Falsification, Robbery, Estafa, Theft, or
Serious or Less serious physical injuries, is found
guilty of any said crimes a third time or oftener.
NOTE: A new law giving retroactive application
favorable to the accused may be availed of by a
recidivist.
The principle that criminal statutes are retroactive
so far as they favor the culprit does not affect the
latter’s civil liability.
Reason: The rights of offended persons or
innocent third parties are not within the gift of
arbitrary disposal of the State.
If the retroactive effect of a new law is justified,
it shall apply to the defendant even he is:
1. Presently on trial for the offense;
2. Has already been sentenced but service of
which has not begun; or
3. Already serving sentence.
NOTE: No retroactive effect even when
favorable to the accused if the new law expressly
made inapplicable to pending actions or existing
causes of action.
Criminal liability under the repealed law
subsists:
i. When the provisions of the former law are
reenacted;
The right to punish offenses committed under
an old penal law is not extinguished if the
offenses are still punishable in the repealing
8
penal law. (US vs. Cuna, G.R. No. 4504, December
15, 1908)
ii. When the repeal is by implication;
When a penal law, which impliedly repealed
an old law, is itself repealed, the repeal of the
repealing law revives the prior penal law,
unless the language of the repealing statute
provides otherwise. If the repeal is absolute,
criminal liability is obliterated
iii. When there is a saving clause.
the jurisdiction of court to try a criminal action
is to be determined by the law in force at the
time of instituting the action, not at the time
of the commission of the crime. (People vs.
Pegarum, G.R. No. 37565, November 13, 1933)
Passage of retroactive laws which are prejudicial
to the accused is a limitation on the power of the
lawmaking body to enact penal legislation. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.3)
Ex Post Facto Law
An ex post facto law is one which:
a. Makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law and which was innocent
when done, and punishes such an act;
b. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than
it was, when committed;
c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when committed;
d. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and
authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time
of the commission of the offense;
e. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies
only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation
of a right for something which when done
was lawful; and
f. Deprives a person accused of a crime some
lawful protection to which he has become
entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2017, p.2)
Bill of Attainder - is legislative act which inflicts
punishment on individuals or members of a
particular group without judicial trial. For a law to
be considered a bill of attainder, it must be shown
to contain all of the following:
a.) a specification of certain individuals or a
group of individuals;
b.) the imposition of a punishment, penal or
otherwise, and
c.) the lack of judicial trial (More vs. Republic of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 249406, September 15,
2020, J. Caguioa).
B. FELONIES
Felonies – acts or omissions punishable by the
RPC by means of deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa).
(Art. 3, Revised Penal Code; CICL XXX vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 237334, August 14, 2019, J.
Caguioa)
Elements of felonies: (ARC)
a. That there must be an Act or omission;
Act – any bodily movement tending to
produce some effect in the external world, it
being unnecessary that the same be actually
produced, as the possibility of its production
is sufficient (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No.
80762, March 19, 1990); the act defined in the
RPC is the overt act of the felony, that is, an
external act which has direct connection with
the felony intended to be committed.
Omission – means inaction, the failure to
perform a positive duty which one is bound
to do. There must be a law requiring the
doing or performance of an act.
b. That the act or omission must be punishable
by the RPC; an
c. That the act is performed or the omission
incurred by means of dolo or culpa. (People
vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990)
1. CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND FELONIES
a. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
Classification of felonies according to their
gravity (Art. 9, RPC):
a. Grave Felonies – 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 the RPC.
i. Capital Punishment - is death penalty.
ii. “Penalties which in any of their periods
are afflictive” – when the penalty
prescribed for the offense is composed of
two or more distinct penalties, the higher
or highest of the penalties must be an
afflictive penalty.
Afflictive Penalties in accordance with Art. 25:
 Reclusion Perpetua
 Reclusion Temporal
 Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification
 Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification
 Prision Mayor
b. Less Grave Felonies – those which the law
punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period are correctional, in
accordance with Art. 25 of the RPC.
“Penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional” – If the penalty prescribed for
the offense is composed of two or more
distinct penalties, the higher or highest of the
penalties must be a correctional penalties.
The following are correctional penalties:
 Prision Correccional
 Arresto Mayor
 Suspension
 Destierro
c. Light Felonies – are those infractions of law
for the commission of which the penalty of
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos, or both, is provided.
Although Art. 26 of the RPC provides that a
fine not less than P200.00 is a correctional
penalty, Art. 9 which defines light felonies
should prevail, because the latter classifies
felonies according to their gravity, while the
former classifies the fine according to the
amount thereof.
The gravity of the felonies are determined by the
penalties attached to them by law. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2017, p. 136)
9
Classification of felonies according to the
means by which they are committed:
a. Intentional felonies (dolo) – the acts or
ccommissions are malicious and that the act
is performed with deliberate intent; the
offender, in performing the act or in incurring
the omission, has the intention to cause
injury to another.
Requisites: (FIN)
i. Freedom – Freedom means voluntariness
on the part of the person to commit the act
or omission; lack of freedom (i.e. compulsion
of an irresistible force or greater injury)
makes the offender exempt from liability.
ii. Intelligence – necessary to determine the
morality and the consequences of his acts.
Lack of intelligence on the part of the
offender, such as an imbecile, insane, or said
offender is exempt from liability.
iii. Intent – criminal intent and the will to
commit a crime are always presumed to exist
on the part of the person who executes an
act which the law punishes, unless the
contrary appears (US vs. Apostol, G.R. No. 5126,
September 2, 1909)
Lack of intent on the part of the offender,
such as in the case of existence of a lawful or
insuperable cause, or commission by mere
accident, will result into an act which is
justified.
c. Culpable felonies (culpa) – the acts or
omissions are not malicious; the injury caused
by the offender to another person is
unintentional, it being simply the incident of
another act performed without malice.
Requisites: (FIN)
i. Freedom
ii. Intelligence
iii. Negligence, imprudence, or lack of
foresight or skill.
Negligence – indicates a deficiency of
perception; failure to pay proper attention to
10
use diligence in foreseeing the injury or
impending damage to be caused; usually
involves lack of foresight.
Imprudence – indicates a deficiency of
action; failure to take the necessary
precaution to avoid injury to person or
damage to property; usually involves lack of
skill. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One,
2006, p.50)
Dolo vs. Culpa
Dolo Culpa
As to Malice
The act or omission is The act or omission is
malicious. not malicious.
As to intent
With deliberate intent. Unintentional.
As to source of wrong committed
Has intention to commit Wrongful act results
a wrong. from imprudence,
negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of
skill.
Another classification of crime is that defined
and penalized by special laws which includes
crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances.
When the crime is punished by special law, as a
rule, intent to commit the crime is not
necessary. It is necessary that the offender has
the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by
the special law. XPN: if the prohibited act is evil
in nature, intent to commit the crime should be
proved. (Reyes, supra)
Mistake of Fact – a misapprehension of fact on
the part of the person who caused injury to
another. Here, there is no criminal liability as
there is no criminal intent.
Requisites of Mistake of Fact as a Defense
1. That the act done would have been lawful
had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be.
2. That the intention of the accused in
performing the act should be lawful.
3. That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused. (US
vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910)
When Mistake of Fact is NOT applicable When motive is relevant:

a. When there is mistake in the identity of the a. Where the identity of a person accused of
victim (error in personae); having committed a crime is in dispute;
b. When there is negligence on the part of the b. Where the identification of the accused
accused; or proceeds from an unreliable source and the
c. When the accused committed a culpable testimony is inconclusive and not free from
felony. doubt;
c. When there are two antagonistic theories or
NOTE: While ignorance of the law excuses no versions of the killing;
one from compliance therewith, ignorance or d. When the testimony is not conclusive and not free
mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal from doubt
liability. e. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and
where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of
An honest mistake of fact destroys the persons; and
presumption of criminal intent, which arises upon f. If the evidence is merely circumstantial (Reyes,
the commission of a felonious act. (People vs. Criminal Law Book One, 2011, pp. 60-61)
Coching, et al., C.A., 52 O.G. 293)
How Criminal Liability is Incurred
Motive is the moving power or force which
impels a person to commit acts to bring about a 1. By any person committing a felony (delito)
definite result. No matter how evil the internal although the wrongful act done be different
thought is, as long as there are no overt acts, no from that which he intended (Intentional
crime is committed. (Campanilla, Criminal Law Felonies).
Reviewer I, 2019, p. 51) 2. By any person performing an act which would
be an offense against persons or property,
Intent vs. Motive (Campanilla, Criminal Law were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
Reviewer I, 2019, pp. 51-52) accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
Intent Motive means (Impossible Crime).
The purpose to use a The moving power which
particular means to impels one to action for a Rationale of rule in paragraph 1 of Article 4
effect such result. definite result. – el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal
An element of the crime, Not an element of the causado (“he who is the cause of the cause is the
except in unintentional crime. cause of the evil cause”) (People vs. Ural, G.R. No.
felonies. L–30801, March 27, 1974).
Essential in intentional Essential only when the
felonies. identity of the perpetrator
Proximate cause - is that cause which, in its
is in doubt.
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the
Illustration: A, who is envious of B, shot the latter injury and without which the result would have
as a result of which B died. The intent is to kill
occurred (Vallacar Transit, Inc. vs. Catubig, G.R. No.
while the motive is envy.
175512, May 30, 2011); gives rise to criminal
liability by analogy to Art. 4(1).
General rule, proof of motive is unnecessary to
impute a crime on the accused if the evidence of
The felony committed is NOT the proximate
identification is unclear, proof of motive is a
cause of the resulting injury when:
paramount necessity. (People vs. Bautista, G.R. No.
120898-99, May 14, 1998)
i. There is an active force that intervened
between the felony committed and the
resulting injury, and the active force is a
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the accused; or

11
 ii. The resulting injury is due to the intentional
act of the victim.
Efficient Intervening Cause – is the cause
which interrupted the natural flow of events
leading to one’s death. This may relieve the
offender from liability. (Estrada, supra)
The following are NOT efficient intervening
causes:
i. The weak or diseased physical condition of the
victim, as when one is suffering from
tuberculosis or heart disease. (People vs.
Illustre, G.R. No. L-32076, March 14, 1930);
ii. The nervousness or temperament of the
victim, as when a person dies in consequence
of an internal hemorrhage brought on by
moving about against the doctor’s orders,
because of his nervous condition due to the
wound inflicted by the accused (People vs.
Almonte, G.R. No. 35006, September 7, 1931);
iii. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such
as (a) the victim not knowing how to swim (US
vs. Valdez, G.R. No. L-16486, March 22, 1921),
and (b) the victim being addicted to tuba
drinking (US vs. Bayutas, G.R. No. 10470, October
1, 1915);
iv. Neglect of the victim or third person, such as
the refusal by the injured party of medical
attendance or surgical operation, or the failure
of the doctor to give anti–tetanus injection to
the injured person (US vs. Marasigan, G.R. No. L-
9426, August 15, 1914); and
v. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical
treatment, as when the assault took place in
an outlaying barrio where proper modern
surgical service was not available. (People vs.
Moldes, G.R. No. L-42122, December 1, 1934)
NOTE: Those causes, not being efficient
intervening causes, do not break the relation of
cause and effect – the felony committed and the
resulting injury.
Art. 4 (1) Requisites: (IF-DiNaLo)
1. That an Intentional Felony has been
committed; and
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party
be the Direct, Natural and Logical
consequence of the felony committed.
12
🕮 The rule that when a person, by a
felonious act, generates in the mind of
another a sense of imminent danger,
prompting the latter to escape from or
avoid such danger and in the process,
sustains injuries or dies, the person
committing the felonious act is
responsible for such injuries or death.
(People vs. Page, G.R. No. L–37507, June 7,
1977, citing People vs. Toling, G.R. No. L–
27097, January 17, 1975; People vs. Pajotal,
G.R. No. 142870, November 14, 2001)
Under Article 4(1), a person committing a felony
is still criminally liable even if the wrongful act
done be different from that intended:
b. ABERRATIO ICTUS, ERROR IN
PERSONAE, AND PRAETER
INTENTIONEM
A. There is a mistake in the blow
(Aberratio ictus) –A person directed
the blow at an intended victim, but
because of poor aim, that blow landed on
somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the
intended victim as well as the actual
victim are both at the scene of the crime.
Transferred intent rule – applies in
error in personae. It results when the
actual victim turns out to be different
from the intended victim. The intent to
kill or the intent to cause an injury is
deemed transferred to the actual victim.
For example, A with intent to kill, hacked
B. B was not hit but C who was behind B
was hit. C died. A is liable for his attempt
to kill B. A is also liable for the death of
C. The death of C is a natural
consequence of the felonious act of A.
The transferred intent rule is applicable.
Considering that A performed a single
act, he is liable for the complex crime of
Homicide with Attempted Homicide.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
B. There is a mistake in the identity of
the victim (Error in personae) – In
error in personae, the intended victim
was not at the scene of the crime. It was
the actual victim whom the blow was
directed, but he was not really the
 intended victim. There was really a homicide and
mistake in identity. homicide.
Praeter Actual crime is Mitigating under
Intentionem greater than Article 13.
NOTE: Applying Article 49 of the RPC, the penalty
(PI) intended.
imposable will be the penalty prescribed for the Proximate Results in crime Results in
offense which has a lesser penalty in its maximum Cause (PC) although not criminal liability
period. intended. to the actor with
intent or through
For example, A intended to kill B. Instead, he negligence.
mistakenly thought that his mother, C, was B so (Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code,
he fired a shot at B. In this case, A is liable for 2018, page 62-63)
the penalty imposable in homicide and not
parricide since the former’s penalty is lesser than b. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
the latter. Thus, A will be held liable for reclusion
temporal in its maximum period. (Reyes, supra). Impossible Crime - an act, which would be an
offense against persons or property, were it not
C. The injurious result is greater than that for the inherent impossibility of its
intended (Praeter intentionem - So accomplishment or on account of the
grave a wrong caused than that employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
intended) – the injurious result is greater (Art. 4[2], RPC)
than that intended. It is a mitigating
circumstance, thus, lowers criminal liability Rationale: The accused is punished for his
under Art. 13. (Reyes, supra) criminal tendency or propensity.

Comparison of the Effect of Intent vs. Effect Requisites: (PEIN)

on Criminal Liability for MoF, IA, EiP, PI,
and PC. i. That the act performed would be an
offense against Persons or property;
Factor Effect of Effect on ii. That the act was done with Evil intent;
Intent Criminal iii. That its accomplishment is inherently
Liability
Impossible or that the means employed is
Mistake of Negative Negative
either inadequate or ineffectual; and
Fact (MoF) criminal intent. criminal liability.
Aberratio Intent is Increases iv. That the act performed should Not
Ictus (AI) against criminal liability constitute a violation of another provision
unintended which generally of the RPC.
victim or the results to
effect is in complex crime. Impossibility of the Crime
addition to the (Art. 48)
injury on the
The law states that the act “would be a crime”
indended
victim. hence, it has not ripened to an actual crime
Error in Intended result Extenuating if because of the ineffectual means employed or
Personae falls on another the resulting due to its inherent impossibility. Thus,
(EiP) due to error in crime is greater objectively, no crime has been committed.
the identity of than intended,
the victim. e.g. parricide Inherent impossibility of its
when what is accomplishment:
intended is
homicide (Article
49); no effect if a. Legal Impossibility – when the intended
the resulting acts, even if completed would NOT amount
crime is the to crime, such as killing a person who is
same as that already dead. (Intod vs. C.A., G.R. No. 103119,
intended, e.g. October 21, 1992)

13
b. Physical Impossibility – when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevents the
consummation of the intended crime (e.g.
when a man with the intention to steal
another’s wallet and finds the pocket empty;
when a person steals a check which was later
dishonored). (Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No.
162540, July 13, 2009)
Felonies against persons are:
1. Murder (Art. 248);
2. Homicide (Art. 249);
3. Parricide (Art. 246);
4. Infanticide (Art. 255);
5. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261);
6. Rape (Art. 266–A);
7. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259); and
8. Physical Injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265 and
266)
Note: Rape was classified as Crimes against
persons, therefore, Impossible Crime for the
crime of rape may be charged to the accused.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
Felonies against property are:
1. Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307);
2. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302 and
303);
3. Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313);
4. Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314);
5. Theft (Arts. 308, 310 and 311);
6. Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317
and 318);
7. Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319);
8. Arson and other crimes involving destruction
(Arts. 320,321, 322, 323, 324, 325 and 326); and
9. Malicious Mischief. (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330 and
321)
CONTRA IN THE CASE OF INTOD VS COURT
OF APPEALS:
First, the crime committed is an impossible crime
in the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
103119, October 21, 1992), factual impossibility
occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown
to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime. The case at
bar belongs to this category as the accused fired
his gun at the place where he thought his victim
14
would be, although in reality, the victim was not
present in said place and thus, the accused failed
to accomplish his end.
Second, the crime committed is not an
impossible crime but Malicious Mischief. Under
Art. 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the
commission of crime against person or property
should not constitute a violation of another
provision of the Revised Penal Code. The moment
another crime is committed there can be no
impossible crime. The offender is liable for that
crime which was committed in the process. In the
case at bar, Destroying somebody’s property
because of hate, anger or other evil motive is
Malicious Mischief. Considering that another
crime other than the crime intended was thus
committed, then the accused are liable for that
offense. Hence, Malicious Mischief, not
Impossible Crime was committed.
Note: For purposes of answering bar exam
questions, the first view should be followed since
it is a SC decision. Moreover, the SC in the Intod
case cannot convict the accused for malicious
mischief since it was not alleged in the
Information.
NOTES:
● Felony against persons or property should not
be actually committed, otherwise, he would be
liable for that felony; there would be no
impossible crime to speak of. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code Book One, 2017, pp. 82)
● Objectively, the offender has NOT committed
a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.
(Reyes, supra)
● There is no attempted or frustrated impossible
crime. It is always consummated and applies
only to grave or less grave felonies. (Reyes,
supra)
● The factors must be considered by the court
in determining the proper penalty for
impossible crime are: (1) the social danger,
and (2) the degree of criminality shown by the
offender. (Art. 59, RPC)
d. STAGES OF EXECUTION
Stages/Development of Crime
Internal Acts – mere ideas in the mind of a
person, which are NOT punishable even if they
have been carried out would constitute a crime.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
External Acts – covers preparatory acts and
acts of execution. (Id.)
a. Preparatory Acts – acts, which are ordinarily
NOT punishable except when the laws provide
for their punishment in certain felonies. (i.e.,
Buying a poison or carrying a weapon with
which to kill the intended victim, carrying
inflammable materials to the particular place
where a house is to burn.) (Id.)
NOTE: Preparatory acts which are considered in
themselves, by law, as independent crimes are
punishable. (Id.)
Example: Possession of picklocks under Article
304, such possession is a preparatory act to the
commission of robbery. (Arts. 299 and 302, RPC)
b. Acts of Execution – refers to the stages in
the commission of a felony or acts of
execution – attempted, frustrated and
consummated – the acts, which are
punishable under the RPC. (Id.)
Subjective Phase – It is that portion of the acts
constituting the crime, starting from the point
where the offender begins the commission of the
crime to that point where he still has control over
his acts, including its natural course. (Id.)
Objective Phase – The offender no longer has
control over his acts until the last act of the
offense. If the offense is NOT produced, then it is
frustrated. If the subjective and objective phases
are present, there is a consummated felony. (Id.)
Three (3) Stages of Execution:
1. Attempted
2. Frustrated
3. Consummated
Important Factors to determine the stage
of execution of a felony
1. The nature of the offense
2. The elements of the felony
3. Manner of committing the felony
A. Attempted felony – when the offender
commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform
all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. (Art. 6[3], RPC)
Elements: (OPS)
1. The Offender commences the commission of
the felony directly by overt acts;
2. The offender does not Perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony;
and
3. That the non-performance of all the acts of
execution was due to cause or accident other
than his Spontaneous desistance
Overt acts – are some physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation,
which if carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book One,
2011, pp. 97)
Desistance – it is the act of discontinuing the
execution of the felony which will negate criminal
liability of the offender when done during the
attempted stage. It is an absolutory cause which
negates criminal liability because the law
encourages a person to desist from committing a
crime. (Estrada, supra)
Kinds of Desistance
Legal Desistance Factual Desistance
Definition
Desistance referred to Actual desistance of the
in law which would actor, the actor is still
obviate criminal liable for the attempt.
liability unless the
overt or preparatory
act already committed
in themselves
constitute a felony
other than what the
actor intended Note:
The desistance in
Article 6 is also factual
since the accused
must desist from
15
 performing all acts of B. Frustrated felony – when the offender
execution as a matter performs all the act of execution, which
of fact. would produce the felony as a consequence,
but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of
Time or Period Employed
the perpetrator. (Art. 6[2], RPC)
Desistance made Desistance made after
during the attempted the attempted stage of
stage. the crime. Elements: (ACNI)

NOTE: The desistance which exempts a person 1. The offender performs All acts of execution;
from criminal liability has reference to the crime 2. All the acts performed would produce the
intended to be committed, and has no reference felony as a Consequence;
to the crime actually committed by the offender 3. But the felony is Not produced;
before his desistance (People vs. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 4. By reason of causes Independent of the will
143468–72, January 24, 2008). of the perpetrator.

Frustrated vs. Attempted Crimes which do not admit of frustrated

stage
Frustrated Attempted
The offender has not accomplished his criminal ● Rape, no matter how slight the penetration,
purpose (Art. 6, RPC). the felony is consummated;
The offender has The offender merely ● Indirect bribery, the acceptance of the gifts
performed all the acts of commences the offered to the public officer by reason of his
execution which would commission of a felony office is consummation of the said felony;
produce the felony as directly by overt acts and ● Direct bribery;
consequence (Art. 6, does not perform all the
● Corruption of Public Officers, the concurrence
RPC). acts of execution (Art. 6,
RPC). of the will of both parties, such as that when
the offer is accepted, would render the
offense as consummated. If he rejects, the
Attempted/Frustrated vs. Impossible
offense is merely attempted;
Crime
● Adultery, because its essence is sexual
congress, hence the same principle as in rape
Attempted/ Impossible Crime
applies;
Frustrated
● Physical injuries, since it cannot be
The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished
determined whether the injury will be slight,
The evil intent of the The evil intent of the less serious, or serious unless and until
offender is possible of offender cannot be
consummated; and
accomplishment. accomplished.
● Theft and robbery because apoderameinto is
What prevented its The evil intent of the
accomplishment is the offender cannot be complete from the moment offender gains
intervention of certain accomplished because it possession of the thing. (Estrada, Criminal Law
cause or accident in is inherently impossible of Book One, 2011)
which the offender had accomplishment or
no part. because the means Instances when the stages of the crime will
employed by the offender not apply
is inadequate or
ineffectual.
a. Formal crimes – are crimes which are
consummated in one instance. There are no
NOTE: In determining whether the felony is attempted AND frustrated stages of
attempted, frustrated or consummated, (1) the execution.
nature of the offense; (2) the elements
constituting the felony; and (3) the manner of
Physical injuries are formal crimes since these are
committing the same, must be considered.
punished as to result and the gravity of the injury

16
cannot be determined whether slight, less serious
or serious unless and until consummated.
Slander (Art. 358) is a formal crime because the
moment the defamatory words were uttered and
heard by a third person, the crime is
consummated.
Oral Defamation. It is consummated when the
utterances are made.
Quasi-offenses or culpa is always consummated
because of the absence of intent which is an
element of dolo.
Corruption of Minors. (Art. 340, RPC)
b. Felony by omission – when the felony is by
omission, there can be no attempted stage as
the offender does not execute acts. – e.g.
Misprision of Treason (Art. 116, RPC)
c. Offenses punishable by Special Penal
Laws, unless otherwise provided
d. Crimes consummated by mere attempt
– Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121) is
already consummated upon mere attempt to
flee to the enemy’s country.
e. Crimes consummated by mere agreement
Betting in sports contests (Art. 197) and
corruption of public officers (Art. 212) are
consummated by mere agreement of the
parties.
f. Light Felonies – punishable only when
consummated.
These are infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 40,000 pesos,
or both is provided (Art. 9, [par 3] as amended
by R.A. No. 10951).
a. Slight physical injuries (Art. 266);
b. Theft (Art. 309, pars 7 and 8);
c. Alteration of boundary marks (Art. 313);
d. Malicious mischief (Art. 328[3]; Art. 329[3]);
and
e. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).
f. Illegal Cock-fighting (Art. 199)
g. Betting in sport contest (Art. 197)
General Rule: Light felonies are punishable
only when they have been consummated.
Exception: Light felonies committed against
persons or property, are punishable even if
attempted or frustrated.
Other felonies that have no attempted or
frustrated stages
1. Treason (Art. 114)
2. False Testimony (Art. 180-183)
3. Corruption of minors (Art. 340)
4. Abuse against chastity (Art. 245)
5. Impossible Crime (Art. 4[2])
C. Consummated felony – when all the
elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
NOTE: The offender does not have to do
anything else to consummate the offense. He has
already reached the objective stage of the
offense as he no longer has control of his acts
having already performed all that is necessary to
accomplish his purpose.
e. CONTINUING CRIMES
Continuing crime or transitory crime is a
single crime, consisting of a series of acts but
all arising from one criminal resolution. A
continuing offense is a continuous, unlawful
act or series of acts set on foot by a single
impulse and operated by an intermittent force,
however long a time it may occupy. Although
there is a series of acts, there is only one crime
committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be
imposed. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book
One, 2011, pp. 683)
Penalty for complex crime is the penalty for
the most serious crime, the same to be applied
in the maximum period.
If different crimes resulting from one single
act are punished with the same penalty, the
penalty for any one of them shall be imposed,
the same to be applied in the maximum
period.
17
f. COMPLEX CRIME and COMPOSITE
CRIMES
Complex Crime. When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty
for the most serious crime shall be imposed,
the same to be applied in its maximum period.
(Art. 48, RPC)
The legislature crafted this procedural tool to
benefit the accused who, in lieu of serving
multiple penalties, will only serve the
maximum of the penalty for the most serious
crime.
Kinds of Crimes
1. Simple crimes – there are the simple crimes
which the Revised Penal Code defines and
prescribes the penalty in a single article.
2. Plurality of crimes – when an offender
commits multiple crimes, each with a
corresponding penalty distinct and separate
from those of the others.
a. Real or material plurality - "concurso
real", on the other hand, arises when the
accused performs an act or different acts
with distinct purposes and resulting in
different crimes which are juridically
independent. (Gamboa vs. CA, G.R. No. L-
41054, November 28, 1975)
b. Ideal plurality – There is plurality of
crimes or "concurso de delitos" when the
actor commits various delictual acts of
the same or different kind. "Ideal
plurality" or "concurso ideal" occurs when
a single act gives rise to various
infractions of law. (ibid)
Examples:
i. When the offender commits any of the
complex crimes defined in Art. 48;
ii. When the law specifically fixes a single
penalty for 2 or more offenses; and
iii. When the offender commits continued
crimes. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book One, 2006, p.683)
18
3. Composite crimes or Special complex
crimes – these are two simple crimes but
which the RPC has defined as a single
offense.
Examples
● Rape with Homicide,
● Kidnapping with Homicide,
● Robbery with Homicide,
● Robbery with Rape,
● Kidnapping with Rape, (this is different
from abduction with rape. In the latter,
there is lewd design. (People vs. Jose, G.R.
No. L-28232, February 6, 1971) and
● Robbery with Arson.
NOTE: These crimes are treated as single
indivisible offenses although comprising
more than one specific crime and with
specific penalty. They are NOT complex
crime under the definition of Art. 48.
🕮 These refer to two or more crimes that
the law treats as a single indivisible and
unique offense for being the product of
a single criminal impulse. (People vs. Dela
Cruz, G.R. No. 183091, June 19, 2013)
🕮 When by reason or on the occasion of
the rape, homicide is committed, the
penalty shall be death. The legislative
intent on the import of the phrase on the
occasion of the rape to refer to a killing
that occurs immediately before or after,
or during the commission itself of the
attempted or consummated rape, where
the victim of the homicide may be a
person other than the rape victim herself
for as long as the killing is linked to the
rape, became evident. (People vs.
Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012
NOTE: There is no complex crime of
Arson with (Multiple) Homicide.
Accordingly, in cases where both burning
and death occur, in order to determine
what crime was/crimes were perpetrated
– whether arson, murder or arson and
homicide/ murder, it is de rigueur to
ascertain the main objective of the
malefactor:
 a. If the main objective is the
burning of the building or edifice,
but death results by reason or on
the occasion of arson, the crime is
simply arson, and the resulting
homicide is absorbed;
b. If, on the other hand, 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 the
crime committed is murder only;
and lastly,
c. If the objective is likewise, to kill a
particular person, and in fact the
offender has already done so, but
fire is resorted to as a means to
cover up the killing, then there are
two separate and distinct crimes
committed – homicide/murder and
arson. (People vs. Edna Malingan, G.R.
No. 170470, September 26, 2006)
4. Complex crimes - When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other.
a. Compound Crime or Delito Compuesto
– when a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies.
Requisites:
i. That only one single act is performed by
the offender.
ii. That the single act produces two or more
grave or less grave felonies.
Light felonies produced by the same act
should be treated and punished as separate
offenses or may be absorbed by the grave
felony. (People vs. Turla, G.R. No. 26388,
February 14, 1927)
When the crime is committed by force or
violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed
such as in direct assault and rape. Reason:
the slight physical injuries are the necessary
consequence of the force or violence inherent
in the crimes of direct assault and rape.
(People vs. Aplado, G.R. No. 31075, August 12,
1929)
b. Complex Crime Proper or Delito
Complejo – when an offense is a
necessary means for committing another
offense. It is only one crime as
contemplated by law because the
offender has only one criminal intent.
Requisites: (TOSS)
i. That at least Two offenses are
committed.
ii. That One or Some of the offenses must
be necessary to commit the other;
iii. That both or all the offenses must be
punished under the Same statute.
NOTE: “Necessary” does not mean
“indispensable”
Compound Crimes Complex Crimes
Both or all the offenses must be punished under the
RPC.
Compound crimes result Complex crimes result
when the offender when the offender has to
committed only a commit an offense as a
single felonious act necessary means for
from which two or more committing another
crimes resulted. This is offense. Only one
provided for in modified information shall be filed,
form in the first part of and if proven, the penalty
Article 48, RPC, limiting for the more serious crime
the resulting crimes to shall be imposed. (Reyes,
only grave and/or less The Revised Penal Code:
grave felonies. Hence, Book One, 2006, p.680)
light felonies are
excluded even though
resulting from the same
single act. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code:
Book One, 2006, p.659)
Cases where commission of two crimes will
not result to complex crime proper
a. A crime to conceal another for the law
requires a crime to commit another, not to
conceal the other crime;
b. A crime which is an element of the other for
in that case, the former shall be absorbed by
the latter such as trespassing which is an
element of robbery;
c. A crime which has the same element as the
other crime committed;
d. Where the intent is really to commit the
second crime but the first act although also a
crime is incidental to the commission of the
second crime. For instance, in the taking
away of a woman for the original intent to
19
 commit rape on her, the taking is merely
incidental to the crime of rape, hence, it is
not complex crime of abduction with rape,
but only simple rape. (Estrada, Criminal Law
Book One, 2011)
Other Kinds of Plurality of Crimes where a
single penalty is imposed
1. A continued crime or delito continuado is one
where the accused is impelled by a single
criminal impulse can be produced even if the
acts are committed on different place and
time provided the foreknowledge doctrine
applies. (People vs. Sabbun, G.R. No. L-18510,
January 31, 1964)
Note: Single Larceny Doctrine (SiLD) –
a doctrine in Theft or Robbery cases where
taking of a property or properties belonging
to the same or different persons by a series
of acts or acts arising from a single criminal
intent or resolution constitutes only one
crime.
The courts have abandoned the Separate
Larceny Doctrine (SeLD) under which
there is a distinct larceny as to the property
of each victim.
The SiLD is a specie of delito continuado,
which is specifically applicable to theft.
(Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer: Volume I,
2019, p. 109)
Note: SiLD is not applicable to prohibited
acts under BP 22. (Lim vs. People, G.R. No.
14321, October 26, 2001)
🕮 The SC ordered the consolidation of the
32 separate Informations filed against
the accused in one information for the
alleged violation of RA 3019. Her acts
of signing the 32 release orders of
overstaying aliens proceeded from the
belief that there was no legal basis for
their continued detention. (Santiago vs.
Garchitorena, G.R. No. L-109266, December
2, 1993).
20
Exception to the Application of SiLD
🕮 The SC declared that it is not the act of
pressing the trigger which should
produce the several felonies, but the
number of bullets which actually
produced them. Hence, where the
accused pressed the trigger of a
submachine gun and the gun fired
continually and several persons killed or
injured, there are as many crimes as
are persons killed or injured. (People vs.
Sanchez, G.R. No. 131116, August 29,
1999)
2. Continuing crime or transitory crimes
(See discussion under B.1.e Continuing
crimes)
There are no complex crimes in the
following:
1. When an offense is used to conceal
another offense.
2. When a crime is an indispensable element
the other;
3. When one of the offenses committed is
penalized under a special law;
4. In cases of special complex crimes;
5. When the law provides for a two-tiered
penalty
Two-Tiered Penalty
Occurs when the law provides that a penalty
to a particular crime is in addition to the
penalty imposable for another crime which
results from the commission of such
particular crime. (Estrada, supra)
Example:
Maltreatment of Prisoners — The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium
period to prison mayor in its minimum
period, in addition to his liability for the
physical injuries shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee who shall overdo
himself in the correction or handling of a
prisoner or detention officer under his
charge. (Art. 235, RPC)
Complex Crime vs. Composite Crime (Boado, ble
Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2018, cause
pp. 267-268) (Art.12[
7])
Complex Crime Composite Crime (or
Special Complex Note: Exceptions in justifying and exempting
Crime) circumstances as to the civil liability are based in
The combination is not The combination of the Art. 101 of the RPC.
specified but in general offenses is fixed by law.
terms, that is, grave a. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 11)
and/or less grave; or one
offense being the
Justifying Circumstances – those in which the
necessary means to
commit the other. act of a person is said to be in accordance with
The penalty imposable is The penalty for the special law, so that such person is deemed not to have
the penalty for the most complex crime is expressly transgressed the law and is free from both
serious crime. provided by law. criminal and civil liability.
If a light felony If a felony accompanied
accompanies the the commission of the General Rule: Justifying Circumstances under
commission of the composite crime, such light RPC does not incur criminal liability.
complex crime, the light felony is absorbed.
felony may be subject to Exception: in Art. 11(4) where “any person who,
separate information.
in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act
Penalized in a single Penalized by two
provision of the law e.g., provisions in relation to
which causes damage to another”, where the civil
Art. 267 on kidnapping Art. 48 e.g., rape under liability is to be shared by the persons who
with rape and given a Art. 266-A and forcible benefited by the act. (Art. 101, RPC)
single specific penalty. abduction under Art. 342
and penalized under Art. If there were several persons benefited, the court
48 for the most serious in shall determine their proportionate share. (Id.)
the maximum.
Justifying circumstances:
2. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL
LIABILITY 1. Acts in defense of his persons or rights (Self-
Defense);
Justifying (J); Exempting (E); Mitigating (M); 2. Acts in defense of the person or rights of his
Aggravating (A); Alternative (A) – JEMAA relatives (Defense of a relative);
3. Acts in defense of the person or rights of a
J E M A A
No No Decreas Increase Increased
stranger (Defense of a stranger);
crimin criminal ed d /decrease 4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury (State of
al liability criminal criminal d liability necessity/Avoidance of Greater Evil or
liability liability liability injury);
GR: GR: With With civil With civil 5. Acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
No With civil liability liability exercise of a right or office;
civil civil liability 6. Acts in obedience to an order issued by a
liability liability superior for some lawful purpose; (Art. 11)
and
Excep Excepti
7. [additional] Battered Woman Syndrome (R.A.
tion: on:
No. 9262).
to (1)
avoid accident
an evil (Art. NOTE: There is no civil liability, except in Art.
or 12[4]); 11(4), where the civil liability is borne by the
injury. persons benefited by the act.
(Art. (2)
11[4]) Insupera

21
Self–Defense – Art. 11 (1)
Rights included:
1. Defense of Person;
2. Defense of Rights;
3. Defense of Property – it can be invoked if
there is an attack upon the property although
it is not coupled with an attack upon the
person of the owner of the premises. All the
elements for justification must however be
present. (People vs. Narvaez, G.R. No. L–33466–
67, April 20, 1983)
4. Defense of Honor – a slap on the face is
considered as unlawful aggression since the
face represents a person and his dignity. It is
a serious personal attack; a physical assault,
coupled with a willful disgrace; and it may,
therefore, be frequently regarded as placing
in real danger a person’s dignity, rights and
safety. (Rugas vs. People, G.R. No. 147789,
January 14, 2004)
Requisites: (UnReaL)
1. Unlawful Aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself.
1. If the police officer employed reasonably
necessary means to repel resistance of
person to be arrested, the former may
plead two defenses, to wit: performance
of duty and self-defense or defense of
stranger. (Masipequina and Alampayan vs.
CA and People, G.R. No. L-51206, August 25,
1989)
 Unlawful aggression – There is an
unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s
life, limb, or right is either actual or imminent.
2. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable
requisite; hence, its presence is a condition
sine qua non. Unlawful aggression is the
primordial element in self-defense because
without self-defense, there is nothing to
repel; hence, self-defense will not lie. (People
vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012)
3. Unlawful aggression must also be a
continuing circumstance or must have been
existing at the time the defense is made.
22
Once the unlawful aggression is found to
have ceased, the one making the defense of
a stranger would likewise cease to have any
justification for killing, or even just wounding,
the former aggressor. (People vs. Dijan, G.R.
No. 142682, June 5, 2002)
Elements: (PAU)
1. There must be a Physical or material attack
or assault;
2. The attack or assault must be Actual or at
least imminent; and
3. The attack or assault must be Unlawful.
(People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January
25, 2012)
1. Equivalent to physical assault;
 The person defending himself must have
been attacked with actual physical force
with the actual use of weapon. But slap
on the face constitutes unlawful
aggression. It is a physical assault
coupled with a willful disregard, nay, a
defiance of an individual’s personality.
(People vs. Sabio, G.R. No. L-23734, April 27,
1967)
2. Threatened assault of an immediate and
imminent kind which is offensive and
positively strong, showing the wrongful intent
to cause injury; The act of self-defense must
succeed the unlawful aggression within a
reasonable amount of time.
 Retaliation is not a justifying
circumstance. Upon the cessation of the
unlawful aggression and the danger or
risk to life and limb, the necessity for the
person invoking self-defense to attack his
adversary ceases. (People vs. Cajurao,
G.R. No. 122767, January 20, 2004)
3. It must come from the person who was
attacked by the accused; and
 No unlawful aggression when there was
an agreement to fight. (People vs.
Monteroso, G.R. No. 28538, August 4,
1928).
4. Not merely threats or threatening stance or
posture.
  Mere belief in an impending attack is NOT
sufficient. Neither is intimidating or
threatening attitude. (People vs.
Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12,
1996). But there is self-defense even if
the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided
the accused believed it was a real gun.
(People vs. Boral, 11 CA 914)
a. The act of the (deceased) of allegedly
drawing a gun from his waist cannot be
categorized as unlawful aggression. Such
act did not put in real peril the life or
personal safety of appellant. (People vs.
Borreros, G.R. No. 125185. May 5, 1999)
b. The act of pulling “something” (People vs.
De Leon, G.R. No. 197546, March 23, 2015)
or pressing his right hand to his hip
where a revolver was holstered (People vs.
Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018) or
pulling a gun but without manifestation
of any aggressive act (People vs. Rubiso,
G.R. No. 128871, March 18, 2003) is not an
unlawful aggression. Hence, killings of
the victims are unjustified. But aiming a
revolver at another with intent to shoot is
an imminent unlawful aggression, within
the contemplation of the justifying
circumstance of self-defense. (People vs.
Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018)
c. Thrusting hand into the pocket as if for
the purpose of drawing a dagger or a
pocket knife (U.S. vs. Carrero, G.R No. L-
3956 January 10, 1908) or pulling a kitchen
knife (People vs. Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912,
September 10, 2003) is not unlawful
aggression; hence, the killing of the
victim is not justified. However, opening
a knife and making a motion as if to
attack is an imminent unlawful
aggression (People vs. Olarbe, G.R. No.
227421, July 23, 2018), which justified the
exercise of self-defense.
 Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it – there
must be: (a) a necessity of the course of
action taken by the person making a defense,
and (b) a necessity of the means used. Both
of which should be reasonable.
Doctrine of Rational Equivalence –
presupposes the consideration not only of the
nature and quality of the weapons used, but
of the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the defense, vis-à-vis the
unlawful aggression. (Espinosa vs. People, G.R.
No. 181071, March 15, 2010)
In determining reasonable means, some
factors to be considered are:
a. Presence of imminent danger;
b. Impelled by the instinct of self–
preservation;
c. Nature and quality of the weapon used
by the accused compared to the weapon
of the aggression;
d. Emergency to which the person
defending himself has been exposed to;
e. Size and/or physical character of the
aggressor compared to the accused and
other circumstances that can be
considered showing disparity between
aggressor and accused; and
f. The time and place of the assault.
Note: This element should be
interpreted liberally in favor of the law-
abiding citizen.
Perfect equality between the weapons
used by the one defending himself and
that of the aggressor is not required,
neither is the material commensurability
between the means of attack and
defense. Rational equivalence is enough.
Reason: Because the person assaulted
does not have sufficient tranquility of
mind to think and to calculate. (Estrada,
Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
NOTES:
● A knife is more dangerous than a club.
Its use is reasonable if there is no other
available means of defense at the
disposal of the accused and he could not
coolly choose other less deadly weapons.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
 The means employed must meet the
requirement of fair play such that if the
unlawful aggression is not that fatal like
23
 a slap on the face, a person cannot use
excessive means to defend himself like
using a knife or a gun. (Estrada, supra)
 Perfect equality between the weapon
used by the one defending himself and
that of the aggressor is NOT required.
What the law requires is rational
equivalence. (Estrada, supra)
NOTES:
Because the person assaulted does not have the
luxury of time and tranquility of mind to ponder
on the manner of defense.
The person defending himself cannot be
expected to control his blows. The infliction of a
mortal wound is justified so long as it was done
at the time the elements of self-defense are still
present.
The person defending himself cannot be
expected to coolly and serenely reflect on the
consequences of his act. He cannot be expected
likewise to restrain his blows or aim at a less
vulnerable part of the body of the victim. This is
so because a person defending himself does not
have the pleasure or ease to ponder on the
manner and course of action he would take.
But the one defending himself must aim at his
assailant and not indiscriminately fire his gun. But
if the accused had fired one shot at the aggressor
paralyzing him, he is not justified in firing his gun
at him five times more killing him in the process.
In such case, there was no more unlawful
aggression to repel. He is liable for Homicide or
Murder as the case may be. Settled is the rule
that when unlawful aggression ceases, the
defender has no longer any right to kill or wound
the former aggressor otherwise retaliation and
not self-defense is committed. (People vs. Vicente,
G.R. No. 137296, June 26, 2003)
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself
1. When no provocation at all was given to the
aggressor by the person defending himself;
or
2. When, even if a provocation was given, it
was not sufficient; or
24
3. When, even if the provocation was
sufficient, it was not given by the
person defending himself (accused); or
4. When, even if the person defending himself
gave a provocation, it was not the proximate
and immediate to the act of aggression.
Reason: When the person defending himself
from the attack by another gave sufficient
provocation to the latter, the former is also to be
blamed for having given the cause for the
aggression.
The provocation must be sufficient, which means
that it should be proportionate to the act of
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to
its commission. (Estrada, supra)
Burden of Proof
To successfully invoke self-defense, an accused
must establish: "(1) unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel such
aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the person resorting to self-
defense." (Velasquez vs. People, G.R. No. 195021,
March 15, 2017)
In the case the accused is a police officer
and the victim is a trained police officer
The victim here was a trained police officer. He
was inebriated and had disobeyed a lawful order
in order to settle a score with someone using a
police vehicle. A warning shot fired by a fellow
police officer, his superior, was left unheeded as
he reached for his own firearm and pointed it at
accused. Accused was, therefore, justified in
defending himself from an inebriated and
disobedient colleague. Even if the victim did not
point his firearm at accused, there would still be
a finding of unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim. A police officer is trained to shoot quickly
and accurately. A police officer cannot earn his
badge unless he can prove to his trainors that he
can shoot out of the holster quickly and
accurately. Given this factual backdrop, there is
reasonable basis to presume that the accused
indeed felt his life was actually threatened. Facing
an armed police officer like himself, who at that
time, was standing a mere five meters from the
accused, the latter knew that he has to be quick
on the draw. It is worth emphasizing that the
victim, being a policeman himself, is presumed to
be quick in firing. Hence, it now becomes
reasonably certain that in this specific case, it
would have been fatal for the accused to have
waited for victim to point his gun before the
accused fires back. (Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No.
191913, March 21, 2012)
Other Circumstances involving Self-
Defense
1. Defense of Honor
2. Defense of Property
3. Defense of Reputation
Defense of Honor
 The accused is justified in using the pocket
knife in repelling what she believed to be an
attack upon her honor. The (deceased) was
alleged that on her way home one evening,
the (deceased) followed her, embraced and
kissed her and touched her private parts. The
accused didn’t know that it was Rivera and
that she was unable to resist the strength of
Rivera so she got a knife from her pocket and
stabbed him in defense of her honor. There
being no other means of self-defense. (People
vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L-41674, March 30, 1935)
Defense of Property (Doctrine of Self–Help)
Article 429 of the New Civil Code is applicable
under this paragraph. The owner or lawful
possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any
person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an
actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property.
The actual invasion of property may consist of a
mere disturbance of possession or of a real
dispossession. If it is a mere disturbance of
possession, force may be used against it at any
time as long as it continues, even beyond the
prescriptive period of forcible entry. If the
invasion consists of a real dispossession force to
regain possession can be used only immediately
after the dispossession. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book
One, 2011)
a. Shooting of the victims by the accused from
the window of his house while the former
were proceeding with the fencing off of
appellant’s rented estate despite the latter’s
plea to stop the same is disproportionate to
the physical aggression of the victims. The
reasonableness of the resistance is also
a requirement of the justifying
circumstance of self defense or defense
of one’s rights under Art. 11(1), Revised
Penal Code. When the appellant fired his
shotgun from his window, killing his two
victims, his resistance was disproportionate
to the attack. (People vs. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-
33466-67, April 20, 1983)
Defense of Reputation
 Defendant is acquitted from charges of libel
by the justification of his action through
defense of reputation. If one’s reputation had
been attacked by another he is justified to hit
back with another libel but only if such libel
is adequate to the first attack. (People vs. Chua
Hiong, Court of First Instance of Manila, No.
21740, March 6, 1953)
Defense of Relatives – Art. 11 (2)
Basis: The justification of defense of relatives, by
reason of which the defender is not criminally
liable, is founded not only upon humanitarian
sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood
which impels men to rush, on the occasion of
great perils, to the rescue of those close to them
by ties of blood. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book One, 2006, p.195)
Requisites: (URP)
a. Unlawful aggression;
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it; and
c. In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, that the one making the
defense had no part therein. Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.196)
Mistake of Fact
Even if the relative being defended is the unlawful
aggressor, an honest belief of the one making the
defense that such was not the fact will be
justified, provided all other requisites are present.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.197)
25
Relatives that can be defended:
(SADBroSAC)
1. Spouse – Legitimate;
2. Ascendants–Father, Mother, Grandparents
and Great Grandparents in direct line;
3. Descendants–Children, Grandchildren and
Great Grandchildren in direct line;
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers and
Sisters;
5. Relatives by Affinity in the same degree –
parents–in–law, son or daughter–in–law, and
brother or sister–in–law; and
6. Relatives by Consanguinity within the fourth
civil degree – uncle and niece, aunt and
nephew, first cousins. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.195)
NOTE: Death of one spouse does not terminate
the relationship by affinity established between
the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of
the deceased. (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales
Vda De Carungcong vs. People, G.R. No. 181409,
February 11, 2010)
Defense of Stranger – Art. 11(3)
Basis: What one may do in his defense, another
may not do for him. Persons acting in defense of
others are in the same condition and upon the
same place as those who act in defense of
themselves. The ordinary man would not stand
idly by and see his companion killed without
attempting to save his life.
Requisites: (URI)
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it; and
3. The person defending be not Induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Stranger
Any person not included in the enumeration of
relatives mentioned in Art. 11(2) is considered
stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3. Hence,
even a close friend or a distant relative is a
stranger within the meaning of paragraph 3.
26
Effect of Absence in any of the Requisites in
Self-Defense
The accused should be entitled to either:
a. Ordinary mitigating circumstance of
incomplete defense pursuant to Art. 13(1) if
only one requisite is present which should
always be unlawful aggression; or
b. Privileged mitigating circumstance under Art.
69, if majority, that is, two requisites is
present, which should always include
unlawful aggression.
Avoidance of greater evil or injury –
Art. 11 (4)
Requisites of Doctrine of State of Necessity
or Avoidance of Greater Evil (GENo)
a. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
b. Injury feared be Greater than that done to
avoid it; and
c. There is NO other practical and less harmful
means of preventing it. (Campanilla, Criminal
Law Reviewer: Volume I, 2019, p.188)
“Damage to another” – this term covers injury
to persons and damage to property.
If the evils sought to be avoided is merely
expected or anticipate or may happen in the
future, Art. 11(4) is not applicable.
The greater evil should not be brought about by
the negligence or imprudence of the actor.
Although, as a rule there is no civil liability in
justifying circumstances, it is only in Art. 11(4)
where there is civil liability, but the civil liability is
borne by the persons benefited.
In cases falling within the subdivision 4 of Art. 11,
the persons who benefited from the doctrine of
state necessity, shall be civilly liable in proportion
to the benefit, which they may have received.
As compared to the mitigating circumstance by
“mere accident” under Art. 12(4), offender, under
the doctrine of state necessity, deliberately
caused damage to prevent a greater evil. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.202)
 Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of
right or office – Art. 11 (5)
Requisites:
a. That the accused acted in the performance of
a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office; and
b. That the injury caused or the offense
committed be the necessary consequence of
the due performance of duty or the lawful
exercise of such right or office. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2012, p.204)
 In the absence of the second requisite,
the justification becomes incomplete
thereby the case becomes [privileged]
mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Pinto
Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991)
 While self-defense and performance of
duty are two distinct justifying
circumstances, self-defense or defense
of a stranger may still be relevant even if
the proper justifying circumstance in a
given case is fulfillment of duty. (Cabanlig
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148431, July 28,
2005)
 If a prisoner who was escaping
disregarded the warning shots of the jail
guard and there is no other remedy
except to fire at him to prevent him from
escaping, the guard is not criminally
liable. It is his duty to prevent the escape
of the prisoner and in doing so, he has
the right to employ means which is not
capricious, arbitrary and unreasonable.
(People vs. Delima, G.R. No. L-18660,
December 22, 1922)
 A police officer is not required to afford
the victim the opportunity to fight back.
Neither is he expected – when hard
pressed and in the heat of such an
encounter at close quarters – to pause
for a long moment and reflect coolly at
his peril, or to wait after each blow to
determine the effects thereof. But he
cannot be exonerated from overdoing his
duty when he fatally shot the victim in
the head, even after the latter slumped
to the ground due to multiple gunshot
wounds sustained while charging at the
police officers. Sound discretion and
restraint dictated that a veteran
policeman should have ceased firing at
the victim the moment he saw the latter
fall to the ground. The victim at that point
no longer posed a threat. Shooting him
in the head was obviously unnecessary.
(People vs. Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September
20, 2000)
 The duty to issue a warning is not
absolutely mandated at all times and at
all cost, to the detriment of the life of law
enforcers. The directive to issue a
warning contemplates a situation where
several options are still available to the
law enforcers. In exceptional
circumstances such as this case, where
the threat to the life of a law enforcer is
already imminent, and there is no other
option but to use force to subdue the
offender, the law enforcer’s failure to
issue a warning is excusable. (Cabanlig vs.
Sandiganbayan, supra)
Obedience to an order issued for some
lawful purpose – Art. 11 (6)
Requisites: (OLM)
1. That an Order has been issued by a superior;
2. That such order must be for some Lawful
purpose; and
3. That the Means used by the subordinate to
carry out said order is lawful. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2012, p.212-213)
Art. 11(6) presupposes that what was obeyed by
the accused was a lawful order; but if the accused
complied with an unlawful order under a mistake
of fact, he should not incur criminal liability.
The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an
illegal order if he is not aware of its illegality and
he is not negligent. (Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 103501–03, February 17, 1997)
Battered Woman Syndrome
Note: Battered Woman Syndrome is not included
in the enumerations under Art. 11. BWS is
considered as one of the justifying circumstances
enunciated in the case of People vs. Genosa.
27
Battered Woman Syndrome – refers to a
scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse. (Sec. 3 [c], R.A. No. 9262)
Battery – refers to any act of inflicting physical
harm upon the woman or her child resulting to
physical and psychological or emotional distress.
Elements: (RIP)
1. That the battering husband, with whom the
battered wife has a marital, sexual or dating
Relationship, inflicted physical harm upon her;
2. That the Infliction of physical harm must be
cumulative; and
3. The cumulative abuse results to Physical and
psychological or emotional distress to the
woman.
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to
be suffering from battered woman syndrome do
not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-
defense under the RPC. (Sec. 26, R.A. No. 9262)
NOTES:
1. “Cycle of violence” includes
a. the tension building phase;
During this phase, minor battering
occurs. It could be verbal or slight
physical abuse or another form of
hostile behavior.
b. the acute battering incident; and
It is characterized by brutality,
destructiveness, and sometimes death.
c. The tranquil, loving (or at least
non-violent) phase.
The final phase of the cycle of violence
begins when acute battering incident ends.
The couple experience profound relief. The
batterer may show tender nurturing
behavior towards his partner.
 The defense should prove all three
(3) phases of cycle of violence
characterizing the relationship of the
parties. (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No.
135981, January 15, 2004)
28
2. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a
battered woman, the couple must go
through the battering cycle at least twice.
Any woman may find herself in an abusive
relationship with a man once. If it occurs a
second time, and she remains in the
situation, she is defined as a battered
woman. (People vs. Genosa, supra.)
3. In the determination of the state of mind of
the woman who was suffering from battered
woman syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime, the courts shall be
assisted by expert
psychiatrists/psychologists. (Sec. 26, R.A. No.
9262).
Four characteristics of the syndrome
1. The woman believes that the violence was
her fault;
2. She has an inability to place the responsibility
for the violence elsewhere;
3. She fears for her life and/or her children’s
life; and
4. She has an irrational belief that the abuser is
omnipresent and omniscient. (People of the
Philippines vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981,
September 29, 2009)
b. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 12)
Exempting Circumstances (or the
circumstances for non-imputability) – those
grounds for exemption from punishment because
there is wanting in the offender any of the
conditions which makes the act voluntary or
negligent.
General Rule: one who acts by virtue of any of
the exempting circumstances commits a crime.
Even there’s an exempting circumstance that
exempts him from the criminal liability, such
person of the accused still has civil liability.
Exception: No civil liability in Art. 12(4) – Any
person who, while performing a lawful act with
due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it. (Art. 101,
RPC)
The following are exempt from criminal Imbecility or Insanity – Art. 12 (1)
liability: (AIM CUP)
Basis: The exempting circumstance of insanity or
1. An Imbecile or an insane person, unless the imbecility is based on the complete absence of
latter has acted during a lucid interval; intelligence, an element of voluntariness.
2. A person 15 years of age and under;
3. A person over 15 years of age and under 18, Imbecile – is one who, while advanced in age,
unless he has acted with discernment, in has a mental development comparable to that of
which case, such child shall be proceeded children between two and seven years of age. It
against in accordance with RA 9344 or is one who is deprived completely of reason or
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 discernment and freedom of the will at the time
(Nos. 2 & 3: Minority or child in conflict with of committing the crime. (People vs. Ambal, G.R.
the law); No. L–52688, October 17, 1980)
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful
act with due care, causes an injury by mere Insanity – it exists when there is a complete
Accident without fault or intention of causing deprivation of intelligence or freedom of the will.
it; Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not
5. Any person who acts under the Compulsion enough especially if the offender has not lost
of irresistible force; consciousness of his acts. (People vs. Puno, G.R. No.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an L–33211, July 29, 1981)
Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury; and NOTES:
7. Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when Prevented by some 1. Insanity and imbecility, to exempt under
lawful or insuperable cause. paragraph 1, must be complete, and they
cannot be graduated in degrees in gravity.
Justifying Circumstances vs. Exempting
Circumstances Note: Imbecility, as compared to insanity,
is exempt in all cases. On the other hand, a
JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING showing that the insane acted in lucid
CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES interval upon the commission of the offense
As to Affects the act NOT Affects the actor incurs criminal liability. The trial, however,
effect the actor. NOT the act. will be suspended until the mental capacity
As to Act is considered to Act complained of is of the accused be restored to afford him all
wrong- have been done actually wrongful, the rights during trial. (Reyes, The Revised
fulness WITHIN the bounds but the actor is NOT Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.216)
of the of law; hence, liable.
act legitimate and 2. The fact that a person behaves crazily does
lawful in the eyes of
not mean that he is insane. A man may
the law.
behave in a crazy manner but it does not
As to Since the act is Since the act
exis- considered lawful, complained of is necessarily and conclusively prove that he is
tence there is no crime. actually wrong legally so. (People vs. Florendo, G.R. No.
of there is a crime but 136845, October 8, 2003) Dementia Praecox
crime since the actor (schizophrenia) is a form of psychosis where
acted WITHOUT homicidal attack is common, because of
voluntariness, there delusions that he is being interfered with
is no dolo or culpa. sexually, or that his property is being taken.
As to Since there is no Since there is a During the period excitement, such person
civil crime, nor a crime committed
has no control of his acts. (People vs. Bonoan,
liabilit criminal, there is though there is no
G.R. No. L-45130, February 17, 1937)
y also no civil liability criminal, there is
(except Art. 11[4]). civil liability (except
Art. 12[4] and 3. Somnambulism or sleepwalking must be
12[7]). clearly proven to be considered as an
exempting circumstance under this article.

29
 (People vs. Gimena, G.R. No. 33877, February 6, Effect on Criminal Liability of Insanity
1931) across all the applicable stages
4. Malignant malaria is a disease that causes Time when accused Effect on criminal
disturbance in the nervous system. An suffers insanity liability
accused is not criminally liable for the acts At the time of the Exempt from liability.
committed while suffering from said disease commission of the crime. (Reyes, The Revised
as it presupposes lack of intelligence. (People Penal Code: Book One,
vs. Lacena, G.R. No. 46961, January 15, 1940) 2012, p.218)
During trial. Proceedings will be
5. Feeblemindedness is not exempting but can suspended and accused is
be considered as mitigating. (People vs. committed to a hospital.
Formigones, G.R. No. L–3246, November 29, (Id.)
1950) After Judgment or While Execution of judgment is
Serving Sentence. suspended; the accused
6. Epilepsy is not a pervading disease but a is committed to a
nerve disorder. Hence, after a seizure, the hospital. The period of
confinement in the
victim is normal for all intents and purposes.
hospital is counted for the
(People vs. Teves, G.R. No. 97435, July 14, 1995)
purpose of the
prescription of the
Two Tests of Insanity:
penalty.

a. Test of Cognition – complete deprivation of

intelligence in committing the crime.
b. Test of Volition – total deprivation of
freedom of will. (People vs. Rafanan, Jr., G.R.
No. 54135, November 21, 1991)
 But our case law shows common reliance
on the test of cognition, rather than oil a
test relating to "freedom of the will;"
examination of our case law has failed to
turn up any case where this Court has
exempted an accused on the sole ground
that he was totally deprived of "freedom
of the will," i.e., without an
accompanying "complete deprivation of
intelligence." This is perhaps, to be
expected since a person's volition
naturally reaches out only towards that
which is presented as desirable by his
intelligence, whether that intelligence be
diseased or healthy. (People vs. Rafanan,
Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991)
Burden of proof
SUSPENSION OF THE EXECUTION AND
SERVICE OF THE PENALTIES
IN CASE OF INSANITY
When a convict shall become insane or an
imbecile after final sentence has been
pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall
be suspended only with regard to the
personal penalty, the provisions of the second
paragraph of circumstance number 1 of Art. 12
being observed in the corresponding cases. If at
any time the convict shall recover his reason, his
sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty
shall have prescribed in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also
be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs
while the convict is serving his sentence. (Art. 79,
RPC)
Rules regarding execution and service of
penalties in case of insanity:

The defense must prove that the accused was
insane at the time of commission of the crime
because the presumption is always in favor of
sanity. (People vs. Bascos, G.R. No. 19605, December
19, 1922)
a. When a convict becomes insane or imbecile
after final sentence has been pronounced,
the execution of said sentence is suspended
only as regards the personal penalty;
b. If he recovers his reason, his sentence shall
be executed, unless the penalty has
prescribed;

30
c. Even if while serving his sentence, the convict Over 15 but EXEMPT
becomes insane or imbecile, the above below 18 years
provisions shall be observed; of age who Subjected to an intervention
d. But the payment of his civil or pecuniary acted without program.
discernment
liabilities shall not be suspended. (Reyes, The
Over 15 but As a rule, NOT EXEMPT from
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2017, p. 837)
below 18 years criminal liability.
of age who
Other Instances when sentence may be acted with Exception:
suspended are: discernment Even if the same child committed a
. crime with discernment, he is
a. Where the accused became insane before exempted from criminal
sentence could be promulgated (Art.79, RPC); responsibility and no Information
b. Where the offender needs to be confined in should be filed against the child if the
a rehabilitation center because of drug- offense committed are any of these:
dependency although convicted of the crime o status offenses;
o vagrancy and prostitution under
charged;
Sec. 202 of the RPC;
c. Where the crime was committed when the o mendicancy under P.D. No.
offender is under 18 years of age and he is 1563; and
found guilty thereof in accordance with R.A. o sniffing of rugby under P.D.
No. 9344, otherwise known as the "Juvenile 1619. (Revised Rules on
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006," but the trial Children in Conflict of Law)
court subjects him to appropriate disposition
measures as prescribed by the Supreme NOTE: May still avail the diversion
Court in the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with program provided that:
the Law. a. Where the imposable penalty is ≤
6 years, the Punong Barangay or
law enforcement officer
Minority – Art. 12 (2) (3) conducted mediation, family
conferencing and conciliation.
Basis: The exempting circumstance of minority b. Where the imposable penalty is
is based on the complete absence of intelligence. more than 6 years, diversion
measures is only upon the
Child in Conflict with the Law – refers to a discretion of the court.
child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged
as, having committed an offense under Philippine Prosecutor to conduct a Preliminary
laws. (Sec. 4 [e], R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. Investigation and file an information
No. 10630) upon determination of probable
cause in the following instances:
Discernment – is the mental capacity of the a. he does not qualify for diversion;
child at the time of the commission of the offense child, his/her parents or guardian
to understand the differences between right and does not agree to diversion;
wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act. b. Upon determination by the
(Sec. 4, A.M. No. 01-1-18-SC, Revised Rule on Children prosecution that the diversion is
in Conflict with the Law) not appropriate for the child.
(R.A. No. 9344, as amended by
Minimum age and determination of R.A. No. 10630)
criminal responsibility
NOTE: The exemption from criminal liability
Age of the Criminal Liability herein established does not include exemption
Child from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
15 years of EXEMPT accordance with existing laws.
age or under
However, the child shall be subjected
to an intervention program pursuant
to Sec. 20 of this Act. (Sec. 6, R.A.
9344, as amended by R.A. 10630)

31
Accident without fault or intention causing
it – Art. 12 (4)
Basis: The exempting circumstance is based on
lack of intelligence and intent. The person does
not commit either an intentional or a culpable
felony. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One,
2006, p.229)
Note: This is an exception to the general rule
that exempting circumstances under Art. 12
exempt the accused from civil liability. Here,
there’s no civil liability. (Art. 101)
Elements: (WILD)
a. A person is performing a Lawful act;
b. With Due care;
c. He causes an Injury to another by mere
accident; and
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2012,
p.229)
Accident – is something that happens outside
the sway of our will, and although it comes about
through some act of our will, lies beyond the
bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. If
the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will
be a case of negligence. When the act is with
fault, it will fall under culpa; when with intent it
will become an intentional felony. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2012, p.231)
NOTE: Accident and self–defense are two
incompatible defenses. Accident presupposes
lack of intention, while self–defense assumes
voluntariness, but induced only by necessity.
(People vs. Lao–as, G.R. No. 126396, June 29, 2001)
When claim of accident not appreciated
a. Repeated blows negate claim of wounding by
mere accident (People vs. Taylaran, G.R. No. L–
49149, October 23, 1981); and
b. Accidental shooting is negated by threatening
words preceding it and still aiming the gun at
the prostrate body of the victim, instead of
immediately helping him. (People vs. Reyes,
G.R. No. L–33154, February 27, 1976)
32
Acting under the compulsion of an
irresistible force – Art. 12 (5)
Basis: The exempting circumstance is based on
the complete absence of freedom, an element of
voluntariness.
Elements: (TIP)
1. That the compulsion is by means of Physical
force;
2. That the physical force must be Irresistible;
and
3. That the physical force must come from a
Third person. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book One, 2012, p.234)
 The force must be so irresistible so as to
reduce the actor to a mere instrument
not only without a will but against his will.
A threat of future injury is not enough.
The compulsion must be of such a
character as to leave no opportunity to
the accused for escape or self-defense in
equal combat. (People vs. Loreno, G.R. No.
L-54414, July 9, 1984)
The irresistible force must be either physical force
or violence and must be induced by a third person
and produces an effect upon the individual that
in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere
instrument and as such incapable of committing
a crime.
NOTE: Passion and obfuscation cannot amount
to irresistible force. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book One, 2012, p. 235)
Acting under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear – Art. 12 (6)
Basis: The exempting circumstance is based on
the complete absence of freedom, an element of
voluntariness. “Actus me invito factus non est
meus actus.” (An act done by me against my will
is not my act). (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2006, p. 240)
Elements:
1. That the threat, which causes the fear, is of
an evil greater than or at least equal to that
which he is required to commit; and
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and
imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it. (US vs. Elicanal, G.R. No.
11439, October 28, 1916)
NOTE: Just like irresistible force, uncontrollable
fear is founded on duress or lack of voluntariness
on the part of the actor. There must be no
possibility of avoiding or escaping from the
situation creating fear, such as the case of the
hostage who decapitated his fellow hostage
because otherwise his captors shall kill him.
Note: A threat of future injury is not enough. It
must be real, imminent or reasonable fear for
one’s life or limb and should not be mere
speculative.
The uncontrollable fear may also be directed
against a third person such as the wife of the
accused.
To appreciate duress as a valid defense, a threat
of future injury is not enough. It must be clearly
shown that the compulsion must be of such
character as to leave no opportunity for the
accused to escape. (People vs. Palencia, G.R. No. L–
38957, April 30, 1976)
Irresistible force vs. uncontrollable fear
Irresistible force Uncontrollable fear
The offender uses The offender employs
violence or physical intimidation or threat in
force to compel compelling another to
another person to commit a crime.
commit a crime.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.240)
Insuperable or lawful causes – Art. 12 (7)
Basis: The exempting circumstance exempts the
accused from criminal liability, because he acts
without intent, the third condition of
voluntariness in intentional felony.
Elements: (ReFIL)
1. That an act is Required by law to be done;
2. That a person Fails to perform such act; and
3. That his failure to perform such act was due
to some Lawful or Insuperable cause. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.240)
Insuperable Cause – a cause which prevents a
person to do what the law requires.
The law imposes a duty on the offender to
perform an act but his failure to do so is due to a
lawful or insuperable cause. There is no civil
liability because his acts are lawful. For instance,
Art. 125 provides for the number of hours when
a person arrested must be delivered to the
judicial authorities. If the peace officers failed to
do so because of circumstances beyond their
control such as long holidays when the judicial
offices are not open, that is insuperable cause
and the peace officers will not be liable under Art.
125. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One,
2006, p.241)
c. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 13)
Mitigating Circumstances – are those, which,
if present in the commission of the crime, do NOT
entirely, free the actor from criminal liability, but
serve only to reduce the penalty. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.250)
Examples of Mitigating Circumstances:
(IONS-VP VP-IS)
1. Incomplete justifying or exempting
circumstances;
2. Over 15 and under 18, if there is
discernment, or over 70 years old;
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong (or
Praeter Intentionem);
4. Sufficient Threat or Provocation on the part
of the offended party;
5. Vindication of grave offense;
6. Passion and obfuscation;
7. Voluntary surrender and confession of guilt;
8. Physical defect of offender;
9. Illness of the offender; and
10. Similar or analogous circumstances.
Kinds of Mitigating Circumstances:
ORDINARY PRIVILEGED
MITIGATING MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES
Can be offset by a Cannot be offset by any
generic aggravating aggravating
circumstance. circumstance.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.
250-251)
33
Priviledged Mitigating Circumstances: Over 15 and under 18, if there is
discernment, or over 70 years old – Art. 13
1. When the minor is over 15 but below 18 years (2)
of age who acted with discernment (Art. 68,
RPC, as amended by R.A No. 9344); LEGAL EFFECTS OF VARIOUS AGES OF
2. Incomplete justifying or exempting OFFENDER
circumstance (Art. 69, RPC); 15 years old and Exempting circumstance.
3. If there are two or more mitigating below
circumstances and there is no aggravating Exempting circumstance –
if he acted WITHOUT
circumstance that attends the commission of
discernment. (Art. 12[3],
the offense (Art. 64[5], RPC); RPC, as amended by R.A.
4. Abandonment without justification of the No. 9344)
spouse who committed adultery. (Art. 333[3], Privileged mitigating
RPC) circumstance –
As a rule, if he acted WITH
Mitigating Circumstances are not discernment, penalty is
considered in the following cases: reduced by one (1) degree
a. When the penalty is single and indivisible (Art. lower than that imposed.
63, RPC); (Art. 68[2], RPC)
b. In felonies through negligence (Art. 365, RPC);
Exemption:
c. When the penalty is only a fine imposed by Even if the same child
an ordinance (People vs. Ching Kuan, G.R. No. L- Over 15 but less than committed a crime with
48515, November 11, 1942); and 18 years old discernment, he is
exempted from criminal
Incomplete Justifying or Exempting responsibility and no
Circumstances – Art. 13 (1) Information should be
filed against the child if
Incomplete Justifying Circumstance of the offense committed are
any of these:
Defense
(a) status offenses;
(b) vagrancy and
In self-defense, defense of relative and defense prostitution under Sec.
of stranger, unlawful aggression must be 202 of the RPC;
present, it being an indispensable requisite. (c) mendicancy under P.D.
What is absent is either one or both of the last No. 1563; and
two requisites. (d) sniffing of rugby under
P.D. No. 1619. (Revised
Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order Rules on Children in
Conflict of Law)
for self-defense to be successfully pleaded,
Child In Conflict with Sentence suspended.
whether complete or incomplete. Once the
the Law, under 18
accused admits the commission of the offense years of age who
charged but raises a justifying circumstance as a acted with
defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. discernment.
(People vs. Concillado, G.R. No. 181204, November 28, 18 years old or over Full criminal responsibility.
2011) 70 years old or over Mitigating circumstance .

In complete justifying circumstance of No intention to commit so grave a wrong

state of necessity (or Praeter Intentionem) – Art. 13 (3)

Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying NOTES:

circumstance if all the three requisites mentioned
in paragraph 4 of Article 11 are present. But if
any of the last two requisites is absent, there is
only a mitigating circumstance. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code Book One, 2011, pp. 257)
Can be taken into account only when the facts
proven show that there is notable and evident
disproportion between the means employed to
execute the criminal act and its consequences.
(US vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 12635, September 25, 1917)

34
A person must be called to account for all the
natural and logical consequences of his felonious
act; and hence must be deemed to have incurred
criminal liability, although the felonious act he
committed might have been different from that
which he intended. (People vs. Buenamer, G.R. No.
2062277, August 31, 2016)
The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong as that actually
perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the
acts employed by the accused were reasonably
sufficient to produce and did actually produce the
death of the victim. (People vs. Sales, G.R. No.
177218, October 3, 2011)
Intention may be ascertained by considering:
a. The weapon used;
b. The nature of injury inflicted;
c. The manner it is inflicted; or
d. The part of the body injured.
Instances when the Rule on Praeter
Intentionem would NOT be applicable:
1. Felonies by negligence;
2. Cases where there is no material harm done;
and
3. Unintentional abortion.
Sufficient Provocation – Art. 13 (4)
Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct
or act of the offended party, capable of exciting,
inciting, or irritating anyone.
Requisites: (SOI)
1. That the provocation must be sufficient;
2. That it must originate from the offended
party; and
3. That the provocation must be immediate to
the act, i.e., to the commission of the crime by
the person who is provoked.
Sufficient – it means adequate to excite a
person to commit the wrong and must
accordingly be proportionate to its gravity. (People
vs. Nabora, G.R. No. 48101, November 22, 1941)
NOTES:
 The threat should not be offensive and
positively strong. Otherwise, the threat to
inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression,
which may give rise to self–defense. (US vs.
Guysayco, G.R. No. 4912, March 25, 1909)
 The liability of the accused is mitigated only
insofar as it concerns the harm inflicted upon
the person who made the provocation, but not
with regard to the other victims who did not
participate in the provocation. (US vs.
Malabanan, G.R. No. 3964, November 26, 1907)
Vindication of grave offense – Art. 13 (5)
Requisites: (GV)
1. That there must be a grave offense done the
one committing the felony (offender), his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degree;
and
2. That the felony is committed in immediate
vindication of such grave offense.
Immediate – means proximate and allows for a
lapse of time as long as the offender is still
suffering from the mental agony brought about
by the offense to him. It is unlike in sufficient
provocation where there should be no lapse of
time between the provocation and the
commission of the crime. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book One, 2006, p.280)
Grave offense – includes any act that is
offensive to the offender or his relatives and the
same need not be any crime or felony. (Id.)
NOTES:
1. A lapse of time is allowed between the
vindication and the doing of the grave offense.
2. The question whether or not a certain
personal offense is grave must be decided by
the court, having in mind the social standing
of the person, the place, and the time the
insult was made. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book
One, 2011)
Provocation vs. Vindication
PROVOCATION VINDICATION
As to It is made directly The grave offense
whom only to the person may be committed
commi committing the also against the
t-ted felony. offender’s relatives
mentioned by law.
35
 As to It is necessary The vindication of The act producing obfuscation must not be far
allowe that the the grave offense removed from the commission of the crime by a
d lapse provocation or may be proximate, considerable length of time, during which the
of time threat which admits of an accused might have regained his normal
immediately interval of time
equanimity. The crime committed must be the
preceeded the act, between the grave
i.e. that there be offense done by the result of a sudden impulse of natural and
no interval of time offended party and uncontrollable fury.
between the the commission of
provocation and the crime by the Passion and Obfuscation vs. Provocation
the commission of accused. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
the crime. p.299)
As to It is mere spite It concerns the
nature against the one honor of a person. Passion and Provocation
giving the Obfuscation
provocation or Produced by an impulse The provocation must
threat. which may be caused by come from the injured
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, provocation. party.
p.282) Offense, which causes a Must immediately
condition of the mind to precede the commission
Passion and Obfuscation – Art. 13 (6) commit a felony, need of the crime.
not be immediate. It is
Basis: Passion or Obfuscation is a mitigating only required that the
influence thereof lasts
circumstance because the offender who acts with
until the moment the
passion and obfuscation suffers a diminution of
crime is committed.
his intelligence and intent. (Reyes, The Revised The effect is loss of reason and self–control on the
Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.284) part of the offender.

Requisites: (VUNOS) Passion and Obfuscation vs. Irresistible

Force
 That there be an act, both Unlawful and
Sufficient to produce a condition of mind;
Passion and Irresistible Force
 That there was NO lapse of appreciable time Obfuscation
between the victim’s offending act and the Mitigating circumstance. Exempting circumstance.
commission of the crime by the offender; and It cannot give rise to It requires physical force.
 The act causing such obfuscation was irresistible force as it
committed by the Victim himself. (Estrada, does not involve physical
Criminal Law Book Book One, 2011, p.125) force.
Passion and obfuscation It must come from a third
NOTES: is in the offender person.
himself.
 It is a mitigating circumstance only when the It must arise from lawful It is unlawful.
same arises from lawful sentiments. (People sentiments.
vs. Bates, G.R. No. 139907, March 28, 2003)
Since the alleged provocation which caused (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2012,
the obfuscation of the appellants arose from p.231)
the same incident, that is, the alleged
maltreatment and/or ill–treatment of the Passion and Obfuscation cannot co-exist
appellants by the deceased, those two with:
mitigating circumstances cannot be  Vindication of grave offense;
considered as two distinct and separate  Evident premeditation;
circumstances but should be treated as one.  Treachery; and
(People vs. Pagal, G.R. No. L–32040, October 25,  Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
1977) (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
pp. 296-297)

36
NOTE: Vindication of grave offense cannot co-
exist with passion and obfuscation EXCEPT when
there are other facts, although closely connected
with the fact upon which one circumstance is
present, the other circumstance may be
appreciated as based on other fact. (People vs.
Diokno, G.R. No. 45100. October 26, 1936)
Voluntary surrender and confession of
guilt – Art. 13 (7)
Requisites of voluntary surrender: (NaSV)
Note: Offender had Not been actually Arrested;
Offender Surrendered himself to a person in
authority or to the latter’s agent; and
 Surrender was Voluntary, i.e. spontaneous
and must show the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges
his guilt or he wishes to save them the
trouble and expense incidental to his search
and capture. (Estacio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 75362, March 6, 1990)
Note: Voluntary surrender must be made to a
person in authority or his agent. The law does
not require that the surrender must be before or
after the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Surrender to the Treasurer is not mitigating
because he is a public officer but not a person in
authority. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
Person in Authority – One directly vested with
jurisdiction, which is the power to govern or to
execute the laws, whether as an individual or as
a member of some court or government
corporation, board or commission. (Art. 152[1],
RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 1978)
Agent of a Person in Authority – is a person,
who, by direct provisions of the 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 and any person who comes to the
aid of persons in authority. (Art. 152[2], RPC, as
amended by R.A. No. 1978).
Spontaneous – emphasizes the idea of an inner
impulse, acting without external stimulus. The
conduct of the accused, not his intention alone,
after the commission of the offense, determines
the spontaneity of the surrender. Hence,
voluntary surrender presupposes repentance.
Going to the police station to clear one’s name
does NOT show any intent to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities. (Reyes, supra)
NOTES:
 The fact that the order of arrest had already
been issued is no bar to the consideration of
the circumstance because the law does not
require that the surrender be prior to the order
of arrest. (Rivera vs. CA, G.R. No. 125867, May 31,
2000) However, if the accused merely submitted
himself to the authorities after serving his
warrant, there is no mitigating to be
appreciated.
 Surrender of weapons cannot be equated with
voluntary surrender. (People vs. Verges, G.R. No.
L-36882, July 24, 1981)
Requisites for plea of guilty: (SOP)
 That the offender Spontaneously confessed
his guilt;
 That the confession of guilt was made in Open
court, that is, before the court competent that
is to try the case; and
 That the confession of guilt was made Prior to
the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book One, 2006, p.312)
NOTE: Plea of guilty must be made in the court
of original jurisdiction. If it is made during an
appeal, no mitigating circumstance can be
appreciated.
Effect of an Improvident Plea of Guilt
The accused must be acquitted if the only
evidence of his guilt is his improvident guilt plea
due to the prodding of his lawyer from the Public
Attorney’s Office. (People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No.
80845, March 1994)
 Where in the original information the accused
pleaded not guilty, but he pleaded guilty to
the amended information, it is considered a
mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Ortiz, G.R.
No. L–19585, November 29, 1965)
37
 An improvident plea of guilty on the part of
the accused when capital crimes are involved
should be avoided since he might be
admitting his guilt before the court and thus
forfeit his life and liberty without having fully
comprehended the meaning and import and
consequences of his plea. (People vs.
Gumimba, G.R. No. 174056, February 27, 2007)
Physical defect of offender – Art. 13 (8)
Basis: The mitigating circumstance considers the
fact that one suffering from physical defect,
which restricts one’s means of action, defense, or
communication with fellow beings, does not have
complete freedom of action and, therefore, there
is diminution of that element of voluntariness.
Physical defect referred herein such as being
armless, cripple, or a stutterer, whereby his
means to act, defend himself or communicate
with his fellow beings are limited. Furthermore,
this paragraph does not distinguish between
educated and uneducated deaf–mute or blind
persons.
Not any physical defect will mitigate an offense.
It will only do so if it has some relation to the
crime committed. If a person is deaf and dumb
and he has been slandered, he cannot talk so
what he did was, he got a piece of wood and
struck the fellow on the head. The crime
committed was physical injuries. The Supreme
Court held that being a deaf and dumb is
mitigating because the only way is to use his
force because he cannot strike back. (Id.)
Illness of the offender – Art. 13 (9)
Basis: The mitigating circumstance is based on
the diminution of intelligence, voluntariness and
intent. (Id.)
Requisites: (DiCon)
1. That the illness of the offender must
Diminish the exercise of his will power; and
2. Such illness should NOT deprive the offender
of Consciousness of his acts (if totally
deprived of consciousness, the offender is
exempted).
 This paragraph includes illness of the
mind not amounting to insanity,
38
kleptomania, feeblemindedness, and
mistaken belief that killing witches was
for public good and illness of nerves or
moral faculty. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Book One, 2012, p.320)
Similar or analogous circumstances –
Article 13 (10)
It authorizes the court to consider in favor of the
accused “any other circumstance of a similar
nature” and analogous to those mentioned in
paragraphs 1-9 of Art. 13.
Examples:
 Restitution may be considered in
malversation of public funds analogous to
voluntary plea of guilty (Nizurtado vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107383, December 7,
1994);
 That the petitioner voluntarily took the cow
to the municipal hall to place it
unconditionally in the custody of the
authorities and thus save them the trouble of
recovering the cow, can be analogous to
voluntary surrender and should be
considered in his favor (Canta vs. People, G.R.
No. 140937, February 28, 2001);
 Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and
obfuscation(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book One, 2012, p. 336);
Note: Over 60 years old with failing sight, similar
to over 70 years of age under par.2; Outrage
feeling of unpaid creditor, as akin to vindication
or obfuscation (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2012, p. 336);
 Extreme poverty, as similar to a state of
necessity, which may apply, to crimes against
property but not of violence, such as murder
(People vs. Agustin, G.R. No. L–18368, March 31,
1966);
 Appeal to the esprit de corps of the accused,
as analogous to passion;
 Wartime state of confusion resulting in illegal
possession of firearm after the liberation, as
being similar to lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong;
 Voluntary return of funds malversed by the 20. With the aid of persons under 15 years of
accused, as equivalent to voluntary age, Use of motor vehicles and other similar
surrender; (People vs. Velasquez, No. 47741. means; and
Abril 28, 1941) and testifying for the 21. Cruelty.
prosecution without being discharged from
the information, as similar to plea of guilty. Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
(GSQIS)
d. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art.
14) Generic – applies to all crimes and can be offset
by mitigating circumstances; but if NOT offset,
Aggravating Circumstances – are those would affect only the maximum of the penalty
circumstances, which if attendant in the prescribed.
commission of the crime, serve to increase the  Crime committed in contempt of or with insult
resulting penalty without, however, exceeding to the public authorities;
the maximum penalty provided by law for the  Crime committed in the dwelling of the
offense. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, offended party;
2006, p.327)  Abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness;
Examples of Aggravating Circumstances:  Crime committed in the palace of the Chief
Executive, or in his presence, or where public
1. Taking advantage of public position; authorities are engaged their duties or place
2. Crime committed in contempt of or with insult of worship;
to public authorities;  Night time, uninhabited place, or band;
3. Disrespect due to age, sex, or rank or the  Recidivism;
crime is committed in the dwelling of the  Habituality;
offended party;  Craft, fraud or disguise;
4. Abuse of confidence or obvious  Crime is committed after an unlawful entry;
ungratefulness;  Means of commission of the crime, a wall,
5. Crime committed in the Palace of the Chief roof, floor, door, or window be broken; and
Executive, or in his presence, or where public  Crime be committed with the aid of persons
authorities are engaged in the discharged of under 15 years of age.
their duties, or in a place dedicated to
religious worship; Qualifying – those that changes the nature of
6. Night time, uninhabited place or by a band; the crime to a graver one, or brings about penalty
7. On the occasion of calamity or misfortune; next higher in degree and cannot be offset by
8. Aid of armed men or persons who insure or mitigating circumstance.
afford impunity;
9. Recidivism (Reincidencia);  Treachery;
10. Reiteracion or Habituality;  Evident premeditation; and
11. In consideration of price, reward or promise;  Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying
12. By means of inundation, fire, poison, aggravating circumstances which qualify the
explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional killing of person to murder.
damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive,
or by the use of any other artifice involving NOTE: Once a circumstance is used to qualify a
great waste and ruin; crime, it can no longer be appreciated as a
13. Evident premeditation; generic aggravating.
14. Craft, fraud or disguise;
15. Abuse of superior strength or means taken to Inherent – those that must of necessity
weaken the defense; accompany the commission of the crime (Art.
16. Treachery (Alevosia); 62[2], RPC), therefore not considered in increasing
17. Ignominy; the penalty to be imposed.
18. Unlawful entry;
19. Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door, or window;

39
 Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery,
theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage;
 Abuse of public office in bribery;
 Breaking of a wall or unlawful entry into a
house in robbery with the use of force upon
things;
 Fraud in estafa;
 Deceit in simple seduction; and
 Ignominy in rape.
Special – those which arise under special
conditions to increase the penalty of the offense
and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances.
 Complex crimes (Art. 48, RPC);
 Use of unlicensed firearm in homicide or
murder;
 Taking advantage of public position and
membership in an organized/syndicated
crime group (Art. 62[1][a], RPC);
 Error in personae (Art. 49, RPC);
 Quasi–recidivism. (Art. 160, RPC) (Estrada,
Criminal Law Book One, 2011) and
 Taking advantage of public position; (RA No.
7659 and Art. 62 of RPC)
Generic Aggravating vs. Qualifying
Aggravating (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2006, p.329)
GENERIC QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING AGGRAVATING
As to its effect
Increases the penalty Gives the crime its
which should be imposed proper and exclusive
upon the accused to the name and places the
maximum period but author thereof in such a
without exceeding the situation as to deserve
limit prescribed by law. no other penalty than
that specially described
by law for said crime.
As to whether it can be offset by a mitigating
circumstance
May be offset by an Cannot be offset by a
ordinary mitigating mitigating circumstance
circumstance since it is since it is considered an
not an ingredient of the ingredient of the crime.
crime.
40
Rules on Aggravating Circumstances
Aggravating circumstances shall not be
appreciated if:
 They constitute a crime specially punishable
by law; or
 They are included by law in defining a crime
and prescribing a penalty therefore. (Art. 62[1],
RPC)
 The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the
crime to such a degree that it must of
necessity accompany the commission thereof.
(Art. 62[2], RPC)
 Aggravating circumstances which arise: (a)
from the moral attributes of the offender; (b)
from his private relations with the offended
party; or (c) from any personal cause, shall
only serve to aggravate the liability of the
principals, accomplices and accessories as to
whom such circumstances are attendant. (Art.
62[3], RPC)
 The circumstances which consist: (a) in the
material execution of the act; or (b) in the
means employed to accomplish it, shall serve
to aggravate the liability of those persons who
had knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation
therein.
Exception: When there is proof of conspiracy in
which case the act of one is deemed to be the act
of all, regardless of lack of knowledge of the facts
constituting the circumstance (Art. 62[4], RPC).
 Aggravating circumstances, regardless of its
kind should be specifically alleged in the
information and proved as fully as the crime
itself in order to increase the penalty. (ROC,
Rule 110, Sec. 9) Such circumstances are not
presumed. (People vs. Legaspi, G.R. Nos.
136164–65, April 20, 2001)
When there is more than one qualifying
aggravating circumstance present, one of them
will be appreciated as qualifying aggravating
while the others will be considered as generic
aggravating.
Abuse of Official Position – Art. 14 (1)
Basis: The aggravating circumstance is based on
the greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by the personal circumstance of the offender and
also by means used to secure the commission of
the offense. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2006, p.335)
NOTES:
● Abuse of official position to be considered
aggravating, the public official must use
influence, prestige and ascendancy, which
his office gives him in realizing his purpose.
That accused used his service firearm in
shooting the victim should not be considered
as taking advantage of public position.
(People vs. Amion, G.R. No. 140511, March 1,
2001)
● Wearing of uniform of the public officer
when he committed the crime is not
tantamount to taking advantage of his public
position. (People vs. Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793,
October 11, 1968)
● The aggravating circumstance is applicable
only when the offender is a public officer
who takes advantage of his position.
● When in the commission of the crime,
advantage was taken by the offender of his
public position, the penalty to be imposed
shall be in its maximum, regardless of
mitigating circumstances. (Art. 62(1[a]), as
amended by R.A. No. 7659)
● This circumstance cannot be taken into
consideration in offenses where taking
advantage of official position is made by law
an integral element of the crime.
Crime committed in Contempt of or with
Insult to Public Authorities – Art. 14 (2)
Basis: The aggravating circumstance is based on
the greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by his lack of respect for the public authorities.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2012,
p.340)
Requisites: (PENK)
1. That the public authority is Engaged in the
exercise of his official functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise
of said functions is Not the person against
whom the crime is committed; and
3. That the offender Knows him to be a public
authority
4. His Presence has not prevented the
offender from committing the criminal
act. (Id.)
Public authority – sometimes called a person in
authority, is a public officer who is directly vested
with the power to govern and execute laws.
The following are persons in authority: the
councilor, mayor, governor, barangay captain,
and barangay chairman are also persons in
authority (Art. 152, as amended by P.D. No. 1232);
even a public school teacher is a person in
authority under CA 578 amending Art. 152. So is
the town municipal health officer, or a nurse,
municipal councilor or an agent of the BIR.
NOTE: This is not applicable when crime is
committed in the presence of an agent only.
If the crime committed is against a public
authority while he is in the performance of his
official duty, the offender commits direct assault
(Art. 148) because it is not a crime committed “in
contempt of or with insult” to him, but a crime
directly committed against him. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.341)
Crime committed with insult or lack of
regard due to the offended party by reason
of age, sex, or rank or the crime is
committed in the dwelling of the offended
party – Art. 14 (3)
Basis: The aggravating circumstances are based
on the greater perversity of the offender, as
shown by the personal circumstances of the
offended party and the place of the commission
of the crime. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2012, p.343)
NOTE: When all four aggravating circumstances
attended to the commission of the crime, they
have the weight of one aggravating
circumstance.
These four circumstances show lack of respect to
the offended party. There must be proof that the
offender deliberately intended to offend or insult
the offended party. They are considered in crimes
against persons and honor but not in crimes
against property.
41
These circumstances cannot co–exist with
passion or obfuscation where the offender lost his
control or reason. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book One, 2006, p.343)
Rank refers to the designation or title of
distinction used to fix the relative position of the
offended party in reference to others. There must
be a difference in the social condition of the
offender and the offended party. (People vs. Rodil,
G.R. No. L-35156 , November 20, 1981)
Circumstances where rank aggravated the
crime committed:
● The killing of a staff sergeant by his corporal;
● The killing of the Assistant Chief of Personnel
Transaction of the CSC by a clerk;
● The murder by a pupil of his teacher;
● The murder of a municipal mayor;
● The murder of a city chief of police by the chief
of the secret service division;
● Assault upon a 66-year old Judge of the CFI
by a justice of peace;
● The killing of a Spanish consul by his
subordinate; and
● The killing of an army general. (Estrada,
Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
Age refers to the time that a person or a thing
has existed since birth or beginning; or may refer
to old age or the tender age of the victim.
Does age pertain only to old age? – No, it
also includes tender age. JV was barely six years
old when ruthlessly stabbed 14 times before his
body was submerged in the pail. It was an error
not to have considered his age as an aggravating
circumstance. (People vs. Lapan, G.R. No. 88300,
July 6, 1992)
Sex refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.
Disregard of sex is NOT aggravating in the
absence of evidence that the accused deliberately
intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim
or showed manifest disrespect to her
womanhood. (People vs. Puno, G.R. No. L–33211,
June 29, 1981)
NOTES:
● Sex is not aggravating in Parricide, Rape,
Forcible Abduction because being a woman is
an element of the crime.
42
● Disregard of rank, age or sex is essentially
applicable only to crimes against person or
honor. Thus, it is not proper to consider this
aggravating circumstance in crimes against
property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a
crime against property and not against
persons. Homicide is a mere incident of
robbery, the latter being the main purpose and
object of the criminal. (People vs. Pagal, G.R. No.
L–32040, October 25, 1977)
Dwelling includes dependencies, staircase, and
enclosures under the house. It is not necessary
that the house is owned by the offended party. It
may include a room in a boarding house, for
home is that which the law seeks to protect or
uphold whether the dweller is a lessee, a boarder
or a bed spacer. (People vs. Dela Torre, G.R. No.
98431, January 15, 2002)
NOTES:
 A dwelling must be a building or structure,
exclusively used for rest and comfort. Where
the crime was committed in a store, which is
about 15 meters away from the
complainant’s house, dwelling cannot be
considered. The store cannot be considered
a dwelling or even a dependency of
complainant’s home. (People vs. Joya, G.R. No.
79090, October 1, 1993)
 Dwelling need not be owned by the offended
party. It is enough that he used the place for
his peace of mind, rest, comfort and privacy.
The offender need not enter the dwelling.
Dwelling is aggravating even if the accused
shot the deceased from the outside of the
latter’s house. It is enough that the victim
was attacked inside his own abode, although
the assailant might have devised means to
perpetrate the assault from the outside.
(People vs. Bagsit, G.R. No. 148877 , August 19,
2003)
 Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was
taken from his house although the offense
was not completed therein. (People vs. Dela
Torre, G.R. No. 98431. January 15, 2002)
Dwelling is NOT aggravating in the
following cases:
 When both the offender and the offended
party are occupants of the same house, EVEN
IF the offender is a servant in the house.
(People vs. Caliso, G.R. No. 37271, July 1, 1933)
Exception: In case of adultery in the conjugal
dwelling, the same is aggravating. However, if
the paramour also dwells in the conjugal
dwelling, the applicable aggravating
circumstance is abuse of confidence. (US vs.
Ibañez, G.R. No. 10672, October 26, 1915)
 When robbery is committed by the use of force
upon things, dwelling is NOT aggravating
because it is inherent. (US vs. Cas, G.R. No.
5071, August 18, 1909)
NOTE: But dwelling is aggravating in Robbery
with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons
because this type of robbery can be committed
without the necessity of trespassing or violating
the sanctity of the offended party’s house. (People
vs. Oranza, G.R. No. 127748, July 25, 2002)
 In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is
inherent or included by law in defining the
crime.
 When the owner of the dwelling gave
sufficient and immediate provocation. Such
provocation must be:
 Given by the owner of the dwelling;
 Sufficient; and
 Immediate to the commission of the crime.
If all these conditions are present, the offended
party is deemed to have given the provocation,
and the fact that the crime is committed in the
dwelling of the offended party is NOT an
aggravating circumstance. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book One, 2012, p. 364)
The victim is NOT a dweller of the house.
NOTE: Dwelling is not included in treachery.
Abuse of confidence or Obvious
ungratefulness – Art. 14 (4)
Basis: The aggravating circumstance is based on
the greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by the means and ways employed. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.357)
Requisites: (FAT)
● Offended party has Trusted the offender;
● Offender Abused that trust by committing a
crime against the offended party; and
● Abuse of confidence Facilitated the
commission of the crime. (Id.)
This circumstance exists only when the offended
party has trusted the offender who later abuses
such trust by committing the crime. The abuse of
confidence must be a means of facilitating the
commission of the crime. The culprit taking
advantage of the offended party’s belief that the
former would not abuse said confidence.
Abuse of confidence is inherent in some felonies,
thus not considered as an aggravating
circumstance, such as malversation (Art. 217,
RPC), qualified theft (Art. 310, RPC), estafa by
conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315, RPC)
and qualified seduction. (Art. 337, RPC)
Obvious Ungratefulness
Requisites: (CAMOT)
 Offended party Trusted the accused;
 Accused Abused such trust by committing a
crime against the offended party;
 The act is committed with Obvious
ungratefulness; and
 There must be a Clear and Manifest
ungratefulness on the part of the accused.
NOTE: Ungratefulness must be obvious, i.e.
manifest and clear. Thus, this aggravating
circumstance was present in the case of the
accused who killed his father-in-law in whose
house he lived and who partially supported him.
(People vs. Floresca, G.R. Nos. L–8614–15, May 31,
1956)
Crime is committed in the palace of the
Chief Executive, or in his presence, or
where public authorities are engaged in the
discharged of their duties, or in a place
dedicated to religious worship –Art. 14 (5)
Basis: The aggravating circumstance is based on
the greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by the place of the commission of the crime,
which must be respected. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.361)
43
This aggravating circumstance merely requires
that the crime be committed in the places
specified – Palace of the Chief Executive, or in his
presence, or in a place dedicated to religious
worship. It is necessary though that the offender
must have sought the above places for the
commission of the crime which shows his lack of
respect for the places enumerated. With regard
to “where public authorities are engaged in the
discharged of their duties”, it is indispensable that
public authorities must be actually engaged in the
performance of duty.
When Aggravating:
a. When it facilitated the commission of the
crime;
b. When especially sought for by the offender to
insure the commission of the crime or for the
purpose of impunity; or
c. When the offender took advantage thereof
for the purpose of impunity. (People vs.
Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165. November 12, 1934)
When NOT aggravating:

Place where Public Authorities are Engaged a. When the crime was the result of a
in the Discharge of their Duties vs. succession of acts which took place within the
Contempt or Insult to Public Authorities period of two hours commencing from
(Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer: Volume I, 2019, 5:00PM to 7:00PM. When treachery
p. 229) concurred with night time in the commission
of the crime because nighttime is absorbed in
PLACE WHERE CONTEMPT OR INSULT treachery; and
PUBLIC TO PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES ARE AUTHORITIES
b. When the meeting between the offender and
ENGAGED IN THE (par. 2)
DISCHARGE OF the offended party at nighttime is casual and
THEIR DUTIES the idea of committing the crime came into
(par. 5) the mind of the offender only at that time.
The public authorities The public authorities are (Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
who are in the perfor- performing their duties
mance of their duties outside of their office. c. When no evidence showing that nocturnity
must be in their office. was especially sought by the accused nor
Public authority may be The public authority taken advantage of by him to facilitate the
the offended party. should NOT be the commission of the immunity from captive.
offended party. (People vs. Mactal, G.R. No. 141187, April 28,
2003)
Note:
Nighttime / Nocturnity (Obscuridad) – is the
 The place of the commission of the felony is
period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk
aggravating regardless of whether State or
and ending at dawn. Nights are from sunset to
official or religious functions are being held.
sunrise. (Art. 13, NCC)
Offender must have intention to commit a
crime when he entered the place of the
commission of the felony. NOTE: Nocturnity or nighttime, by and of itself,
 There must be performance of public functions is not an aggravating circumstance. It becomes
when the crime is committed in a place where so only when it is especially sought by the
public authorities are engaged in the offender, or taken advantage by him to facilitate
performance of duties. (Id.) the commission of the crime or to ensure his
immunity from capture. If there was no proof that
Nighttime, Uninhabited Place and Band – nighttime was deliberately sought by the accused
Art. 14 (6) in committing the crime, said circumstance
should be disallowed. (People vs. Pasiliao, G.R. No.
Basis: The aggravating circumstance is based on 98152–53, October 26, 1992)
the time and place of the commission of the crime
and means and ways employed. (Reyes, The Tests for the Appreciation of Nocturnity
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.363)
The objective test – that nocturnity facilitated
the commission of the crime; and

44
The subjective test – that it was purposely
sought by the offender in order to afford
impunity.
The two tests should be applied in the
alternative. (People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-30449,
October 31, 1979)
Doctrines:
 It is error to accept nocturnity as aggravating
for during the incident the moon was shining
brightly. The light was bright enough to see
what was going on and to recognize the
assailants. It, therefore does not qualify as an
aggravating circumstance under either the
subjective or objective tests. (People vs.
Bigcas, G.R. No. 94534, July 2, 1992)
 Nighttime is aggravating if the offender
selected the hour of the night when
neighbors and occupants of the house were
sleeping to gain entry into the victim’s
residence when the victim was killed despite
the fact that it was brightly lit. (People vs.
Demate, G.R. No. 132310, January 20, 2004)
 As a rule, the crime must begin and end
during the nighttime. Crime began at day and
ended at night, as well as crime began at
night and ended at day are not aggravated
by the circumstance of nighttime.
 Nighttime is generally absorbed in Treachery.
If the accused purposely sought nighttime or
took advantage thereof to make the attack
unexpected so as to render the victim
defenseless, treachery absorbs nighttime.
But if the accused purposely sought
nighttime to afford impunity, and tied the
victim and then stabbed him twice with an
icepick, treachery will not absorb nighttime.
Treachery is based on the defenseless
position of the victim when he was killed,
while nighttime was purposely sought by the
accused to afford impunity. (People vs. Ong,
G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981, as cited in
Campanilla, 2019, Criminal Law Reviewer: Volume
I, p. 250).
Uninhabited Place (Despoblado) – it is one
where there are no houses at all, a place at a
considerable distance from town, or where the
houses are scattered at a great distance from
each other. It is NOT determined by the distance
of the nearest house to the scene of the crime
but by the evidence that the place was
advantageous for the commission of the crime
because it afforded the victim little or no
opportunity to receive help.
Whether or not the crime committed is attended
by this aggravating circumstances should be
determined not by the distance of the nearest
house to the scene of the crime, but whether or
not in the place of the commission of the offense
there was a reasonable possibility of the person
receiving some help. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book One, 2006, pp. 383-384)
NOTE:
a. It is present where help to the victim is
difficult. Solitude was purposely sought for to
facilitate the commission of the crime. (People
vs. Egot, G.R. No. L-35775, June 29, 1984)
b. A distance of 200 yards to the nearest house
sufficient to make the scene of the crime
uninhabited. Solitude was purposely sought
for to facilitate the commission of the crime.
(People vs. Egot)
c. If the accused was killed in a banca at a sea
not so far away from another banca, the
place is uninhabited as it was difficult for the
victim to receive some help. (People vs. Arpa,
No. L-26789, April 25, 1969)
Illustration: Killing was done during nighttime, in
a sugarcane plantation about a hundred meters
from the nearest house, and the sugarcane field
was tall enough to obstruct the view of the
neighbors and passerby. (People vs. Damaso, 750
O.G. 4979, No. 25, June 18, 1979)
Band (En Cuadrilla)
Whenever more than three armed malefactors or
at least four armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense.
All of the armed men must have participated in
the commission of the crime as principals by
direct participation. If one of them was a principal
by inducement there would be NO band or
cuadrilla, but the aggravating circumstance of
having acted with the aid of armed men may be
considered against the inducer if the other two
acted as his accomplice.
45
This aggravating circumstance absorbs the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength and
use of firearms (except when the firearm has no
license or there is a lack of license to carry the
firearm) if they are present in the commission of
the crime. (People vs. Escabarte, G.R. No. 42964,
March 14, 1988)
On the Occasion of Calamity or Misfortune
– Art. 14 (7)
It refers to events similar in nature as
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, or
epidemic. It cannot refer to “acts of men”
because they are different from the events
enumerated. Under the principle of ejusdem
generis, where general terms such as this one,
follow the enumeration of particular things, the
general term will include only those classes of
things or persons of the same class or nature as
those mentioned in the preceding enumeration.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2017, p.
385)
Reason for aggravation: In the midst of a
great calamity, the offender, instead of lending
aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by
taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil
them. (US vs. Rodriguez, GR. No. L-6344, March 21,
1911)
It is necessary that the offender took advantage
of the calamity or misfortune.
Distinguish paragraph 7 from paragraph 12
of Article 14:
Paragraph 12 refers to the means in the
commission of the crime; paragraph 7 refers to
the occasion or during any of the calamities
mentioned in the crime committed.
Aid of armed men or persons who insure
or afford impunity – Art. 14 (8)
Basis: Based on the means and ways of
committing the crime. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book One, 2006, p. 375)
Requisites:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the
commission of the crime, directly or
indirectly; and
46
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid
or relied upon them when the crime was
committed. (Id.)
NOTES:
● Band consists of at least four (4) armed
persons organized with the intention of
carrying out an unlawful design. Band is
inherent in brigandage but not in robbery.
 Aid of armed men cannot be appreciated
when there is conspiracy, accused acting
under the same plan and for the same
purpose. Hence, they are all principals in the
commission of the crime. (People vs. Amion,
G.R. No. 140511, March 1, 2001)
With the aid of
By a band
armed men
(Par. 6)
(Par. 8)
As to their number
Requires more than At least two.
three armed
malefactors (i.e. at
least four).
As to their action
Requires that more This circumstance is
than three armed present even if one of
malefactors shall have the offenders merely
acted together in the relied on their aid, for
commission of an actual aid is NOT
offense. necessary.
As to their liability
Band members are Armed men are liable
liable as principals. as accomplices.
When Aggravating: When the accused
knowingly availed of their aid or assistance in the
commission of a crime.
Band may absorb aid for armed men. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.377)
Recidivism – Art. 14 (9)
Reiteracion or Habituality – Art. 14(10)
Note: Discussion for Recidivism and Reiteracion
can be found under Multiple Offenders, pp. 69-
71
In consideration of Price, Reward or
Promise – Art. 14 (11)
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as
shown by the motivating power itself. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p. 385)
To consider this circumstance, the price, reward
or money must be the primary reason or
primordial motive for the commission of the
crime.
Under this circumstance, it affects the principal
by direct participation who committed the crime
for consideration. The other co–conspirators if
there be any, who did not benefit from the price,
promise, or reward, will not have his penalty
aggravated because this circumstance is personal
to the receiver. The reward is the primary
consideration in the commission of the crime for
this circumstance to be aggravating.
There are two (2) offenders in the circumstance
– the offeror and the offeree. The former is a
principal by inducement and the latter is a
principal by direct participation.
NOTE: It is sufficient that the offer made by the
principal by inducement be accepted by the
principal by direct participation before the
commission of the offense.
By means of Inundation, Fire, Poison,
Explosion. Stranding of a Vessel or
Intentional Damage thereto. Derailment of
a Locomotive, or by the use of any other
artifice involving Great Waste and Ruin –
Art. 14 (12)
Inundation – refers to the use of water or
causing water to flood in the commission of the
offense.
These circumstances are included by law in
defining a crime; hence, Art. 62(1) shall apply.
Thus, “aggravating circumstances which in
themselves constitute a crime specially punished
by law or which are included by the law in
defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
therefor shall not be taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.” If one of
these circumstances was a means to kill, the
crime is murder, not homicide; hence, the penalty
will be for murder. The circumstance will no
longer be considered a generic aggravating
circumstance. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2012)
Rules as to the Use of Fire:
● Intent was only to burn but someone died, the
crime committed is simple arson.
● If fire was used as a means to kill, the crime
committed is murder.
● If the fire was used to conceal the killing, there
is separate crimes of arson and
murder/homicide. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book One, 2017)
Evident Premeditation –
Art. 14 (13)
Requisites: (SuMTime)
1. The Time when the offender is determined
to commit the crime;
2. An act Manifestly indicating that the culprit
has clung to his determination; and
3. A Sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act and
to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will. (People vs. Lagarto, G.R.
No. 65833, May 6, 1991)
General Rule: Where conspiracy is directly
established, WITH proof of the attendant
deliberation and means of executing the crime,
the existence of evident premeditation can be
taken for granted. (People vs. Sapigao, et al., G.R.
No. 144975, June 18, 2003)
Exception: When conspiracy is only implied.
Evident premeditation may NOT be appreciated,
in the absence of proof as to how and when the
plan to kill the victim was hatched or what time
had elapsed before it was carried out. (People vs.
Padlan, G.R. No. 111263, May 21, 1998)
 The essence of premeditation is that the
execution of the criminal act must be
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. (People vs. Abadies, G.R.
No. 135975, August 14, 2002)
 Premeditation is absorbed by reward or
promise but only insofar as the inducer is
concerned since he obviously reflected
thereon in planning the crime but not the
person induced since one can be a principal
47
 by direct participation without the benefit of
due reflection. (US vs. Manalinde, G.R. No. 5292,
August 28, 1909)
 Evident premeditation is inherent in crimes
against property as in robbery, theft and
estafa. But it may be appreciated in special
complex crime as an aggravating circum-
stance such as robbery with homicide. (People
vs. Valeriano, G.R. No. L-2159. September 19,
1951; People vs. Nabual, G.R. No. L-27758, July
14, 1969)
Sufficient lapse of time depends on the
circumstances:
● One hour from the time of determination up
to the time of execution has been held to be a
sufficient lapse of time. (People vs. Serna, G.R.
No. L-7845, February 27, 1957)
● A mere lapse of time cannot be used solely as
a basis of finding whether the circumstance
has evident premeditation, the prosecution
must adduce clear and convincing evidence as
to when and how the felony was planned and
prepared before it was effected and it must be
proved with certainty as the crime itself.
(People vs. Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January
24, 2003)
Craft, Fraud or Disguise –
Art. 14 (14)
Craft (astucia) – any act, which would NOT
arouse the suspicion of the victim in order to
facilitate the commission of the crime. It involves
intellectual trickery and cunning of accused. It is
not attendant where the accused was practically
in a stupor when the crime was committed.
(People vs. Juliano, G.R. No. L–33053, January 28,
1980)
llustration: The offender assumed position of
authority to gain entry in a house; or feigning
friendship to lure a victim to an uninhabited
place.
 Aggravating in a case where the offenders
pretended to be bona fide passengers of a
jeepney in order not to arouse suspicion, but
once inside the jeepney, robbed the
passengers and the driver. (People vs. Lee,
G.R. No. 66848, December 20, 1991)
48
 Craft may be absorbed in treachery if it is
deliberately adopted as the means, method
or form for the treacherous strategy. It may
co-exist independently from treachery only
when both circumstances are adopted for
different purpose in the commission of the
crime. (People vs. Labeo, G.R. No. 133438,
January 6, 2002)
Fraud (fraude) – a direct inducement by
insidious words or machinations used to induce
the victim to act in a manner, which would enable
the offender to carry out his design. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.406)
NOTE: Fraud is inherent in estafa since it is one
of its elements.
Disguise (disfraz) – is the resort to any device
to conceal identity. If in spite of the disguise, the
offender was recognized, such cannot be
aggravating. The test of disguise is whether the
device or contrivance resorted to by the offender
was intended to or did make identification more
difficult, such as the use of a mask or false hair
or beard. Disguise contemplates a superficial but
somewhat effective dissembling to avoid
identification. (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 118649,
March 9, 1998)
NOTE: These circumstances are not aggravating
if they did not facilitate the commission of the
crime or not taken advantage of by the offender
in the course of the assault. If they were used to
insure the commission of the crime against
persons without risk to offender, they are
absorbed by treachery. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book One, 2017)
Abuse of Superior Strength or Means
taken to Weaken the Defense –
Art. 14 (15)
ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN MEANS BE EMPLOYED
OF SUPERIOR TO WEAKEN THE
STRENGTH DEFENSE
To deliberately use The offender employs
excessive force that is out means that materially
of proportion to the means weakens the resisting
for self–defense available power of the offended
to the person attacked. party.
(People vs. Lobrigas, et al,
G.R. No. 147649,
December 17, 2002)
There must be gross
 inequality of forces When the victim was alternately attacked, there
between the aggressor is no abuse of strength. (People vs. Datun, G.R. No.
and the victim. 118080, May 7, 1997)

When superior strength can be Examples of “means employed to weaken

appreciated: the defense”:

● The aggressors, who were all armed, first hit a. Where one, struggling with another,
the legs of their unarmed victim causing the suddenly throws a cloak over the head of his
latter to fall kneeling; then, stabbed him above opponent and while in this situation he
the knee; and, having deprived him of his wounds or kill him (US vs. Devela, G.R. No.
means to stand or run, took turns in inflicting 1542, April 9, 1904); and
mortal wounds on him. (People vs. Apelado, G.R. b. One who, while fighting with another,
No. 114937, October 11, 1999) suddenly casts sand or dirt upon the latter
● An attack by a man with a deadly weapon eyes and then wounds or kills him. (People vs.
upon an unarmed and defenseless woman is Siaotong, G.R. No. L–9242, March 29, 1957)
abuse of superior strength which his sex and c. When the offender made the deceased
weapon afforded him. (People vs. Olivo, G.R. No. intoxicated and thereafter kills him.
130335, January 18, 2001)
● In abuse of superior strength, what should be Note: These circumstances are applicable only to
considered is not that there were three, four crimes against persons and property.
or more assailants as against one victim, but
whether the aggressors took advantage of By a Band vs. Abuse of Superior Strength
their combined strength in order to
consummate the offense. (People vs. BY A BAND ABUSE OF SUPERIOR
Cabangcala, G.R. No. 135065, August 8, 2001) STRENGTH
● Where there are several offenders The element of band is The gravamen of abuse
participating in the crime, they must all be appreciated when the of superiority is the taking
principals by direct participation and their offense is committed by advantage by the culprits
attack against the victim must be concerted more than three armed of their collective strength
and intended to be so. (Lumiguis vs. People, G.R. malefactors regardless to overpower their
No. L–20338, April 27, 1967) of the comparative relatively weaker victim
strength of the victim or or victims.
victims.
Superior strength cannot be appreciated: Hence, what is taken into
account here is NOT the
Note: In parricide, the superior strength is number of aggressors or
inherent in the crime. It is generally accepted that the fact that they are
the husband is physically stronger than his wife. armed, but their relative
physical strength vis-à-vis
It is not appreciated by mere superiority in the the offended party.
number of the malefactors, but by the deliberate (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
employment of excessive force, which is out of p.417-418)
proportion to the means of defense available to
the person attacked. Treachery (Alevosia) –
Art. 14 (16)
One who attacks another with passion and
obfuscation does NOT take advantage of his Basis: Has reference to the means and ways
superior strength; employed in the commission of the crime. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.420)
When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal
Requisites: (ConNot)
blow was struck at a time when the aggressor
and his victim were engaged against each other
1. That at time of the attack, the victim was Not
as man to man. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book One,
2011)
in a position to defend himself; and

49
2. That the offender Consciously adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book One, 2012, p. 450)
NOTES:
1. There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against persons,
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.
(People vs. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No. 95320,
September 4, 1991)
2. The essence of treachery is that the attack
comes without a warning leaving the victim
with no chance to resist or escape. (People
vs. Yanson, G.R. No. 179195, October 3, 2011)
3. Even when the victim was forewarned of the
danger to his person, Treachery may still be
appreciated since what is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible
for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate. (People vs. Napalit, G.R. No. 181247,
March 19, 2010)
Rules Regarding Treachery:
a. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
b. Means, methods of forms need NOT insure
accomplishment of crime.
c. The mode of attack must be consciously
adopted.
When Must Treachery Be Present:
When the aggression is continuous, treachery
must be present in the beginning of the assault.
(People vs. Manalad, G.R. No. 128593, August 14,
2002)
When the assault was NOT continuous, in that
there was interruption, it is sufficient that
treachery was present at the moment the fatal
blow was given. (US vs. Baluyot, G.R. No. L-14476,
November 6, 1919)
 Even though in the inception of the
aggression, which resulted to the death of
the deceased, treachery was not present, if
there was a break in the continuity of the
aggression and at the time of the fatal wound
was inflicted on the deceased he was
50
defenseless, the circumstance of treachery
must be taken into account. (US vs. Baluyot,
G.R. No. L-14476, November 6, 1919)
Test of treachery
a. It is not only the relative position of the
parties but more specifically, whether the
victim was forewarned or afforded the
opportunity to make a defense or to ward off
the attack.
b. The attack comes without warning, and is
swift, deliberate and unexpected, and affords
the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or to escape.
(People vs. Mazo, G.R. No. 136869. October 17,
2001)
From whom should “retaliation” in
treachery come The “retaliation” relevant in
the appreciation of treachery must come from the
victim, not from anyone else. That the site of the
crime was heavily populated where others could
thus intervene is not significant at all. (People vs.
Costelo, G.R. No. 134311, October 13, 1999)
NOTE: Although the victim and his assailant were
face to face at the time the stabbing was made,
where it appears that the attack was NOT
preceded by a dispute and the offended party
was unable to prepare for his defense, treachery
should be taken into account. (People vs. Dela Cruz,
G.R. No. 139970, June 6, 2002)
Aleviosa is considered even if:
● The victim was not predetermined but there
was a generic intent to treacherously kill any
first two persons belonging to a class.
● There was aberratio ictus and the bullet hit a
person different from the intended.
● There was error in personae, hence the victim
was not the one intended by the accused.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2000)
Treachery absorbs the following
circumstances: (CANABE)
● Craft;
● Abuse of Superior Strength;
● Nighttime;
● Aid or Armed Men;
● Cuadrilla (Band); and
● Employing means to weaken the defense.
General Rule: a frontal attack is not a treachery. forewarned by an impending attack by either
of them. (Id.)
Exception: when the attack although frontal is
sudden and in a manner that tends directly and Difference between Treachery, Abuse of
specially to insure its execution free from danger Strength and Means Employed to Weaken
and without risk to oneself on account of what the Defense
the victim might make to defend himself, there Treachery Abuse of Means
is treachery. Strength Employed to
Weaken the
Age of the Victim Defense
Means, The offender The offender
methods or does NOT employs
If the victim is a child of tender years, it can be forms of attack employ means, means, which
appreciated as treachery. By reason of the are employed methods or only materially
victim’s tender years cannot be expected to put by the offender forms of attack; weakens the
up a defense is considered attended by treachery to make it he only takes resisting power
even the manner of attack is not precisely known. impossible or advantage of of the offended
There is a blatant inequality of strength between hard for the his superior party.
the offender and the victim, but abuse of strength offended party strength.
cannot be appreciated as is it necessarily to put up any
sort of
absorbed in treachery. (People vs. Fallorin, G.R. No.
resistance.
13734, March 4, 2004)

When is treachery not appreciated in the Ignominy –

following cases: Art. 14, (17)

1. The attack is an impulse of the accused or Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the

when the killing is due to passion or when the
accused made no preparation to kill the
deceased so as to insure the commission of
the crime. (People vs. Pagador, G.R. No. 140006-
10, April 20, 2001)
2. The accused shot the victim as a result of a
rash and impetuous impulse rather than
from a deliberate act of the will. (People vs.
Acuram, G.R. No. 117954, April 27, 2000)
3. Where the meeting between the accused
and the victim was casual and the act was
done impulsively, there is no treachery even
if the attack was sudden and unexpected
while the victim was running away with his
back towards the accused.
4. Treachery cannot be presumed from the
mere suddenness of the attack or from the
fact that the victim was stabbed with his
back towards the appellant e.g., if the
purpose was to kill so long as the decision
was made all of a sudden and the victim’s
hapless position was accidental. The
suddenness of attack must be preconceived
by the accused, unexpected by the victim
and without provocation of the latter.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
5. If the attack was preceded by an altercation
between the protagonists. Both are
moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to
the material injury caused by the crime. (People
vs. Acaya, G.R. No. L–72998, July 29, 1988) Basis has
reference to the means employed. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.455)
It is applicable to crimes against chastity, rape,
less serious physical injuries, light or grave
coercion and murder.
Instances when ignominy can be
appreciated:
a. Winding cogon grass around the penis before
committing rape.
b. If the circumstances adds disgrace and
obliquy to the material injury caused by the
crime (“adding insult to the injury”).
c. The means employed or the circumstances
brought about must tend to make the effects
of the crime more humiliating to victim or to
put the offended party to shame, or add to
his moral suffering. (People vs. Carmina, G.R.
No. 81404, January 28, 1991)
d. Rapes wanton robbery for personal gain, and
other forms of cruelties are condemned and
their perpetration will be regarded as
aggravating circumstances of ignominy.

51
 (People vs. Racaza, G.R. No. L-365, January 21,
1949)
When ignominy cannot be appreciated:
● When the victim was already dead and his
body was dismembered for such act may not
be considered to have added to the victim’s
humiliation or moral suffering. (People vs.
Carmina, supra)
● Where the sexual assault was not done to put
the victim to shame before the killing. (People
vs. Cachola, G.R. No. 148712-5, January 21, 2014)
Unlawful Entry –
Art. 14 (18)
Unlawful Entry - When an entrance is effected
by a way NOT intended for the purpose.
Unlawful entry must be a means to effect
entrance, and not for escape. (People vs. Sunga,
G.R. No. 126029, March 27, 2003)
Unlawful entry is inherent in:
● Robbery with the use of force upon things;
● Trespass to dwelling;
● Violation of domicile; and
● Evasion of service of sentence, if such
evasion or escape shall have taken place by
means of unlawful entry. (Estrada, Criminal
Law Book One, 2011)
NOTE: When the accused gained access to the
dwelling by climbing through the window and
once inside, murdered certain person in the
dwelling, there were two aggravating
circumstances which attended the commission of
the crimes – dwelling and unlawful entry. Thus,
these two are taken separately. (People vs.
Bondoy, G.R. No. 79089, May 18, 1993)
Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door, or
window –
Art. 14 (19)
This circumstance is aggravating only in those
cases where the accused resorted to any of said
means to enter the house. The breaking of any of
these parts of a house or building must be for the
commission of a crime. It is not necessary that
the offender should have entered the building.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.461)
52
 Thus, if the accused broke a window to
enable himself to reach a cell phone on the
table near the window, which he took while
his body was outside the house, the crime of
theft was attended by this aggravating
circumstance. It is not necessary that the
offender should have entered the building.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
When an entrance is through a way not intended
for that purpose; the opening must be used to
enter, not to escape. It qualifies the crime of theft
to robbery. It is inherent in the crimes of trespass
to dwelling and in robbery with force upon things.
But taken as an aggravating circumstance in
robbery with violence or intimidation against
person.
Unlawful Entry vs. Breaking of wall, et al.
Breaking of wall, roof,
Unlawful Entry
floor, door, or window
Presupposes that there It involves the breaking
is no such breaking as (rompimiento) of the
by entry through the enumerated parts of the
window. house.
(People vs. Lamosa, G.R. No. 74291-93, May 23, 1989)
With the aid of persons under 15 years of
age and Use of Motor Vehicles and Other
Similar Means –
Art. 14 (20)
4. The use of minors who are exempt from
criminal liability is aggravating. It shows the
greater perversity of the accused for taking
advantage of the innocence or mediocrity of
minors for criminal purposes. (Estrada,
Criminal Law Book One, 2000)
5. Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where
the accused purposely and deliberately used
the motor vehicle in:
d. In going to the place of the crime
e. In carrying the effects thereof; or
f. In facilitating the escape. (People vs.
Espejo, G.R. No. L–27708, December 19,
1970)
 If the use of motor vehicle is merely
incidental and not purposely sought to
facilitate the commission of the offense
or to render the escape of the offender
easier and his apprehension difficult.
 (People vs. Astudillo, G.R. No. 141518, April
29, 2003)
“Or other similar means” - The expression should
be understood as referring to motorized vehicles
or other efficient means of transportation similar
to automobile or airplane.
 The use of motor vehicle is not aggravating
where the use thereof was merely incidental
and was not purposely sought to facilitate the
commission of the offense or to render the
escape of the offender easier and his
apprehension difficult. (People vs. Astudillo,
G.R. No. 141518, April 29, 2003)
Cruelty –
Art. 14 (21)
Requisites: (Un-In)
a. That the injury caused be deliberately
Increased by causing other wrong; and
b. That the other wrong be Unnecessary for the
execution of the purpose of the offender.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.466)
Cruelty – there is cruelty when the offender
enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer
slowly and gradually, causing his unnecessary
and prolonged physical pain in the consummation
of the criminal act. (People vs. Sitchon, G.R. No.
134362, February 27, 2002)
Cruelty can be appreciated:
 Cruelty is not inherent in crimes against
persons. It can be appreciated for as long as
there is a positive proof that the wounds
found in the body of the victim were inflicted
while the accused was alive and injuring the
sadistic acts committed by the accused
against the former. (People vs. Clamania, G.R.
No. L-2095, January 28, 1950)
 After the victim was ravished, appellant
hacked her, almost splitting her face, such
bestiality is cruelty and perversity, it being
unnecessary to its commission and manifestly
an outrage on the victim’s person. (People vs.
Nescio, G.R. No. 102008, December 28, 1994)
 Number of wounds alone does not show
cruelty, it being necessary to show that the
accused deliberately and inhumanly
increased the sufferings of the victims.
(People vs. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843, February
11, 1931)
Cruelty cannot be appreciated:
 If the victim was already dead when the acts
of mutilation were being performed, this
would also qualify the killing to murder due
to outraging of his corpse. But since the
victim is already dead, cruelty cannot be
appreciated in this case. (People vs. Balisteros,
G.R. No. 110289, October 7, 1994)
 When there’s an absence of any showing that
the accused, for their pleasure and
satisfaction caused the victim to suffer slowly
and painfully and inflicted on him
unnecessary physical and moral pain.
 Even the accused stabbed the victim 100
times because of hate. There is no treachery
because there the wounds were not inflicted
with deliberate intention of causing
unnecessary pain and suffering of the victim.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
Other aggravating circumstances, which
may be appreciated, are:
1. Dwelling, because the killings were
committed in the home of the victims who
had not given any provocation;
2. Nocturnity, considering that the offenders
carried out the killing at around 3:00 AM,
indicative of a deliberate choice of nighttime
for the commission of the crime;
3. Treachery, under Art. 14(16), RPC,
mentioned above, considering that victims
were all asleep when killed;
4. The offense was committed by a person who
belongs to an organized/syndicated crime
group under the Heinous Crimes Law (Sec. 23
R.A. No. 7659), amending for this purpose Art.
62(1) of the RPC;
5. When the offender commits the crime under
the influence of drugs;(Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165)
6. Use of an unlicensed firearm in Homicide or
Murder. The crime is called “Aggravated
Homicide” or “Aggravated Murder”;(Estrada,
Criminal Law Book One, 2000) and
7. If the victim was already dead when the acts
of mutilation were being performed on him,
this would be also to qualify the killing to
murder due to scoffing or outrading of his
corpse.
53
8. Parading of the head of the victim after the
accused beheaded him is scoffing at the
corpse of the dead.
9. Anal intercourse with a woman after killing
her is, undoubtedly an outrage of her corpse.
(People vs. Butler, G.R. No. L-50276, January 27,
1983)
IMPORTANT: 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.
(Sec. 6, R.A. No. 10175 or Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012)
e. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
(Art. 15)
Alternative Circumstances – are those, which
must be considered as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime
and other condition attending its commission.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.471)
Basis: the nature and effects of the crime and
other conditions attending its commission. (Id.)
Four alternative circumstances: (RIDE)
(a) Relationship;
(b) Intoxication;
(c) Degree of Instruction; and
(d) Education.
a. Relationship – shall be taken into
consideration when the offended party is the
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
relative by affinity in the same degrees of the
offender.
 The relationship of stepfather or
stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter
is included herein. (People vs. Bersabal,
G.R. No. 24532, December 11, 1925) It also
includes the relationship of adopted
parent and adopted child, but not the
54
relationship between uncle and niece.
(People vs. Lamberte, G.R. No. L–65153, July
11, 1986)
Application:
i. Crimes against Property
a) Mitigating in the following: (RUFA)
1. Robbery;
2. Usurpation;
3. Fraudulent insolvency; and
4. Arson.
b) Exempting circumstance in the
following: (MaTS)
1. Malicious mischief;
2. Theft; and
3. Swindling or estafa.
ii. Crimes against Persons
NOTE: It is aggravating in cases where the
offended party is a relative of a higher
degree than the offender, or when the
offender and the offended party are relative
of the same level (e.g siblings). (People vs.
Alisub, G.R. No. 46588, January 20, 1940)
When Aggravating or Mitigating:
a) Serious physical injuries: Aggravating even
if the offended party is a descendant of the
offender. If the offense of serious physical
injuries is committed by the offender against
his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
or any of his legitimate other descendants,
relationship is aggravating. But the serious
physical injuries must not be inflicted by a
parent upon his child by excessive
chastisement.
b) Less serious physical injuries: Mitigating if
the offended party is a relative of a lower
degree; and Aggravating if the offended
party is a relative of a higher degree of the
offender.
c) Homicide or murder: Relationship is
aggravating regardless of degree.
d) Rape: Aggravating where a stepfather
raped his stepdaughter or in a case where a
father raped his own daughter. (Reyes, The
 Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.476)
iii. Crimes against Chastity
Acts of lasciviousness – relationship is ALWAYS
aggravating, regardless of whether the offender
is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the
offended party.
When the qualification given to the crime is
derived from the relationship between the
offender and the offended party, it is neither
mitigating nor aggravating, because it is
inseparable from and inherent in the offenses,
e.g. parricide, adultery and concubinage. (Id.)
b. Intoxication
Habitual Drunkard – is one given to
intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating
drinks. The habit should be actual and confirmed.
It is unnecessary that it be a matter of
occurrence. (People vs. Camano, G.R. No. L–36662–
63, July 30, 1982)
Aggravating – (1) if intoxication is habitual or
intentional, or (2) if it is intentional or subsequent
to the plan to commit the crime.
A person pleading intoxication as a mitigating
circumstance must show that: (1) he has taken
a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the
commission of the crime sufficient to produce the
effect of obfuscating reason; and (2) he is not a
habitual drinker and did not take the alcoholic
drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to
commit the crime. (People vs. Pinca, G.R. No.
129256, November 17, 1999)
c. Degree of Instruction and Education
When mitigating:
General Rule: Lack of sufficient education is
mitigating. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2006, p.482)
Exceptions:
a. Crimes against property, e.g. arson, estafa,
theft, robbery (US vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 3777,
January 6, 1908);
b. Crimes against chastity;
c. Treason;
d. Murder; and
e. Rape (Molesa vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No.
39998, January 24, 1934)
When aggravating:
High degree of instruction and education where
an offender avails himself of his learning in
committing the crime. (Reyes, supra)
Example: A doctor, who is using his knowledge,
prepared certain kind of poison to kill his victim
in such a way as to avoid detection may be
considered as an aggravating circumstance
because the crime was committed by taking
advantage of his high degree of instruction and
education. (Id.)
f. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Absolutory causes – are those where the act
committed is a crime but for reasons of public
policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.242)
Examples of absolutory causes:
1. Art. 6(3) – spontaneous desistance in the
attempted stage unless the overt act
committed already constitutes a crime other
than that intended;
2. Art. 7 – attempted/frustrated light felonies
except those against persons or property;
3. Art. 16 – accessories in light felonies;
4. Art. 20 – certain relatives who are accessories
subject to the requisites provided therein:
upon those who are such with respect to their
spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees;
5. Article 247 – death and physical injuries
inflicted under exceptional circumstances:
any legally married person;
6. Article 332 – the crime of theft, estafa, and
malicious mischief: committed or caused
mutually by the following persons: (a)
spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line; (b) the
widowed spouse with respect to the property
which belonged to the deceased spouse
before the same shall have passed into the
possession of another; and (c) brothers and
55
 sisters and brothers–in–law and sisters–in– The peace officer has no The peace officer is a
law, if living together; criminal liability for his principal by
7. Article 124, last paragraph – the commission acts are in accordance inducement.
of a crime, or violent insanity of any other with law.
The crime has already The crime would not
ailment requiring the compulsory
been committed. and could not have
confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall been committed were it
be considered legal grounds for the detention not for the instigation.
of any person; (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
8. Battered woman syndrome – Sec. 26, R.A. p.245-246)
No. 9262;
9. Status offenses in Sec. 57 and 58, R.A. 9344;
10. Article 280(3) – crime of trespass to dwelling
3. PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF
is not committed when one enters another’s
PARTICIPATION
dwelling for the purpose of preventing some
serious harm to himself, the occupants of the a. PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES, AND
dwelling or a third person, nor to any person ACCESSORIES
who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of
rendering some service to humanity or ARTICLE 16
justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
taverns, inns and other public houses, while The following are criminally liable for grave
the same are open; and less grave felonies: (APA)
11. Somnambulism;
12. Art. 344(4) – In cases of seduction, 1. Principal;
abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, 2. Accomplices; and
the marriage of the offender with the 3. Accessories.
offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or remit the penalty already imposed The following are criminally liable for light
upon him. Except for the crime of rape, the felonies: (PA)
provisions of this paragraph shall also be
applicable to the co–principals, accomplices 1. Principals; and
and accessories after the fact of the above– 2. Accomplices.
mentioned crimes;
13. Mistake of fact; NOTE: Light felonies are punishable only when
14. Repeal of a penal law, either absolute or they have been consummated; but when light
modification of the penalty when favorable to felonies are committed against persons or
the offender; and property, they are punishable even if they are
15. Instigation by reason of public policy. (Boado, only in the attempted or frustrated stage of
Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2018) execution. (Art. 7, RPC)
Entrapment vs. Instigation

ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
Under Article 9, in relation to Article 25:
The mens rea originated Evil idea originated
from the accused who from the peace officer a. Grave felonies are penalized with capital
was merely trapped by who induced the punishment or afflictive penalties in any of
the peace officer. accused to commit the their periods;
act. b. Less grave felonies are meted with penalties
Not an absolutory as to Absolutory by reason of which in their maximum period are
the offender since he public policy. correctional; and
authored the evil idea. c. Light felonies carry arresto menor or a fine
Consistent with public Contrary to public not exceeding 40,000 pesos or both.
policy. policy.
Trap for the unwary Trap for unwary
criminal. innocent.

56
Parties in crimes:
a. Active subject – criminal/offender; only
natural persons because of the highly
personal nature of criminal responsibility.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.490)
b. Passive subject – injured party; holder of
the injured right; corporation and partnership
can be a passive subject of a crime. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.493)
ARTICLE 17
PRINCIPALS
Kinds of Principals:
1. Principals by direct participation (PDP);
2. Principals by inducement (PBI); and
3. Principals by indispensable cooperation (PIC).
Principals by direct participation (PDP) –
Art. 17 (1)
Those who take a direct part in the execution of
the act.
Requisites:
a. That they participated in the criminal
resolution; and
b. That they carried out their plan and
personally took part in its execution by acts
which directly tended to the same end.
They are those who materially execute the crime.
They must appear at the scene of the crime and
perform acts necessary in the commission of the
offense to be liable. In conspiracy by prior
agreement, if the principal by direct participation
does not appear at the scene of the crime, he is
not liable because:
i. Non–appearance is desistance which is
favored and encouraged;
ii. Conspiracy is not a crime unless the law
specially provides a penalty therefor. By
merely conspiring, the co–conspirator has not
yet committed the crime; and
iii. There is no basis for criminal liability because
there is no criminal participation. (Id.)
Principals by inducement (PBI) –
Art. 17(2)
Those who directly force or induce others to
commit the crime.
Requisites:
1. That the inducement was made directly with
the intention of procuring the commission of
the crime; and
2. That such inducement was the determining
cause of the commission of the crime by the
material executor.
 The principal by inducement must intend
that his inducement be obeyed. Mere
careless comment of one who does not
possess dominance or moral ascendancy
over the offender will not make the former a
principal by inducement. The inducer’s
utterances must be of such nature and made
in such a manner as to become the
determining the cause of the crime. Where
the words uttered did not make any great
dominance or influence on the offenders or is
no longer necessary as the offenders were
already determined to commit the offending
acts, the utterance will not make the utterer
an inducer. (People vs. Parungao, G.R. No.
125812, November 28, 1996)
How an inducer “induce” another to
commit a crime:
(1) By directly inducing another to commit
a crime
One is induced to commit a crime either:
a.1 By using words of command or
b.2 By giving price, or offering reward or promise,
or by any other similar act which constitutes
the real and moving cause of the crime and
which was done for the purpose of forcing or
inducing such criminal act and which was
sufficient for that purpose. (People vs.
Dumancas, G.R. No. 133527–28, December 13,
1999)
57
 i. Using words or command Art. 17(2), the following requisites must all be
present: (Pro-AsIn-PA-DEP)
Requisites: (IMaW-dip)
1. That the one uttering the words of command
a. the inducer must have the intention must have the intention of Procuring the
of procuring the commission of the commission of the crime;
crime; 2. That the one who made the command must
b. the inducer must have moral have an Ascendancy or Influence over the
ascendancy or influence over the person who acted;
person; 3. That the words used must be so Direct, so
c. the words of command must be Efficacious, so Powerful as to amount to
uttered before the commission of the physical or moral coercion;
crime; 4. That words of command must be uttered
d. the words uttered must be direct, Prior to the commission of the crime; and
influential, and powerful to amount 5. That the one being induced Actually commits
to coercion. the crime. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2006, p.530-533)
ii. Giving price or offering of reward or
promise Principal by Inducement vs.
Offender who made a Proposal to
The person giving the price or offering Commit a Felony
the reward or promise is the PBI while
the one committing the crime is PDP. Principal by Offender who made
(Estrada, supra) Inducement proposal to commit a
felony
(2) By directly forcing another to commit a In both
crime There is an inducement to commit a crime.
When liable
Becomes liable only The mere proposal to
a. By using irresistible force is such physical
when the crime is commit a felony is
force as would produce an effect upon the committed by the punishable in treason
individual that in spite of all resistance it principal by direct (Art. 115, RPC), or coup
reduces him to a mere incident, and participation. d’état, insurrection,
compelled by means of force or violence; and rebellion (Art. 136, RPC).
b. by uncontrollable fear is a compulsion by However, the person to
means of intimidation or threat that promises whom the proposal is
an evil if such gravity and eminence that the made should NOT commit
the crime; otherwise, the
ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
proponent becomes a
principal by inducement.
NOTE: In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not What kind of crime involved
even a unity of criminal purpose and intention.
Involves any crime. The proposal must
Only the one using force or causing fear is
involve treason, rebellion,
criminally liable. The material executor is not insurrection or coup
criminally liable because of Art. 12, paragraph 5 d’état only.
and 6. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.535)
 The inciting words must have great
dominance and influence over the person NOTE: But if the one charged as principal by
who acts; they ought to be direct and direct participation is acquitted because he acted
efficacious or powerful as physical or moral without criminal intent or malice, his acquittal is
coercion or violence itself. (People vs. Canial, NOT a ground for the acquittal of the principal by
G.R. Nos. L–31042–43, August 18, 1972) inducement. (People vs. Po Gok To, G.R. No. L–7236,
April 30, 1955)
Note: In order that a person using words of
command may be held liable as principal under

58
 Principals by indispensable cooperation
(PIC) – Art. 17 (3)
Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that
is, there is either anterior conspiracy or unity
of criminal purpose and intention
immediately before the commission of the
crime charged; and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense
by performing another act, without which it
would not have been accomplished. (Reyes,
supra)
Illustrations:
a. Where it appears that C seized the hands of
a 12-year old girl, dragged her by force and
violence to a place behind a house where
there were some trees whence he called to
his confederate, J, the person chiefly
interested in the perpetration of the crime,
with whom C must have had an agreement
beforehand, delivered her to him upon his
arrival at the place, and then went away from
the scene of the crime so that J might freely
consummate the pre-arranged rape, as the
latter did with violence and intimidation, it
was held that C cooperated in the
perpetration of the crime by acts
without which its commission would
not have been accomplished. (US vs.
Javier, G.R. No. 10379, August 5, 1915)
b. Appellants grabbed the waist of the deceased
and placed his hands around it, thereby
pinning his (the deceased’s) arms. It was at
this juncture when his co-accused stabbed
the deceased at his left breast above the
nipple with his dagger. Under the
circumstances, it is clear that appellant is a
principal to the commission of the crime of
murder, as he cooperated in the execution
thereof by another act, without which, it
would not have been committed. (People vs.
Labis, G.R. No. L-22087, November 15, 1967)
c. Cooperation by acts of negligence. One
who, by acts of negligence, cooperates in the
commission of estafa through falsification or
malversation through falsification without
which negligent acts the commission of the
crime could not have been accomplished, is a
co-principal. But the one who cooperated in
the commission of the crime was held guilty
of the same crime through reckless
imprudence. (Samson vs. CA, G.R. Nos. L-10364
and L-10376, March 31, 1958)
ACCOMPLICES
Accomplices – they are the persons who, not
acting as principals, cooperate in the execution of
the offense by previous and simultaneous acts,
which are not indispensable to the commission of
the crime. (Art. 18, RPC)
Requisites: (CCR)
1. That there be Community of design, that is,
knowing the criminal design of the principal
by direct participation, he concurs with the
latter in his purpose.
NOTE: Before there could be an accomplice,
there must be a principal by direct
participation. But the principal originates the
criminal design. The accomplice merely
concurs with the principal in his criminal
purpose. (People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 74048,
November 14, 1990)
2. That he Cooperates in the execution by
previous or simultaneous acts, with the
intention of supplying material or moral aid in
the commission of the crime in an efficacious
way; and
3. That there must be a Relation between the
acts done by the principal and those
attributed to the person charged as
accomplice. (People vs. Tamayo, G.R. No. 18289,
November 17, 1922)
Examples of cooperation by an Accomplice
1. By previous acts — Lending of a knife or a
gun to the murderer, knowing the latter’s
criminal purpose.
2. By simultaneous acts — The defendant
who held one of the hands of the victim and
tried to take away the latter’s revolver, while
his co-defendant was attacking him, is an
accomplice for he cooperates in the execution
of the crime by simultaneous act without any
previous agreement or understanding.
(Reyes, supra)
59
The accomplice merely supplies the
principal with material or moral aid
without conspiracy.
Act of going with actual perpetrators of crime
without conspiring with them. —There is no
evidence that appellant had conspired with the
malefactors, or that he actually participated in
the commission of the crime. But in going with
them, knowing their criminal intention, and in
staying outside of the house with them while the
others went inside the store to rob and kill,
appellant effectively supplied the criminals with
material and moral aid, making him guilty as an
accomplice. (People vs. Balili, et al., G.R. No. L-
14044, August 5, 1966.)
Where act of stabbing is merely a “show-off” or
expression of sympathy or feeling of
camaraderie.—The act of one of the accused in
inflicting wound upon the victim several times
with a small knife only after the latter had fallen
to the ground seriously wounded, if not already
dead, is not necessary and indispensable for the
consummation of the criminal assault but merely
a “show-off” or expression of sympathy or
feeling of camaraderie with the other accused.
For such act, the accused should be found guilty
only as accomplice. (People vs. Vicente, No. L-
26241, May 21, 1969)
NOTE:
1. An accomplice is not a part of the plan or
conspiracy.
2. An accomplice is neither a principal nor
an accessory but who cooperates with the
principal by direct participation after coming
to know about the conspiracy or after
witnessing the commission of the crime by
previous or simultaneous acts.
3. An accomplice concurs or approves the
act of the principal by direct
participation and performs other acts
showing his conformity to the act of the
principal by direct participation.
4. The act or acts of the accomplice must
be lesser than the act or acts done by the
principal by direct participation, that is, they
must not be equal to or graver than the act
or acts of the principal by direct
participation.
60
5. The cooperation of the accomplice is only
necessary, not indispensable. (Reyes,
supra)
 One can be an accomplice even if he did not
know of the actual specific crime intended to
be committed by the principal, provided he
was aware that the objective of the acts he
was tasked to do was illicit. Also, it is
sufficient if there was a common purpose to
commit a particular crime and that the crime
actually committed was a natural or probable
consequence of the intended. (People vs.
Largo, et al., G.R. No. L–4912, August 28, 1956)
 Absent knowledge of the criminal purpose of
the principal, giving aid or encouragement,
either morally or materially, in the
commission of the crime, mere presence at
the scene does not make one an accomplice.
(People vs. Toling, G.R. No. L–28548, July 13,
1979)
General Rule:
The sole testimony of an accused, who was an
accomplice or co-conspirator turned state
witness, needs corroboration to convict his co-
accused.
Exception:
If her testimony may, even if uncorroborated, be
sufficient as when it is shown to be sincere in
itself because it is given unhesitatingly and in a
straightforward manner and full of details which,
by their nature, could not have been the result of
deliberate afterthought. (People vs. Sunga, G.R. No.
126029, March 27, 2003)
vi. Quasi-Collective Responsibility is one
where some offenders in the crime are
principals and the others are accomplices. In
case of doubt as to the responsibility of the
offender as a principal or accomplice, the
court should apply the milder form of
liability. (People vs. Medrano, G.R. No. L-5583,.
May 31, 1982)
 The pump boat owner who helped
offenders by pretending that his pump
boat needed towing by the passing
boat of the victim was merely an
accomplice. Here, the offenders
transferred to the boat of the victims
 and the latter robbed and killed them. 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the
The offenders could have asked for the offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
help of other pump boat owners, hence 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the
the accused’s cooperation was not crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in
indispensable. (People vs. Sotto, G.R. No. order to prevent its discovery; or
106083–84, March 29, 1996) 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting, in the
escape of the principals of the crime, provided
Conspirator vs. Accomplice the accessory acts with abuse of his public
functions or whenever the author of the crime
CONSPIRATOR ACCOMPLICE is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
Come to know the Come to know it after the attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive,
criminal intention principals reached the or is known to be habitually guilty of some
because they them- decision, and only then
other crime.
selves have decided on do they agree to
the course of action. cooperate in its
execution. Two classes of accessories are
Authors of the crime. Act They are merely instru- contemplated in paragraph 3 of Article 19:
is indispensable to the ments who perform acts
commission of the crime. not indispensable to the Public officers who harbor, conceal, or assist in
perpetration of the the escape of the principal of any crime (not light
offense. felony) with abuse of his public functions.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.542) Requisites: (Not Pu CHAA)

Accomplice vs. Principal by Direct 1. The accessory is a Public officer;

Participation 2. He Harbors, Conceals, or Assists in the
escape of the principal;
ACCOMPLICE PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
3. The public officer acts with Abuse of his
PARTICIPATION
public functions; and
There is community of criminal design.
Cooperation is dispen- Cooperation must be
4. The crime committed by the principal is any
sable. indispensable. crime, provided it is Not a light felony.
Cooperates in the Participation in the crimi-
Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist
execution of the nal resolution, that, there
offense by previous or is either anterior cons- in the escape of the principal – guilty of (MATH
simultaneous acts, with piracy or unity of criminal Pa):
the intention of purpose and intention
supplying material or immediately before of the 1. Murder;
moral aid in the commission of the crime 2. Attempt against the life of the President;
execution of the crime charged. 3. Treason;
in an efficacious way. 4. Habitually guilty of some other crime; and
There is no clear-cut distinction between the acts of 5. Parricide.
the accomplice and those of the principal by direct
participation.
Requisites:
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.561)
1. That the accessory is a private person;
ACCESSORIES 2. That he harbors, conceals or assists in the
escape of the author of the crime;
Accessories – those who, having knowledge of 3. That the crime committed by the principal is
the commission of the crime, and without having either: (a) treason, (b) parricide, (c) murder,
participated therein, either as principals or (d) an attempt against the life of the
accomplices, take part subsequent to its President, or that the principal is known to be
commission in any of the following manners (Art. habitually guilty of some other crime.
19, RPC): (ProCoHa)
“or is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime” – Thus, if a person was

61
 previously punished three times for less
serious physical injuries and now commits
estafa, the one who helps in his escape is
liable as an accessory although the same is
a private individual.
But the accessory must have knowledge of
the principal being habitually guilty of some
other crime, because the law says so. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.570-
572)
fence who receives stolen property as above–
provided is not an accessory but a principal in the
crime defined by the law. (Sec. 5, P.D. No. 1612)
Liability of an accessory is subordinate to that of
the principal. If the principal is acquitted, it is
necessary to follow that the accessory must also
be acquitted. However, if acquittal of the principal
is because of an exempting circumstance (e.g.
minority or insanity), the conviction of the
accessory is proper.

NOTE: If the private person assisted the escape NOTE: An accused may or may not be an
of an accomplice only, he is not considered as an accessory to the crime but he may be charged
accessory. It is indispensable that the one he separately for Obstruction of Justice under
assisted in escaping is the author of the crime or PD 1829. This law penalizes any person who
the principal. Those who assist the principal to knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
escape may be prosecuted under P.D. No. 1829 frustrates, or delays the apprehension of suspects
on obstruction of justice not as accessory but as and the investigation and prosecution of a person
a principal, provided that separate information who committed a crime.
shall be prepared from the crime of obstruction.
When he is convicted, the penalty to be imposed PROHIBITED ACTS UNDER P.D. No. 1829
is higher penalty under P.D. No. 1829 or any (Sec. 1)
other law, including the RPC. (Sec. 1, last
paragraph) i. preventing witnesses from testifying in any
criminal proceeding or from reporting the
Accomplice vs. Accessory commission of any offense or the identity of
any offender/s by means of bribery,
Accomplice Accessory misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation,
Participates before or Takes part subsequent force or threats;
during the commission of to the commission of the ii. altering, destroying, suppressing or
the offense. offense.
concealing any paper, record, document, or
Knows the criminal Has knowledge of the
object, with intent to impair its verity,
design of the principal or commission of the crime
merely saw the criminal and takes part subse- authenticity, legibility, availability, or
acts of the principal and quent to its commission admissibility as evidence in any investigation
concurs with it. neither as principal nor of or official proceedings in, criminal cases,
accomplice. or to be used in the investigation of, or
Provides material or Acts in the three specific official proceedings in, criminal cases;
moral aid in an ways in Art. 19. iii. harboring or concealing, or facilitating the
efficacious way but not escape of, any person he knows, or has
in a manner indispen- reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has
sable to the offense.
committed any offense under existing penal
No exemption from May be exempted
laws in order to prevent his arrest
liability. liability per Art. 19 and
20 and for light felonies. prosecution and conviction;
One degree lower than Two degrees lower than iv. publicly using a fictitious name for the
the principal’s. the principal’s. purpose of concealing a crime, evading
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, prosecution or the execution of a judgment,
p.579-580) or concealing his true name and other
personal circumstances for the same
Under the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612), one who purpose or purposes;
knowingly profits or assist the principal to profit v. delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by
from the effects of robbery or theft is NOT only obstructing the service of process or court
an accessory but also principal for fencing. Fence orders or disturbing proceedings in the
is a person who commits the act of fencing. A

62
 fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the
courts;
vi. making, presenting or using any record,
document, paper or object with knowledge
of its falsity and with intent to affect the
course or outcome of the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases;
vii. soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept
any benefit in consideration of abstaining
from, discounting, or impeding the
prosecution of a criminal offender;
viii. threatening directly or indirectly another
with the infliction of any wrong upon his
person, honor or property or that of any
immediate member or members of his family
in order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing
a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in
order to prevent a person from appearing in
the investigation of or in official proceedings
in, criminal cases;
ix. giving of false or fabricated information to
mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or
from protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from the
data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background
information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to
mislead the investigator or to the court.
An accessory is exempt from criminal
liability, when the principal is his (SAD-
Lena):
● Spouse;
● Ascendant;
● Descendant; or
● Legitimate, natural or adopted brother,
sister or relative by affinity within the same
degree. (Art. 20, RPC)
Accessory is NOT exempt from criminal
liability, even if the principal is related to
him, if such accessory:
● Profited by the effects of the crime; or
● Assisted the offender to profit by the effects
of the crime. (Art. 20, supra)
Basis: The exemption provided for in this
article is based on the ties of blood and the
preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name,
which compels one to conceal crimes committed
by relatives so near as those mentioned in this
article. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One,
2006, p.580)
When the relatives assist the principal by
concealing or destroying the body of the crime or
by assisting in the escape of the principal, the law
recognizes that they are doing so because they
are motivated by their natural affection for the
offender. However, when they profit or assist the
offender in profiting by the effects of the crime,
they are doing so because of greed and not
because of filial affection. Hence, they are not
exempted from criminal liability. Ties of blood or
relationship constitute a more powerful incentive
than the call of duty.
The fact that the offender is not criminally liable
as accessory under Art. 20 of the RPC does NOT
absolve him from liability for his acts punishable
under P.D. No. 1829, Obstruction of Justice.
The benefits of the exemption in Art. 20 do not
apply to P.D. No. 1829 (Obstruction of Justice).
Two Kinds of Accessory by concealing or
harboring the offender
a. A public officer who acts with abuse of public
functions is liable whatever crime may have
been committed by the offender;
b. A private individual if the author of the crime
is guilty of treason, attempt on the life of the
Chief Executive, murder, parricide or is
known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime. (Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised
Penal Code, 2018)
A police officer who was present when the crime
was committed abused his official function when
he failed to immediately arrest the offender and
conduct a speedy investigation of the crime, but
instead left the scene of the crime together with
the offender, thus assisting the offender to
escape. Being a public officer, he is an accessory
to the crime. (People vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 128900,
July 14, 2000)
Art. 58 of RPC provides for the additional penalty
for public officers who act with abuse of their
public function. (Boado, supra)
63
b. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
General Rule: conspiracy and proposal are not
punishable because they are mere preparatory
acts; they are not the overt act that amount to
the commencement of the felony.
Exception: such are punishable only if there is a
law making it a felony. If there is no law
penalizing it, then, there is no crime committed.
It is only a manner of incurring the criminal
liability. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One,
2006, p.124)
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN
CONSPIRACY
Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a
crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts
of the accused when such acts point to a joint
purpose, design, concerted actions and
community of interest. The same degree of proof
required for establishing a crime is required to
support a finding of conspiracy. (Estrada, Criminal
Law Book One, 2011)

Examples of Conspiracy as a felony:  Generally, the testimony of a co-conspirator

is not sufficient for the conviction of the
a. Conspiracy to Commit Treason accused unless other evidence supports such
b. Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion testimony. As an exception, however, the
c. Conspiracy to Commit Insurrection testimony of a co conspirator, even if
d. Conspiracy to Commit Arson uncorroborated, will be considered sufficient
e. Conspiracy to Commit Coup d’ etat if given in a straightforward manner and it
f. Conspiracy to Commit Sedition and lately, contains details which could not have been
Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism under RA the result of deliberate afterthought. (People
11479. vs. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554, October 1, 2003)

Proposal to commit a felony which are  Where the quantum of proof required to
punishable by law: establish conspiracy is lacking, the doubt
created as to whether accused acted as
1. Proposal to commit Treason principal or accomplice will always be
2. Proposal to commit Rebellion resolved in favor of the milder form of
3. Proposal to commit Coup d' etat criminal liability, that of mere accomplice.
4. Proposal to commit Insurrection; and lately (People vs. Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7,
5. Proposal to commit Terrorism under RA 2001)
9372.
Types of Conspiracy
Note: There is no crime of Proposal to commit
Sedition. 1. Conspiracy as a crime itself; and
2. Conspiracy as a means of committing a
CONSPIRACY (Darling of the Modern crime
Prosecutor’s Nursery) a. By pre-agreement or planning;
b. Implied from the concerted acts of the
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons offenders, otherwise known as implied
come to an agreement concerning the conspiracy.
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
(Art. 8[2], RPC) CONSPIRACY BY PRIOR AGREEMENT

Requisites of Conspiracy A conspirator is liable as long as he appeared in

the scene of the crime except when he is the
1. That two or more persons come to an mastermind who is liable whether he appears or
agreement; not. This is because he is PBI and without his
2. That the agreement concerns the inducement, the crime would not have been
commission of a felony; and committed. He is the origin of the mens rea.
3. That the execution of the felony is decided
upon.

64
Doctrine of IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two
or more persons participating in the commission
of a crime collectively liable as co conspirators
although absent any agreement to that effect,
when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of
criminal intent and a common purpose of
objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be
inferred or deduced from their criminal
participation in pursuing the crime and thus the
act of one shall be the act of all. It may be
deduced from the mode and manner by which
the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the
acts of the accused themselves when such point
to a joint purpose and design, concerted action
and community of interest. (People vs. Liad, G.R.
Nos. 133815-17, March 22, 2001)
Note: There is implied conspiracy if it is
proven that two or more persons aimed their
acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object each doing a part so that their
acts although apparently independent are in fact
connected and cooperative indicating a unity of
purpose.
 Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or
approval of the act without cooperation or
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one a party to conspiracy absent
the intentional participation in the act with
a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose. (People vs. Bragaes,
G.R. No. L-62359, November 14, 1991)
General Principle of Conspiracy – ACT OF
ONE IS THE ACT OF ALL
When conspiracy is established all who
participated therein, irrespective of the quantity
and quality of their participation, are liable
equally, whether conspiracy is planned or
instantaneous. The criminal liability of one is the
same as the criminal liability of one of the others,
unless one or some of the conspirators
committed another crime which is not part of the
intended crime. (People vs. Valdez, G.R. No. L-
35696. March 28,1988)
When there is no conspiracy, each of the
offenders is liable only for the act he executed.
General Rule: When the conspiracy is
established, all who participated therein,
regardless of their participation, are equally
liable.
Exception: Unless one or some of the
conspirators committed another crime which is
not a part of the crime intended.
 The mere fact that the gunman arrived and
left the crime scene together with the
accused persons does not automatically
mean that they shared a common design and
a unity of purpose in killing the deceased —
mere presence, knowledge, acquiescence in
or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one as a party to a conspiracy,
absent any active participation in the
commission of the crime with a view to the
furtherance of the common design and
purpose. (People vs. Natividad, G.R. No. 151072.
September 23, 2003)
EXTENT OF LIABILITY
Co-conspirators are criminally liable only for the
acts done pursuant to the conspiracy on how and
what are the necessary and logical consequences
of the intended crime.
 Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined
to the accomplishment of a particular
purpose of conspiracy but extends to
collateral acts and offenses incident to and
growing out of the purpose intended. (People
vs. Pabillare, G.R. Nos. 139474-75, December 11,
2003)
Imputability Doctrine: Under this, the act of
an offender is imputable to his co-conspirator
although they are not similarly situated in relation
to the object of the crime (Campanilla, Criminal Law
Reviewer Volume I, 2019, p. 96)
EXTENT OF LIABILITY OF PRINCIPALS
Collective criminal responsibility – This is
present when the offenders are criminally liable
in the same manner and to the same extent. The
penalty to be imposed must be the same for all.
Principals by direct participation have collective
criminal responsibility. Principals by induction,
except those who directly forced another to
65
commit a crime, and principals by direct
participation have collective criminal
responsibility. Principals by indispensable
cooperation have collective criminal
responsibilities with the principals by direct
participation. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2006, p. 540)
Individual Criminal Responsibility – In the
absence of any previous conspiracy, unity of the
criminal purpose and intention immediately
before the commission of the crime, or
community of criminal design, the criminal
responsibility arising from different acts directed
against one and the same person is individual and
NOT collective, and each of the participants is
liable only for the act committed by him. (U.S. vs.
Magcomot, G.R. No. 4329, March 30, 1909)
STRUCTURES OF MULTIPLE
CONSPIRACIES
a. The “wheel” or “circle” conspiracy, in which
there is a single person or group (“the hub”)
dealing individually with two or more other
persons or groups (“the spokes”); and
b. The “chain” conspiracy, usually involving the
distribution of narcotics or other contraband,
in which there is successive communication
and cooperation in much the same way as
with legitimate business operations between
manufacturer and wholesaler, then
wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 148560, November 19, 2001)
Syndicated crime group vs. Conspiracy
1. Syndicate as defined in Sec. 23 of RA 7659
refers to a group of two or more persons
collaborating, confederating or mutually
aiding one another for the purpose of gain in
the commission of any crime. Conspiracy
exists when two or more persons agree and
decide to commit any crime;
2. In syndicate, an offense is committed by a
group for purposes of gain. Such is not
necessary in conspiracy;
3. In syndicate, a crime group is an organized
group. Such organization is not necessary in
conspiracy. (People vs. Alberca, G.R. No.
117106, June 26, 1996)
66
PROPOSAL
There is proposal when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons. (Art.
8[3], RPC)
Requisites of Proposal to commit a felony
1. That a person has decided to commit a
felony; and
2. He proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
There is no proposal when:
a. The person who proposes is not determined
to commit the felony;
b. There is no decided concrete proposal;
c. It is not the execution of a felony that is
proposed. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book One,
2011)
c. MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
i. Recidivism
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial
for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code. (People
vs. Lagarto, G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991)
Requisites (TPEC):
1. That the offender is on trial (reckoned from
the time of arraignment) for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime;
3. That both first and second offenses are
embraced in the same title of the RPC; and
4. That the offender is convicted of the new
offense. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
One, 2006, p.378)
Meaning of “at the time of his trial for one
crime” – it is meant to include everything that is
done in the course of the trial from arraignment
until the sentence is promulgated by the judge in
open court. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
NOTE: In recidivism, it is sufficient that the
succeeding offense be committed after the
commission of the preceding offense provided
that at the time of his trial for the second offense,
the accused had already been convicted of the
first offense.
 Even if the accused was granted a pardon for
the first offense, but he commits another
felony embraced in the same title of the RPC,
the first conviction is still counted to make
him a recidivist since pardon does NOT
obliterate the fact of his prior conviction. (US
vs. Sotelo, G.R. No. 9791, October 3, 1914; People
vs. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No. 95320, September 4,
1991) Pardon only excuses the service of the
penalty, but not the conviction.
NOTE: The rule is different in case of amnesty
which theoretically considers the previous
transgression as NOT punishable.
Recidivism must be taken into account no matter
how many years have intervened between the
first and second felonies. (People vs. Jaranilla, G.R.
No. L–28547, February 22, 1974) Recidivism does
not prescribe. No matter how long ago the
offender was convicted, if he is subsequently
convicted of a crime embraced in the same title
of the RPC, it is taken into account as aggravating
in imposing the penalty.
If both offenses were committed on the same
date, they shall be considered as only one, hence,
they cannot be separately counted in order to
constitute recidivism. Also, judgments of
conviction handed on the same day shall be
considered as only one conviction. (Galang vs.
People, G.R. No. L–45698, December 18, 1937)
ii. Habituality (or Reiteracion)
Requisites: (GETSCo)
1. That the accused is on Trial for an offense;
2. That he previously Served sentence for
another offense to which the law attaches an
a. Equal or
b. Greater penalty or
c. for two or more offenses to which the law
attaches a lighter penalty than that for
the new offense; and
3. That he is Convicted of the new offense.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.381)
NOTE:
a. The phrase “previously punished” employed
in defining reiteracion means that the
accused has served out the sentence for his
previous crime (Campanilla, Criminal Law
Reviewer: Volume I, 2019, p. 103).
b. If there is more than one prior crime,
reiteracion is present even if previous crimes
are punishable by a penalty lesser than that
for present crime. Thus, there is reiteracion
even if the penalties for grave slander,
qualified trespass to dwelling and robbery,
which have been served out, are lesser than
that for the crime of murder. (People vs. Molo,
G.R. No. L-44680, January 11, 1979; Id.)
c. An offender can be a recidivist and a habitual
delinquent at the same time if he was
convicted for a third time for the crimes of
estafa, robbery and theft which are all within
Title 10 or for serious and less serious
physical injuries which are within Title 8.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
d. An offender may be a habitual delinquent
without being a recidivist if the three
convictions refer to the specific felonies not
embraced in the same title of the code like
robbery, falsification, and serious physical
injuries. (Id.)
iii. Quasi-recidivism
Elements:
1. That the offender was already convicted by
final judgment of one offense.
2. That he committed a new felony before
beginning to serve such sentence or while
serving the same.
QUASI-RECIDIVISM – a special aggravating
circumstance where a person, after having been
convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new
felony before beginning to serve such sentence,
or while serving the same. He shall be punished
by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed
by law for the new felony. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.185)
NOTES:
The new offense need not be of a different
character from that of the former offense. It does
not also require that the two offenses are
67
embraced in the same title of the RPC. Quasi-
recidivism cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating
circumstances. (Reyes, supra)
iv. Habitual Delinquency
Definition.
A person shall be deemed to be habitual
delinquent, if within a period of ten years from
the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion, he is
found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or
oftener. (Art. 62, RPC)
NOTE: The law imposes an additional penalty
based on the criminal propensity of the accused
apart from that provided by law for the last crime
of which he is found guilty. Habitual delinquency
is not however, a crime in itself, it is only a factor
in determining a total penalty. Article 62 of the
Revised Penal Code which treats of habitual
delinquency does not establish a new crime, but
only regulates the "effect of the attendance of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of
habitual delinquency." (Almeda vs. Villaluz, G.R. No.
L-31665 August 6, 1975)
4. PENALTIES
Penalties – are the punishments imposed by the
state upon a person who commits a deliberate or
negligent act or for omitting to act when there is
a duty to do so.
Purpose of Punishment – To secure justice
and for the protection of the rights of the state’s
inhabitants. Transgression of the law is an affront
or defiance to the State.
Basis of the right to punish violations of
penal law- Police Power of the State.
Different juridical conditions of penalty:
a. Must be productive of suffering, without
however affecting the integrity of the human
personality;
b. Must be personal – no one should be
punished for the crime of another;
c. Must be commensurate with the offense –
different crimes must be punished with
different penalties;
68
d. Must be certain – no one may escape its
effects;
e. Must be correctional;
f. Must be equal for all; and
g. Must be legal – it is the consequence of a
judgment according to law.
NOTE: Only those penalties prescribed by law
prior to its commission may be imposed. Nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege. To do otherwise
would violate the prohibition against ex post facto
law.
Theories Justifying Penalty (JERPS)
1. Justice – to vindicate a right violated by the
offender.
2. Exemplary – to serve as an example for the
public.
3. Reformation – to correct man’s nature to do
wrong.
4. Preventive – to suppress danger against the
rights of the state’s inhabitants.
5. Self-defense – The state has the right to exist.
This existence is imperiled by lawlessness.
(Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
Three–fold Purpose of Penalty
1. Retribution or expiation – the penalty is
commensurate WITH the nature and gravity
of the offense.
2. Correction or reformation – penalties are
imposed to reform a criminal.
3. Social Defense – A society has an existence
to maintain and assert. (Id.)
Constitutional Restrictions on Penalties:
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishment inflicted. (Sec. 19 [1], Art.
III, 1987 Constitution)
Measures of prevention or safety which are
not considered penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of
accused persons, as well as their detention
by reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness
requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the
institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for
the purposes specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment or public
office during the trial or in order to institute
the proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, 3. Suspension from public office, the right to
in the exercise of their administrative or vote and be voted for, the profession or
disciplinary powers, superior officials may calling;
impose upon their subordinates. 4. Civil interdiction;
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations 5. Indemnification;
which the civil law may establish in penal 6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
form. (Art. 24, RPC) proceeds of the offense; and
7. Payment of costs.
REASON: Constitutional provision on
presumption of innocence. They are not imposed NOTE: Disqualification and suspension are both
after trial on the merits but are mere preventive principal and accessory penalties. They are
measures, hence cannot be considered as principal penalty when imposed by the RPC for a
penalties. specific crime; otherwise, they are accessory
penalty which need not be stated in the sentence
a. IMPOSABLE PENALTIES but follow the principal penalty to which they are
attached. (Boado, p. 225)
An act or omission cannot be punished by the
State if at the time it was committed, there was Based on their Severity or Gravity
no law prohibiting it. (Art. 21, RPC)
1. Capital;
Reason: A law cannot be rationally obeyed 2. Afflictive;
unless it is first shown, and a man cannot be 3. Correctional; and
expected to obey an order that has not been 4. Light.
given. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One,
2006, p.587) This classification corresponds to the
classification of felonies in Art. 9, into grave, less
b. CLASSIFICATION grave and light.

CLASSES OF PENALTIES: (Art. 25, RPC) Based on their Nature:

Principal Penalties: a. Principal Penalties – those expressly

1. Capital Punishment (Death);
2. Afflictive Penalties (Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal, Perpetual or temporary
absolute disqualification, Perpetual or
temporary special disqualification, Prision
mayor);
3. Correctional penalties (Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro); and
4. Light penalties (Arresto menor, Public
censure).
imposed by the court in the judgment of
conviction.
b. Accessory penalties – are those that are
deemed included in the imposition of the
principal penalties.
c. Indivisible – are those which have no fixed
duration. These are: Death; Reclusion
perpetua; Perpetual absolute or special
disqualification; Public censure.

Penalties common to the three preceding classes: d. Divisible – are those that have fixed duration
Fine, and Bond to keep the peace. and are divisible into three periods (minimum,
medium and maximum). (Reyes, The Revised
Accessory Penalties: Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.604-605)

1. Perpetual or temporary absolute Based on Subject Matter:

disqualification;
2. Perpetual or temporary special a. Corporal (death);
disqualification; b. Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision,
arresto);
c. Restriction of freedom (destierro);

69
d. Deprivation of rights (disqualification and
suspension); and
e. Pecuniary (fine). (Id.)
NOTE: R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of
death penalty.
 For those crimes where the penalty imposed
is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua
because of RA No. 9346, the civil indemnity
as well as the award for moral and exemplary
damages shall each be set at P100,000.00.
(People vs. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973 July 19, 2017,
J. Caguioa)
Temporary disqualification and suspension, when
imposed as accessory penalties, have different
durations – they follow the duration of the
principal penalty.
What if the fine is exactly P200 (or P40,000
under R.A. 10951), how do you reconcile
Art. 9 and Art. 26?
Art. 9 should prevail when the issue is
prescription of crime, the same being the
forfeiture of the right of the state to prosecute
the offender. It is considered a light felony and
prescribes in 2 months.

Sec 2 of RA 9346 (“An Act Prohibiting the But Art. 26 should prevail when the issue is
imposition of death penalty in the prescription of penalty, the same being the loss
Philippines”) provides that: of the state’s power to enforce the judgment
against the convict. It is considered
In lieu of death penalty, the following shall be correctional, and prescribes in 10 years. (Reyes,
imposed: The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p.607)

1. Penalty of reclusion perpetua when the law NOTE: A fine is as much a principal penalty
violated makes use of the nomenclature of the as imprisonment; it should not and cannot
penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or be reduced to a prison term. A fine, whether
2. Penalty of life imprisonment, the law violated imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty,
does not make use of the nomenclature of the should not and cannot be reduced or converted
penalties of the revised penal code. into a prison term. There is no rule for
transmutation of the amount of a fine into a term
THREE SCALES of penalties in the Code and of imprisonment. Neither does the Code contain
their significance: any provision that a fine when imposed in
conjunction with imprisonment is subordinate to
a. Art. 25 classifies the penalties into principal the latter penalty. In sum, a fine is as much a
and accessories; principal penalty as imprisonment. Neither is
b. Art. 70 provides for the scale when there are subordinate to the other. (People vs. Dacuycuy, G.R.
two or more sentences to be served, No. 45127, May 5, 1989)
including the three–fold rule;
c. Art. 71 graduates the penalties into the order c. DURATION AND EFFECTS
of severity for purposes of applying the rules
under Art. 61 in relation to Art. 50–57, the DURATION OF PENALTIES
penalty imposable on principal, accomplices,
and accessories for consummated, PENALTY DURATION
frustrated, and attempted felonies. Reclusion Perpetua 20 years and 1 day to 40
years.
A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an Reclusion Temporal 12 years and 1 day to 20
years.
alternative penalty, shall be considered an:
Prision Mayor 6 years and 1 day to 12
years, except when
a. Afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 1,200,000 Temporary disqualification is
pesos; Disqualification accessory penalty, in
b. Correctional penalty, if it does NOT exceed which case its duration is
40,000 pesos but is NOT less than 1,200,000 that of the principal
pesos; penalty.
c. Light penalty, if it is less than 40,000 pesos Prision Correccional 6 months and 1 day to 6
(Art.26, RPC as amended by R.A. No. 10951) years, except when

70
 Suspension suspension is an accessory
penalty, in which case its
Destierro duration is that of the
principal penalty.
Arresto mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6
months.
Arresto menor 1 month to 30 days
Bond to keep the The period during which
peace the bond shall be effective
is discretionary on the
court.
A person condemned to undergo reclusion
perpetua shall remain in prison perpetually, or for
the rest of his natural life. However, he becomes
eligible for pardon by the Chief Executive after he
has been imprisoned for at least 60 years, unless
he is deemed unworthy of such pardon.
The imputation of the 30-year duration to
reclusion perpetua in Articles 27 and 70 is only to
serve as the basis for determining the convict's
eligibility for pardon or for the application of the
three-fold rule in the service of multiple penalties.
(Boado, p. 239)
COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES
Rules for the Computation of Penalties
The Director of Prisons or the warden should
compute the penalties imposed upon the
convicts, observing the following rules:
a. If the offender shall be in prison, the term
of the duration of the temporary
penalties shall be computed from the day
on which the judgment of conviction
shall have become final.
NOTE: Under Art. 24, the arrest and
temporary detention of the accused is not
considered a penalty.
b. If the offender be NOT in prison, the term
of the duration of the penalty consisting
of deprivation of liberty shall be
computed from the day that the offender
is placed at the disposal of the judicial
authorities for the enforcement of the
penalty.
c. The duration of the other penalties shall
be computed only from the day on which
the defendant commences to serve his
sentence.
Paragraph (c) applies in cases of:
1. Penalties consisting in deprivation of
liberty and the offender is undergoing
preventive imprisonment but the
offender is entitled to a deduction of full
time or 4/5 of the time of his detention;
2. Temporary penalties and the offender is
not under detention because the
offender is released on bail. (Art. 28)
Examples of Temporary Penalties:
a. Temporary absolute disqualification;
b. Temporary special disqualification;
c. Suspension.
Examples of penalties consisting in
deprivation of liberty:
a. Imprisonment
b. Destierro
Destierro means banishment or only a
prohibition from residing within a radius of 25
kilometers from the actual residence of the
accused for a specified length of time. (Boado, p.
241)
PERIOD OF PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
DEDUCTED FROM TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT (Art. 29
as amended by R.A. No. 10592)
Preventive Imprisonment - It is the period of
detention undergone by an accused where the
crime with which he is charged is non-bailable or,
even if bailable, he is unable to post the requisite
bail. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book I, 2017)
Requisites:
1. The sentence imposed by the court consists of
deprivation of liberty or imprisonment;
2. The offender has undergone preventive
imprisonment during the pendency of the
criminal proceeding until the finality of the
judgment; and
3. The detention prisoner argues voluntarily in
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
71
 imposed upon convicted prisoners. (Reyes,
supra)
Purpose: To prevent the flight of the accused
and his going into hiding.
Offenders not entitled to the full time or
four-fifths of the time of preventive
imprisonment.
a. Recidivists, or have been convicted
previously twice or more times of any crime;
b. When upon being summoned for the
execution of their sentence they have failed
to surrender voluntarily;
NOTE: A habitual delinquent is NOT entitled to
the full time or 4/5 of the time of preventive
imprisonment, because a habitual delinquent is
necessarily a recidivist or that at least he has
been convicted previously twice or more times of
any crime.
NOTE: Although destierro does not constitute
imprisonment (which is typical example of
deprivation of liberty), it is nonetheless a
deprivation of liberty. It follows that Art. 29 is
applicable when the penalty is destierro. The
accused should be credited with the time during
which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment. (People vs. Bastasa, G.R. No. L–
32792, February 2, 1979)
EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF
PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL
DISQUALIFICATION
1. The deprivation of the public offices and
employments which the offender may have
held even if conferred by popular election.
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any
election for any popular office or to be
elected to such office.
Note: A plebiscite is not contemplated in
Art.30(2), hence the offender may vote in
that exercise subject to applicable election
laws. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One,
2017)
3. The disqualification for the offices or public
employments and for the exercise of any of
the rights mentioned. In case of temporary
disqualification, such disqualification as is
72
comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this
article shall last during the term of the
sentence.
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or
other pension for any office formerly held.
Perpetual absolute disqualification is
effective during the lifetime of the convict and
even after the service of the sentence.
Temporary absolute disqualification lasts
during the term of the sentence, and is removed
after the service of the same.
Exceptions:
(1) deprivation of the public office or
employment; and
(2) loss of all rights to retirement pay or other
pension for any office formerly held. (Art.
30, RPC)
EFFECT OF THE PENALTIES OF PERPETUAL
OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL
DISQUALIFICATION FOR PUBLIC OFFICE,
PROFESSION OR CALLING
1. The deprivation of the office, employment,
profession or calling affected.
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices
or employments either perpetually or during
the term of the sentence according to the
extent of such disqualification. (Art. 31, RPC)
The penalty for disqualification if imposed as an
accessory penalty is imposed for PROTECTION
and NOT for the withholding of a privilege.
 The accessory penalty of temporary absolute
disqualification disqualifies the convict for
public office and for the right to vote, such
disqualification to last only during the term of
the sentence. (Lacuna vs. Abes, G.R. No. L-
28613, August 27, 1968)
If temporary disqualification or suspension is
imposed as an accessory penalty, the duration is
the same as that of the principal penalty.
EFFECT OF THE PENALTIES OF PERPETUAL NOTE: A person civilly interdicted cannot appoint
OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL an agent to manage his properties. Otherwise,
DISQUALIFICATION FOR THE EXERCISE OF the person civilly interdicted will be doing
THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE indirectly what the law prohibits him to do.
(Reyes, supra.)
1. Deprive the offender perpetually or during
the term of the sentence, according to the EFFECTS OF BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE
nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in
any popular election for any public office or Bond to keep the peace or for good behavior is
to be elected to such office. imposed as a penalty for grave and light threats
2. The offender shall not be permitted to hold (Art. 284, RPC). This is different from a bail bond
any public office during the period of his (Rule 114, ROC) to secure the provisional release
disqualification. (Art. 32, RPC) of an accused person after his arrest or during
trial but before final judgment of conviction.
EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF
SUSPENSION FROM ANY PUBLIC OFFICE, 1. The offender must present two sufficient
PROFESSION OR CALLING, OR THE RIGHT sureties who shall undertake that:
OF SUFFRAGE a. the offender will not commit the offense
sought to be prevented;
1. Disqualify the offender from holding such b. in case such offense be committed they
office or exercising such profession or calling will pay the amount determined by court.
or right of suffrage during the term of the 2. The offender must deposit such amount with
sentence. the clerk of court to guarantee said
2. The person suspended from holding public undertaking;
office shall not hold another having similar 3. The offender may be detained, if he cannot
functions during the period of his suspension. give the bond:
(Art. 33, RPC) a. for a period not exceeding 6 months if
prosecuted for grave or less grave felony;
CIVIL INTERDICTION b. for a period not to exceed 30 days, if for a
light felony. (Art. 35, RPC)
Effects of civil interdiction:
Effects of Accessory Penalties
Civil interdiction deprives the offender during the
time of his sentence of the rights of: Accessory Effects
a. Parental Authority Penalty
Perpetual or Deprivation of any public office
b. Guardianship, either as to the person or
Temporary or employment of offender;
property of the ward Absolute Deprivation of the right to vote in
c. Marital Authority Disqualificatio any election or to be voted upon;
d. The right to manage his property; and n Loss of rights to retirement pay
e. The right to dispose of such property by any or pension. (Sec. 30)
act or conveyance inter vivos. Perpetual or For public office, profession or
Temporary calling:
NOTE: He can dispose of such property by will or Special ● Deprivation of the
donation mortis causa. (Art. 34, RPC) Disqualificatio office, employment,
n profession or calling
Civil Interdiction is imposed when the affected;
● Disqualification for
penalty is:
holding similar offices
or employments during
1. Death when not executed. the period of
2. Reclusion perpetua, or disqualification; (Sec.
3. Reclusion temporal. 31)
For the exercise of right to
suffrage:

73
 ● Deprivation of the right
to vote or to be elected Exception: When an absolute pardon is granted
in an office; after the term of imprisonment has expired, it
● Cannot hold any public removes what is left of the consequences of
office during the period
conviction. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
of disqualification. (Sec.
One, 2006, p.624)
32)
Suspension Disqualification from holding
from Public such office or the exercise of Pardon by the Chief Pardon by offended
Office, the such profession or right of Executive party
Right to Vote suffrage during the term of the (Art. 36) (Art. 23)
and Be Voted sentence; Cannot hold another As to the crimes covered
for, the Right office having similar functions (1) impeachment cases; Applies only to crimes
to Practice a during the period of suspension. (2) cases that have not against chastity.
Profession or (Sec. 33) yet resulted in a final
Calling conviction; and
Civil Deprivation of the following (3) cases involving
Interdiction rights: violations of election laws,
● Parental authority rules and regulations in
● Guardianship over the which there was no
ward favorable
● Marital authority recommendation coming
● Right to manage from the COMELEC.
property and to dispose (Risos-Vidal vs. COMELEC
of the same by acts and Estrada, G.R. No.
inter vivos. (Sec. 34) 206666, January 21,
Indemnificatio Forfeiture in favor of the 2015)
n or Government of the proceeds of As to the effect on civil liability
Confiscation of the crime and the instruments or Cannot affect the civil The offended party can
Instruments tools with which it was liability ex delicto of the waive the civil liability.
or Proceeds of committed. (Sec. 45) offender.
the Offense
Payment of If the accused be convicted, the As to extinguishment of criminal liability
Costs costs may be charged against Extinguishes criminal Marriages contracted
him If he be acquitted, costs are liability. between the offender and
de officio, i.e., each party will the offended party in the
bear his/her own expense. crime of rape,5 as well as
in the crime of abuse of
chastity,6 to totally
PARDON AND ITS EFFECTS
extinguish the criminal
Effects of pardon given by the President: liability of and the
corresponding penalty
that may have been
1. A pardon shall NOT work the restoration of imposed upon those
the right to hold public office, or the right of found guilty of the felony.
suffrage. (People v De. Guzman,
G.R. No. 185843 ,
Exception: when such rights be expressly March 3, 2010)
restored by the terms of the pardon. When granted
Can be extended only Can be validly granted
2. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit after conviction by final only before the institution
from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed judgment of the accused. of the criminal action.
upon him by the sentence. (Art. 36, RPC)
Pardon in the form of
marriage will extinguish
General Rule: When the principal penalty is criminal liability if the
remitted by pardon, only the effect of that marriage between the
principal penalty is extinguished but not the offended party and
accessory penalties attached to it. offender occurred when
the criminal action is

74
 already instituted or when Degree – it is one entire penalty, one whole
a penalty has already penalty or one unit of the penalties enumerated
been imposed. (Art. 344, in the graduated scales provided for in Article 71.
RPC; Campanilla, Criminal
Law Reviewer: Volume I,
General Rule: When there is mitigating or
pg. 432)
aggravating circumstance, the penalty is lowered
To whom granted or increased by period only.
To any or all of the In seduction, abduction
accused. and acts of Exception: When the penalty is divisible and
lasciviousness, it benefits there are two or more mitigating and without
the co–principals, aggravating circumstances, in which case the
accomplices and penalty is lowered by degree. (Reyes, The Revised
accessories. Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p. 695)

In adultery and Period – It is one of the three equal portions,

concubinage, must
called minimum, medium and maximum, of
include both offenders.
divisible penalty.
As to whether it can be conditional
General Rule: An accomplice is punished by a
May be absolute or Cannot validly be made if
conditional. subject to a condition. penalty one degree lower than the penalty
imposed upon the principal. (Id.)

d. APPLICATION AND GRADUATION OF Exceptions: The following accomplices are

PENALTIES punished with same penalty imposed upon the
principal:
RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES (Art.
61) a. The ascendants, guardians, curators,
teachers and any person who by abuse of
The penalty prescribed by law for the felony shall authority or confidential relationship, shall
be lowered by one or two degrees, as follows cooperate as accomplices in the crimes of
(Article 50-57): rape, acts of lasciviousness, seduction,
corruption of minors, white slave trade or
1. For the principal in frustrated felony – one
abduction. (Art. 346, RPC)
degree lower;
b. One who furnished the place for the
2. For the principal in attempted felony – two
perpetration of the crime of slight illegal
degrees lower;
detention. (Art. 268, RPC)
3. For the accomplice in consummated felony –
one degree lower;
Rules of Graduating Penalties under Article
4. For the accessory in consummated felony –
61:
two degrees lower.

CONSUM FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED 1. When penalty prescribed is single and

MATED indivisible, the penalty next lower in degree
Principal 0 1 2 shall be that immediately following that
Accomplice 1 2 3 indivisible penalty in the respective
Accessory 2 3 4 graduated scale in Art. 71;
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
Note: The figure “0” represents the penalty composed of two indivisible penalties or of
prescribed by law in defining a crime, which is to one or more divisible penalties to be imposed
be imposed on the principal in a consummated to their full extent, the penalty next lower in
offense, in accordance with the provisions of degree shall be that immediately following
Article 46. The other figures represent the the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the
degrees to which the penalty must be lowered, to respective graduated scale;
meet the different situations anticipated by law. 3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of one or two indivisible penalties

75
 and the maximum period of another divisible
penalty, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be composed of the medium and
minimum periods of the proper divisible
penalty and the maximum period of that
immediately following in said graduated
scale.
EFFECT OF THE ATTENDANCE OF
MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND OF HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and
habitual delinquency shall be taken into account
for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the
penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in
themselves constitute a crime specially
punishable by law or which are included by
the law in defining a crime and prescribing
the penalty therefor shall not be taken into
account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty.
(a) When in the commission of the crime,
advantage was taken by the offender of
his public position, the penalty to be
imposed shall be in its maximum
regardless of mitigating circumstances.
(b) The maximum penalty shall be imposed
if the offense was committed by any
person who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime
group means a group of 2 or more
persons collaborating, confederating or
mutually helping one another for
purposes of gain in the commission of
any crime.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the
crime to such a degree that it must of
necessity accompany the commission
thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
which arise from the moral attributes of the
offender, or from his private relations with
the offended party, or from any other
personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate
or mitigate the liability of the principals,
76
accomplices and accessories as to whom
such circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the
material execution of the act, or in the means
employed to accomplish it, shall serve to
aggravate or mitigate the liability of those
persons only who had knowledge of them at
the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following
effects:
● Third conviction: The culprit is
sentenced to the penalty for the crime
committed and to the additional penalty
of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum period.
● Fourth conviction: The penalty is that
provided by law for the last crime and the
additional penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods.
● Fifth or additional conviction: The
penalty is that provided by law for the
last crime and the additional penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
(Art. 62, RPC)
NOTES:
● In no case shall the total of the 2 penalties
imposed upon the offender exceed 30 years.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One,
2006, p. 717)
● The imposition of the additional penalty on
habitual delinquents is CONSTITUTIONAL
because such law is neither an EX POST
FACTO LAW nor an additional punishment
for future crimes.
● It is simply a punishment on future crimes
on account of the criminal propensities of
the accused.
● The imposition of such additional penalties is
mandatory and is not discretionary.
● Habitual delinquency applies at any stage of
the execution because subjectively, the
offender reveals the same degree of
depravity or perversity as the one who
commits a consummated crime.
● It applies to all participants because it
reveals persistence in them of the inclination
to wrongdoing and of the perversity of
character that led them to commit the
previous crime.
● Commission of any of the specific felonies
without first being convicted before
committing the other will not make the
accused a habitual delinquent.
RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF
INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES
🕮 The imposable penalty for the crime of rape
is reclusion perpetua. The accused being
entitled to the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the imposable
penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium
period, absent any other mitigating or
aggravating circumstance. (People vs. Galang,
G.R No. 70713, June 29, 1989)
Rules for the application of indivisible
penalties:
Penalty is single and indivisible
The penalty shall be applied regardless of the
presence of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.
Penalty is composed of 2 indivisible
penalties:
a. One aggravating circumstance present:
HIGHER penalty.
b. No mitigating circumstances present: LESSER
penalty.
c. Some mitigating circumstances present and
no aggravating: LESSER penalty
d. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances
offset each other (Art. 63, RPC).
Basis of penalty: number and importance.
NOTE: If the penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death, special mitigating circumstance cannot be
appreciated to graduate the penalty by one
degree. However, this penalty can be reduced by
degree is there is a privilege mitigating
circumstance such as minority.
RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PENALTIES WHICH CONTAIN THREE
PERIODS
Rules for the application of divisible
penalties:
1. No aggravating and No mitigating:
medium period.
2. One mitigating: minimum period.
3. One aggravating: maximum period (but
regardless of the number of aggravating
circumstances, the courts cannot exceed the
penalty provided by law in its maximum
period).
4. Mitigating and aggravating
circumstances present:
- to offset each other according to relative
weight.
5. Two or more mitigating and no
aggravating:
- one degree lower (has the effect of a
privileged mitigating circumstance). (Art. 64,
RPC)
RULE IN CASES IN WHICH THE PENALTY
IS NOT COMPOSED OF THREE PERIODS
In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is
not composed of three periods, the courts shall
apply the rules contained in the foregoing
articles, dividing into three equal portions of time
included in the penalty prescribed, and forming
one period of each of the three portions. (Art. 65,
RPC)
Illustration of the computation when the
penalty has three periods:
Prision mayor which has a duration of 6
years and 1 day to 12 years
i. Subtract the minimum (disregarding the 1
day) from the maximum:
12 years – 6 years = 6 years
ii. Divide the difference by 3:
6 years / 3 = 2 years
iii. Use the minimum of 6 years and 1 day of
prision mayor as minimum of the
MINIMUM PERIOD. Then add 2 years to
77
 the minimum (disregarding the 1 day) to get
the maximum of the MINIMUM PERIOD:
Range of the MINIMUM PERIOD = 6 years and
1 day to 8 years
iv. Use the maximum of the minimum period as
minimum of the MEDIUM PERIOD, and
add 1 day to distinguish it from the maximum
of the minimum period. Then add 2 years to
the minimum of the medium period
(disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum
of the MEDIUM PERIOD:
Range of the MEDIUM PERIOD = 8 years and
1 day to 10 years
v. Use the maximum of the medium period as
minimum of the MAXIMUM PERIOD, and
add 1 day to distinguish it from the maximum
of the medium period. Then add 2 years to
the minimum of the maximum period
(disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum
of the MAXIMUM PERIOD:
Range of the MAXIMUM PERIOD = 10 years
and 1 day to 12 years
IMPOSITION OF FINES (Art. 66)
1. The court can fix any amount of the fine
within the limits established by law.
2. The court must consider –
a. The mitigating and aggravating
circumstances; and
b. More particularly, the wealth or means of
the culprit.
3. The court may also consider:
a. The gravity of the crime committed;
b. The magnitude of its effects on the
offender’s victim;
c. The heinousness of its perpetration.
(People vs. Manuel, G.R. Nos. 14648-61 July 6,
1957)
The courts are not bound to divide the amount of
fine prescribed by law into three equal portions
as in the case of imprisonment.
Position and standing of the accused may also be
considered as aggravating in some cases. (e.g.
gambling).
78
When the minimum of the fines is not fixed by
law, the determination of the amount of fine is
left to the sound discretion of the court, provided
it shall not exceed the maximum authorized by
law. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One,
2017)
WHEN NOT ALL REQUISITES OF ACCIDENT
IS PRESENT
Penalty to be imposed if the requisites of
accident (Art. 12,[4]) are not all present:
1. GRAVE FELONY: arresto mayor maximum
period to prision correccional minimum
period.
2. LESS GRAVE FELONY: arresto mayor
minimum period and medium period. (Art. 67,
RPC)
If all these conditions are not present, the act
should be considered as:
a. reckless imprudence if the act is
executed without taking those precautions
or measures which the most common
prudence would require; and
b. simple imprudence, if it is a mere lack of
precaution in those cases where either the
threatened harm is not imminent or the
danger is not openly visible. The case will
fall under Art. 365(1). The penalty
provided in Art. 67 is the same as that in Art.
365.
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON A
PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE
This article which prescribes the penalty to be
imposed upon a person under 18 years of age has
been partly repealed by R.A. No. 9344, as
amended, which provides that:
1. A child 15 years and under is exempt from
criminal responsibility; and
2. A child above 15 years but below 18 years of
age is exempt from criminal liability unless
he/she has acted with discernment. (Art. 68,
RPC)
R.A. No. 9344 was further amended by R.A. Diversion vs. Intervention
No. 10630 and provides the following,
among others: DIVERSION INTERVENTION
Refers to an alternative, Refers to a series of
A child under 15 years and under at the time of child appropriate process activities which are
the commission of the offense is exempt from of determining the designed to address
responsibility and issues that caused the
criminal liability. The child shall be immediately
treatment of a child in child to commit an
released to the custody of his/her parents or conflict with the law on offense. It may take the
guardian, or the child’s nearest relative, and be the basis of his/her form of an individualized
subjected to a community-based intervention social, cultural, treatment program
program supervised by the local social welfare economic, psychological which may include
and development officer (LSWDO), unless the or educational counseling, skills
best interest of the child requires the referral of background without training, education, and
the child to a youth care facility or “Bahay Pag- resorting to formal court other activities that will
asa”. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. proceedings. (Sec. 4[i], enhance his/her
10630) supra.) psychological, emotional
and psycho-social well-
being. (Sec. 4[l], supra.)
Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who
Are Exempt From Criminal Responsibility –
Automatic Suspension of Sentence – Once
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up
the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age
to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits
at the time of the commission of the offense is
parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and
found guilty of the offense charged, the court
serious illegal detention where the victim is killed
shall determine and ascertain any civil liability
or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape,
which may have resulted from the offense
destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the
driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the
under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
child in conflict with the law under suspended
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by
sentence, without need of
more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment,
application: Provided, however, that suspension
shall be deemed a neglected child under
of sentence shall still be applied even if the
Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and
juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or
shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility
more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her
within the youth care faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’
guilt. (Sec. 38, R.A. No. 9344)
called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and
Support Center (IJISC). (Sec. 20-A, R.A. No. 9344,
as amended by R.A. No. 10630)
Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the
Law – Upon the recommendation of the social
Child who commits repetitive offenses worker who has custody of the child, the court
-– A child who is above twelve (12) years of age shall dismiss the case against the child whose
up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits sentence has been suspended and against whom
an offense for the second time or oftener: disposition measures have been issued, and shall
Provided, That the child was previously subjected order the final discharge of the child if it finds that
to a community-based intervention program, the objective of the disposition measures have
shall be deemed a neglected child under been fulfilled. But this will not affect the civil
Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and liability resulting from the commission of the
shall undergo an intensive intervention program offense. (Sec. 39, supra.)
supervised by the local social welfare and
development officer: Provided further, That, if Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law
the best interest of the child requires that he/she to Court – this is for execution of judgment. This
be placed in a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag- happens when the court finds that: (a) the
asa’, the child’s parents or guardians shall objective of the disposition measures imposed
execute written authorization for the voluntary upon the child in conflict with the law have not
commitment of the child. (Sec. 20-B, R.A. No. 9344, been fulfilled; or (b) if the child in conflict with
as amended by R.A. No. 10630) the law has willfully failed to comply with the

79
conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
program.
This applies when the culprit has to serve two or
If said child in conflict with the law has reached more penalties, he shall serve them
eighteen (18) years of age while under simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will
suspended sentence, the court shall determine so permit.
whether:
Otherwise, the order of their severity (under this
a. To discharge the child; article) shall be followed – so that they may be
b. To order execution of sentence; or executed successively.
c. To extend the suspended sentence for a
certain specified period or until the child Order of severity of penalties:
reaches the maximum age of twenty-one
(21) years. (Sec. 40, supra.) 1. Death;
2. Reclusion perpetua;
Credit in Service of Sentence – The child in 3. Reclusion temporal;
conflict with the law shall be credited in the 4. Prision mayor;
services of his/her sentence with the full time 5. Prision correccional;
spent in actual commitment and detention under 6. Arresto mayor;
this Act. (Sec. 41, R.A. No. 9344) 7. Arresto menor;
8. Destierro;
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED WHEN THE 9. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
CRIME COMMITTED IS NOT WHOLLY 10. Suspension from public office, the right to
EXCUSABLE vote and be voted for, the right to follow
profession or calling; and
Penalty: Lower by one or two degrees than that 11. Public censure.
prescribed by law. (Art. 69, RPC)
The penalties which can be simultaneously
Application: served are:

When there is lack of some of the conditions 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;

required to justify the deed or to exempt from 2. Perpetual special disqualification;
criminal liability in several cases mentioned in Art. 3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
11 and 12; provided that majority of the 4. Temporary special disqualification;
conditions are present. Unlawful aggression is 5. Suspension;
indispensable in self–defense, defense of 6. Destierro;
relatives and defense of stranger, without which, 7. Public Censure;
the offender is NOT entitled to reduction. (US vs. 8. Fine and Bond to keep the peace;
Navarro, G.R. No. 1878, March 9, 1907) 9. Civil interdiction; and
10. Confiscation and payment of costs.
NOTE: Majority of the conditions must be
present. Destierro CANNOT be served simultaneously with
imprisonment. The penalties consisting in
The court has the discretion to impose one or two deprivation of liberty cannot be served
degrees lower than that prescribed by law for the simultaneously by reason of the nature of such
offense. But in determining the proper period of penalties. (Art. 70, RPC)
the penalty one or two degrees lower, the court
must consider the number and nature of the GRADUATED SCALES
conditions of exemption or justification present or
lacking. In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty
lower or higher by one or more degrees than
another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Art.
61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.

80
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from and the circumstances require the imposition of a
the graduated scale in which is comprised the penalty one degree lower.
given penalty.
Destierro is not a higher penalty than arresto
The courts, in applying such lower or higher mayor which is imprisonment or complete
penalty, shall observe the following graduated deprivation of liberty whereas destierro means
scales: banishment or only a prohibition from residing
within a radius of 25 kilometers from the actual
SCALE NO. 1: residence of the accused for a specified length of
time. The respective severities of arresto mayor
1. Death, and destierro must not be judged by the duration
2. Reclusion perpetua; of each of these penalties, but by the degree of
3. Reclusion temporal; deprivation of liberty involved. Penologists have
4. Prision mayor; always considered destierro ligther than arresto
5. Prision correccional; mayor. In the graduated scale of Article 71 the
6. Arresto mayor; lawmaker had placed destierro below arresto
7. Destierro; mayor. There is, therefore, no basis in fact or in
8. Arresto menor; law for holding that destierro is a higher penalty
9. Public censure; and than arresto mayor and that an offense penalized
10. Fine. with destierro, falls under the jurisdiction of the
court of first instance. (Duarte, G.R. No. 88232,
SCALE NO. 2: February 26, 1990)

1. Perpetual absolute disqualification ARTICLES. 25, 70, AND 71, COMPARED

2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to ART. 25 ART. 70 ART. 71
vote and be voted for, the right to follow a
profession or calling Penalties are Classifies the Provides for the
classified into (1) penalties, for scale which
4. Public censure
principal and (2) the purpose of should be
5. Fine accessory the successive observed in
(Art. 71, RPC) penalties. The service of graduating the
principal sentences, penalties in
Effect of R.A. 9346 as to the Scale of penalties are according to degrees in
Penalty under this Article – R.A. 9346 has subdivided into their severity. accordance with
expressly repealed all provisions of law in so far capital, afflictive, Art. 61.
as they apply or impose the death penalty. Thus, correctional, and
it has in effect deleted the penalty of death under light.
the scales of penalty provided in the RPC. Hence,
its effect is to: Destierro is Destierro is Destierro is
placed above placed under place above
arresto menor, arresto menor, arresto menor.
● reckon the lower degree of penalty for because it is according to
accomplices and accessories from the penalty classified as their respective
actually imposed. For instance, for qualified correctional severity.
rape punishable with death originally, the penalty.
penalty on the principal under the Destierro is Destierro, being
amendatory law shall be reclusion perpetua; considered classified as a
for the accomplice, it shall be reclusion lighter than correctional
temporal and for the accessory, prision arresto menor. penalty, is
higher than
mayor. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
arresto menor, a
One, 2017)
light penalty.

Must destierro be applied only when it is Art. 70 speaks Art. 71(2),

specifically imposed by law? – No. Destierro of “severity”. speaks of “lower
may be imposed when it is the penalty next lower

81
 or higher” Purpose of Minimum and Maximum Term of
penalty. the ISL

Different The minimum term must be served and

principal thereupon, the convict becomes eligible for
penalties parole. When released, he is not actually
provided for in discharged for the rest of his sentence is served
Art. 25 are out of prison under the supervision of a parole
classified and officer. If the conditions of parole were violated
grouped into
by the accused, he will serve the maximum
two graduated
scales. Under
term of the ISL.
Scale No. 1, all
personal
As a rule, ISL is mandatory except for:
penalties, such (ONE – LRT- PH FEES PRNT)
as deprivation of 1. Any persons convicted of offenses punished
life and liberty,
with death penalty or life-imprisonment;
are grouped
together. Under
2. To those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
Scale No. 2 are proposal to commit treason;
grouped all 3. To those convicted of misprision of treason,
penalties rebellion, sedition or espionage;
consisting in 4. To those convicted of piracy;
deprivation of 5. To those who are habitual delinquents;
political rights. 6. To those who have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence;
7. To those who having been granted
PREFERENCE IN THE PAYMENT OF THE conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
CIVIL LIABILITIES shall have violated the terms thereof;
8. To those whose maximum term of
The order of payment of civil liabilities is not imprisonment does not exceed one year, not
based on the dates of the commission of the to those already sentenced by final
offense, instead, it is satisfied by following the judgment. (Sec. 2, Act No. 4103, as amended by
chronological order of the dates of the final Act No. 4225)
judgments. (Art. 72, RPC; Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book One, 2017) Note: If the maximum imposable penalty of the
crime committed does not exceed one year, the
i. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW accused cannot avail of the benefits of the law.
The accused shall suffer a straight penalty and
[REPUBLIC ACT No. 4103, as amended by not be eligible for ISL. Thus, ISL is applicable if
Act No. 4225 and R.A. 4203] the imposable penalty exceeds one (1) year of
imprisonment. ISL applies even if the penalty is a
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN result of plea bargaining.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE
FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF 1. Those who are already serving final
CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE judgment upon the approval of the ISL.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A 2. Not applicable to indivisible penalties e.g.,
BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE reclusion perpetua. (Please see discussions
AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND under e. GRADUATION PENALTIES)
FOR OTHER PURPOSES (Indeterminate 3. Use of trafficked victim. (Sec. 11 of R.A. No.
Sentence Law). 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364);
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW) – It 4. Those imposed non-prison sentence. (Sec. 1
enumerates the same such as destierro,
is a law which modifies the imposition of penalties
suspension, and the like)
under the RPC and special laws. The courts are
mandated in imposing a sentence to fix a
minimum and a maximum period of penalty.

82
 ISL is applicable to the following persons: No. 181571, December 16, 2009, as cited in
Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer Volume I,
1. Recidivists are entitled to an indeterminate 2019, p. 383)
sentence. (People vs. Jaramilla, G.R. No. L-28547,
February 22, 1974) Penalty Imposed by the RPC vs. Imposed
2. Those who committed a crime while on by ISLAW
parole;
3. Those who availed of plea bargaining; and Penalty imposed by Penalty imposed by
RPC ISLAW
4. When the maximum penalty is more than one
Maximum Term
year. (Boado, Notes and Cases under the Revised
That which could be Must not exceed the
Penal Code, 2018)
properly imposed under maximum term fixed by
the RPC, considering the said law.
Why is the sentence considered aggravating and
indeterminate? mitigating
circumstances.
Because it cannot be determined just exactly how Minimum Term
long the convict will serve the sentence because Within the range of the Must not be less than the
he may be released on parole after serving the penalty one degree minimum term prescribed
minimum penalty. lower than that by the same.
prescribed by the RPC,
without considering the Note: It is anything
Purposes of the law:
circumstances. within the inclusive range
of the prescribed penalty.
1. Uplift and redeem valuable human material. Courts are given
2. Prevent unnecessary and excessive discretion in the
deprivation of liberty. imposition of the
3. Promote economic usefulness. (Romero vs. indeterminate penalty.
People, G.R. No. 171644, November 23, 2011)
The settled practice is to give the accused the
 In cases where the application of the law benefit of the law even in crimes punishable with
on indeterminate sentence would be death or life imprisonment provided the resulting
unfavorable to the accused, resulting in penalty, after considering the attending
the lengthening of his prison sentence, circumstances, is reclusion temporal or less.
said law on indeterminate sentence
should not be applied. (People vs. Nang ISL under the Revised Penal Code
Kay, G.R. No. L-3565, April 20, 1951)
The court shall sentence the accused to an
 The law is intended to favor the indeterminate sentence:
defendant, particularly to shorten his
term of imprisonment, depending upon  the maximum term of which shall be that
his behavior and his physical, mental and which,
moral record as a prisoner, to be  in view of the attending circumstances,
determined by the Board of  could be properly imposed under the rules
Indeterminate Sentence. (People vs. Nang of the Revised Penal Code,
Kay, G.R. No. L-3565, April 20, 1951)  and the minimum term shall be
 within the range of the penalty next lower
Note: there are two requisites to apply the ruling
to that prescribed by the Code for the
in Nang Kay:
offense. (Sec. 1, Act. No. 4103)
(1) the penalty for the crime under special law
The court shall apply Article 64 on the application
must be subject to the first rule of ISLAW.
of divisible penalty, Art. 160 on quasi-recidivism,
(People vs. Judge Lee, Jr., G.R. No. 66859,
September 12, 1984, as cited in Campanilla, and Art. 308 on incremental penalty for theft and
Criminal Law Reviewer Volume I, 2019, p. 383) other provisions connected with the imposition of
(2) the accused deserves a lenient penalty penalties. Simply put, the maximum penalty is
because of confession. (Batitis vs. People, G.R.

83
that fixed with the Revised Penal Code.
(Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer: Volume I, p. 373)
Parole – is the suspension of the sentence of a
convict after serving the minimum term of the
indeterminate penalty, without granting a
pardon, prescribing the term upon which the
sentence shall be suspended.
ISL Under the Special Laws
Rules for application procedure when crime
is punished by special law:
Maximum Term: Must not exceed the
maximum term fixed by the law.
Minimum Term: Must not be less than the
minimum term fixed by law.
There are two possible instances:
shall suffer the subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency. (People vs. Fajardo, G.R. No. 48460,
May 25, 1938)
PENALTY HIGHER THAN RECLUSION
PERPETUA IN CERTAIN CASES
Penalty of death must be specifically imposed by
law as a penalty for a given crime. (Art. 74, RPC)
Note: the death penalty was suspended under
the virtue of R.A. No. 9346.
INCREASING OR REDUCING THE PENALTY
OF FINE BY ONE OR MORE DEGREES
Fines are also graduated into degrees for the
imposition of the proper amount of the fine on
accomplices and accessories or on the principals
in frustrated or attempted felonies. (Art. 75, RPC)

1. If the imposable penalty under the Special
Penal Laws is a range of period of time of
imprisonment.
A is convicted of illegal possession of firearms
punishable by imprisonment of 1 year and 1
day to 4 years.
a. Maximum Term – shall not exceed 4
years as fixed by law.
b. Minimum Term – shall not be less than
the minimum of 1 year and 1 day
prescribed by law. (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103)
2. If the imposable penalty indicated in the SPL
is the same penalty based on the
nomenclature used by the RPC.
Distinctions between Fine with minimum
and Fine without minimum:
1. In both cases, law fixes the maximum of the
fine;
2. When the law fixes the minimum of the fine,
the court cannot change the minimum;
whereas, when the law does not state the
minimum of the fine but only the maximum,
the court can impose any amount not
exceeding such maximum.
3. When the law fixes both minimum and
maximum, the court can impose an amount
higher than maximum; whereas, when only
the maximum is fixed, it cannot impose an
amount higher than the maximum.

Rule: Use the same rules for crimes under LEGAL PERIOD OF DURATION OF
RPC for applying ISLAW. DIVISIBLE PENALTIES (Art. 76)

e. ACCESSORY PENALTIES Minimum Medium Maximum

Reclusion 12 years 14 17 years,
PRESUMPTION IN REGARD TO THE Temporal and 1 years, 4
IMPOSITION OF ACCESSORY PENALTIES day to 8 months
14 years months and 1
The accessory penalties provided for in Art. 40 to and 8 and 1 day to
45 are deemed imposed by the courts without the months day to 20 years
necessity of making an express pronouncement 17
of their imposition. (Art. 73, RPC) years
and 4
NOTE: Subsidiary imprisonment is not an months
accessory penalty and therefore, the judgment of Prision Mayor, 6 years 8 years 10 years
conviction must expressly state that the offender absolute and 1 and 1 and 1

84
 disqualification day to 8 day to day to of each amount equivalent to the highest
and temporary years 10 12 years minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines
disqualification years at the time of the rendition of judgment of
Prision 6 2 4 years, conviction by the trial court.
Correcional, months years, 2
suspension and 1 4 months Rules as to subsidiary liability (Sec. 39)
and destierro
day to 2 months and 1
years and 1 day to 6 PENALTY SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
and 4 day to years IMPOSED
months 4 years Prision Subsidiary imprisonment is not to
correccional or exceed 1/3 of the term of the
and 2
arresto AND fine. sentence, and in no case to
months
continue for more than one year.
Arresto Mayor 1 month 2 4 Fraction or part of a day shall not
to 2 months months be counted.
months and 1 and 1 Fine only. Subsidiary imprisonment:
day to day to 6 b. Not to exceed 6
4 months months – if the culprit
months is prosecuted for grave
Arresto Menor 1 to 10 11 to 21 to 30 or less grave felony;
days 20 days and
days
c. Not to exceed 15 days
– if prosecuted for light
WHEN THE PENALTY IS A COMPLEX ONE felony.
COMPOSED OF THREE DISTINCT Higher than No subsidiary imprisonment.
PENALTIES prision
correccional.
Complex Penalty – it is a penalty prescribed by If the penalty Subsidiary penalty shall consist in
law composed of three distinct penalties, each imposed is not to the same deprivations as those
forming a period; the lightest of them shall be the be executed by of the principal penalty, under
minimum period, the next shall be the medium confinement, but the same rules as nos. 1, 2, and
of fixed duration. 3 above.
period, and the most severe shall be the
maximum period (e.g. In reclusion temporal to
death, the maximum period is death, the medium In case the financial circumstances of the convict
period is reclusion perpetua, and minimum period should improve, he shall pay the fine,
is reclusion temporal). notwithstanding the fact that the convict suffered
subsidiary personal liability therefor.
Whenever the penalty prescribed does NOT have
one of the forms specially provided for in this When the penalty prescribed for the offense is
Code, the periods shall be distributed, applying imprisonment, it is the penalty actually imposed
by analogy the prescribed rules. (Art. 77, RPC) by the Court, not the penalty provided for by the
Code, which should be considered in determining
f. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT whether or not subsidiary penalty should be
imposed.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
(Art. 39, As Amended by R.A. No. 10159) Subsidiary penalty shall be proper only if the
accused has no property with which to pay the
Subsidiary Penalty A subsidiary personal fine and not as a matter of choice on his part by
liability to be suffered by the convict who has no opting to go to jail instead of paying. A convict
property with which to meet the fine. who has property not exempt from execution
sufficient enough to meet the fine cannot choose
New Basis for Daily Computation of to serve the subsidiary penalty.
Subsidiary Penalty – He shall be subject to a
subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day  An accused cannot be made to undergo
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency

85
 to pay the fine imposed upon him when the
subsidiary imprisonment is not imposed in
the judgment of conviction. (Ramos vs.
Gonong, G.R. No. L–42010, August 31, 1961)
 Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory
penalty which inheres to a principal penalty
and may therefore be imposed even if it is
not expressly provided in the sentence. It is
a penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed in the
sentence. Hence, unless the judgment or
sentence expressly provides for subsidiary
imprisonment, the culprit cannot be made to
undergo the same.
No subsidiary penalty shall be imposed
when:
a. The penalty imposed is higher than prision
correccional or 6 years;
b. Additional penalty for habitual delinquency
should be included in determining whether or
not subsidiary penalty should be imposed;
c. For failure to pay the reparation of the
damage caused and indemnification of the
consequential damages,
d. For non–payment of the costs of the
proceedings;
e. Where the penalty imposed is fine and
another penalty without fixed duration;
f. The subsidiary penalty, though properly
imposable is not expressly stated in the
judgment;
g. For non–payment of taxes in case of
insolvency (People vs. Balagtas, GR No. L–10210,
July 29, 1959); and
h. In cases of censure since it has no fixed
duration and is not to be executed by
confinement. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book One, 2017)
5. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF
SENTENCE
a. THREE-FOLD RULE
THREE–FOLD RULE – the maximum duration
of the convict’s sentence shall NOT be more
than three times the length of time
corresponding the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him.
The maximum duration of the convict‘s sentence
shall not be more than three times the length of
86
time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him.
The phrase “the most severe of the penalties”
includes equal penalties.
The three-fold rule applies only when the convict
has to serve at least four sentences.
All the penalties, even if imposed by different
courts at different times, cannot exceed three-
fold the most severe.
Necessarily, the various offenses punished with
different penalties must be charged under
different information which may be filed in the
same court or in different courts, at the same
time or at different times.
Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the
penalty.
Indemnity is a penalty.
Court must impose all the penalties for all the
crimes of which the accused is found guilty, but
in the service of the same, they shall not exceed
three times the most severe and shall not exceed
40 years.
How is the three–fold penalty computed?
(3:4:40)
1. Get the most severe penalty imposed
following Art. 70;
2. Multiply by 3 the duration of the most severe
penalty;
3. Add the duration of all the different
sentences;
4. Compare the results of steps 2 and 3;
5. The accused to serve the lesser period which
in no case shall exceed 40 years. If it
exceeds 40 years, the penalty to be served is
the maximum of 40 years only.
When the penalty is indeterminate, how is
the three–fold penalty computed? – It is
three times the indeterminate sentence also. For
instance, in the service of 12 penalties meted to
defendant, the maximum penalty that he should
serve is three times the indeterminate of 12 years
to 17 years, or 36 years to 51 years. The
maximum duration of his sentence should not
exceed 40 years. (People vs. Sendaydiego, G.R. Nos.
L–33252–54, January 20, 1978)
Where the Penalty Is Not Composed of 3 themselves and other persons, the relief which
Periods: they may receive, and their diet. (Art. 78[3], RPC)

Apply Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty The regulations shall make provision for the
is not composed of three periods – in cases in separation of the sexes in different institutions, or
which the penalty prescribed by law is not at least into different departments and also for
composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the correction and reform of the convicts. (Art.
the rules contained in the foregoing articles, 78[4], RPC)
dividing into three equal portions of time included
in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period
SUSPENSION OF THE EXECUTION AND
of each of the three portions.
SERVICE OF THE PENALTIES
IN CASE OF INSANITY (Art. 79)
Different Systems of Penalty:
See Notes in (b). EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
a. The Material Accumulation System –
(Art. 12)
established no limitation whatsoever and,
accordingly, all the penalties for all the
[Art. 80 is Repealed by PD 603, which was
violations were imposed even if they reached
amended by R.A. No. 9344 and R.A. No.
beyond the natural span of human life.
10630]
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 of Art. 70 follow this
system.
See Notes in Special Penal Laws for R.A. 9344 as
amended by R.A. No. 10630.
b. The Juridical Accumulation System –
The service of the several penalties imposed
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF OTHER
on one and the same culprit is limited to NOT
PENALTIES
more than three-fold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe and in no
The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion
case to exceed 40 years.
temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and
arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in
c. The Absorption System – The lesser
the places and penal establishments provided by
penalties are absorbed by the graver
the Administrative Code in force or which may be
penalties. It is observed the imposition of the
provided by law in the future. (Art. 86, RPC)
penalty in complex crimes (Art. 48),
continuing crimes, and specific crimes like DESTIERRO
robbery with homicide, etc. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006, p. 754-756)
Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be
permitted to enter the place or places designated
WHEN AND HOW A PENALTY IS TO BE
in the sentence, nor within the radius specified
EXECUTED
which shall be not more than two hundred fifty
(250) and not less than twenty-five (25)
Only the penalties by final judgment can be
kilometers from the place designated.
executed. They shall be executed in the form
prescribed by law and with any circumstances or
This means that the convict can go farther than
incidents expressly authorized thereby. (Art. 78[1]
the distance but not nearer than that specified by
and [2], RPC)
the court. (Art. 87, RPC)
In addition to the provisions of the law, the
special regulations prescribed for the government NOTE: Destierro is a principal, correctional and
of the institutions in which the penalties are to be divisible penalty.
suffered shall be observed with regard to the
character of the work to be performed, the time
of its performance, and other incidents connected
therewith, the relations of the convicts among

87
Destierro is imposed when:
a. When death or serious physical injuries is
caused or are inflicted under exceptional
circumstances (Art. 247);
b. When a person fails to give bond for good
behavior (Art. 284);
c. As a penalty for the concubine in the crime of
concubinage (Art. 334); and
d. When after lowering the penalty by degrees,
destierro is the proper penalty.
 Entering the prohibited area is evasion of
the service of sentence. (People vs. De
Jesus, G.R. No. L-1414, April 16, 1948)
Destierro is considered as a principal, correctional
and divisible penalty. Therefore, jurisdiction over
crimes punishable with it lies with the Municipal
Trial Court.
In case the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced is Destierro, he shall
be released after 30 days of preventive
imprisonment.
ARRESTO MENOR
The sentence is served in:
● Municipal Jail or;
● House of the defendant himself under the
surveillance of an officer of law but only when:
o the court so provides in its decision. (Art.
88, RPC)
Factors in granting house detention: Health
of the offender and other reasons satisfactory to
the court.
b. PROBATION LAW
[PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 968, as
amended by R.A. No. 10707]
ESTABLISHING A PROBATION SYSTEM,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(Probation Law)
Probation is a disposition under which a
defendant, after conviction and sentence, is
released subject to condition imposed by the
88
court and to the supervision of a probation
officer. (Sec. 3[a], PD 968)
Three-fold purpose of PD 968:
a. Promote the correction and rehabilitation of
an offender by providing him with
individualized treatment;
b. Provide an opportunity for the reformation of
a penitent offender which might be less
probable if he were a prison sentence;
c. Prevent the commission of offenses. (Sec. 2,
P.D. 968)
Application: This shall apply to all offenders,
except those entitled to benefit under the Child
and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. No. 603) and
similar laws (Sec. 1, P.D. 968). May be granted
even if the sentence is fine only, but with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
(Sec. 4, P.D. 968)
Criteria of placing an offender on probation
The court shall consider:
a. All information relative to the character,
antecedents, environment, mental, and
physical condition of the offender; and
b. Available institutional and community
resources. (Sec. 8, P.D. No. 968)
Probation shall be denied if the court finds
that:
1. The offender is in need of correctional
treatment that can be provided most
effectively by his commitment to an
institution; or
2. There is undue risk that during the period of
probation the offender will commit another
crime; or
3. Probation will depreciate the seriousness of
the offense committed. (Sec. 8, P.D. No. 968)
Disqualified offenders:
1. Sentenced to a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 6 years;
2. Convicted of any crime against national
security;
3. Previously convicted by final judgment of an
offense punished by imprisonment of not less
 than one month and one day and/or fine of ● Reports to the probation officer at least once
not more than Php 1,000; a month as such time and place specified by
4. Those who have once been on probation; the officer.
5. Those who appealed;
6. Those who are already serving sentence at 2. Discretionary or Special – Additional
the time the substantive provisions of the conditions listed, which the courts may
Decree became applicable pursuant to Sec. impose on the probationer. Enumeration is
33 thereof; not exclusive, since probation statutes are
7. Those convicted of drug trafficking or drug liberal in character and enable the courts to
pushing (Sec. 24, R.A. No. 9165); and designate any term it chooses provided the
8. Convicted of election offenses under the probationer’s constitutional rights are not
Omnibus Election Code. (Sec. 261, B.P. 264) jeopardized. (Sec. 10, P.D. No. 968 as amended
by R.A. No. 107107)
Period of probation
Termination of probation
a. If the probationer has been sentenced to an
imprisonment of not more than one year, the The court may order the final discharge of the
probation shall not exceed two years. probationer, upon finding that, he has fulfilled the
b. In all other cases, if he is sentenced to more terms and conditions of his probation (Sec. 16,
than one year, probation shall not exceed six P.D. 968).
years.
c. In case the penalty is fine only and the Effects of termination of probation
offender is made to serve subsidiary
imprisonment, the probation shall be twice 1. The case is deemed terminated;
the total number of days of the subsidiary 2. Restoration of all civil rights lost or
imprisonment. (Sec. 14, P.D. 968) suspended; and
3. Fully discharges liability for any fine imposed.
What are the effects of Filing and (Sec. 16, P.D. No. 968)
Grant/Denial of the Application?
 The mere expiration of the period for
1. FILING – operates as a waiver of the right probation does NOT ipso facto terminate the
to appeal. probation. Probation is NOT co-terminus with
2. The order granting or denying the probation its period. There must be an order issued by
shall not be appealable. the court discharging the probationer. (Bala
3. Accessory penalties – deemed suspended vs. Martinez, GR No. 67301, January 29, 1990)
once probation is granted.
4. Civil liability – not affected by the suspension Distinguish Probation and Indeterminate
of the sentence imposed on the accused who Sentence Law
is granted probation; court must hear the
civil aspect. Probation ISLAW
Sentence must not be Maximum period of the
more than 6 years. sentence must be more
Conditions of Probation
than 1 year.
Penalty either Imprisonment only.
Two Kinds: imprisonment or fine.
Sentence is suspended. Need for the minimum to
1. Mandatory or general – Once violated, the be served.
probation is cancelled. Appeal forecloses Appeal has no effect on
probation. the operation of ISLAW.
Probationer: Available only once. Every time as long as
● Presents himself to the probation officer offender is not
designated to undertake his supervision, at disqualified.
such place as may be specified in the order, A privilege; convict must Mandatory; convict need
apply for it. not apply for it.
within 72 hours from receipt of order.

89
c. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
(Sec. 6, R.A. 9344)
[REPUBLIC ACT No. 9344, as amended by
R.A. No. 10630, and in relation to P.D. Criminal Civil
Age
603] Liability Liability
15 years of age Exempt. Subject to
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A or under at the civil
COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND time of the liability.
WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE commission of
the offense.
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
Above 15 years Exempt. Subject to
COUNCIL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF
but below 18 civil
JUSTICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS years of age liability.
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES without
(Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) discernment
Above 15 years Subject to criminal Subject to
Definition of Terms: but below 18 liability but shall civil
years of age undergo diversion liability.
Child - refers to a person under the age of with program.
eighteen (18) years (Sec. 4[e], R.A. No. 9344). discernment.
XPN:
Child at risk - refers to a child who is vulnerable Even if the same No civil
child committed a liability
to and at the risk of committing criminal offenses
crime with because no
because of personal, family and social discernment, he private
circumstances (Sec. 4[d], R.A. No. 9344). is exempted party
from criminal affected.
Child in Conflict with the Law - refers to a responsibility and
child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged no Information
as, having committed an offense under Philippine should be filed
laws (Sec. 4[e], R.A. 9344). against the child if
the offense
committed are any
Diversion - refers to an alternative, child-
of these:
appropriate process of determining the (a) status
responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict offenses;
with the law on the basis of his/her social, (b)vagrancy and
cultural, economic, psychological or educational prostitution under
background without resorting to formal court Sec. 202 of the
proceedings (Sec. 4[i], R.A. 9344). RPC;
(c) mendicancy
Intervention - refers to a series of activities under P.D. 1563;
and
which are designed to address issues that caused
(d) sniffing of
the child to commit an offense. It may take the rugby under P.D.
form of an individualized treatment program 1619. (Revised
which may include counseling, skills training, Rules on Children
education, and other activities that will enhance in Conflict of Law)
his/her psychological, emotional and psycho- At least 18 Subject to criminal Subject to
social well-being (Sec. 4[l], R.A. 9344). years of age. liability. civil
liability.

Prohibition against Labeling and Shaming

In the conduct of the proceedings beginning from

the initial contact with the child, the competent

90
authorities must refrain from branding or labeling the law has willfully failed to comply with the
children as: conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation
program.
● young criminals,
● juvenile delinquents,
If said child in conflict with the law has reached
● prostitutes or
eighteen (18) years of age while under
● attaching to them in any manner any other
suspended sentence, the court shall: (a)
derogatory names.
determine whether to discharge the child in
● Likewise, no discriminatory remarks and
accordance with this Act, to order execution of
practices shall be allowed particularly with
sentence, or (b) to extend the suspended
respect to the child’s class or ethnic origin.
sentence for a certain specified period or until the
(Sec. 60, R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No.
10630) child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one
(21) years. (Sec. 40, R.A. No. 9344)
Other Prohibited Acts
Credit in Service of Sentence – The child in
The following and any other similar acts shall be conflict with the law shall be credited in the
considered prejudicial and detrimental to the services of his/her sentence with the full time
psychological, emotional, social, spiritual, moral spent in actual commitment and detention under
and physical health and well-being of the child in this Act. (Sec. 41, R.A No. 9344)
conflict with the law and therefore, prohibited:
Probation as an Alternative to
Imprisonment – The court may, after it shall
1. Employment of threats of whatever kind and
have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict
nature;
with the law, and upon application at any time,
2. Employment of abusive, coercive and
place the child on probation in lieu of service of
punitive measures such as cursing, beating,
his/her sentence taking into account the best
stripping, and solitary confinement;
interest of the child. (Sec. 42, R.A. No. 9344)
3. Employment of degrading, inhuman end
cruel forms of punishment such as shaving
d. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10592
the heads, pouring irritating, corrosive or
harmful substances over the body of the child
AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 94,
in conflict with the law, or forcing him/her to
97, 98 AND 99 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS
walk around the community wearing signs
AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
which embarrass, humiliate, and degrade
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
his/her personality and dignity; and
4. Compelling the child to perform involuntary
This law provides for the reduction of sentence
servitude in any and all forms under any and
served by prisoners who show good behavior while
all instances. (Sec. 61, R.A. No. 9344)
serving his sentence or during preventive
imprisonment. (Art. 94, RPC as amended by Sec.
NOTE: For purposes of suspension of sentence,
2, R.A. No. 10592)
the offender’s age at the time of promulgation of
Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty
the sentence is the one considered, not his age
of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty
when he committed the crime. So, although A
(30) years. (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 10592)
was below 18 years old when he committed the
crime, but he was already 23 years old when
Computation of preventive imprisonment for
sentenced, he is no longer eligible for suspension
purposes of immediate release shall be the actual
of the sentence.
period of detention with good conduct time
allowance provided that:
Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law
a. If the accused is absent without justifiable
to Court – this is for execution of judgment. This
cause at any stage of the trial, the court may
happens when the court finds that: (a) the
motu proprio order the rearrest of the
objective of the disposition measures imposed
accused; and
upon the child in conflict with the law have not
b. Recidivists, habitual delinquents,
been fulfilled; or (b) if the child in conflict with
escapees and persons charged with

91
 heinous crimes are excluded from the
coverage of this Act. (Id.)
Revised Penal Code R.A. No. 10592
During first two years of imprisonment
5 days deduction for 20 days deduction for
each month of good each month of good
behavior behavior
During the third to fifth year of imprisonment
8 days deduction for 23 days deduction for
each month of good each month of good
behavior behavior
During the following years until the tenth year of
imprisonment
10 days deduction for 25 days deduction for
each month of good each month of good
behavior behavior
During the eleventh and successive years of his
imprisonment
15 days deduction for 30 days deduction for
each month of good each month of good
behavior behavior
At any time during imprisonment
No provision 15 days deduction for
each month of study,
teaching or mentoring
service time rendered
(Art. 97, RPC as amended by Sec. 3, R.A. No. 10592)
In addition to the one-fifth deduction if prisoners
who have evaded their preventive imprisonment
or the service of their sentence due to a calamity
like fire, earthquake, explosion, or other
catastrophes surrender within two days from
authorities’ declaration that such events are no
longer present, a deduction of two-fifths of the
period of his sentence shall be granted in case said
prisoner chose to stay in the place of his
confinement notwithstanding the existence of a
calamity or catastrophe. (Art. 98, RPC as amended
by Sec. 4, R.A. No. 10592)
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the
Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology and/or the Warden of a provincial,
district, municipal or city jail may now grant
irrevocable allowances for good conduct. (Art. 99,
RPC as amended by Sec. 5, R.A. No. 10592)
e. COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT
(under R.A. No. 11362 which took effect on
August 23, 2019)
Community service – shall consist of any actual
physical activity which inculcates civic
consciousness, and intended towards the
92
improvement of a public work or promotion of a
public service. (Art. 88a [3], RPC, as amended by Sec.
3, R.A. No. 11362)
How imposed
The court in its discretion may, in lieu of service
in jail, require that the penalties of arresto menor
and arresto mayor be served by the defendant by
rendering community service in the place where
the crime was committed:
 Under such terms as the court shall
determine.
 Taking into consideration the gravity of the
offense and the circumstances of the case,
which shall be under the supervision of a
probation officer.
 Provided, that the court will prepare an order
imposing the community service, specifying:
 The number of hours to be worked.
 The period within which to complete the
service. (Art. 88a [1], RPC, as amended by
Sec. 3, R.A. No. 11362)
Effect of violation
If the defendant violates the terms of the
community service, the court shall order his/her
re-arrest and the defendant shall serve the full
term of the penalty, as the case may be, in jail,
or in the house of the defendant as provided
under Article 88. (Art. 88a [4], RPC, as amended by
Sec. 3, R.A. No. 11362)
Effect of compliance
If the defendant has fully complied with the terms
of the community service, the court shall order
the release of the defendant unless detained for
some other offense. (Art. 88a [5], RPC, as amended
by Sec. 3, R.A. No. 11362)
Can only be availed once
The privilege of rendering community service in
lieu of service in jail shall be availed of only once.
(Art. 88a [6], RPC, as amended by Sec. 3, R.A. No.
11362)
6. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY contracts, and quasi-delicts. (People vs.
Bayotas, G.R. No. 152007, September 2, 1994)
TITLE FOUR: MODIFICATION AND
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY 2. Service of sentence

Two kinds of extinguishment of criminal Crime is a debt incurred by the offender as a

liability: consequence of his wrongful act and the
penalty is but the amount of his debt. When
A. TOTAL EXTINGUISHMENT (Art.89, RPC) payment is made, the debt is extinguished.
Service of sentence does not extinguish the
1. By the death of the convict; civil liability. (Salgado vs. C.A., G.R. No. 89606,
2. By service of the sentence; August 30, 1990)
3. By amnesty;
4. By absolute pardon; 3. Amnesty
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty; and It is an act of the sovereign power granting
7. By the marriage of the offended woman oblivion or a general pardon for a past
as provided in Art. 344. offense, and is rarely, if ever, exercised in
favor of a single individual, and is usually
B. PARTIAL EXTINGUISHMENT (Art. 94, exerted in behalf of certain classes of
RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 10592) persons, who are subject to trial but have
NOT yet been convicted. It completely
1. By conditional pardon; extinguishes the penalty and its effect but
2. By commutation of sentence; civil liability is NOT extinguished. (Brown vs.
3. For good conduct allowances which the Walker, 161 US 602)
culprit may earn while he is undergoing
preventive imprisonment or serving his 4. Absolute Pardon
sentence (as amended by R.A No. 10592)
4. By parole; and Pardon is an act of grace proceeding from the
5. By probation. power entrusted with the execution of the
laws which exempts the individual on whom
A. TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL it is bestowed from the punishment the law
LIABILITY inflicts for the crime he has committed.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2017)
1. Death of the convict
Kinds of Pardon
Death before or after final judgment –
Absolute Pardon Conditional Pardon
criminal liability is extinguished, because it is
the total extinction of the exemption of an
personal to the offender. criminal liability of the individual within certain
individual to whom it is limits or conditions from
Death before final judgment – pecuniary granted without any the punishment which
liabilities are extinguished. condition. It restores to the law inflicts for the
the individual his civil offense he had
General Rule: Death of the accused and political rights and committed resulting in
pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes remits the penalty the partial extinction of
his criminal liability as well as civil liability imposed for the his criminal liability. (Id.)
particular offense of
based solely on the offense committed.
which he was convicted.
(People vs. Alison, G.R. No. L–30612, April 27,
(Id.)
1972)

Exception: if the claim for civil liability is

predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-

93
 Pardon vs. Amnesty the government learns of the commission of the
crime.
PARDON AMNESTY
Includes any crime and is A blanket pardon to Difference between Prescription of Crime
exercised individually by classes of persons or and Prescription of Penalty
the President. communities who may
be guilty of political PRESCRIPTION OF PRESCRIPTION OF
offenses. CRIME PENALTY
Exercised when the May be exercised even Forfeiture of the State to Forfeiture to execute the
person is already before trial or prosecute after a lapse final sentence after the
convicted. investigation. of a certain time. lapse of a certain time.
Merely looks forward and Looks backward and
relieves the offender abolishes and puts into
from the consequences oblivion the offense
of an offense of which he itself; it so overlooks and Question: When is prescription
has been convicted; it obliterates the offense interrupted?
does not work for the with which he is charged
restoration of the public that the person released Answer: When proceedings are instituted
rights to hold public by amnesty stands against the guilty party, and shall begin to run
office or the right of before the law precisely again if the proceedings are dismissed for
suffrage, UNLESS as though he had reasons not constituting jeopardy. (Sec. 2, Act No.
expressly restored by the committed no offense. 3326)
terms of pardon.
Private act of the Public act of which the Prescription of crimes:
President, must be courts should take
pleaded and proved by judicial notice.
a. 20 years crimes punishable by death,
the person pardoned.
Does NOT extinguish the Does NOT extinguish the
reclusion perpetua and
civil liability of the civil liability of the reclusion temporal
offender. offender. b. 15 years crimes punishable by other
(Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer: Volume I, 2019, afflictive penalty
p.440) c. 10 years crimes punishable by
correctional penalty
5. Prescription of the crime d. 5 years crimes punishable by arresto
mayor
It is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the e. 1 year crimes of libel or other similar
State to prosecute the offender after the offenses
lapse of a certain time. (Art. 90, RPC) f. 6 months oral defamation and slander by
deed offenses;
ARTICLE 90 i. 6 months – grave
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME slander
ii. 2 months – simple
Definition: The forfeiture or loss of the right of slander
the State to prosecute the offender, after the
g. 2 months light offenses
lapse of a certain period of time.
h. Crimes punishable by fines
i. 15 years – if it is afflictive
● Based on the penalty prescribed by the RPC.
ii. 10 years – if it is correctional
● In computing the period, first day is excluded,
iii. 2 years – if it is light
and last day included.
6. Prescription of the penalty
General Rule: Prescription of the crime begins It is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the
on the day the crime was committed. Government to execute the final sentence
after the lapse of a certain time.
Exception: The crime was concealed, in which
case, the prescription thereof would only
commence from the time the offended party or

94
 Requisites:
1. That there be final judgment; and
2. That the period of time prescribed by law
for its enforcement has elapsed. (Reyes,
supra)
7. Marriage of the offended woman, as
provided in Article 344 of this Code
Marriage of the offender with the offended
woman after the commission of any of the
crimes of rape, seduction, abduction or acts
of lasciviousness, as provided in Art. 344,
must be contracted by the offender in good
faith. Marriage contracted only to avoid
criminal liability is devoid of legal effects.
(People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 27972, October 81,
1927)
B. PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
1. Conditional Pardon
Two Kinds of Pardon
1. Absolute Pardon
An act of grace, proceeding from the power
entrusted with the execution of the laws.
Exempts the individual from the penalty of the
crime he has committed.
Effect of pardon on appointed public
officer:
a. Absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle
the convict to reinstatement to the public
office forfeited by reason of his conviction.
b. Although pardon restores his eligibility for
appointment to that office, the pardoned
convict must reapply for a new appointment.
(Monsanto vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, February
9, 1989)
Effect of pardon by the offended party:
A pardon of the offended party does not
extinguish criminal action except as provided in
Art. 344 of the RPC; but civil liability with regard
to the interest of the injured party is extinguished
by his express waiver. (Article 23, RPC)
2. Conditional Pardon
If delivered and accepted, it is a contract between
the executive and the convict that the former will
release the latter upon compliance with the
condition. One usual condition is “not again
violate any of the penal laws of the country.”
Any person who has been granted conditional
pardon shall incur the obligation of complying
strictly with the conditions imposed therein.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 2006,
p.867)
Effects of Pardon of the President:
a. A pardon shall not restore the right to hold
public office or the right of suffrage.
Exception: When any or both such rights is or
are expressly restored by the terms of the
pardon.
b. It shall not exempt the culprit from the
payment of the civil indemnity. The pardon
cannot make an exception to this rule.
2. Commutation of Service
Specific cases where commutation is
provided for by the Code:
a. When the convict sentenced to death is over
70 years of age.
b. When eight justices of the Supreme Court fail
to reach a decision for the affirmance of
death penalty.
In either case, the degree of the penalty is
reduced from death to reclusion perpetua. In
commutation of sentence, consent of the
offender is not necessary.
The commutation of the original sentence for
another of a different length and nature shall
have the legal effect of substituting the latter in
the place of the former. (Art. 96, RPC)
3. Allowance for Good Conduct (Art. 97)
The good conduct of any offender qualified for
credit for preventive imprisonment, or of any
convicted prisoner in any penal institution,
rehabilitation or detention center or any other
95
local jail shall entitle him to the following 7. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES
deductions from the period of his sentence:
CIVIL LIABILITY OF A PERSON GUILTY OF
Years of Allowed Deduction FELONY
Imprisonment (for each month of
good behavior during Every person criminally liable for a felony is
detention) also civilly liable. (Art. 100, RPC)
1. During the first 2 20 days
years
Civil liability ex–delicto means that every
2. During the 3rd to 5th 23 days
year person criminally liable is also civilly liable, crime
3. During the following 25 days being one of the five sources of obligation under
years until the 10th the Civil Code. However, if a person is acquitted
year (6th to 10th) from a criminal charge, it does not mean that he
4. During the 11th and 30 days is civilly free also because quantum of proof
successive years required in criminal prosecution is beyond
5. At any time during another deduction of reasonable doubt whereas, in civil liability, it is
the period of 15 days (in addition to merely preponderance of evidence. (People vs.
imprisonment No. 1-4), for each Raga, G.R. No. 211166, June 5, 2017)
month of study,
teaching or mentoring Civil indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity
service time rendered
authorized in our criminal law for the offended
(Art 97, RPC, as amended by R.A No. 10592) party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing
judicial policy and apart from other proven actual
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him damages, which itself is equivalent to actual or
of entitlement to the above allowances for good
compensatory damages in civil law. (People vs.
conduct. Jugueta, G.R. No 202124, April 5, 2016)

Special Time Allowance for Loyalty (Art. Exceptions:

98)
A deduction of one fifth (1/5) of the period of
his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner
who, having evaded his preventive imprisonment
or the service of his sentence mentioned in Art.
158 of the RPC, gives himself up to the authorities
within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation announcing the passing away of the
calamity or catastrophe.
A deduction of two-fifths (2/5) shall be
granted if the said prisoner chose to stay in the
place of confinement notwithstanding the
existence of calamity or catastrophe.
Who grants allowances for good conduct:
1. Director of the Bureau of Corrections;
2. Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology; and
3. Warden of provincial, district, municipal, or
city jail.
1. Victimless crimes; and
2. Flight to enemy country. (Estrada, Criminal Law
Book One, 2011)
Effect of acquittal – extinction of the penal
action does not carry with it extinction of the civil,
unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration
in a final judgment that the fact from which civil
liability might arise did not exist. (Sec. 1, Rule 111,
2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure)
Effect of dismissal of case – the dismissal of
the information or the criminal action does not
affect the right of the offended party to institute
or continue the civil action already instituted
arising from the offense, because such dismissal
or extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it the extinction of the civil action. (Estrada,
supra)
Effect of death of the offender – if the
offender dies prior to the institution of the action
or prior to the finality of judgment, civil liability
ex–delicto is extinguished. (De Guzman vs. People,
G.R. No. 154579, October 8, 2003)

96
Question: What is the rule if the offender is
acquitted, insofar as the civil liability is
concerned?
Answer: As a general rule, once the offender
is acquitted, the civil liability is extinguished.
Exceptions:
1. When the civil action is based on obligations
not arising from the act complained of as
felony;
2. Where the court states in its judgment that
the case merely involves a civil obligation;
3. If the ground of the acquittal is that the guilt
has not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. (Art. 29, NCC)
4. Acquittal is due to exempting circumstances in
favor of an:
o Imbecile or;
o Insane person and;
o A person under 15 years of age, or those
over 15 but under 18, who has acted
without discernment;
o Those acting under the compulsion of an
irresistible force or under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater
injury.
5. When the court finds and states in its
judgment that there is only civil responsibility;
(Art. 101, RPC) and
6. When civil liability arises from other sources of
obligations. (De Guzman vs. Alva, 51 O.G. 1311)
7. Where the civil liability is not derived or based
on the criminal act of which the accused is
acquitted. (Sapiera vs. CA, G.R. No. 128927,
September 14, 1999)
8. In cases of independent civil actions. (Art. 31,
32, 33 and 34, NCC)
People vs. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007,
September 2, 1994 (BAYOTAS DOCTRINE)
● Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon.
● The claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the
same may also be predicated on a source of
survives notwithstanding the death of
accused, if the same may also be obligation
other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code
enumerates these other sources of obligation
from which the civil liability may arise as a
result of the same act or omission.
● Where the civil liability survives, an action for
recovery therefor may be pursued but only by
way of filing a separate civil action and subject
to Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended.
This separate civil action may be enforced
either against the executor/ administrator or
the estate of the accused, depending on the
source of obligation upon which the same is
based as explained above.
● The private offended party need not fear a
forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil
action by prescription, in cases where during
the prosecution of the criminal action and
prior to its extinction, the private-offended
party instituted together therewith the civil
action. In such case, the statute of limitations
on the civil liability is deemed interrupted
during the pendency of the criminal case,
conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of
the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any
apprehension on a possible privation of right
by prescription.
RULES REGARDING CIVIL LIABILITY IN
CERTAIN CASES
Civil liability of persons exempts from
criminal liability:
1. Persons who have legal authority, custody or
control of an imbecile or insane person or
minor (under 9 or over 9 but below 15 years
of age who acted without discernment) are
primarily liable to pay the civil liability for acts
committed by the latter if said persons are at
fault or negligent. (Art. 101, Art. 12, RPC)
NOTE: RA 9344 provides that a minor 15
years of age and below is exempt from
criminal liability whether he acted with or
without discernment.
If there was no fault or negligence on their
part, or if there was fault or negligence but
are insolvent, the insane, imbecile or the
minor shall be answerable with their own
property not exempt from execution.
2. Civil liability of minor who acts with
discernment devolve upon the parents. (PD
603)
97
3. In the case of state of necessity (Art. 11, par.
4), the ones benefited shall proportionately
shoulder the civil liability.
4. In cases falling under subdivisions 5 and 6 of
Art.12, the persons who used violence or
caused fear shall be primarily and secondarily
liable. If there be no such persons, the
person doing the act shall be liable. (Art. 101,
RPC)
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS,
TAVERNKEEPERS, AND PROPRIETORS OF
ESTABLISHMENTS
In default of the persons criminally liable,
innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other
persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for
crimes committed in their establishments, in all
cases where a violation of municipal ordinances
or some general or special police regulation shall
have been committed by them or their
employees. (Art. 102, RPC: Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book One, 2006, p.901)
Elements:
1. That the innkeeper, tavernkeeper or
proprietor of establishment or his employee
committed a violation of municipal ordinance
or some general or special police regulation;
2. That the crime is committed in such inn,
tavern, or establishment; and
3. That the person criminally liable is insolvent.
(Id.)
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER
PERSONS
The subsidiary liability established in Art. 102
shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons,
and corporations engaged in any kind of industry
for felonies committed by their servants, pupils,
workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
discharge of their duties. (Art. 103, RPC)
Elements:
1. The employer, teacher, person, or
corporation is engaged in any kind of
industry;
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees commits a felony
while in the discharge of this duties; and
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not
satisfied his civil liability. (Reyes, supra)
98
Subsidiary liability of the employer arises only
after the conviction of the employee in the
criminal action. (Estrada, supra)
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN CIVIL LIABILITY
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of damaged caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
(Art. 104, RPC)
Restitution
Restitution of the thing itself must be made
whenever possible even when found in the
possession of a third person except when
acquired by such person in any manner under the
requirements which, by law, bar an action for
recovery. (Reyes, supra)
Reparation of Damages
Reparation will be ordered by the court if
Restitution is not possible. The court shall
determine the amount of damage, taking into
consideration the price of the thing, whenever
possible, and its special sentimental value to the
injured party. (Id.)
If there is no evidence as to the value of the thing
unrecovered, reparation cannot be made.
(Francisco vs. People, G.R. No. 146584, July 12, 2004)
Example:
An attacked B with a piece of wood and hit him
several times. B was injured and his watch valued
at Php 6,000 was destroyed. In addition to his
criminal liability if found guilty, a shall also pay for
the destroyed watch. This is reparation of the
damage caused.
In cases of physical injuries, the accused shall pay
the hospital bills and doctor’s fees to the offended
party. Reparation can be required only from the
accused. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011 in
relation to Art. 106 of RPC)
Indemnification for Damages
This includes not only those caused by the injured
party, but also, those suffered by his family or by
a third person by reason of the crime. (Reyes,
supra)
Reparation of and indemnification for damages
may be obtained only from the accused and his
heirs. (Id.)
The action to demand restoration, reparation,
and indemnification likewise descends to the
heirs of the person injured. (Id.)
In a crime punished by perpetual or temporary
disqualification, the court is empowered to order
reinstatement because had he been found guilty,
he would, aside from imprisonment, suffer the
additional penalty of special perpetual
disqualification. (People vs. Consigna, G.R. No. L-
18087, August 31,1965)
Damages for loss of earning capacity, Life
expectancy (LE) and Net Earning Capacity
(NEC)
LE is equivalent to 2/3 the difference of 80 and
the age of the deceased.
LE = 2/3 x [80 – age at the time of death]
NEC is the remainder if the gross annual income
(GAI) is reduced by the necessary living expenses
(NLE) which is 50% of the GAI.
NLE = 50% x GAI
NEC = LE x NLE
Example:
Where life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 — age of
deceased [37 years])
X = 2/3 x (80 - 37) x [(P4,000.00 x 12) -
(P4,000.00 x 12)50%]
x = 2/3 x 43 x [P48,000.00 - P24,000.00]
x = [2/3 x 43] x P24,000.00
x = P28.67 x P24,000.00
x = P 688,080.00
Since Leandro Adawan was thirty-seven (37)
years old at the time of his death, his life
expectancy was 28.67 years. Considering that his
average monthly income was Php4,000.00, his
gross annual income would be Php48,000.00
using the above formula, the victim’s unearned
income would thus be Php 688,080.00. (People vs.
Bangcado, G.R. No. 132330, November 28, 2000)
EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Civil liability is extinguished:
1. By payment or performance;
2. By condonation or remission of the debt;
3. By confusion or merger of the rights of the
creditor or debtor;
4. By compensation;
5. By novation; and
6. Other causes of extinguishment of
obligations, such as annulment, rescission,
fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and
prescription. (Art. 112, RPC; Art. 1231, NCC)
NOTE: Civil liability in criminal cases is not
extinguished by the loss of the thing due because
reparation will be ordered by the court in such
cases. Except as provided in Article 112, the
offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the
civil liability arising from the crime committed by
him. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book One, 2011)
OBLIGATION TO SATISFY CIVIL LIABILITY
The offender shall continue to be obliged to
satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime
committed by him, notwithstanding the fact:
1. That he has served his sentence
2. That he has not been required to serve the
same by reason of:
a. Amnesty;
b. Pardon;
c. Commutation of sentence; and
d. Any other reason. (Art. 113, RPC)
Even if the criminal liability of the offender is
totally or partially extinguished by reason of
amnesty, pardon, commutation of service of
sentence or any other reason, he is still civilly
liable. (Estrada, supra)
The grant of probation to the offender does not
extinguish civil liability. Thus, where the accused
pleaded guilty and applied for probation, that fact
does not prevent the trial court from making
pronouncement on his civil liability. (Id.)
99
II. CRIMES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL NOTE: Treason cannot be committed in time of
CODE peace. (Concurring Opinion of Justice Perfecto, Laurel
vs. Misa, G.R. No. 976, October 22, 1902)
A. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
AND LAW OF NATIONS Two Ways of Committing Treason:
(ARTICLES 114-123)
1. Levying War – requires:
ARTICLE 114 a. that there be an actual assembling of
TREASON men; and
b. for the purpose of executing a
Treason – the violation by a subject of his treasonable design by force.
allegiance to his sovereign or to the supreme
authority of the State. (US vs. Abad, G.R. No. 976, NOTES:
October 22, 1902)
● Actual arm encounter between the
Nature: Treason is a continuing crime. Even if government forces and traitors are not
the offender commits several acts of the crime he required. (Campanilla, Criminal Law, 2019, p. 2)
can only be charged with one count of Treason. ● The war must be directed against the
All such acts constitute a single offense. (Reyes, government with the intent to overthrow it
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2012, p.12) and not merely to resist a particular statute
or to repel a particular officer. (3 Wharton’s
Elements: (FA-WWE) Criminal Law, 12th Ed.)
● The levying of war must be in collaboration
1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or an Alien with a foreign enemy. (Reyes, The Revised
residing in the Philippines; Penal Code Book Two, 2011, pp. 6)
2. There is a War in which the Philippines is
involved; and 2. Adherence to the Enemies, Giving Them
3. The offender either: Aid or Comfort – an act which strengthens
a. Levies War against the Government or tends to strengthen the enemy, and
(Philippines); or weakens or tends to weaken the power of the
b. Adheres to the Enemies, giving them aid traitor’s country, in the conduct of war
or comfort within the Philippines or between them. (Cramer vs. US, 65 Sup. Ct. 918)
elsewhere (intent to betray).
The expression includes furnishing the enemy
Allegiance – is meant the obligation of fidelity with arms, troops, supplies, information or means
and obedience which the individuals owe to the of transportation. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
government under which they live or to their Book Two, 2017, p.6)
sovereign, in return for the protection they
receive. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, NOTES:
2017, p.3)
● Commandeering women to satisfy the lust of
Permanent Allegiance vs. Temporary the enemies is not treason. Enemy soldiers
Allegiance can fight in a war with or without sex. (People
vs. Perez, G.R. No. L-856, April 18, 1949)
PERMANENT / TEMPORARY ● Emotional or intellectual attachment or
ABSOLUTE sympathy to the enemy, without giving the
The obligation of fidelity The obligation of fidelity enemy aid or comfort, is not treason. (People
and obedience which a and obedience which a vs. Roble, G.R. No. L-433, March 2, 1949)
citizen or subject resident alien owes to
owes to his government our government. (Laurel Two Ways of Proving Treason:
or sovereign. vs. Misa, G.R. No. 976,
October 22, 1902) a) Two–witness rule – Testimony of two
witnesses, at least, to the same overt act.
It is sufficient that the witnesses are uniform
in their testimony on the overt act. It is not

100
 necessary that there be corroboration
between them. (People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No.
L–1553, October 25, 1949)
NOTES:
● If the overt act is separable, two witness
to must also testify to each part of the
overt act for conviction. (People vs.
Adrriano, G.R. No. L4-77, June 30, 1947)
● Adherence to the enemy need not be
proved by two witnesses. What is
designed in the mind of an accused never
is susceptible of proof by direct
testimony. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p. 13)
● Adherence may be proved: (1) by one
witness, (2) from the nature of the act
itself, or (3) from the circumstances
surrounding the act. (Cramer vs. U.S.,
supra, People vs. Canibas, G.R. No. L-2193,
February 1, 1950)
b) Confession of guilt by the accused in
open court.
The confession in open court, upon which a
defendant may be convicted of treason is a
confession of guilt. The section cannot be
extended so as to include admissions of fact,
from which his guilt may be inferred, made
by the defendant in giving his testimony after
a plea of not guilty. (U.S. vs. Magtibay, G.R. No.
1317. November 23, 1903)
Defenses Allowed:
a) Duress and fear of immediate death; (People
vs. Bagalawis, G.R. No. L–262, March 29, 1947)
and
b) Obedience to a de facto government.
Defenses Not Allowed:
a) Suspended allegiance;
b) Change in sovereignty; and
c) Loss of citizenship by joining the army of the
enemy. (People vs. Manayao, G.R. No. L–322,
July 28, 1947)
Circumstances Inherent in Treason:
1. Evident premeditation
2. Superior Strength
3. Treachery
Aggravating Circumstances in Treason:
1. Cruelty
2. Ignominy
3. Gravity of separate distinct acts of treason
4. Amount or degree of aid (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p. 16)
ARTICLE 115
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
TREASON
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 or to adhere to the
enemies and to give them aid or comfort, and
decide to commit it. (Arts. 8 and 114)
Elements: (WAD)
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; and
3. They Decide to commit it.
Proposal to Commit Treason – is committed
when in time of war a person who has decided to
levy war against the Government or to adhere to
the enemies and to give them aid or comfort,
proposes its execution to some other person or
persons. (Arts. 8 and 114)
Elements: (PWD)
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.
NOTES:
● As a general rule, conspiracy and proposal
to commit a felony is not punishable (Art. 8).
Art. 115 is an exception as it specifically
penalizes conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason. The reason is that in treason the
101
 very existence of the state is endangered.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.19)
● Two-witness rule is not applicable since
the conspiracy or proposal to commit
treason is a separate and distinct offense
from the crime of treason. (U.S. vs. Bautista,
G.R. No. L-2189, November 3, 1906)
● Mere proposal even without acceptance is
punishable. If the other accepts, it is already
conspiracy.
● Mere agreement without a decision to
commit the crime is not conspiracy to
commit treason.
● Doctrine of Absorption - If actual acts of
treason are committed after the conspiracy
or proposal, the crime committed will be
treason, and the conspiracy or proposal is
considered as a means in the commission
thereof.
Conspiracy to overthrow the government
is not Proposal to Commit Treason when:
1. The person who proposes to commit treason
is not decided to commit the felony;
2. There is no decided concrete proposal;
3. It is not the execution of treason that is
proposed.
ARTICLE 116
MISPRISION OF TREASON
Misprision of treason - a Filipino citizen obtains
knowledge of conspiracy to commit treason
against the government but he conceals or does
not disclose and make known such matters to
proper authorities.
Nature: Misprision of treason is a felony by
omission. It is committed by the failure to do an
act required by law. However, it is committed by
means of dolo or intent. Note the words “he
conceals or does not disclose and make known
his knowledge” x x x as soon as possible. The
offender shall be punished as an accessory to
the crime of treason.
Elements: (KFC)
1. Offender is a Filipino citizen;
2. He has Knowledge of any conspiracy to
commit treason against the government; and
102
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.
NOTES:
● It does not apply when treason is already
committed and the accused does not report its
commission. It speaks of “knowledge of any
conspiracy” against the government, not
knowledge of treason actually committed.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.20)
● The report can be made to any person in
authority having equivalent jurisdiction a
public authority is a person in authority. (Art.
152)
● A priest who heard the confession of a person
who conspired with others to commit treason
shall not be liable under Art. 116.
● The penalty imposed is that of an accessory to
the crime of treason but the offender is a
principal in the crime of misprision of treason.
Misprision of treason is a separate and distinct
offense from the crime of treason. (Ibid.)
● Art. 116 is an exception to the rule that
mere silence does not make a person
criminally liable. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.21)
● When there is conspiracy to overthrow the
government, the crime committed is
conspiracy to commit rebellion. This is so
because there is no war. If a person who
knows the conspiracy to commit rebellion and
does not report it to the authorities, he is not
liable for misprision of rebellion because there
is no such crime.
● If Treason had been committed and the
person having knowledge of such commission
concealed and did not disclose such
knowledge to the authorities, the crime is not
committed. In other words, failure to report
knowledge of Treason already committed is
not a crime.
● Relationship is not exempting. Even if the
conspirators in treason are parents, children,
or relatives, the one comes to know about the
conspiracy is still mandated by law to report
it. Love of country is superior to blood
relationship. This exempting circumstance
under Art. 20 of the RPC does not apply to
Misprision of Treason because the law applies
 only to accessories of the crime. The accused
in Misprision of Treason are considered
principals and not accessories.
ARTICLE 117
ESPIONAGE
Espionage – the offense of gathering
transmitting, or losing information respecting the
national defense with intent or reason to believe
that the information is to be used to the injury of
the Republic of the Philippines or to the
advantage of any foreign nation. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.22)
Nature: Espionage is a formal crime. There is no
crime such as attempted espionage or frustrated
espionage.
Two ways of committing espionage:
1. By any person who, without authority
therefor, shall enter 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 Philippines.
Elements: (WON)
a. The offender enters a Warship, fort, or
naval or military establishment or
reservation;
b. He has No authority therefor; and
c. The purpose of entry is to Obtain
information, plans, photographs, or other
data of a confidential nature relative to
the defense of Philippines.
2. By a public officer, who shall disclose to a
representative of a foreign nation the
contents of articles, data or information of a
confidential nature relative to the defense of
the Philippines, which is in his possession by
reason of his office.
Elements: (P2D)
a. The offender is a Public officer;
b. He has in his Possession the articles, data
or information referred to Art. 117(1), by
reason of the public office he holds; and
c. He Discloses their contents to a
representative of a foreign nation.
NOTES:
● Espionage can be committed in times of war
and in times of peace as Sec. 2 of Act No. 616,
which punishes Espionage and other offenses
against the National Security provides: “If
committed in time of war, the penalty is death
(now RP to death) or imprisonment for more
than 30 years.”
● Espionage in the first mode is consummated
by entering any of the enumerated
establishment as long as the purpose of the
offender is to obtain any of those materials
which are vital to the defense of the country.
● It is not necessary that information have been
obtained. It is sufficient that he has the
intention to obtain information when he
entered a warship, fort, or naval or military
establishment.
● The concept of espionage may be embraced
within the legal contemplation of treason.
Disclosing confidential military information by
a public officer to a representative of a foreign
nation is espionage. But disclosing such
information in adherence to an enemy in times
of war constitutes treason and not espionage.
(Campanilla, Criminal Law, 2019, pp. 8-9)
Other acts of espionage under CA 616 (An
act to punish espionage and other offenses
against national security)
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 the above
acts
6. Harboring or concealing violators of the law
If the offender is not the custodian of the
documents mentioned in the second mode of
Espionage, the crime to be charged would be
Violation under CA 616 if he discloses
information relative to the defense of the country.
If the information disclosed to a representative of
a foreign nation does not relate to the defense of
the Philippines and the offender is the custodian
thereof, he is liable for Infidelity in the
Custody of Public Records. (Chapter Five,
Section Two, RPC)
103
 Espionage vs. Treason
Espionage Treason
(Art. 117) (Art. 114)
As to citizenship
Both crimes are not conditioned by the citizenship of
the offender.
As to time of commission
May be committed both in Committed only in time of
time of peace and in war. war.
As to manner of commission
May be committed in Committed in two ways:
many ways. (1) levying war and (2)
adhering to enemies,
giving them aid or
comfort.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.26-27)
ARTICLE 118
INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES
FOR REPRISALS
Inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals – is committed by any public officer or
employee or any private individual who by
unlawful or unauthorized acts, provokes or gives
occasion for a war involving or liable to involve
the Philippine or exposes Filipino citizens to
reprisals on their persons of property.
Elements: (PPE)
1. That the offender Performs unlawful or
unauthorized acts;
2. That such acts:
a. Provoke or give occasion for a war
involving or liable to invoke the
Philippines; or
b. Expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on
their persons or property.
NOTES:
● Intention of offender is immaterial. The law
considers the effects produced by the acts of
the accused. Such acts might disturb the
friendly relation that we have with a foreign
country, and they are penalized even if they
constitute a mere imprudence. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.28)
● Crime is committed in times of peace. (Ibid.)
● In inciting to war, the offender can be any
person. If the offender is a public officer, the
penalty shall be higher. (Art. 118)
104
● Reprisals are not limited to military action, it
could be economic reprisals, or denial of
entry into their country.
ARTICLE 119
VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
Elements: (NRV)
1. That there is a war in which Philippines is Not
involved;
2. That there is a Regulation issued by
competent authority for the purpose of
enforcing neutrality; and
3. That the offender Violates such regulation.
NOTES:
● Neutrality is a state where a nation or power
takes no part in a contest of arms going on
between others. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.29)
● There must be a regulation issued by a
competent authority (President or the Chief
of Staff of the AFP) for the enforcement of
neutrality. It is the violation of such
regulation which constitutes the crime.
(Ibid.)
ARTICLE 120
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE
COUNTRY
Elements: (WC-CPU)
1. That it is made in time of War in which the
Philippines is involved;
2. That the offender makes Correspondence
with an enemy country or territory occupied
by enemy troops; and
3. That 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.
Correspondence – a communication by means
of letters, or it may refer to the letters which pass
between those who have friendly or business
relations. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.30)
Circumstances qualifying the offense - The
following must concur:
1. That the notice or information might be
useful to the enemy.
2. That the offender intended to aid the enemy.
(Ibid.)
NOTES:
● If the offender intended to aid the enemy by
giving such notice or information, the crime
amounts to treason, hence, the penalty is
the same as that of treason.
● Even if correspondence contains innocent
matters, if the correspondence has been
prohibited by the government, it is
punishable. Reason: Because of the
possibility that some information useful to
the enemy might be revealed unwittingly.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.30)
● Prohibition by the Government is not
necessary if: (a) The correspondence was
carried on in ciphers or (2) The
correspondence contains notice or
information which might be useful to the
enemy. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 121
FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY
Nature: This is a formal crime. There is no
attempted nor frustrated stage. The crime is
consummated by mere attempt.
Elements: (WAAP)
1. There is War in which the Philippines is
involved;
2. The offender owes Allegiance to the
government;
3. The offender Attempts to flee or go to an
enemy country; and
4. Going to the enemy country is Prohibited by
competent authority.
NOTES:
● An alien resident may be guilty, under this
provision. Hence, allegiance under this
article may either be permanent or
temporary. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.31)
● Mere attempt, regardless of the intent or
reason, to go to enemy country
consummates the crime. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 122
PIRACY
Piracy – it is the crime committed by any person
who, on the high seas or in Philippine waters,
shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a.
Member of its complement nor a passenger, shall
seize the whole or part o the cargo of the said
vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of
its complement or passengers.
Under P.D. 532, piracy is an attack on a vessel
on the high seas by any person including its
complement or passengers for the same
purposes.
Two Ways/Modes of Committing Piracy:
1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high
seas or in Philippine waters; and
2. By seizing in the vessel while on the high seas
or in the Philippine waters the whole or part
of its cargo, its equipment, or personal
belongings or its complement or passengers.
Three kinds of Piracy:
1. Piracy in the high or open seas (RPC);
2. Piracy in the Philippine waters (P.D. No. 532
as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the Heinous
Crime Law);
3. Air Piracy (under R.A. No. 6235)
Definition of High Seas
It refers to the body of water outside of the
territorial waters of the Philippines, even if such
is within the territorial waters of another country.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.33)
Complement – the full number of officers and
crew needed to man a ship.
Elements of piracy: (VANS)
1. Vessel is on high seas or Philippine waters;
2. The offenders are Not members of its
complement or passengers of the vessel;
3. The offender’s either
105
 a. Attack or seize the vessel; or Even passengers and Can only be committed by
b. Seize the whole or part of the cargo, or members of the outsiders or strangers, not
its equipment, or personal belongings of complement can member of the complement
the crew or passengers. commit it. or passengers.

Qualifying circumstances
Mutiny - is the unlawful resistance to a superior
(Qualified Piracy)
officer, or the raising of commotions and
disturbances on board a ship against the 1. Seizing by firing 1. Seizing a vessel by
authority of its commander. (Bouvier’s Law upon or boarding a boarding or firing upon
Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 2283). vessel; it;
2. Abandoning the 2. Abandoning victims
NOTE: There is a crime called qualified mutiny. victims without without means of
Art. 123 specifies that it covers “any of the crimes means of saving saving themselves;
themselves; 3. Accompanied by
referred to in the preceding article.” Although the
3. Rape, murder, murder, homicide,
title of the article specifies “qualified piracy”, homicide, physical physical injuries, or
since its text refers to both piracy and mutiny, the injuries or other rape.
text should prevail. crimes as a result
or on the occasion
Piracy vs. Mutiny of piracy.

Abettors
Piracy under RPC Mutiny
Accomplices Accessories
As to place of commission
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
Either in Philippine waters or on the high seas. p.36-37)
As to the offenders
Note: The Anti-Heinous Crime Law widened the
The person who attack a Committed by members coverage of Art. 122 to include the offenses
vessel or seize its cargo of the crew or committed in “Philippine waters.”. (Sec. 3, R.A.
are strangers to the passengers. No. 7659)
vessels.

As to intention
Acts punished under RA 6235 Anti-
Hijacking Law:
Intent to gain is The offenders may only
essential. intend to ignore the ship’s 1. Compelling the pilot of an aircraft of
officers or they may be Philippine registry to change course or
prompted by a desire to destination or otherwise usurping or seizing
commit plunder. control while it is in flight.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.34) The aircraft is “in flight” when all the exterior
doors thereof are closed following the
Piracy under PD 532 vs. Piracy under RPC embarkation until opened for disembarkation
(although it has not moved away).
Piracy under Piracy under
P.D. 532 RPC 2. Compelling an aircraft of foreign registry to
land in any part of Philippine territory or
As to place of commission usurping or seizing control of such, while it is
within Philippine territory. (There is no
Punishes piracy Punishes piracy committed
committed within aboard a vessel either in the requirement that it be in flight.)
Philippine waters only. high seas or Philippine
waters. In usurping control, it is not required that the
aircraft be a public utility.
As to the person of offenders

106
3. Carrying or loading on board a passenger
aircraft operating as a public utility in the
Philippines, substances which are corrosive,
flammable, explosive, or poisonous.
Here, mere carrying or loading of explosive,
corrosive, etc., brings about criminal liability.
4. Shipping or loading such substances
(referred in No. 3 above) on a cargo aircraft
operating as a public utility in the Philippines
in a manner not in accordance with the rules
and regulations issued by the Air
Transportation Office (ATO).
What is penalized here is carrying substances
mentioned in No. 3 above not in accordance
with the rules and regulations issued by ATO.
Qualifying Circumstances
(applicable only on Crimes Mentioned in No. 1
and 2 under Anti Hijacking Law.)
1. Firing upon the pilot, crew, or passenger;
2. Exploding or attempting to explode any bomb
or explosive to destroy the aircraft; or
3. The crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, serious physical injuries, or rape.
● If there is lack of evidence of conspiracy,
the liability is that of an accomplice and
not as principal (People vs. Tolentino, G.
R. No. L-29419. August 31, 1971). Any
doubt as to the participation of an
individual in the commission of crime is
always resolved in favor of lesser
responsibility. (People vs. Corbes, G.R.
No. 113470, March 26, 1997).
Abetting Piracy (PD 532) – it is the crime
committed by any person who:
1. Gives pirates information about the
movement of peace officers of the
government;
2. Acquires or receives property taken by the
pirates or devices any benefit from it;
3. Directly or indirectly abets the commission
thereof.
Nature: Lack of knowledge that the item came
from piracy is a defense.
(See further discussion under Art. 294, p. 201)
ARTICLE 123
QUALIFIED PIRACY
Qualifying Circumstances: (BAMPiHRa)
1. Whenever the offenders have seized a vessel
by Boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have Abandoned their
victims without means of saving themselves;
or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by
Murder, Homicide, Physical injuries, or
Rape.
NOTES:
● Any circumstances mentioned under Art. 123
will give rise to the crime Qualified Piracy
(take note of the word “or”).
● It is qualified piracy when the crime was
accompanied by rape and the offenders
abandoned their victims without means of
saving themselves. The crime falls under the
Art. 153(1) (now Art. 122) of the RPC in
relation to Art. 154 (now Art. 123). There are
present at least two of the circumstances
named in the last cited article as authorizing
either cadena perpetua or death. The crime
of piracy was accompanied by (1) an offense
against chastity and (2) the abandonment of
persons without apparent means of saving
themselves. (People vs. Lol-lo, G.R. No. 17958,
February 27, 1922)
Qualified piracy is a special complex crime
regardless of the number of victims. The number
of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not
material. P.D. No. 532 considers qualified piracy,
i.e. rape, murder or homicide is committed as a
result or on the occasion of piracy, as a special
complex crime punishable by death regardless of
the number of victims. (People vs. Siyoh, G.R. No.
L-57292 February 18, 1986)
B. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL
LAWS OF THE STATE
(ARTICLES 124-133)
Offender: the public officers except as to the last
crime under Art. 133 – Offending Religious
Feelings.
107
Classes of Arbitrary Detention:
1. Arbitrary detention by detaining a person with
legal ground. (Art. 124)
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to
the proper judicial authorities. (Art. 125)
3. Delaying release. (Art. 126)
NOTE: All classes have the same penalties, as
provided in Art. 124.
ARTICLE 124
ARBITRARY DETENTION
Elements: (PWD)
1. Offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. He Detains a person; and
3. Detention is Without legal grounds.
Legal Grounds for Detention:
1. Commission of a crime
2. Violent insanity
3. Any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital.
Detention – the actual confinement of a person
in an enclosure or in any manner detaining and
depriving him of his liberty. (People vs. Flores, G.R.
No. 116488, May 31, 2001)
NOTES:
 In arbitrary detention, the public officer
must arrest a criminal suspect in pursuit of
his authority to make arrest. The element of
in pursuit of his duty to arrest is present if
the purpose of the arrest is:
 to deliver the suspect to judicial
authority;
 to conduct criminal investigation; or
 to determine if he committed the crime.
(Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer vol 2,
2018, pp. 16-17)
 Arrest without warrant is the usual cause of
arbitrary detention. However, arrest without
warrant is lawful:
 When in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
108
committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense;
 When an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of
facts and circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and
 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 temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from
one confine to another. (Rule 113, Sec. 5,
ROC)
 The law does not fix any minimum period of
detention. Arbitrary detention may be less
than half an hour. (U.S. vs. Braganza, G.R. No.
L-3971, February 3, 1908) or one hour. (U.S. vs.
Agravante, G.R. No. L-3947, January 28, 1908)
 The crime of arbitrary detention can be
committed through imprudence. The
offender is guilty of arbitrary detention
through simple imprudence provided for and
punished under Art. 365(2), of the RPC, in
connection with Article 124(1), of the same
Code. (People vs. Misa, C.A., 36 O.G. 3496)
Arbitrary detention vs. Kidnapping and
Illegal detention
Arbitrary detention Kidnapping and
(Art. 124) Illegal detention (Art.
267/268)
As to classification
Crime against the Crime against personal
fundamental law of the liberty.
state.
As to offender
Offender must be a public Offender must be a
officer vested with private person.
authority to arrest and
detain a person. Note: Public officers who
are not vested with
Note: Private individuals authority to detain or
who conspire with public order the detention of
officers can be held liable persons accused of a
as principals in the crime crime or exceed their
of arbitrary detention. authority may be liable
(People vs. Camerino, for illegal detention
CA-G.R. No. 14207-R, because they are acting
December 14, 1956) in their private capacity.
 Arbitrary detention vs. Unlawful arrest
Arbitrary detention Unlawful arrest
(Art. 124) (Art. 269)
As to classification
Crime against the Crime against personal
fundamental law of the liberty.
state.
As to offender
The offender must be a The offender may be
public officer vested with
either a private individual
authority to arrest and or public officer without
detain a person. (Reyes,authority to arrest and
The Revised Penal Code: detain a person or who did
Book Two, 2017, p.613) not act in his official
capacity. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.613)
As to manner of commission
Detains a person without Offender arrests or detains
lawful cause. another person without
reasonable grounds for the
purpose of delivering him
to the proper authorities.
Arbitrary detention vs. Delay in Delivery
Arbitrary detention Delay in Delivery (Art.
(Art. 124) 125)
As to when detention becomes illegal
The detention is illegal The detention is legal in
from the beginning. the beginning but the
illegality of the detention
starts from the expiration
of any of the periods of
time specified in Art. 125,
without the person
detained having been
delivered to the proper
judicial authority.
ARTICLE 125
DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED
PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL
AUTHORITIES
Nature: This is a felony by omission. It is
committed by the failure to perform a duty
required by law.
Elements: (PDF)
1. Offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. He Detained a person for some legal ground;
and
3. He Fails to deliver such person to the proper
judicial authorities within:
a. twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent;
b. eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent; or
c. thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties, or their equivalent.
NOTES:
● If the offender is a private person, the crime
is illegal detention. (Art. 267 or Art. 268) The
periods of time in Art. 125 were applied to
the arrests made by a private person. (People
vs. Sali, 50 O.G. 5676)
● Delivery to Proper Authorities means
the filling of the correct information with the
proper court or constructive delivery; 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. (Sayo
vs. Chief of Police of Manila, G.R. No. L–2128,
May 12, 1948)
● Proper Judicial Authority includes the
courts of justice or judges vested with
judicial power to order temporary detention
or confinement of a person charged with
having committed a public offense, that is,
the Supreme Court and other lower courts
established by law. (Agbay vs. Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military, G.R. No. 134503,
July 2, 1999)
109
● City Fiscal is not a judicial entity or authority
because he cannot issue a warrant of arrest.
(Sayo vs. Chief of Police of Manila, G.R. No. L-
2128, May 12, 1948)
● To be held liable for delay in the delivery of
detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities under Art. 125, the offended
party must be detained for some legal
ground. If the police officer detained him
without legal grounds, the crime committed
is arbitrary detention under Art. 124.
(Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer Vol. 2, 2018,
pp. 18)
An election day or a special holiday should
not be included in the computation of the
period prescribed by Art. 125 for the filing of
complaint or information in courts in cases
of warrantless arrests, it being a “no-office
day”. (Soria vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 153524-25,
January 31, 2005)
● A person arrested with legal ground has the
right not to be detained beyond the period
stated in Art. 125, however, such right can
be waived under RA 7438 (Custodial
Investigation Law). If the waiver is valid,
apprehending officer cannot be held liable
even though the person arrested has been
detained beyond the period stated in Art.
125. If the waiver is invalid, apprehending
officer may be held liable unless he honestly
believed that the waiver is valid.
● Art. 125 applies only to a valid warrantless
arrest. If the arrest is made with a warrant
of arrest, the person arrested can be
detained indefinitely until his case is decided
by the court or he posts bail for his
temporary release. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.55)
ARTICLE 126
DELAYING RELEASE
Punishable Acts: (PSP)
1. By delaying the Performance of a judicial or
executive order for the release of a prisoner;
2. By unduly delaying the Service of the notice
of such order to said prisoner; or
3. By unduly delaying the Proceedings upon any
petition for the liberation of such person.
110
NOTE: Wardens and jailers are the persons most
likely to violate this provision.
Elements: (PJD-SPP)
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; and
3. The offender without good reason Delays
either:
a. Service of the notice of such order to the
prisoner; or
b. Performance of such judicial or executive
order for the release of a prisoner; or
c. Proceedings upon a petition for the
release of such person.
ARTICLE 127
EXPULSION
Punishable Acts:
1. By expelling a person from the Philippines; or
2. By compelling a person to change his
residence.
Elements: (CPEN)
1. Offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. He Expels any person from the Philippines, or
Compels a person to change his residence;
and
3. He is Not authorized to do so by law.
Note: Only the court by a final judgment can
order a person to change his residence. This can
be illustrated by:
1. ejectment proceedings;
2. expropriation proceedings;
3. penalty of destierro;
4. case of conviction for the commission of a
crime involving deprivation of liberty;
5. grant of probation under the Probation Law
of 1976 ;
6. grant of temporary or permanent protection
where change of residence is one of the
conditions imposed by the court; or
7. case of release on parole of a prisoner under
the Indeterminate Sentence Law where one
of the conditions for his release is change of
residence.
Hence, the Mayor and the Chief of Police of
Manila cannot force the prostitutes residing in
that City to go and live in Davao against their will,
there being no law that authorizes them to do so.
(Villavicencio, et al. vs. Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639,
March 25, 1919)
Expulsion vs. Grave Coercion
Expulsion Grave Coercion
(Art. 127) (Art. 286)
As to classification
Crime against the Crime against personal
fundamental law of the security.
state.
As to offender
The offender is a public The offender is a private
officer or employee. person.
ARTICLE 128
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
Punishable Acts: (SER)
1. By Entering any dwelling against the will of
the owner thereof;
2. By Searching papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of such
owner; or
3. By Refusing to leave the premises, after
having surreptitiously entered said dwelling
and after having been required to leave the
same.
Meaning of entry against the will – when the
offender ignores the prohibition of the owner
which may be express or implied as when the
door is closed even though not locked. When a
person who admitted the public officer is one with
sufficient discretion, the right of privacy is
waived; hence, the prohibition thereafter made
can no longer constitute Violation of Domicile;
Permission once given cannot be recalled as to
constitute violation of the article. When he is
asked to leave and refuses to leave, it is unjust
vexation.
Implied grant of permission to enter
(consented search)
When the owner of the domicile did not stop the
officer, he admitted to enter and thereafter,
starts to search. If he stops the public officer and
the latter continues to search, there is violation of
domicile.
Common elements of the punishable acts:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee; and
2. He is not authorized by judicial order.
NOTES:
● "Not being authorized by judicial order" –
when a public officer or employee is not
armed with a search warrant duly issued by
the court. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p. 65)
● In the first mode, lack of consent would not
suffice as the law requires that the
offender’s entry must be over the owner’s
objection.
To constitute violation of domicile, the entry
by the public officer must be against the will
of the owner of the dwelling, which
presupposes opposition or prohibition by
said owner, whether express or implied.
Thus, if public officer’s entry into the
dwelling is not only made without previous
consent of the owner, he is not liable for
violation of domicile. (People vs. Sane, CA 40
OG Supp 5, 113)
In the second mode, mere lack of consent
is sufficient.
When one voluntarily submits to a search or
consents to have it made of his person or
premises, he is precluded from later
complaining thereof. The right to be secure
from unreasonable search may, like every
right, be waived and such waiver may be
made either expressly or impliedly. (People
vs. Malasugui, G.R. No. L-44335, July 30, 1936)
In the third mode, what is punished is the
refusal to leave when required to do so – not
the entrance into the dwelling. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.65)
111
● To be held liable for violation of domicile, include to effect search
public officer must be acting in his official and seizure.
capacity. (US vs. Macaspac, G.R. No. 3878,
November 16, 1907)
Violation of Domicile vs. Grave Coercion/
If the public officer is one whose function Unjust Vexation
does not include the duty to effect search
and seizure, the crime is trespass to Violation of Domicile
Grave Coercion (Art.
dwelling. 286)/Unjust Vexation
(Art. 128)
(Art. 287)
Instances where search is valid even As to classification
without a warrant:
Crime against the Crime against personal
There are only three recognized instances when fundamental law of the security.
search without a warrant is considered valid, and, state.
therefore, the seizure of any evidence done is As to place of commission
also valid. Outside of these, search would be
invalid and the objects seized would be A public officer searched A public officer searched a
inadmissible as evidence. papers or other effects person “outside his
found inside any dwelling dwelling” without a search
1. When the search was made incidental to a without the previous warrant and such person is
consent of the owner. not legally arrested for an
valid arrest;
offense, the crime
2. Where the search was made on a moving committed by the public
vehicle or vessel such that the exigency of the officer is either: (a) grave
situation prevents the searching officer from coercion if violence or
securing a search warrant; and intimidation is used; or
3. When the article seized is within the plain (b) unjust vexation if there
view of the officer making a search therefore. is no violence or
intimidation.
Circumstances qualifying the offense:
ARTICLE 129
1. Offense is committed at nighttime; or SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY
2. Any papers or effects not constituting OBTAINED, AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE
evidence are not returned immediately after OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED
the search made by the offender. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.66) Punishable Act:

Violation of Domicile vs. Trespass to 1. By procuring a search warrant without just

Dwelling cause.

Violation of Domicile Trespass to Dwelling Elements: (PSN)

(Art. 128) (Art. 280)
a. Offender is a Public officer or employee;
As to classification b. He procures a Search warrant; and
c. There was No just cause.
Crime against the Crime against personal
fundamental law of the security.
state. 2. By exceeding his authority or by using
unnecessary severity in executing a search
As to offender warrant legally procured.
The offender is a public The offender is a private
officer or employee. person or a public officer Elements: (PSE)
whose function does not
a. Offender is a Public officer or employee;

112
 b. He has legally procured a Search warrant;
and
c. He Exceeds his authority or uses
unnecessary severity in executing the
same.
Search Warrant – it 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, ROC)
Requisites for issuance of Search Warrant:
a. It must be issued upon probable cause. - i.e.
reasons supported by 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 (Burgos
vs. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L–64261, December 26,
1984);
b. The probable cause must be determined by
the judge himself and not by the applicant or
any other person;
c. In the determination of probable cause, the
judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such
witnesses as the latter may produce; and
d. The warrant issued must particularly describe
the place to be searched and persons or
things to be seized. (Sec. 4, Rule 126, ROC)
 The true test of lack of just cause is whether
the affidavit filed in support of the application
for search warrant has been drawn in such a
manner that perjury could be charged
thereon and affiant be held liable for
damages caused. (Alvarez vs. Court of First
Instance, G.R. No. 45358, January 29, 1937)
Personal property to be seized:
a. Subject of the offense;
b. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or
fruits of the offense; or
c. Those used or intended to be used as the
means of committing an offense. (Sec. 3, Rule
126, ROC)
Example of exceeding authority in
executing a search warrant
The evident purpose and intent of requirement
(d) is to limit the things to be seized to those, and
only those, particularly described in the search
warrant — to leave the officers of the law with no
discretion regarding what articles they shall seize,
to the end that "unreasonable searches and
seizures" may not be made, — that abuses may
not be committed. That the officers of the law
believed that the books, papers, etc., which they
seized might be used as evidence against the
petitioners herein a criminal action against them
for a violation of the Opium Law, is no reason or
justification under the law for the seizure. (Uy
Kheytin vs. Villareal, G.R. No. 16009, September 21,
1920)
Example of using unnecessary severity in
executing a search warrant
If in searching a house, the public officer destroys
furniture therein without any justification at all.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.72)
ARTICLE 130
SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT
WITNESSES
Elements: (SONA)
1. That the Offender is a public officer or
employee;
2. That he is Armed with search warrant legally
procured;
3. That he Searches the domicile, papers or
other belongings of any person; and
4. That the owner, or any member of his family,
or two witnesses residing in the same locality
are Not present.
NOTES:
● The papers or other belongings must be in
the dwelling of their owner at the time the
search is made. It does not apply to searches
of vehicles or other means of transportation
because the searches are not made in the
dwelling. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.74)
● Search of house, room, or premise to be
made in presence of two witnesses. — No
113
 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, Rule 126, ROC)
(People vs. Calera and Cantela, C.A. 45 O.G.
2576)
● Meeting must be peaceful and there must be
no legal ground for prohibiting, dissolving or
interrupting that meeting. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017)

Art. 128, 129 and 130, distinguished ● Those holding peaceful meetings must
comply with local ordinances.
Violation of Search Searching
Domicile (Art. warrants domicile
● The speeches uttered, delivered, and made
128) maliciously without by the members of the Communist Party of
obtained and witnesses the Philippines in the public meetings or
abuse in the (Art. 130) gatherings are highly seditious, in that they
service of suggest and incite rebellious conspiracies
those legally and disturb and obstruct the lawful
obtained authorities in their duty. It must be
(Art. 129) considered that the respondent mayor,
There is no The public officer There was whose sworn duty it is "to see that nothing
warrant. is armed with a abuse in the should occur which would tend to provoke or
warrant but such implementation excite the people to disturb the peace of the
was maliciously of a valid community or the safety or order of the
obtained. warrant. Government," did only the right thing under
the circumstances, that is, cancel and
withdraw, the permit previously issued by
ARTICLE 131 him to said Communist Party. (Evangelista vs.
PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND Earnshaw, G.R. No. 36453, September 28, 1932)
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
● A city mayor, who denied an application for
Common Elements: a permit to hold a political meeting on a
certain day, is liable for prohibition of
1. That the offender is a public officer or peaceful meetings. (Campanilla, Criminal Law
employee; and Reviewer, vol. 2, 2018, pp. 52)
2. That he performs any of the following acts:
Other possible crimes:
a. By prohibiting or by interrupting, without
legal ground the holding of a peaceful 1. Tumults and other disturbances of public
meeting, or by dissolving the same; order (Art. 153) – if offender is a private
b. By hindering any person from joining any person.
lawful association, or from attending any 2. Unjust Vexation (Art. 287) – if the offender is
of its meetings; or a participant in the meeting.
c. By prohibiting or hindering any person 3. Disturbance of proceedings of congress or
from addressing, either alone or together similar bodies (Art. 144) – if the meeting of a
with others, any petition to the legislative body is dissolved.
authorities for the correction of abuses or
redress of grievances. ARTICLE 132
INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
NOTES:
Elements: (PRO)
● The offender must be a stranger, not a
participant in the peaceful meeting. If he is 1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
a participant, then he is not guilty under Art.
131 but under Art. 287 for unjust vexation.

114
2. The Religious ceremonies or manifestations
of any religion are about to take place or are
going on; and
3. The offender Prevents or disturbs the same.
NOTE:
There must be actual religious ceremony being
conducted on that occasion, either by itself or in
conjunction with some other activity of the
religious denomination. If the offense was
committed only in a meeting or rally of a sect, it
would be punishable under Art. 131. (People vs.
Reyes, CA, G.R. No. 13663-R, July 27, 1955)
 There was no celebration of any religious
ceremony when the funeral passed in the
courtyard of a different religion than that of
the deceased. The standard that should be
adopted is that of all religions, not of the
particular complaining religion to avoid the
constricted and prejudiced treatment of the
provision. (People vs. Baes, G.R. No. L-46000,
May 25, 1939)
Circumstances qualifying the offense – if the
crime is committed with violence or threats.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.80)
ARTICLE 133
OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
Elements: (CAP- ON)
1. The Acts complained of were performed:
a. In a Place devoted to religious worship,
or
b. During the celebration of any religious
Ceremony;
2. The acts must be Notoriously Offensive to
the feelings of the faithful.
NOTES:
● Religious Ceremonies are those religious
acts performed outside of a church, such as
procession and special prayers for burying
dead persons. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.81)
● Notoriously Offensive Acts are those
directly against religious practice or dogma or
ritual for or attempting to damage an object
or religious veneration. (People vs. Baes, supra)
● The construction of a fence, even though
irritating and vexatious under the
circumstances to those present, is not such an
act as can be designated as "notoriously
offensive to the faithful", as normally such an
act would be a matter of complete indifference
to those not present, no matter how religious
a turn of mind they might be. (People vs.
Reyes, G.R. No. L-40577 August 23, 1934)
The crime committed is only unjust vexation.
● This is the only crime against the fundamental
law of the state that may be committed by a
private individual.
● There must be deliberate intent to hurt the
feelings of the faithful, mere arrogance or
rudeness is not enough.
● Offense to feelings is judged from the
complainant’s point of view. Whether or not
the act complained of is offensive to the
religious feelings of the Catholics, is a question
of fact which must be judged only according
to the feelings of the Catholics and not those
of other faithful ones, for it is possible that
certain acts may offend the feelings of those
who profess a certain religion, while not
otherwise offensive to the feelings of those
professing another faith. (People vs. Baes, G.R.
No. 46000, May 25, 1939)
Other Possible Crimes:
1. Unjust Vexation (Art. 287) – if the act is not
directed to the religious belief itself and the
act is not notoriously offensive.
2. Interruption of Religious Worship (Art.
132) – if the act is not directed to the belief
itself and the meeting is interrupted by a
public officer.
C. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
(ARTICLES 134-160)
ARTICLE 134
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Nature: Rebellion is a continuing crime hence
rebels can be arrested at any time without
warrant.
115
Contra: According to Justice Isagani Cruz in the ● Persons merely acting as couriers or spies
case of Umil vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 81567, July 9, for the rebels are guilty of rebellion. (Reyes,
1990, arrest without warrant against rebels is a The Revised Penal Code Book Two, 2011, pp. 88)
dangerous doctrine for it allows warrantless
arrest despite the innocence of the acts of ● Giving aid or comfort is not an element of
accused at the time they are arrested. rebellion. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book
Two, 2011, pp. 89)
Elements: (PA-RE)
● Appellant’s acts did not constitute acts of
1. That there be: cooperation in the execution of the act of
a. Public uprising; and overthrowing the government. Even if
b. taking Arms against the government considered an indirect help or aid in the
(force/violence); and rebellion, they cannot constitute previous or
simultaneous acts or uprising or rebellion,
2. That the purpose of the uprising or for, unlike in the crime of treason, the acts
movement is either: giving comfort or moral is not criminal in the
a. to Remove from the allegiance to said case of rebellion or insurrection, where the
Government or its laws: RPC expressly declares that there must be a
(1) the territory of the Philippines or any public uprising and the taking up of arms.
part thereof; or (Cariño vs. People, G.R. No. L-14752 April 30,
(2) anybody of land, naval or other 1963)
armed forces; or
b. to deprive the Chief Executive or Rebellion vs. Treason
Congress, wholly or partially, of any of
their powers or prerogatives. Rebellion Treason
(Art. 134) (Art. 114)
Rebellion – the object of the movement is to As to classification
completely overthrow and supersede the existing
government. Crime against public Crime against national
order. security.
Insurrection – it is employed in reference to a
movement which seeks merely to effect some As to purpose
change of minor importance, or to prevent the 1. To remove from the Violation by a subject of his
exercise governmental authority with respect to allegiance to said allegiance to his sovereign
particular matters or subjects. (Reyes, The Revised Government or the or to the supreme authority
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.87) laws the territory of of the State.
the Philippines or
NOTES: body of land, naval
or other armed
● If the act is to deprive the Judiciary of its forces; and
powers or prerogatives, the crime 2. To deprive the Chief
committed is sedition. (Art. 139) Executive or
Congress of any of
their powers.
● There is no complex crime of rebellion
with murder and other common As to manner of commission
crimes, whether such crimes are punishable
under a special law or general law (RPC) 1. Public uprising; and 1. By levying war against
provided that such crimes are committed in 2. By taking arms the Government; and
furtherance or in pursuance of the against the 1. By adhering to the
movement to overthrow the government. Government. enemies of the
(Ponce Enrile vs. Amin, G.R. No. 93335, Philippines, giving
September 13, 1990). them aid or comfort.

As to time of commission

116
May be committed both Committed during time of As to person of the offender
during times of peace war.
and war. Participation is generally Any person belonging to
carried out by civilians. the military or police or
As to proof needed for conviction holding public office, with
or without civilian
Proved by showing the 1. Testimony of two (2) participation.
purpose of the uprising; witnesses, at least to
there must be proof the same overt act; or As to objective
beyond reasonable 2. Confession of accused
doubt. in open court. To overthrow the duly To destabilize or paralyze
constituted government. the government through
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, the seizure of facilities and
p.89) utilities essential to the
continued possession and
ARTICLE 134-A exercise of governmental
COUP D'ETAT powers.

Elements: (MAD - S3TIV) As to number of offenders

Requires a multitude of May be committed singly or

1. The offender is a person or persons people. collectively and does not
belonging to the Military or police or holding require a multitude of
any public office or employment; people.
2. It is committed by means of a Swift attack
accompanied by Violence, Intimidation, As to manner of commission
Threat, Strategy or Stealth;
Can only be committed May be carried out not only
3. The attack is directed against duly
through force and by force or violence but
constituted Authorities of the Republic of the
intimidation. also through stealth, threat
Philippines, or any military camp or or strategy.
installation, communication networks, public
utilities, or other facilities needed for the
exercise and continued possession of power;
and ARTICLE 135
4. The purpose of the attack is to seize or PENALTY FOR REBELLION,
Diminish state power. INSURRECTION OR COUP D'ETAT

Note: Who are liable for rebellion, insurrection,

and/or coup d’état:
The crime of coup d’etat may be committed with
or without civilian participation. (Reyes, The The leaders
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.93)
1. any person who promotes, maintains or
Rebellion vs. Coup d’etat heads a rebellion or insurrection; and
2. any person who leads, directs or commands
others to undertake a coup d’etat.
Rebellion Coup d’etat
(Art. 134) (Art. 134-A)
The participants
As to necessity of public uprising
1. any person who participates, or executes the
The essence of the crime Public uprising is not commands of others in rebellion, or
is public uprising and necessary. The essence of insurrection;
taking up arms against the crime is the swift
2. any person in the government service who
the government. attack, accompanied by
violence, intimidation,
participates, or executes directions or
threat, strategy or stealth. commands of others in undertaking a coup
d’etat; and

117
3. any person not in the government service
who participates, supports, finances, abets,
or raids in undertaking a coup d’etat.
NOTES:
● 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
rebels shall be deemed the leader of the
rebellion, insurrection, or coup d’etat in case
he is unknown.
● A public officer must take active part to be
liable; mere silence or omission is not
punishable in rebellion.
● The silence of the defendants as regards the
existence of some insurgents is not
punishable as insurrection, however
reproachful the silence of the defendant may
be, it does not in itself constitute the crime
of insurrection. (U.S. vs. Ravidas, G.R. No.
1503. March 14, 1905)
● Being a mere assistant to a principal, guilty
of rebellion, the accused is guilty only as a
participant in the commission of rebellion
under Art. 135(2). (People vs. Lava, G.R. No. L-
4974-78, May 16, 1969)
● Membership in a rebel organization does not
automatically qualify criminal acts as
absorbed in rebellion. It must be
conclusively demonstrated that the criminal
acts were committed in furtherance of
rebellion. (People vs. Lovedioro, G.R. No.
112235, November 29, 1995)
● Political offense doctrine - common
crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a
political offense, are divested of their
character as "common" offenses and
assume the political complexion of the main
crime of which they are mere ingredients
and consequently, cannot be punished
separately from the principal offense, or
complexed with the same, to justify the
imposition of a graver penalty. (Ocampo vs.
Abando, G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014)
● Any ordinary act assumes a different nature
by being absorbed in the crime of rebellion.
Thus, 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
118
prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone.
(Id.)
ARTICLE 136
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
COUP D’ETAT, REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION
Punishable Acts:
1. Conspiracy to commit rebellion – when
two or more persons come into an agreement
to rise publicly and take arms against the
Government for any of the purposes of
rebellion and decide to commit it; and
2. Proposal to commit rebellion – 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/s. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.100)
NOTES:
● Merely agreeing and deciding to rise publicly
and take arms against the government for
the purposes of rebellion or merely
proposing the commission of said acts is
already subject to punishment. (Ibid.)
● Defendants had organized and were
members of a society whose purpose was to
overthrow the Government by force, but
failed to disclose any overt acts of
insurrection. The conviction for insurrection
cannot be sustained, but the defendants
may be convicted of conspiracy to overthrow
the Government. (U.S. vs. Vergara, G.R. No.
1543, March 19, 1904)
ARTICLE 137
DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES
Punishable Acts: (CAF)
1. Failing to resist rebellion by all means in the
power of the public officer or employee;
2. Continuing to discharge the duties of their
offices under the control of the rebels; and
3. Accepting appointment to office under them.
NOTES:
● The crime presupposes the existence of
rebellion by other persons. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.102)
● The offender must not be in conspiracy with
the rebels; otherwise, he himself will also be
guilty of rebellion. (Ibid.)
If they commit rebellion because of the proposal or
inciting, the proponent or the one inciting may become
a principal by inducement in the crime of rebellion.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.105)
ARTICLE 139
SEDITION

Elements: (POT FOIL DEECAP)

ARTICLE 138
INCITING TO REBELLION OR
1. That the Offenders rise:
INSURRECTION
a. Publicly; and
Elements: (SIP Not BREW) b. Tumultuously.
2. That they employ Force, Intimidation, or
1. The offender does Not take arms or is not in other means Outside of Legal methods;
open hostility against the Government; 3. That the offenders employ any of those
2. He Incites others to the execution of any of means to attain any of the following objects:
the acts of rebellion; and a. To prevent the Promulgation or
3. The inciting is done by means of Speeches, Execution of any law or the holding of
Proclamations, Writings, Emblems, Banners any popular election;
or other Representations tending to the same b. To prevent the National Government, or
end. any provincial or municipal government,
or any public officer thereof from freely
Inciting to Rebellion vs. Proposal to Exercising its or his functions, or prevent
Commit Rebellion the execution of any administrative
order;
Proposal to Commit c. To inflict any Act of hate or revenge upon
Inciting to Rebellion
(Art. 138)
Rebellion the person or property of any public
(Art. 136) officer or employee;
d. To Commit, for any political or social end,
As to manner of commission
any act of hate or revenge against private
In both crimes, the offender induces another to persons or any social class; and
commit rebellion. e. To Despoil, for any political or social end,
any person, municipality or province, or
As to offender’s decision to commit rebellion the National Government of all its
property or any part thereof.
It is not required that the The person who
offender has decided to proposes has decided to NOTES:
commit rebellion. commit rebellion.
● Sedition, in its general sense, is the raising of
As to how incitement is made commotions or disturbances in the State.
(People vs. Cabrera, G.R. No. 17748, March 4,
Act of inciting is done Person who proposes 1922)
publicly. execution uses secret ● The crime of sedition is committed by persons
means. who rise publicly and tumultuously. The
disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to
As to actual commission of rebellion
be tumultuous if caused by more than three
In both, the crime of rebellion should not be actually persons who are armed or provided with
committed by the persons to whom it is proposed or means of violence. (Art. 153, RPC)
who are incited. ● Common crimes are not absorbed in sedition.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.109)

119
● If the purpose of the offenders is to attain the
objects of rebellion or sedition by force or
violence, but there is no public uprising, the
crime committed is direct assault. (Art. 148,
RPC)
● There is conspiracy to commit sedition (Art.
141) but no proposal to commit sedition.
ARTICLE 141
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION
Conspiracy to commit sedition – is committed
by two or more persons, who come to an
agreement concerning the commission of sedition
and decide to commit it.

Sedition vs. Treason NOTE:

Sedition (Art. 139) Treason (Art. 114) ● There must be an agreement and a decision
to rise publicly and tumultuously to attain
As to presence of war
any of the objects of sedition. (Reyes, The
Internal conflict. Philippines must be at Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.110)
war with another country. ● Only conspiracy to commit sedition is
As to essence punishable, there is no crime for proposal to
In its more general In its more general sense,
commit sedition. (Ibid.)
sense, it is the raising of it is the violation by a
commotions or subject of his allegiance ARTICLE 142
disturbances in the to its sovereign. INCITING TO SEDITION
State.
Violation of oath of Different acts of inciting to sedition:
Causing disturbances in allegiance.
one’s country. 1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any
As to purpose of the acts which constitute sedition by
means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
Levying a war is not The purpose of levying
emblems, etc.
necessary (e.g. civil war is to help the enemy.
uprising).
Elements: (BPO SAW NotICE)

Sedition vs. Rebellion a. The offender does Not take a direct part in
the crime of sedition;
Sedition (Art. 139) Rebellion (Art. 134) b. He Incites others to the Accomplishment of
any of the acts which constitute sedition;
As to presence of public uprising and
c. That the inciting is done by means of
In both, there must be public uprising.
Speeches, Proclamations, Writings,
As to manner of commission Emblems, Cartoons, Banners, or other
Representations tending to the same end
It is sufficient that the There must be taking up (purpose: cause commotion not exactly
public uprising is of arms against the
against the government; actual disturbance
tumultuous. Government.
not necessary).
As to purpose
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which
The purpose of the The purpose is always tend to disturb the public peace are
offenders may be political political.
punishable when:
or social.

As to whom directed Elements: (RIDE)

Not necessarily against Always against the a. They tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful
the government. government.
officer in Executing the functions of his
office;
b. They tend to Instigate others to cabal and
meet together for unlawful purposes;

120
c. They suggest or incite Rebellious
conspiracies or riots; and
d. They 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.
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:
● “Scurrilous” means low, vulgar, mean or
foul.
● A State may punish utterances endangering
the foundations of organized government
and threatening its overthrow by unlawful
means. (Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S. 652,
1925)
Rules Relative to Seditious Words:
1. Clear and Present Danger Rule
It is required that there must be reasonable
ground to believe that the danger apprehended
is imminent and that the evil to be prevented is a
serious one. There must be the probability of
serious injury to the State. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.114)
Present refers to the time element. It used to be
identified with imminent and immediate danger.
The danger must only be probable but very likely.
2. Dangerous Tendency Rule
There is inciting to sedition when the words
uttered or published could easily produce
disaffection among the people and a state of
feeling in them incompatible with a disposition to
remain loyal to the Government and obedient to
the laws. The dangerous tendency rule is
generally adopted in the Philippines. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.115)
CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR
REPRESENTATION
(Articles 143-145)
ARTICLE 143
ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING
OF THE ASSEMBLY AND SIMILAR BODIES
Elements: (PAFF)
1. There be a Projected or Actual meeting of
Congress or any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions
or committees or division thereof, or of any
provincial board or city or municipal council
or board; and
2. The offender who may be any persons
prevents such meeting by Force or Fraud.
NOTES:
● The offender doesn’t have to actually
prevent the meeting. If his acts tend to
prevent the meeting, the crime is
consummated.
● Chief of police and mayor who prevented the
meeting of the municipal council are liable
under Art. 143 when the defect of the
meeting is not manifest.
Any stranger, even if he be the municipal
president himself or the chief of the
municipal police, must respect the meeting
of the municipal council which for the time
being, at least, raises the presumption that
no defect exists to render it illegal. (People
vs. Alipit, G.R. No. L-18853, August 22, 1922)
ARTICLE 144
DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
Elements: (MID)
1. That there be a Meeting of Congress or any
of its committees, constitutional commissions
or committees or divisions thereof, or of any
provincial board or city or municipal council
or board; and
2. That the offender does any of the following
acts:
a. He Disturbs any of such meetings; or
b. He behaves while in the presence of any
such bodies in such a manner as to
121
 Interrupt its proceedings or to impair the
respect due it.
NOTE:
● It must be a meeting of a legislative body or
of provincial board or city or municipal
council or board which is disturbed. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.119)
ARTICLE 145
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY
IMMUNITY
Punishable Acts:
1. By using force, intimidation, threats, or
frauds to prevent any member of Congress
from:
a. attending the meeting of the assembly or
any of its committees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions
thereof;
b. expressing his opinions; or
c. casting his vote.
Elements: (PASS – PM)
1. The offender is a Public officer or employee;
2. He Arrests or Searches any member of
Congress;
3. Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is
in a regular or special Session; and
4. That the member searched has not
committed a crime punishable under the code
by a penalty higher than Prision Mayor.
NOTES:
● It is not necessary that the member is
actually prevented from exercising any of his
functions. It is sufficient that Congress is in
session and the offender, in using force,
intimidation, threats, or frauds, has the
purpose to prevent a member of the
National Assembly from exercising any of
such prerogatives. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.121)
● Parliamentary immunity does not protect
members of Congress from responsibility
before the legislative body itself. (Osmena Jr.
vs. Pendatun, G.R. No. L–17114, October 28,
1960)
122
ARTICLE 146
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES
Illegal assemblies - Any meeting attended by
armed persons for the purpose of committing a
crime under the RPC.
Nature: The punishable offense here is mere
gathering for the unlawful purpose relating to the
crime punishable under the RPC. If the offense is
punishable under special law, illegal assembly is
not committed. (Boado, Notes and Cases on the
Revised Penal Code, 2018, pp. 455)
Requisites: (MAC)
1. That there is a Meeting, a gathering of a
group of persons, whether in a fixed place or
moving;
2. That the meeting is attended by an Armed
person; and
3. That the purpose of the meeting is to commit
any of the Crimes punishable under the code.
NOTE: Not all the persons present at the meeting
of the first form of illegal assembly must be
armed. It is sufficient that at least two persons
are armed. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.124)
a. Any meeting in which the audience, whether
armed or not, is incited to the commission of
the crime of treason, rebellion, or
insurrection, sedition or assault upon a
person in authority or his agents.
Requisites: (MARTIS)
1. That there is a Meeting, a gathering of a
group of persons, whether in a fixed place or
moving; and
2. That the audience, whether armed or not, is
incited to the commission of the crime of
Treason, Rebellion, or Insurrection, Sedition
or Assault.
NOTE: It is necessary that the audience is
actually incited. If in the meeting the audience is
incited to the commission of rebellion or sedition,
the crimes committed are illegal assembly as
regards the organizers or leaders or persons
merely present and inciting to rebellion or
sedition insofar as the one inciting them is
concerned. (Id.)
Who are liable: although not armed, are
incited to the
1. Organizers or leaders of the meeting. commission of treason,
2. Persons merely present in the meeting. rebellion, sedition, or
assault upon a person in
NOTE: authority or his agent.

As to acts punishable
● If a group of armed men gathered and
conspired for the purpose of committing The meeting and The act of forming or
kidnapping, illegal assembly is committed attendance at such organizing, and
not because of the conspiracy but because meeting that are membership in the
of the gathering of armed men. (Estrada, punished. association are punished.
Criminal Law Book Two, 2011)
As to persons liable

If a person present at the meeting carries an Persons liable are the Persons liable are the
unlicensed firearm, it is presumed that: organizers and leaders, founders, directors,
and other persons president, and the
a. The purpose of the meeting is to commit a present at the meeting. members of the
crime under the RPC; and associations totally or
b. He is considered the leader or organizer of partially organized.
the meeting. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.128)
ARTICLE 147
ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS ARTICLE 148
DIRECT ASSAULTS
Illegal associations:
Two ways of committing direct assaults:
1. Associations organized totally or partially for
the purpose of committing any of the crimes 1. Without public uprising, by employing force
in RPC; or or intimidation for the attainment of any of
2. Associations organized totally or partially for the purposes enumerated in defining the
some purpose contrary to public morals. crimes of rebellion and sedition. (Victim need
not be person in authority).
Persons liable:

1. Founders, directors and president of the Elements: (FIRST)

association .
2. Mere members of the association . a. The offender employs Force or Intimidation;
b. The aim of the offender is to attain any of the
Illegal Assembly vs. Illegal Association purposes of the crime of Rebellion or any of
the objects in the crime of Sedition; and
c. There is no public uprising.
Illegal Assembly (Art. Illegal Association (Art.
146) 147)
2. Without public uprising, by attacking,
As to necessity of actual meeting employing force, or by seriously intimidating,
or seriously resisting any person in authority
Necessary that there is Not necessary that there is or any of his agents, while engaged in the
an actual meeting or an actual meeting. performance of official duties, or on the
assembly of armed occasion of such performance.
persons for the purpose
of committing any of the
crimes punishable under
the Code, or of
individuals who,

123
Elements: (NAP2AKA - FAIR)
a. That the offender: (1) makes an Attack, (2)
employs Force, (3) makes a serious
Intimidation, or (4) makes a serious
Resistance;
b. Person assaulted is a Person in Authority or
his Agent;
c. At the time of the assault, the person in
authority or his agent is (1) engaged in the
Actual performance of official duties (motive
is not essential) or (2) is assaulted by reason
of the Past performance of official duties
(motive is essential);
d. That the offender Knows that the one he is
assaulting is a person in authority or his
agent in the exercise of his duties; and
e. That there is No public uprising.
Persons in Authority:
a. Those, who are directly vested with
jurisdiction, are persons in authority.
b. One vested with jurisdiction can be an
individual (e.g. chief of police or mayor), a
member of a court (e.g. a judge), or a
member of board, commission or
government-owned or controlled corporation
(e.g. Social Security Commissioner).
c. A division superintendent of schools is
directly vested with jurisdiction since he has
the authority of general supervision over
schools in his division, with the right to
appoint teachers and to fix their salaries.
(People vs. Benitez, G.R. No. 49396, September
11, 1942)
d. Teachers, professors, and supervisors of
schools, colleges and universities, and
lawyers are also persons in authority.
However, they are only persons in authority
for purposes of direct assault and resistance.
(People vs. Tac-an, G.R. Nos. 76338-29, February
26, 1990)
e. Punong Barangay, members of the
Sangguniang Barangay, and Lupong
Tagapamayapa in their jurisdictions are
deemed persons in authority. (Sec. 388, Local
Government Code)
Agents of a Person in Authority:
a. Persons who are charged with the
maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property by
124
direct provision of law, election, or
appointment by competent authority shall be
deemed agents of person in authority. (Art.
152, RPC)
b. To be considered as an agent of a person in
authority, the function of the public officer
must be connected in any way with the
preservation of law, peace, and order. (People
vs. Dite, CA, G.R. No. 17639, September 22, 1958)
c. Barangay officials and members who are
charged with the maintenance of public
order, protection and security of life and
property, or of a desirable and balanced
environment by law or ordinance shall be
deemed agents of a person in authority. (Sec.
388, LGC)
d. Persons who come to the aid of persons in
authority shall be deemed agents of a person
in authority. (Art. 152, RPC)
e. Barangay members who come to the aid of
persons in authority shall be deemed agents
of a person in authority. (Sec. 388, LGC)
NOTES:
● It is important to determine whether the
victim is a person in authority or his agent.
If the victim is a person in authority, the
degree of force employed against him is
immaterial as the mere laying of hands on
him is sufficient. (US vs. Gumban, G.R. No. L–
13658, November 9, 1918)
● If the victim is an agent of a person in
authority, the violence, intimidation, or
resistance employed by the offender must
be serious. (US vs. Tabiana, G.R. No. L–11847,
February 1, 1918)
● Even the person in authority or his agent
agrees to fight, an attack made by accused
constitutes direct assault, except when the
attack is made in lawful defense, the
character of a person in authority or his
agent is not laid off at will but attaches to
him until he ceases to be in office. (Justo vs.
CA, G.R. No. L–8611, June 28, 1956)
● If direct assault is committed and as a result,
the person in authority or his agent is killed,
the crime shall be the complex crime of
direct assault with homicide or murder, as
the case may be. (People vs. Gayrama, G.R.
Nos. 39270–71, October 30, 1934)
● The crime of slight physical injuries is
absorbed in direct assault against an
agent of the person in authority. (People vs.
Acierto, G.R. No. 36595, November 28, 1932)
 Under Art. 48, a grave or less grave felony
cannot be complexed with a light felony like
slight physical injury. If committed against a
PA, it will be considered as a separate
offense.
● If the laying of hands is during or by reason
of the performance of duties of a PA and
results to less serious physical injuries, a
complex crime of Direct Assault with less
serious physical injuries is committed.
(Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal
Code, 2018, pp. 463)
● If the injury is other than less serious
physical injuries, and if it is not DA, the
generic aggravating circumstance of rank
may be appreciated. (Boado, Criminal Law,
supra)
● If the victim is an APA, the generic
aggravating circumstance of rank is
appreciated. (Boado, Criminal Law, supra)
● Knowledge of the accused that the victim is
a PA or APA is essential. (People vs. Rellin, C.A.
Nos. 71 and 72, February 28, 1947)
● The crime of direct assault is not committed
when the PA or APA is suspended or under
suspension when he is attacked.
● Direct assault cannot be committed in times
of rebellion or sedition because the Article
specifically provides that the assault would
be “without public uprising”. (People vs.
Abalos, G.R. No. 88189, July 9, 1996)
Two kinds of direct assault:
1. Simple
2. Qualified
Direct assault is qualified:
a. When the assault is committed with a
weapon;
b. When the offender is a public officer or
employee; or
c. When the offender lays hands upon a person
in authority.
NOTES:
● The circumstance only applies to a PA. it
does not include laying hand upon an APA.
● If resistance is not serious, crime committed
may be that under Art. 151 of resistance and
disobedience. Resistance and disobedience
to a PA is always serious; whereas to an APA,
it may or may not be serious. The act of the
offender is merely a reaction not an
aggression required in Direct Assault.
● Art. 265 makes the laying of hands upon a
PA qualifying provided that the crime
committed thereby is not DA. That is, if the
laying of hands is not by reason of his being
a PA, or due to the performance of his
function, the crime is qualified less serious
physical injuries. (Boado, Notes and Cases on
the Revised Penal Code, 2018, pp. 463)
ARTICLE 149
INDIRECT ASSAULT
Elements: (DAIF)
1. That a person in authority or his agent is the
victim of any of the forms of Direct assault
defined in Art. 148.
2. That a person comes to the Aid of such
authority or his agent.
3. That the offender makes use of Force or
Intimidation upon such person coming to the
aid of the authority or his agent.
NOTES:
1. Because of the amendment in Art. 152 by
R.A. No. 1978, a private individual coming to
the aid of a person in authority is himself
deemed an agent of the person in authority.
Thus, the rules are:
1. If the victim is a PA who is subject of a
direct assault, and the third person
coming to his aid (who then becomes an
APA) is likewise attacked, the crime
committed against the third person will
be direct assault, resistance or
disobedience depending on the degree of
force or violence used by the offender;
2. If the victim is an APA, it depends:
a. If direct assault is being committed
against the APA, the attack against
the third person will constitute
indirect assault; or
b. If only resistance or disobedience is
being committed against the agent,
the attack against the third person is
either physical injuries or coercion
as the case may be.
125
2. The offended party in indirect assault may be
a private person. Art. 149 states that the use
of force or intimidation must be made “upon
any person coming to the aid of a person in
authority. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.49)
3. Indirect assault can be committed only when
a direct assault is also committed. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 150
DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, ITS
COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES, BY
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS,
ITS COMMITTEES, SUBCOMMITTEES OR
DIVISIONS
Punishable Acts: (SAWI2)
1. Refusing without legal excuse to obey
Summons;
2. Refusing to be sworn or placed under
Affirmation;
3. Refusing to answer any legal Inquiry to
produce books, records etc.;
4. Restraining another from attending as
Witness in such body; and
5. Inducing disobedience to summons or refusal
to be sworn by any such body or official.
NOTE: Any of the acts punished herein may also
constitute contempt. (Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No.
L–3820, July 18, 1950)
 The Court finds that the period of
imprisonment under the inherent
power of contempt by the Senate
during inquiries in aid of legislation
should only last until the termination of
the legislative inquiry under which the
said power is invoked. In Arnault (supra.),
it was stated that obedience to its process
may be enforced by the Senate Committee if
the subject of investigation before it was
within the range of legitimate legislative
inquiry and the proposed testimony called
relates to that subject. Accordingly, as long
as there is a legitimate legislative inquiry,
then the inherent power of contempt by the
Senate may be properly exercised.
Conversely, once the said legislative inquiry
concludes, the exercise of the inherent power
of contempt ceases and there is no more
genuine necessity to penalize the detained
126
witness. (Balag vs. Senate, G.R. No. 234608, July
03, 2018)
ARTICLE 151
RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A
PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENTS
OF SUCH PERSON
Resistance – is committed by any person who
resists a person in authority, or his agents, while
engaged in the performance of official duties
provided that the act is not constitutive of direct
assault.
Disobedience – is committed by any person
who disobeys a person in authority, or his agent,
while engaged in the performance of official
duties provided that the act does not constitute
direct assault.
Elements of Resistance and Serious
Disobedience: (NERD)
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. The offender Resists or seriously Disobeys
such person in authority or his agent; and
3. The act of the offender is Not included in the
provisions of arts. 148, 149 and 150.
Elements of Simple Disobedience: (END)
1. An agent of a person in authority is Engaged
in the performance of official duty gives a
lawful order to the offender;
2. The offender Disobeys such agent of a
person in authority;
3. That such disobedience is Not of a serious
nature.
NOTES:
The accused must have knowledge that the
person arresting him is a peace officer. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.153)
The order given must be lawful; otherwise the
resistance is justified.
Resisting arrest without intent to defy the law and
its representative at all hazard is simple
resistance, but resisting arrest with intent to defy
the law and its representative at all hazard is
direct assault. (Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer, PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF
vol. 2, 2018, pp. 64) PERSONS IN AUTHORITY

Direct Assault vs. Resistance or Public Officer – is any person who takes part in
Disobedience the performance of public functions in the
government. (Art. 203, RPC)
Direct Assault Resistance or
(Art. 148) Disobedience Person in Authority – is any person directly
(Art. 151) vested with jurisdiction or the power and
authority to govern and execute the laws,
As to time of commission
whether as an individual or as a member of some
PA/ APA must be engaged Only in actual court or government corporation, board or
in the performance of performance of duties. commission.
official duties or he is
assaulted by reason or The following are persons in authority:
past performance of duty.

As to degree of force
a. The municipal mayor;
b. Division superintendent of schools;
Force employed is serious. Use of force is not so c. Teacher–nurse;
serious. d. Public and private school teachers;
e. President of sanitary division;
When a person being f. Provincial Fiscal;
apprehended by a police
g. Barrio captain and barangay chairman;
officer resists or uses
force that is not
h. Members of Sangguniang Barangay; and
dangerous, grave, or i. Members of Lupong Tagapamayapa and
severe, the offense is not Pangkat Tagapagkasundo.
direct assault under
Article 148 of the Revised Agent of a person in authority – is one who,
Penal Code. Instead, the by direct provision of law, or by election or by
proper offense is appointment by competent authority, is charged
resistance and with the maintenance of public order and the
disobedience to an agent
protection of the security of life and property.
of a person in authority,
penalized under Article
151 of the Revised Penal ARTICLE 153
Code. (Mallari vs. People, TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF
G.R. No. 224679, PUBLIC ORDER - TUMULTUOUS
February 12, 2020) DISTURBANCE OR INTERRUPTION LIABLE
TO CAUSE DISTURBANCE
As to use of force

Attack or employment of Attack or employment of Punishable Acts: (BOPIS)

force is deliberate. force is not so deliberate.
1. Causing any Serious disturbance in a public
As to manner of commission place, office or establishment;
Committed in any of the Committed by resisting or 2. Interrupting or disturbing public
following ways: seriously disobeying a PA performances, functions, gatherings or
1. By attacking; or APA. peaceful meetings, if the act is not included
2. By employing force; in Art 131 and 132;
3. By seriously 3. Making any Outcry tending to incite rebellion
intimidating; or or sedition in any meeting, association or
4. By seriously resisting public place;
a person in authority
4. Displaying placards or emblems which
or his agent.
Provoke a disturbance of public order in such
ARTICLE 152 place; and

127
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who the outburst described
has been legally executed. above.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
NOTES: p.164)

If the disturbance or interruption is of tumultuous ARTICLE 154

character, the crime shall be qualified and the
penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.
Tumultuous disturbance – is committed if the
disturbance or interruption of public disorder is of
a tumultuous character or caused by at least four
(4) armed persons or provided with means of
violence.
If the purpose of the uprisers in causing a
tumultuous disturbance in a public place is to
attain a political or social objective mentioned in
Art. 139 and they employ force, intimidation, or
other means outside of legal methods to attain
such purpose, the crime committed is sedition. If
the purpose is not one of those stated in Art. 139,
the crime committed is tumultuous disturbance
under Art. 153.
If the disturbance is slight and not serious, the
crime committed is alarm and scandal under Art.
155.
Public Disorder vs. Inciting to Rebellion or
Sedition
UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL
UTTERANCES
Punishable Acts: (FAME)
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 by praising,
justifying or extolling any act punished by
law, by the same means or by words,
utterances or speeches.
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be
published any official resolution or document
without 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.

Public Disorder (Art. Inciting to Rebellion NOTES:

153) or Sedition (Art. 138)
● If the printer/owner of the printing
establishment took part in the preparation
As to the making of an outcry and publication of the libelous writings he
shall be liable under Art. 360 (Persons liable
The outcry is more less The outcry displaying of
unconscious outburst emblems or placards for libel).
which, although should have been done ● Actual public disorder or actual damage to
rebellious or seditious in with the idea the credit of the State is not necessary. The
nature, is not aforethought of inducing mere possibility of causing such damage is
intentionally calculated his hearers or readers to sufficient. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
to induce others to commit the crime of Book Two, 2017, p.165)
commit rebellion or rebellion or sedition. ● If the publication is both obscene and
sedition. anonymous, the offenses cannot be
complexed as they involve different acts
separately punished under this Article and
Art. 201 on obscene publications.
As to when meeting becomes unlawful ● The offender must know that the news is
false. (Ibid.)
At the outset the At the outset, the
meeting is lawful but meeting is unlawful.
becomes unlawful after
ARTICLE 155

128
 ALARMS AND SCANDALS
Punishable Acts: (COINED)
1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker,
or other explosive within any town or public
place, calculated to cause alarm or danger;
2. Instigating or taking 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 amusement; and
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public
places while Intoxicated or otherwise,
provided Art 153 is not covered.
Variant Crimes can arise from the use of
firearms
1. Alarms and scandals (Art. 155) – offender
discharges a firearm in public place but the
firearm is not pointed to a particular person
when discharged.
2. Attempted or frustrated homicide or murder
- when the discharge is with intent to kill, the
crime is at least attempted homicide or
murder.
3. Physical injuries – if the person was injured
but there was no intent to kill.
4. Threat – if the weapon is not discharged but
aimed at another. (Light treat if drawn in a
quarrel but not in self-defense)
5. Grave coercion - if the threat was direct,
immediate, and serious and the person is
compelled or prevented to do something
against his will.
6. Illegal possession of firearm – if the firearm
is a loose firearm (unlicensed).
Creating noise and annoyance may bring
the following crimes:
1. Alarms and scandals – disturbing the public
in general by playing or singing karaoke
noisily during midnight in the neighborhood.
2. Unjust vexation – the noise is directed to a
particular person or family (light coercion
under Art. 287).
NOTES:
● The discharge of firearm should not be
aimed at a person; otherwise, the offense
would fall under Art. 254 punishing
discharge of firearms. (Id.)
● Charivari includes a medley of discordant
voices, a mock serenade of discordant
noises made on kettles, or other utensils
designed to annoy and insult. (Id.)
● If the disturbance is of a serious nature, the
case will fall under Art. 153 as tumultuous
disturbance. (Id.)
● the crime of alarms and scandals constitutes
only one crime. Scandal here does not refer
to moral scandal in the contemplation of Art.
200. This provision deals with disturbance of
public peace and tranquility. (Estrada, Criminal
Law Book Two, 2011)
ARTICLE 156
DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL
Elements:
1. That there is a person confined in a jail or
penal establishment; and
2. That the offender removes therefor such
person, or helps the escape of such person.
NOTES:
1. The person confined may be a mere
detention prisoner (Art. 29) or convict
serving sentence. The prisoner may also, by
final judgment. (Id.) If the escapee is a
detention prisoner, he is not criminally liable.
If the escapee is serving final judgment, he
is guilty under Art. 157 on evasion of service
sentence.
2. Violence, intimidation, or bribery is not
necessary. (Id.)
3. A person, who substituted for a prisoner by
taking his place in jail, is liable for delivering
prisoners from jail. (Campanilla, Criminal Law
Reviewer, vol. 2, 2018, pp. 70)
4. One, who furnished a detention prisoner
with the material means or tools which
greatly facilitate his escape, is liable for
delivery of prisoner from jail. (Id.)
5. Delivery of prisoners from jail can take place
outside the penal establishments by taking
the guards by surprise. (Id.)
129
Delivering prisoners from jail and Infidelity
in the custody of prisoners, distinguished
Delivering prisoners Infidelity in the
from jail custody of prisoners
(Art. 156) (Art. 223)
As to the person of the offender
Usually committed by an Public officer who had the
outsider. prisoner in his custody or
charge who was in
It may also apply to an connivance with
employee of the penal prisoner in the latter’s
establishment, provided escape.
he does not have custody
or charge of such person.
(Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two,
2006, p.170)
As to the person of the prisoner
He may be a convict by final judgment or by a
detention prisoner.
ARTICLE 157
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Elements: (DECS)
1. That the offender is a Convict by final
judgment;
2. That he is Serving his sentence which
consists in Deprivation of liberty (destierro
included); and
3. That he evades the service of his sentence by
Escaping during the term of his sentence
(fact of return immaterial).
Circumstances qualifying the offense:
If such evasion or escape takes place:
a. By means of unlawful entry (by “scaling”);
b. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls,
roofs or floors;
c. By using picklocks, false keys, disguise,
deceit, violence or intimidation; or
d. Through connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution.
130
NOTES:
This crime cannot be committed by a detention
prisoner because there is yet no sentence to
evade. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book Two, 2011)
 This article is not applicable to a sentence
executed by deportation because the convict
is not imprisoned and thereafter would break
jail. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.172) However, this article was made
applicable by the Supreme Court to a convict
the
who was sentenced of destierro by virtue of
final judgment. He was prohibited from
entering the City of Manila but he entered
said City. (People vs. Abiong, G.R. No. L-1960,
November 26, 1948)
 The crime evasion of service of sentence is a
continuing offense which may be prosecuted
in any place where the offender may be
found. (Paulan vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-
28519, February 17, 1968)
The prisoner serving sentence may still be liable
for this crime even if he returned to jail not long
after he escaped. His voluntary return does not
exculpate him from criminal liability. It will be
considered as mitigating circumstance.
ARTICLE 158
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON
THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS,
CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES, OR
OTHER CALAMITIES
Elements: (LCD 48)
1. That the offender is a Convicted by final
judgment who is confined in a penal
institution;
2. That there is Disorder, resulting from:
(a) conflagration,
(b) earthquake,
(c) explosion,
(d) similar catastrophe, or
(e) mutiny in which the offender has not
participated;
3. That the offender 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; and
4. That the offender fails to give himself up to
the authorities within 48 hours following the
 issuance of a proclamation by the Chief
Executive announcing the passing away of
such calamity.
NOTES:
● Evasion lies in the failure to return, not
in leaving the penal establishment:
(a) Leaving without returning – 1/5 addition
to the remaining sentence which should
not be more than six months, that is 1/5
of the balance of the sentence to be
served or six months whichever is lesser.
(b) Not leaving – 2/5 deduction from
sentence.
(c) Leaving and thereafter returning 48
hours after the proclamation by the
President of the end of calamity – 1/5
deduction from his sentence. (Art. 158, as
amended by R.A. No. 10592)
● The deduction for loyalty under Art. 98
should be based on the original sentence as
the article did not qualify the word
“sentence” unlike in Art. 158 which expressly
stated that the sentence to be added shall
be based on the period “still remaining to be
served.”
● Art. 158 specified that the additional
sentence should exceed 6 months showing
the intent of the Congress to limit the
penalty to the accused.
Summarized Rules among Art. 156, 157,
and 158 in relation to Art. 223, 224, and
225
Delivery of prisoner from jail is committed
by:
1. A detention prisoner if he participated in the
plan to make him escape or at least
acquiesced thereto;
2. A convict whose conviction is not yet final or
on appeal under the same condition; and
3. A person rescuing prisoner from jail. He can
be a civilian or a public officer who is not the
prisoner’s custodian.
Evasion of service of sentence is committed
by:
1. A prisoner in confinement by final judgment
who escaped from his confinement;
2. A pardonee violating the conditions of his
pardon; and
3. A convict sentenced to destierro who entered
the prohibited area.
Infidelity in the custody of prisoner is
committed by:
1. A public officer who consented or connived in
the escape of convict or detention prisoner
(Art. 223) and is the custodian of the prisoner;
2. A public officer-custodian of the prisoner
whose negligence caused the evasion (Art.
224);
3. A private person to whom the custody of the
prisoner was confided who consented,
connived or was negligent causing the evasion
(Art. 225).
ARTICLE 159
OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE
Elements: (ViC2)
1. That the offender was a Convict;
2. That he was granted a Conditional pardon by
the Chief Executive; and
3. That he Violated any of the conditions of
such pardon.
Penalty for violation of conditional pardon
Depends upon the penalty remitted by the
granting of pardon:
a. If the unexpired portion of the penalty is
higher than 6 years, the convict shall suffer
such unexpired portion.
b. If the unexpired portion is not higher than 6
years, the convict shall then suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period.
NOTES:
● If the remitted portion of the sentence is less
than six (6) years or up to six (6) years, there
is an added penalty of prision correccional
131
 minimum. Hence, the violation is a
substantive offense because in this case, a
new penalty is imposed for the violation of
the conditional pardon.
● However, if the remitted portion of the
sentence exceeds six (6) years, the violation
of the conditional pardon is not a substantive
offense because no new penalty is imposed
for the violation.
Violation of conditional pardon and evasion
of service of sentence, distinguished
Violation of conditional Evasion of service of
pardon (Art. 159) sentence
(Art. 157)
As to manner of commission
Violates the terms of the An attempt to evade the
conditional pardon. penalty inflicted by the
courts upon criminals.
As to effect on public order
Does not affect public Disturbs public order.
order.
ARTICLE 160
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME
DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED
FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE
(QUASI-RECIDIVISM)
(Please see discussion under Multiple Offenders
at pp. 69-70)
D. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
(ARTICLES 161-189)
The crimes under this title are in the nature of
fraud upon the public in general. The essence of
these crimes is against public interest. There is
deceit perpetrated upon the public.
132
ARTICLE 161
COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
ISLANDS, FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR
STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Punishable Acts: (S3)
1. Forging the great Seal of the Government;
2. Forging the Signature of the President; or,
3. Forging the Stamp of the President.
Counterfeiting – refers to money or currency;
Forgery – refers to the 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.
Falsification – can only be committed on
documents.
However, an unauthorized use of the genuine
seal of the government or the genuine signature
of the President to the prejudice of another
person is Estafa under Art. 315 (2) of the RPC.
NOTE: When in a Government document, the
signature of the President is forged, it is NOT
called falsification. Art. 161 supplied the specific
provision to govern the case. The name of the
crime is forging the signature of the Chief
Executive. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.190)
It would seem that if the Chief Executive left with
his secretary a signature in blank, and a
document is written above it, the crime
committed is NOT covered by Art. 161. The one
applicable is Art. 171 or Art. 172. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 162
USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
Elements: (KCUF)
1. That the Great Seal of the Republic has been
Counterfeited or that the signature of the
President has been Forged by another
person;
2. The offender Knew of the counterfeiting or
forgery; and
3. He Used the counterfeited seal or forged
signature or stamp.
Note: The offender should not be the
forger; otherwise, he will be penalized under Art.
161. In using forged signature or stamp of the
Chief Executive, or forged seal, the participation
of the offender is in effect that of an accessory,
and although the general rule is that he should
be punished by a penalty two degrees lower,
under Art. 162 he is punished by a penalty only
one degree lower. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.191)
ARTICLE 163
MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING
FALSE COINS
Elements: (FaCoMCon)
1. That there be a False or Counterfeited coin;
2. The offender either Made, imported or
uttered such coins; and
3. That in case of uttering such false or
counterfeited coins, he Connived with the
counterfeiters or importers.
False or counterfeited coin – if it is forged or
if it is not authorized by the Government as legal
tender, regardless of its intrinsic value. (Id.)
Counterfeiting – means the imitation of a legal
or genuine coin. It may contain more silver than
the ordinary coin. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.193)
 There must be an imitation of the peculiar
design of a genuine coin. (U.S. vs. Basco, G.R.
No. L-2747, April 11, 1906)
To import fake coins – is the act of bringing
them into port. The importation is complete even
before entry at the Customs house. (U.S. VS.
Lyman, 26 Fed. Cas. 1024)
Utter – to pass counterfeited coins. It includes
their delivery 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 utter may not obtain the gain he
intended. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain
January 11, 1913; January 4, 1893; November 12,
1888; and December 24, 1885)
NOTE: Former coins withdrawn from circulation
may still be counterfeited under Art. 163.
The reason for punishing the fabrication of a coin
withdrawn from circulation is not alone the harm
that may be caused to the public in case it goes
into circulation again, but the possibility that the
counterfeiter may later apply his trade to the
making of coins in actual circulation. (People vs.
Kong Leon, C.A., 48, O.G. 664)
ARTICLE 164
MUTILATION OF COINS
Punishable Acts: MuCon
1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with
the further requirement that there be intent
to damage or to defraud another; or
2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins,
with the further requirement that there must
be Connivance with the mutilator or importer
in case of uttering.
Mutilation – to take off part of the metal either
by filing it or substituting it for another metal of
inferior quality. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.195)
● It is to diminish by ingenuous means the
metal in the coin. (People vs. Tin Ching Ting,
G.R. No. L-4620, January 30, 1962)
NOTE: Mere possession of a counterfeited or
mutilated coin is not a crime. There must be an
intent to utter or distribute it in circulation to
make it a crime.
Legal Tender – the currency which has been
suitable by law for the purpose of a tender of
payment of debts.
Notes and coins issued and circulating in
accordance with RA No. 265 as amended and/or
RA No. 7653, which when offered for the
payment of public or private debt must be
accepted. (BSP Circular No. 61 Series of 1995)
NOTE: The coin must be of the legal currency or
current coins of the Philippines. If coin mutilated
is legal tender of a foreign country, it is not a
crime of mutilation under the RPC. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.195)
133
 ARTICLE 165
SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN,
WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
Punishable Acts:
1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated
by another person, with intent to utter the
same, knowing that it is false or mutilated.
Elements: (PIK)
a. Possession;
b. With Intent to utter; and
c. Knowledge.
2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin,
knowing the same to be false or mutilated.
Elements: (KA)
a. Actually uttering; and
b. Knowledge.
NOTES:
● Possession of or uttering false coin does not
require that the counterfeited coin is legal
tender. (People vs. Tin Ching Ting, G.R. No. L-
4620, January 30, 1962)
● The possession prohibited in Art. 165 of the
RPC is possession in general, that is, not only
actual, physical possession, but also
constructive possession or the subjection of
the thing to one’s control, otherwise
offenders could easily evade the law by the
mere expedient of placing other persons in
actual, physical possession of the thing
although retaining constructive possession
or actual control thereof. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.198)
● The accused must have knowledge of the
fact that the coin is false. The fact that a
person received a false coin in payment of
his goods and placed it in his drawer shows
that he did not know that such coin was
false. (People vs. Go Po, G.R. No. 42697, August
1985)
134
ARTICLE 166
FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR
OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER;
IMPORTING, AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE
OR FORGED NOTES, AND DOCUMENTS
Punishable Acts: (FImU)
1. Forging or falsification of treasury, bank
notes or other documents payable to bearer;
2. Importation of such false or forged obligation
or notes; or
3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or
notes in connivance with forgers or
importers.
NOTES:
Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or
bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or
to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a
true and genuine document; or by erasing,
substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any
means the figures, letters, words or sign
contained therein. (Art. 169)
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. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.199)
Uttering of false or forged obligations or notes
means offering obligations or notes knowing
them to be false or forged, whether such offer is
accepted or not, with a representation, by words
or actions, that they are genuine and with an
intent to defraud.
Uttering forged bill must be with connivance to
constitute a violation of Art. 166. (People vs.
Valencia, G.R. No. L-39864, December 8, 1933)
“Obligation or security” of the Philippines – shall
be held to mean bonds, certificates of
indebtedness, national bank notes, coupons,
treasury notes, fractional notes, certificates of
deposits, bills, checks, drafts for money, and
other representatives of value issued under any
Act of Congress. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.199)
Notes and obligations and securities that may be
forged or falsified under Art. 166 are treasury or
bank notes, certificates and other obligations and
securities payable to bearer.
An instrument is payable to bearer when:
a. It is expressed to be so payable;
b. It is payable to a person named therein or
bearer;
c. 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;
d. The name of the payee does not purport to
be the name of any person; or
e. The only or last indorsement is an
indorsement in blank. (Sec. 9, Negotiable
Instruments Law)
ARTICLE 167
COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND
UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE
TO BEARER
Elements: (COFI-CU)
1. That there be an instrument payable to Order
or other document of Credit not payable to
bearer;
2. That the offender either Forged, Imported or
Uttered such instrument; and
3. That in case of uttering, he Connived with the
forger or importer.
NOTES:
An instrument is payable to order where it is
drawn payable to the order of a specified person
or to him or his order. (Sec. 8, NIL)
 Reason for punishing forgery: to
maintain the integrity of the currency and to
insure the credit standing of the government
and prevent the imposition on the public and
the government of worthless notes or
obligations. (People vs. Galano, C.A., 54 O.G.
5897)
 Connivance is not required in uttering if the
utterer is the forger, for he can be held liable
as a forger of the instrument. (People vs.
Orqueza, 14 C.A. Rep, 730)
ARTICLE 168
ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE
TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER
INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT
Elements: (ForFal – PUK)
1. Any treasury or bank note or certificate or
other obligation and certificate 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. The offender Knows that any of those
instruments is forged or falsified; and
3. That he performs any of these acts:
a. Using any of such forged or falsified
instruments; or
b. Possession with intent to use, any of the
forged or falsified instruments.
NOTE: Possession of false treasury or bank notes
alone is not a criminal offense. For it to constitute
an offense, possession must be with intent to use
said false treasury or bank notes. (People vs.
Digoro, G.R. No. L–22032, March 4, 1966)
Mere possession of false money bill, without
intent to use it to the damage of another, is not
a crime. There must be intent to use it to the
damage of another. However, the accused has
the burden to give satisfactory explanation of his
possession of forged bills. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.206)
ARTICLE 169
HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a true
and genuine document; or
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or
altering by any means the figures, letters,
words or sign contained therein.
NOTE: This provision contemplates not only
situations involving spurious, false or fake
document, but also situations involving originally
true and genuine documents which have been
withdrawn or demonetized, or have outlived their
usefulness. The forgery consists in the addition of
a word in an effort to give to the present
document the appearance of a true and genuine
135
certificate that it used to have before it has ARTICLE 171
withdrawn or has outlived its usefulness. (People FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER,
vs. Galana, G.R. No. 111806, March 9, 2000) EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
Acts of Falsification
Elements:
Forgery Falsification
1. The offender is a public officer or a notary
As used in Art. 169, It is the commission of public or an ecclesiastical minister;
forgery refers to the any of the eight acts 2. He takes advantage of his official position;
falsification and mentioned in Art. 171 on
3. He falsifies a document by committing any
counterfeiting of treasury legislative (only the act of
or bank notes or any making alteration), public
of the following acts:
instruments payable to or official, commercial, or
the bearer or to order. private documents, or 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any
wireless, or telegraph handwriting, signature or rubric;
messages.
Requisites:
The essence of forgery is giving a document the
appearance of a true and genuine document. 1. There is an intent to imitate or attempt to
Hence, mere change on a document does not imitate; and
amount to this crime. (People vs. Galana, supra) 2. That the two signatures or handwritings, the
genuine and the forged, bear some
ARTICLE 170 resemblance to each other. (U.S. vs. Rampas,
FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE G.R. No. 9146, November 26, 1913)
DOCUMENTS 1. Counterfeiting – imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric.
Elements: (BANC)
Imitating (feigning) – forgery of a
1. There is a Bill, resolution or ordinance
signature, handwriting, or rubric out of one
enacted or approved or pending approval by
which does not in fact exist. (Reyes, The
Congress or any Provincial Board or Municipal
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.217)
Council which includes City Council or
Municipal Board; 2. Causing it to appear that persons have
2. The offender Alters the same; participated in any act or proceeding
3. The offender has No proper authority when they did not in fact so participate;
therefore; and
Requisites:
4. The alteration has Changed the meaning of
the document. 1. That the offender caused it to appear in a
document that a person or persons
NOTES: participated in an act or proceeding; and
2. That such person or persons did not in fact
● In relation to this Article, the bill, resolution so participate in the act or proceeding.
or ordinance must be genuine. A fabricated
or simulated legislative document is not NOTE: When committed by a private individual,
covered by Art. 170. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Art. 172 should be applied. (Id.)
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.211) 3. Attributing to persons who have
● As to the offender, such may be any person participated in an act or proceeding
who has no proper authority to make the statements other than those in fact
alteration. Therefore, the offender may be a made by such person/s;
private individual or a public officer. (Ibid.)
● The act of falsification in legislative Requisites:
document is limited to altering it which
1. That a person or persons participated in an
changes its meaning. (Ibid.)
act or a proceeding;

136
2. That such person or persons made
statements in that act or proceeding; and
3. That the offender, in making a document,
attributed to such person or persons
statements other than those in fact made by
such person or persons.
4. Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
Requisites:
1. That the offender makes in a document
statements in a narration of facts;
2. That he has a legal obligation to disclose
the truth of the facts narrated by him;
3. That the facts narrated by the offender
are absolutely false; and
4. That the perversion of truth in the
narration of facts was made with the
wrongful intent of injuring a third person.
NOTES:
 It is merely an account or description of
the particulars of an event or occurrence.
Hence, the use of words or figures or
numbers or any combination of two or
three said things, as long as it describes
an event or occurrence is sufficient to
make a narration of facts as defined
under Art. 171 (4) of the RPC. (Bartolo vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172123, April 16,
2009)
“Legal obligation” means that there is a law
requiring the disclosure of the truth of facts
narrated. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.221)
The promulgation of Central Bank Circular
133 wiped away the legal obligation of the
applicants for foreign exchange to disclose
the truth of the facts narrated in the
documents supporting their application. As
there is no more legal obligation of the
applicant to disclose such truth, an untruthful
statement therein no longer constitutes the
crime of falsification perpetrated by making
false statements in a narration of facts.
(Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-23587-
88, June 10, 1976)
 Wrongful intent not essential when the
document falsified is public document.
(People vs. Po Giok To, G.R. No. L-7236 April
30, 1955)
5. Altering true dates;
 Date must be essential such as it
affects either the veracity of the
document or the effects thereof.
(Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain
of February 25, 1885, and June 21, 1886,
cited in the case of People vs. Reodica
and Cordero, G.R. No. 42557, December
7, 1935)
6. Making any alteration or
intercalation in a genuine document
which changes its meaning;
NOTES:
 Alteration which speaks the truth is
not falsification. The idea of
deception is inherent in the word
alteration – of making the instrument
speak something which the parties
did not intend it to speak. (US vs.
Mateo, G.R. No. 8025, September 17,
1913)
 In falsification, the document need
not be an authentic official paper
since its simulation, in fact, is the
essence of falsification. (Nizurtado vs.
Sanganbayan, G.R. No. 107383,
December 7, 1994)
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purported to be a copy of
an original document when no such
original exist; or including in such
copy a statement contrary to or
different from that of the genuine
original; and
NOTES:
● The acts of falsification mentioned in
this paragraph can be committed only
by a public officer or notary public
who takes advantage of his official
position, since the authentication of a
document can be made only by the
custodian or the one who prepared
and retained a copy of the original
document.
137
  A private person who cooperates with a
public officer in the falsification of a
public document is guilty of this crime
and incurs the same liability and penalty
as the public officer. (U.S. vs. Ponte, G.R.
No. L-5952, October 24, 1911)
 Intent to gain or prejudice is not
necessary, because it is the interest of
the community which is intended to be
guaranteed by the strict faithfulness of
the officials charged with the preparation
or preservation of the acts in which they
intervene. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.228)
8. Intercalating any instrument or
note relative to the issuance thereof
in a protocol, registry, or official
book.
 In case the offender is an ecclesiastical
minister, the act of falsification is
committed with respect to any record or
document of such character that its
falsification may affect the civil status of
persons. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2006, p.215)
ARTICLE 172
FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF FALSIFIED
DOCUMENTS
Punishable Acts: (F2U)
1. Falsification of public, official or commercial
documents by a private individual;
2. Falsification of private document by any
person; or
3. Use of falsified document in a judicial
proceeding or in any other proceeding.
Elements of Falsification of public, official
or commercial documents by a private
individual:
1. Offender is a private individual or public
officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position;
2. He committed any acts of falsification under
Art. 171; and
138
3. Falsification was committed in a public or
official, or commercial document.
Importance of the classification of
documents:
a) In private documents, criminal liability will not
arise, unless there is damage caused or it has
been established that the accused acted with
intent to cause damages. Mere falsity will not
bring about criminal liability but only civil
liability.
b) In public documents or commercial
documents, criminal liability can arise
although nobody suffered damage out of the
falsification and it is not necessary to prove
that the accused acted with intent to cause
damage.
Document – is any written statement by which
a right is established or an obligation
extinguished or by which a fact may be proved or
affirmed.
Four Kinds of Documents:
1. Public document – one that has been
notarized, one that is part of public record,
any instrument authorized by a notary public
or a competent public official, with the
solemnities (Cacnio vs. Baens, G.R. No. 2116,
March 16, 1906);
2. Official document – the execution of which
a public official takes part, a document which
is issued by a public official in the exercise of
the functions of his office. An official
document is also a public document. It falls
within the larger class called public
documents (U.S. vs. Asensi, G.R. No. 11165,
August 15, 1916);
3. Commercial document – these are
documents used by merchants or
businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or
credit transactions such as certificate of time
deposit (Amibito vs. People, G.R. No. 127327,
February 13, 2009), loan documents (People vs.
Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014) and sales
invoice (People vs. Monteverde, G.R. No. 139610,
August 12, 2002). Also, these are documents
defined and regulated by commercial law
such as promissory note and check.
(Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer Volume II,
2019, p. 88); and
4. Private document – the execution of which
only private individuals take part, a deed or
instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary public or
other person legally authorized, by which
document some disposition or agreement is
proved, evidenced or set forth. (US vs. Orera,
G.R. No. 3810, October 18, 1907)
Elements of Falsification of private
document by any person:
1. Offender committed any of the acts of
falsification except Art. 171(7);
2. It was committed in any private document;
and
3. Falsification caused damage to a third party
or at least the falsification was committed
was intent to cause such damage.
NOTES:
Damage need not be material, damage to one’s
honor is included. (People vs. Marasigan, G.R. No.
6040, October 18, 1940)
c. He introduced the said document in
evidence in any judicial proceeding.
2. Use in any other transaction:
a. Offender knew that a document was
falsified by another person;
b. The false document is embraced in Art. 171
or in any of the subdivision no. 1 or 2 of
Art. 172;
c. He used such document but not in a judicial
proceeding; and
d. The use of false document caused damage
to another or at least it was used with
intent to cause damage to another.
NOTE: If a person makes, presents or uses any
record, document, paper or object with
knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect
the course or outcome of the investigation of, or
official proceedings in criminal cases, such person
is liable under P.D. No. 1829 (Obstruction of
Justice Law).
Art. 171 vs. Art. 172 (ODD)

Generally, falsification is consummated when the

Art. 171 Art. 172
genuine document is altered or the moment the
false document is executed. It is immaterial that As to Offender
the offender did not achieve his objective.
The offender is a public The offender includes a
officer, notary public or private individual.
There is no complex crime of estafa through
ecclesiastical minister.
falsification of private document because the
immediate effect of falsification of private As to Document falsified
document is the same as that of estafa. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.242) The document falsified is The document falsified is
a public document, such classified into public,
that: official and commercial,
There is no falsification of private document (1) Document falsified by on the one hand, and
through reckless imprudence since there is at public officer is a public or private on the other.
least intent to cause damage, that is, there must official document;
be malice. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book (2) The document a
Two, 2006, p.241) notary public is a
notarized document,
Elements of Use of falsified document in a which is a public
judicial proceeding or in any other document;
(3) The only document
proceeding:
that can be falsified by
ecclesiastical minister is
1. Introducing in a judicial proceeding: marriage contract, which
is a public document.
a. Offender knew that a document was
falsified by another person;
b. The false document is embraced in Art. As to Damage as element
171 or in any subdivisions No. 1 or 2 of
Art. 172;

139
Damage is not an Damage is an element in
element but the erosion the case of falsification
of public faith in the and in the use of falsified
documents. document not in judicial
proceedings.
ARTICLE 173
FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE,
TELEGRAPH, AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES,
AND USE OF SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES
Punishable Acts: (UFU)
1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or
telephone messages;
2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone
messages; and
Common elements for the two acts:
a. The offender is an officer or employee of the
government or private corporation engaged
in the service of sending and receiving
wireless cable or telephone message; and
b. Offender commits any of the above acts.
3. Using such falsified messages.
Elements:
a. Accused knew that wireless, cable, telegraph
or telephone message was falsified by any
persons specified in the Art. 173(1);
b. The accused used such falsified dispatch;
c. That the use of the falsified dispatch resulted
in the prejudice of a third party, or that the
use thereof was with intent to cause such
prejudice.
ARTICLE 174
FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, FALSE
CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE,
ETC.
Persons liable:
a. Physician or surgeon – in connection with
the practice of his profession, shall issue a
false certificate (crime is False Medical
Certificate by a physician);
b. Public officer – issue a false certificate of
merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances (crime is False Certificate of
Merit or Service by a public officer); and
140
c. Private person – falsify a certificate failing
within the classes mentioned in the two
preceding subdivisions (crime is False Medical
Certificate by a private individual, False
Certificate of Merit or Service or by a private
individual).
Certificate – is any writing by which testimony
is given that a fact has or has not taken place.
(Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)
ARTICLE 175
USING FALSE CERTIFICATES
Elements: (PhyKU)
1. A Physician or surgeon had issued a false
medical certificate, or a public officer had
issued a false certificate of merit or service,
good conduct or similar circumstances or a
private person had falsified any of said
certificates;
2. The offender Knew that the certificate was
false; and
3. He Used the same.
NOTE: When any of the false certificates
mentioned in Art. 174 is used in the judicial
proceeding, Art. 172 does not apply, because the
use of false document in judicial proceeding
under Art. 172 is limited to those false documents
embraced in Art. 171 & 172. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.250)
ARTICLE 176
MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF
INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR
FALSIFICATION
Punishable Acts:
1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any
stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or
implements intended to be used in the
commission of the offenses of counterfeiting
or falsification;
2. Possessing with intent to use the instruments
or implements for counterfeiting or
falsification made in or introduced into the
Philippines by another person.
NOTE: The possession prohibited in Articles 165
and 176 of the RPC is possession in general, that
is, not only actual, physical possession, but also
constructive possession or the subjection of the
thing to one’s control. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 177
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
Punishable Acts:
1. Usurpation of Authority - By knowingly
and falsely representing oneself to be an
officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine
government or of any foreign government.
2. Usurpation of Official Functions - By
performing any act pertaining to any person
in authority or public officer of the Philippine
Government or of a foreign government or
any agency thereof, under the pretense of
official position, and without being lawfully
entitled to do so.
NOTE: There must be positive, express, and
explicit representation. The crime is not
committed if the accused merely did not deny
that he was an agent of the Philippine
Government when introduced as such by public
officials. (People vs. Calinisan, 8 C.A. Rep., 20)
ARTICLE 178
USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND
CONCEALING TRUE NAME
Punishable Acts:
1. Using fictitious name
2. Concealing true name
Elements of using fictitious name:
(UP – ConEC)
a. The offender Uses a name other than his real
name;
b. He uses the fictitious name Publicly; and
c. The purpose of the offender is:
i. To Conceal a crime;
ii. To Evade the execution of a judgment; or
iii. To Cause damage to public interest.
NOTES:
Fictitious Name – any other name which a
person publicly applies to himself without
authority of law is a fictitious name. (U.S. vs. To
Lee Piu, G.R. No. 11522, September 26, 1916)
The signing of a fictitious name in an application
for passport, is publicly using such fictitious name
in an application. (Id.)
Damage must be to public interest. If damage is
to private interest, the crime will be estafa under
Art. 315 2(a).
Elements of Concealing true name:
a. The offender conceals his true name and all
other personal circumstances; and
b. The purpose is only to conceal his identity.
Use of fictitious name vs. Concealing true
name
Use of fictitious name Concealing true name
As to Purpose
Purpose is either to Purpose is merely to
conceal a crime, to evade conceal identity.
execution of judgment,
or to cause damage.
As to necessity of Publicity as an element
The element of publicity The element of publicity is
is present. not necessary.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2006, p.261)
ARTICLE 179
ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS OR INSIGNIA
Elements: (IUD-IN)
1. The offender makes use of Insignia, Uniform
or Dress;
2. The insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an
office Not held by the offender or to a class of
persons of which he is not a member; and
3. The said insignia, uniform or dress is used
publicly and Improperly.
NOTES:
141
Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office is not
punishable. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.262)
An exact imitation of the dress or uniform is
unnecessary.
 Exact imitation is not necessary. A colorable
resemblance calculated to deceive the
common run of the people – not those
thoroughly familiar with every detail or
accessory thereof – is sufficient. (People vs.
Romero, G.R. No. 20249–R and 20250, October 6,
1961)
The term “improperly” means that the offender
has no right to use the uniform or insignia.
Using naval, military, police or other official
uniform, decoration or regalia of foreign state
with intent to deceive or mislead is punished by
RA 75.
Wearing insignia, badge or emblem of rank of the
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippine or
Constabulary is punished by RA 493 except if
used in playhouse or theater or in moving picture
films.
ARTICLE 180
FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A
DEFENDANT
Elements: (Crim FACK)
1. There is a Criminal proceeding;
2. The offender testifies Falsely under oath
against the defendant therein;
3. The offender who gives false testimony
Knows that it is false; and
4. The defendant against whom the false
testimony is given is either Acquitted or
Convicted in a final judgment.
False testimony – is committed by a person
who, being under oath and required to testify as
the truth of a certain matter at a hearing before
a competent authority, shall deny the truth or say
something contrary to it. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.263)
Forms of False Testimony:
a. In criminal cases (Art. 180-181);
142
b. In civil cases (Art. 182); and
c. In other cases, (special proceedings,
administrative proceedings) (Art. 183).
Penalty to be imposed:
It depends upon the sentence imposed to the
accused. This crime is committed whether the
accused is convicted or acquitted. It is not
punishable however, if the accused is charged
with a light felony. A light felony is an infraction
of the law for the commission of which the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
forty thousand pesos or Php 40,000.00 or both is
provided. (Art. 9[3], R.A. No. 10951 or RPC as
amended on August 29, 2017)
NOTES:
Defendant must be sentenced at least to (1) a
correctional penalty, or (2) a fine, or (3) must be
acquitted. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, pp. 265)
The witness who gave false testimony is liable
even if the court did not consider his testimony.
ARTICLE 181
FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO THE
DEFENDANT
Elements:
1. There is a criminal case;
2. A person gives false testimony;
3. In favor of the defendant (accused).
NOTES:
False testimony favorable to the defendant is
equally repugnant to the orderly administration
of justice. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.266)
The false testimony in favor of defendant need
not directly influence the decision of acquittal.
(Ibid.)
The false testimony favorable to the defendant
need not benefit the defendant. It is sufficient
that the false testimony was given with intent to
favor the defendant. (Ibid.)
Conviction or acquittal of defendant in principal
case is not necessary. (Ibid.)
Rectification made spontaneously after realizing
mistake is not false testimony. (Ibid.)
Penalty to be imposed:
The penalty imposable to the false witness
depends upon the classification of the felony and
the penalty imposable.
ARTICLE 182
FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES
Elements: (Civ FaKMI)
1. The testimony must be given in a Civil case;
2. It must relate to the Issues presented in said
case;
3. It must be False;
4. It must be given by the defendant Knowing
the same to be false; and
5. The testimony must be Malicious and given
with an intent to affect the issues presented
in said case.
NOTES:
● As a rule, Art. 182 is applicable only to
ordinary or special civil actions and
supplementary or ancillary proceedings, but
not applicable when the false testimony is
given in special proceedings. (Id.)
● The penalty depends on the amount of the
controversy. (Id.)
Effect on Prescriptive Period on the nature
of false testimony:
Whether the testimony is in favor or against the
accused determines when the prescriptive period
begins to run when:
1. In favor – right after the witness testified,
the period commences to run because the
basis of the penalty on the false witness is
the felony charged to the accused regardless
of whether the accused is acquitted or
convicted or the trial has terminated.
2. Against – period will not begin to run as
long as the case has not been decided with
finality because the basis of the penalty on
the false witness is the sentence on the
accused. When the accused is acquitted,
there is also a corresponding penalty on the
false witness for his false testimony.
ARTICLE 183
FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND
PERJURY
Elements of perjury: (MOWR)
1. Accused made a statement under oath or
executed an affidavit upon a Material matter;
2. The statement or affidavit was made before
a competent Officer, authorized to receive
and administer oaths;
3. The accused made a Willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood; and
4. That the sworn statement or affidavit
containing the falsity is Required by law or
authorized by law.
Two ways of committing perjury:
1. Falsely testifying under oath; and
2. Making a false affidavit.
NOTES:
Oath – any form of attestation by which a person
signifies that he is bound in conscience to
perform an act faithfully and truthfully. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.273)
Affidavit – a sworn statement in writing, a
declaration in writing, made upon oath before an
authorized magistrate or officer. (Id.)
Material matter – it is the 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
inquiry, or which legitimately affects the credit of
any witness who testifies. (U.S. vs. Estraña, G.R. No.
5751, September 6, 1910)
 Subornation of Perjury – procures another
to swear falsely and the witness committed
perjury. There is no crime of subordination of
perjury. The crime is now treated as plain
perjury with the one inducing another as the
principal by inducement and the latter, as
principal by direct participation. (People vs.
Pudol, G.R. No. L-45618, October 18, 1938)
143
Art. 183 governs false testimony given in cases
other than those punished in Art. 180–182, and
in actions for perjury.
There is no perjury through negligence or
imprudence since the assertion of falsehood must
be willful and deliberate. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.275)
ARTICLE 184
OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN
EVIDENCE
Elements: (EJK)
1. Offender offered in Evidence a false witness
or false testimony;
2. He Knew the witness or the testimony was
false; and
3. The offer was made in any Judicial or official
proceeding.
NOTES:
● This article applies when the offender, without
inducing another but knowing him to be a
false witness, presented him and the latter
testified falsely in a judicial or official
proceeding. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.279)
● The felony is consummated the moment a
false witness is offered in any judicial or
official proceeding. Looking for a false witness
is not punished by law as that is not offering
a false witness.
● The false witness need not be convicted of
false testimony. A mere offer to present him
is sufficient.
● Mere inconsistencies or contradictions on
material points in a testimony or affidavit
would not be enough to convict an accused for
false testimony or perjury. It is incumbent
upon the prosecution to prove the statement
is false by other evidence. (Id.)
ARTICLE 185
MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS
Nature: No crime of attempted or frustrated
machination in public auctions. Attempting to do
overt act consummates the crime.
144
Acts punishable:
1. By soliciting any gift or promise as a
consideration for refraining from taking part in
any public auction; and
2. By attempting to cause bidders to stay away
from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or
any other artifice.
Elements of soliciting gift or promise:
(SIRA)
1. That there be a public Auction;
2. That the accused Solicited any gift or a
promise from any of the bidders;
3. That such gifts or promise was the
consideration for his Refraining from taking
part in that public auction; and
4. That the accused had the Intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.
Elements of attempting to cause bidders to
stay away: (TRAP)
1. That there be a Public auction;
2. That the accused Attempted to cause the
bidders to stay away from that public auction;
3. That it was done by Threats, gifts, promises,
or any other artifice; and
4. That the accused has the intent to cause the
Reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.
NOTES:
● The crime is consummated by the mere act of
soliciting a gift or promise, and it is not
required that the person making the proposal
actually refrains from taking part in any public
auction. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.282)
● Mere attempt to cause prospective bidders to
stay away from the auction is sufficient to
constitute an offense. The threat need not be
effective nor the offer or gift accepted. (Id.)
● Reason for the provision: Execution sales
should be opened to secure the maximum
benefit for the debtors. (Diaz vs. Kapunan,
December 8, 1923)
 ARTICLE 186
MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Art. 186 has been repealed by the R.A. No.
10667 – Philippine Competition Act
NOTES:
● The act of a person distributing papers and
proclamations spreading subversive and
fanatic ideas that unless people would lower
the prices of needful commodities, they would
be visited by flood and other calamities is an
example of spreading false rumors or making
use of any artifice to restrain free competition
in the market. (U.S. vs. Fulgueras, G.R. No. 2176,
April 18, 1905)
● The theory of the law in penalizing monopolies
and combinations in restraint of trade is that
competition, not combination, should be the
law of trade. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.294)
● When offense is committed by a corporation
or association, the president and directors or
managers are liable when:
o They knowingly permitted; or
Failed to prevent the commission of such
offenses. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.295)
TITLE FIVE. CRIMES RELATIVE
TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED
DRUGS
(ARTICLES 190-194)
[Repealed by R.A. No. 9165]
R.A. No. 9165 – Dangerous Drugs Act (See
further discussion on Special Laws) provides that
provisions of RPC shall not apply to the provisions
of this Act (R.A. No. 9165), except in the case of
minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor,
the penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided herein shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.
E. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
(ARTICLES 195-202)
PD 1602 or Gambling Law and R.A. No.
9287 – ILLEGAL NUMBERS GAMES (See
further discussion on Special Laws) repealed
Articles 195–199 and provisions of PD 483 and
449 are repealed insofar as they are inconsistent
with PD 1602, which provides for stiffer penalties
for violation of the Gambling Laws.
Art. 199. Illegal Cockfighting – the provision
has been modified or repealed by PD 449 or the
Cockfighting Law of 1974.
ARTICLE 200
GRAVE SCANDAL
Elements: (P2H-Not)
1. That the offender Performs an act or acts;
2. That such act or acts be Highly scandalous as
offering against decency or good customs;
3. That the highly scandalous conduct is Not
expressly falling within any article of this
Code; and
4. That the act or acts complained of be
committed in a public place or within the
Public knowledge or view.
NOTES:
Grave scandal consists of acts which are
offensive to decency and good customs which
having committed publicly, have given rise to
public scandal to persons who have accidentally
witnessed the same. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.372)
If the act or acts of the offender are punished
under another article of this code, Article 200 is
not applicable. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.372)
The acts must be performed in a public place OR
within public knowledge or view.
For being committed within the public
knowledge, it may occur even in a private place.
But when the act complained of was committed
at night, and at a time when no one was present
except the accused, the mistress of the house
and one servant, these circumstances do not
constitute the degree of publicity which is an
essential element of the crime. (U.S. vs. Catajay,
G.R. No. 2785, August 23, 1906)
The essence of grave scandal is publicity and
that the acts committed are not only contrary to
morals and good customs but must likewise be
145
of such character as to cause public scandal to
those witnessing it.
ARTICLE 201
IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS, AND
INDECENT SHOWS* as amended by P.D. Nos.
960 and 969
Persons Liable: (Ex OS)
2 a. Upon conviction of offender – to be
a. Those who shall publicly Expound or proclaim
doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
b. Authors of Obscene literature, published with
their knowledge in any form, editors
publishing such literature, and the
owners/operators of the establishment selling
the same;
c. Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs
or any other place shall Exhibit indecent or
immoral plays, scenes, acts or show, whether
live or in film, which shall:
(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, decree and edicts.
d. Those who Sells, gives away, or exhibit films,
prints, engravings, sculptures, or literature
which are offensive to morals.
NOTES:
 Publicity is essential. The mere possession of
obscene literature is not punishable. There
must be publishing, selling, exhibiting, or
giving away (distribution) of such literature.
This is to consider that the purpose of the law
is to prohibit the dissemination of obscene
materials to the public. (Fernando vs. CA, G.R.
No. 159751, December 6, 2006)
● Tests of Obscenity - Whether the tendency
of the matter charged as obscene, is to
corrupt those whose minds are open to such
immoral influences and into whose hands such
a publication may fall, and whether or not
such publication or act shocks the ordinary
and common sense of men as an indecency.
146
(U.S. vs. Kottinger, G.R. No. L-20569, October 29,
1923)
● Pictures with slight degree of obscenity, not
used for art’s sake but for commercial
purposes, fall under this article. (Reyes, 2017;
People vs. Go Pin, G.R. No. L-7491, August 8, 1955)
● Disposition of prohibited articles:
forfeited in favor of the government to be
destroyed.
b. Acquittal of offender – to be forfeited in
favor of the government to be destroyed,
after forfeiture proceedings conducted by
Chief Constabulary. The aggrieved may,
within 15 days after receipt of a copy of
the decision in forfeiture proceedings,
appeal the matter to the Secretary of
National Defense. The decision of the
latter shall be final and unappealable.
(Sec. 2, P.D. No. 969)
In case the offender is a government official or
employee, the penalty imposed herein shall be
imposed in the maximum period and, in addition,
the accessory penalties be provided for in the
RPC, as amended, shall likewise be imposed .
(Sec. 4 P.D. No. 969)
R.A. 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video
Voyeurism Act of 2009 (See further discussion
on Special Laws) prohibits the taking, copying,
selling, publishing or broadcasting of photos or
videos of sexual acts.
ARTICLE 202
VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES
Republic Act No. 10158 decriminalizes
vagrancy and provides that “Women who, for
money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to
be prostitutes”. (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 10158)
All persons serving sentence for violation of the
provisions of Art. 202 of the Revised Penal Code
on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act
shall be immediately released upon effectivity of
this Act: Provided, That they are not serving
sentence or detained for any other offense or
felony. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 10158)
NOTES:
Carnal knowledge of a child below 12 years old
even if she is engaged in prostitution is still
considered statutory rape. The application of
force and intimidation/deprivation of reason of
the victim becomes irrelevant. (People vs. Jalosjos,
G.R. Nos. 132875-76. November 16, 2001)
The term prostitution is not applicable to a man.
A man who engages in the same conduct is not a
prostitute but a vagrant. However, he may be
punished under city/municipal ordinance.
RA 9208 or The Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2003 (See further discussion on Special
Laws) includes in the unlawful acts trafficking in
persons for purposes of prostitution.
F. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS
(ARTICLES 203-245)
ARTICLE 203
WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS
Requisites: (PLEA)
To be a public officer, one must be:
1. Takes 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, and
subordinate official of any rank or class.
2. His authority to take part in the performance
of public functions or to perform duties must
be:
a. By direct provision of Law;
b. Popular Election; or
c. Appointment by competent authority.
Dereliction of duty – misconduct in office or
prevarication, such as rendering an unjust
judgment knowingly.
Misfeasance – the performance of some act
which might lawfully done.
Malfeasance – the improper performance of
some act which ought not to be done.
Nonfeasance – omission of some act which
ought to be performed. (Words and Phrases,
Permanent Edition, No. 27)
 The term public officers embrace every
public servant from the highest to the lowest.
For the purposes of the RPC, it obliterates the
standard distinction under administrative law
of public officers between officer and
employee. For purposes of punishing bribery,
the temporary performance of public
functions is sufficient to constitute a person a
public official. (Maniego vs. People, G.R. No. L–
2971, April 20, 1951)
One appointed as laborer in government is not a
public officer but temporary performance of
public functions by a laborer makes him a public
officer. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.392)
ARTICLE 204
KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST
JUDGMENT
Elements: (JR-UK)
1. The offender is a Judge;
2. He Renders judgment in a case submitted to
him for decision;
3. Judgment is Unjust; and
4. Judge Knows that his judgment is unjust.
 Judgement is the final consideration and
determination of a court of competent
jurisdiction upon the matters submitted to it,
in an action or proceeding. (Gotamco vs. Chan
Seng, et al., G.R. No. L-22737, November 28,
1924)
 Unjust judgement is one which is contrary to
law, or is not supported by the evidence, or
both. The source of unjust judgement may
either be 1) error or 2) ill-will or 3) revenge,
or 4) revenge. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, pp.394-395)
 The judge must render the judgment with
conscious and deliberate intent to do an
injustice. (De Guzman vs. Dy, A.M. No. RTJ–
0301755, July 3, 2003)
 Art. 204 has no application to members of a
collegiate court (e.g. Supreme Court, Court of
147
 Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax
Appeals) who reached their conclusions in
consultation and accordingly render their
collective judgment after due deliberation. (In
Re: Laureta, G.R. No. 68635, May 14, 1987)
No liability at all for mere error. Bad faith is the
ground of liability. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.395)
There must be evidence that the decision
rendered is unjust. It cannot be presumed. (Ibid.)
Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgement
cannot likewise serve as basis for rendering an
unjust judgment in the absence of proof or an
allegation of bad faith. (Ibid.)
 Judges are not administratively
accountable for every erroneous ruling
or decision rendered provided he acts in
good faith and without malice.—
However, since it is a fundamental rule of
long standing that a judicial officer when
required to exercise his judgment or
discretion is not criminally liable for any error
he commits provided he acts in good faith,
that in the absence of malice or other
wrongful conduct on the part of the
respondent in issuing an order, the judge
cannot be held administratively responsible
therefor even if the appellate court upholds a
different view and finds his conclusion to be
erroneous for "no one, called upon to try the
facts or interpret the law in the process of
administering justice can be infallible in his
judgment," and "and to hold a judge
administratively accountable for every
erroneous ruling or decision he renders
assuming that he has erred, would be
nothing short of harassment or would make
his position unbearable. (Mendoza vs. Villaluz,
Adm. Case No. 1797-CCC, August 27, 1981)
ARTICLE 205
JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE
Elements: (JuManRI)
1. The offender is a Judge;
2. He Renders judgment in a case submitted to
him for decision;
3. The judgment is Manifestly unjust; and
148
4. It is due to his Inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
NOTES:
Manifestly Unjust Judgment – means it is so
manifestly contrary to law, that even a person
having a meager knowledge of the law cannot
doubt the injustice. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2006, p.378) Therefore, there is no need
for “a final and authoritative judicial declaration”
that the decision or order in question is indeed
“unjust”.
 A mere error of judgment cannot serve as
basis for a charge of knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment, where there is no proof or
even allegation of bad faith, or ill motive, or
improper consideration. (Yaranon vs. Judge
Rubio, A.M. No. 449-MJ, August 7, 1975)
ARTICLE 206
UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
Elements: (Ju-KIPer)
1. The offender is a Judge; and
2. He Performs any of the following acts:
a. Knowingly renders unjust interlocutory
order or decree; or
b. Renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory
order or decree through Inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
Notes:
Interlocutory order is any order issued by a judge
that does not finally disposes of a case or a
matter pending before him. It refers to any order
issued by a judge from the inception of a case
until its final determination. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.398)
 The test in determining whether an order or
judgment is interlocutory or final is: if it
leaves something to be done in the trial court
with respect to the merits of the case, it is
interlocutory, if it does not, it is final.
(Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Maynila
Railroad Company vs. Yard Crew Union, et al.,
G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 and L-16317-18,
October 31, 1960)
 ARTICLE 207
MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Elements (Ju-ProMaDe):
1. The offender is a Judge;
2. There is a Proceeding in Court;
3. He Delays the administration of justice; and
4. The delay is Malicious, that is, the delay is
caused by the Judge with deliberate intent to
inflict damage on either party in the case.
Malice must be proven. Malice is present where
the delay is sought to favor one party to the
prejudice of the other.
Mere delay without malice is not a felony under
this article. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.398)
ARTICLE 208
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES;
NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
Acts punishable: (Ref-Tol)
1. By maliciously Refraining from instituting
prosecution against violators of the law; or
2. By maliciously Tolerating the commission of
offenses.
Elements: (P-DerMa)
1. Offender is a Public officer or officer of the law
who has a duty to cause the prosecution of,
or to prosecute offense;
2. There is a Dereliction of the duties of his
office: knowing the commission of the crime,
he does not cause the prosecution of the
criminal; and knowing that a crime is about to
be committed, he tolerates its commission;
and
3. The offender acts with Malice and deliberate
intent to favor the violator of the law.
Prevaricacion – applies to public officers who
violate their oaths of office by not carrying out
the duties of their office. It applies to public
officers in general who maliciously refrain from
exercising the duties of their office. It is
commonly used to define dereliction of duty.
The term prevaricacion is wider in scope. It is not
limited only to dereliction of duty under Art. 208.
It covers all instances of dereliction of duty where
a public official violates his oath of office.
● 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
the 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
e.g., fiscal or prosecutor, law enforcers.
● A dereliction of duty caused by poor
judgment/ honest mistake is not punishable.
The offender must act with malice. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.400)
● Not applicable to revenue officers. (Ibid.)
● Crime must be proved before the conviction
for dereliction. (U.S. vs Mendoza, G.R. No. 7540,
September 23, 1912)
ARTICLE 209
BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR
SOLICITOR
Acts punishable: (DaBIRU)
1. By causing Damage to his client by either:
a. Any malicious Breach of professional duty;
or
b. Inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
2. By Revealing any of the secrets of his client
learned by him in his professional capacity;
and
3. By 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, or after having
received confidential information from said
client.
● Betrayal of trust by an attorney about the
client’s future criminal acts are not privileged.
● Under the 1st act: when the attorney acts (1)
with malicious abuse of his professional duty,
or (2) inexcusable negligence or imprudence,
there must be damage to his client. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.402)
● Under the 2nd act: Damage is not necessary.
(Id.)
149
 ARTICLE 210
DIRECT BRIBERY
Nature: No attempted or frustrated bribery,
because, if the officer refuses to be bribed, the
offeror alone is liable and not for attempted
bribery but for attempted corruption of a public
official under Art. 212 in relation to Art. 6.
Elements: (PAS:CER-Con)
1. Offender is a Public officer within the scope
of Art. 203;
2. He Accepts an offer or 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;
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 so;
4. That the act which the offender agrees to
perform or which he executes be Connected
with the performance of his official duties.
**Bribery - the act of the receiver; Corruption
of public officials - act of the giver.
Acts punishable: (PER)
1. By agreeing to Perform or by 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. By accepting a gift in consideration of the
Execution of an act – which does not
constitute a crime but is unjust in connection
with the performance of his official duty;
3. By agreeing to Refrain, or by refraining from
doing something which is his official duty to
do in consideration of a gift or promise.
NOTES:
● Public Officer – every public servant from
the higher to the lowest. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.404)
● Bribery cannot be consummated without the
corresponding crime of corruption of public
officer;
150
● The crime is applicable even to a temporary
appointee or a de facto officer.
● For the purpose of punishing bribery, the
temporary performance of public functions is
sufficient to constitute a person a public
officer.
● Official duties include in any action which is
authorized. The acts referred to in law, which
the offender agrees to perform or execute,
must be related to or linked with the
performance of his official duties. (Tad-y vs.
People, G.R. No. 148862, August 11, 2005)
● Gift or Present may be received by public
officer or third person. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.405)
● Gift is either: a) voluntarily offered by private
person, or b) solicited by a public officer. (Id.)
● Gift or present need not be actually received
by the public officer, as an accepted promise
or offer is sufficient. But in case there is only
an offer of gift or promise, it must be accepted
by the public officer, otherwise, only the
person offering the gift/ present is liable. (Id.)
● Gift is given for the fear of the consequences
which would result if the officer performs his
functions.
● Gift or Present must have a value or capable
of pecuniary estimation. (Id.) Any value is
sufficient.
● Public officer shall suffer the penalty
corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the
same shall have been committed (2 crimes
and penalties).
● No Bribery if the act is in discharge of a mere
moral duty or act agreed upon is foreign to the
duties of the office as to lack even the color of
authority. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2006, p.389)
● 2nd Par. Of Bribery – mere agreement or
promise is not sufficient.
● 3rd Par. Of Bribery – different from
prevaricacion. In Direct Bribery, offender
refrained from doing official duty in
 consideration of a gift received/ promise. This any other gift-giving occasion. The law
element is not necessary in the crime under punishes both the giver and the receiver. The
Art. 208. prohibition extends also to gifts given by
reason of past or future services (Reyes, The
● Direct Bribery is a crime involving moral Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book Two,
turpitude. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book 2017, pp. 413-414).
Two, 2017, p.411)
Direct Bribery and Indirect Bribery,
 The fact that the offender agrees to accept a distinguished (P3CA)
promise or gift, and deliberately commits an
unjust act or refrains from performing an
Direct Bribery Indirect Bribery
official duty in exchange for some favors,
denotes a malicious intent on the part of the As to act of Public Officer
offender to renege on the duties which he
owes his fellowmen and society in general. The public officer receives a gift.
Also, the fact that the offender takes
As to Purpose of gift
advantage of his office and position is
betrayal of the trust reposed on him by the The act desired by the Gifts are offered and
public. It is a conduct clearly contrary to the briber to be done by the received by reason of the
accepted rules of right and duty, justice, public officer is in office.
honesty and good morals. (Magno vs. connection with the
COMELEC, G.R. No. 147904, October 4, 2002) performance of the
latter’s official duties.
ARTICLE 211 As to Consummation of the crime
INDIRECT BRIBERY
Mere promise of a gift is It is necessary that the
Elements: (PAO) sufficient. public officer actually
receives the gifts offered to
1. The offender is a Public officer; him by reason of his office.
2. He Accepts gifts (with clear intention to take As to existence of Agreement
the gift); and
3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of his There is an agreement Usually, no agreement
Office. between the officer and exists.
the giver.
NOTES:
As to Participation of offender
● Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any The offender agrees to It is not necessary that the
other sign or act to show acceptance is perform an act or refrain officer should do any
insufficient. from doing something, particular act or even
● There is no attempted or frustrated indirect because of the gift or promise to do an act, as it
bribery because it is committed by accepting promise. is enough that he accepts
gifts offered to the public officer by reason of gifts offered to him by
his office, if he does not accept the gift, he reason of his office.
does not commit the crime. If he accepts it, (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
the crime is consummated. (Reyes, The Revised p.393)
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.412)
● Act may be considered indirect bribery even if ARTICLE 211-A
there was a sort of an agreement between QUALIFIED BRIBERY
public officer and giver of gift. (People vs.
Pamplona, C.A., 51 O.G. 4116) Elements: (PRO)
● In connection with Indirect Bribery,
Presidential Decree 46 prohibits the giving and 1. Offender is a Public officer entrusted with law
acceptance of gifts by a public officer even enforcement;
during anniversaries, Christmas, New Year or

151
2. He Refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
offender who committed a crime punishable
by reclusion perpetua and/or death; and
3. The offender refrains from arresting or
prosecuting in consideration of any Offer,
promise, gift, or present.
NOTE: Crime must be punishable by reclusion
perpetua, otherwise it is not considered as
Qualified Bribery, only Dereliction. (Art. 208, RPC)
ARTICLE 212
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Elements: (ML)
1. Offender Makes, offers, promises or gives
gifts or presents to a public officer; and
2. The offers or promises are made or the gifts
or presents given to a public officer under
circumstances that will make the public officer
Liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
Notes:
The offender is the person who made the offer
or promise or gave the gift, even if the gift was
demanded by the public officer and the offer was
not made voluntarily prior to demand by public
officer. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.415)
Bribery is usually proved by evidence acquired
entrapment. (Ibid.)
When a public officer refuses to be corrupted,
the crime committed is attempted corruption of
public official only.
When the public official allowed himself to be
corrupted, the corruptor becomes liable for
consummated corruption of public official and
the public officer is equally liable for
consummated bribery.
Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (See further discussion
on Special Laws) was enacted to deter public
officials and employees from committing acts of
dishonesty and improve the tone of morality in
public service. (Morfe vs. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387,
January 31, 1968)
152
Republic Act No. 7080 – Anti Plunder Act
(See further discussion on Special Laws) defines
and penalizes the crime of plunder.
ARTICLE 213
FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY
AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
Elements of fraud against public treasury
(par. 1): (PA2D)
1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. He should have taken Advantage of his office
(he intervened in the transaction in his official
capacity;
3. He entered into an Agreement with any
interested party or speculator or made use of
any other scheme with respect to:
a. The furnishing of supplies;
b. The making of contracts; or
c. The adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds; and
4. The accused had intent to Defraud the
government.
Punishable acts:
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 or
with regard to furnishing supplies, the
making of contracts, or the adjustment or
settlement of accounts relating to public
property funds (fraud against public
treasury);
2. Demanding. directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger
than those authorized by law, in the
collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other
imposts (illegal exaction);
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
(illegal exaction); and
4. Collecting or receiving directly or indirectly,
by way of payment or otherwise, things or
objects of a nature different from that
provided by Jaw, in the collection of taxes,
 licenses, fees and other imposts (illegal
exaction).
NOTES:
● Public officer must act in his official capacity.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.436)
● The felony is consummated by merely
entering into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or by merely
making use of any scheme to defraud the
Government. (Ibid.)
Elements of illegal exactions (pars. 2–4):
(TaG:DFAC)
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with the
collection of Taxes, licenses, fees and other
imposts;
2. He is Guilty of any of the following acts or
omissions:
a. Demanding directly, or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger
than those authorized by law;
b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as
provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him officially;
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.
NOTES:
Mere demand for larger or different amount is
sufficient to consummate a crime. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.437)
Collecting officer must issue official receipt,
otherwise, he is guilty of illegal exaction. (Ibid.)
When there is deceit in demanding greater fees
than those prescribed by law the crime
committed is estafa and not illegal exaction. (US
vs. Lopez, et al, G.R. No. 3968, March 21, 1908)
Officer or employee of Bureau of Internal
Customs is not covered by Art. 213, the National
Internal Revenue Code or the Administrative
Code applies. (Art. 213, last par.)
If the law requires that payment should be in
case, it is unlawful for a public officer to receive
payment in checks. That will tantamount to illegal
exaction.
A tax collector who collected a sum larger than
that authorized by law and spent all of them is
giving them is guilty of 2 crimes: a) illegal
exaction and b) malversation. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.438)
ARTICLE 214
OTHER FRAUDS
Elements: (FAP)
1. The offender is a Public officer;
2. He takes Advantage of his official position;
and
3. He commits any of the Frauds or deceit
enumerated in Arts. 315 to 318.
NOTES:
Other frauds are: 1) estafa; 2) other forms of
swindling; 3) swindling a minor; and 4) other
deceits.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction
when this article is involved regardless of the
amount involved, because the MTC has no
jurisdiction to impose penalty of disqualification.
Under this article, the penalty of disqualification
is imposed as principal penalty. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.439)
ARTICLE 215
PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
Elements: (TApIn2)
1. The offender is an Appointive public officer;
2. He becomes Interested, directly or indirectly,
in any transaction of exchange or
speculation;
3. The transaction takes place within the
Territory subject to his jurisdiction; and
4. He becomes interested in the transactions
during his Incumbency.
NOTES:
The transaction must be one of exchange or
speculation, such as buying and selling stocks
commodities, land, etc., hoping to take
advantage of the expected rise or fall in price.
153
The appointive public officer should not devote
himself to commerce.
Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is
simply an investment and is not a violation of this
article. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.440)
Examples of Appointive public officer: Justices,
judges, fiscals, employees engaged in the
collection and administration of public funds.
(Ibid.)
ARTICLE 216
POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST
BY A PUBLIC OFFICER
Persons liable: (PEx-Gu)
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly,
become interested in any contract or business
in which it was his official duty to intervene;
2. Experts, arbitrators and private accountants
who, in like manner, shall take part in any
conduct or transaction connected with the
estate or property in appraisal, distribution or
adjudication of which they shall have acted;
and
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or estate.
NOTES:
● Actual fraud is not necessary, the act is
punished because of the possibility that fraud
may be committed or that the officer may
place his own interest above that of the
government or party which he represents. (US
vs. Udarbe, G.R. No. 9945, November 12, 1914)
● Intervention must be by virtue of public office
held. (Reyes, 2017; People vs. Meneses, C.A., 40
O.G., Supp. 11, 134)
● Constitutional provisions prohibiting interests:
1. Section 14, Article VI - Members of Congress
cannot personally appear as counsel; cannot
be interested financially in any franchise or
special privilege granted by government;
cannot intervene in any matter before office
of Government;
154
2. Section 13, Article VII -The President, Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet and
their deputies or assistant shall not, unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold
any other office or employment during their
tenure. They shall not, during said tenure,
directly or indirectly, practice any other
profession, participate in any business, or be
financially interested in any contract with, or
in any franchise, or special privilege granted
by the Government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the
conduct of their office; and
3. Section 2, Article IX-A - No member of a
Constitutional Commission shall, during his
tenure, hold any office or employment.
Neither shall he engage in the practice of
any profession or in the active management
or control of any business which in any way
may be affected by the functions of his
office, nor shall he be financially interested,
directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or
in any franchise or privilege granted by the
government. or any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
Prohibited Transactions vs. Prohibited
Interest (PSD)
Prohibited
Transactions
Prohibited Interest
As to Persons liable
Appointed officer. Public officer/ private
individual.
As to Scope
With territorial No territorial jurisdiction.
jurisdiction.
As to existence of Duty to intervene
Duty to intervene is a With duty to intervene.
contract necessary.
 ARTICLE 217
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY
Acts Punishable: (ATCANG)
1. By Appropriating public funds or property;
2. By Taking or misappropriating the same;
3. By Consenting or through Abandonment or
Negligence, permitting any other person to
take such public funds or property; and
4. By being otherwise Guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation
(embezzlement) of such funds or property.
Common Elements to all Acts of
Malversation under Art. 217 (PCAA)
1. Offender is Public officer;
2. He had the Custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office;
3. Those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was Accountable; and
4. He Appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take
them.
DOCTRINES:
 Accountable officers are government officers
whose duties require them to possess or be
in custody of government funds or
properties. They are in charge of the
safekeeping of the funds or properties under
their custody. Presidential Decree No. 1445
makes cashiers liable for the value of the
money or property in their custody in case
they were lost because of negligence or
unlawful deposit, use, or application.
(Gutierrez vs. COA, G.R. No. 200628, January 13,
2015)
 It is the nature of the duties, not the
relatively important name given to the office,
which is the controlling factor in determining
whether or not the accused is an accountable
public officer. (U.S. vs. Velasquez, G.R. No. L-
10935, February 1, 1916)
 A public officer who is not in charge of public
funds or property by virtue of her official
position, or even a private individual, may be
liable for malversation or illegal use of public
funds or property if such public officer or
private individual CONSPIRES with an
accountable public officer to commit
malversation or illegal use of public funds or
property. (Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. nos.
161784-86, April 26, 2005)
 Government funds include not only revenue
funds but also trust funds. (People vs. Ramos,
C.A., 38 O.G. 817)
 The provision applies to administrator or
depositary of funds or property attached,
seized, or deposited by public authority, even
if such property belongs to a private
individual. (People vs. De la Serna, C.A., 40 O.G.
Supp. 12, 159)
 Funds or property must be received in official
capacity, a public officer having only a
qualified charge of government property
without authority to part with physical
possession of it, unless upon order from his
immediate superior, cannot be held liable for
malversation. (US vs. Solis, G.R. No. 2828,
December 14, 1906)
Presumption of malversation: The 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 such missing funds or property to personal
use (Quinon vs. People, G.R. No. 136462, September
19, 2002). Such may be rebutted. Presumption is
deemed overthrown if the accountable public
officer satisfactorily proves that not a single
centavo of the missing funds was used by him for
his personal interest. (Cabello vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 93885, May14, 1991)
 Restitution of the amount or property where
malversation is already committed does not
affect his criminal liability, as payment is not
one of elements of extinction of criminal
liability, though, at most, payment of the
amount malversed will serve as a mitigating
circumstance. (Perez vs. People, G.R. No.
164763, February 12, 2008)
 At the very moment when the shortage is
discovered, the accountable officer is notified
thereof and he at once presents the money,
155
 no prima facie evidence of the crime of Malversation, Estafa and Qualified Theft,
malversation can be established. (U.S. vs. distinguished (PAQ)
Feliciano, G.R. No. 5623, February 3, 1910)
Malversation Estafa Qualified
 Demand merely raises a prima facie Theft
presumption that missing funds have been put
to personal use. The demand itself, however, As to the Person of the offender
is not an element of, and not indispensable to
Can be committed by public officers over public funds,
constitute malversation. (Morong Water District except that in malversation, it cannot be committed
vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, G.R. No. against private property except for private property in
116754, March 17, 2000) custodia legis.

The penalty for malversation in the provision is As to offender’s Accountability

based on the amount involved, not on the
Offender must Must NOT be Must not be
amount of the damage caused to the
be accountable accountable. accountable.
government. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
over the funds.
Two, 2017, p.460)
As to Qualification of each crime
Lack of proof would affect only the civil liability.
(People vs. Chavez, CA-G.R. No. 44398, October 16, Taking of public Taking of public If the offender
1936) funds is funds is estafa if who has mere
malversation if he has acquired physical or
Malversation vs. Estafa with Abuse of the public officer juridical material
Confidence (OPMDD) is accountable possession of it possession took
therefor. and took it with the property
abuse of with abuse of
Malversation Estafa with Abuse of confidence or confidence.
(Art. 217) Confidence deceit.
(Art. 315)

As to the Object of the crime ARTICLE 218

FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO
Public funds/properties. Private funds/properties. RENDER ACCOUNTS
As to the Person of the Offender Elements: (PuReFA)
Offender is a public officer Offender is a private 1. The offender is a Public officer, whether in the
who is accountable for the individual or a public service or separated therefrom;
public funds/properties. officer not accountable 2. He must be an Accountable officer for public
for public funds or property;
funds/properties.
3. He is required by law or regulation to Render
As to the Means Employed accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a
provincial auditor; and
Crime is committed by Crime is committed by 4. He Fails to do so for a period of two months
appropriating, taking, or misappropriating, after such accounts should be rendered.
misappropriating or converting, or denying
consenting or through having received money,
abandonment or goods, or other personal
NOTES:
negligence, permitting property.
any other person to take Demand for accounting not necessary. It does
the public funds or not require that there be a demand by the
properties. Commission on Audit or provincial auditor that
the public officer should render an account. It is
As to the presence of Damage
sufficient that there is a law or regulation
requiring him to render account. (Reyes, The
No element of damage. There is damage.
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.461)

156
Resignation does not relieve the public officer
from his responsibility to render accounts. Thus,
he is criminally liable. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book
Two, 2011)
It is not essential that there be misappropriation.
If there is misappropriation, he would be liable
also for malversation under Art. 217. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.462)
ARTICLE 219
FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
Elements: (PAU)
1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. He must be an Accountable for public funds or
property; and
3. He must have Unlawfully left (or be at the
point of leaving) the Philippines without
securing from the Commission on Audit a
certificate showing that his accounts have
been finally settled.
NOTE: The act of leaving the country must be
unauthorized or not permitted by law to be liable
under this article. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.463)
ARTICLE 220
ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY (TECHNICAL MALVERSATION)
Elements: (PAPA)
1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. There are Public funds or property under his
administration;
3. Such funds or property has been Appropriated
by law or ordinance; and
4. He applies the same to Any public use other
than for which such fund or property has been
appropriated by law or ordinance.
DOCTRINES:
 A different penalty is imposed if by reason of
such misapplication, any damage or
embarrassment shall have resulted to the
public service.
 No technical malversation if there is no law or
ordinance appropriating public funds or
property for a particular purpose. (Abdulla vs.
People, G.R. No. 150129, April 6, 2005)
 Public funds or property must be
appropriated by law or ordinance for a
particular purpose. (People vs. Montemayor, et
al., G.R. No. L-17449, August 30, 1962)
 Authorization by DBM is not an ordinance or
law contemplated in Art. 220.(Abulla vs.
People, G.R. No. 150129, April 6, 2005)
 Criminal intent is not an element of technical
malversation. The law punishes the act of
diverting public property earmarked by law or
ordinance for a particular public purpose to
another public purpose. (Ysidro vs. People, G.R.
No. 192330, November 14, 2012)
Technical Malversation vs. Malversation
(PPA)
Technical Malversation
Malversation
As to the Person of the Offender
Offenders are Offenders are accountable
accountable public public officers.
officers.
As to Profit from proceeds of the crime
Does not derive any In certain cases, profits
personal gain or profit. from the proceeds of the
crime.
As to where public fund is Applied for
The public fund or Public fund or property is
property is applied to applied to the personal use
another public use. of the offender or another
person.
ARTICLE 221
FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY
Acts Punishable: (FaRe)
1. Failing to make payment by a public officer
who is under obligation to make payment from
government funds in his hands or possession.
157
Elements: (GUM)
a. The public officer has Government funds in
his possession;
b. He is Under obligation to make payment from
such funds; and
c. He Maliciously fails to make the payment.
2. Refusal 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.
ARTICLE 222
OFFICERS INCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING
PROVISIONS
Private individuals who may be liable under
Art. 217-221:
a. Private individuals who, in any capacity
whatsoever, have charge of any national,
provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or
property; and
b. Administrator or depositary of funds or
property, attached, seized or deposited by
public authority, even if such property belongs
to a private individual.
NOTES:
● The words “administrator” and “depositary”
include the sheriffs and receivers. Thus, if they
misappropriate money or property under their
custody, they are liable for malversation.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.467)
● Judicial administrator appointed to administer
the estate of a deceased person not included
as “administrator” in the provision because he
is not in charge of any property attached,
impounded or placed in deposit by public
authority. (Ibid.)
● In his capacity as public custodian of funds or
properties that are attached or seized, said
funds or properties are in custodia legis with
the character of public properties. If the
private person misappropriates said funds or
properties, he is liable for Malversation. (Ibid.)
158
ARTICLE 223
CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO
EVASION
Elements: (ConPCuEs)
1. The 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; and
4. He was in Connivance with the prisoner in the
latter’s escape – this is an indispensable
element of the offense. (US vs. Bandino, G.R.
No. L-9964, February 11, 1915)
Classes of Prisoners Involved:
1. Fugitive sentenced by final judgment to any
penalty; and
2. Fugitive held only as detention prisoner for
any crime or violation of any law or municipal
ordinance.
NOTES:
● In the existence and commission of the crime,
it is essential that there should have been, on
the part of the custodian, connivance in the
escape of the prisoner. If the public officer
charged with guarding the fugitive did not
connive with him, then he did not violate the
law and is not guilty of the crime of
faithlessness in the discharge of his duty to
guard the prisoner.
● Detention Prisoner – A person becomes a
detention prisoner from the moment he is
booked. This refers to the accomplishment of
the booking sheet and filling out of a form
where he is finger printed. From that time on,
he is already a detention prisoner even if he is
not yet incarcerated.
 The release of a detention prisoner who
could not be delivered to judicial
authorities within the time fixed by law is
not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.
(People vs. Lancanan, G.R. No. L-6805, June
30, 1954). Neither is mere leniency or
laxity in the performance of duty
constitutes of infidelity. (People vs.
Evangelista, C.A., 38 O.G. 158)
  There is real and actual evasion of
service of a sentence when the
custodian, failing intentionally or
maliciously to perform the duties of his
office, and conniving with the prisoners,
permits him to obtain a relaxation of his
imprisonment and to escape the
punishment of being deprived of his
liberty, thus making the penalty
ineffectual, although the convict may not
have fled, and where the prisoner's
leaving the jail and his evasion of service
of the sentence were effected with the
consent and tolerance of the custodian,
or rather in agreement and connivance
with him. (US vs. Bandino, G.R. No. 9964,
February 11, 1915)
ARTICLE 224
EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
Elements: (PCP)
1. The offender is a Public officer;
2. He is charged with the Conveyance or custody
of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or
prisoner by final judgment; and
3. Such Prisoner escapes through his
negligence.
NOTES:
 Not every negligence or distraction of a guard
is penalized. It is only that positive
carelessness that is short of deliberate non-
performance of his duties as guard that is the
gravamen of the crime of infidelity under Art.
224 – May be dealt with administratively only.
(People vs. Reyes, et al., C.A., 59 O.G. 6664)
 The fact that the public officer recaptured the
prisoner who had escaped from his custody
does not afford complete exculpation. (People
vs. Quisel, C.A., 52 O.G. 6975)
Liability of escaping prisoner:
If the fugitive is serving sentence by reason of
final judgment, he is liable for evasion of the
service of sentence under Art. 157; or
If the fugitive is only a detention prisoner, he
does not incur criminal liability. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.453)
ARTICLE 225
ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE
CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC
OFFICER
Elements: (PCEC)
1. The offender is a Private person;
2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or
person under arrest is Confided to him;
3. The prisoner or person under arrest Escapes;
and
4. The offender Consents to the escape of the
prisoner or person under arrest, or that
escape takes place through his negligence.
NOTE: Art. 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, but is liable under P.D. No. 1829.
ARTICLE 226
REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(INFIDELITY OR DESTRUCTION OF
DOCUMENT)
Elements: (PRED)
1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. He Removes, destroys, or conceals
documents or papers; (destroying or
concealing does not require proof of illicit
purpose)
3. Such documents or papers should have been
Entrusted to such public officer by reason of
his office; and
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third
party or to the public interest should have
been caused.
NOTES:
● The public officer must officially be entrusted
with the documents or papers and the
document must be complete and one which a
right could be established or an obligation
could be extinguished. (People vs. Camacho,
G.R. No. 18688, February 10, 1923).
 A document is a written instrument by which
something is proven or made of record. A
package containing a book, sent through mail
159
 by C.O.D. System, is not a document. (People
vs. Agnis, G.R. No. 19676, February 7, 1923)
 The removal must be for an illicit purpose
(Manzanaris vs. People, G.R. No. L–64750,
January 30, 1984). It is for an illicit purpose
when the intention of the offender is:
a. To tamper with it;
b. To profit by it; or
c. To commit an act constituting a breach
of trust in the official care thereof.
(Kataniag vs. People, G.R. No. 48398,
November, 28, 1942)
 Removal is consummated upon removal or
secreting away of the document from its
usual place. It is immaterial whether or not
the illicit purpose of the offender has been
accomplished. (Kataniag vs. People, G.R. No.
48398, November. 28, 1942)
● Infidelity in the custody of documents through
destruction or concealment does not require
proof of an illicit purpose. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.480)
 Delivering the document to the wrong party
is infidelity in the custody thereof. (People vs.
Irineo, C.A., 53 O.G. 2827)
● Other possible crimes: Malversation – if object
(money) becomes part of public funds.
ARTICLE 227
OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
Elements: (PSPB)
1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. He is charged with the custody of Sealed
papers or property;
3. These papers or property are sealed by
Proper authority;
4. He Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
NOTE: It is the breaking of the seal, not the
opening of a closed envelope, which is punished
under this article. Breaking should not be
interpreted in a literal sense. Even if the seal is
not broken because the custodian opened the
document by slicing open the side of the envelop
and closing it after reading the contents, the
160
crime is committed. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code
Book Two, 2011, pp. 460)
Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary.
ARTICLE 228
OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS
Elements: (PEOD)
1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. Any closed papers, documents or objects are
Entrusted to his custody (by reason of office);
3. He Opens or permits to be opened said closed
papers, documents, or objects; and
4. He Does not have the proper authority.
NOTE:
 Damage or intent to cause damage is not an
element of the offense. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.462)
 The closed documents must be entrusted to
the custody of the accused by reason of his
office. (People vs. Lineses, C.A. 40 O.G., Supp. 14,
4773)
ARTICLE 229
REVELATION OF SECRETS BY AN OFFICER
Acts Punishable (RD)
1. By Revealing any secrets, known to the
offending public officer by reason of his official
capacity.
Elements: (PKRC)
1. The offender is a Public officer;
2. He Knows of a secret by reason of his
official capacity;
3. That he Reveals such secret without
authority or justifiable reasons; and
4. The damage, great, or small, be Caused to
the public interest.
2. By Delivering wrongfully papers or copies of
papers of which he may have charged and
which should not be published.
Elements: (PuWro PuCNoT)
1. The offender is a Public officer;
2. He has Charge of the papers;
3. Those papers should Not be published;
4. He delivers those paper or copies thereof to
a Third person;
5. The delivery is Wrongful; and
6. Damage caused to Public interest.
NOTES:
● The "secrets" referred to in this article are
those which have an official or public
character, the revelation of which may
prejudice public interest. They refer to secrets
relative to the administration of the
government and not to secrets of private
individuals (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code
Criminal Law Book Two, 2017, p. 485).
● This article punishes minor official betrayals,
infidelities of little consequence, affecting
usually the administration of justice, execution
or official duties, or the general interest of the
public order. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.485)
● Charge means custody or control. If he is
merely entrusted with the papers and not with
the custody thereof, he is not liable under this
article. (Ibid.)
● Damage is essential to the act committed.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.486)
● It shall be unlawful for any person, police or
law enforcement agent, judicial officer or civil
servant who, not being authorized by the
Court of Appeals to do so, reveals in any
manner or form any classified information
under Human Security Act of 2007. (Sec. 46,
R.A. No. 9372)
Distinguished from infidelity in the
custody of document or papers by
removing the same
Revelations of secrets Infidelity in the
by an officer custody of documents
or papers by removing
the same
As to the Contents of the Paper
The papers contain The papers do not contain
secrets and therefore secrets but their removal is
should not be published, for an illicit purpose.
and the public officer
having charge thereof
removes and delivers
them wrongfully to a
third person.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.464)
ARTICLE 230
PUBLIC OFFICER REVEALING SECRETS OF
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
Elements: (PKR)
1. The offender is a Public officer;
2. He Knows of the secrets of a private individual
by reason of his office; and
3. He Reveals such secrets without authority or
justifiable reasons.
NOTES:
● Revelation to one person is sufficient, for
public revelation is not required. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.487)
● Damage to private individual is not necessary.
The reason of this provision is to uphold faith
and trust in public service. (Ibid.)
● The reason for this provision is to uphold
public faith and trust in public service. (Ibid.)
Other possible crimes:
1. Betrayal of Trust by an Attorney or Solicitor
(Art. 209) - if committed by an Attorney or
Solicitor.
2. Discovering Secrets through Seizure of
Correspondence (Art. 290) or Revealing
Secrets with Abuse of Office (Art. 291) – if
committed by a private individual.
ARTICLE 231
OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
Elements: (JEJ-JuRe)
1. Offender 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
161
 superior authority and issued with all the legal
formalities; and
4. Offender, without any legal justification,
openly Refuses to execute the said judgment,
decision or order which he is duty bound to
obey.
NOTE: Open disobedience is committed when
judicial or executive officer shall openly refuse to
execute the judgment, decision, or order of any
superior authority. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.489)
ARTICLE 232
DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF SUPERIOR
OFFICER, WHEN SAID ORDER WAS
SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR OFFICER
Elements: (POSDD)
1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. Order is issued by his superior officer 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; and
5. The offender Disobeys his superior despite the
disapproval of the suspension.
If the order of the superior is illegal, the
subordinate has a legal right to refuse to execute
such order, for under the law, obedience to an
order which is illegal is not justified and the
subordinate who obeys such order may be held
criminally liable. (Art. 11[6])
ARTICLE 233
REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
Elements: (PCFaM)
1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. Competent authority demands from the
offender that he lends his Cooperation
towards the administration of justice or other
public service; and
3. Offender Fails to do so Maliciously.
NOTES:
● Damage to public interest or to a third party is
essential. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2006, p.469)
162
● There must be demand from competent
authority. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2006, p.468)
ARTICLE 234
REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE
OFFICE
Elements: (ERN)
1. Offender is Elected by popular election to a
public office;
2. He Refuses to be sworn in or discharge the
duties of said office; and
3. There is No legal motive for such refusal to be
sworn in or to discharge the duties of said
office.
NOTE: Refusal to discharge the duties of an
appointive office is not covered by Art. 234.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2006, p.470)
ARTICLE 235
MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
Elements: (PUM)
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: (OM)
a. By Overdoing himself in the correction or
handling of a prisoner of detention prisoner
under his charge either: (ImIn)
i. By the Imposition of punishment not
authorized by the regulations, or
ii. By Inflicting such punishment (those
authorized) in a cruel and humiliating
manner; or
b. By Maltreating such prisoner to extort a
confession or to obtain some information
from the prisoner.
Higher Penalty: If the purpose of the
maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to
obtain some information from the prisoner.
Person to commit the crime:
Not all public officers or employees may commit
this crime. This crime can be committed only by
public officers charged with the custody of
prisoner. If the public officer is not the custodian
of the prisoner he commits physical
injuries. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2006, p.471)
Examples of punishments that are not
authorized:
1. Drinking urine;
2. Eating earthworm;
3. Water cure;
4. Public stoning;
5. Hanging of a sign on a prisoner’s neck saying,
"I am an illegal recruiter.”
Punishments that are authorized:
1. Incarceration in isolation;
2. Putting iron balls on the legs of a convict.
Prisoner refers to a detention prisoner or a
person against whom the court has
accomplished a detention mittimus.
A person becomes a detention prisoner the
moment he is brought to the police station and
he is booked by the police authorities and is
made to fill out a form with his fingerprints
taken. From that time on, he becomes a
detention prisoner.
After the accused is arrested and brought to the
jurisdiction of the court, the accused is also
made to fill out a form, his fingerprints taken and
the court issues a detention mittimus addressed
to the jail warden that the accused is detained
by orders of the court.
After the booking, the accused becomes a
detention prisoner even if he is not yet put
behind bars.
R.A. No. 9745 – Anti Torture Act of 2009 –
See further discussions in Special Penal Laws.
TWO-TIERED PENALTY
It occurs when the law provides that a penalty
to a particular crime is in addition to the penalty
imposable for another crime committed which
results from the commission of such particular
crime such as:
1. Maltreatment of Prisoners (Art. 235) –
the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, in addition to his liability for
the physical injuries shall be imposed upon
any public officer or employee who shall
overdo himself in the correction or handling of
a prisoner or detention officer under his
charge.
2. Direct Bribery (Art. 210) – any public
officer who shall agree to perform an act
constituting a crime in connection with the
performance of his official duties, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present received by such officer, personally or
through the mediation of another, shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
and medium periods and a fine of not less
than three times the value of the gift, in
addition to the penalty corresponding to the
crime agreed upon, if the same shall have
been committed.
3. Occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights in property
(Art. 312) – 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 50 to 100 per centum of the gain which
he shall have obtained, but not less than 75
pesos.
NOTES:
● Offender may also be liable for physical
injuries or damage caused, if any is caused by
his maltreating the prisoner. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.494)
● There is no complex crime of maltreatment of
prisoners with serious or less serious physical
injuries. (Ibid.)
● Offended party must be a convict by final
judgment or detention prisoner. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.493)
163
 ARTICLE 236 prosecuting or punishing any of the crimes
ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC falling within Title One, and Chapter One of
OFFICE Title Three of Book Two of RPC (treason,
espionage). (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Elements: (ESAN) Book Two, 2017, p.496)

1. Offender is Entitled to hold a public office or Abandonment of Office vs. Negligence and
employment either by election or Tolerance in Prosecution of Offense (OA)
appointment;
2. The law requires that he should first be Sworn Abandonment of Negligence and
in and/or give a bond; Office Tolerance in
3. He Assumes the performance of duties and (Art. 238) Prosecution of
powers of such office; and Offense
4. He has Not taken his oath and/or given the (Art. 208)
bond required by law. As to the Person of the Offender

ARTICLE 237 Committed by any public Committed only by public

PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES officer. officers who have the
AND POWERS duty to institute
prosecution for the
punishment of violations
Elements: (PEC)
of the law.

1. Offender is holding a Public office; As to Abandonment of Office

2. Period provided by law, regulations or special
provisions for holding such office, has already The public officer The public officer does
abandons his office to not abandon his office but
Expired; and
evade the discharge of his he fails to prosecute an
3. Offender Continues to exercise such duties duty. offense by dereliction of
and powers of such office. duty or by malicious
tolerance of the
NOTE: A public officer who has been suspended, commission of offenses.
separated, declared overage, or dismissed cannot (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
continue to perform the duties of his office. p.475)
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.495)
ARTICLE 239
USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS
ARTICLE 238
ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION
Elements: (EJ-MAS)
Elements: (PReNA)
1. Offender is an Executive or Judicial officer;
and
1. The offender is a Public officer;
2. He either:
2. He formally Resigns from his position;
a. Makes general rules or regulations beyond
3. His resignation has Not yet been accepted;
the scope of his authority;
and
b. Attempts to repeal a law; or
4. He Abandons his office to the detriment of the
c. Suspends the execution thereof.
public service.
ARTICLE 240
NOTES:
USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
1. There must be a written or formal resignation.
Elements: (JOA)
2. When Qualified—Such office shall have
1. Offender is a Judge; and
been abandoned in order to evade the
2. He either:
discharge of the duties of preventing,

164
 a. Assumes a power pertaining to the
executive authorities; or
b. Obstructs the executive authorities in the
lawful exercise of their functions.
NOTE: Legislative officers are not covered.
(People vs. Hilvano, G.R. No. L-8583, July 31, 1956)
ARTICLE 241
USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
Elements: (EAO)
1. Offender is an officer of the Executive branch
of the Government; and
2. He either:
a. Assumes judicial powers; or
b. Obstructs the execution of any order or
decision rendered by any judge within his
jurisdiction.
NOTE: Legislative officers are not covered. (Id.)
ARTICLE 242
DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR
DISQUALIFICATION
Elements: (PuP-Q-LaC)
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 to proceed; and
5. He Continues the proceeding.
ARTICLE 243
ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
Elements: (EAR)
1. Offender is an Executive officer;
2. He Addresses any order or suggestion to any
judicial authority; and
3. The order or suggestion Relates to any case
or business coming within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of justice.
NOTE: Legislative and judicial officers are not
covered. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.501)
ARTICLE 244
UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
Elements: (PuNLaK)
1. The offender is a Public officer;
2. He Nominates or appoints a person to public
office;
3. Such person Lacks the legal qualifications
therefor;
4. Offender Knows that his nominee or
appointee lacks the qualifications at the time
he made the nomination or appointment.
NOTES:
● Mere recommendation even if with knowledge
that the person recommended is not qualified
is not a crime. He must nominate the person
not qualified. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2006, p.480)
● There must be a law providing for the
qualifications of a person to be nominated or
appointed to a public office. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 245
ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
Elements: (PI-IC- DSWR)
1. The offender is a Public officer;
2. He solicits or makes Immoral or indecent
advances to a woman; and
3. Such woman must be:
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;
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;
c. The Wife, Daughter, Sister, or Relatives
within the same degree by affinity of the
person in the custody of the offender.
(exclusive enumerations)
165
Ways of committing abuses against
chastity:
1. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances to a woman interested in matters
pending before the offending officer for
decision, or with respect to which he is
required to submit a report to or consult with
a superior officer.
2. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances to a woman under the offender’s
custody.
3. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances 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.
NOTES:
● Mere solicitation or making immoral or
indecent advances consummates the crime.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.503)
● To solicit means to propose earnestly and
persistently something unchaste and
immoral to a woman. (Ibid.)
● Proof of solicitation is not necessary when
there is sexual intercourse. (US vs. Morelos,
G.R. No. 9768, February 15, 1915)
● Offended here is a woman because chastity
under the code refers to a female. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.481)
● The mother of the person in the custody of
the offender is not included.
G. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
(ARTICLES 246-266)
Determining the intent to kill
1. The means used by the malefactors;
2. The nature, location, and number of wounds
sustained by the victim;
3. The conduct of the malefactors before,
during, or immediately after the killing of the
victim; and
4. The circumstances under which the crime
was committed and the motives of the
accused. (Ibanez vs. People, G.R. No. 190798,
January 17, 2016)
166
ARTICLE 246
PARRICIDE
Elements: (PA- FaM-C-LADLeS)
1. A Person is killed;
2. The deceased is killed by the Accused; and
3. The deceased is the Father, Mother, or Child,
legitimate or illegitimate, or a Legitimate
other Ascendant, or other Descendants, or
the Legitimate Spouse, of the accused.
NOTES:
● The law mentions “father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate.” As a rule,
only relatives by blood may be legitimate or
illegitimate. On the other hand, the
“ascendants or descendants” must be
legitimate. They, too, must be relatives by
blood. Adoptive father, adopted son, father-
in-law, and son-in-law is thus not included in
the provision. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p. 507) 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 and the
offended party. Hence, a stranger who
cooperates is not liable for parricide but
rather for murder or homicide as the case
may be. (People vs. Echaluce, et. al., G.R. No. L-
29776, August 27, 1975)
● The law does not require that the offender
has knowledge of such relationship; the fact
of having such is enough to convict him with
the crime of parricide (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code Criminal Law Book Two, 2017, p.
506).
● In cases of parricide, if the deceased is either
the father, mother, or the child of the
accused, proof of legitimacy is not required.
(People vs. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26,
1997)
● Killing of grandparent or grandchild should
be legitimate for the accused to be charged
with the crime of parricide. Otherwise, it
should be homicide or murder. (Estrada,
Criminal Law Book Two, 2011)
● Killing of a brother/sister or any relative who
has collateral relationship with the accused
does not include in the definition of
parricide. (Id.)
● The deceased child must not be less than
three days old, otherwise, the crime is
infanticide. (Art. 255)
● In the killing of the spouse, there must be a
valid subsisting marriage at the time of
killing. Hence, the killing of an illegitimate
spouse is not parricide. (People vs. Subano,
G.R. No. 48143, September 30, 1942)
● There is no parricide if he kills his other
wives although recognized as valid marriage
under Muslim laws. Only the killing of his first
wife will prosper as parricide. (Estrada, supra)
● The fact that the wife was not shot in a vital
part of her body does not negate intent to
kill on the part of husband. The extent of the
injuries sustained by the wife manifest the
intention to extinguish her life. (People vs.
Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 127818, November 11,
1998)
● The issue in the annulment of marriage is
not similar or intimately related to the issue
in the criminal case (not a prejudicial
question). (Pimentel vs. Pimentel, G.R. 172060,
September 13, 2010)
Parricide through reckless imprudence.
● Husband, who, while struggling for the
possession of the gun with his children,
without intent to kill anyone, pulled the
trigger of the gun which exploded and hit his
wife who was approaching them, is guilty of
parricide through reckless imprudence.
(People vs. Recote, G.R. No. L-5801-02, March 02,
1955)
● Parricide through reckless imprudence is
punished by arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prison correctional in its medium
period. If committed through simple
imprudence or negligence, the penalty is
arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
period. (Art. 365 in relation to Art. 246)
ARTICLE 247
DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES
INFLICTED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
Elements: (SuKiNo)
1. Legally married person or a parent who
Surprises his spouse or daughter, the latter
under 18 years of age and living with him, in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person;
2. He/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; and
3. He has Not either promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or he or
she has not consented to the infidelity of the
other spouse. (People vs. Gelaver, G.R. No.
95357, June 9, 1993)
The surprising must be at the moment the
sexual act is taking place. If it is only about to
take place or has already taken place, no benefit
can be availed of under this Article.
It is the erring spouse, who must be surprised
and not the innocent spouse, otherwise, the latter
should have perfect timing so that he or she
should be surprised at the very moment the
intercourse is taking place. The law said,
“surprised his spouse in the act,” and not “was
surprised.”
“Immediately thereafter” applies to the
killing. The killing must be at the time of
surprising the paramours in the act or
immediately after. If there was a time lag
between the surprising and the killing, it must be
shown that the surprising and the killing are one
continuous sequence. (US vs. Alano, G.R. L-11021,
December 1, 1915)
Two stages must be met before the benefit
of this provision may be invoked:
1. Accused surprised his spouse or daughter
under 18 years old and living with him; and
2. He inflicted serious physical injuries or killed
the spouse or paramour during sexual
intercourse or immediately thereafter. (Art.
247, RPC)
NOTES:
● The provision does not define and penalize a
felony. It is rather an absolutory cause
which provides for the imposition of
destierro rather than the ordinary penalty for
parricide. The vindication of a man’s honor
is justified because of the scandal an
unfaithful wife creates. (People vs. Talisic, G.R.
No. 97961, September 5, 1997) In Art. 247,
destierro is not intended as a penalty but a
means to remove the accused from the
vicinity, for his protection against possible
167
 reprisal from the family or relatives of the
other spouse or those of the paramour or
mistress. (People vs. Lauron, 57 O.G. 7367)
● The law only requires that the death caused
be the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing
upon his spouse in the basest act of
infidelity. (People vs. Abarca, G.R. No. L-74433,
September 14, 1987)
● Sexual intercourse must be actual. This does
not include preparatory acts. Mere sleeping
together on the bed is not included. (People
vs. Bituanan, G.R. No. 34510, August 31, 1931)
● By raising Art. 247 as a defense, the accused
waives his constitutional presumption of
innocence and has the burden of proving its
elements. (People vs. Puedan, G.R. No. 139576,
September 2, 2002)
● Parents may be legitimate/ illegitimate.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.511)
● Parents who shall kill or inflict serious
physical injuries upon their daughters under
18 years of age and their seducers, while the
daughters are living with their parents. If the
crime happened in the boarding house of
their daughter, Art. 247 does not apply. (Id.)
● Inflicting death under exceptional
circumstances is not murder. Therefore, the
accused cannot be held liable for injuries
sustained by third persons as a result
thereof. (People vs. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433,
September 14, 1987)
ARTICLE 248
MURDER
Elements: (PAQN)
1. A Person was killed;
2. The Accused killed him;
3. The killing was attended by any of the
following Qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Art. 248: (TC3GE)
a. With Treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength, with the aid of 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
168
street car or locomotive, 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
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.
(Note: see discussion under Aggravating
Circumstances for a detailed discussion of
each qualifying circumstance.)
4. The killing is Neither parricide nor infanticide.
Rules to qualify the killing to murder:
1. Murder will exist with only one of the
circumstances described in Art. 248. When
more than one of said circumstances are
present, the others must be considered as
generic aggravating circumstances. (People
vs. Dueño, G.R. No. L–311202, May 5, 1979)
2. When the other circumstances are absorbed
or included in one qualifying circumstance,
they cannot be considered as generic
aggravating. (People vs. Sespeñe, et al., G.R. No.
L–9346, October 30, 1957) Treachery and
evident premeditation is inherent in murder
by means of poison, hence, not aggravating.
3. Any of the qualifying circumstances
enumerated in Art. 248 must be alleged in
the information. (People vs. Aquino, G.R. Nos.
144340-42, August 6, 2002)
NOTES:
● Dismemberment of a dead body is one
manner of outraging or scoffing at the
corpse of the victim, and qualifies the killing
to murder. (People vs. Guillermo, G.R. No.
147786, January 20, 2004)
● The use of loose firearm, when inherent in
the commission of the crime punishable
under the Revised Penal Code or other
special laws, shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. (Sec. 29, R.A. No.
10591)
● Killing of a child is murder even if the manner
of attack was not shown. (People vs. Valerio,
G.R. No. L- 4116, February 25, 1982)
HOWEVER, the crime would be infanticide if
the child is less than three days of age (72
hours). (Art. 255)
● Where the wound inflicted on the victim is
not sufficient to cause his death, the crime
is only attempted murder, since the accused
did not perform all the acts of execution that
would have brought about death. (People vs.
Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682, November 25, 2009)
ARTICLE 249
HOMICIDE
Elements: (KWIQ)
1. A person was Killed;
2. That the accused killed him Without any
justifying circumstance;
3. The accused had the Intention to kill, which
is presumed; and
4. The killing was not attended by any of the
Qualifying circumstances of murder,
parricide, or infanticide.
NOTES:
● When death resulted, even if there is no intent
to kill, the crime is homicide. The penal law
looks particularly to the material results
following the unlawful act and holds the
aggressor responsible for all the
consequences thereof. (U.S. vs. Gloria, G.R. No.
1509, February 16, 1904)
● Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when
death results, evidence of intent to kill is
important only in attempted or frustrated
homicide. (Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
120744–46, June 25, 2012)
● In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is
intent to kill. If there is none, the offender is
only liable for physical injuries. However, if as
a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the
victim died, the crime will be homicide, as the
law punishes the result and not the act.
● Intent to kill is usually shown by the kind of
weapon used and part of the body wounded.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.526)
● Where murder or homicide results from the
use of an unlicensed firearm, xxx the use of
such is not considered a separate crime but
shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating
circumstance. (People vs. Avecilla, G.R. No.
117033, February 15, 2001)
● If victim is under 12 years old, the penalty is
reclusion perpetua. (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 7610)
● Corpus Delicti – means the actual commission
of the crime charged. It does not refer to the
body of the murdered person. (People vs. Taruc,
et al, G.R. No. L–18308, April 30, 1966)
● No offense of frustrated homicide through
imprudence/negligence. The element of intent
to kill in frustrated homicide is incompatible
with negligence or imprudence. (People vs.
Castillo, et al., C.A. No. 227, February 1, 1946)
● In all crime against persons in which the death
of the victim is an element of an offense, there
must be satisfactory evidence of (1) the fact
of death, and (2) the identity of the victim.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.528)
ARTICLE 250
PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE,
MURDER, OR HOMICIDE
The application of Art. 250 is permissive, not
mandatory. (Angeles vs. People, G.R. No. 172744,
September 29, 2008)
ARTICLE 251
DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS
AFFRAY
Elements: (SO-QACT-KCI)
1. There are Several persons;
2. They did not compose groups Organized for
the common purpose of assaulting and
attacking each other reciprocally;
3. These several persons Quarreled and
Assaulted each other 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; and
6. The person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries or used violence upon the
person of the victim can be Identified. (People
vs. Julianda, G.R. No. 128886, November 23,
2001)
169
Persons liable:
a. Person/s who inflicted serious physical
injuries.
b. If unknown, all the persons who used
violence upon the person of the victim, but
with lesser liability.
NOTES:
● Tumultuous Affray – a melee or free-for-
all, where several persons not comprising
definite or identifiable groups attack one
another in a confused and disorganized
manner resulting in the death or injury of
one or some of them. (People vs. Campa, G.R.
No. 105391, February 28, 1994) This exists
when at least four persons took part.
● There is no crime of death in a tumultuous
affray if there was no confusion and the
quarrel was between two well-known
groups. (People vs. Corpuz, G.R. No. L-36234,
February 10, 1981) The crime is homicide or
murder, as the case may be.
● When the quarrel is between a distinct group
of individuals, one of whom was sufficiently
identified as the principal author of the
killing, as against a common, particular
victim, it is not a “tumultuous affray” within
the meaning of Art. 251 of the RPC. (People
vs. Unlagada, G.R. No. 141080, September 17,
2002) In such a case, the crime committed is
homicide.
● The person killed need not be a participant
in the affray. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code Book Two, 2011, pp. 511)
ARTICLE 252
PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN A
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
Elements: (TuSuCK)
1. There is a Tumultuous affray;
2. A participant or some participants thereof
Suffer serious physical injuries or physical
injuries of a less serious nature;
3. The person responsible therefor Cannot be
identified; and
4. All those who appear to have used violence
upon the person of the offended party are
Known.
170
NOTES:
● The injured party must be one of the
participants in the tumultuous affray. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.535)
● Penalty is one degree lower than that for the
physical injury inflicted; such penalty is
public censure (Art. 71); only the one who
used violence is liable. (Id.)
● Legislature intended to exclude slight
physical injuries, this provision only refer to
serious physical injuries and less serious
physical injuries. (Ibid.)
● If the one who caused physical injuries are
known/identified, he will be liable for
physical injuries actually committed. (Id.)
ARTICLE 253
GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
Acts Punishable: (ANDoK)
1. By Assisting another to commit suicide,
whether the suicide be consummated or Not;
and
2. By lending his assistance to another to
commit suicide to the extent of Doing the
Killing himself.
NOTES:
● Offender is still liable even if the suicide is
not consummated.
● A person who attempt to commit suicide is
not criminally liable because society
considers him as an unfortunate being who
deserved pity rather than of penalty. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.536)
● Euthanasia or Mercy-Killing is not
considered as lending assistance to suicide.
It is the practice of painlessly putting a
person suffering from some incurable
disease to death. (Ibid.)
● The penalty for giving assistance to suicide
if the offender is the father, mother, child or
spouse of the one committing suicide is the
same since the law does not distinguish.
(Ibid.)
● A pregnant woman, who tried to commit
suicide by means of poison, but instead of
dying, the fetus in her womb was expelled,
is not liable for abortion. Under our law, in
order to incur criminal liability for the result
not intended, one must be committing a
 felony. An attempt to commit suicide is not
punishable by law. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 254
DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
Elements: (DiNo)
1. The offender Discharges a firearm against or
at another person; and
2. The offender had No intention to kill that
person.
NOTES:
● It is not applicable to police officers in the
performance of their duties. (U.S. vs. Samonte,
G.R. No. L-4200, March 27, 1908)
● If in the discharge of firearm, the offended
party is hit and wounded, there is complex
crime of Discharge of Firearm with Serious or
Less Serious Physical Injuries (People vs.
Arquiza, G.R. Nos. 42128–42129, December 19,
1935), but if only slight physical injuries were
inflicted, there is no complex crime, since such
physical Injuries constitute a light felony.
● The crime is discharge of firearm even if the
gun was not pointed at the offended party
when it was fired, without intent to kill, as long
as it was initially aimed by the accused at or
against the offended party. (People vs Ramirez,
C.A. 46 O.G. 6119)
● Intent to kill cannot be automatically drawn
from the mere fact that the use of firearms is
dangerous to life. The inference of intent to
kill should not be drawn in the absence of
circumstances sufficient to prove such intent
beyond reasonable doubt. Absent an intent to
kill in firing the gun towards the victim,
petitioner should be held liable for the crime
of illegal discharge of firearm under Art. 254
of the RPC. (Dado vs. People, G.R. No. 131421,
November 18, 2002)
Other Possible Crimes:
1. Frustrated Discharge – if firearm’s trigger was
pressed but did not fire;
2. Illegal Discharge with Physical injuries – if
victim was wounded; and
3. Alarms and Scandal – if not directed to a
person.
ARTICLE 255
INFANTICIDE
The deceased child was Less than 3 days (72
hours) of age; and
The fetus must be viable or breathing on its own;
otherwise, the crime is not infanticide but
abortion. If the fetus had an intra-uterine life of
less than seven (7) months and it was killed
within 24 hours after complete separation from
the womb, it did not gain personality. Hence, it is
still abortion. (People vs. Paycana, Jr, G.R. No.
179035, April 16, 2008)
NOTES:
● The crime is predicated not on the relation of
the offender and the offended party, but
rather on the age of the latter (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book Two, 2017,
p. 540).
● HOWEVER, the crime would be parricide if the
child is 3 days old or older and the accused is
the father, mother, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or other legitimate ascendant;
and murder if the accused is a stranger.
(People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 175929, December
16, 2008)
● No crime of infanticide is committed if the
child has been dead or if, although born alive,
it could not sustain an independent life when
it was killed. (U.S. vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 11653,
August 19, 1916)
● When infanticide is committed by the mother
or maternal grandmother of the victim in order
to conceal the mother’s dishonor, such fact is
only MITIGATING. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2006, p.520)
● Penalty is that of parricide if the father,
mother or legitimate grandparents kills the
child; or that of murder if a stranger
cooperates with the mother in killing the child.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.519)
ARTICLE 256
INTENTIONAL ABORTION
Elements: (P-VAD-FI)
1. There is a Pregnant woman;
2. That either Violence is exerted, or Drugs or
beverages administered, or that the accused
otherwise Acts upon such pregnant woman;
171
3. As a result of the violence, drugs, beverage
or any other act of the accused upon her, the
Fetus dies, either in the womb or after having
been expelled therefrom; and
4. The abortion is Intended.
Abortion – the willful killing of the fetus in the
uterus, or the violent expulsion of fetus from the
womb which results in the death of the fetus.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.543)
Ways of committing:
1. By using any violence upon the person of a
pregnant woman;
2. By acting, without using violence and without
the consent of the woman, by administering
drugs or beverages upon such pregnant
woman without her consent; and
3. By acting, with the consent of the pregnant
woman, by administering drugs or
beverages.
Persons liable:
1. The person who intentionally causes the
abortion (Art. 256); and
2. The pregnant woman if she consented (Art.
258).
NOTES:
● As long as the fetus dies as a result of the
violence used or the drugs administered, the
crime of abortion exists, even if the fetus is
over or less than 6 months, or is full term.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.543)
● If the fetus could sustain an independent life
(the fetus must have an intrauterine life of
not less than 7 months) after its separation
from the maternal womb and it is killed, the
crime is infanticide, not abortion. (People vs.
Detablan, C.A. 40 O.G. Supp. 5, 30)
Abortion vs. Infanticide
Abortion Infanticide
As to Ability to Sustain Life
Fetus is still drawing life Victim is already a
from its mother, and is person. The umbilical
not yet breathing on its cord is already cut and
own. the infant is breathing
on its own.
172
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.523)
ARTICLE 257
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
Elements: (PVInFed)
1. There is a Pregnant woman;
2. Violence is used upon her without intending
an abortion;
3. The violence is Intentionally exerted; and
4. As a result of the violence, the Fetus dies,
either in the womb of the mother or after
having been expelled therefore.
NOTES:
● The law employs the word “violence,” that
is, actual physical force.
● There is a complex crime of Parricide (or
Murder, as the case may be) with
unintentional abortion when the offender,
with violence, kills the pregnant woman,
thus occasioning the death of the fetus.
(People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 138364, October
15, 2003).
● Even though it was not the criminal intent of
the defendant to cause the abortion, the fact
that, without any apparent reason whatever,
he maltreated the victim, presumably not
knowing that she was pregnant, he is liable
not only for such maltreatment but also for
the abortion. (U.S. vs. Jeffrey, G.R. No. 5597,
March 5, 1910)
● But the more decisive factor is that it being
established by the prosecution itself that the
victim being then only about two months
pregnant, and in the absence of a definite
proof that offender knew of the pregnancy,
for the crime of abortion, even unintentional,
to be held committed, the accused must
have known of the pregnancy. (People vs.
Carnaso, C.A., 61 O.G. 3623)
Other Possible Crimes:
1. Light threats – if only intimidation was used
2. Complex crime of Murder (or Parricide) with
unintentional Abortion, if the pregnant
woman was killed with intent to abort.
 Intentional Abortion vs. Unintentional ● Under a and b above, the woman is liable
Abortion (VPDoCu) under Art. 258 (Abortion practiced by the
woman herself); while the other person
INTENTIONAL UNINTENTIONAL under b is liable under Art. 256 (Intentional
ABORTION ABORTION Abortion).
As to Presence of Violence ● If the purpose of the parents was not to
conceal the woman’s dishonor, the case shall
With or without violence With physical violence fall under Art. 256 (Intentional Abortion).
(Art. 256). (Art. 257).

As to the Person of the Offender ARTICLE 259

ABORTION PRACTICED BY A PHYSICIAN
By another person or by By any person other than OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF
the pregnant woman the pregnant woman ABORTIVES
herself (Art. 256). herself.

As to Offender’s Knowledge of the Pregnancy Elements of Abortion Practiced by a

Offenders knows of the Offender may or may not
pregnancy of the woman. know of the pregnancy.
(U.S. vs. Jeffrey, G.R. No. The decisive factor is that
5597, March 5, 1910) being established by the
prosecution itself. (People
vs. Carnaso, C.A., 61 O.G.
3623)
As to Presence of Dolo or Culpa
There is ALWAYS dolo. There is either dolo or
culpa.
ARTICLE 258
ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN
HERSELF OR BY HER PARENTS
Elements: (AIC)
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered
an Abortion;
2. The abortion is Intended; and
3. The abortion is Caused by: (HOP)
a. The pregnant woman Herself:
b. Any Other person with her consent;
c. Any of her Parents, with her consent, for
the purpose of concealing her dishonor.
NOTES:
● The provision covers three (3) cases:
o Abortion committed by the woman upon
herself or by any other person with her
consent (par. 1)
o Abortion by the woman upon herself to
conceal her dishonor (par. 2)
o Abortion by any of the parents of the
woman with the latter’s consent to
conceal her dishonor. (par. 3)
Physician or a midwife: (PrePAMIn)
1. There is a Pregnant woman who has suffered
an abortion;
2. The abortion is Intended;
3. The offender, who must be a Physician or
Midwife, causes or assists in causing the
abortion; and
4. The physician or midwife takes Advantage of
their scientific knowledge or skill.
Elements of Abortion Practiced by a
Pharmacist: (PANo)
1. Offender is a Pharmacist;
2. There is No proper prescription from a
physician; and
3. Offender dispenses any Abortive.
Persons liable:
1. Physician or midwife
2. Pharmacist
NOTES:
▪ As to the pharmacist, it is not necessary that
the abortive was actually used so long as the
abortive was dispensed without proper
prescription from a physician, it is already
consummated. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.550)
▪ It is immaterial that the pharmacist knows
that the abortive would be used for abortion.
Otherwise, he shall be liable as an
accomplice should abortion result from the
use thereof. (Ibid.)

173
 ARTICLE 260
RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS
IN A DUEL
Punishable acts: (KIC)
1. By Killing one’s adversary in a duel;
2. By Inflicting upon such adversary physical
injuries; and
3. By 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 accomplice.
NOTES:
● Duel – formal agreement to fight with another
party, under determined conditions and with
the participation and intervention of seconds,
who fix such conditions. (U.S vs. Navarro, G.R.
No. 1878, March 9, 1907) 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 make
the selection of arms and fix all other
conditions of the fight.
● Seconds – persons who make the selection
of the arms and fix the other conditions of the
fight.
● Self–defense cannot be invoked if there was a
pre–concerted agreement to fight, but if the
attack was made by the accused against his
opponent before the appointed place and
time, there is an unlawful aggression, hence
self–defense can be claimed. (Justo vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L–8611, June 28, 1956)
ARTICLE 261
CHALLENGING TO A DUEL
Punishable acts: (CIS)
1. By Challenging another to a duel;
2. By Inciting another to give or accept a
challenge to a duel; and
3. By Scoffing or decrying another publicly for
having refused to accept a challenge to fight
a duel.
174
Persons liable:
1. Challenger; and
2. Instigators.
NOTE: A challenge to fight, without
contemplating a duel, is not challenging to duel.
The person making the challenge must have in
mind a formal combat to be concerted between
him and the one challenged in the presence of
two or more seconds. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.552)
ARTICLE 262
MUTILATION
Two Kinds of Mutilation:
a. By intentionally mutilating another by
depriving him, either totally or partially, of
some essential organ for reproduction
(Castration).
b. By intentionally making other mutilation by
lopping or clipping off of some part of body
of the offended party, other than the
essential organ for reproduction, to deprive
him of that part of the body (Mayhem).
Elements of Castration: (MuR-DeR)
1. That there be a castration, that is, Mutilation
of organs necessary for Reproduction; and
2. The mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately, that is, to Deprive the offended
party of some essential organ for
Reproduction. (Aguirre vs. Secretary of
Department of Justice, G.R. No. 170723, March 3,
2008)
Elements of Mayhem: (LSD)
1. That there be Lopping or clipping off of
Some part of body of the offended party,
other than the essential organ for
reproduction; and
2. The mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately, that is, to Deprive the offended
party of that part of the body.
NOTES:
● Mutilation – the lopping or the clipping off
of some part of the body (U.S. vs. Bogel, G.R.
No. 2957, January 3, 1907).
● The offender under the second kind of
mutilation (Mayhem) must have deliberate
intention to deprive the offended party of a
part of his body. Otherwise, the case will be
considered as physical injuries falling under
Art. 263, par. 1 or par. 2, as the case may
be.
d. becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he had
be habitually engaged in for more than 90
days.
4. When the injured person becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days
(but not more than 90 days).

● The penalty under the second kind of Comparison of paragraphs 1 to 4:

mutilation (Mayhem) when the victim is
under 12 years of age shall be reclusion Par. 1 Par. 2 Par. 3 Par. 4
perpetua (Sec. 10, R.A. 7610). Insanity
Imbecility
● The law could not fail to punish with the Impotency
utmost severity such a crime, which, Blindness Loss of an
although not destroying life, deprives a eye.
person of the means to transmit it. But bear Loss of Loss of
in mind that according to this article in order power to power to
for 'castration' to exist, it is indispensable hear in hear in
that the 'castration' be made purposely. The BOTH one ear.
law does not look only to the result but also ears.
Loss of
to the intention of the act. (Aguirre vs.
power to
Secretary of Department of Justice, G.R. No.
smell.
170723, March 3, 2008).
Loses loss of any
a/an: other
ARTICLE 263 -eye member
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES -hand (ex. Loss
-foot of finger,
Ways of Committing (SABAW): -arm tooth).
-leg
1. By Wounding; -loses any
2. By Beating; such
member
3. By Assaulting; and
Becomes Becomes Becomes
4. By Administering injurious Substances. (Art.
incapacitat ill or ill or
264) ed for incapacitat incapacitat
work in ed for the ed for
Kinds of Serious Physical Injuries: which he performan labor for
was ce of the more than
1. When the injured person becomes insane, habitually work in 30 days
imbecile, impotent or blind in consequence of engaged. which he
the physical injuries inflicted. was NOTE:
2. When the injured person- habitually “Labor”
engaged pertains to
a. loses the use of speech or the power to
for more any kind of
hear or to smell, loses an eye, a hand, foot, than 90 labor, not
arm or leg, days. necessarily
b. loses the use of any such member, or where the
c. becomes incapacitated for the work in offended
which he had been habitually engages party is
3. When the injured person- engaged
a. becomes deformed, at the time
b. loses any other member of his body, the serious
physical
c. loses the use thereof, or
injuries are
inflicted.

175
 Deformity
(ex. Loss
of lobule
of ear)
NOTES:
● Impotence – loss of power to procreate;
inability to copulate; sterility. Properly used
of the male; but it also has been used
synonymously with “sterility”. (Black’s Law
Dictionary, 1951)
● Blindness – contemplates total blindness or
loss of both eyes (par. 1). Loss of only one
eye is contemplated under par. 2. Mere
weakness of vision is not contemplated.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book Two,
2011, pp. 538)
● Loss of power to hear should be in both ears;
if one ear only, it falls under par. 3 of Art.
263. (People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-4213,
November 28, 1953)
● Amputation of an arm is serious physical
injury under subdivision No. 2. (People vs.
Lagatam G.R. Nos. L-1940-42, March 24, 1949)
● For loss of the use of hand or incapacity of
usual work in Art. 263(2), the loss must be
permanent.
● The injury to cause deformity is one that
cannot be replaced by nature. (People vs.
Balubar, G.R. No. 40940, October 9, 1934)
● Deformity requires that the injury be: (a)
Physical ugliness; (b) Permanent and
definite abnormality; and (c) Conspicuous
and visible. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.561)
● Deformity will always constitute serious
physical injury even if treatment lasts for less
than 30 days.
● In paragraph 2 and 3, the offended party
must have a work which he was habitually
engaged at the time of the injury.
● Where the category of the offense of serious
physical injuries depends on the period of
illness or incapacity for labor, there must be
evidence of that length of that period,
otherwise, the offense shall only be slight
physical injuries. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.565)
Qualifying Circumstances:
a. Offense committed against persons
enumerated in the crime of parricide.
176
b. With the attendance of circumstance which
qualify the crime to murder.
“Qualified Penalties” are not applicable to parents
who inflict serious physical injuries upon their
children be excessive chastisement.
Physical Injuries vs. Attempted or
Frustrated Homicide
Physical Injuries Attempted or
Frustrated Homicide
As to the presence of inflicted injuries
There must be inflicted Physical injuries may or
physical injuries. may not be inflicted.
As to the presence of intent to kill
The offender has no The offender has an intent
intent to kill the to kill the offended party.
offended party.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.538)
Physical Injuries vs. Mutilation
In Mutilation, there is intent to deprive the
offended party of some part of the body while
there is no such intent in Physical Injuries. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.544)
ARTICLE 264
ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS
SUBSTANCES OR BEVERAGES
Elements: (WAIN)
1. The offender Inflicted upon another any
serious physical injury;
2. It was done by knowingly Administering to
him any injurious substances or beverages or
by taking advantage of his Weakness of mind
or credulity; and
3. The offender has No intent to kill.
NOTES:
1. Administering injurious substances or
beverages means introducing into the body
the injurious substances or beverages. The
infliction of injuries by throwing mordant
chemicals or poisons in the face or body is
not one of the offenses defined and penalized
in the Article. (U.S. vs. Chiong Sangco, G.R. No.
L-6503, February 27, 1911)
2. If intent to kill is present and the victim did
not die, the crime is frustrated murder.
Offender must have knowledge of the
injurious nature of the substance he
administered. Otherwise, he is not liable.
ARTICLE 265
LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Elements:
1. The offended party is incapacitated for labor
for 10 or more but not more than 30 days or
needs medical attendance for the same
period; and
2. That the physical injuries must not be those
described in the preceding articles.
NOTES:
● The law includes two subdivisions:
1. the inability for work; and
2. the necessity for medical attendance.
Therefore, although the wound required
medical attendance for only 2 days, yet if the
injured party was prevented from attending
to his ordinary labor for a period of 29 days,
the offense committed is Less Serious
Physical Injuries. (US vs. Trinidad, G.R. No.
1851, January 23, 1905)
● The phrase “shall require medical attendance
for the same period” means the actual
medical attendance. There must be proof of
the required medical attendance. (People vs.
Penesa, G.R. No. CA–263, August 19, 1948)
● In the absence of proof as to the period of
the offended medical attendance, offense
committed is only Slight Physical Injuries.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.568)
● This article applies even if there was no
incapacity but the medical treatment was for
more than 10 days. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 266
SLIGHT PHYICAL INJURIES AND
MALTREATMENT
Kinds of Slight Physical Injuries (IDI)
1. Physical injuries which 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; and
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without
causing any injury.
NOTES:
● When the offender shall ill-treat another by
deed without causing injury, and without
causing dishonor, the offense is
maltreatment under Art. 266(3). (People vs.
Mapalo, G.R. No. 172608, February 6, 2007)
● Any physical violence which does not produce
injury, such as slapping the face of the
offended party, without causing dishonor is
considered slight physical injury, otherwise,
when the maltreatment causes dishonor, the
crime committed would be Slander by Deed.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.570)
● When there is no evidence of actual injury, it
is only Slight Physical Injuries. (Bagajo vs.
Marave, G.R. No. L-33345, November 20, 1978)
Four Acts punishable under Republic Act
9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and
their Children Act of 2004)
1. Physical Violence
2. Economic Abuse
3. Psychological Violence
4. Sexual Violence
[See further discussion on RA 9262 0 Anti-
Violece Against Women and Children of
2004 ]
177
 ARTICLE 266-A
RAPE, WHEN AND HOW COMMITTED
Two Kinds of rape under Article 266-A:
1. Rape by sexual intercourse (MCC)
Elements:
a) Offender is a Man;
b) Offender had Carnal knowledge of a
woman; and
c) Such act is accomplished under any of the
following Circumstances: (FDFU)
i. Through Force, threat, or intimidation;
ii. When the offended party is Deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
iii. By means of Fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; or
iv. When the offended party is Under 12
years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
2. Rape by sexual assault (APIC)
Elements:
a. The offender commits an act of sexual
Assault;
b. Sexual assault is committed by any of the
following means:
i. By inserting his Penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice; or
ii. By inserting any Instrument or object
into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.
c. Sexual assault is accomplished under the
following Circumstances:(FDFU)
i. Through Force, threat, or intimidation;
ii. When the offended party is Deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
iii. By means of Fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; and
iv. When the offended party is Under 12
years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
Traditional Rape Sexual Assault
The offender is always a The offender may be a
man. man or a woman.
178
XPN: if the act was
committed in conspiracy
with a man.
The offended party is The offended may be a
always a woman. man or a woman.
Rape is committed Rape is committed by
through penile inserting the penis into
penetration of the vagina. other person’s mouth or
anal orifice, or any
XPN: Mere contact by the instrument or object into
male’s sex organ of the the genital or anal orifice
labia consummates rape. of another person.
(People vs. Nequia, G.R.
No. 146569, October 6,
2003)
But mere epidermal
contact or peripheral
contact with the female’s
sex organ is only
attempted rape.
The penalty is higher The penalty is lower
than the sexual assault. than in traditional rape.
NOTES:
● Under R.A. No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of
1997, the crime of rape can now be committed
by a man or woman in the case of insertion of
any instrument or object.
● Effect of the re-classification of rape into
crime against persons from crimes
against chastity:
o The procedural requirement of consent of
the offended to file the case is no longer
need. This is now a “public crime”. Thus,
the case can be filed by the State motu
proprio.
o The impossible crime of rape can now be
committed.
o Rape can now be committed against males
since it is no longer a crime against
chastity.
o The aggravating circumstances relevant
against person shall apply such as
treachery, ignominy or moral suffering.
● Consummated Rape by Sexual
Intercourse - mere touching of the external
genitalia by a penis capable of consummating
the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal
knowledge. This means that the rape is
consummated once the penis of the accused
capable of consummating the sexual act
 touches either labia of the pudendum. (People
vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000)
● The conclusion that touching the labia majora
or the labia minora of the pudendum
constitutes consummated rape proceeds from
the physical fact that the labias are physically
situated beneath the mons pubis or the
vaginal surface, such that for the penis to
touch either of them is to attain some degree
of penetration beneath the surface of the
female genitalia. It is required, however, that
this manner of touching of the labias must be
sufficiently and convincingly established.
(People vs. Bali-Balita, G.R. No. 134266, September
15, 2000)
● Consummated Rape by Sexual Assault –
the insertion of the penis into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object, into another person’s genital or anal
orifice. (Pielago vs. People, G.R. No. 202020,
March 13, 2013) Victim need not identify what
was inserted into his or her genital or anal
orifice for the court to find that rape through
sexual assault was committed. (People vs.
Soria, G.R. No. 179031, November 14, 2012)
● No crime of frustrated rape. (People vs. Orita,
G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990)
● Attempted Rape - There is attempted rape
when there is no penetration of the female
organ because not all the acts of execution
were performed. However, there must be an
intention to have carnal knowledge of the
woman against her will. (People vs. Orita, G. R.
No. 88724, April 3, 1990)
● Moral character is immaterial in the
prosecution and conviction of the offender in
the crime of rape, even a prostitute can be a
victim of rape as the essence is the victim’s
lack of consent to the sexual act. (People vs.
Aaron, G.R. Nos. 136300-02, September 24, 2002)
● Insertion of one’s finger into the genital of
another constitutes rape through sexual
assault. (People vs. John Nequia, G.R. No. 146569,
October 6, 2003; People vs. Bon, G.R. No. 149199,
January 28, 2003)
● Facts do not constitute elements of rape
o Resistance – when the accused is the
father or is closely related to the victim,
moral ascendancy and influence
substitutes for physical violence or
intimidation. (People vs. Abella, September
1999)
o Virginity (People vs. Sacapano, G.R. No.
130525, September 3, 1999)
o The absence of fresh lacerations in the
hymen.
o The absence of findings by a medico-legal
does not disprove the commission of rape.
o The accused’s being younger than the
victim is not relevant in rape.
o Pain, which may be deduced from the
sexual act but accused cannot be convicted
of rape by presuming carnal knowledge out
of pain.
● Statutory Rape – Mere sexual congress with
a woman below 12 years of age consummates
the crime of statutory rape regardless her
consent to the act or lack of it. (People vs.
Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November 16,
2001) A mentally retarded person cannot give
valid and legal consent to sexual act. Thus,
carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is
rape. Sexual intercourse with a mentally
retarded 14 year-old victim was appreciated
as akin to “statutory rape” because if the
sexual intercourse with a victim under 12
years of age is rape, then, it should follow that
carnal knowledge of a woman whose mental
age is that of a child below 12 years old would
also constitute rape. (People vs. Palma, G.R. No.
L-69152, September 23, 1986)
● It is not necessary to prove that the victim was
intimidated or that force was used. The law
presumes that the victim on account of her
tender age, does not and cannot have a will
of her own. (People vs. Mayoral, G.R. Nos. 96094-
95, November 13, 1991)
● Rape can happen even in circumstances when
there is no resistance from the victim.
Resistance, therefore, is not necessary to
establish rape, especially when the victim is
unconscious, deprived of reason,
manipulated, demented, or young either in
chronological age or mental age. (People vs.
Quintos, G.R. No. 199402, November 12, 2014)
179
● Sweetheart Doctrine – It is well settled that Attempted Rape vs. Acts of Lasciviousness
being sweethearts does not negate the vs. Unjust Vexation
commission of the rape because such act does
not give appellant license to have sexual Attempted Acts of Unjust
intercourse against her will, and will not Rape Lasciviousness Vexation
exonerate him from the criminal charge of The offender’s If the offender’s If the
rape. (People vs. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, April intent is to intent is not to offender’s act
penetrate. penetrate. caused
11, 2011) This doctrine is not applicable in
(People vs. annoyance,
statutory rape where what is material was Pareja, G.R. However, irritation,
below 12 years old when it happened. (Boado, No. 188979, under the IRR on torment,
Criminal Law, 2018) September 5, the Reporting distress, or
2012) and disturbance to
● Marital Rape - The paradigm shift on marital Investigation of the mind of the
rape in the Philippine jurisdiction is further Child Abuse victim. (Rait vs
affirmed by R.A. No. 9262 or Anti-Violence Cases, People, G.R.
Against Women and Their Children Act of Lascivious No. 180425,
2004 which regards rape within marriage as a Conduct is July 31, 2008)
form of sexual violence that may be where the
offender’s overt
committed by a man against his wife within or
acts against any
outside the family abode. (People vs. Jumawan, person with an
G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014) intent to abuse,
humiliate,
● As a general rule, acts of lasciviousness is harass, degrade,
absorbed in the crime of rape except where or arouse or
the two crimes were committed by two gratify the
different persons acting in conspiracy. (People sexual desire of
vs. Dy, G.R. Nos. 115236-37. January 29, 2002) any person,
bestiality,
● Treachery in the crime of rape: As a masturbation,
general rule, treachery may be lascivious
appreciated in the crime of rape because RA exhibition of the
genitals or public
8353 reclassified Rape as a crime against
area of a person.
person. Thus, Treachery can be appreciated (People vs.
as an aggravating circumstance except if the Sumingwa, G.R.
rape was committed before 1997 where the No. 183619,
Rape is considered as crimes against chastity. October 13,
2009)
● Rape absorbs forcible abduction where the
accused intended at the very outset to rape Aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
the victim when he abducted her. (People vs.
San Pedro, G.R. No. 94128, February 3, 1993) 1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years
of age and the offender is a parent,
● Rape with Homicide: if the accused was not ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
aware that he had AIDS but that the victim by consanguinity or affinity within the third
dies from AIDS acquired from the accused, the civil degree, or the common-law spouse of
crime to be charged should be the special the parent of the victim;
complex crime of Rape with Homicide. 2) When the victim is under the custody of the
police or military authorities or any law
o “Homicide” is understood in its enforcement or penal institution;
generic sense and includes murder and 3) When the rape is committed in full view of
slight physical injuries committed by the spouse, parent, any of the children or
reason or on occasion of rape. (People vs. other relatives within the third civil degree of
Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011)
consanguinity;

180
4) When the victim is a religious engaged in
legitimate religious vocation or calling and is
personally known to be such by the offender
before or at the time of the commission of
the crime;
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7)
years old;
6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted
with the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus
(HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually
transmissible disease and the virus or
disease is transmitted to the victim;
7) When committed by any member of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-
military units thereof or the Philippine
National Police or any law enforcement
agency or penal institution, when the
offender took advantage of his position to
facilitate the commission of the crime;
8) When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, the victim has suffered permanent
physical mutilation or disability;
9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy
of the offended party at the time of the
commission of the crime; and
10) When the offender knew of the mental
disability, emotional disorder and/or physical
handicap of the offended party at the time
of the commission of the crime.
NOTE: To qualify the crime of rape and increase
the penalty of accused from reclusion perpetua
to death under Art. 266-B in relation to Art.
266-(A)(1) of the RPC, an allegation of the
victim's intellectual disability must be alleged in
the information. If not alleged in the information,
such mental incapacity may prove lack of consent
but it cannot increase the penalty to death.
Neither can it be the basis of conviction for
statutory rape. (People vs. Quintos, G.R. No. 199402,
November 12, 2014)
ARTICLE 266-C
EFFECT OF PARDON
NOTES:
● Subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and offended party extinguishes the
criminal action or the penalty imposed.
● Since rape is now a crime against persons,
marriage extinguishes the penal action only as
to the principal, i.e. the husband, but not as
to the accomplices and accessories. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.594)
● The principle does not apply where multiple
rape was committed because while marriage
with one defendant, extinguishes the criminal
liability, its benefits cannot be extended to the
acts committed by others of which he is a co-
principal. (People vs. Bernardo, et.al., C.A. 38,
O.G. 3479)
● Marital Rape – RA 8353 – penalizes marital
rape regardless of status of marriage. If the
legal husband is the offender, the subsequent
forgiveness of the wife extinguishes criminal
action or penalty. The crime of marital rape is
not extinguished or the penalty abated if the
marriage is void ab initio.
● Prior to R.A. No. 8353, a husband cannot be
guilty of rape committed upon his because of
the matrimonial consent which she gave when
she assumed the marriage relation. However,
under Art. 266-C of R.A. No. 8353, a husband
may be guilty of rape of his wife if it is the
legal husband who is the offender. (People vs.
Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014)
ARTICLE 266-D
PRESUMPTIONS
Evidence which may be accepted in the
prosecution of rape:
1. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance
against the act of rape in any degree from the
offended party; or
2. Where the offended party is so situated as to
render him/her incapable of giving a valid
consent.
H. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY
AND SECURITY
(ARTICLES 267-292)
ARTICLE 267
KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION (KASID)
Elements of Kidnapping: (P-DAC: 3P2M)
1. Offender is a Private individual who is not any
of the parents of the victim
2. He kidnaps or Detains another, or in any other
manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
3. Act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
and
181
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the
following Circumstances is present:
a. The kidnapping or detention last more than
three (3) days;
b. If it shall have been committed simulating
Public authority;
c. If any serious Physical injuries shall have
been inflicted upon the person kidnapped
or detained;
d. If threats to kill shall have been made; or
e. If the person kidnapped or detained shall
be a Minor, female or a public officer.
NOTES:
● In letters b, c, d and e above, detention for
more than three (3) days is not necessary.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.600; People vs. Ali, G.R. No. 222965, December
6, 2017)
● The deprivation means not only the
imprisonment of the person, but also
deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and
for whatever length of time. The essence of
kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the
victim’s liberty, coupled with indubitable proof
of the intent of the accused to effect such
deprivation. (People vs. Basao, G.R. No. 189820,
October 10, 2012)
● The fact that the victim voluntarily went with
the accused did not remove the element of
deprivation of liberty because the victim went
with the accused on false inducement without
which, the victim would not have done so.
(People vs. Santos, G.R. No 117873, December 22,
1997)
● If the victim is a minor, the duration of his
detention is immaterial. (People vs. Mamantak,
G.R. No. 174659, July 28, 2008)
● Where the victim is of tender age, it is not
necessary that the victim be placed in an
enclosure. It is enough that his freedom to
leave the said place is restricted. (People vs.
Jacalne, G.R. No. 168552, October 3, 2011)
● There is no kidnapping with murder, but only
murder, when a 3–year old child was gagged,
hidden in a box where he died and a ransom
was asked. A demand for ransom did not
convert the offense into kidnapping with
murder. The defendant was well aware that
the child would be suffocated to death in a few
moments after she left. 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
182
before the discovery of the cadaver. (People vs.
Lora, G.R. No. 49430, March 30, 1982)
● Attempted Kidnapping – the accused held
the victim’s hand and refused to let go when
the child asked permission to go over to her
neighbor, who saw what was happening.
(People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 120988, August 11,
1997)
Prior the enactment of R.A. No. 7659 (AN ACT TO
IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN
HEINOUS CRIMES) on December 31, 1993, the
rule is that:
 Where the accused kidnapped victim for the
purpose of killing him, and he was in fact
killed by his abductor, the crime committed is
the complex crim of kidnapping with murder;
and
 Where the victim was kidnapped not for the
purpose of killing him but was subsequently
slain as an afterthought, two separate crimes
of kidnapping and murder were committed.
(People vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 118570, October 12,
1998)
However, R.A. No. 7659 amended Art. 267 by
adding a last paragraph which provides that when
the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of
the detention, or raped, or subjected to torture
or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall
be imposed. The amendment introduced the
special complex crime of kidnapping with murder
or homicide. The RULE NOW: where the person
kidnapped is killed where the killing was
purposely south or was merely an afterthought,
the kidnapping and murder or homicide as
separate crimes, but shall punished as a special
complex crime. (People vs. Rimorin, G.R. No. 124309,
May 16, 2000)
Special Complex Crimes related to
Kidnapping
1. Kidnapping with Homicide
 Homicide here is used in its generic sense
which includes homicide or murder
because killing is not a crime but a
qualifying circumstance. Thus, there’s no
crime called Kidnapping with Murder.
  Kidnapping with Homicide will still prosper Kidnapping vs. Unlawful Arrest
even the person is killed in the course of
detention, regardless of whether the Kidnapping Unlawful Arrest
killing is sought or was merely an The essence of the crime The essence of the crime
afterthought. is to deprive the person of is to deliver the person
his liberty. arrested to the proper
authority.
2. Kidnapping with Rape
It can only be committed It can be committed by
by private person. either public officers
 Kidnapping with Rape includes regardless and/or private persons.
of how many counts of rape were
committed by the accused. The taking of Elements of Kidnapping for Ransom
the kidnap victim here should not be with (InDEx):
lewd design and rape happened after
depriving the person of his liberty. 1. There is Intent on the part of the accused to
Otherwise, the crime committed is forcible deprive the victim of his liberty.
abduction with rape. 2. That there is actual Deprivation of the
victim’s liberty.
Kidnapping with Rape vs. Forcible 3. The motive of the accused is Extorting
Abduction with Rape (NaLINA) ransom for the release of the victim. (People
vs. Cenahonon, G.R. No. 169962, July 12, 2007)
Kidnapping with Rape Forcible Abduction
with Rape NOTE: There should be at least one overt act of
demanding ransom. It is not necessary that there
As to Nature
be actual payment. (People vs. Silongan, G.R. No.
The crime is composite The crime is complex (Art. 137182, April 24, 2003)
(or special complex 48) since forcible
crime) if the woman abduction is a necessary Illegal Detention vs. Arbitrary Detention
kidnapped is also raped. means to commit rape.
Illegal Detention Arbitrary Detention
As to presence of Lewd Design
As to Persons liable
Lewd design came after At the outset, there is
Committed by a private Committed by a pubic
the intent to kidnap the already lewd design.
individual who unlawfully officer or employee who
victim.
kidnaps, detains or has a duty under the law
As to result of Attempted rape otherwise deprives a to detain a person and
person of liberty. who detains a person
If rape was merely If rape was merely without legal ground.
attempted, 2 separate attempted, there is only
crimes – kidnapping and forcible abduction, the As to Nature
serious illegal detention attempt to rape is deemed
Crime is against personal Crime against the
and attempted rape. merely a manifestation of
liberty and security. fundamental law of the
lewd designs.
State.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
Kidnapping vs. Grave Coercion p.584)

When a person is prevented from leaving or going ARTICLE 268

to another place, the crime could either be
kidnapping or grave coercion. The difference
would now depend on whether there was an
actual confinement or lock-up of the victim. If
there’s no confinement or lock-up, the crime is
Grave Coercion. (People vs. Astorga, G.R. No.
110097, December 22, 1997)
SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
Elements: (P-DAW)
1. Offender is a Private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner Deprives him of his liberty;

183
3. The Act of kidnapping or detention is illegal; to arrest and detain a person, or if he did not
and act in his official capacity, otherwise the
4. The crime is committed Without the crime committed is arbitrary detention.
attendance of any of the circumstances (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
enumerated in Art. 267. 2017, p.612)
● Under Art. 269, no period of detention is
Liability is mitigated when: required but the motive is controlling. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.614)
a. Offender voluntarily releases the person so
kidnapped or detained within 3 days from the Other Possible Crimes:
commencement of the detention;
b. Without having attained the purpose 1. Arbitrary Detention – if committed by a public
intended; and officer who has authority to arrest and detain
c. Before the institution of criminal proceedings a person
against him.
2. Other Illegal Detention – if the purpose of
NOTE: To impose lesser penalty, it must be locking up or detaining the victim is other
shown that the offender was in a position to than to deliver him to proper authorities
prolong the detention for more than three (3)
days and yet he released the person detained 3. Forcible Abduction – if a woman is
within that time. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: transported from one place to another by
Book Two, 2017, p.611) virtue of restraining her of her liberty and the
act is coupled with lewd designs.
Slight Illegal Kidnapping and
Detention Serious Illegal Unlawful Arrest vs. Delay in the Delivery of
Detention Detained Persons (LeCo)
None of the
circumstances in KASI are
DELAY IN THE UNLAWFUL ARREST
present.
DELIVERY OF (Art. 269)
Voluntary release can Cannot.
DETAINED PERSONS
mitigate the liability.
(Art. 125)
The same penalty as the The general rule on the
principal is incurred by penalty for accomplice As to Legality
anyone who shall furnish observed which is one
the place (accomplice) degree lower than the Detention is for some Detention is not authorized
principal. legal ground. by law.
(Boado, Notes and Cases in Revised Penal Code,
2018, p. 1917) As to Commission

Crime is committed by Committed by making an

ARTICLE 269 failing to deliver such arrest not authorized by
UNLAWFUL ARREST person to the proper law.
judicial authority within a
Elements: (ArD-Not) certain period.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
1. Offender Arrests or detains another person; p.588-589)
2. The purpose of the offender is to Deliver him
to the proper authorities; and ARTICLE 270
3. The arrest or detention is Not authorized by KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A
law or there is no reasonable ground MINOR
therefor.
Elements: (EnRes)
NOTES:
1. Offender is Entrusted with the custody of a
● This crime is committed by a private minor person; and
individual or public officer without authority

184
2. He deliberately fails to Restore the minor to
his parents or guardians.
NOTES:
● Father or mother living separately and has
no custody of the child may commit this
crime. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.615)
● The essential element which qualifies crime
of kidnapping a minor under this article is
that offender is entrusted with custody of a
minor. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 271
INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON
HIS HOME
Elements: (Liv-In)
1. That the minor is Living in the home of his
parents or guardian or the person entrusted
with his custody.
2. That the offender Induces said minor to
abandon such home.
NOTES:
● The inducement must be actual, with
criminal intent and determined by a will to
cause damage. The representations made
by the accused to said minors (14 y/o and
19 y/o) highly praising the City of Manila and
her offer or promise to take them to that City
x x x do not constitute that inducement
which is essential to the act. (People vs.
Paalam, G.R. No. 17411-R, July 11, 1958, C.A.,
54 O.G. 8267-8268)
● The felony is consummated by the mere act
of inducing a minor to abandon his home
with criminal intent and with a will to cause
damage. (People vs. Apolinar, G.R. No. 04614,
August 10, 1965 C.A., 62 O.G. 9044)
● Father or mother living separately and has
no custody of the child may commit this
crime. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.619)
ARTICLE 272
SLAVERY
Elements: (Pur2)
1. That the offender Purchases, sells, kidnaps
or detains a human being; and
2. That the Purpose of the offender is to
enslave such human being.
Circumstances aggravating the penalty:
1. If the crime is committed for the purpose of
assigning the offended party to immoral
traffic.
2. If the victim is female, the crime committed
may be that under Art. 341 or white slave
trade.
NOTES:
● The purpose must be determined, if the
purpose is to enslave the victim, it is slavery;
otherwise, it is kidnapping or illegal
detention. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.620)
● Employment or consent of minor with
consent of parent or guardian although
against child’s own will is NOT involuntary
servitude. (U.S. vs. Cabanag, G.R. No. L-3241,
March 16, 1907) But if the defendant was
obliged to render service without
remuneration whatever and to remain there
so long as she has not paid her debt, there
is slavery. (Reyes vs. Alojado, G.R. No. L-5671,
August 24, 1910)
ARTICLE 273
EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR
Elements: (RAP)
1. That the offender Retains a minor in his
service;
2. That it is Against the will of the minor; and
3. That it is under Pretext of reimbursing
himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian or person entrusted with the
custody of such minor.
NOTE: As to the phrase “against the latter’s
(minor’s) will,” if the minor consents to the
offender’s retaining his services, there is no
185
violation of this article. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p. 621)
ARTICLE 274
SERVICES RENDERED UNDER
COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
Elements: (CoW-P)
1. That the offender Compels a debtor to work
for him, either as household servant or farm
laborer;
2. That it is against the debtor’s Will; and
3. That the Purpose is to require or enforce the
payment of debt.
NOTE: Creditor–debtor relationship between the
offender and the offended party must exist,
otherwise, the crime committed is coercion.
If a person is compelled by the accused to work
for him as office janitor to enforce payment of
debt, there will be no violation of this article. It
specifically provides that the debtor is compelled
to work as household servant o farm laborer.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.622)
Exploitation of Child Labor vs. Services
Rendered Under Compulsion in Payment of
Debt (VOS)
Service of minor is not Limited to household and
limited to household and farm work.
farm work.
If in other capacities,
crime committed may be
coercion.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book Two, 2011, pp
595-596)
ARTICLE 275
ABANDONMENT OF PERSON IN DANGER
AND ABANDONMENT OF ONE'S OWN
VICTIM
Punishable Acts (UnAcc-Del):
1. By 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.
2. By 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.
Elements of par. 1: (F2URO)

Exploitation of Child Services Rendered 1. The accused Finds a person wounded or in

Labor (Art. 273) Under Compulsion in
danger of dying;
Payment of Debt (Art.
274) 2. The accused found such person in an
Uninhabited place;
As to Victim 3. The accused can Render assistance without
detriment to himself;
Victim is a minor. Does not distinguish
4. Such Omission to render assistance does not
whether the victim is a
minor or not. constitute a more serious felony; and
5. Failure to help or render assistance to
somebody whom the accused has
accidentally wounded.

As to One compelled NOTE: “Uninhabited Place” is determined by the

Minor is compelled to Debtor himself is the one
render services for the compelled to work for the
supposed debt of his offender.
parent or guardian.
As to Service required
possibility of a person receiving assistance from
another. The place may still be considered
uninhabited in legal contemplation even if there
are many houses around but the possibility of
receiving assistance is remote. (People vs. Desalisa,
G.R. No. 95262, January 4, 1994)

186
Elements of par. 2: (Acc-Fa)
1. The accused Accidentally wounded or injured
another;
2. He Failed to help or render assistance to his
victim; and
Note: Note the use of the word “accidentally” in
this article. Hence, if a person “intentionally”
stabs or shoots another who is wounded and
does not render him assistance, the person is not
liable under this article. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.625)
Elements of par. 3: (F27)
1. The accused Finds an “abandoned” child;
2. The said abandoned child is under seven (7)
years of age; and
3. The accused Failed to deliver such child to
the authorities or his family or shall fail to
take him to a safe place.
NOTE: The child under seven (7) years of age
must be found in unsafe place and it is immaterial
that the offender did not know that the child is
under seven years. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.625)
ARTICLE 276
ABANDONING A MINOR
Elements: (C7-AbNo)
1. The offender has the Custody of a child;
2. A child is under 7 years of age;
3. He Abandons such child; and
4. He has No intent to kill the child when the
latter is abandoned.
Qualifying Circumstances:
1. When the death of the minor shall result from
such abandonment; or
2. If the life of the minor shall have been in
danger because of the abandonment.
NOTES:
● Abandonment is not momentary leaving of a
child x x x. The act but must be conscious,
deliberate, and permanent. (People vs. Bandian
G.R. No. 45186, September 30, 1936)
● If there is intent to kill and the child dies, the
crime would be murder, parricide, or
infanticide, as the case may be. If the child
does not die, it is attempted or frustrated
murder, parricide or infanticide, as the case
may be. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.626)
● If the intent in abandoning the child is to lose
its civil status, the crime under Art. 347
(concealment or abandonment of a legitimate
child) is committed.
● If the offender is the parent of the minor who
is abandoned, he shall be deprived of parental
authority. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.626 citing Art. 32, C.C.)
ARTICLE 277
ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON
ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY;
INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS
Acts punishable:
1. By 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.
2. By neglecting his (offender’s) children by not
giving them the education which their station
in life requires and financial condition permits
(Indifference of Parents).
Elements of par. 1 – Abandonment of minor
entrusted with his custody: (Char-PubCon)
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.
NOTE: When the offender is not in charge of
rearing or education of the minor, he cannot be
held liable for Art. 277(1). (U.S. vs. Payog, G.R. No.
534, April 1, 1902)
187
Elements of par. 2 – Indifference of ARTICLE 278
Parents: (ParNE) EXPLOITATION OF MINORS

1. The offender is a Parent; Acts punishable: (BA-12-AsIn)

2. He Neglects his children by not giving them
education; 1. By causing any boy or girl less than 16 years
3. His station in life requires such Education and of age to perform any dangerous feat of
his financial condition permits it. Balancing, physical strength, or contortion,
the offender being any person;
NOTES: 2. By employing in exhibition of these kinds
children less than 16 years of age who are not
● Failure to give education must be due to his children or descendants, when such
deliberate desire to evade such obligation. person is an Acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker,
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager, or
p.629; People vs. Francisco, C.A., 51 O.G. 1941, engaged in a similar calling;
citing 7 Viada, Codigo Penal 5, ed. 223) 3. Any person engaged in any of the calling
enumerated in the next preceding paragraph
● Obligation to educate children terminates, if who employs any descendants of his under 12
mother and children refuse without good years of age in such dangerous exhibitions;
reason to live with accused. (Reyes, The Revised 4. Any Ascendants, guardian, teacher or person
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017; People vs. Miraflores, entrusted in any capacity with the care of a
C.A.-G.R. No. 43384, VS.L.J., 382)
child less than 16 years of age, who shall
deliver such child gratuitously to any person
Abandoning a Minor vs. Abandonment of
following any of the callings enumerated in
Minor or Person with his Custody or
paragraph 2 hereof, or to any habitual vagrant
Indifference of Parents (C2A)
or beggar; and
5. Any person who shall Induce any child under
Minor or Person with
Abandoning a Minor his Custody or 16 years of age to abandon the home of its
(Art. 276) Indifference of ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers
Parents (Art. 277) to follow any person engaged in any of the
As to Custody of offender calling mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, to
accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.
Custody of the offender is
Custody of the offender specific, that is, for the
is stated in general. rearing or education of the Qualifying Circumstance:
minor.
In paragraph 4, if the delivery of the child is made
As to Age of minor
in consideration of any price, compensation or
The minor is under 7 The minor is under 18 promise, the penalty is higher.
years of age. years of age (R.A. No.
6809).
Exploitation of Minors vs. Inducing a Minor
As to Commission to Abandon His Home
The minor is delivered to a
public institution or other Inducing a Minor to
The minor is person without the Exploitation of Minors
Abandon His Home
abandoned to deprive consent of the one who (Art. 278[5])
(Art. 271)
him of the care and entrusted such minor to As to Purpose
protection that his the offender; or in the The purpose in inducing No specified purpose
tender years need. absence of such, then the the minor to abandon the is manifested.
consent of the Sate home is to follow any
through the DSWD. person engaged in any of
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, the callings of being an
p.603) acrobat, rope-walker, etc.
As to Age of victim
The minor victim is under Victim is under 18
16 years of age. years of age.

188
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.605-606)
NOTE:
● In defining children, the law includes persons
less than 18 years of age or those who cannot
take care of themselves and can be taken
advantage of by others by reason of their age
or mental incapacity.
● The exploitation of the minor must be of such
nature as to endanger his life or safety, in
order to constitute the offense described
under this article. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.631)
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 the RPC.
Section Two
TRESPASS TO DWELLING
ARTICLE 280
QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING
Elements: (PEW)
1. Offender is a Private person;
2. He Enters the dwelling of another; and
3. The entrance is against the latter’s Will.
Qualifying Circumstance: If committed by
means of violence/intimidation.
NOTES:
● “Dwelling place” as used in this articles means
any building or structure exclusively devoted
for rest and comfort, as distinguished from
places devoted to business offices, etc.
Whether a building is a dwelling house or not
depends upon the use to which it is put.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.633)
● “Against the will of the owner” It is necessary
that the entry is against the implied or express
prohibition of the occupant, and the lack of
permission (or consent) should not be
confused with prohibition. (People vs. De
Peralta, G.R. No. 17332, August 18, 1921)
● There is an implied prohibition when entrance
is made through means not intended for
ingress. (People vs. Marcial, C.A., 50 O.G. 3122)
(e.g., entrance through window)
● In general, all members of a household must
be presumed to have authority to extend
invitation to enter the house. (U.S. vs. Dulfo,
G.R. No. 4133, August 10. 1908)
Other possible crimes:
1. Violation of Domicile – if committed by a public
officer.
2. If a person was killed after trespass by the
offender, the following crimes are committed:
a. Separate Crimes of Homicide or Murder
and Qualified Trespass to Dwelling - if
offender had no intent to kill when he
entered;
b. Homicide or Murder with Dwelling as
Aggravating Circumstance – if offender
had intent to kill when he entered.
Cases where Article 280 does not apply:
a. If the entrance to another’s dwelling is for the
purpose of preventing some serious harm to
himself, or the occupants of the dwelling, or a
third person;
b. If the purpose is to render some service to
humanity or justice;
c. If the place where the entrance is made is a
café, tavern, inn, or other public house while
the same is open; and
d. Hot pursuit of a person who has committed a
crime.
ARTICLE 281
OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS
Elements: (CUMS)
1. Offender enters the Closed premises or the
fenced estate of another;
2. Entrance is made while either of them is
Uninhabited;
189
3. The prohibition to enter is Manifest; and
4. Trespasser has not Secured the permission of
the owner or caretaker thereof.
Trespass to Dwelling vs. Other Forms of
Trespass (P3MA)
3. By 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.
Elements of grave threats where offender
attained his purpose: (TC-ConPur)

Trespass to Dwelling Other Forms of Trespass 1. That the offender Threatens another person
(Art. 280) (Art. 281) with the inflictions upon the latter’s person,
honor, or property, or upon that of the latter’s
As to Persons liable family, of any wrong.
2. That such wrong amounts to a Crime.
Offender is a private Offender is any person. 3. That the there is demand for money or that
person.
any other Condition is imposed, even though
As to Manner of entrance not unlawful.
4. That the offender attains his Purpose.
Offender enters a Offender enters closed
dwelling house. premises or fenced estate. Elements of grave threats not subject to a
As to Place entered
condition: (TC-Not)

The place entered is Place entered is 1. That the offender Threatens another person
inhabited. uninhabited. with the inflictions upon the latter’s person,
honor, or property, or upon that of the latter’s
As to Act constituting crime family, of any wrong;
The act constituting the The act constituting a crime 2. That such wrong amounts to a Crime; and
crime is entering the is entering the closed 3. That the threat is Not subject to a Condition.
dwelling against the will premises or the fenced
of the owner. estate without securing the NOTES:
permission of the owner or
caretaker. ● Aggravating circumstances: (1) if made in
writing or (2) made through a middleman.
As to Prohibition to enter
● The crime is frustrated if the threat was not
The prohibition to enter The prohibition to enter received by the person being threatened.
is express or implied. must be manifest. ● Threats which ordinarily are grave threats, if
made in the heat of anger, may be “Other
Light Threats”. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
Book Two, 2017, p.643)
p.614)
● Grave threats may be committed by indirect
ARTICLE 282 challenge to a gun fight, even if complainant
was absent when challenge was made; it is
GRAVE THREATS
sufficient that threats came to knowledge of
offended party. (People vs. Sayon, C.A., 64 O.G.
Acts Punishable: (ConNot-Pur)
5089)
● Threats made in connection with the
1. By threatening another person with the
commission of other crimes are absorbed by
infliction upon the latter’s family of any wrong
the latter. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
amounting to a crime and there is a demand Two, 2017, p.647)
for money or that any other Condition is ● The offender in grave threats does not
imposed, even though not unlawful and the demand the delivery on the spot of the money
offender attains his purpose. or other personal property asked by him,
2. By making such threat without the offender otherwise it would constitute Robbery with
attaining his Purpose. Intimidation. (U.S. vs. Osorio G.R. No. 6660.

190
 January 17, 1912; People vs. Villanueva, et.al., C.A. NOTES:
48 O.G. 1376)
● Blackmail may be punished under Art. 283.
Threats, Coercion and Robbery, (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
Distinguished (PEHID) 2017, p.648)
● Light threat is committed in the same
Threats Coercion Robbery manner as grave threats, except that the act
As to Purpose threatened to be committed should not be a
Purpose is to Purpose is to Purpose is to crime. (Ibid.)
threaten compel a person take personal
another with to do a particular property ARTICLE 284
the infliction of act against his belonging to
BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR
a wrong will, whether right another, with
amounting to a or wrong, or to the intention to
crime. prevent him from gain. Required to give bail bond:
doing something
not prohibited by 1. In all cases of grave threats and light threats,
law. the person making the threats may also be
required to give bail not to molest the person
threatened.
2. If he shall fail to give such bail not to molest
As to Effect of Crime
the person threatened, he shall be sentenced
Desired Desired
Desired purpose to destierro.
purpose does purpose
immediately
not immediately
succeeds. Bond for Good Behavior vs. Bond to keep
immediately succeeds.
succeed. the Peace (PA-FUN)
As to existence of Harm threatened
Harm Harm Bond for Good Bond to keep the
Harm threatened
threatened threatened is Behavior Peace
is immediate.
may be in the immediate. (Art. 284) (Art. 35)
future. As to Purpose
As to Intent
Provides for bond for Provides for bond to
No intent to With intent to
No intent to gain. good behavior. keep the peace.
gain. gain.
As to whom Directed As to Applicability
Directed on the Directed against May be given only in May be given in any case
Directed cases of grave threats that the court may
person of the the person of the
against (Art. 282, RPC) and light determine.
victim, his victim.
property. threats. (Art. 283, RPC)
honor, family,
or property. As to effect of Failure to give bond
If he shall fail to give bail, If the offender fails to
ARTICLE 283 he shall be sentenced to give the bond, he shall
LIGHT THREATS destierro. be detained for a period
not exceeding 6 months
(if prosecuted for
Elements: (TC-ConOr)
grave/less grave felony)
or not exceeding 30 days
1. The offender makes a Threat to commit a (if prosecution for light
wrong; felony).
2. The wrong does not constitute a Crime; As to persons who Undertake
3. There is demand for money or that other It is the accused himself It is the two (2) sufficient
Condition is imposed, even though not who undertakes not to sureties (not the
unlawful; and molest the person accused) who undertake
4. The offender has attained Or has not threatened. that the accused shall
attained his purpose. not commit the offense
sought to be prevented.

191
 As to Nature of penalty restraint shall not be made under authority of
It is an additional It is a distinct penalty law or in the exercise of any lawful right.
penalty. common to afflictive,
correctional, and light Ways of committing grave coercion:
penalties. (Art. 25, RPC)
1. By preventing another by means of violence,
ARTICLE 285 threats or intimidation from doing something
OTHER LIGHT THREATS not prohibited by law; or
2. By compelling another by means of violence
Acts punishable: (WAO) to do something against his will, whether it is
right or wrong.
a. By threatening another with a Weapon, or
draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be Kinds of Grave Coercion:
in lawful self-defense;
b. By orally threatening another, in the heat of a. Preventive – the offender uses violence to
Anger, with some harm constituting a crime, prevent the victim from doing what he wants
and who by subsequent acts shows that he to so. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
did not persist in the idea involved in his Two, 2006, p.628)
threat; b. Compulsive – the offender uses violence to
c. By Orally threatening to do to another any compel the offended party to do what he
harm not constituting a felony. does not want to do. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2006, p.629)
Other Light
Grave Threats Light Threats
Threats NOTES:
The wrong The wrong The wrong
threatened threatened threatened ● The offender must have exerted violence on
amounts to a does not does not his victim at the very moment that the latter
crime which amount to a amount to a
is doing or is about to do something he
may or may not crime but is crime and there
be always is no condition.
wanted to do. If the offended party had
accompanied by accompanied already done what he wanted to do, and the
a condition. by a condition. threat or intimidation was exerted only after
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, he has done what he wanted, the crime is
p.626) only unjust vexation. (People vs. Madrid, No.
14730-R, October 31, 1965)
Note: Where the threats are directed to a
person who is absent and uttered in temporary fit ● The taxi driver who threatened to bump his
of anger, the offense is only light threats. (People car to kill himself and his female passenger if
vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 39248, February 3, 1934) she would not go with him to night club is
guilty of grave coercion. (People vs. Rimando,
ARTICLE 286 C.A. 56 O.G. 1687)
GRAVE COERCIONS
Qualifying Circumstances:
Elements of grave coercion: (PVA)
1. If the coercion is committed in violation of the
1. That a person Prevented another from doing exercise of the right of suffrage;
something not prohibited by law, or he 2. If the coercion is committed to compel
compelled him to do something against his another to perform any religious act; and
will, be it right or wrong; 3. If the coercion is committed to prevent
2. That the prevention or compulsion be another from performing any religious act.
effected by Violence, threats or intimidation;
and
3. The person who restrained the will and liberty
of another had no Authority of law or the
right to do so, or, in other words, that the

192
Other Possible Crimes:
When act is preventing:
1. Interruption of Religious Worship (Art.
132) – if the public officer prevents by
means of violence or threatens the
ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.
2. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of
the Assembly and similar bodies (Art.
143) – if a person who, by force, prevents
the meeting of a legislative body.
3. Violation of Parliamentary Immunity
(Art. 145) – if a person who shall use force
or intimidation prevents any member of the
Congress from attending the meetings
thereof, expressing his opinions, or casting
his vote.
When act is compelling:
1. Expulsion (Art. 127) – if a public officer
who, not being authorized by law, compels a
person to change his residence.
2. Kidnapping for ransom (Art. 267) – if the
debtor was compelled to pay his because in
effect, there is a demand for payment that
releases from captivity.
Coercion vs. Illegal Detention
In illegal detention, there is clear deprivation of
liberty, while in grave coercion intent to deprive
offended party of his liberty is not clear as when
the latter has the freedom to leave the house of
the accused but she is compelled to go back
against her will. (Reyes, 2017; U.S. vs. Quevengco,
2 Phil 412; People vs. Dauatan, et. al. C.A., 35 O.G.
450)
Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner
In the crime of maltreatment of prisoners, the
offended party is a prisoner. If the offended party
is not a prisoner, the offense would be grave
coercion. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.664)
Coercion vs. Unlawful Arrest
Where a woman was dragged from her doorway
to and along the street and was placed in public
carromata for an act which did not constitute a
violation of ordinance, such acts constitute grave
coercion and not unlawful arrest. (U.S. vs.
Alexander, G.R. No. L-2503, March 15, 1907)
ARTICLE 287
LIGHT COERCIONS
Elements of light coercion: (C-SAP)
1. The offender must be a Creditor;
2. He Seizes anything belonging to his debtor;
3. The seizure is Accomplished either: by means
of violence, or a display of material force
producing intimidation; and
4. The Purpose is to apply the same to the
payment of the debt.
NOTE: There is no light coercion where the
accused seized the property of which he is a co-
owner and which was in the possession of the
debtor. (U.S. vs. Caballero, G.R. No. 8608, September
26, 1913)
UNJUST VEXATION – a form of light coercion
which is broad enough to include any human
conduct which, although not productive of some
physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy
or irritated an innocent person. (Maderazo vs.
People, G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006)
NOTES:
● The offender’s act must have caused
annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment,
distress or disturbance to the mind of the
person whom it is directed. Good faith is a
defense in unjust vexation. (People vs. Gozum,
C.A., 54 O.G. 749)
● If a creditor, by means of violence, seized the
personal property of his debtor to apply the
same to the payment of the debt, the crime is
light coercion under Art. 287; but if the same
was done through deceit and
misrepresentation, it is merely unjust vexation
under Art. 287(2). (People vs. Lacdan, C.A., 51
O.G. 2441)
● As distinguished from grave coercion, the use
of violence is lacking in unjust vexation.
(People vs. Sebastian, et.al., C.A., 40 O.G. 10533)
193
 ARTICLE 288
OTHER SIMILAR COERCION
Compulsory purchase of merchandise and
payment of wages by means of tokens.
(Art. 288 has been repealed by Art. 102 and 112
of the Labor Code, as amended)s
ARTICLE 289
FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
PROHIBITION OF COMBINATION OF
CAPITAL OR LABOR THROUGH VIOLENCE
OR THREATS
[Art. 289 has been repealed by Art. 248 (unfair
labor practices of employers) and Art. 249
(unfair labor practices of labor organizations of
the Labor Code, as amended]
ARTICLE 290
DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH
SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
Elements: (Off-Se-DisCo)
1. The Offender is a private individual or even a
public officer not in the exercise of his official
functions;
2. He Seizes the letters or papers of another;
3. Purpose of such seizure is to Discover the
secrets of another person; and
4. Offender is informed of the Contents of the
letters seized.
Qualifying Circumstance: Offender reveals
the contents of such paper or letter of another to
another person.
Public officer revealing secrets of
individual vs. Seizure of Correspondence
(C-FAP)
Public officer Seizure of
revealing secrets of Correspondence
individual
As to Commission
Public officer comes to Private individual seizes
know the secret of any the papers or letters of
private individual by another.
reason of this office.
As to Form of secret
The secret is not It is necessary that the
necessarily contained in offender seizes
papers or letters. papers of letters of
194
another to discover the
secret of the latter.
As to Act Punished
Act punished is the Act punished is the
revelation of secrets by seizure of
the officer by reason of correspondence so as to
his office. discover the secrets of
the offended party.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.648)
Art. 290 not applicable to:
1. Parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with
the custody of minors with respect to the
papers or letters of the children or minors
placed under their care or custody; and
2. Spouses with respect to the papers or letters
of either of them. (Art. 290, par.3)
ARTICLE 291
REVEALING SECRETS WITH
ABUSE OF OFFICE
Elements: (MaLeR)
1. The offender is a Manager, employee, or
servant;
2. He Learns the secrets of his principal or
master; and
3. He Reveals such secrets.
NOTE:
● Secrets must be learned by reason of their
employment. Damage is not an essential
element of the crime. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.675)
● Under R.A No. 4200 - Anti-Wire Tapping Act,
it shall be unlawful for any person to
communicate the contents of any tape record,
wire record, disc record or any other such
record or copies thereof which was acquired
without authority from all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word. [See
further discussion on Special Penal
Laws]
the
 ARTICLE 292
REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL SECRETS
Elements: (In-SRP)
1. The 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. The offender Reveals said secrets; and
4. Prejudice is caused to the owner.
NOTES:
1. Secrets must relate to manufacturing
process. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.676)
2. Prejudice is an essential element. (Ibid.)
3. The revelation of the secret might be made
after the employee or workman had ceased
to be connected with the establishment .
(Ibid.)
Sec. 22 of R.A. No. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act
of 2009) provides that penalties are to be
imposed in its maximum period when torture
attends the commission of any crime punishable
under Title 8 and 9. [See further discussion
on Special Penal Laws]
I. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
(ARTICLES 293-332)
ARTICLE 293
WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY
Elements of Robbery in general: (PUGI)
1. That there be Personal property belonging to
another;
2. That there is Unlawful taking of that property;
3. That the taking is with intent to Gain; and
4. That there is violence against or Intimidation
of any person or force used upon things.
Classification of robbery:
a. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation
of persons (Art. 294, 297 and 298).
b. Robbery by the use of force upon things (Art.
299 to 302).
NOTES:
Property taken must be personal property, for if
real property is occupied or real right is usurped
by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, the crime is occupation of real property
or usurpation of real rights under Art. 312. (Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.680)
 Unlawful taking is an essential element of
robbery. The taking must be against the will
of the owner or lawful possessor of a
personal property. As an element of robbery
taking must have the character of
permanency. If the dispossession of a
personal property is only temporary and
there is no intention on the offender to
deprive the owner or lawful possessor of a
thing permanently of his possession, robbery
is not committed. (US vs. Atienza, G.R. No.
1043, May 15, 1903)
When the thing taken is a motor vehicle, then the
crime is carnapping, penalized under Anti-
Carnapping Act. [See further discussion on
Special Penal Laws]
If the thing taken is large cattle, then the crime
committed is cattle rustling.
Classification of personal property under the Civil
Code does not apply. The test is whether or not
the object is susceptible of appropriation and
transportation.
 The taking of personal property belonging to
another should not be under claim of
ownership x x x even though the claim of
ownership is untenable. (U.S. vs. Manluco G.R.
No. 10005. November 9, 1914)
“Belonging to another” – In robbery, it is not
necessary that the person unlawfully divested of
the personal property be the owner thereof.
Actual possession of the property by the person
dispossessed is sufficient. It has been held that
robbery may be committed against a bailee or a
person who himself has stolen it. (People vs.
Gavina, G.R. No. 118076, November 20, 1996)
‘Intent to Gain’ or ‘Animus Lucrandi’ – is an
internal act which can be established through the
overt acts of the offender. (People vs. Sia Teb Ban
G.R. No. 31695, November 26, 1929) Absence of
195
intent to gain will make the taking grave coercion
if there is violence used (Art. 286).
 Robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons is deemed more serious than
robbery with force upon things since there is
greater disturbance to the order of society
and the security of the individual. (Manahan
vs. People, G.R. No. 47899, September 30, 1942)
 In cases of joyride, there is taking as long as
the accused’s has the thing in his hand, or as
long as the possession of the owner is
disturbed even if temporarily. (Villacorta vs.
Insurance Comm., et al., G.R No. L-54171,
October 28, 1980, as cited in People vs. Bustinera,
G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004)
ARTICLE 294
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS
NOTE: Paragraphs 1-5 of Art. 294 are single,
special and indivisible felonies, not complex
crimes as defined under Art. 48 of the RPC.
(People vs. Alfeche, G.R. No. 102070, July 23, 1992)
Acts punishable as robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons:
(HI2LUD-R)
1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery
the crime of Homicide is committed
2. When the robbery is accompanied by: Rape,
Intentional mutilation, Arson
3. When by reason or on occasion of such
robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting
in: Insanity, Imbecility, Impotency, 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, Loss of the power
to hear or to smell, Loss of an eye, a hand, a
foot, an arm or a leg, Loss of the use of any
of such member, Incapacity for the work in
which the injured person is theretofore
habitually engaged is inflicted.
5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery is carried to a
degree clearly Unnecessary for the
commission of the crime.
6. When in the course of its execution, the
offender shall have inflicted upon any person
not responsible for the commission of the
robbery any of the physical injuries in
196
consequence of which the person injured:
Becomes Deformed, Loses any other member
of his body, Loses the use thereof, Becomes ill
or incapacitated for the performance of the
work in which he is habitually engaged for
more than 90 days, Becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days.
7. If the violence employed by the offender does
not cause any of the serious physical injuries
defined in Art.263, or if the offender employs
Intimidation only.
Special complex crimes with specific
penalties prescribed:
1. Robbery with homicide is committed if
original design is robbery and homicide was
committed although homicide precedes the
robbery by an appreciable time. If original
design is not robbery but robbery was
committed after homicide as an afterthought,
offender committed two (2) separate offenses
of robbery and homicide. The crime is still
robbery with homicide if the person killed was
an innocent bystander and not the person
robbed and even if the death supervened by
mere accident. When Robbery is
consummated but Homicide is only attempted
or frustrated, offender committed two (2)
separate offenses.
2. In robbery with rape, the intent to commit
robbery must precede rape. Prosecution of the
crime need not by the offended party and the
fiscal can sign the information. When rape and
homicide co-exist in a robbery, rape should be
considered as aggravating only and the crime
is still robbery with homicide.
3. Robbery with intimidation is committed
when the acts done by the accused, by their
own nature or by reason of the circumstances,
inspire fear in the person against whom the
acts are directed.
4. Robbery with Intentional Mutilation -
when by reason or on the occasion of robbery,
intentional mutilation is committed.
Notes: If another robber is killed by his
companion, it is still robbery with homicide.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017)
● The law does not require that the victim of the
robbery be also the victim of the homicide.
(People vs, Carunungan, CA-G.R. No. 9986-R,
October 17, 1957) There is robbery with
 homicide even if the person killed was an
innocent bystander and not the person
robbed. (People vs. Disimban G.R. No. L-1746,
January 31, 1951)
 It is not necessary to identify who among the
conspirators inflicted the fatal wound on the
victim. Once homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the
crime committed is robbery with homicide.
(People vs. Sorila, Jr., G.R. No. 178540, June 27,
2008)
 The homicide must have a direct relation to
the robbery, regardless whether the latter
takes place before or after the killing. (People
vs. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 2004)
● If the original design does not comprehend
robbery, but the robbery follows the homicide
either as an afterthought or merely as an
incident of homicide, then the malefactor is
guilty of two separate crimes: murder or
homicide, as the case may be and robbery.
(People vs. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230, April 24,
2003)
● When homicide is not proved, the crime is only
robbery; When robbery is not proved, the
crime is only homicide. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.700)
Robbery with Rape
1. The offender must have the intent to take the
personal property belonging to another with
intent to gain and such intent must precede
the rape. (People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 101844,
November 18, 1991)
2. If the original plan was to rape the victim and
after the commission of the same also
committed robbery when the opportunity
presented itself, the offenses should be
viewed as separate and distinct. (People vs.
Candelario, G.R. No. 125550, July 28, 1991)
3. All the robbers may be held liable for robbery
with rape even if not all of them committed
the crime of rape based on the concept of
conspiracy. (People vs. Balacanao, G.R. No.
118133, February 28, 2003)
4. There is no such crime as robbery with
attempted rape. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.703)
Robbery with Arson - In this case, it is
essential that the robbery precedes the arson.
There must be an intent to commit robbery and
no killing, rape or intentional mutilation should be
committed in the course of the robbery, or else,
arson will only be considered as aggravating
circumstance of the crime actually committed.
Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries -
When only slight physical injuries or less serious
physical injuries were inflicted, the accused is
liable for simple robbery under Art. 294(5).
(Ocampo vs. People, G.R. No. 163705, July 30, 2007)
The offender who inflicted on another robber,
physical injuries which later resulted in deformity
would be liable for two (2) crimes: (1) Robbery
(2) Serious physical injuries. The wording of the
law says “upon any person not responsible for its
commission”. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.706)
If the serious physical injuries were inflicted not
in the course of the execution of robbery but after
the taking of the personal property had been
complete, the serious physical injuries mentioned
should be considered as separate offense. (Ibid.)
Simple Robbery - Paragraph 5 of this article is
known as such because they only involve slight
or less serious physical injuries, which are
absorbed in the crime of robbery as element
thereof.
NOTE: for the requisite of violence to obtain in
cases of simple robbery [under Art. 294], the
victim must have sustained less serious physical
injuries or slight physical injuries in the occasion
of the robbery. (Caparas vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 217722, September 26, 2018). Hence, in a
case by which the accused snatched the victim’s
necklace without the victim suffering from less
serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries,
the accused cannot be convicted of the crime of
robbery under Art. 294. (Id.)
Robbery with Violence vs. Grave Coercion
Robbery with Grave Coercion
Violence
As to use of Violence
Violence used by the Violence used by the
offender. offender.
As to Intent
197
 There is intent to gain. No intent to gain but to
compel another to do
something against his will.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.683)
Robbery through Intimidation vs. Threats
to Extort Money (I3G)
Robbery through Threats to Extort
Intimidation Money
As to Intimidation
Intimidation is actual Intimidation
and immediate. conditional or future.
Intimidation is personal. Intimidation may be
through
intermediary.
Intimidation is directed Intimidation may refer
only to the person of the to person, honor or
victim. property of the offended
party or his family.
As to Gain
The gain of the culprit is The gain of the culprit is
immediate. not immediate.
(Id.)
P.D. No. 532 – Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Highway Robbery of 1974
Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The seizure of any
person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful
purposes, or the taking away of the property of
another by means of violence against or
intimidation of person or force upon things of
other unlawful means, committed by any person
on any Philippine Highway.
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. (Sec.2.c.)
Aiding pirates or highway
robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or
highway robbery/brigandage. Any person
who knowingly and in any manner aids or
protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands,
such as giving them information about the
movement of police or other peace officers of the
government, or acquires or receives property
taken by such pirates or brigands or in any
manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any
198
person who directly or indirectly abets the
commission of piracy or highway robbery or
brigandage, shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders and be
punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed
by the Revised Penal Code.
Where the victim of the highway robbery was
killed, the crime committed is Highway Robbery
with Homicide. (Sec.4)
P.D. No. 533 - THE ANTI-CATTLE
is RUSTLING LAW OF 1974
Cattle rustling is the taking away by any
an means, method or scheme, without the consent
of the owner/raiser, of any of the above-
mentioned animals whether or not for profit or
gain, or whether committed with or without
violence against or intimidation of any person or
force upon things. It includes the killing of large
cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the
consent of the owner/raiser. (Sec.2.c.)
Large cattle as herein used shall include the
cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other
domesticated member of the bovine family.
(Sec.2.a.)
Presumption of cattle rustling. Every person
having in his possession, control or custody of
large cattle shall, upon demand by competent
authorities, exhibit the documents prescribed in
the preceding sections. Failure to exhibit the
required documents shall be prima facie evidence
that the large cattle in his possession, control or
custody are the fruits of the crime of cattle
rustling. (Sec.7)
ARTICLE 295
ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES,
COMMITTED IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE
AND BY A BAND, OR WITH THE USE OF
FRIARM ON A STREET, ROAD, OR ALLEY
Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons is qualified when
Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of Art. 294 is committed:
1. In an uninhabited place;
2. By a band (at least 4 armed malefactors);
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor
vehicle or airship;
4. By entering the passenger’s compartments
on 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.
 Art. 295 applies only when the offenses
described in subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 of Art.
294 are committed by a band. If robbery with
violence against or intimidation is committed
under subdivision 1 and 2, band shall be
considered only as a generic aggravating
circumstance. (People vs. Apduhan, G.R. No. L-
19491, August 30, 1968)
This article does not apply when:
a. By reason of or by occasion of the robbery,
the crime of homicide is committed;
b. The robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation, or arson; or
c. If by reason or on occasion of robbery, any
of the serious physical injuries resulting in
insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness is
inflicted. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2006, p.686)
ARTICLE 296
DEFINITION OF A BAND AND PENALTY
INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS THEREOF
Band – when more than three armed
malefactors take part in the commission of a
robbery (People vs. Lumiwan, G.R. Nos. 122753-56,
September 7, 1998).
Requisites for liability for the acts of other
members of the band:
1. He is a member of the band;
2. Present at the commission of robbery by that
band;
3. Other members committed assault; and
4. He did not attempt to prevent the assault.
Note: 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 the assault.
(People vs. Pelagio G.R. No. L-16177 May 24, 1967);
but when there is conspiracy to commit homicide
and robbery, all the conspirators, even if less than
four (4) armed men, are liable for the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. (People
vs. Fontanillas, et.al., G.R. No. L-25298, April 16, 1968)
ARTICLE 297
ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED ROBBERY
COMMITTED UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES
If physical injuries were inflicted on the victim,
but no intent to kill was proved and the victim did
not die, the liability of the offender may be as
follows:
1. If the physical injuries were by reason of the
attempted or frustrated robbery as the means
for the commission of the latter, the injuries
are absorbed by the latter and the crime shall
only be attempted or frustrated robbery;
2. If the physical injuries were inflicted only on
the occasion of the aborted robbery but not
employed as a means of committing the latter
these will be separate crimes of attempted or
frustrated robbery and physical injuries.
3. If both killing and physical injuries were
committed on that occasion, the crime will be
penalized in accordance with Art. 297 but the
physical injuries will be absorbed.
NOTES:
● The term “homicide” under Art. 297 is used in
a generic sense. Hence, it includes multiple
homicides, murder, parricide or even
infanticide. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.723)
● There is only one crime of attempted robbery
with homicide even if slight physical injuries
were inflicted on other persons on the
occasion or by reason of robbery. (People vs.
Casalme, et al., No. L-11057, June 29, 1957)
ARTICLE 298
EXECUTION OF DEEDS BY MEANS OF
VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION
Elements: (InCoVi)
1. The offender has Intent to defraud another;
2. The offender Compels him to sign, execute
or deliver any instrument or documents; and
3. The Compulsion is by means of Violence or
intimidation.
NOTE: Art. 298 applies even if the document
signed, executed or delivered is a private or
commercial document. Art. 298 is not applicable
199
if the document is void. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.728)
ARTICLE 299
ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR
PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED
TO WORSHIP
Robbery with force upon things under
subdivision (a) Elements:
1. That the offender entered (a) an inhabited
place, or (b) public building, or (c) edifice
devoted to religious worship;
2. That the entrance was effected by any of the
following means: (OW-PiFi)
a. Through an Opening not intended for
entrance or egress;
b. By breaking an 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. That once inside the building, the offender
took personal property belonging to another
with intent to gain.
NOTES:
The place entered must be a house or building.
When the culprit enters a parked automobile
through a window, the crime is theft if personal
property was taken therefrom. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.731)
To constitute entering, the whole body of the
culprit must be inside the building. (People vs.
Adorno, C.A., 40 O.G. 567)
The wall that was broken must be an outside wall,
not a wall between rooms in a house or building;
same with the door. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.732)
“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. (Art. 305)
“Picklocks or similar tools” are those specially
adopted to the commission of the crime of
robbery.
200
It is only theft when the false key or picklock must
be used to open wardrobe or locked receptacle or
drawer or inside door. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.734)
Robbery with force upon things under
subdivision (b) – Elements: (IT:DoF)
1. That the offender is Inside a dwelling house,
public building, or edifice devoted to religious
worship, regardless of the circumstances
under which he entered it;
2. That the 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:
Doors refer to inside doors of the house or
building. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.735)
When sealed box or 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. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.736)
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. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 300
ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE
AND BY A BAND
NOTES:
● Maximum period of the penalty provided if
robbery mentioned in the preceding article
(Art. 299) is committed (a) in an uninhabited
place; and (b) by a band.
● “Uninhabited Place” is one where there are no
houses at all, or a considerable distance from
town, or where the houses are scattered at a
 great distance from each other. (People vs.
Asibar, G.R. No. L-37255, October 23, 1982)
ARTICLE 301
WHAT IS AN INHABITED HOUSE,
PUBLIC BUILDING, OR BUILDING
DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND
THEIR DEPENDENCIES
“Inhabited House” is any shelter, ship or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons
even though the inhabitants thereof are
temporarily absent therefrom when the robbery
is committed. (Art. 301[1]; People vs. Tubog, G.R No.
L-26284, November 17, 1926)
“Public Building” is every building owned by
the Government or belonging to a private person
but used or rented by the Government, although
temporarily unoccupied by the same; what makes
a building public is the fact that the State or any
of its agencies have title thereto. (Art. 301[4])
“Dependencies” are all interior courts, corrals,
water houses, granaries, barns, coach-houses,
stables or other departments or in closed places
contiguous to the building or edifice, having an
interior entrance connected therewith, and which
form part of the whole. (Art. 301[2])
Requisites: (CIP)
1. Must be Contiguous to the building or
edifice;
2. Must have an Interior entrance connected
therewith; and
3. Must form Part of the whole. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.740)
Example: Small store located on the ground
floor of the house belonging to the owner of the
store is a dependency of the house. (U.S. vs.
Ventura et. Al G.R. No. 13715. January 22, 1919)
Orchards and other lands used for cultivation or
production, even if closed, contiguous to the
building and having direct connection therewith,
are not dependencies. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.740)
NOTE: The place is still inhabited house even if
the occupant was absent. (U.S. vs. Bajet, 25 Phil
105)
ARTICLE 302
ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR
IN A PRIVATE BUILDING
Elements:
1. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a
building which was not a dwelling house,
public building, or an edifice devoted to
religious worship;
2. Any of the following circumstances are
present: (OOPSS)
a. If the entrance has been effected
through any Opening not intended for
entrance or egress.
b. If any wall, roof, floor or Outside door or
window has been broken.
c. If the entrance has been effected
through the use of false keys, Picklocks
or other similar tools.
d. If any door, wardrobe, chest or by Sealed
or closed furniture or receptacle has been
broken.
e. If any closed or Sealed receptacle was
removed, even if the same be broken
open elsewhere.
NOTES:
● The term “uninhabited place is an
uninhabited building. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.742)
● When the property taken is a mail matter
during any of the robberies defined in Arts.
294, 295, 297, 299, 300 and 302, the
penalties next higher in degree than those
provided in said article shall be imposed.
(Art. 302 last paragraph)
● In relation to Art. 299: the difference is that
under Art. 299, the receptacle must be
locked or sealed. In Art. 302, the receptacle
must be closed or sealed. Thus, if the
receptacle was merely closed but it was
opened without breaking the same, the
crime is theft. (Amurao, Book Two)
201
 ARTICLE 303
ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS, OR
FIREWOOD IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE
OR PRIVATE BUILDING
When the robbery consists in the taking of
cereals, fruits, or firewood, the culprit shall suffer
the penalty next lower in degree that that
prescribed in Art. 299 and 302.
ARTICLE 304
POSSESSION OF PICKLOCKS OR SIMILAR
TOOLS
ARTICLE 306
WHO ARE BRIGANDS
Highway robbers or brigands – more than
three armed persons forming 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. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.750)
Elements: (4BRoOCK)

Elements: (PAL) 1. There are at least four (4) armed persons;

1. Offender has in his Possession picklocks or
similar tools;
2. Such tools are especially Adopted for the
commission of the crime of robbery;
3. The offender does not have Lawful cause for
such possession.
2. They formed a Band of Robbers; and
3. The purpose is any of the following:
a. Commit robbery in the highway; or
b. 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: Brigandage vs. Robbery in band (PNP)

● Actual use of picklocks or similar tools is not Brigandage Robbery in band

necessary in illegal possession thereof. (Reyes, As to Purpose
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.748) Purpose is to: Commit Only to commit
● If the offender is a locksmith, the penalty is robbery in highway; robbery, and not
higher. (Ibid.) Kidnappers for ransom; necessarily in the
● This is an exception to the general rule that Other purpose to be highway.
attained by means of force
preparatory acts are not punishable by law.
or violence.
As to Number of robbery
ARTICLE 305
Agreement is to commit Only a particular
FALSE KEYS
several robberies. robbery.
As to Punishable act
False Keys shall be deemed to include: Mere formation is Actual commission of
(ToGA) punished. robbery is necessary.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
1. The Tools mentioned in the next preceding p.725)
articles;
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner; and Brigandage under Art. 306 vs. Brigandage
3. Any keys other than those intended by the under PD 532 (P2-VLC)
owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by
the offender. Brigandage Anti-Piracy and
(Art. 306) Anti-Highway
NOTE: A master key is a picklock and its mere Robbery Law
possession is punishable. (People vs. Lopez, G.R. PD 532
No. L–18766, May 20, 1995) As to Punishable Act
Mere formation of band is Mere conspiracy to
punishable. constitute the offense
or brigandage is not
punishable
(presupposes that acts

202
 defined are actually
committed).
As to Persons liable
Offenders must be a band Offenders need not
of robbers (there are more constitute a band. One
than three armed person can commit the
malefactors). crime.
NOTE: All are presumed highway robbers if any
of them carries unlicensed firearm. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.751)
Streets within, as well as roads outside the cities
are covered by the word “highway”. (U.S. vs. Tan-
Seco, G.R. No. 1487, April 6, 1905)
 No highway robbery or brigandage under PD
532 was committed on board a passenger
jeepney. Such crime should be a special
crime of Robbery with homicide. The mere
allegation that the robbery took place on a
highway was held not sufficient to define that
the offense to Highway Robbery. Considering
that the proof showed that the robbery was
aimed not indiscriminately, the crime of
robbery was the one intended. In the
interpretation of an information, what
controls is not the designation but the
description of the offense charged. (Avecilla
vs. People, G.R, No. 46370, June 2, 1992)
ARTICLE 307
AIDING AND ABETTING A BAND OF
BRIGRANDS
Note: PD 532 is amendatory to Article 307 of
RPC. Hence, the provision under Article 307 is not
anymore controlling.
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 or force upon things, shall
take the personal property of another without the
latter’s consent (Lozano vs. People, G.R. No. 165582,
July 9, 2010).
Elements of theft (PAG-CoV):
1. The taking of Personal property;
2. That the property belongs to Another;
3. That the taking is done with intent to Gain;
4. That it was done without the Consent of the
owner; and
5. That it was accomplished without Violence or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things.
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;
It is necessary to prove: (a) the time of the
seizure of the thing; (b) it was a lost property
belonging to another; and (c) 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.
Note: Delay in the delivery of lost property
to the local authorities is immaterial, when
the finder surrenders it to the owner when
the latter came to his house to get it. (People
vs. Carani, C.A., 1943 O.G. 60)
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 enclosed
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.
Finder in fact – a person who finds a lost item.
The case of the finder of a lost property affirms
the fact that the offender obtains only physical
possession of the thing. The finder in fact has an
obligation to deliver the property to the owner if
known, otherwise, surrender the property to the
authorities. If he does not, he is liable for theft.
Finder in law – he is an officer of the law to
whom a lost item is surrendered or turned over.
He is under the obligation to turn over the lost
property which he received in trust while on duty.
NOTES:
● The fishing referred to in this article is not
fishing in the fishpond or fishery; otherwise it
203
 is qualified theft under Art. 310. (Reyes, The Robbery vs. Theft (E3CoF)
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2012, p. 745)
● Theft is not a continuing offense because in Robbery Theft
theft the phrase used is “shall take personal (Art. 293) (Art. 308)
property”. (Duran vs. Tan, G.R. No. L–2760, As to Elements (3)
February 11, 1950) Both involve unlawful taking as element.
● “Intent to gain” means not only the acquisition Both involve personal property belonging to another.
of a thing useful to the purpose of life but also There is intent to gain.
the benefit which in any other sense may be As to Commission
derived or expected from the act which is The taking is done with There is no employment
performed. (People vs. Padilla, G.R. No. 03281-R, the use of violence or of violence or intimidation
March 6, 1964) intimidation of persons. of persons.
● “Unlawful taking” in the juridical sense, As to use of Force upon things
consummation of the crime of theft takes Use of force upon things No use of force upon
place upon the voluntary and malicious taking is employed to enter a things is employed.
of the property belonging to another which is building or to break a
furniture chest or other
realized by the material occupation of the
locked or sealed
thing whereby the thief places it under his receptacle in the house
control and in such a situation as he could or building or take them
dispose of it at once. (People vs. Naval, G.R. No. therefrom and break
8230-R, September 30, 1948) Therefore, taking outside.
in theft need not have the character of
permanency. R.A. No. 7832 - Anti-Electricity and Electric
Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act
 There is no crime of frustrated theft. (People of 1994 punishes theft of electric power
vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007) transmission lines and materials.

 Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the
moment the offender gains possession of the
thing, even if he has no opportunity to
dispose of the same. (People vs. Obillo, G.R. No.
139323, June 6, 2001)
 Intangible properties such as electrical
energy and gas may be proper subjects for
theft. (U.S vs. Carlos, G.R. No. 6295, September
1, 1911)
 A joyride in an automobile taken without the
consent of its owner constitutes taking with
intent to gain. (People vs. Fernandez, C.A., 38
O.G. 985)
● A policeman shall be considered as the finder
of lost property. If the policeman fails to
deliver the lost property to the owner, he is
liable for theft. Appropriating the property by
the policeman is of the same character of that
made by one who originally found the same
(Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer Volume II,
2019, p. 370; People vs. Avila, G.R. No. L-19786,
March 31, 1923).
P.D. No. 534 defines illegal fishing and
prescribes stiffer penalties therefor.
[See further discussions on Special Penal
Laws]
ARTICLE 310
QUALIFIED THEFT
Theft is considered qualified if committed
by or with any of the following acts: (DAM-
CoFiTy)
1. By a Domestic servant;
2. With a grave Abuse of confidence;
3. If the property stolen is a Mail matter, or large
cattle or motor vehicle;
4. If the property stolen consist of Coconuts
taken from the premises of the plantation;
5. If the property stolen consist of Fish taken
from a fishpond or a fishery; and
6. If the property is taken on the occasion of fire,
Typhoon, earthquake, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil
disturbance.

204
NOTES:
● Theft by a domestic servant is always qualified
theft. It need not be shown that there was
grave abuse of confidence. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.782)
● To constitute “grave abuse of confidence”, the
second kind of qualified theft, there must be
allegation in the information and proof of a
relation, by reason of dependence,
guardianship or vigilance between the
accused and the offended party, that has
created a high degree of confidence between
them, which the accused abused. (People vs.
Koc Song, G.R. No. L-45043, August 29, 1936)
● If the motor vehicle was not taken by the
offender but delivered by the owner or
possessor to the offender who, thereafter,
misappropriated the same, the crime is
Qualified Theft.
● Qualified Theft of a motor vehicle is the crime
committed if only material or physical
possession was yielded to the offender,
otherwise, if juridical possession is also
transferred, the crime is Estafa.
● Penalty under this article is two degrees
higher than that provided in Art. 309.
PD 1612 – Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 - 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.
[See further discussions on Special Penal
Laws]
ARTICLE 311
THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
NATIONAL LIBRARY AND NATIONAL
MUSEUM
Theft of property on national library and museum
has a fixed penalty regardless of value of property
taken.
ARTICLE 312
OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR
USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN
PROPERTY
Elements: (U-BIG)
1. That the offender takes possession of real
property or Usurps any real rights in property;
2. That the real property or real rights Belong to
another;
3. That violence against or Intimidation of
persons is used by the offender in occupying
real property or usurping real rights in
property; and
4. That there is intent to Gain.
Acts Punishable:
1. By taking possession of any real property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons; or
2. By usurping any real rights in property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons.
Two-Tiered/Two-Layered Penalty – This
article provides for two–layered penalty:
a. The penalty for the acts of violence; and
b. The penalty of fine for the usurpation.
NOTES:
 If the usurpation was committed with killing
or physical injuries, the penalty for robbery
with homicide or robbery with serious
physical injuries will be imposed. Usurpation
of real property is similar to robbery except
that in robbery, personal property is involved.
Art. 312 provides a single, albeit two-tiered,
penalty consisting of a principal penalty,
which is that incurred for the acts of violence,
and an additional penalty of fine based on the
value of gain obtained by the accused. This
is clear from the clause “in addition to the
penalty incurred for the acts of violence
executed by him.” For want of a better term,
the additional penalty may be designated as
an incremental penalty. (People vs. Alfeche, Jr.,
G.R. No. 102070, July 23, 1992)
 There is only civil liability if there is no
violence or intimidation in taking possession
205
 of real property. (People vs. Dimacutak et. al, CA ● It is also not necessary that the defendant
O.G. 1389) should have been adjudged bankrupt or
insolvent. (People vs. Chong Chuy Limgobo, G.R.
Theft or Robbery and Usurpation of Real No. L-20995, October 30, 1923)
Property, distinguished (CObI)
ARTICLE 315
Theft or Robbery Usurpation of Real SWINDLING (ESTAFA)
(Art. 308/Art.293) Property
(Art. 312)
Ways of Committing Estafa
As to Commission
There is taking. There is occupation or 1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence,
usurpation. namely:
As to Object of the crime a. By altering the substance, quantity, or
Personal property is There is real property or quality or anything of value which the
taken real right involved. offender shall deliver by virtue of an
As to Intent obligation to do so, even though such
There is intent to gain. There is intent to gain. obligation be based on an immoral or
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, illegal consideration;
p.770) b. By misappropriating or converting, to the
prejudice of another, money, goods, or any
ARTICLE 313 other personal property received by the
ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other
Elements: obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same, even
1. There are boundary marks or monuments of though such obligation be totally or
towns, provinces, or estates, or any other partially guaranteed by a bond, or by
marks, intended to designate boundaries of denying having received such money,
the same; and goods, or other property; and
2. Offender alters said boundary marks. c. By taking undue advantage of the
signature of the offended in blank, and by
NOTE: Intent to gain is not necessary. Mere writing any document above such
alteration of the boundary marks of monuments signature in blank, to the prejudice of the
intended to designate the boundaries of towns, offended party or of any third person.
provinces or estate is punishable. (Reyes, The 2. By means of any of the following false
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.804) pretenses of fraudulent acts executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the
ARTICLE 314 fraud:
FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY a. By using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, influence,
Elements: (DAP) qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by
1. Offender is Debtor (he has obligations due
means of other similar deceits;
and demandable);
b. By altering the quality, fineness or weight
2. He Absconds with his property; and
of anything pertaining to his art or
3. There is Prejudice to his creditors.
business;
c. By pretending to have bribed any
NOTES:
Government employee, without prejudice
● Unlike in Insolvency Law, Art. 314 does not to the action for calumny, which the
require for its application that the criminal act offended party may deem proper to bring
should have been committed after the against the offender. In this case, the
institution of insolvency proceedings. (Reyes, offender shall be punished by the
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.806) maximum period of the penalty;

206
 d. By post-dating a check, or issuing a check
in payment of an obligation when the
offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient
to cover the amount of the check. The
failure of the drawer of the check to
deposit the amount necessary to cover his
check within three (3) days from receipt of
notice from the bank and/or the payee of
notice from the bank and/or the payee or
holder that said check has been dishonored
for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be
prima facie evidence of deceit constituting
false pretense or fraudulent act; and
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; and
c. By removing, concealing or destroying, in
whole or in part, any court record, office
files, document or any other papers.
Elements of Estafa in General:
1. The accused defrauded another (a) by abuse
of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit.
2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person.
NOTES:
● “Fraud” – in the general sense, is deemed to
comprise anything calculated to deceive,
including all acts, omissions and concealment
involving a breach of legal equitable duty,
trust, or confidences justly reposed resulting
in damage to another. (Garcia vs. People, G.R.
No. 144785, September 11, 2003)
● “Deceit” – a specie of fraud. It is actual fraud
and consists in any false representation or
contrivance whereby one person overreaches
and misleads another, to his hurt. (People vs.
Romero, G.R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999)
● If there is no deceit and no abuse of
confidence, there is no estafa, even if there is
damage. There is only civil liability. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.843)
● There is no such crime as estafa through
negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain must
be obtained by the accused personally
through his own acts, and his mere negligence
in allowing another to take advantage of or
benefit from the entrusted chattel cannot
constitute estafa. (Serona vs. CA, G.R. No.
130423, November 18, 2002)
Estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence
Estafa committed through unfaithfulness –
par. 1–A, Art. 315
Elements: (AD-On)
1. The offender has an Onerous obligation to
deliver something of value;
2. He Alters its substance, quantity, and quality;
and
3. Damage or prejudice is caused to another.
NOTE: 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. (People vs. Bastiana, G.R. No. 15516-R,
February 18, 1958)
Estafa committed through abuse of
confidence – par. 1–B, Art. 315
Elements: (ReMis-PreDe)
1. That money, goods, or other personal
property be Received by the offender in trust,
or on commission, or for administration, or
under any obligation involving the duty to
make delivery or, or return the same;
2. That there be Misappropriation or conversion
of such money or property of the offender; or
denial on his part of such receipt;
3. That such misappropriation or conversion or
denial causes Prejudice to another; and
4. That there is Demand made by the offended
party to the offender.
3 ways of committing estafa with abuse of
confidence (MisConDe)
a. By Misappropriating the thing received;
b. By Converting the thing received; and
c. By Denying that the thing was received.
NOTE:
● The element of demand is not necessary when
there is evidence of misappropriation of the
207
 goods by the defendant. (Lim vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 102784, February 28, 1996)
● Failure to turn over to the bank proceeds of
the sale of goods covered by trust receipts is
Estafa. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.816)
● 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.
(People vs. Ma Su, 90 Phil 706)
● Pledging a thing by the accuse which was
received by him only to be sold on commission
constitutes estafa. (U.S. vs. Torres G.R. No.
4109, March 21, 1908)
● Selling the thing on credit is estafa. This is
based on the rule that “to appropriate to one’s
own use includes not only conversion to one’s
personal advantage but every attempt to
dispose of the property of another without
right (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.826)
Estafa with abuse of confidence
Malversation, distinguished (N2P2C)
Estafa with abuse of Malversation
confidence (Art. 217)
(Art. 315)
As to Nature (2)
Both are entrusted with funds or property.
As to Property involved
Funds or property are Usually involves public
usually private. funds or property
As to Persons liable
Offender is private Offender is usually a
individual or public officer public officer accountable
who is not accountable for public funds or
for public funds or property.
property.
As to Commission
Crime is committed by Crime is committed by
misappropriating, appropriating, taking or
converting or denying misappropriating
having received money, consenting, or, through
goods or property. abandonment
negligence, permitting
any other person to take
the public funds or
property.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.807-808)
208
Estafa by taking undue advantage of the
signature in blank – par. 1–C, Art. 315
Elements: (Pa-LDA)
1. The Paper with the signature of the offended
party be in blank;
2. The offended party should have Delivered it
to the offender;
3. That above the signature of the offended
party a blank 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.
Estafa by means of deceit
Elements: (FERD)
1. That there must be a False pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means
committed by the accused as to his power,
vs.
influence, qualification, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transaction;
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or Executed
prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of fraud;
3. The offended party must have Relied on the
false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means; and
4. That as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered Damage.
NOTE:
Note the phrase “prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of fraud”.
When the complainant was aware of the fictitious
or nature of the offense, there is no estafa through
false pretense. (People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No.
or 19192, Feb 28, 1923)
In estafa by means of deceit, the juridical and
physical possession of the thing was transferred
whereas in theft, only material possession is
transferred (People vs. Escalante, C.A., 59 O.G. 718).
Estafa by using fictitious name–Par. 2–A,
Art. 315
Three Ways of Commission: into an obligation. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2006, p.821)
1. By using fictitious name; ● It is the check that is supposed to be the sole
2. By falsely pretending to possess power, consideration for the other party to have
qualifications, credit, business, influence, entered into the obligation.
property, agency, imaginary transactions; and ● It does not cover checks where the purpose of
3. By means of other similar deceits. drawing the check is to guarantee a loan
because a loan is not an obligation as
NOTES: contemplated in this paragraph. (Pacheco vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126670, December 2,
● There is use of fictitious name when a person 1999)
uses a name other than his real name. Thus, ● The check must be genuine – if the check is
when a person found a pawnshop ticket in the falsified and is cashed with the bank or
name of another, and using the name of that exchange for cash, the crime is estafa thru
another person, redeemed the jewelry falsification of a commercial document. (Reyes,
mentioned therein, he committed estafa by The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.820)
using fictitious name. (People vs. Yusay, G.R. No. ● When postdated checks are issued and
L–26957, September 2, 1927) intended by the parties only as a promissory
● A person who is convicted of illegal note, there is no estafa even if there are no
recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of sufficient funds in the bank to cover the same.
(People vs. Obieta CA-52 O.G. 065224)
estafa under Art. 315(2)(a). (People vs.
Sagaydo, G.R. Nos. 124671-75, September 29,
2000) P. 22 vs. Estafa under Art. 315, 2[D]
● A creditor who deceived his debtor is liable for (LiP2-ON2E)
estafa. (People vs. Rubaton C.A. 65 O.G. 5048)
Bouncing Check Law Estafa
Estafa by altering anything pertaining to (BP 22) (Art. 315, 2[d])
As to Liability of Endorser
his art or business–Par. 2–B, Art. 315
Endorser is not liable Endorser may be liable if
unless there is conspiracy he acted with deceit
NOTE: There is a complex crime of theft and knowing that the check is
estafa. (People vs. Yusay, G.R. No. 26957, September worthless.
2, 1927) As to Purpose of the check
Check is issued for the Check is issued to obtain
Estafa by pretending to have bribed any purpose of applying on valuable consideration
Government employee–Par. 2–C, Art. 315 account or for value. from the payee.
As to Obligation covered
Estafa by issuing postdated check–Par. 2–
D, Art. 315 Covers even payment of In payment of an
pre-existing obligation. obligation contracted at
Elements: (PDF) the time of the issuance
and delivery of the check.
1. The offender Postdated a check, or issued a
As to Elements (2)
check in payment of an obligation;
Deceit and damage is not Deceit and damage is an
2. Such postdating or issuing a check was done an essential element. essential element.
when the offender had no Funds in the bank, As to Period of Payment
or the funds deposited therein were not The drawer is given 5 The drawer is given 3
sufficient to cover the amount of the check; banking days after calendar days after
and receiving notice of receiving notice of
3. There is Damage to the payee dishonour within which dishonour within which
to pay. to pay.
NOTES: As to Nature of the crime (2)
Crime against public Crime against property.
interest.
● This paragraph applies to obligation that is not
Mala prohibitum Mala in se
pre-existing, or the check is drawn to enter

209
 [See further discussion of B.P. 22 on (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
Special Penal Laws] p.876)

NOTE: The filing of the two sets of Information Estafa by removing, concealing or
under the provisions of B.P. 22 and under Art. destroying court records vs. Infidelity in
315(2)[d] of the RPC, although may refer to the Custody of Documents (CoPI)
identical acts committed by petitioner for the
same act, is not prohibited. (Nierras vs. Dacuycuy, Estafa by removing, Infidelity in the
G.R. Nos. 59568-76 January 11, 1990) concealing or Custody of
destroying court Documents
Estafa through any of the following records (Art. 266)
fraudulent means: [Art. 315(3)(c)]
As to Commission
Same manner of committing the crime.
Estafa by inducing another to sign any
As to Persons liable
document–Par. 3–A, Art. 315
Offender may be any Offender is a public
person who is not officer who has official
Elements: (IDS-Pre) officially entrusted with custody of public or
the documents. official documents.
1. Offender Induces the offended party to sign As to Intent
a document; There is an intention to Intention to defraud is
2. Deceit be employed to make him sign the defraud. not a necessary
document; element.
3. The offended party personally Signed the (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
document; and p.842)
4. Prejudice is caused to the offended party.
ARTICLE 316
NOTE: If the offended party willingly signed the OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING
document and there was deceit as to the
character or contents of the document, the crime The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and
committed is falsification. But where the accused medium period and a fine of not less than the
made representation as to mislead the value of the damage caused and not more than
complainant as to the character of the three times such value shall be imposed upon:
documents, the crime is estafa. (U.S. vs. Barnes,
G.R. No. 4774, November 18, 1908) 1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of
any real property shall convey, sell,
Estafa by resorting to some fraudulent encumber or mortgage the same
practices to insure success in gambling–
Par. 3–B, Art. 315 Elements: (IREP)

Estafa by removing, concealing, a. That the thing be Immovable, such as

destroying, in whole or in part, any court parcel of land or building;
record, office files, document or any other b. Offender who is not the owner of said
papers–Par. 3–C, Art. 315 property should Represent that he is the
owner thereof;
Elements: (CoRD) c. Offender should have Executed an act of
ownership over the real property such as
1. There is a Court, document, office files or any selling, encumbering, leasing,
other papers; mortgaging; and
2. The offender Removed, concealed, d. The act is Prejudicial to the owner or a
destroyed any of them; and third person.
3. The offender had intent to Defraud another.
Note: Even if deceit is practiced against the
Note: If there is no intent to defraud, the act of second purchaser and damaged is incurred by the
destroying court record will be malicious mischief.

210
first purchaser, there is a violation if Art. 316(1).
(U.S. vs. Drilon G.R. No. 12502 September 6, 1917)
2. Any person who, knowingly that the real
property is encumbered, shall dispose of the
same, although such encumbrance be not
recorded
Elements: (RE2D)
a. The thing disposed of is a Real property
b. The offender knew that the real property
was Encumbered, whether the
encumbrance be recorded or not;
c. There must be Express representation by
the offender, that the real property is
free from encumbrances; and
d. The act of Disposing of the real property
be made to the damage of another.
Note: When the loan had already been granted
when defendant offered the property as security
for payment of loan, Art. 316(2) is not applicable.
(Dissenting – People vs. Rubia Vda. De Torres, 62 O.G.
9270)
3. The owner of any personal property who shall
wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor,
to be prejudice of the latter of any third
person
Elements: (POL-Pre)
a. The offender is the Owner of any
personal property;
b. Said personal property is in the lawful
Possession of another;
c. The offender wrongfully takes it from its
Lawful possessor; and
d. Prejudice is thereby caused to the
possessor or any third person.
4. Any person who, to be prejudice of another
shall execute any fictitious contact;
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;
and
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.
Elements: (SurGES:ACRe)
a. The offender is a Surety in a bond given
in a criminal or civil action;
b. He Guaranteed the fulfillment of such
obligation with his real property or
properties;
c. He sells, mortgages, or in any other
manner Encumbers said real property;
and
d. Such sale, mortgage or encumbrances is:
i. Without express Authority from the
court;
ii. Made before Cancellation of his bond;
or
iii. Before being Relieved from the
obligation contracted by him.
Special Penal Laws
R.A. 8042 – Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a
syndicate 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.
[See further discussion on Special Penal
Laws]
Pres. Decree No. 1689 - Swindling by
Syndicate
Any person or persons who shall commit estafa
or other forms of swindling as defined in Art. 315
and 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if
the swindling (estafa) is committed by a
syndicate consisting of five or more persons
formed with the intention of carrying out the
unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or
scheme, and the defraudation results in the
misappropriation of money contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers
association, or of funds solicited by
211
corporations/associations from the general
public.
When not committed by a syndicate as above
defined, the penalty imposable shall be reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of
the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos. (Sec. 1, P.D. No.
1689)
[See further discussion on Special Penal
Laws]
Note: Syndicated Estafa may be committed
through a Ponzi scheme. (People vs. Tibayan, G.R.
No. 209655-60, January 14, 2015)
ARTICLE 317
SWINDLING A MINOR
Elements: (In2-ConTra)
1. The offender takes advantage of the
Inexperience or emotions or feelings of a
minor;
2. He Induces such a minor to assume any
obligation, or give any release, or to execute
a transfer of any property right;
3. The Consideration is some loan of money,
credit, or other personal property; and
4. The Transaction is to the detriment of such
minor.
Note: If property is a real property, Art. 318
applies; minor cannot convey real property
without judicial authority.
ARTICLE 318
OTHER DECEITS
Elements: (FaP2)
1. That the person commits acts of False
pretenses, fraudulent acts or pretenses other
than those mentioned in Art. 315, 316 and
317;
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent acts or
pretenses were made and executed Prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; and
3. As a result, the offended party suffered
damage or Prejudice.
212
Acts Punishable: (DP)
1. By Defrauding or damaging another by any
other deceit not mentioned in the preceding
articles; and
2. For Profit or gain doing any of the following:
interpreting dreams, telling fortunes, making
forecasts; or taking advantage of credulity of
the public in any other similar manner.
NOTE: This is an all catch provision, in that, if
Arts. 315-317 does not apply, and then utilize this
to charge the offender. (Guinhawa vs. People, G.R.
No. 162822, August 25, 2005)
 An employee who receives cash advance
from his employer for his travel expenses and
who fails to return the unspent amount is not
liable for estafa because ownership of the
money was transferred to him. He has no
legal obligation to return the same money.
(Kim vs. People, G.R. No. 84719, January 25,
1991)
 The failure of an entrustee to turn over the
proceeds sale of the goods covered by the
Trust Receipt is Estafa. He has the legal
obligation to turn over the proceeds of the
sale. (Allied Banking Corp. vs. Sec. Ordonez, G.R.
No. 82495: December 10, 1990)
ARTICLE 319
REMOVAL, SALE OR PLEDGE OF
MORTGAGED PROPERTY
Acts Punishable:
1. By knowingly removing any mortgaged
personal property.
Elements (MoK-ReP-No):
a. Personal property is Mortgaged under the
Chattel Mortgage Law;
b. The offender Knows that such property is
so mortgaged;
c. He Removes such mortgaged personal
property to any province or city other than
the one in which it was located at the time
of execution of the mortgage;
d. The removal is Permanent; and
e. There is No written consent of mortgagee,
executors or administrators or assigns to
such removal.
2. By selling or pledging personal property
already pledged.
Elements (ChaP-No):
a. Personal property is already pledged under
the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law;
b. The offender, who is the mortgagor of such
property, sells or Pledges the same or any
part thereof; and
c. There is No consent of the mortgagee,
written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the records thereof in the Office
of the Register of Deeds.
ARTICLES 320-326-B
[Some articles were amended or repealed
by P.D. 1613; RA No. 7659 revived Article
320 of RPC]
Arson – when any person burns or sets of fire to
the property of another, or his own property
under circumstance which expose to danger the
life or property of another.
Kinds of Arson:
1. Simple Arson (Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1613)
2. Destructive Arson (Art. 320, as amended by R.A.
7659)
3. Other Cases of Arson (Sec. 3, P.D. No. 1613)
Presidential Decree No. 1613, amending
Law on Arson
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
5. Any building where evidence is kept for use
in any legislative, judicial, administrative or
other official proceedings.
6. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging
house, housing tenement, shopping center,
public or private market, theater or movie
house or any similar place or building.
7. Any building, whether used as a dwelling or
not, situated in a populated or congested
area.
Sec. 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;
5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill
central; and
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
warehouse.
Sec. 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 it's
planned or carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons.
Sec. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by
reason of or on the occasion of the arson death
213
results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (Art. 320 of RPC, as
death shall be imposed. amended by R.A. No. 7659)

Sec. 6. Prima Facie evidence of Arson. Any of the Art. 320. Destructive Arson. - The penalty of
following circumstances shall constitute prima reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed
facie evidence of arson: upon any person who shall burn:
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices,
than one part of the building or
consequent to one single act of burning, or
establishment.
as a result of simultaneous burnings,
2. If substantial amount of flammable
committed on several or different occasions.
substances or materials are stored within the
2. Any building of public or private ownership,
building note necessary in the business of the
devoted to the public in general or where
offender nor for household us.
people usually gather or congregate for a
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other
definite purpose such as, but not limited to,
flammable or combustible substances or
official governmental function or business,
materials soaked therewith or containers
private transaction, commerce, trade,
thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
workshop, meetings and conferences, or
chemical, or electronic contrivance designed
merely incidental to a definite purpose such
to start a fire, or ashes or traces of any of the
as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient
foregoing are found in the ruins or premises
dwellings, public conveyances or stops or
of the burned building or property.
terminals, regardless of whether the offender
4. If the building or property is insured for
had knowledge that there are persons in said
substantially more than its actual value at the
building or edifice at the time it is set on fire
time of the issuance of the policy.
and regardless also of whether the building is
5. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire
actually inhabited or not.
insurance policy more than two fires have
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel,
occurred in the same or other premises
airship or airplane, devoted to transportation
owned or under the control of the offender
or conveyance, or for public use,
and/or insured.
entertainment or leisure.
6. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation
of the effects insured and stored in a building
and any appurtenances thereto, which are
or property had been withdrawn from the
devoted to the service of public utilities.
premises except in the ordinary course of
5. Any building the burning of which is for the
business.
purpose of concealing or destroying
7. If a demand for money or other valuable
evidence of another violation of law, or for
consideration was made before the fire in
the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or
exchange for the desistance of the offender
defrauding creditors or to collect from
or for the safety of the person or property of
insurance.
the victim.
Irrespective of the application of the above
Sec. 7. Conspiracy to commit Arson. Conspiracy
enumerated qualifying circumstances, the
to commit arson shall be punished by Prision
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall
Mayor in its minimum period.
likewise be imposed when the arson is
perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more
Sec. 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. The
persons or by a group of persons, regardless of
building which is the object of arson including the
whether their purpose is merely to burn or
land on which it is situated shall be confiscated
destroy the building or the burning merely
and escheated to the State, unless the owner
constitutes an overt act in the commission or
thereof can prove that he has no participation in
another violation of law.
nor knowledge of such arson despite the exercise
of due diligence on his part.

214
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.
Notes:
● Burning of houses is considered as simple
arson under P.D. No. 1613. (People vs. Soriano,
G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003)
● In attempted arson, it is not necessary that
there be fire. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2006, p.883)
● If a person is able to light or set fire to the
rags but the fire was put out before any part
of the building was burned, it is frustrated
arson. (U.S. vs. Valdez, G.R. No. L-14128,
December 10, 1918)
● Whether the crime is described as simple
arson, arson resulting to death, or special
complex crime of arson with homicide,
homicide shall not be considered as a separate
crime. Arson, regardless of its description, will
absorb homicide. Arson, regardless of its
description, is punishable under Sec. 5 of PD
No. 1613 and Art. 320 of the Revised Penal
Code, both of which prescribes a grave
penalty where arson is committed with a
resulting death.
● Arson under PD No. 1613 is considered as
treason when it is committed by a person
thereby sowing and creating a condition of
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
among the populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.
(Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9372)
Note: Arson is not a predicate crime of
terrorism under R.A. No. 11479, which is the
law that repealed R.A. No. 9372.
Arson vs. Homicide/Murder, distinguished:
1. If the main objective is the burning of the
building or edifice, but death results by reason
or on the occasion of arson, the crime is
simply arson and the resulting homicide is
absorbed.
2. 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, the crime committed is
murder only.
3. If the main objective is to kill a particular
person, and in fact the offender has already
done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to
cover up the killing, then there are two
separate and distinct crimes committed –
homicide/murder and arson. (People vs.
Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010, citing
People vs. Malingan)
ARTICLE 327
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF
Malicious Mischief - willful damaging of
another’s property for the sake of causing
damage due to hate, revenge or other evil motive
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.922).
Nature: Malicious Mischief cannot be attempted
or frustrated. It is always consummated. Only
personal property may be subject of Malicious
Mischief.
Elements: (Da2Co)
1. Offender deliberately caused Damage to the
property of another;
2. Such act does not Constitute arson or other
crimes involving destruction; and
3. It was committed merely for the sake of
Damaging it.
NOTES:
● The third element presupposes that offender
acted due to hate, revenge or evil motive.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.924)
● It is still malicious mischief if the act of
damaging another’s property was inspired,
not by hatred or by a desire for revenge, but
215
 by the mere pleasure of destroying. (People vs. ARTICLE 329
Siddayao, C.A., 53 O.G. 8163) OTHER MISCHIEFS
● If there is no malice in causing the damage,
the obligation to repair or pay for the damages Mischiefs not included in Art. 328 are punished
is only civil. (People vs. Tayucon, G.R. No. 18244- according to the value of the damaged caused.
R, January 23, 1959)
● This article does not refer to mischief resulting a. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
from a crime, such as the damages caused by periods, if the value of the damage caused
a robber in breaking the window, for the exceeds 1,000 pesos;
reason that such damages are mere incidents b. By arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
of the crime of robbery. Hence, the damage of periods, if such value is over 200 pesos but
property must not result from a crime. (Reyes, does not exceed 1,000 pesos; and
The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.925, c. By arresto menor or fine of not less than the
citing Guevara) value of the damage caused and not more
● If after damaging the property, the offender
than 200 pesos, if the amount involved does
removes or makes use of the fruits or objects not exceed 200 pesos or cannot be estimated.
of the damage, it is theft. (Ibid.) ARTICLE 330
DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS
Malicious Mischief Arson
OF COMMUNICATION
The cause of destruction the moment fire is used
should not be by fire. to destroy property.
The crime is committed The crime is committed This crime is done by damaging railways,
by dolo. either by dolo or culpa. telegraph or telephone lines.
By causing damage and When death results in
obstruction to means of arson, the crime is the NOTES:
communication is without special complex crime of
prejudice to the criminal arson with homicide. ● “Railway systems” includes electric wires,
liability act such as (People vs. Jugueta, G.R. traction cables, signal system and other things
homicide, murder, No. 202124, April 05, pertaining to railway.
mutilation and physical 2016)
● Removing rails from railway track to cause
injuries; separate crimes
are committed with
destruction constitutes crime involving
separate penalties. (Art. destruction under Art. 324.
330) ● Art. 330 is not applicable when the damaged
telegraph/phone lines do not pertain to a
ARTICLE 328 railway system. Hence, cutting telephone lines
SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF or those for transmission of electric
power/light not pertaining to railways is not
Acts Punishable: (O-PIN) covered by this article. (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.929)
1. Causing damage to Obstruct the performance ● If people are killed as a result of the damage
of public functions; caused and the offender had no intent to kill,
2. Using any Poisonous or corrosive substance; the crime is damages to means of
3. Spreading any Infection or contagion among communication with homicide. If there is
cattle; and intent to kill and damaging the railways was
4. Causing damage to the property of the the means to accomplish the criminal purpose,
National Museum, National Library, or to any the crime is murder. (Ibid.)
archive or registry, waterworks, road, ● If the damage shall result in any derailment of
promenade, or any other thing used in cars, collision or other accident, a higher
common by the public. penalty shall be imposed.
● Derailment of cars should not have been
NOTE: This mischief mentioned in No. 1 above is purposely sought for.
to be distinguished from sedition (Art. 139), in
that the element of public and tumultuous
uprising is not present in this crime. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.890)

216
 ARTICLE 331
DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES,
PUBLIC MONUMENTS, OR PAINTINGS
Acts Punishable:
1. Destroying or damaging statues or any other
useful or ornamental public monument; and
2. Destroying or damaging any useful or
ornamental painting of a public nature.
ARTICLE 332
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
Crimes involved in the exemption:
a. Theft;
b. Swindling (Estafa); and
c. Malicious Mischief.
Persons exempted from criminal liability
(SAD-WiBS)
1. Spouses, Ascendants and Descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line;
2. The Widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed into
the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and Sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
NOTES:
● No criminal but only civil liability shall result
from the commission of only said crimes,
committed or caused mutually by those
persons. (Art. 332[1])
● “Spouses” cover common-law spouses.
● “Relatives” include stepfathers and step
mothers, illegitimate and adopted children.
● The exemption does not apply to strangers
who participates in the commission of the
crimes. (last par. Art. 332)
● The exemption does not apply if the crimes of
theft, swindling and malicious mischief are
complexed with another crime. (Intestate
Estate of Manolita Gonsales Vda. De Carungcong
vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010)
● The relationship by affinity created between
the surviving spouse and the blood relatives
of the deceased spouse survives the death of
either party to the marriage which created the
affinity. (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonsales
Vda. De Carungcong vs. People, supra)
● Reason for the Exemption: the law recognizes
presumed co-ownership of property between
offender and offended party. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.932)
J. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
(ARTICLES 333-346)
ARTICLE 333
WHO ARE GUILTY OF ADULTERY
Elements: (MaSK)
1. The woman is Married;
2. She has Sexual intercourse with a man not her
husband; and
3. As regards the man with whom she had sexual
intercourse, he must Know her to be married.
NOTES:
● Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of
adultery. It is NOT a continuing offense.
(Fernandez vs. Lantin, G.R. No. L-44759, December
17, 1976)
● It is not necessary that there be a valid
marriage between the offended husband and
the offending wife. Art. 333 uses the phrase
“even if the marriage be subsequently
declared void.” The marriage may suffer from
a legal defect but until there is judicial
declaration of nullity of the marriage, the
marriage is presumed to be legal and valid.
(U.S. vs. Mata, G.R. No. 6300, March 2, 1911)
● After the marriage has been declared void ab
initio by the court, the innocent spouse can no
longer file any complaint for adultery. (Pilapil
vs. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989)
Requisites for Pardon (Art. 344):
a. Must come before the institution of the
criminal prosecution; and
b. Both offenders must be pardoned.
217
NOTES:
● If the offended party pardons only the wife,
the dismissal of the case shall not prosper.
The offended spouse must pardon both the
offending spouse and the co-defendant man.
(People vs. Infante, G.R. No. 36270, August 31,
1932)
● Pardon may be given at any stage of the
institution of the crime, since it is not a crime
de officio. It is a private crime in which the
only person who may institute the crime is the
lawful and current offended spouse.
● An act of intercourse subsequent to the
adulterous conduct implies a pardon. (People
vs. Muguerza, et. al., 13 C.A. Rep. 1079)
● The evidence and complainant’s conduct
warrant the inference that he consented to
the adulterous relations existing between
the accused and therefore he is not
authorized by law to institute this criminal
proceeding. (People vs.vs. Sensano and Ramos,
G.R. No. L-37720, March 27, 1933)
ARTICLE 334
CONCUBINAGE
Elements: (MKSiCK)
1. The man must be Married;
2. He committed any of the following acts:
a) By Keeping a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling;
b) By having Sexual intercourse, under
scandalous circumstances, with a woman
who is not his wife; or
c) By Cohabiting with a woman who is not his
wife in any other places.; and
3. That as regards to the woman, she must
Know him to be married.
NOTES:
● Conjugal dwelling- a house, constructed
from the proceeds of the sale of conjugal
properties of the spouses, especially where
they had intended it to be so. The fact that
the wife never had a chance to reside therein
and that the husband used it with his mistress
instead, does not detract from its nature.
(People vs. Cordova, G.R. No. 19100-R, June 23,
1959)
218
● Scandal produced by the concubinage of a
married man occurs when:
o He and his mistress lived in the same room
of a house;
o They appear together in public; and
o Perform acts in sight of the community
which give rise to criticism and general
protest among the neighbors.
● Cohabit - to dwell together, in the manner of
husband and wife, for some period, as
distinguished from occasional, transient
interviews for unlawful intercourse. (People vs.
Pitoc, et. al., G.R. No. 18513, September 18, 1922)
● The pendency of the case for declaration of
nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question
to a concubinage case. (Beltran vs. People, G.R.
No. 137567, June 20, 2000)
● A married man is liable for concubinage only
when he does any of the three acts specified
in Art. 334. If his sexual relations with a
woman not his wife is not any one of them, he
is not criminally liable. (People vs. Santos, et. al.,
C.A., 45 O.G. 2116)
● When a married man commits infidelity with a
married woman, he offends his wife and the
husband of the other woman. He also violates
two provisions of the law. Hence, he can be
both liable for adultery and concubinage for
the same act of illicit intercourse if his wife and
the offended husband of his paramour files a
separate complaint against him and the
offending wife (Del Prado vs. De La Fuente, G.R.
No. 9274, September 14, 1914).
ARTICLE 335.
Rape - This provision has been repealed.
ARTICLE 336
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Acts of lasciviousness is committed by any person
who commits an act of lasciviousness upon other
persons of either sex: (1) through force or threat;
(2) when the offended party is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; or (3) when the
offended party is under 12 years of age. (Article
336) The modes of, or circumstance in,
committing acts of lasciviousness are the same as
those in rape under the old version. (People vs.
Garcia, G.R. No. 200529, September 19, 2012; People
vs. Rellota, G.R. No. 168103, August 3, 2010)
NOTES: Public officer. Private individual.

● “Lewd” means obscene, lustful, indecent, As to the consummation of the crime

lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality Mere immoral or indecent Actual act of
which has relation to moral impurity; or that proposal made earnestly lasciviousness should
which is carried on a wanton manner. (People and persistently. have been executed.
vs. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003) (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006, p.
915)
● When there is no lewd design, the offender
may only be convicted of unjust vexation.
Attempted rape vs. Acts of Lasciviousness
● There is neither attempted nor frustrated acts
of lasciviousness. From the moment the Acts of
Attempted rape
offender performs all the elements necessary Lasciviousness
for the existence of the felony, he actually As to the presence of clear indication of the
attains his purpose and, from that moment, all offender’s purpose to lie with the offended
the essential elements of the offense have party
been accomplished. (People vs. Falmularcano, Present. Not present.
G.R. No. 197-R, February 28, 1947) As to the commission of acts of lasciviousness
● The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman As PREPARATORY ACTS to Lascivious acts are
arising either out of passion or other motive the commission of rape. themselves the FINAL
and the touching of her breast as mere OBJECTIVE sought by
incident of the embrace without lewd design the offender.
constitutes merely unjust vexation. (People vs.
Ignacio, CA-G.R. No. 5119-R, September 30, 1950) ARTICLE 337
● Where the kissing, embracing and the QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
touching of the breast of a woman are done
with lewd design, the same constitute acts of Two classes of qualified seduction:
lasciviousness. (People vs. Santiago, G.R. No.
12339, December 2, 1999) 1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and
● The mere act of lying on top of the alleged under 18 years of age by certain persons,
victim, even if naked, does not constitute such as, a person in authority, priest,
rape; the felony of acts of lasciviousness is a teacher, or any person who, in any capacity,
crime included in rape. (People vs. Mejia, G.R. was entrusted with the education or custody
No. 185723, August 4, 2009) of the woman seduced; and
● What constitutes lewd or lascivious acts shall 2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or
be determined from the circumstances if each descendant by her ascendant, regardless of
case. (U.S. vs. Gomez, G.R. No. L-10341, March 3, her age or reputation.
1915)
● Acts of lasciviousness is punished under Sec. Elements of Qualified seduction of a virgin:
5(b), R.A. 7610, when performed on a child (VOSA)
below 18 years of age exploited in prostitution
or subjected to other sexual abuse (Special 1. Offended party is a Virgin;
Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation,
2. She must be Over 12 and under 18 years of
and Discrimination Act).
age;
[See further discussion on RA 7610 - 3. The offender had Sexual intercourse with
Special Protection of Children Against her; and
Abuse, Exploitation and 4. There is Abuse of authority, confidence, or
Discrimination Act] relationship on the part of the offender.

Abuses against chastity (Art. 246) vs. Elements of Qualified seduction of a sister
Offenses against chastity (Art. 336) or descendant: (SACS)
Abuses against Offenses against
1. Offended party is a Sister or descendant,
chastity chastity
(Art. 246) (Art. 336) whether or not she be a virgin or over
As to the person of the offender eighteen years of age;

219
2. Relationship must be Consanguinity;
3. The offender had Sexual intercourse with
her; and
4. There is Abuse of authority, confidence, or
relationship on the part of the offender.
Offenders in Qualified Seduction:
1. Those who abused their authority:
a) Persons 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, like:
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.
NOTES:
● Seduction means enticing a woman to
unlawful sexual intercourse by means of
persuasion, solicitation, promises, bribes, or
other means without the use of force.
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 1910)
● “Virgin” refers to a woman of chaste
character or a woman of good reputation.
Virginity in this sense does not mean
physical virginity (People vs. Lee, G.R. No.
139070, May 29, 2002). Virginity is presumed
if the woman is unmarried and of good
reputation. It is the accused who must prove
otherwise and the proof must be convincing,
not just insinuations or conjectures. (People
vs. Ramos, G.R. No. L-49218, August 27, 1987)
● Domestic – is different from a house servant.
It means any person living under the same
roof as a member of the same household,
and includes boarders or house–guests but
not transients or visitors. (People vs.
Subingsubing, G.R. Nos. 104942–43, November
25, 1993)
● If the sister or descendant is under 12 years
of age, the crime would be rape. If any of
the circumstances in the crime of rape is
present, the crime is not to be punished
under this article, thus if the offended
220
woman was sleeping, or the offender used
force or intimidation, when he had sexual
intercourse with her, the crime would be
rape. (People vs. Manansala, G.R. Nos. 110974-
81, June 17, 1997)
ARTICLE 338
SIMPLE SEDUCTION
Elements: (DOGS)
1. Offended party is Over 12 and under 18
years of age;
2. She must be of Good reputation, single or
widow;
3. The offender had Sexual intercourse with
her; and
4. It is committed by means of Deceit.
NOTES:
● Virginity of the victim is not required in
simple seduction. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017)
● To constitute simple seduction, there must
in all cases be some deceitful promise or
inducement. The woman should have
yielded because of this promise or
inducement. (People vs. Pasuca, G.R. No.
128159-62, July 14, 2004)
● Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled
promise of marriage and this promise need
not immediately precede the carnal act.
(People vs. Iman, G.R. No. 42660, September 12,
1935)
● Promise of marriage by a married man,
whom the victim knew to be married, is not
deceit. (US vs. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 9059, March
14, 1914)
● Promise of marriage after sexual intercourse
is not deceit. (Id.)
● There is no continuing offense of simple
seduction. (People vs. Bautista, Adm. Case No.
226, February 25, 1946)
● The man may be willing and ready to marry
the offended party but simple seduction is
still committed when the man knows that
she cannot legally consent to the marriage.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.966)
 Simple Seduction vs. Qualified Seduction 3. The offender accomplishes the acts by
(VADAO) Abuse of authority, confidence, relationship,
or deceit.
Simple Seduction Qualified Seduction
As to the offended party’s Virginity as an NOTES:
essential element
NOT an essential ● Male cannot be the offended party in this
element of the crime, but crime. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
it is enough that the ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of Two, 2017, p.967)
woman is single or a the crime of qualified ● The law is silent if the victim is exactly 12
widow of good seduction of a virgin.
years old. The law provides that the victim is
reputation and has a
chaste life. over 12 but under 18 years of age.
As to the presence of Deceit as an essential ● The offended woman must have consented
element of the crime to the acts of lasciviousness but the consent
Present Not present is obtained by abuse of authority,
As to Victim’s Age confidence, or relationship or by means of
● Qualified seduction of a deceit. (Id)
virgin: over 12 but ● The penalty for acts of lasciviousness with
under 18 the consent of the offended party shall be
ALWAYS over 12 but
● Qualified seduction one (1) degree higher than that imposed by
under 18.
of a sister or
law when the victim is under 12 years of age.
descendant: may
(Sec. 10, R.A. No. 7610)
be over 18.
As to the presence of Abuse of authority,
abuse of confidence or abuse of relationship ARTICLE 340
in the commission of the crime CORRUPTION OF MINORS
May be committed even Can only be committed
without the presence of with the presence of Elements: (PS)
such. such.
As to the person of the Offender 1. The offender Promotes or facilitates the
Person in public prostitution or corruption of persons under
authority; priest; house age; and
servant; domestic; 2. The purpose is to Satisfy the lust of another.
guardian; teacher; or
any person entrusted
Any person. with the education or NOTES:
custody of the woman
seduced; a brother ● Persons under age means a person below
seducing his sister; or 21 years of age as majority commences
ascendant seducing a upon the attainment of the age of 21 years.
descendant. (Alimagno vs. People, G.R. No. L-36458, February
21, 1983)
ARTICLE 339
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE ● What the law punishes is the act of a person
CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY who facilitates the corruption of, and not the
performance of unchaste acts upon the
Elements: (AVSA) minor, hence mere proposal will
consummate the offense. (Reyes, The Revised
1. The offender commits Acts of lasciviousness Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.969)
or lewdness;
2. The acts are committed upon a woman who ● The victim must be of good reputation and
is: not a prostitute or corrupted person. (Ibid.)
a) A Virgin or single of good reputation,
under 18 but over 12 years of age; and
b) A Sister or descendant regardless of her
reputation or age.

221
 ARTICLE 341 ARTICLE 342
WHITE SLAVE TRADE FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

Acts Punishable: (BSP) Elements: (ALA)

1. Engaging in the Business or prostitution; 1. A person Abducts any woman, regardless of

2. Profiting by prostitution; her age, civil status, or reputation.
3. Enlisting the Services of women for the 2. Abduction is Against her will; and
purpose of prostitution. 3. Abduction is with Lewd designs.

NOTES: NOTES:

● The person responsible under this article is
the person who maintains or engages in the
business. It is not a defense that he is only
the manager or the man in charge of the
house with a fixed salary (People vs. Gomez,
C.A. 40 O.G., Supp. 4).
● Abduction – is meant the 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
corrupt her. (People vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No.
24507, December 28, 1945)

● One who engaged the services of a woman
ostensibly as a maid but in reality for
purposes of prostitution and who in fact
dedicated her to such immoral purposes for
profit, is guilty of white slave trade (People
vs. Isidro, C.A., 51 O.G. 215).
● To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or
coerce a child for purposes of creating or
producing any form of pornography is
prohibited (Sec. 4.a, Anti-Child Pornography Act
of 2009). [See further discussion on
Special Laws.]
Corruption of Minors vs. White Slave Trade
(PSP)
● Forcible abduction is absorbed in rape where
the main objective was to rape the victim.
(People vs. Mejorada, G.R. No. 102705, June 30,
1993)
● Where the violent taking of a woman is
motivated by lewd designs, the crime is
forcible abduction. When it is not so, it is
kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
(People vs. Quintan, G.R. No. L-8227, May 25,
1956)
● Actual sexual intercourse is not necessary;
intent to seduce a girl is sufficient. Lewd
designs may be shown by conduct of the
accused. (U.S. vs. Ramirez, et. al., G.R. No.
13997, March 8, 1919)

Corruption of Minors White Slave Trade ● If the victim is under 12 years of age, the
(Art. 340) (Art. 341) crime is forcible abduction even if she
voluntarily goes with her abductor. It is not
As to the Person of the offended party
necessary that she be taken against her will.
ALWAYS a minor. Not necessarily a minor. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
2017, p.975)
As to the Sex of the offended party
● If the victim’s consent was obtained thru
Either sex. Females only.
deceit, and there was therefore no valid
As to engagement of business or consent, the crime is forcible abduction, as
generating of Profit the deceit may be considered as constructive
force. (People vs. Caraang, G.R. No. 148424-27,
May not necessarily for Generally, for profit. December 11, 2003)
profit.

222
Forcible abduction vs. Grave Coercion her escape. (People vs. Moreno, C.A., G.R. No.
(MCL) 7424, October 1941)

Forcible abduction Grave coercion ● Even if the virgin is under 12 years of age,
(Art. 342) (Art. 286) the crime committed is forcible abduction
As to Means used by the offender despite her consent to the elopement.
There is violence or There is violence or (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
intimidation. intimidation. 2006, p.343)
As to Compelling the offended party to do
something against her will ● The abduction of the victim need not be with
Present. Present. some character of permanence. No matter
As to the presence of Lewd design how short is the taking away, the crime
Present. Not present. exists. (People vs. Ingayo, G.R. No. 3423,
December 10, 1949)
Forcible abduction with rape vs.
kidnapping ART 344
PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMES OF
ADULTERY, CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION,
Forcible abduction Kidnapping
with rape (Art. 267)
ABDUCTION, RAPE, AND ACTS OF
Motivated by lewd Not motivated by lewd LASCIVIOUSNESS
design. design.
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2012, NOTES:
p.937)
● Adultery and concubinage must be
ARTICLE 343
prosecuted upon complaint signed by the
CONSENTED ABDUCTION
offended spouse.
● Seduction, abduction or acts of
Elements: (VLOC)
lasciviousness must be prosecuted upon
complaint signed by:
1. The offended party is a Virgin or a person
i Offended party;
with good reputation;
ii By her parents;
2. Offended party must be Over 12 and under
iii Grandparents; or
18;
iv Guardians in the order in which they are
3. The taking away of the offended party is
named above.
with the Consent after solicitation or cajolery
from the offender; and
4. The taking away of the offended party must ● The marriage of the offender with the
be with Lewd designs. offended party in seduction, abduction, acts
of lasciviousness and rape, extinguishes the
NOTES: criminal action or remit the penalty already
imposed upon him. This applies as well to
● “Virginity” in Art. 343 is not to be the accomplices, accessories after the fact.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two,
understood in so material as to exclude the
2017, p.985) Said marriage must be entered
idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of
into in good faith and with the intent of
good reputation. Even if the accused had
fulfilling the marital duties and obligations.
sexual intercourse with the girl before they
(People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 27972, October
eloped, there is still a case of abduction with 31, 1927)
consent. (U.S. vs. Casten, G.R. No. 11488, ● Pursuant to R.A. 8353, rape is now a
August 19, 1916)
crime against persons. Hence, it may be
prosecuted de officio. (Reyes, The Revised
● The abductor need not actually and Penal Code: Book Two, 2017, p.985)
personally have taken victim from her ● The crimes of adultery and concubinage
parent’s home, or induced her to abandon it. shall not be prosecuted except upon a
It is sufficient that he was instrumental in complaint filed by the offended spouse. The

223
 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. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure)
● Pardon of the offenders by the offended
party is a bar to prosecution for adultery or
concubinage. The pardon may be expressed
or implied. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.989)
● Express pardon of the offender by the
offended party or other persons named in
the law, as the case may be, is a bar to
prosecution for seduction, abduction, rape
or acts of lasciviousness. (Ibid.)
● Pardon in adultery and concubinage must
come before the institution of the criminal
action and both offenders must be pardoned
by the offended party if said pardon is to be
effective (People vs. Infante, G.R. No. 36270,
August 31, 1932). Pardon in seduction must
also come before the institution of criminal
action. (People vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 38171,
October 6, 1932)
● Pardon by the offended party who is a minor
must have the concurrence of parents.
(People vs. Lacson, Jr., C.A., 56 O.G. 9460)
ARTICLE 345
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS GUILTY OF
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Civil liability of persons guilty of rape, seduction
or abduction:
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.
NOTES:
● There is no civil liability for acts of
lasciviousness. (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.995)
● Moral damages may be awarded to the
offended party, and the parents for
seduction, abduction, rape and other
lascivious acts. (Art. 2219, NCC)
● Multiple Rapes by multiple offenders – all of
them must support the offspring and none
of them shall acknowledge or may claim
224
paternity of the offspring. (People vs. Pedro de
Leon, et. al., G.R. No. L-2094, April 1950)
● Amount and terms of the support shall be
determined by the trial court as based on
Art. 201 of the Family Code.
● Only indemnity shall be given in case of rape
of a married woman. (People vs. Sanico, C.A.,
46 O.G. 98)
ARTICLE 346
LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS, GUARDIANS,
TEACHERS, OR OTHER PERSONS
ENTRUSTED WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY
Persons who cooperate as accomplices but are
punished as principals in rape, seduction,
abduction, etc.:
1. Ascendants;
2. Guardians;
3. Curators;
4. Teachers; and
5. Any other person, who cooperates as
accomplice with abuse of authority or
confidential relationship
NOTES:
● Accomplice is also punished as principal in
the crime of slight illegal detention (Art.
263[2])’
● “Crimes embraced in chapters second,
third and fourth of this title” are:
a. Rape
b. Acts of lasciviousness
c. Qualified seduction
d. Simple seduction
e. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent
of the offended party
f. Corruption of minors
g. White slave trade
h. Forcible abduction
i. Consented abduction
NOTE:
● Where the victim is a child, the State shall
intervene on behalf of the child when the
parent, guardian, teacher or person having
care or custody of the child fails or is unable
to protect the child against abuse,
exploitation and discrimination or when such
acts against the child are committed by the
 said parent, guardian, teacher or person
having care and custody of the same. (Sec.
2, Art. 1, Special Protection of Children Against
Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act)
[See further discussion on Special Laws]
K. CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS OF
PERSONS
(ARTICLES 347-352)
ARTICLE 347
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTIONS
OF ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, AND
CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF A
LEGITIMATE CHILD
Acts Punishable: (SSC)
1. Simulation of births;
2. Substitution of one child for another; and
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate
child with intent to cause such child to lose
its civil status.
NOTES:
● Object of the crime is the creation of false or
the causing of the loss of civil status. (U.S.
vs. Capillo, G.R. No. 9279, March 25, 1915)
● 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. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book
Two, 2017, p.1002)
● Substituting one child for another should be
with intent to cause the loss of any trace of
the child’s filiation. It may be effected by
placing a live child of a woman in place of a
dead one of another woman.
● The act of concealing or abandoning any
legitimate child has three (3) requisites:
a) Child must be legitimate;
b) Offender conceals or abandons such
child; and
c) Offender has the intent to cause such
child to lose its civil status. (Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code Book Two, 2011,
pp. 963)
Abandonment of a minor: crime against
security vs. crime against civil status of
person
Crime against Crime against the
security (Art. 276) civil status of
person
As to the person of the offender
Person who has custody of Any person.
the child.
As to the purpose of the offender
To avoid the obligation of To cause the child to lose
rearing and caring for the its civil status.
child.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.964)
ARTICLE 348
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
Usurpation of civil status is committed when a
person represents himself to be another and
assumes the filiation or the parental or conjugal
right of such another person.
NOTES:
● “Civil Status” includes one’s station or
profession, or the rights, duties, capacities
and incapacities which determine a person in
a given class (Black’s Law Dictionary)
● Fraud is not an element of the crime; it merely
affects the penalty if purpose of impersonation
is to defraud the offended party or his heirs.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.1005)
● In Art. 348, in order to constitute a crime,
there must be intent to enjoy the rights arising
from the civil status of another. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 349
BIGAMY
Elements: (LDPCE)
1. The offender is Legally married;
2. The marriage has not been legally Dissolved
or, in the case the spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be Presumed
dead in accordance to the Civil Code;
3. He Contracts a second or subsequent
marriage; and
225
4. The second or subsequent marriage contains
all the Essential requisites for validity.
NOTES:
● Illustrative cases of Bigamy:
a. One who contracts a second marriage
while a former legal marriage is still
existing and undisclosed. (U.S. vs. McLeod,
G.R. No. 1601, March 28, 1904)
b. One who contracts a second marriage
before the absent spouse has been
declared presumptively dead by means of
a judgment. (Lukban vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-
8492, February 29, 1956)
c. One who contracts a second marriage
before the judicial declaration of the first
marriage. (Beltran vs. People, G.R. No.
137567, June 20, 2000)
● Persons intending to contract a second
marriage must first secure a judicial
declaration of nullity of their first marriage. If
they proceed with the second marriage
without the judicial declaration, they are guilty
of bigamy regardless of evidence of the nullity
of the first marriage. (Vitangcol vs. People, G.R.
No. 207406, January 13, 2016)
● An action for annulment of the second
marriage is not a defense in a prosecution for
bigamy. (People vs. Aragon, G.R. No. L-5930,
February 17, 1954)
● A petition for declaration of nullity of the
second marriage is not a prejudicial civil
question that will suspend the prosecution for
bigamy (Landicho vs. Relova, G.R. No. L-22579,
February 23, 1968)
● A person convicted of bigamy may still be
prosecuted for concubinage or adultery; The
second spouse who knew of the first marriage
is an accomplice, as well as the person who
vouched for the capacity of either of the
contracting parties. The provision of bigamy
does not apply to persons married under the
Muslim Code. (Malang vs. Moson, G.R. No.
119064, August 22, 2000)
● An action for annulment of the second
marriage on the ground that the same was
entered into through force or intimidation is a
prejudicial question that will operate to
suspend the proceeding for bigamy. (Zapanta
vs. Montesa, G.R. No. L-14534, February 28, 1962)
● The failure to exercise due diligence by the
offender spouse to ascertain the whereabouts
226
of the first wife and his remarriage constitutes
bigamy through reckless imprudence. (People
vs. Reyes, CA-G.R. No. 12107-R, June 30, 1955)
● Causes which may produce the legal
dissolution of the first marriage:
a. Death of one of the contracting parties;
b. Judicial declaration annulling a void
marriage; and
c. Judicial decree annulling a voidable
marriage. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2017, p.1010)
● When there is no actual marriage ceremony
by a solemnizing officer, there is no marriage
to speak of (Morigo vs. People, G.R. No.
145226, February 6, 2004), hence, the
accused must be acquitted.
● Bigamy is not a private crime, it is an offense
against the State. Hence, it can be prosecuted
even without the initiative of the offended
spouse. (People vs. Concepcion, C.A., 40 O.G.
2878)
● A pardon by the offended spouse does not
extinguish criminal action considering that a
crime is committed against the State. (Art. 23,
RPC)
● The crime of Bigamy is a public offense which
can be denounced not only by the person
affected thereby but by a civic-spirited citizen
who may come to know of the same. (People
vs Belen, C.A., 45 O.G., Supp. 5, 88)
● One who falsely vouches for the capacity of a
contracting party, known to him as previously
married, is considered as an accomplice.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.1016)
ARTICLE 350
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST
PROVISIONS OF LAW (ILLEGAL
MARRIAGE)
Elements: (CND)
1. That the offender Contracted marriage; and
2. That 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.
NOTES:
● Under this article, offender must not be
guilty of bigamy.
 ● Circumstance qualifying the offense –
if either of the contracting parties obtains
the consent of the other by means of
violence, intimidation or fraud.
● Conviction of violation of this article
involves moral turpitude. (Villasanta vs.
Peralta, G.R. AC-UNAV, April 30, 1957)
Bigamy vs. Illegal Marriage (PVA)
BIGAMY ILLEGAL MARRIAGE
As to the presence of a Previous marriage
Present. Not necessarily.
As to the Validity of the subsequent marriage
Valid except that it is Annullable or void.
bigamous.
As to the coverage of punishable Act
Refers only to Covers all marriages
contracting of a 2nd which are otherwise
marriage before the voidable or null and
former marriage has been void other than
legally dissolved or before bigamous marriage.
the absent spouse has
been declared
presumptively dead.
ARTICLE 351
PREMATURE MARRIAGES
Repealed by RA No. 10655, approved on
March 13, 2015, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Family Code on paternity and
filiation, the Art. 351 punishing the crime of
premature marriage committed by a woman, is
hereby repealed (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 10655).
ARTICLE 352
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE
CEREMONY
Persons liable for performance of illegal
marriage ceremony:
a. Priest or ministers of any religious
denomination or sect who performs or
authorizes an illegal marriage ceremony; and
b. Civil authorities who shall perform or
authorizes any illegal marriage ceremony;
NOTES:
● Art. 352 presupposes that the priest or
minister or civil author is authorized to
solemnize marriages. If the accused is not
authorized to solemnize marriage and he
performs an illegal marriage ceremony, he is
liable under Art. 177 (Usurpation of authority
or public function). (Reyes, The Revised Penal
Code: Book Two, 2017, p.1021)
● A clergyman who performed a marriage
ceremony, not knowing that one of the
contracting parties is a minor, is not liable.
(U.S. vs. San Juan, G.R. No. L-8502, October 10,
1913)
L. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
(ARTICLES 353-364)
ARTICLE 353
DEFINITION OF LIBEL
Elements of Defamation: (IPMDT)
1. There must be an Imputation of a crime, a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
2. The imputation must be made Publicly;
3. The publication must be Malicious;
4. The imputation must be Directed at a natural
or juridical person, or one who is dead; and
5. The imputation must Tend to cause the:
(DDCT)
a. Dishonor, (disgrace, scheme, ignominy);
b. Discredit, (loss of credit or reputation,
disesteem);
c. Contempt of a natural or juridical person
(state of being despised); or
d. To blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
NOTES:
● Defamation, which includes libel and
slander, means the offense of injuring a
person’s character, fame or reputation
through false and malicious statements. It is
the publication of anything which is injurious
to the good name or reputation of another or
tends to bring him into disrepute. (MVRS Pub.
Inc. vs. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Phils., Inc.,
G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003)
● Test of Defamatory Imputation: It is the
words used construed in its entirety and taken
in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as
they would naturally be understood by the
person reading them, unless it appears that
they were used and in another sense. (Novicio
vs. Aggabao, G.R. No. 141332, December 11,
2003)
227
● Imputation may cover:
a) Crime allegedly committed by the offended
party;
b) Vice or defect, real or imaginary, of the
offended party;
c) Any act, omission, condition, status of, or
circumstances relating to the offended
party. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Book Two, 2006, p.982)
● Publication in libel means making the
defamatory matter, after it has been written,
known to someone other than the person to
whom it has been written. It is the
communication of the defamatory matter to
some third person/s. (Ledesma vs. CA, G.R. No.
113216, September 5, 1997)
● Two types of Malice:
a) Malice in fact – shown by proof of ill-will,
hatred, or purpose to injure, also known as
express malice;
b) Malice in law – presumed to be malicious
from the defamatory imputation even if it
is true; proof is not required because it is
presumed to exist from the defamatory
imputation.
● When the communication is PRIVILEGED,
malice is not presumed from the defamatory
words. Malice in fact must be proved. (U.S. vs.
Bustos, G.R. No. L-12592, March 8, 1918)
● When several persons are defamed:
1. If the defamation is made on different
occasion or by independent acts, there are
as many crimes of libel as there are
persons directly addressed with such
statements or directly referred to;
2. Where the same was directed at a class or
group of numerous persons in general
terms only without any particular person
being directly addressed, there is no victim
identified or identifiable, hence no
actionable libel.
3. If the statement is so sweeping or all-
embracing as to apply to every individual
in that group or class so that the
defamatory statement specifically pointed
to him, he can bring his action separately.
228
4. If several identifiable victims are libeled in
a single article, there are as many crimes
of libel as there are persons defamed.
(Newsweek, Inc. vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-63559,
May 30, 1986)
● In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential
that the victim be identifiable, although not
necessary that he be named.
ARTICLE 354
REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLICITY
General Rule: 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.
Malice is not presumed in the following:
1. A private communication made by any person
to another in the performance of any legal,
moral, or social duty (Art. 354, No. 1);
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. (Art. 354, No. 2)
Two kinds of privileged communications
1. Absolute; and
2. Conditional or qualified.
Requisites of Privileged communication
(paragraph 1): (DAG)
1. 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;
2. The communication is Addressed to an officer
or a board, or superior, having some interest
or duty in the matter; and
3. That the statements in the communication are
made in Good faith and without malice (in
fact).
Requisites of Privileged Communication
(paragraph 2): (FTWG)
1. That it is a Fair and True report of a judicial,
legislative, or other official proceedings which
are not of confidential nature, or of a
statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by
a public officer in the exercise of his functions;
2. That it is made in Good faith; and
3. That it is Without any comments or remarks.
NOTES:
● A communication is said to be absolutely
privileged when it is not actionable, even if its
author has acted in bad faith. On the other
hand, conditionally or qualifiedly privileged
communications are those which, although
containing defamatory imputations, would not
be actionable unless made with malice or bad
faith. (Orfanel vs. People, G.R. No. L-26877,
December 26, 1969)
● To overcome the defense of privileged
communication under Art. 354(1), one must
show: (1) That the defendant acted with
malice in fact, or (2) there is no reasonable
ground for believing the charge to be true.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.1044)
● Doctrine of Fair Comment means that
while in general every discreditable imputation
publicly made is deemed false, because every
man is presumed innocent until his guilt is
judicially proved, and every false imputation is
deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the
discreditable imputation is directed against a
public person in his public capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable. (Borjal vs. CA, G.R. No.
126466, January 14, 1999)
● The person libeled is justified to hit back with
another libel. But retaliation or vindictiveness
cannot be a basis of self-defense in
defamation. It must be a fair answer and
related to the imputation made. (People vs.
Pelayo, Jr., C.A., 64 O.G. 1994)
● The expression “putang ina mo” is a common
utterance in the dialect that is often employed,
not really to slander but rather to express
anger or displeasure. It is an expletive that
punctuates one’s expression of profanity.
(Reyes, vs. People, G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-
21529; March 28, 1969)
● Tapping of any wire or cable, or by using any
other device, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication or
spoken word, or to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or
spoken word by using a device commonly
known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder is
prohibited. (Sec. 1, Anti-Wire Tapping Act)
[See further discussions in Anti-Wire
Tapping Act]
ARTICLE 355
LIBEL BY WRITINGS OR SIMILAR MEANS
Libel may be committed by means of:
1. writing;
2. printing;
3. lithography;
4. engraving;
5. radio;
6. phonograph;
7. painting;
8. theatrical exhibition;
9. cinematographic exhibition; or
10. any similar means.
ARTICLE 356
THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER
TO PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A
COMPENSATION
Acts Punishable:
1. By threatening to publish a libel against
another concerning the latter or his parents,
spouse, child, or other members of his family.
2. By offering to prevent the publication of such
libel for compensation or money
consideration.
NOTES:
1. Blackmail is defined as unlawful extortion of
money by an appeal to the fears of the victim,
especially extortion of money by threats of his
family. (US vs. Eguia, et al., G.R. No. L-13540,
October 24, 1917)
2. It is essential that the threat to publish, or to
offer to prevent the publication of libel must
be for a compensation or money
consideration, in order that it may be
229
 penalized under this article (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code Criminal Law Book Two, 2017, p. 1060).
ARTICLE 357
PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS
REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Elements: (OPO)
1. The Offender is a reporter, editor, or manager
of a newspaper daily or magazine;
2. He Publishes facts connected with the private
life of another; and
3. Such facts are Offensive to the honor, virtue
and reputation of said person.
NOTES:
1. This article is referred to as the “Gag Law”
because while a report of an official
proceedings is allowed, it gags those who
would publish therein facts which this article
prohibits, and punishes any violation thereof.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.1062)
2. The “Gag Law” bars from publication of cases
relating to adultery, divorce, legitimacy of
children, etc. (Ibid.)
ARTICLE 358
SLANDER
Two kinds of oral defamation:
1. Simple Slander; and
2. Grave slander, when it is of a serious and
insulting nature.
Elements: (IPMDT-DDCT)
1. There must be an Imputation of a crime, a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
2. The imputation must be made Publicly;
3. The publication must be Malicious;
4. The imputation must be Directed at a natural
or juridical person, or one who is dead; and
5. The imputation must Tend to cause the:
a) Dishonor, (disgrace, scheme, ignominy);
b) Discredit, (loss of credit or reputation,
disesteem);
c) Contempt of a natural or juridical person
(state of being despised); or
230
d) To blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
Factors that determine the gravity of the
oral defamation:
1. Expressions used;
2. Personal relations of the accused and the
offended party;
3. Circumstances surrounding the case; and
4. Social standing and position of the offended
party. (Torreda vs. Toshiba Information
Equipment, Inc., G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006)
NOTES:
1. Slander (oral defamation) – libel
committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of
writing. (Villanueva vs. People, G.R. No. 160351,
April 10, 2006)
2. The slander need not be heard by the
offended party because a man’s reputation is
the estimate in which others hold him, not the
good opinion which he has of himself. (People
vs. Clarin, CA, 37 O.G. 1106)
3. If the defamatory words were uttered in the
heat of anger, with some provocation on the
part of the offended party, the crime is only
slight oral defamation. (Villanueva vs. People,
G.R. No. 160351, June 25, 2012)
4. The expression “putang ina mo” is a common
enough utterance in the dialect that is often
employed, not really to slander but rather to
express anger or displeasure. In fact, more
often, it is just an expletive that punctuates
one’s expression of profanity. (Rogelio Pader vs.
People, G.R. No. 139157, Feb. 8, 2000)
ARTICLE 359
SLANDER BY DEED
Elements: (APC)
1. The offender performs any Act not included in
any other crime against honor;
2. Such act is performed in the Presence of other
persons; and
3. Such act Casts dishonor, discredit, or
contempt upon the offended party.
Two kinds of Slander by Deed:
1. Simple slander by deed; and
2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of
serious nature.
NOTES:
1. Slander by Deed – any act which cast
dishonor, discredit, or contempt against
another.
2. Slapping the face of another is slander by
deed if the intention of the accused is to cause
humiliation and shame. Pointing a dirty finger
constitutes slander by deed. (Villanueva vs.
People, G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006)
3. Seriousness of slander by deed depends on
the social standing of the offended party, the
circumstances present or surrounding the
commission of the act and the occasion.
4. There is no fixed standard in determining
whether a slander is serious or not; hence, the
courts have sufficient discretion to determine
the same, basing the finding on the attendant
circumstances and matters relevant thereto.
(People vs. Motita, C.A., 59 O.G. 3020)
ARTICLE 360
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE (FOR LIBEL)
Persons liable for libel: (POEA)
1. Any person who shall Publish, exhibit, or
cause the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or by similar means;
2. The Author or editor of a book or pamphlet;
3. The Editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper, magazine, or serial publication; or
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. An independent civil action may be filed
simultaneously or separately in the same RTC
where the criminal action was filed.
2. Each publication is a separate and distinct libel
giving rise to two distinct causes of action.
(Montinola vs. Montalvo, G.R. Nos. 10114 & 10137,
August 3, 1916)
3. Libel against a deceased person is actionable.
(Marcos vs. Manglapus, G.R. No. 8821, October 27,
1989)
4. Complaint for defamation imputing a private
crime, i.e. adultery, concubinage, seduction,
abduction and acts of lasciviousness; must be
filed by the offended party. (Sec. 5, Subsec. 1,
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure)
5. Person who publishes libelous letter written by
the offended party is liable. Publishing and not
composing is the prime requisite of the crime.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.1071)
6. Liability of editor is the same as of the author.
(People vs. Bailo, et al., C.A., 37 O.G. 2373)
7. Action for exemplary damages may be
awarded if action is based on quasi-delict.
8. No remedy for damages for slander or libel in
case of absolutely privileged communication.
ARTICLE 361
PROOF OF THE TRUTH
Proof of truth is admissible in any of the
following:
1. When the act or omission constitutes a crime
regardless of whether the offended party is a
private individual or a public officer; or
2. When the offended party is a Government
employee, even if the act or omission imputed
does not constitute a crime, provided it is
related to the discharge of his official duties.
If the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation made by him, he shall be
acquitted when:
1. What is imputed is a crime; or
2. The imputation, not constituting a crime is
made against Government employees with
respect to the facts related to the discharge of
their official duties, whether or not the
imputation is a crime.
Requisites of Defense in Defamation:
1. It appears that the matters charged as
libelous are true;
2. It was published with good motives; and
3. For justifiable end.
NOTE: The proof of the truth of the accusation
cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay,
rumors, or suspicion but upon positive, direct
evidence upon which a definite finding may be
231
made by the court. (US vs. Sotto, G.R. No. 13990,
September 24, 1918)
ARTICLE 362
LIBELOUS REMARKS
NOTES:
1. Art. 362 does not punish the publication of
privileged information but the libelous
comments or remarks about such privilege
matters. (U.S. vs. Dorr, G.R. No. 1049, May 16,
1903)
2. Libelous remarks or comments on privileged
matters under Art. 354, if made with malice in
fact, will not exempt the author and editor.
3. This article is a limitation to the defense or
privileged communication. Even if the matter
is privileged and malice in fact is proved, both
author and editor shall be liable.
4. Author/editor of the publication who distorts,
mutilates or discolors official proceedings
reported by him, or add comments thereon to
cast aspersion on character of parties
concerned is guilty of libel.
ARTICLE 363
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON
Elements: (AID)
1. The offender performs an Act;
2. By such act he directly Incriminates or
imputes to an innocent person the
commission of a crime; and
3. Such act Does not constitute perjury.
NOTES:
1. Incriminating an innocent person through
unlawful arrest is possible (complex crime).
(People vs. Alagao, G.R. No. L-20721, April 30,
1966)
2. Art. 363 does not apply to malicious
prosecution of a charge against an innocent
person, but to acts of planting evidence and
the like, which do not in themselves
constitute false prosecution but tend to
directly cause false prosecution. (Ventura vs.
Bernabe, G.R. No. L-26760, April 30, 1971)
232
Incriminating Innocent Persons vs.
Perjury by Making False Accusation
Incriminating Perjury by Making
Innocent Persons False Accusation
As to Commission
By performing an act In writing by testifying
which the offender falsely or making a false
directly incriminates or affidavit against another
imputes to an innocent person. The gravamen of
person the commission the offense is the
of a crime. imputation itself, falsely
made.
As to Means employed
Planting evidence and Giving of false statement
the like in order to under oath or the making
incriminate an innocent of false affidavit,
person. imputing to a person the
commission of a crime.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2006,
p.1038)
ARTICLE 364
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
This felony is committed by any person who shall
make any intrigue which has its principal purpose
to blemish the honor or reputation of another
person.
NOTES:
1. “Intriguing against honor” refers to any
scheme or plot designed to blemish the
reputation of another by means of trickery.
(People vs. Fontanilla, C.A., 56 O.G. 1931)
2. Must be committed by means of some tricky
and secret plot, and not gossiping which on
the other hand false under defamation.
3. Where the source or author of derogatory
information cannot be determined and
defendant passes it to others, defendant’s
act is one of intriguing against honor; if it
came from a definite source, the crime
therefore is slander. (People vs. Pelayo, Jr.,
supra)
 Intriguing Against Honor vs. Defamation criminal negligence such as Malversation thru
(PMST) negligence (Art. 224) and Failure to render
accounts. (Art. 218)
Intriguing against Defamation
honor Acts Punishable: (RSDS)
As to Platform used
Through ingenious, Through publication 1. By committing, through Reckless imprudence,
crafty, or secret plot (People vs. Fontanilla, any act which, had it been intentional, would
and without C.A., 56 O.G. 1931) constitute a grave felony, or less grave felony
publication. or light felony;
2. By committing through Simple imprudence or
As to Manner of Commission
negligence, an act which would otherwise
Consists of some tricky Committed in a public constitute a grave or less serious felony;
and secret plot and malicious manner 3. By causing Damage to the property of another
As to Source of derogatory statements through reckless imprudence or negligence;
Cannot be determined Known and
4. By causing through simple imprudence or
As to Truthfulness of the remarks made negligence Some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light
Passes such utterances The remarks made are
felony.
without subscribing to claimed to be true.
the truth of the
remarks. Elements of Reckless Imprudence:
(DVWiDIn-ODE)
M. QUASI-OFFENSES
(ARTICLE 365) 1. The offender Does or fails to do an act;
2. The doing of or the failure to do an act is
ARTICLE 365 Voluntary;
IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE 3. Without malice;
4. Material Damage results; and
Nature: The high court said that criminal 5. There is Inexcusable lack of precaution on the
negligence or imprudence is a crime itself and the part of the offender, taking into consideration:
accused should be charged with “Reckless a) His Employment or occupation;
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.” (Quizon vs. b) Degree of intelligence, Physical condition;
Justice of the Peace, G.R. No. L-6641, July 28, 1955) and
Then in another case, the Supreme Court held c) Other circumstances regarding persons,
that it is only a variant or a way in the commission time and place.
of a crime. (Samson vs. CA, G.R. Nos. L-10364 and L-
10376, March 31, 1958) Thereafter, in subsequent Elements of Simple Negligence: (LN)
decisions, the court adverted either to the two
cases. Then in Madeja vs. Caro, No. L-51183, 1. There is a Lack of precaution on the part of
December 21, 1983, it held that criminal negligence the offender; and
is only a modality in the commission of a crime. 2. The damage impending to be caused is Not
immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
It is submitted that criminal negligence is both a
felony and a modality of its commission. It NOTES:
is a felony because Art. 365 of the Revised Penal
Code treats criminal negligence as a felony. It ● Criminal Negligence – consists in the
punishes reckless imprudence and simple execution of an imprudent or negligent act
imprudence. Thus, it punishes Reckless that, if intentionally done would be punishable
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, etc. (Estrada, into a felony. (Bonite vs. Zosa, G.R. No. L-33772,
Criminal Law Book Two, 2011) June 20, 1968)

It is also a modality in the commission of a felony ● Negligence – failure to observe for the
because there are felonies which result from protection of the interests of another person

233
 that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance
which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury.
(Jarcia vs. People, G.R. No. 187926, February 15,
2012)
● Reckless Imprudence – consists in
voluntary, 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: (1) his employment
or occupation; (2) his degree of intelligence;
(3) his physical condition; and (4) other
circumstances regarding persons, time and
place. (Abueva vs. People, G.R. No. 134387,
September 27, 2002)
● 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
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book
Two, 2017, p. 1093).
● In order for conviction to be decreed for
reckless imprudence, the material damage
suffered by the victim, the failure in
precaution on the part of the accused, and the
direct link between material damage and
failure in precaution must be established
beyond reasonable doubt. (Tabao vs. People,
G.R. No. 187246, July 20, 2011)
● Test of Negligence- Would a prudent man,
in the position of the person to whom
negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the
person injured as a reasonable consequence
of the course about to be pursued? If so, the
law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain
from that course or to take precaution against
its mischievous results, and the failure to do
so constitutes negligence. (Picart vs. Smith, G.R.
No. 12219, March 15, 1918)
● Basis for determining the inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the offender:
a) employment or occupation;
b) degree of intelligence and physical
condition of the offender;
c) other circumstances regarding persons,
time, and place.
234
● The penalties provided in Art. 365 are not
applicable in the following cases:
a) When the penalty provided for the offense
is equal to or lower than those provided in
the first two paragraphs of this article; and
b) When, by imprudence or negligence and
with violation of the Automobile Law, the
death of a person shall be caused.
● Effect of concurrent proximate cause of
two negligent acts – Where two concurrent
or successive negligent acts or omission of
two or more persons, although acting
independently of each other, are, in
combination, the direct and 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. (People vs. Desalisa, No. 26413-R, October
17, 1960)
● Doctrine of Last Clear Chance – where
both parties are negligent but the negligent
act of one is appreciable later in point of time
than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence brought about the occurrence of
the incident, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the impending harm but
failed to do so, is chargeable with the
consequences arising therefrom. (People vs.
Lopez, G.R. No. 1141-R, August 21, 1947)
● Emergency Rule – Lack of opportunity to
consider the wisest choice because of the
negligence of another is not guilty of
negligence if he makes such choice which a
person of ordinary prudence placed in such
position might make (People vs. Santos, G.R. No.
188-1089-R, September 26, 1974). The
“Emergency” doctrine is applicable 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.
(People vs. Eleazar, et. al., 60 O.G. 1728)
● Ivler Doctrine – The Supreme Court held
that reckless imprudence or negligence
is a crime in itself. Hence, once convicted or
acquitted of a specific act of reckless
imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. For the
 essence of the quasi offense of criminal
negligence under Art. 365 of the PRC lies in
the execution of an imprudent or negligent act
that, if intentionally done, would be
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes the
negligent or careless act, not the result
thereof. The gravity of the consequence is
only taken into account to determine the
penalty. It does not qualify the substance of
the offense. And, as the careless act is single,
whether the injurious result should affect one
person or several persons, the offense
(criminal negligence) remains one and the
same, and cannot be split into different crimes
and prosecutions. (Ivler vs. San Pedro and Ponce,
G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010)
● Criminal negligence resulting in homicide or
physical injuries is not an independent civil
action under Art. 33 of the Civil Code. (Corpus
vs. Paje, G.R. No. L-26737, July 31, 1961)
Imprudence vs. Negligence (DFM)
IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE
As to its Deficiency
Deficiency of action. Deficiency of perception.
As to the offender’s Failure
Failure in precaution. Failure in advertence.
As to the Means in avoiding wrongful acts
One must take the Paying proper attention
necessary precaution and using due diligence
once they are foreseen. in foreseeing them.
III. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
A. ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF
2009
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9775]
AN ACT DEFINING THE CRIME OF CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY, PRESCRIBING
PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
I. Definition of Terms
Child
A child under R.A. No. 9775 refers to:
1. Any person below 18 years of age; or
2. Any person over 18 years of age, but is
unable to fully take care of himself/
herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of
a physical or mental disability or
condition.
(Sec. 3[a], par. 1)
It shall also refer to:
1. Any person regardless of age who is
presented, depicted or portrayed as a child;
or
2. Computer-generated, digitally or manually
crafted images or graphics of a person who
is represented or who is made to appear to
be a child.
(Sec. 3[a], par. 2)
Child pornography
It refers any representation, by whatever means,
of a child engaged or involved in real or simulated
explicit sexual activities or any representation of
the sexual parts of a child or primarily sexual
purposes. (Sec. 3[b])
Explicit sexual activity
It includes actual or simulate:
1. Sexual intercourse or lascivious act including,
but not limited to, contact involving genital to
genital, oral to genital, anal to genital, or oral
to anal, whether between persons of the same
or opposite sex;
2. Bestiality;
3. Masturbation;
4. Sadistic or masochistic abuse;
5. Lascivious exhibition of the genitals, buttocks,
breasts, pubic area and/or anus; or
6. Use of any object or instrument for lascivious
acts (Sec. 3[c])
Child pornography materials
It refers to the means and methods by which
child pornography is carried out:
1. As to form:
a. Visual depiction – This includes not only images
of real children but also digital images, computer
images or computer-generated image that is
distinguishable from that of real children
235
engaging in an explicit sexual activity. Visual
depiction shall include:
i. Undeveloped film and videotapes;
ii. Data and/or images stored on a computer
disk or by electronic means capable of
conversion into a visual image;
iii. Photograph, film, video, picture, digital image
or picture, computer image or picture,
whether made or produced by electronic,
mechanical or other means;
iv. Drawings, cartoons, sculptures or paintings
depicting children; or
v. Other analogous visual depiction;
b. Audio representation of a person who is or is
represented as being a child and who is engaged
in or is represented as being engaged in explicit
sexual activity, or an audio representation that
advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual
activity with children which is an offense under
this Act; and
c. Written text or material that advocates or
counsels explicit sexual activity with a child and
whose dominant characteristic is the description,
for a sexual purpose, of an explicit sexual activity
with a child. (Sec. 3[c], par. 1)
2. As to content:
It includes representation of a person who is,
appears to be, or is represented as being a child,
the dominant characteristic of which is the
depiction, for a sexual purpose, of:
i. the sexual organ or the anal region, or a
representation thereof; and
ii. the breasts, or a representation of the breasts,
of a female person. (Sec. 3[c\, par. 2)
Grooming
It is the act of preparing a child or someone
whom the offender believes to be a child for
sexual activity or sexual relationship by
communicating any form of child pornography.
This includes online enticement or enticement
through any other means. (Sec. 3[h])
Luring
It is act of communicating, by means of a
computer system, with a child or someone who
the offender believes to be a child for the purpose
236
of facilitating the commission of sexual activity or
production of any form of child pornography.
(Sec. 3[i])
Pandering
It is the act of offering, advertising, promoting,
representing or distributing through any means
any material or purported material that is
intended to cause another to believe that the
material or purported material contains any form
of child pornography, regardless of the actual
content of the material or purported material.
(Sec. 3[j])
II. Punishable acts
It shall be unlawful for any person:
a. To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or
coerce a child to perform in the creation or
production of any form of child pornography;
b. To produce, direct, manufacture or create
any form of child pornography;
c. To publish, offer, transmit, sell, distribute,
broadcast, advertise, promote, export or
import any form of child pornography;
d. To possess any form of child pornography
with the intent to sell, distribute, publish, or
broadcast;
Note: The possession of three or more articles of
child pornography of the same form shall be
prima facie evidence of the intent to sell,
distribute, publish, or broadcast.
e. To knowingly, willfully and intentionally
provide a venue for the commission of
prohibited acts;
f. For film distributors, theaters and
telecommunication companies, by
themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child
pornography;
g. For a parent or guardian or any person
having custody or control of a child to
knowingly permit a child to engage,
participate or assist in any form of child
pornography;
h. To engage in luring or grooming of a child;
i. To engage in pandering of any form of child
pornography;
j. To willfully access any form of child
pornography;
k. To conspire to commit any of the prohibited
acts stated in Section 4. Conspiracy to
commit any form of child pornography shall
be committed when two (2) or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of any of the said prohibited acts
and decide to commit it; and
l. To possess of any form of child pornography.
(Sec. 4)
m. Syndicated Child Pornography (Sec. 5);
The crime of child pornography is deemed
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
or confederating with one another.
n. To willfully and knowingly fail to comply with
the notice and installation requirements of an
internet service provider (Sec. 9);
Internet Service Provider (ISP) is a person or
entity that supplies or proposes to supply an
internet carriage service to the public.
a. To willfully and knowingly fail to comply with
the notice requirements by any mall owner-
operator and owner or lessor of other
business establishments (Sec. 10);
b. To knowingly, willfully and intentionally
violate duties of an internet content host (Sec.
11);
Internet Content host is a person who hosts
or who proposes to host internet content in the
Philippines.
a. To violate right to privacy of the child at any
stage of the investigation, prosecution and
trial of an offense under R.A. No. 9775. (Sec.
13)
III. WHO MAY FILE A COMPLAINT
1. Offended party;
2. Parents or guardians;
3. Ascendant or collateral relative within the third
degree of consanguinity;
4. Officer, social worker or representative of a
licensed child-caring institution;
5. Officer or social worker of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD);
6. Local social welfare development officer;
7. Barangay chairman;
8. Any law enforcement officer;
9. At least three (3) concerned responsible
citizens residing in the place where the
violation occurred; or
10. Any person who has personal knowledge of
the circumstances of the commission of any
offense under this Act. (Sec. 6)
IV. JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction over cases for the violation of this Act
shall be vested in the Family Court which has
territorial jurisdiction over the place where the
offense or any of its essential elements was
committed pursuant to Republic Act No. 8369,
otherwise known as “Family Courts Act of 1997”.
(Sec. 7)
B. ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
[PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612]
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
Purpose
P.D. No. 1612 was enacted to "impose heavy
penalties on persons who profit by the effects of
the crimes of robbery and theft." (Dizon-Pamintuan
vs. People, G.R. No. 111426, 1994)
Definition of Terms
Fencing
The act of any person who, with intent to gain for
himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose
of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner
deal in any article, item, object or anything of
value which he knows, or should be known to
him, to have been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft. (Sec. 2)
Note: The crime of fencing applies only to
proceeds of theft or robbery. It does not apply to
other crimes of gain
237
Fence
This includes any person, firm, association,
corporation or partnership or other organization
who/which commits the act of fencing. (Sec. 2)
If the fence if a partnership, firm, corporation or
association, the president or the manager or any
of the officers thereof who knows or should have
known the commission of the offense shall be
liable. (Sec. 4)
Note: The fence is an accessory, not a principal
or accomplice in robbery or theft. But the fence
is a principal in the prosecution for the violation
of PD No. 1979.
Elements of the crime of fencing
1. The crime of robbery or theft has been
committed;
2. The accused, who is not the principal or
accomplice in the crime of robbery or theft,
buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal,
sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in
any other manner deal in any article, item,
object or anything of value, which has been
derived from the proceeds of the said crime;
3. The accused knows or should have known
that the said article, item, object or anything
of value has been derived from the proceeds
of the crime of robbery or theft; and,
4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to
gain for himself or another. (Dizon-Pamintuan
vs. People, supra.)
Required proof in the prosecution of PD
1612
Violation of P.D. No. 1612 is regarded as malum
prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent.
Presumption of Fencing
General Rule: Mere possession of any good,
article, object or anything of value which has
been subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima
facie evidence for fencing. (Sec. 5)
Exception: Possession of clearance/permit to
sell/use second hand articles (Sec. 6)
All stores, establishments or entities dealing in
the buy and sell of any good, article, item, object
238
or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed
dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering
the same for sale to the public, secure the
necessary clearance or permit from the station
commander of the Integrated National Police of
the town/city where it is located.
Any person who fails to secure the clearance or
permit required by this section or who violates
any of the provisions of the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be
punished as a fence.
Distinguishing Fence and Accessory to
Theft or Robbery
The accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft
could be prosecuted as such under the Revised
Penal Code or under P.D. No. 1612. However, in
the latter case, he ceases to be a mere accessory
but becomes a principal in the crime of fencing.
The crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand,
and fencing, on the other, are separate and
distinct offenses. The state may thus choose to
prosecute him either under the Revised Penal
Code or P.D. No. 1612, although the preference
for the latter would seem inevitable considering
that fencing is a malum prohibitum, and P.D. No.
1612 creates a presumption of fencing and
prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of
the property. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, supra.)
True or False: In a prosecution for fencing
under P.D. 1612, it is a complete defense for the
accused to prove that he had no knowledge that
the goods or articles found in his possession had
been the subject of robbery.
Suggested Answer:
False, fencing is committed if the accused knows
or “should have known” that the article, item,
object or anything of value has been derived from
the proceeds of the crime of theft or robbery (P.D.
No. 1612[a]).
C. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019]
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Government
It includes the national government, the local
governments, the government-owned and
government-controlled corporations, and all
other instrumentalities or agencies of the
Republic of the Philippines and their branches.
Receiving any gift
It includes the act of accepting directly or
indirectly a gift from a person other than a
member of the public officer's immediate family,
in behalf of himself or of any member of his family
or relative within the fourth civil degree, either by
consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of
a family celebration or national festivity like
Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the
circumstances manifestly excessive.
Person includes natural and juridical persons
unless the context indicates otherwise. (Sec. 2)
COVERAGE
All public officers which include elective and
appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exempt service, receiving
compensation, even nominal from government.
PUNISHABLE ACTS
The following shall constitute corrupt practices of
any public officer and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:
1. Persuading, inducing or influencing another
public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority or an
offense in connection with the official duties
of the latter, or allowing himself to be
persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit
such violation or offense. (Sec. 3[a])
2. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any gift, present, share, percentage, or
benefit, for himself or for any other person,
in connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other part,
wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law. (Sec.
3[b])
Note:
Lack of demand is immaterial since the provision
uses the word “or” between requesting and
receiving. X x x Mere physical receipt
unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance,
or act to show acceptance is not sufficient to lead
the court to conclude that the crime has been
committed. (Peligrino vs. People, G.R. 136266,
August 13, 2001)
3. 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 or to be
given, without prejudice to Section thirteen
of this Act. (Sec. 3[c])
Note:
This is a special form of bribery.
4. 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 its termination. (Sec. 3[d])
5. 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. (Sec.
3[e])
239
Notes:
 A violation of this provision may be
committed either by dolo, as when the
accused acted with evident bad faith or
manifest partiality, or by culpa as when the
accused acted with gross inexcusable
negligence (Jaca vs. People, G.R. No. 166967,
January 28, 2013)
 Manifest partiality - clear, notorious, or plain
inclination or predilection to favor one side or
one person rather than another; synonymous
with bias
 Undue injury - The term has a meaning akin
to that of civil law concept of “actual damage”
(Guadines vs. Sandiganbayan and People, G.R.
No. 164891, June 6, 2011)
 Evident bad faith - it does not simply connote
bad judgment or negligence; imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of
sworn duty through some motive or intent or
ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud
(Sistoza vs. Desierto, GR No. 144784, September
3, 2002)
 Gross inexcusable negligence - negligence
characterized by the want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where
there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally with a conscious
indifference to consequences in so far as
other persons may be affected (Sistoza vs.
Desierto, supra.)
 The use of the three phrases "manifest
partiality," "evident bad faith" and "gross
inexcusable negligence" in the same
information does not mean that the
indictment charges three distinct offenses but
only implies that the offense charged may
have been committed through any of the
modes provided by the law (Fonacier vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-50691, December 5,
1994)
6. 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
240
discriminating against any other interested
party. (Sec. 3[f])
Note: Neglect or delay of public function must be
accompanied by a demand impliedly or expressly
of any benefit or consideration for himself or
another. In absence of such demand, the officer
shall be merely administratively liable.
7. 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. (Sec. 3[g])
 Determining whether the contract was
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous is
not merely based on consideration of the
pecuniary amount involved. (Marcos vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995, October 6,
1998)
LIABILITY OF PRIVATE PERSONS AS
OFFENDERS
 Private persons acting in conspiracy with
public officers may be indicted and if found
guilty, be held liable under Section 3 of R.A.
No. 3019. (Granada vs. People, G.R. No. 184092,
February 22, 2017)
 The requirement before a private person may
be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of
R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private
person must be alleged to have acted in
conspiracy with a public officer. The law,
however, does not require that such person
must, in all instances, be indicted together
with the public officer. If circumstances exist
where the public officer may no longer be
charged in court, as in the present case
where the public officer has already died, the
private person may be indicted alone. (People
vs. Go, GR 168539, March 25, 2014)
8. 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. (Sec. 3[h])
9. 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. (Sec. 3[i])
10. 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. (Sec. 3[j])
11. 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. (Sec. 3[k])
PROHIBITED ACTS FOR PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS
1. 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.
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. (Sec. 4)
2. It shall be unlawful for any person to
knowingly induce or cause any public official
to commit any of the offenses defined in
Section 3.
Note: In case private individuals are charges as
co-principals, accomplices, or accessories with
the public officers or employees, they shall be
tried jointly with said public officers and
employees in the proper courts which shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them. (Sec. 4
of R.A. No. 2019, as amended by R.A. No. 8249)
PROHIBITED ACTS FOR RELATIVES
General rule: 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.
Exceptions:
a. 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;
b. Any transaction, contract or application
already existing or pending at the time of
such assumption of public office;
c. 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; and
d. Any act lawfully performed in an official
capacity or in the exercise of a profession
(Sec. 5)
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
241
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.
This also applies 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. (Sec. 6)
DUTY OF PUBLIC OFFICES TO FILE
STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
Who shall file:
Every public officer
What to file:
A true detailed and 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
When to file:
a) after assuming office, and within the month
of January of every other year thereafter;
b) upon the expiration of his term of office, or
upon his resignation or separation from
office;
c) public officers assuming office less than two
months before the end of the calendar year,
may file their statements in the following
months of January.
Where to be submitted:
a. In the office of the corresponding
Department Head, or
b. in the case of a Head of Department or chief
of an independent office, with the Office of
the President, or
c. In the case of members of the Congress and
the officials and employees thereof, with the
Office of the Secretary of the corresponding
House (Sec. 7)
242
DISMISSAL DUE TO UNEXPLAINED
WEALTH
A public officer who has been found to have
acquired during his incumbency, whether in his
name or the name of other persons, an amount
of property and/or money manifestly out of
proportion to his salary and his other lawful
income shall be ground for dismissal or removal
(Sec. 8)
PRESCRIPTION
The prescription is twenty (20) years per Sec. 11
of R.A. No. 10910 which took effect on July 21,
2016.
COMPETENT COURT
It is the Sandiganbayan that has jurisdiction to try
cases for violation of RA 3019 if the public officer
is occupying a position corresponding to salary
grade 27 or higher. Those that are classified as
salary grade 26 or below may still fall within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provided that
they hold the positions enumerated by the law.
Otherwise, jurisdiction shall be vested in the
Regional Trial Court. (Sec. 4, P.D. No. 1606)
TERMINATION OF OFFICE
No public officer shall be allowed to resign or
retire:
a. Pending investigation, criminal or
administrative.
b. Pending a prosecution against him; or
c. charged with any offense under the act of
under provision of the Revised Penal Code on
Bribery. (Sec. 12)
PRE-SUSPENSION HEARING
The purpose of the pre-suspension hearing is
basically to determine the validity of the
information and thereby furnish the court with a
basis to either suspend the accused and proceed
with the trial on the merits of the case, or refuse
suspension of the latter and dismiss the case, or
correct any part of the proceeding which impairs
its validity. (Luciano vs. Wilson, G.R. No. L-31347,
August 31, 1970)
However, an actual hearing is not necessary. All
that is required is that the accused be given an
opportunity to be heard. (Miguel vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. 172035, July 4, 2012)
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
It is mandatory for the court to place under
preventive suspension a public officer accused
before it. Imposition of suspension, however, is
not automatic or self-operative. A precondition
therefor is the existence of a valid information,
determined at a pre-suspension hearing. Such a
hearing is in accord with the spirit of the law,
considering the serious and far-reaching
consequences of a suspension of a public official
even before his conviction, and the demands of
public interest for speedy determination of the
issues involved in the case. (Luciano vs. Wilson,
G.R. No. L-32950, July 30, 1971) Once a proper
determination of the validity of the Information
has been made, it becomes the ministerial duty
of the court to forthwith issue the order of
preventive suspension. (Socrates vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 116259-60, February 20,
1996)
SUSPENSION AND LOSS OF BENEFITS
a. Any incumbent public officer against whom
any criminal prosecution under a valid
information 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, is pending in court shall be
suspended from office.
b. Should he be convinced by final judgement,
he shall lose all retirement or gratuity
benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted,
he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to
the salaries and benefits which he failed to
receive during suspension, unless in the
meantime administrative proceedings have
been filed against him.
Note: 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.
D. ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11053]
AN ACT PROHIBITING HAZING AND
REGULATING OTHER FORMS OF
INITIATION RITES OF FRATERNITIES,
SORORITIES, AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS, AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 8049, ENTITLED “AN ACT
REGULATING HAZING AND OTHER FORMS
OF INITIATION RITES IN FRATERNITIES,
SORORITIES, AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES THEREFOR”
Definition of Terms
Hazing – refers to any act that results in physical
or psychological suffering, harm, or injury
inflicted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or
member as part of an initiation rite or practice
made as a prerequisite for admission or a
requirement for continuing membership in a
fraternity, sorority, or organization including, but
not limited to, paddling, whipping, beating,
branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the
weather, forced consumption of any food, liquor,
beverage, drug or other substance, or any other
brutal treatment or forced physical activity which
is likely to adversely affected the physical and
psychological health of such recruit, neophyte,
applicant, or member.
This shall also include any activity, intentionally
made or otherwise, by one person alone or acting
with others, that tends to humiliate or embarrass,
degrade, abuse, or endanger, by requiring a
recruit, neophyte, applicant or member to do
menial, silly, or foolish tasks.
Initiation or Initiation Rites – refer to
ceremonies, practices, rituals, or other acts,
whether formal or informal, that a person must
perform or take part in order to be accepted into
a fraternity, sorority, or organization as a full-
fledged member. It includes ceremonies,
practices, rituals, and other acts in all stages of
membership in a fraternity, sorority, or
organization.
243
Organization – refers to an organized body of
people which includes, but is not limited to, any
club, association, group, fraternity, and sorority.
This term shall include the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police
(PNP), the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), the
Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA), and
other similar uniformed service learning
institutions.
Schools – refer to colleges, universities, and all
other educational institutions. (Sec. 2)
Prohibition on Hazing
All forms of hazing shall be prohibited in
fraternities, sororities, and organizations in
schools, including citizens’ military training and
citizens’ army training. This prohibition shall
likewise apply to all other fraternities, sororities,
and organizations that are not school-based, such
as community-based and other similar
fraternities, sororities, and organizations:
Provided, That the physical, mental, and
psychological testing and training procedures and
practices to determine and enhance the physical,
mental, and psychological fitness of prospective
regular members of the AFP and the PNP as
approved by the Secretary of National Defense
and the National Police Commission, duly
recommended by the Chief of Staff of the AFP
and the Director General of the PNP, shall not be
considered as hearing for purposes of this Act:
Provided, further, That the exception provided
herein shall likewise apply to similar procedures
and practices approved by the respective heads
of other uniformed learning institutions as to their
prospective members, nor shall this provision
apply to any customary athletic events or other
similar contests or competitions or any activity or
conduct that furthers a legal and legitimate
objective, subject to prior submission of a medical
clearance or certificate.
In no case shall hazing be made a requirement
for employment in any business or corporation.
(Sec. 3)
Allowed Initiation Rites
1. School-based Initiation Rites
Provided, that:
244
a. There is a prior written application to conduct
initiation rites to the proper authorities of the
school not later than seven days prior to the
scheduled initiation date;
b. The written application shall indicate the place
and date of the initiation rites and the names
of recruits, neophytes or applicants to be
initiated and the manner by which they will
conduct the initiation rites;
c. Such written application shall further contain
an undertaking that no harm of any kind shall
be committed by anybody during the initiation
rites;
d. The initiation rites shall not last more than
three days;
e. The application shall contain the names of
incumbent officers of the fraternity, sorority or
organization and any person who will take
charge in the conduct of the initiation rites;
f. The application shall be under oath with a
declaration that it has been posted in the
official school bulletin board, the bulletin
board of the office of the fraternity, sorority,
or organization and two other conspicuous
places in the school or in the premises of the
organization.
g. The application shall be posted from the time
of submission of the written notice to the
school authorities or head of organization and
shall only be removed from its posting three
days after the conduct of the initiation rites .
(Sec. 4)
2. Community-Based and Other Similar
Organizations
Provided, that:
a. A prior written application to conduct initiation
rites shall be made to the punong barangay in
the barangay or the municipal or city mayor in
the municipality or city where the community-
based fraternity, sorority, or organization is
based, not later than seven days prior to the
scheduled initiation date;
b. The written application shall indicate the place
and date of the initiation rites and the names
of recruits, neophytes or applicants to be
initiated;
c. Such written application shall further contain
an undertaking that no harm of any kind shall
be committed by anybody during the initiation
rites;
d. A medical certificate of the recruit, neophyte,
or applicant must be attached to the
application to ensure fitness to undergo
initiation when it involves physical activity not
falling under the definition of hazing;
e. The initiation rites shall not last more than
three days;
f. The application shall contain the names of
incumbent officers of the community-based
fraternity, sorority or organization and any
person who will take charge in the conduct of
the initiation rites.
g. The application shall be under oath with a
declaration that it has been posted on the
official bulletin board of the barangay hall
where the community-based fraternity,
sorority, or organization is based, and on the
bulletin board of the office of the community-
based fraternity, sorority, or organization.
h. The application shall be posted from the time
of submission of the written notice to the
punong barangay or municipal or city mayor
and shall only be removed from its posting
three days after the conduct of the initiation
rites. (Sec. 10)
Persons Liable
Principals:
a. Those who actually planned or participated in
the hazing (Sec. 14, par. a, b [1]);
b. Those persons who are actually present in the
conduct of the hazing (Sec. 14, par. [c]);
c. Those officers of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization who is present during the hazing
(Sec. 14 ,par. B [2]);
d. The adviser of a fraternity, sorority, or
organization who is present when the acts
constituting the hazing were committed and
failed to take action to prevent the same from
occurring or failed to promptly report the
same to the law enforcement authorities if
such adviser/s can do so without peril to their
person or their family (Sec. 14, par. B [3]);
e. Those former officers, nonresident members,
or alumni of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization who are also present during the
hazing (Sec. 14, par. B [4]);
f. Officers or members of a fraternity, sorority,
or organization who knowingly cooperated in
carrying out the hazing by inducing the victims
to be present thereat (Sec. 14, par. B [5]);
g. Members of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization who are present during the
hazing when they are intoxicated or under the
influence or under the influence of alcohol or
illegal drugs (Sec. 14, par. B [6]);
h. The owner or lessee of the place where hazing
is conducted when such owner or lessee has
actual knowledge of the hazing conducted
therein but failed to take any action to prevent
the same from occurring or failed to promptly
report the same to the law enforcement
authorities if they can do so without peril to
their person or their family. (Sec. 14, par. [3]);
i. The parents if the hazing is held in the home
of one of the officers or members of the
fraternity, sorority or organization, when they
have actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted but failed to take any action to
prevent the same form occurring or failed to
promptly report the same to the law
enforcement authorities if such parents can do
so without peril to their person or family. (Sec.
14, par. [3]); and
j. The presence of any person, even if such
person is not a member of the fraternity,
sorority or organization, during the hazing is a
prima facie evidence of participation as
principal, unless such person prevented the
commission of the punishable acts and
promptly reported the same to law
enforcement authorities if they can do so
without peril to their person or their family.
(Sec. 14, par. 5)
Accomplices
The following shall be liable as an accomplice and
administratively accountable:
1. School authorities such as faculty members.
2. Barangay, municipal or city officials.
Provided that: CONSENT and ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE – the mentioned parties allowed or
be consented to the conduct of hazing or where
there is actual knowledge of hazing but such
officials failed to take any action to prevent the
same from occurring or failed to promptly report
to the law enforcement authorities if the same
can be done without peril to their person or their
family. (Sec. 14, par. 4)
245
Penalties
a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine
of P3,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon those
who actually planned or participated in the
hazing if, as a consequence of the hazing,
death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation results
therefrom;
b) The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine
of P2,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon:
1. All persons who actually planned or
participated in the conduct of the hazing;
2. All officers of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization who are actually present
during the hazing;
3. The adviser of a fraternity, sorority, or
organization who is present when the acts
constituting the hazing were committed
and failed to take action to prevent the
same from occurring or failed to promptly
report the same to the law enforcement
authorities if such adviser or adviser or
advisers can do so without peril to their
person or their family;
4. All former officers, nonresident members,
or alumni of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization who are also present during
the hazing:
Provided, that should the former officer,
nonresident member, or alumnus be a
member of the Philippine Bar, such
member shall immediately be subjected to
disciplinary proceedings by the Supreme
Court pursuant to its power to discipline
members of the Philippine Bar:
Provided, further, that should the former
officer, nonresident member, or alumnus
belong to any other profession subject to
regulation by the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC), such professional shall
immediately be subjected to disciplinary
proceedings by the concerned Professional
Regulatory Board, the imposable penalty
for which shall include, but is not limited
to, suspension for a period of not less than
three or revocation of the professional
license. A suspended or revoked
professional license pursuant to this
section may be reinstated upon submission
of affidavits from at least three
disinterested persons, good moral
certifications from different unaffiliated
246
and credible government, religious, and
socio-civic organizations and such other
relevant evidence to show that the
concerned professional has become
morally fit for readmission into the
profession:
Provided, that said readmission into the
profession shall be subject to the approval
of the respective Professional Regulatory
Board;
5. Officers of members of a fraternity,
sorority, or organization who knowingly
cooperated in carrying out the hazing by
inducing the victim to be present thereat;
and
6. Members of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization who are present during the
hazing when they are intoxicated or under
the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs;
c) The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period and a fine of P1,000,000.00
shall be imposed upon all persons who are
present in the conduct of the hazing;
d) The penalty of reclusion temporal and fine of
P1,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon former
officers, nonresident member, alumni of the
fraternity, sorority, or organization who, after
the commission of any of the prohibited acts
proscribed herein, will perform any act to hide,
conceal, or otherwise hamper or obstruct any
investigation that will be conducted
thereafter:
Provided, that should the former officer,
nonresident member, or alumnus be a
member of the Philippine Bar, such member
shall immediately be subjected to disciplinary
proceedings by the Supreme Court pursuant
to its power to discipline members of the
Philippine Bar: Provided, further, That should
the former officer, nonresident members, or
alumnus belong to any other profession
subject to regulation by the PRC, such
professional shall immediately be subjected to
disciplinary proceedings by the concerned
Professional Regulatory Board, the imposable
penalty for which shall include, but is not
limited to, suspension for a period of not less
than three years or revocation of the
professional license pursuant to this section
may be reinstated upon submission of
affidavits from at least three disinterested
persons, good moral certifications from
 different unaffiliated and credible
government, religious, and socio-civic
organizations, and such other relevant
evidence to show that the concerned
professional has become morally fit for
readmission into the profession:
Provided, that said readmission into the
profession shall be subject to the approval of
the respective Professional Regulatory Board."
e) The penalty of prision correcional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall intimidate, threaten, force,
or employ, or administer any form of vexation
against another person for the purpose of
recruitment in joining or promoting a
particular fraternity, sorority, or organization.
The persistent and repeated proposal or
invitation made to a person who had twice
refused to participate or join the proposed
fraternity, sorority, or organization, shall
be prima facie evidence of vexation for
purposes of this section; and
f) A fine of P1,000,000.00 shall be imposed on
the school if the fraternity, sorority, or
organization filed a written application to
conduct an initiation which was subsequently
approved by the school and hazing occurred
during the initiation rites or when no
representatives from the school were present
during the initiation as provided under Sec. 5
of this Act:
Provided, that if hazing has been committed
in circumvention of the provisions of this Act,
it is incumbent upon school officials to
investigate motu propio and take an active
role to ascertain factual events and identity
witnesses in order to determine the
disciplinary sanctions it may impose, as well
as provide assistance to police authorities.
(Sec. 14)
E. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9160]
AN ACT DEFINING THE CRIME OF MONEY
LAUNDERING, PROVIDING PENALTIES
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Amended by
R.A. 9194, R.A. 10167, R.A. 10168
and R.A. 10365, also known as
An Act Further Strengthening
the Anti-Money Laundering Law
Money laundering is a crime whereby the
proceeds of an unlawful activity as herein defined
are transacted, thereby making them appear to
have originated from legitimate sources. (Sec. 4)
Suspicious transactions are 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 circumstances 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 a 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 transactions that is similar or analogous
to any of the foregoing. (Sec. 7[b][1])
Covered transaction refers to:
1. A transaction in cash or other equivalent
monetary instrument exceeding P500,000.00;
or
2. A transaction exceeding P1,000,000.00 in
cases of jewelry dealers, dealers in precious
metals and dealers in precious stones. (Rule
3[G], 2016 Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9160, as amended)
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);
247
2. Insurance companies, pre-need companies The term ‘covered persons’ shall exclude
and all other persons supervised or regulated lawyers and accountants acting as
by the Insurance Commission (IC); independent legal professionals in relation to
3. (i) Securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, information concerning their clients or where
investment houses and other similar persons disclosure of information would compromise
managing securities or rendering services as client confidences or the attorney-client
investment agent, advisor, or consultant, (ii) relationship:
mutual funds, close-end investment
companies, common trust funds, and other Provided, That these lawyers and accountants are
similar persons, and (iii) other entities authorized to practice in the Philippines and
administering or otherwise dealing in shall continue to be subject to the provisions of
currency, commodities or financial derivatives their respective codes of conduct and/or
based thereon, valuable objects, cash professional responsibility or any of its
substitutes and other similar monetary amendments. (Sec. 1.3 Rule 12, 2018 IRR)
instruments or property supervised or
regulated by the Securities and Exchange Duty of Covered Persons
Commission (SEC);
4. Jewelry dealers in precious metals, who, as a To report to the Anti-Money Laundering Council
business, trade in precious metals, for (AMLC) all covered transactions within five
transactions in excess of P1,000,000.00; working days from occurrence thereof, unless
5. Jewelry dealers in precious stones, who, as a the AMLC prescribes a different period not
business, trade in precious stones, for exceeding 15 working days.
transactions in excess of P1,000,000.00;
6. Company service providers which, as a Unlawful activity refers to any act or omission
business, provide any of the following services or series or combination thereof involving or
to third parties: (i) acting as a formation agent having direct relation to the following:
of juridical persons; (ii) acting as (or arranging
for another person to act as) a director or 1. Kidnapping for ransom
corporate secretary of a company, a partner 2. Violations under the Comprehensive
of a partnership, or a similar position in Dangerous Act of 2002
relation to other juridical persons; (iii) 3. Violations under Anti-Graft and Corrupt
providing a registered office, business address Practices Act
or accommodation, correspondence or 4. Plunder
administrative address for a company, a 5. Robbery and extortion
partnership or any other legal person or 6. Jueteng and Masiao
arrangement; and (iv) acting as (or arranging 7. Piracy on the high seas
for another person to act as) a nominee 8. Qualified theft
shareholder for another person; and 9. Swindling
7. Persons who provide any of the following 10. Smuggling
services: 11. Violations under the E-Commerce Act of
2000
i. managing of client money, securities or 12. Hijacking and other violations under
other assets; Republic Act No. 6235; destructive arson
ii. management of bank, savings or securities and murder
accounts; 13. Terrorism and conspiracy to commit
iii. organization of contributions for the terrorism as defined and penalized under
creation, operation or management of Secs. 3 and 4 of R.A. No. 9372
companies; and 14. Financing of terrorism under Sec. 4 and
iv. creation, operation or management of offenses punishable under Secs. 5, 6, 7 and
juridical persons or arrangements, and 8 of Terrorism Financing Prevention and
buying and selling business entities. (Sec. Suppression Act of 2012
1, Rule 4, IRR) 15. Bribery under the RPC, as amended, and
Corruption of Public Officers under Art. 212
of the RPC, as amended

248
16. Frauds and Illegal Exactions and
Transactions
17. Malversation of Public Funds and Property
18. Forgeries and Counterfeiting
19. Violations of Secs. 4 to 6 of Anti-Trafficking
in Persons Act of 2003
20. Violations of Secs. 78 to 79 of the Revised
Forestry Code of the Philippines, as
amended
21. Violations of Secs. 86 to 106 of the Philippine
Fisheries Code of 1998
22. Violations of Secs 101 to 107, and 110 of the
Philippine Mining Act of 1995
23. Violations of Sec. 27(c), (e), (f), (g) and (i),
of Republic Act No. 9147, otherwise known
as the Wildlife Resources Conservation and
Protection Act
24. Violation of Sec. 7(b) of the National Caves
and Cave Resources Management Protection
Act
25. Violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act of 2002,
as amended
26. Violations of Secs. 1, 3 and 5 of the decree
Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In,
Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms,
Ammunition or Explosives
27. Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
28. Violation of Sec. 6 of the Migrant Workers
and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as
amended
29. Violation of the Intellectual Property Code of
the Philippines
30. Violation of Sec. 4 of the Anti-Photo and
Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
31. Violation of Sec. 4 of the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009
32. Violations of Secs. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10(c), (d) and
(e), 11, 12 and 14 of the Special Protection
of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination
33. Fraudulent practices and other violations
under Securities Regulation Code of 2000
34. Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that
are punishable under the penal laws of other
countries.
How is Money Laundering offense
committed
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 AMLC, fails to do so. (Sec.
4, R.A. No. 10365)
Prosecution
Any person may be charged with and convicted
of both the offense of money laundering and the
unlawful activity as herein defined.
The prosecution of any offense or violation under
this Act shall proceed independently of any
proceeding relating to the unlawful activity. (Sec.
6, R.A. No. 10365)
Jurisdiction
The Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction
to try all cases on money laundering. Those
committed by public officers and private persons
who are in conspiracy with such public officers
shall be under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. (Sec. 1, Rule 4, IRR)
Stages of Money Laundering:
1. Placement – the physical disposal of cash
proceeds derived from illegal activity.
2. Layering – separating illicit proceeds from
their source by creating complex layers of
financial transactions designed to
249
 disguise the audit trail and provide
anonymity.
3. Integration – the provision of apparent
legitimacy to criminally derived wealth. If the
layering process has succeeded, integration
schemes place the laundered proceeds back
into the economy in such a way that
they re-enter the financial system appearing
to be normal business funds. (BSP Anti-Money
Laundering Model Operating Manual for Banks
and other covered institutions)
Penalties
a. Penalties for Money Laundering - The
following are the penalties to be imposed on
persons convicted of money laundering:
1. Penalties for Sec. 4(a), (b), (c) and
(d) of the AMLA - The penalty of
imprisonment ranging from 7 to 14 years
and a fine of not less than P3,000,000.00,
but not more than twice the value of the
monetary instrument or property
involved in the offense, shall be imposed
upon a person convicted under Sec. 4(a),
(b), (c) and (d) of the AMLA, as
amended.
2. Penalties for Sec. 4(e) and (f) of the
AMLA - The penalty of imprisonment
from four to seven years and a fine of not
less than P1,500,000.00 but not more
than P3,000,000.00, shall be imposed
upon a person convicted under Sec. 4(e)
and (f) of the AMLA, as amended.
3. Penalties for the Last Paragraph of
Sec. 4 of the AMLA - The penalty of
imprisonment from six months to four
years or a fine of not less than
P100,000.00 but not more than
P500,000.00, or both, shall be imposed
on a person convicted under the last
paragraph of Sec. 4 of the AMLA, as
amended.
b. Penalties for Knowingly Participating
in the Commission of Money
Laundering - The penalty of imprisonment
ranging from four to seven years and a fine
corresponding to not more than 200% of the
value of the monetary instrument or
property laundered shall be imposed upon
the covered person, its directors, officers or
personnel who knowingly participated in the
250
commission of the crime of money
laundering.
c. Penalties for Failure to Keep Records -
The penalty of imprisonment from six
months to one year or a fine of not less than
P100,000.00 but not more than
P500,000.00, or both, shall be imposed on a
person convicted under Sec. 9(b) of the
AMLA.
d. Penalties for Malicious Reporting - Any
person who, with malice, or in bad faith,
reports or files a completely unwarranted or
false information relative to money
laundering transaction against any person
shall be subject to a penalty of six months to
four years’ imprisonment and a fine of not
less than P100,000.00 but not more than
P500,000.00, at the discretion of the court:
Provided, that the offender is not entitled to
avail of the benefits of the Probation Law.
If the offender is a corporation, association,
partnership or any other juridical person, the
penalty of imprisonment and/or fine shall be
imposed upon the responsible officers, as
the case may be, who participated in, or
allowed by their gross negligence the
commission of the crime and the court may
suspend or revoke its license. If the offender
is an alien, he shall, in addition to the
penalties herein prescribed, be deported
without further proceedings after serving the
penalties herein prescribed. If the offender
is a public official or employee, he shall, in
addition to the penalties prescribed herein,
suffer perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification from office, as the case may
be.
Any public official or employee who is called
upon to testify and refuses to do the same
or purposely fails to testify shall suffer the
same penalties herein prescribed.
e. Penalties for Breach of Confidentiality
- The punishment of imprisonment ranging
from three to eight years and a fine of not
less than P500,000.00 but not more than
P1,000,000.00, shall be imposed on a person
convicted for a violation under Sec. 9(c) of
the AMLA. In case of a breach of
confidentiality that is published or reported
by the media, the responsible reporter,
 writer, president, publisher, manager and
editor-in-chief shall be liable under the
AMLA.
f. Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities
- If the offender is a corporate entity, the
penalties herein shall be imposed upon the
responsible officers who participated in, or
allowed by their gross negligence the
commission of the crime; and/or directors or
trustees who willfully and knowingly voted
for or assented to violate the AMLA, this
RIRR, or other AMLC issuances. (Rule 14,
2016 Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9160, as amended)
F. ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM
ACT OF 2009
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9995]
AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE
CRIME OF PHOTO AND VIDEO
VOYEURISM, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Definition of Terms:
Broadcast means to make public, by any means,
a visual image with the intent that it be viewed
by a person or persons. (Sec. 3 [a])
Capture (with respect to an image) means to
videotape, photograph, film, record by any
means, or broadcast. (Sec. 3 [b])
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. (Sec. 3 [d])
Under circumstances in which a person has
a reasonable expectation of privacy means
a person 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. (Sec. 3 [f])
Prohibited Acts:
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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
4. 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. (Sec. 4 [a][b][c][d])
NOTE:
The prohibition under Sec. 4 paragraphs (b), (c)
and (d) of R.A. No. 9995 shall apply
notwithstanding that consent to record or take
photo or video coverage of the same was given
by such person/s. (Sec. 4)
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. (Sec. 7)
251
G. ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080]
AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE
CRIME OF PLUNDER
Definition of Terms:
Public officers mean any person holding any
public office in the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines by virtue of an appointment,
election or contract. (Sec. 1 [a])
Person includes any natural or juridical person,
unless the context indicates otherwise. (Sec. 1 [c])
Ill-gotten wealth any asset, property, business
enterprise or material possession of any person
within the purview of Sec. 2 hereof, acquired by
him directly or indirectly through dummies,
nominees, agents, subordinates, and/or business
associates by any combination or series of
schemes. (Sec. 1 [d])
Acquisition of ill-gotten wealth
It is acquired by any combination or series of the
following means or similar schemes:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion,
misuse, or malversation of public funds or
raids on the public treasury;
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share, percentage,
kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary
benefit from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or
project or by reason of the office or position
of the public officer concerned;
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of assets belonging to the
National Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or
government-owned or -controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries;
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting
directly or indirectly any shares of stock,
equity or any other form of interest or
participation including promise of future
employment in any business enterprise or
undertaking;
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other
combinations and/or implementation of
252
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. (Sec. 1 [d])
Elements: (PuMeSche50)
1. That the 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 or series
of Means or Schemes mentioned above; and
3. That the aggregate amount or total value of
the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or
acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.
Persons Liable:
1. 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 Sec. 1(d)
hereof in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least P50,000,000.00; or
2. Any person who participated with the said
public officer in the commission of an offense.
(Sec 2, R.A. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12, R.A. No.
7659)
"in connivance" would suggest an agreement or
consent to commit an unlawful act or deed with
or by another, to connive being to cooperate
secretly or privily with another.
“to participate” is to have a part or a share in
conjunction with another of the proceeds of the
unlawful act or deed. (Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003)
Combination means at least two acts of a
different category.
Example: raids on the public treasury and
fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the
National Government (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan,
supra.)
Series means at least two acts of the same
category (Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, supra.).
Example: Misappropriation, malversation and
raids on the public treasury, all of which falling
under item (1) in the enumeration under the
definition of “ill-gotten wealth.” (Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, supra.).
Pattern It consists of at least a combination or
series of overt or criminal acts enumerated under
the definition of “ill-gotten wealth,” directed
towards a common purpose or goal which is to
enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or
acquire ill-gotten wealth. There must either be an
“overall unlawful scheme” or “conspiracy” to
achieve said common goal.
Competent court
All prosecutions under this Act shall be within the
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Sec. 3,
R.A. No. 7080)
NOTE: Because plunder is a crime that only a
public official can commit by amassing,
accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the
aggregate amount or total value of at least
₱50,000,000.00, the identification in the
information of such public official as the main
plunderer among the several individuals thus
charged is logically necessary under the law itself.
(Arroyo vs. People, G.R. No. 220598, April 18, 2017)
Rule of evidence in plunder
It shall not be necessary to prove each and every
criminal act done, it being sufficient to establish
beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or
criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful
scheme or conspiracy. (Sec. 4)
Effects if case pending in court
Any public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under this
Act in whatever stage of execution and mode of
participation, is pending in court, shall be
suspended from office. (Sec. 5)
Effect of final judgment:
 If convicted – lose all retirement or gratuity
benefits under any law.
 If acquitted – reinstatement and be entitled
to the salaries and other benefits which he
failed to receive during suspension, unless in
the meantime, administrative proceedings
have been filed against him. (Sec. 5)
Prescription of Crime of Plunder
General Rule: The crime shall prescribe in 20
years.
Exception: The right of the State to recover
properties unlawfully acquired by public officers
from them or from their nominees or transferees
shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or
estoppel. (Sec. 6)
NOTE: The legislative declaration in R.A. 7659
that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is
a malum in se. For when the 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 vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 148560, November 2, 2001).
Immunity from prosecution
Any person who voluntarily gives information and
who willingly testifies against any public official or
employee for any of the following violations shall
be exempt from prosecution or punishment for
the offense with reference to which his
information and testimony were given, and may
plead or prove the giving of such information and
testimony in bar of such prosecution:
1. Arts. 210, 211, and 212 of the RPC;
2. R.A. 3019, as amended;
3. Sec. 345 of the Internal Revenue Code;
4. Sec. 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code; and
5. Other laws, rules and regulations punishing
acts of graft, corruption and other forms of
official abuse (e.g. R.A. 7080).
253
The following conditions must concur in order for
the grant of immunity:
1. The information must refer to consummated
violations of any of the above-mentioned
provisions of law, rules and regulations;
2. The information and testimony are necessary
for the conviction of the accused public
officer;
3. Such information and testimony are not yet in
the possession of the State;
4. Such information and testimony can be
corroborated on its material points; and
5. The informant or witness has not been
previously convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude. (Sec. 1, P.D. No. 749)
NOTES:
 This immunity may be enjoyed even in cases
where the information and testimony are
given against a person who is not a public
official but who is a principal, or accomplice,
or accessory in the commission of any related
violations.
 This immunity may be enjoyed by such
informant or witness notwithstanding that he
offered or gave the bribe or gift to the public
official or his accomplice for such gift or bribe-
giving. (Id.)
H. ANTI-TORTURE ACT OF 2009
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9745]
AN ACT PENALIZING TORTURE AND
OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN AND
DEGRADING TREATMENT OR
PUNISHMENT AND PRESCRIBING
PENALTIES THEREFOR
The law penalizes:
1. Torture; and
2. Other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment.
Definition of Terms
Torture – refers to an act by which:
a) Severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person;
254
b) By or at the instigation of or with the consent
or acquiescence of a person in authority (PA)
or agent of a person in authority (APA);
c) For such purposes as:
1. Obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession;
2. Punishing him for an act he or a third
person has committed or is suspected of
having committed; or
3. Intimidating or coercing him or a third
person; or
4. For any reason based on discrimination of
any kind.
NOTE: It does not include pain or buffering
arising only from, inherent in or incidental to
lawful sanctions. (Sec. 3 [a])
Other cruel, inhuman, and degrading (CID)
treatment or punishment refers to:
a. Deliberate and aggravated treatment or
punishment not included in the enumeration
of acts of torture under Sec. 4;
b. Inflicted by a PA or APA against a person
under his custody, which attains a level of
severity; or
c. Causing the latter suffering, gross humiliation,
or debasement. (Sec. 3 [b])
NOTE: The assessment of the level of severity
shall depend on all circumstances of the
case, including the duration of the treatment
or punishment, its physical and mental effects
and, in some cases, the sex, religion, age and
state of health of the victim. (Sec. 5)
Three forms of torture:
a. Physical which involves treatment or
punishment causing severe pain, exhaustion,
disability or dysfunction of one or more parts
of the body. (Sec. 4 [a])
b. Mental/psychological which affects or
confuses the mind and/or undermines one’s
dignity and morale. (Sec. 4 [b])
c. Other CID treatment or punishment at a
level of severity causing suffering, gross
humiliation, or debasement to the victim. (Sec.
5)
Specific Acts of Physical Torture (Sec. 4 [a])
1. Systematic beating, head-banging, punching,
kicking, striking with truncheon or rifle butt or
other similar objects, and jumping on the
stomach;
2. Food deprivation or forcible feeding with
spoiled food, animal or human excreta and
other stuff or substances not normally eaten;
3. Electric shock;
4. Cigarette burning; burning by electrically
heated rods, hot oil or acid, or by the rubbing
of pepper or other chemical substances on
mucous membranes, or acids or spices directly
on the wound(s);
5. The submersion of the head in water or water
polluted with excrement, urine, vomit and/or
blood until the brink of suffocation;
6. Being tied or forced to assume fixed and
stressful bodily position;
7. Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion
of foreign objects into the sex organ or
rectum, or electrical torture of the genitals;
8. Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts
of the body such as the genitalia, ear, tongue,
etc.;
9. Dental torture or the forced extraction of the
teeth;
10. Pulling out of fingernails;
11. Harmful exposure to the elements such as
sunlight and extreme cold;
12. The use of plastic bag and other materials
placed over the head to the point of
asphyxiation;
13. The use of psychoactive drugs to change the
perception, memory, alertness or will of a
person, such as:
a. The administration or drugs to induce
confession and/ or reduce mental
competency; or
b. The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or
certain symptoms of a disease; and
14. Other analogous acts of physical torture.
Specific Acts of Mental/Psychological
Torture (Sec. 4 [b])
1. Blindfolding;
2. Threatening a person(s) or his/her relative(s)
with bodily harm, execution or other wrongful
acts;
3. Confinement in solitary cells or secret
detention places;
4. Prolonged interrogation;
5. Preparing a prisoner for a “show trial,” public
display or public humiliation of a detainee or
prisoner;
6. Causing unscheduled transfer of a person
deprived of liberty from one place to another,
creating the belief that he/she will be
summarily executed;
7. Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;
8. Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed
by the person’s family, relatives or any third
party;
9. Denial of sleep/rest;
10. Shame infliction such as stripping the person
naked, parading him/her in public places,
shaving the victim’s head or putting marks on
his/her body against his/her will;
11. Deliberately prohibiting the victim to
communicate with any member of his/her
family; and
12. Other analogous acts of mental/psychological
torture.
Victim – refers to the:
a. person subjected to torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment as defined above; and
b. any individual who has suffered harm as a
result of any act(s) of torture, or other CID
treatment or punishment. (Sec. 3 [c])
Order of Battle – refers to any document or
determination made by the military, police or any
law enforcement agency of the government,
listing the names of persons and organizations
that it perceives to be enemies of the State and
that it considers as legitimate targets as
combatants that it could deal with, through the
use of means allowed by domestic and
international law. (Sec. 3 [d])
Freedom from Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, An Absolute Right
Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment as criminal acts shall
apply to all circumstances.
A state of war or a threat of war, internal political
instability, or any other public emergency, or a
document or any determination comprising an
"order of battle" shall not and can never be
invoked as a justification for torture and other
255
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or torture or other CID treatment
punishment. (Sec. 6) or punishment is being
committed and not being either
Prohibited Detention – Secret detention principal or accomplice, take
part subsequent to its
places, solitary confinement, incommunicado or
commission in the following
other similar forms of detention, where torture ways: Profiting from effects of
may be carried out with impunity are hereby the act; Concealing acts; or
prohibited. (Sec. 7) harboring or assisting in the
escape of the of the principal.
NOTE: Any confession, admission or statement
obtained as a result of torture shall be Provided, that the accessory
inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings, acts are done with the abuse of
except if the same is used as evidence against a the official’s public functions.
(Sec. 13[4], R.A. No. 9745)
person or persons accused of committing torture.
(Sec. 8)
 Accomplices are punished as principals. Any
The PNP, AFP and other law enforcement person “who cooperated in the execution of
agencies concerned shall make an updated list of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
all detention centers and facilities under their degrading treatment or punishment by
respective jurisdictions with the corresponding previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable
data on prisoners or detainees incarcerated or as principal. (Sec. 13[1])
detained therein. This list shall be available to the
public at all times and updated by the same Distinction between Art. 263 and 265 of
agencies every 5 days of the month at the RPC and R.A. No. 9745
minimum (Sec. 7).
As to: RPC R.A. No. 9745
Persons Criminally Liable Kind of Serious/Less Torture and/or
offense Serious CID.
The law attaches criminal liability to principals, Physical Injury.
accomplices and accessories to the crimes of Offender Any person A Person in
“torture” and “other cruel, inhuman and (Private person Authority or an
degrading treatment or punishment”. or public Agent of Person
official). in Authority.
PRINCIPAL 1. By actual participation;
2. By inducement; Penalties for the crime of Torture(Sec.14)
3. By indispensable
cooperation; Any person who commits an act Reclusion
4. For issuing an order to a of torture under the following Perpetua
lower raking military, police circumstances present: (20 years and 1
or law enforcement a. Torture resulting in the day to 40 years of
personnel to commit torture death of any person; imprison-ment)
for whatever purpose; and b. Torture resulting in
5. By the application of the mutilation;
doctrine of command c. Torture with rape;
responsibility. d. Torture with other forms of
ACCOMPLICE Any person who, not being sexual abuse and, in
included in Sec. 26, cooperate consequence of torture, the
in the execution of torture or victim becomes insane,
other cruel, inhuman and imbecile, impotent, blind or
degrading treatment or maimed for life; and
punishment by previous or e. Torture committed against
simultaneous acts. (Sec. 27, children.
IRR of the Anti-Torture Act of If a person commits any act of Reclusion
2009) mental/ psychological torture Temporal
ACCESSORIES Public officers or employees resulting in:
who have knowledge that a. Insanity;

256
 b. complete or partial (12 years & 1 day If a person commits any act as Prision
amnesia; or to 20 years of a result of torture where the Correctional in
c. fear of becoming insane or imprisonment) victim shall have been ill or its minimum and
suicidal tendencies of the incapacitated for labor for thirty medium period (6
victim due to guilt, (30) days or less. months, & 1 day to
worthlessness or shame. 2 years & 4
If a person commits any act in Prision Mayor months to 2 years,
consequence of torture where medium and 4 months & 1 day
the victim: maximum periods to 4 years & 2
a. loses the power of speech (8 years & 1 day to months)
or the power to hear or to 10 years to 10 If responsible officers or Arresto Mayor (1
smell; or years & 1 day to personnel of the AFP, the PNP month & 1 day to
b. loses an eye, a hand, a 12 years of and other law enforcement 6 months)
foot, an arm or a leg; or imprisonment) agencies fail to perform his/her
c. loses the use of any such duty to maintain, submit or
member; or make available to the public an
d. shall become permanently updated list of detention
incapacitated for labor. centers and facilities with the
Any act in consequence of Prision Mayor corresponding data on the
torture where the victim: minimum and prisoners or detainees
a. becomes deformed; or medium periods (6 incarcerated or detained
b. loses any part of his/her years & 1 day to 8 therein, pursuant to Sec. 7 of
body other than those cited years to 8 years & the Anti-Torture Act of 2009.
above; 1 day to 10 years If the crime committed falls Arresto Mayor
c. loses the use thereof, or of imprisonment) under “other cruel, inhuman or
becomes ill or degrading treatment or
incapacitated for labor for a punishment”
period of more than ninety
(90) days. Rights and Remedies under the Anti-
If a person commits any act of Prision Torture Act of 2009
torture: Correctional
a. resulting in psychological, (6 months, & 1 day
Notwithstanding all other applicable laws, the
mental and emotional harm to 6 years)
other than torture; following rights and remedies shall be afforded to
b. resulting in insanity, victims of torture:
complete or partial
amnesia, fear of becoming 1. Legal assistance
insane or suicidal The Commission on Human Rights and the
tendencies of the victim Public Attorney's Office shall render legal
due to guilt, worthlessness assistance in the investigation and monitoring
or shame.
and/or filing of the complaint.
Any person who establishes,
operates and maintains secret 2. Right to Physical, Medical and
detention places and/or effect Psychological Examination
or cause to effect solitary
confinement, incommunicado a) Right to be informed of the right to
or other similar forms of demand physical examination by an
prohibited detention. independent and competent doctor of
If a person who commits any Prision his/her own choice;
act as a result of torture where Correctional in b) Demand to be provided by the State if he
the victim becomes ill or its maximum
cannot afford the services of a private
incapacitated for labor for more period to prision
than thirty (30) days but not mayor in its doctor. No cost shall accrue to the victim
more than ninety (90) days. minimum period when the medical examination is provided
(4 years, 2 months by the State (Sec. 19, IRR of the Anti-Torture
& 1 day to 6 years Act of 2009);
to 6 years & 1 day c) Request for psychological evaluation, if
to 8 years) available;

257
 d) Access proper and adequate medical
treatment to document possible allegations
of torture (Sec. 12 of RA 9745 viz. Sec. 19 of
the IRR), and have his/her physical
examination and/or psychological
evaluation be contained in a medical
report, duly signed by the attending
physician and detailing the victim’s medical
history and the physician’s findings,
including the nature and probable cause of
the his/her injury, pain, disease and/or
trauma, and the approximate time and
date when it/they was/were sustained.
The report is to be attached to the
custodial investigation report and
considered a public document.
e) Knowingly and voluntarily waive these
rights in writing, executed in the presence
and assistance of his/her counsel.
3. Institutional Protection
Prompt and an impartial investigation – Within
60 working days from the lodging of the
complaint, the concerned government agency
such as the CHR, DOJ, PAO, NBI and the PNP
shall complete and make available its
investigation report and/or resolution, including
appeals thereon, on the allegation of torture or
other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment
or punishment. (Sec. 9)
Sufficient government protection against all
forms of harassment; threat and/or intimidation
as a consequence of the filing of complaint or the
presentation of evidence –
a) Place the alleged perpetrator under preventive
suspension during the period of administrative
investigation; and
b) Transfer of the detainee to a safe place. (Sec.
16, IRR of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009)
The victim and the witnesses of torture may avail
of the benefits under Republic Act 7891,
otherwise known as the “Witness Protection,
Security and Benefit Act” and other applicable
laws. (Sec. 16, IRR of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009)
4. Expeditious disposition of Writs of
Habeas Corpus, Amparo and Habeas
Data Proceedings filed by Torture
Victims (Sec. 10)
258
5. Applicability of Refouler
Refouler rule provides that no person shall be
expelled, returned, or extradited to another State
where there are substantial grounds to believe
that he shall be in danger of being subjected to
torture. (Sec. 17)
6. Right to Compensation
A victim has the right to claim compensation as
provided for under Republic Act No. 7309 for an
amount not lower than Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00). He may also avail of other financial
relief programs. These claims are nonexclusive;
the victims may avail of both.
7. Rehabilitation
The Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD), Department of Justice
(DOJ) and Department of Health (DOH), together
with human rights nongovernment organizations
duly recognized by the government, are
mandated to formulate a comprehensive
rehabilitation program for the physical,
mental, social, psychological healing and
development of victims of torture and their
families.
Torture as a Separate and Independent
Crime
The felonies and offenses are in addition to the
offense under this Act. Torture as a crime shall
not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any
other crime of felony committed as a
consequence, or as a means in the conduct or
commission thereof.
Torture shall be treated as a separate and
independent criminal act whose penalties
shall be imposable without prejudice to any other
criminal liability provided for by domestic and
international laws. (Sec. 15)
Exclusion from the Coverage of Special
Amnesty Law
In order not to depreciate the crime of torture,
persons who have committed any act of torture
shall not benefit from any special amnesty
law or similar measures that will have the
effect of exempting them from any criminal
proceedings and sanctions. (Sec. 16)
NOTE: The statute of limitation or
prescription period shall not apply to torture
cases. (Sec. 45, IRR of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009)
Applicability of the Revised Penal Code
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code insofar
as they are applicable shall be suppletory to this
Act. Moreover, if the commission of any crime
punishable under Title Eight (Crimes Against
Persons) and Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal
Liberty and Security) of the Revised Penal Code
is attended by any of the acts constituting torture
and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment as defined herein, the
penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum
period. (Sec. 22)
Applicability of Exclusionary Rule
General Rule – Any confession, admission or
statement obtained as a result of torture shall be
inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding.
Exception – If the same is used as evidence
against a person or persons accused of
committing torture. (Sec. 8)
The Human Security Act includes torture as
one of the punishable acts of terrorism:
Use of threat, intimidation, or coercion, or who
inflict physical pain or torment, or mental, moral,
or psychological pressure, which shall vitiate the
free-will of a charged or suspected person under
investigation and interrogation for the crime of
terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit
terrorism. (Sec. 25)
Death or serious permanent disability of said
detained person occurs as a consequence of the
use of such threat, intimidation, or coercion, or
as a consequence of the infliction on him of such
physical pain or torment, or as a consequence of
the infliction on him of such mental, moral, or
psychological pressure. (Sec. 25)
I. ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT
OF 2003
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9208, as amended by
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10364]
AN ACT TO INSTITUTE POLICIES TO
ELIMINATE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
ESPECIALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN,
ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR THE
PROTECTION AND SUPPORT OF
TRAFFICKED PERSONS,
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS
VIOLATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Definition of Terms:
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. (Sec. 3[a])
Child refers to a person below 18 years of age or
one who is over 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. (Sec.
3 [b])
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. (Sec. 3 [c])
Forced Labor and Slavery refers to the
extraction of work or services from any person by
means of enticement, violence, intimidation or
259
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. (Sec. 3 [d])
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.
(Sec. 3 [e])
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. (Sec. 3 [f])
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. (Sec. 3 [g])
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. (Sec. 3 [h])
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 a
security or payment for a debt, when the length
and nature of the services is not clearly defined
or when the value of the services as reasonably
260
assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of
the debt. (Sec. 3 [i])
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. (Sec. 3 [j])
Punishable Acts:
A) Acts of trafficking persons
1. To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer,
transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or
receive a person by any means, including
those done under the pretext of domestic
or overseas employment or training or
apprenticeship, for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, or sexual
exploitation (Sec. 4[a]);
2. 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
(Sec. 4[b], R.A. 9208, as amended);
3. Offer or contract marriage, real or
simulated, for 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
(Sec. 4[c], R.A. 9208, as amended);
4. Undertake or organize tours and travel
plans consisting of tourism packages or
activities for the purpose of utilizing and
offering of persons for prostitution,
pornography or sexual exploitation (Sec.
4[d], R.A. 9208, as amended);
5. Maintain or hire a person to engage
prostitution or pornography (Sec. 4[e], R.A.
9208, as amended);
6. To adopt persons by any form of
consideration for exploitative purposes or
to facilitate the same for purposes of
prostitution, pornography, sexual
 exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage
(Sec. 4[f], R.A. 9208, as amended);
7. Adopt or facilitate the adoption or persons
for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage (Sec. 4[g], R.A. 9208, as
amended);
8. 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 (Sec. 4[h], R.A. 9208, as
amended);
9. To recruit, transport, obtain, transfer,
harbor, maintain, offer, hire, provide,
receive or adopt a child to engage in armed
activities in the Philippines or abroad (Sec.
4[i], R.A. 9208, as amended);
10. To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor,
obtain, maintain, offer, hire, provide or
receive a person by means defined in
Sec. 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:
a) 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
b) To abuse or threaten the use of law or
the legal processes (Sec. 4[j], R.A.
9208, as amended);
11. 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:
a) 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;
b) The use, procuring or offering of a
child for prostitution, for the
production of pornography, or for
pornographic performances;
c) The use, procuring or offering of a
child for the production and trafficking
of drugs; and
d) 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 (Sec. 4[k], R.A. 9208,
as amended);
12. To organize or direct other persons to
commit the offenses defined as acts of
trafficking under this Act. (Sec. 4[l], R.A.
9208, as amended)
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 Sec. 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. (Sec. 4-A, R.A. No. 9208, as amended)
261
Accomplice
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
Sec. 10(c) of this Act. (Sec. 4-B, R.A. No. 9208, as
amended)
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; or
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. (Sec. 4-C R.A. No.
9208, as amended)
B) Acts that promote trafficking in persons
1. Knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow
to be used any house, building or
establishment for the purpose of trafficking
in persons (Sec. 5[a], R.A. No. 9208, as
amended);
2. 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 (Sec. 5[b],
R.A. No. 9208, as amended);
3. Advertise, publish, print, broadcast or
distribute, or cause the advertisement,
publication, printing, broadcasting or
distribution by any means, including the
use of information and technology and in
the internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any
propaganda material that promotes
262
trafficking in persons (Sec. 5[c], R.A. No.
9208, as amended);
4. 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 (Sec. 5[d],
R.A. No. 9208, as amended);
5. Facilitate, assist or help in the exit and
entry of persons from/to the country and
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
(Sec. 5[e], R.A. No. 9208, as amended);
6. Confiscate, conceal or destroy the
passport, travel documents, or personal
documents or belongings of trafficked
persons in the furtherance of trafficking or
to prevent them from leaving the country
or seeking redress from the government or
appropriate agencies (Sec. 5[f], R.A. No.
9208, as amended);
7. Knowingly benefit from, financial or
otherwise, or make use of the labor or
services of a person held to a condition of
involuntary servitude or slavery (Sec. 5[g],
R.A. No. 9208, as amended);
8. 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 (Sec. 5[h], R.A. No. 9208, as
amended);
9. 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 (Sec. 5[i], R.A. No.
9208, as amended); or
10. To utilize his or her office to impede the
investigation, prosecution or execution of
 lawful orders in a case under this Act (Sec.
5[j], R.A. No. 9208, as amended).
C) Causing publicity of any case of
trafficking in persons
In cases when prosecution or trial is conducted
behind closed-doors, 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
information technology to cause publicity of any
case of trafficking in persons. (Sec. 7, R.A. No.
9208, as amended)
D) Use of Trafficked Person
Any person who buys or engages the services of
trafficked persons for prostitution. (Sec. 11, R.A.
No. 9208, as amended).
Qualified Trafficking in Persons
1. Trafficked person is a child;
2. Adoption is effected through R.A. No. 8043,
otherwise known as the “Inter-Country
Adoption Act of 1995” and said that adoption
is for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
3. 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 or
more persons conspiring or confederating with
another. It is deemed committed in a large
scale if committed against three or more
persons, individually or as a group;
4. When the offender is a spouse, an ascendant,
parent, sibling, guardian or a person who
exercises authority over the trafficked person
or when the offense is committed by a public
officer or employee;
5. Trafficked person is recruited to engage in
prostitution with any member of the military
or law officer or employee;
6. Offender is a member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;
7. Act of trafficking in persons, by reason or on
occasion, the offended party dies, becomes
insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS);
8. When the offender commits one or more
violations of Sec. 4 over a period of 60 or more
days, whether those days are continuous or
not; and
9. When the offender directs or through another
manages the trafficking victim in carrying out
the exploitative purpose of trafficking. (Sec. 6,
R.A. No. 9208, as amended)
Who May File Complaint for Trafficking
1. Any person who has knowledge of the
commission of any offense under this Act;
2. Trafficked person;
3. Parents;
4. Spouse;
5. Siblings;
6. Children; or
7. Legal guardian. (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9208, as
amended)
Venue of Criminal Action
A criminal action arising from violation of this Act
shall be filed:
1. where the offense was committed,
2. or where any of its elements occurred,
3. 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.
(Sec. 9, R.A. No. 9208, as amended)
Prescriptive Period
Trafficking cases under this Act shall prescribe in
10 years: Provided, however, that trafficking
cases committed by a syndicate or in a large scale
as defined under Sec. 6 shall prescribe in 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 and shall be interrupted by the filing of
the complaint or information and shall commence
to run again when such proceedings terminate
without the accused being convicted or acquitted
263
or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to the accused. (Sec. 12, R.A. No. 9208,
as amended)
Penalties (Sec. 12, R.A. No. 10364)
The following penalties and sanctions are hereby
established for the offenses enumerated in this
Act:
(a) Any person found guilty of committing any
of the acts enumerated in Sec. 4 shall suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of 20 years and
a fine of not less than P1,000,000.00 but not
more than P2,000,000.00;
(b) Any person found guilty of committing any
of the acts enumerated in Sec. 4-A of this
Act shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment
of 15 years and a fine of not less than
P500,000.00 but not more than
P1,000,000.00;
(c) Any person found guilty of Sec. 4-B of this
Act shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment
of 15 years and a fine of not less than
P500,000.00 but not more than
P1,000,000.00;
NOTE: In every case, conviction shall cause
and carry the automatic revocation of the
license or registration of the recruitment
agency involved in trafficking. The license of
a recruitment agency which trafficked a child
shall be automatically revoked.
(d) Any person found, guilty of committing any
of the acts enumerated in Sec. 5 shall suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of 15 years and
a fine of not less than P500,000.00 but not
more than P1,000,000.00;
(e) Any person found guilty of qualified
trafficking under Sec. 6 shall suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not
less than P2,000,000.00 but not more than
P5,000,000.00;
(f) Any person who violates Sec. 7 hereof shall
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six
years and a fine of not less than P500,000.00
but not more than P1,000,000.00;
(g) If the offender is a corporation, partnership,
association, club, establishment or any
juridical person, the penalty shall be
imposed upon the owner, president, partner,
manager, and/or any responsible officer who
participated in the commission of the crime
264
or who shall have knowingly permitted or
failed to prevent its commission;
(h) The registration with the SEC and license to
operate of the erring agency, corporation,
association, religious group, tour or travel
agent, club or establishment, or any place of
entertainment shall be cancelled and
revoked permanently. The owner, president,
partner or manager thereof shall not be
allowed to operate similar establishments in
a different name;
(i) If the offender is a foreigner, he or she shall
be immediately deported after serving his or
her sentence and be barred permanently
from entering the country;
(j) Any employee or official of government
agencies who shall issue or approve the
issuance of travel exit clearances, passports,
registration certificates, counseling
certificates, marriage license, and other
similar documents to persons, whether
juridical or natural, recruitment agencies,
establishments or other individuals or
groups, who fail to observe the prescribed
procedures and the requirement as provided
for by laws, rules and regulations, shall be
held administratively liable, without
prejudice to criminal liability under this Act.
The concerned government official or
employee shall, upon conviction, be
dismissed from the service and be barred
permanently to hold public office. His or her
retirement and other benefits shall likewise
be forfeited; and
(k) Conviction, by final judgment of the adopter
for any offense under this Act shall result in
the immediate rescission of the decree of
adoption.
Other relevant facts
Trafficked persons shall not be penalized for
unlawful acts committed as a direct result or
incident, or in-elation to being trafficked
enumerated in this act. 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.
(Sec.17, R.A. No. 9208, as amended)
Testimony
The testimony of the confidential informant is not
indispensable in the crime of trafficking in
persons. Neither is his identity relevant. It is
sufficient that the accused has lured, enticed, or
engaged its victims or transported them for the
established purpose of exploitation, which was
sufficiently shown by the trafficked person's
testimony alone (Santiago vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R No. 213760, July 1, 2019)
J. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004
[REPUBLIC ACT No. 9262]
AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN,
PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES
FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Violence Against Women and their Children
refers to any act or a series of acts committed by
any person against a woman who is his wife,
former wife, or against a woman with whom the
person has or had a sexual or dating relationship,
or with whom he has a common child, or against
her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within
or without the family abode, which result in or is
likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological
harm or suffering, or economic abuse including
threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
(Sec. 3[a], R.A. No. 9262)
It seeks to address the prevalence of violence
against women and children (VAWC), abuses on
women and their children by their intimate
partners like:
 Husband or ex-husband.
 Live-in partner or ex-live in partner.
 Boyfriend/girlfriend or ex-boyfriend/ex-
girlfriend.
 Dating partner or ex-dating partner.
NOTE: A man cannot be a victim under this Act.
CHILDREN - Those below eighteen (18) years
of age or older but are incapable of taking care of
themselves. It includes the biological children of
the victim and other children under her care. (Sec.
3 [h], R.A. No. 9262)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Acts of Violence Against Women and Their
Children - The crime of violence against women
and their children is committed through any of
the following acts:
1. Causing physical harm to the woman or her
child;
2. Threatening to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
3. Attempting to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
4. Placing the woman or her child in fear of
imminent physical harm;
5. Attempting to compel or compelling the
woman or her child to engage in conduct
which the woman or her child has the right to
desist from conduct which the woman or her
child has the right to engage in, or attempting
to restrict or restricting the woman’s or her
child’s freedom of movement or conduct by
force or threat of force, physical or other
harm or threat of physical or other harm, or
intimidation directed against the woman or
child.
This shall include, but not limited to, the
following acts committed with the purpose or
effect of controlling or restricting the
woman’s or her child’s movement or conduct:
a. Threatening to deprive or actually depriving
the woman or her child of custody to her/his
family;
b. Depriving or threatening to deprive the
woman or her children of financial support
legally due her or her family, or deliberately
providing the woman’s children insufficient
financial support;
c. Depriving or threatening to deprive the
woman or her child of a legal right;
d. Preventing the woman in engaging in any
legitimate profession, occupation, business
or activity or controlling the victim’s own
money or properties, or solely controlling the
conjugal or common money, or properties;
6. Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical
harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling
her actions or decisions;
7. Causing or attempting to cause the woman
or her child to engage in any sexual activity
which does not constitute rape, by force or
265
 threat of force, physical harm, or through
intimidation directed against the woman or
her child or her/his immediate family;
8. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless
conduct, personally or through another, that
alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to the woman or her child.
This shall include, but not be limited to, the
following acts:
a. Stalking or following the woman or her child
in public or private places;
b. Peering in the window or lingering outside
the residence of the woman or her child;
c. Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on
the property of the woman or her child
against her/his will;
d. Destroying the property and personal
belongings or inflicting harm to animals or
pets of the woman or her child; and
e. Engaging in any form of harassment or
violence;
9. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public
ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child,
including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, and denial of financial support
or custody of minor children of access to the
woman’s child/children. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9262)
Includes, but is not limited to, the following
acts:
1. Physical Violence – refers to acts that
include bodily or physical harm; (Sec. 3[a][A], R.A.
No. 9262)
2. Sexual Violence – refers to an act which is
sexual in nature, committed against a woman or
her child. It includes, but is not limited to:
a. Rape, sexual harassment, acts of
lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child
as a sex object, making demeaning and
sexually suggestive remarks, physically
attacking the sexual parts of the victim’s
body, forcing her/him to watch obscene
publications and indecent shows or forcing
the woman or her child to do indecent acts
and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife
and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal
home or sleep together in the same room
with the abuser;
266
b. Acts causing or attempting to cause the
victim to engage in any sexual activity by
force, threat of force, physical or other harm
or threat of physical or other harm or
coercion; and
c. Prostituting the woman or child. (Sec. 3[a][B],
R.A. No. 9262)
3. Psychological violence – refers to acts or
omissions causing or likely to cause mental or
emotional suffering of the victim such as but not
limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking,
damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation,
repeated verbal abuse and marital infidelity. It
includes causing or allowing the victim to witness
the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a
member of the family to which the victim belongs,
or to witness pornography in any form or to
witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or
unwanted deprivation of the right to custody
and/or visitation of common children. (Sec.
3[a][C], R.A. No. 9262)
4. Economic abuse – refers to acts that make
or attempt to make a woman financially
dependent which includes, but is not limited to
the following:
Withdrawal of financial support or preventing
the victim from engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or activity,
except in cases wherein the other
spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and
moral grounds as defined in Art. 73 of the
Family Code;
a. Deprivation or threat of deprivation of
financial resources and the right to the use
and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or
property owned in common;
b. Destroying household property; and
c. Controlling the victims’ own money or
properties or solely controlling the conjugal
money or properties. (Sec. 3[a][D], R.A. No.
9262)
5. Battery- refers to an act of inflicting physical
harm upon the woman or her child resulting to
the physical and psychological or emotional
distress. (Sec. 3[b], R.A. No. 9262)
6. Battered Woman Syndrome- refers to a
scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse. (Sec. 3[c], R.A. No. 9262)
7. Dating relationship- refers to a situation
wherein the parties live as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or are
romantically involved over time and on a
continuing basis during the course of the
relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary
socialization between two individuals in a
business or social context is not a dating
relationship. (Sec. 3[e], R.A. No. 9262)
8. Sexual relation refers to a single sexual act
which may or may not result in the bearing of a
common child. (Sec. 3[f], R.A. No. 9262)
9. Safe place or shelter - refers to any home
or institution maintained or managed by the
DSWD or by any other agency or voluntary
organization accredited by the DSWD for the
purposes of this Act or any other suitable place
the resident of which is willing temporarily to
receive the victim. (Sec. 3[g], R.A. No. 9262)
Construction
R.A. 9262 shall be liberally construed to promote
the protection and safety of victims of violence
against women and their children. (Sec. 4, R.A. No.
9262)
Prescriptive Period
Acts falling under Nos. 1-6 shall prescribe in 20
years.
Acts falling under Nos. 7-9 shall prescribe in 10
years. (Sec. 24, R.A. No. 9262)
Prohibited Defense
1. Being under the influence of alcohol, any
illicit drug, or any other mind-altering
substance. (Sec. 27, R.A. No. 9262)
2. End of dating relationship prior to violence.
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
when the physical harm was committed. (Dabalos
vs. RTC, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013)
Two limiting qualifications for any act or
series of acts to be considered as a crime of
violence against women through physical
harm, namely:
1. it is committed against a woman or her child
and the woman is the offender’s wife, former
wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or
dating relationship or with whom he has a
common child; and
2. it results in or is likely to result in physical
harm or suffering. (Id.)
 Notably, while it is required that the
offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the offended woman,
for R.A. No. 9262 to be applicable, it is
not indispensable that the act of violence
be a consequence of such relationship.
Nowhere in the law can such limitation be
inferred. Hence, applying the rule on
statutory construction that when the law
does not distinguish, neither should the
courts, then, clearly, the punishable acts
refer to all acts of violence against
women with whom the offender has or
had a sexual or dating relationship. (Id.)
 The deprivation or denial of financial
support to the child is considered an act
of violence against women and children.
It is also a continuing offense as long as
financial support to the child is not given.
(Van Wilsem vs. Van Wilsem, G.R. No.
193707, December 10, 2014)
 While Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9262 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. (Go – Tan vs. Sps. Tan, G.R.
No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
 The acts of violence against women and
their children may be committed by an
offender through another. (Id.)
 A single act of harassment, which
translates into violence, would be
enough. The object of the law is to
protect women and children. Punishing
only violence that is repeatedly
committed would license isolated ones.
267
 (Ang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182835,
April 20, 2010)
 Neither the physical injuries suffered by
the victim nor the actual physical violence
done by the perpetrator are essential
elements of the acts of violence against
women and their children. The only
exception is when the physical violence
done by the accused is alleged to have
caused the mental and emotional
suffering; in which case, such acts of
physical violence must be proven.
(Dinamling vs. People, G.R. No. 199522, June
22, 2015)
Pregnancy or the presence of the woman’s child
are aggravating circumstances for the crime of
violence against women and their children. (Id.)
Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to
be suffering from battered woman syndrome do
not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-
defense under the RPC.
The courts shall be assisted by expert
psychiatrists/ psychologists, in determining the
state of mind of the woman who was suffering
from battered woman syndrome at the time of
the commission of the crime. (Sec. 26, R.A. No.
9262)
The Battered woman syndrome is characterized
by the so-called "cycle of violence” which has
three phases:
1. Tension building phase - minor battering
occurs. It could be verbal or slight
physical abuse or another form of
hostile behavior.
2. Acute battering incident - characterized
by brutality, destructiveness and
sometimes death. The battered woman
deems this incident as unpredictable, yet
also inevitable.
3. Tranquil period - the couple experience
profound relief. On the one hand, the
batterer may show a tender and
nurturing behavior towards his partner. On
the other hand, the battered woman also
268
tries to convince herself that the
battery will never happen again; that her
partner will change for the better; and that
this "good, gentle and caring man" is
the real person whom she loves. (People vs.
Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004)
NOTE: In order to be classified as a battered
woman, the couple must go through the battering
cycle at least twice. (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No.
135981, January 15, 2004)
K. ANTI-WIRE TAPPING ACT
[REPUBLIC ACT 4200]
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE
WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED
VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF
COMMUNICATION, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
Punishable Acts
1. 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 a Dictaphone or dictograph or
detectaphone or walkietalkie or tape
recorder. (Sec. 1, par. 1, R.A. 4200)
2. Knowingly possess any tape record, wire
record, disc record, or any other such record,
or copies thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured either before or after
the effective date of this Act.
3. Replay the said tape record, wire record or
disc record for any other person or persons.
4. Communicate the contents of the said tape
record, wire record or disc record, either
verbally or in writing.
5. Furnish transcriptions of the said tape record.
Wire record or disc record, whether complete
or partial, to any other person. (Sec. 1, par. 2,
R.A. No. 4200)
6. Knowingly does or aid, permit or cause to de
done any of the acts declared unlawful in Sec.
1. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 4200)
NOTE: The law prohibits recording or Any recording, communication or spoken words
intercepting private communications. Therefore, obtained in violation of this provision is
recording of public communication or inadmissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-
communication involving public interest such as judicial or administrative hearing or investigation.
proceedings before the lupon tagapamayapa
inside the barangay hall is not a violation of the Exception to the exception: if the act was
law. (Boado, Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law, 2016 authorized by CA, the evidence is admissible in
ed., pp. 429) court. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9372)

Penalties NOTES:

Offender Penalty  The mere allegation that an individual made

Any person who willfully Imprisonment for not a secret recording of a private
or knowingly does or less than six months nor communication by means of a tape recorder
who shall aid, permit, or more than six years.
would suffice to constitute an offense under
cause to be done any of
the acts declared to be
Sec. 1. (Boado, Compact Reviewer in Criminal
unlawful.
Law , 2016 ed., pp. 428)
Public official, at the On top of the  The law makes no distinction as to whether
time of commission of imprisonment, there is the party sought to be penalized is a party
offense. an accessory penalty of other than those involved in private
absolute disqualification communication. The statute’s intent to
from public office. penalize all persons unauthorized to make
Alien. Subject to deportation such recording is underscored by the use of
proceedings. (Sec. 2, the qualifier “any”. Thus, even a party to a
R.A. No. 4200) communication who records his private
conversation with another with-out the
Persons Liable knowledge of the latter qualifies as a violator
of R.A. 4200. In other words, there must be
The offender is any person who can be a third consent of all parties to any private
party or a participant in the communication, as communication or spoken word to tap any
long as the other party did not consent to the wire or cable or to use any device or
recording of the conversation. (Sec. 1, R.A. No. arrangement to hear, intercept or record.
4200) (Ramirez vs. CA, G.R. No. 93833, September 28,
1995)
Exception:
Effect of Court Order
When a peace officer is authorized by written
order from the court or from the authorizing Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall
division of the Court of Appeals (CA) under RA render it unlawful or punishable for any peace
9372 or The Human Security Act. officer, who is authorized by a written order of
the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to
Under this law, communication, message, be unlawful, in cases involving the crimes of:
conversation, discussion, or spoken or written
words between members of a judicially declared 1. Treason
and outlawed terrorist organization, association, 2. Espionage
or group of persons or of any person charged 3. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or 4. Piracy
conspiracy to commit terrorism may be tracked 5. Mutiny on the high seas
down, tapped, or listened to, intercepted, or 6. Rebellion
recorded by law enforcement officials with the 7. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
use of any device, or with the use of any suitable 8. Inciting to rebellion
ways and means for that purpose upon written 9. Sedition
order by the authorizing division of the CA. 10. Conspiracy to commit sedition
11. Inciting to sedition

269
12. Kidnapping
13. Violations of CA 616 (espionage and other
offenses against national security) (Sec. 3,
R.A. No. 4200)
Inadmissibility in Evidence
Any communication or spoken word, or the
existence, contents, substance, purport, effect or
meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or
secured by any person in violation of this Act shall
not be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation. (Sec. 4)
L. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
[BATAS PAMBANSA (B.P.) NO. 22]
AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR
DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A
CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS
OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Check – is a negotiable instrument that serves
as substitute for money and as a convenient form
of payment in financial transactions and
obligations. But the convenience afforded by
checks that adversely affect confidence in our
commercial and banking activities, and ultimately
injure public interest. (Mitra vs. People, G.R. No.
191404, July 5, 2010)
NOTES:
• The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P.
22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless
check or a check that is dishonored upon its
presentation for payment. It is not the non-
payment of an obligation. (Lozano vs. Martinez,
G.R. No. L-63419, December 18, 1986)
• The law has made the mere act of issuing a
bum check a malum prohibitum, an act
proscribed by legislature for being deemed
pernicious and inimical to public welfare.
(People vs. Chua, G.R. No. 130632, September 28,
1999)
DAIF Check – means drawn against insufficient
funds. A check is DAIF when it is issued for an
amount which is more than the funds available in
a particular account. Unlike DAUD, it is
270
punishable under Crime of Estafa and B.P. No.
22.
Manager’s Check & Cashier’s Check – not
covered under B.P. 22 because if its peculiar
character and general use in the commercial
world, it is as good as the money it represents
and is therefore deemed as cash. (New Pacific
Timber and Supply Company, Inc. vs. Seneres, G.R.
No. L-41764, December 19, 1980)
Punishable Acts
A. Checks drawn 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 (Sec. 1[1],
B.P. 22).
Elements: (DisCAVaNot)
1. A person makes or draws and issues any
Check;
2. The check is made drawn or issued to apply
on Account or for Value;
3. The person knows at the time of issue that
he does Not have sufficient funds or credit
for the payment of the check upon its
presentment; and
4. The check is subsequently Dishonored for
insufficiency of funds or credit; or would
have been dishonored for the same reason
if the drawer had not, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
Can a person be liable for B.P. 22 for a
dishonored check which is drawn against
uncollected deposit?
No. DAUD means that the account has sufficient
funds on its face but not yet available to the
drawer because the deposit has not yet been
cleared. (Dy vs. People, G.R. No. 158312, November
14, 2008)

NOTE: To hold a person liable under B.P. 22, it
is not enough to establish that a check issued
was subsequently dishonored. It must be shown
further that the person who issued the check
knew 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. This element involves a state of
mind which is difficult to establish. (Vergara vs.
People, G.R. 160328, February 04, 2005)
B. Failure to maintain sufficient funds
Any person who, having sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank, 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 90 days from the date
appearing thereon. (Sec. 1[2], B.P. 22)
Elements:
1. A person has Sufficient funds or credit when
he makes, issues or draws 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 a period of 90 days from
the date appearing thereon; and
3. The check is Dishonored by the drawee bank.
(Sec. 1[2], B.P. 22)
NOTES:
● There is no disputable presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds when
there is no receipt of notice of dishonor.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017,
p.865)
● The full payment of the amount appearing in
the check within five banking days from notice
of dishonor is a ‘complete defense.’ The
absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily
deprives an accused an opportunity to
preclude a criminal prosecution. (Lao vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 119178, June 20, 1997)
● The law requires that the insufficiency of
funds in or credit shall be explicitly stated in
the dishonor hence, a mere oral notice or
demand to pay would appear to be insufficient
for conviction under the law. (Domagsang vs.
CA, G.R. No. 139292, December 5, 2000)
● 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. (Sec. 1
[par. 3], B.P. 22)
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 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. (Sec. 2, B.P. 22)
NOTES:
• It is well-settled that violation of B.P. Blg. 22
cases is categorized as transitory or
continuing crimes, which means that the acts
material and essential thereto occur in one
municipality or territory, while some occur in
another. Stated differently, a person charged
with a continuing or transitory crime may be
validly tried in any municipality or territory
where the offense was in part committed. A
criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22
may be filed and tried either at the place
where the check was issued, drawn, delivered,
or deposited. (Brodeth and Onal vs. People, G.R.
No. 197849, November 19, 2017)
• An essential element of a violation of B.P. 22
is the drawer’s knowledge that he has
insufficient funds or credit with the drawee
bank to cover his check. B.P. 22 creates the
prima facie presumption that once the check
is dishonored, the drawer of the check gains
knowledge of the insufficiency. (Mitra vs.
People, G.R. No. 191404, July 5, 2010)
• The prima facie presumption does not apply
when from the very beginning, drawer never
hid the fact that he did not have the funds with
which to put up the warranty deposit. (Magno
vs. CA, G.R. No. 96132, June 26, 1992)
• When no proof as to when notice of non-
payment was received by the drawer, then the
presumption or prima facie evidence provided
in Section 2 of B.P. 22 cannot arise, since
there would simply be no way of reckoning the
271
 crucial 5-day period. (Chua vs. People, G.R. No.
196853, July 13, 2015)
• Failure to make good the check within five
banking days from receipt of notice of
dishonor and demand for payment gives rise
for the violation of B.P. 22. (Domagsang vs. CA,
G.R. No. 139292, December 5, 2000)
• Prosecution under this B.P. 22 shall be without
prejudice to any liability for violation of any
provision of the RPC. (Sec. 5, B.P. 22)
• Mere act of issuing a worthless check whether
as a deposit, as a guarantee or even as
evidence of pre-existing debt is malum
prohibitum. (Ricaforte vs. Jurado, G.R. No.
154438, September 5, 2007)
• An acquittal for violation of B.P. 22 based on
reasonable doubt should not preclude the
payment of the face value of the checks, plus
legal interest. (Moster vs. People, G.R. No.
167461, February 19, 2008)
• What the law punishes is simply the issuance
of a bouncing check and not the purpose for
which it was issued nor the terms and
conditions relating thereto. However, accused
should be exonerated for the check that was
dishonored for being drawn against
uncollected deposit. B.P. 22 speaks only of
insufficiency of funds and does not treat of
uncollected deposits. (Dy vs. People, G.R. No.
158312, November 14, 2008)
• For if a check were issued by a kidnap victim
to a kidnapper for ransom, it would be absurd
to hold the drawer liable under B.P. 22, if the
check is dishonored and unpaid. That would
go against public policy and common sense.
(Idos vs. CA, G.R. No. 110782, September 25,
1998)
Defenses against B.P. 22
1. The check was issued as a guaranteed deposit
2. The required notice of dishonor wasn’t given
3. The dishonor was not due to insufficiency of
funds
4. The check was presented beyond the 90- or
180-day period
5. Valid cause to stop payment as when the
complainant was informed that the account
was previously closed.
272
Rule of Preference in Imposition of
Penalties
The Supreme Court issued SC Administrative
Circular No. 13-2001 which clarified the
application of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000
concerning the penalty for violation of B.P. 22.
SC Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 clarified
that Administrative Circular No. 12-2000
establishes a rule of preference in the application
of the penal provisions of B.P. 22 such that where
the circumstances of both the offense and the
offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear
mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the
imposition of a fine alone should be considered
as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say,
the determination of whether the circumstances
warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely
upon the Judge. Should the Judge decide that
imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty,
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not be
deemed a hindrance.
It is understood that:
1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not
remove imprisonment as an alternative
penalty for violations of B.P. 22.
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of
sound discretion, and taking into
consideration the peculiar circumstances of
each case, determine whether the imposition
of a fine alone would best serve the interests
of justice or whether forbearing to impose
imprisonment would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense, work violence on
the social order, or otherwise be contrary to
the imperatives of justice.
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the
accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no
legal obstacle to the application of the Revised
Penal Code provisions on subsidiary
imprisonment. (Supreme Court, Administrative
Circular No. 13, 2001)
Notice of Dishonor is an Indispensable
Requirement
In all prosecutions under B.P. 22, the introduction
in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check
with the drawee’s refusal to pay stamped or
written thereon, or attached thereto, shall be
prima facie evidence of:
1. The making or issuance of the check; Drawer is given 5 Drawer is given 3 days to
2. The due presentment to the drawee for banking days to make make arrangements for
payment and the dishonor thereof; and arrangements of payment after receipt of
3. The fact that the same was properly payment after receipt of notice of dishonour.
notice of dishonour.
dishonored for the reason written, stamped or
attached by the drawee on such dishonored
NOTES:
check. (Sec. 3, [par. 1], B.P. 22)

NOTE: The prosecution has to present in  While a B.P. 22 case and an estafa case may
evidence only the unpaid and dishonored check be rooted from an identical set of facts, they
with the drawee’s refusal to pay stamped or nevertheless present different causes of
written thereon, or attached thereto. (Reyes, The action, which, under the law, are considered
Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 2017) “separate, distinct, and independent” from
each other. Therefore, both cases can
Significant Periods under B.P. 22 (5-90- proceed to their final adjudication – both as
180) to their criminal and civil aspects – subject to
the prohibition on double recovery. Perforce,
1. 5 banking days – the maker or owner must a ruling in a B.P. 22 case concerning the
make arrangements to make good the value criminal and civil liabilities of the accused
of the check to escape criminal liability for cannot be given any bearing whatsoever in
issuing check. (Sec. 5, B.P. 22); the criminal and civil aspects of a related
2. 90 days – he must maintain sufficient funds estafa case. (Rimando vs. Sps. Aldaba, G.R. No.
within this period of time to destroy the prima 203583, Oct. 13, 2014)
facie presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds to back up the check  The crimes of estafa and violation of B.P. 22
(Sec. 1[2], B.P. 22); and are different and distinct from each other.
3. 180 days – failure of the payee to depositor There is no identity of offenses involved, for
encash the check within the 180-day period which legal jeopardy in one case may be
will make the check stale or valueless, hence, invoked in the other. The offenses charged in
no criminal action may arise therefrom. the information are perfectly distinct from
(Boado, Criminal Law, 2018, p. 533) each other in point of law, however nearly
they may be connected in point of fact.
B.P. 22 VIS-À-VIS Estafa (Rodriguez vs. Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34,
July 29, 2005)
B.P. 22 Estafa
Malum prohibitum Malum in se Prescription
Crime against public Crime against property.
interest. A violation of the offense of B.P. 22 prescribes in
Deceit not required. Deceit is an element. four years from the commission of the offense
Punishes the making or The act constituting the or, if the same be not known at the time, from
drawing of any check offense is postdating or the discovery thereof. (Sec 1, Act 3326)
that is subsequently issuing a check in
dishonored, whether payment of an obligation The filing of the complaint-affidavit before the
issued in payment of an when the offender has Office of the City Prosecutor signified the
obligation or to merely no funds in the bank or
commencement of the proceedings for the
guarantee an obligation. his funds deposited
It is the issuance of a therein were not prosecution of the accused and thus effectively
check, not the sufficient to cover the interrupted the prescriptive period for the
nonpayment of amount of the check. offenses they had been charged under B.P. 22.
obligation which is (Panaguiton, Jr. vs. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, November
punished. 25, 2008)
Violated if check is issued Not violated if check is
in payment of a issued in payment of a
preexisting obligation pre-existing obligation
Damage is not required Damage is required

273
Jurisdiction
The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction in the
prosecution of B.P. 22 cases. (A.M. No. 00-11-01-
SC, March 25, 2003)
M. COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002
[REPUBLIC ACT No. 9165,
as amended by REPUBLIC ACT No. 10640]
AN ACT INSTITUTING THE
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972,
AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Definition of Terms
Administer – 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.
(Sec. 3 [a], R.A. No. 9165)
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. (Sec. 3 [j], R.A. No. 9165)
Deliver – any act of “knowingly” passing a
dangerous drug to another, personally or
otherwise, and by any means, with or without
consideration. (Sec. 3 [k], R.A. No. 9165)
Den, Dive, or Resort – 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
Drug Syndicate – any organized group of two
or more persons forming or joining together with
the intention of committing any offense
prescribed under this Act. (Sec. 3 [o], R.A. No.
9165)
274
Financier – any person who pays for, raises or
supplies money for, or underwrites any of the
illegal activities prescribed under this Act. (Sec. 3
[q], R.A. No. 9165)
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. (Sec.
3 [r], R.A. No. 9165)
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.
(Sec. 3 [ee], R.A. No. 9165)
Pusher – any person who sells, trades,
administers, dispenses, delivers or gives away to
another, on any terms whatsoever, or distributes,
dispatches in transit or transports dangerous
drugs or who acts as a broker in any of such
transactions, in violation of this Act. (Sec. 3 [ff],
R.A. No. 9165)
Sell – any act of giving away any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical whether for money or any other
consideration. (Sec. 3 [ii], R.A. No. 9165)
Punishable Acts
1. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
(Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9165);
2. Selling, trading, administrating, dispensing,
delivering, giving away to another, distributing
dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous
drug, including any and all species of opium
poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or acting as broker in any of such
transactions (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9165);
3. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort (Sec. 6,
R.A. No. 9165);
4. Employment in and visiting a den, dive or
resort (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9165);
5. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
(Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9165);
6. Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 9,
R.A. No. 9165);
7. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus, and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
(Sec. 10, R.A. No. 9165);
8. Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 11, R.A.
No. 9165);
9. Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 12 [par. 1], R.A. No.
9165);
10. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During
Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings (Sec. 13,
R.A. No. 9165);
11. Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings (Sec. 14, R.A. No. 9165);
12. Use of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 15, R.A. No.
9165);
13. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as
Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof (Sec.
16 [par. 1], R.A. No. 9165);
The land or portions thereof and/or
greenhouses on which any of said plants is
cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated
and escheated in favor of the State,
unless the owner thereof can prove lack of
knowledge of such cultivation or culture
despite the exercise of due diligence on
his/her part. (Sec. 16 [par. 2], R.A. No. 9165)
If the land involved is part of the public
domain, the maximum penalty provided for
under this Section shall be imposed upon the
offender. (Sec. 16 [par. 2], R.A. No. 9165)
14. Violates or Fails to comply with the
Maintenance and Keeping of Original Records
of Transactions on Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
(Sec. 17, R.A. No. 9165);
15. Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous Drugs
(Sec. 18, R.A. No. 9165);
16. Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs
(Sec. 19, R.A. No. 9165);
17. Acts of a Public Officer or Employee for
Misappropriation, Misapplication or Failure to
Account for the Confiscated, Seized and/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 Act
Committed (Sec. 27, R.A. No. 9165);
18. Planting of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical,
regardless of quantity and purity (Sec. 29, R.A.
No. 9165);
19. 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 (Sec. 30
[par. 1], R.A. No. 9165); and
20. 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. (Sec. 30 [par. 2], R.A.
No. 9165)
Section 5: Illegal sale of dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential
Elements
a. The identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object and the consideration of the sale; and
b. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. (People vs. Villahermosa, G.R. No.
186465, June 2, 2011; People vs. Guzon, G.R. No.
199901, October 9, 2013; People vs. Dasigan, G.R.
No. 206229, February 4, 2015)
Prosecution
In order to sustain a conviction for selling
prohibited drugs, the element of sale must be
unequivocally established. What the law
proscribes is not only the act of selling but also
the act of delivering. What is important is that the
poseur–buyer received the drugs from the
275
accused. (People vs. Ponferada, G.R. No. 101004,
March 17, 1993)
Burden of Proof
The State bears the burden not only of proving
these elements of the offense under R.A. No.
9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti. The
dangerous drug is itself the very CORPUS
DELICTI of the violation of the law. Compliance
with chain custody rule is crucial. (People vs.
Guzon, G.R. No. 199901, October 9, 2013)
NOTE: The essential element of the charge of
illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is the
movement of the dangerous drug from one place
to another. Possession of prohibited drugs,
coupled with the fact that the possessor is not a
user thereof, indicates the intention to sell,
distribute or deliver the prohibited stuff. A person
may be found guilty of illegal delivery and
transportation of marijuana. (People vs. Asislo, G.R.
No. 206224, January 18, 2016)
Act of Distribution
In the distribution of prohibited drugs, the
payment of any consideration is immaterial. The
mere act of distributing the prohibited drugs to
others is in itself a punishable offense (People vs.
Akmad, G.R. No. 195194, November 25, 2015).
NOTES:
● The prosecution must prove that the buyer
and seller were identified. (People vs. Edgardo
Femin, G.R. No. 179344, August 3, 2011)
● The absence of actual or completed payment
is irrelevant, for the law itself penalizes the
very act of delivery of a dangerous drug,
regardless of any consideration. Payment of
consideration is likewise immaterial in the
distribution of illegal drugs. (People vs. Yang
G.R. 148077, February 16, 2004)
Penalty
The penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu,
regardless of its quantity and purity, is life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with the
enactment of R.A. No. 9346, only life
imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. (People
vs. Opiana, G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015)
276
BUY-BUST OPERATION is a form of
entrapment employed by peace officers as an
effective way of apprehending a criminal in the
act of the commission of the offense.
Entrapment has received judicial sanction as long
as it is carried out with due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards. (People vs.
Basilgo, G.R. No. 107327, August 5, 1994)
NOTES:
● A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
which had repeatedly been accepted to be a
valid means of arresting violators of the
Dangerous Drugs Law; in every prosecution
for illegal sale of prohibited or regulated
drugs. (People vs. Suson and Fortich, G.R. No.
152848, July 12, 2006)
● Moreover, in a buy-bust operation, the violator
is caught in flagrante delicto and the police
officers conducting the same are not only
authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend
the violator and consequently search him for
anything that may have been part of or used
in the commission of the crime. (People vs.
Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, June 15, 2011)
● The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-
buyer and the receipt of the marked money
consummate the buy-bust transaction
between the entrapping officers and the
accused. The presentation in court of the
corpus delicti - the body or substance of the
crime - establishes the fact that a crime has
actually been committed. (People vs. Edgardo
Fermin, G.R. No. 179344, August 3, 2011)
Consummation
The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer
and the receipt by the seller of the marked money
successfully consummate the buy-bust
transaction. (People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 193670,
December 3, 2014)
Principles in Buy-Bust Operation
1. The presentation in evidence of the ‘buy-bust’
money is not indispensable for the conviction
of an accused provided that the sale of
marijuana is adequately proven in the
prosecution. (People vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 88282,
May 6, 1992)
2. It is not surprising for a police officer to use
his own money during the buy-bust
 operations–such use of money does not
adversely affect the case against the accused.
There is no requirement that the police must
apply fluorescent powder to the buy-bust
money to prove the commission of the
offense; there is no law or rule of evidence
requiring the use of fluorescent powder or the
taking of the culprit’s fingerprints from the bag
containing the shabu. (People vs. Saidmin
Macabalang, G.R. No. 168694, November 27, 2006)
3. What is material is the delivery of the
prohibited drug to the buyer in this case, was
sufficiently proved by the prosecution through
the testimony of the poseur-buyer and the
presentation of the articles itself before the
court. Besides, the money was already
marked by the poseur-buyer with his initials.
Neither is fingerprint a requirement in buy-
bust operations. (People vs. Saidmin Macabalang,
G.R. No. 168694, November 27, 2006)
4. Mission order, court order, and surveillance
progress report are not required in buy-bust
operation. (People vs. Ong Co, G.R. No. 112046,
July 11, 1995)
5. There is no fixed procedure for conducting
buy-bust operations. (People vs. Cruda, G.R. No.
98251, August 4, 1992)
6. In a buy-bust operation, the important aspect
of police operatives in their modus operandi is
not the hearing but seeing the accused selling
the prohibited drugs. (People vs. Fernandez, G.R.
No. 90019, December 8, 1993)
Section 11: Possession of dangerous drugs
Elements
a) The accused was in possession of an item or
an object identified to be a prohibited or
regulated drug;
b) Such possession is not authorized by law; and
c) The accused was freely and consciously aware
of being in possession of the drug (People vs.
Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 205821, October 1, 2014;
People vs. Dela Peña, G.R. No. 207635, February
18, 2015).
NOTE: In both illegal sale and illegal possession
of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be
sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the
identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited
drug must be established with moral certainty.
(People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 205821, October 1,
2014)
Possession, under the law, includes not only
actual possession, but also constructive
possession.
Actual vs. Constructive Possession
Actual Possession Constructive
Possession
The prosecution must prove that the accused had
the intent to possess (animus possidendi) the drugs.
Actual possession Constructive
exists when the drug is possession exists when
in the immediate the drug is under the
physical possession or dominion and control of
control of the accused. the accused or when he
has the right to exercise
dominion and control
over the place where it is
found. Exclusive
possession or control
is not necessary.
(People vs. Trinidad, G.R. No. 199898, September 3,
2014)
 The accused cannot avoid conviction if his
right to exercise control and dominion over
the place where the contraband is located, is
shared with another. Thus, conviction need
not be predicated upon exclusive possession,
and a showing of non-exclusive possession
would not exonerate the accused. (People vs.
Tira, G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004)
NOTES:
● Mere possession of a regulated drug per se
constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to
convict an accused absent a satisfactory
explanation of such possession. (People vs.
Pancho, G.R. No. 206910, October 14, 2015)
● Possession of different kinds of dangerous
drugs (e.g. shabu and marijuana, in one
occasion), the accused may only be convicted
of a single offense of possession of dangerous
drug. If convicted, the higher penalty shall be
imposed. (David vs. People, G.R. No. 181861,
October 17, 2011)
277
Section 12: Possession of equipment,
instrument, apparatus, and other
paraphernalia of dangerous drugs
Elements
a) Possession or control by the accused of any
equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia
fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or
introducing any dangerous drug into the body;
and
b) Such possession is not authorized by law.
 It is necessary to prove that the items
seized were intended to be used as drug
paraphernalia. (Derilo vs. People, G.R. No.
190466, April 18, 2016)
Presumption
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 Sec. 15 of this
Act. (Sec. 12 [par. 2], R.A. No. 9165)
Section 14: Possession of equipment,
instrument, apparatus, and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs during
parties, social gatherings or meetings
Elements
1. Possession by the accused of an item or object
identified to be a prohibited or dangerous
drug;
2. Such possession is not authorized by law;
3. Free and conscious possession of the drug by
the accused; and
4. The accused possessed the prohibited or
dangerous drug during a social gathering or
meeting, or in the company of at least two
persons. (People vs. Pavia, G.R. No. 202687,
January 14, 2015)
Section 15: Use of dangerous drugs
Elements
1. A person is apprehended or arrested;
278
2. Such person is found to be positive for use of
any dangerous drug;
3. After a confirmatory test;
NOTE: Sec. 15 only covers persons arrested or
apprehended for unlawful acts under Art. II of
R.A. 9165 and not any crime. (Dela Cruz vs. People,
G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014)
Exception
Use of Dangerous Drugs shall not be applicable
where the person tested is also found to have in
his/her possession such quantity of any
dangerous drug provided for under Sec. 11 of this
Act, in which case the provisions stated therein
shall apply. (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165);
NOTE: A sample taken from one of the packages
is logically presumed to be representative of the
entire contents of the package unless proven
otherwise. (People vs. Tang Wai Lan, G.R. Nos.
118736-37, July 23, 1997)
Who are Liable?
1. Any person who commits any of the prohibited
acts herein stated;
2. Financier;
3. Protector/Coddler; and
4. Pusher.
A positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs
shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in
the commission of a crime by and offender, and
the application of the penalty provided for in the
revised Penal Code shall be applicable. (Sec. 25)
Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/ Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment
The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency shall
take charge and have custody of all dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as
well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:
1. The apprehending team 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,
with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof; 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;
Provided, That 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, finally, That noncompliance of these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such
seizures and custody over said items. (Sec.
21, R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640)
2. Within 24 hours upon confiscation/seizure of
the items, 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 by
the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be
issued immediately upon the receipt of the
subject item/s:
Provided, that when the volume of dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals
does not allow the completion of testing within
the time frame, a partial laboratory
examination report shall be provisionally
issued stating therein the quantities of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by the
forensic laboratory:
Provided, however, that a final certification
shall be issued immediately upon completion
of the said examination and certification;
4. After the filing of the criminal case, the Court
shall, within 72 hours, conduct an ocular
inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered items, and through the PDEA
shall within 24 hours thereafter proceed with
the destruction or burning of 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 DOJ,
civil society groups and any elected public
official. Item/s of lawful commerce, as
determined by the Board, shall be donated,
used or recycled for legitimate purposes
provided that a representative sample, duly
weighed and recorded is retained;
5. The Board shall then issue a sworn
certification as to the fact of destruction or
burning of the subject item/s which shall be
submitted to the court;
6. The alleged offender or his/her representative
or counsel shall be allowed to personally
observe all of the above proceedings and
his/her presence shall not constitute an
admission of guilt. In case the said offender or
accused refuses or fails to appoint a
representative after due notice in writing to
the accused or his/her counsel within 72 hours
before the actual burning or destruction of the
evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice
shall appoint a member of the public
attorney's office to represent the former; and
7. After the promulgation and judgment in the
criminal case wherein the representative
sample/s was presented as evidence in court,
the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of
the final termination of the case and, in turn,
shall request the court for leave to turn over
the said representative sample/s to the PDEA
for proper disposition and destruction within
24 hours from receipt of the same. (Sec. 21,
R.A. No. 9165)
279
Chain of Custody
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 for safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction, the 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.
(Dangerous Drugs Board Resolution No. 1, Series of
2002, Implementing R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 1[b])
All evidence collected at the crime scene should
be tagged. If the item cannot be tagged then, it
should be labeled or marked.
Four links that should be established in the
chain of custody of the confiscated item:
1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
2. The turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;
3. The turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and
4. The turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist
to the court. (People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No.
205821, October 1, 2014)
Marking
Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule
requires that the marking of the seized items—to
truly ensure that they are the same items that
enter the chain and are eventually the ones
offered in evidence should be done:
1. In the presence of the apprehended violator;
and
2. Immediately upon confiscation. (People vs.
Beran, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014)
280
NOTES:
● The marking immediately upon confiscation
or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related
items is indispensable in the preservation of
their integrity and evidentiary value. (Derilo vs.
People, G.R. No. 190466, April 18, 2016)
● Non-compliance with the procedure outlined
in Sec. 21(a) of R.A. No. 9165 shall not render
void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items, for as long the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the
apprehending officers. (People vs. Lopez, G.R.
No. 181747, September 29, 2008)
● However, in case of failure to comply with the
requirements of Sec. 21 in a manner that
compromised the identity of the items seized,
which is the corpus delicti of each of the
crimes charged against appellant, his acquittal
is in order. (Bondad vs. People, G.R. No. 173804,
December 10, 2008)
● Failure to establish the identity of the corpus
delicti warrants the dismissal of a charge for
violation of the law. (People vs. Morales, G.R. No.
172873, March 19, 2010)
● In seizures covered by search warrants, the
physical inventory and photograph of the
exhibits must be conducted in the place of the
search warrant. In warrantless seizures such
as a buy-bust operation, the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted
at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable;
Provided, further that non-compliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds,
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures
of and custody over said items. (People vs.
Beran, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014)
● Crucial in proving chain of custody is the
marking of the seized drugs or other related
items immediately after they are seized from
the accused. Marking after seizure is the
starting point in the custodial link, thus it is
vital that the seized contraband is immediately
marked because succeeding handlers of the
specimens will use the markings as reference.
(People vs. Guzon, G.R. No. 199901, October 9,
2013)
● The non-presentation of the informant or the
marked money is not required, as long as the
integrity of the seized items was preserved.
(People vs. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952, October 11,
2010)
● What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused. (People
vs. Pancho, G.R. No. 206910, October 14, 2015)
● The integrity of the evidence is presumed to
be preserved unless there is a showing of bad
faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has
been tampered with. (People vs. Bis, G.R. No.
191360, March 10, 2014)
● The prosecution’s evidence must include
testimony about every link in the chain. It is
from the testimony of every witness who
handled the evidence from which a reliable
assurance can be derived that the evidence
presented in court is one and the same as that
seized from the accused. (Derilo vs. People, G.R.
No. 190466, April 18, 2016)
● The absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy
does not affect the legality of the buy-bust
operation as there is no textbook method of
conducting the same. (People vs. Robelo, G.R.
No. 184181, November 26, 2012)
OTHER PROVISIONS UNDER RA 9165
Non-Applicability of Probation Law (P.D.
No. 968) – Any person convicted of drug
trafficking or pushing cannot avail of the privilege
granted by the Probation Law. (Sec. 24)
Sec. 23 of R.A. 9165 (Plea-Bargaining
Provision) was declared unconstitutional for
being contrary to the rule-making authority of the
Supreme Court. (Estipona vs. Hon. Lobrigo, G.R. No.
226679, August 15, 2017)
Qualifying Circumstance
A positive finding for the USE of dangerous drug
shall be qualifying aggravating circumstance in
the commission of a crime by an offender, and
the application of the penalty provided for in the
RPC shall be applicable. (Sec. 25)
Attempt or Conspiracy
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. (Sec. 26)
Drug Dependent under 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 Sec. 15 (subject to
conditions). (Sec. 55)
Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court shall designate special courts
from among existing Regional Trial Courts in each
region to exclusively try and hear cases involving
violations of this Act. (Sec. 90)
N. CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175]
AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME,
PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION,
INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION AND THE
IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Definition of Terms:
Access refers to the instruction, communication
with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or
otherwise making use of any resources of a
computer system or communication network.
(Sec. 3 [a], R.A. No. 10175)
Alteration refers to the modification or change,
in form or substance, of an existing computer
data or program. (Sec. 3 [b], R.A. No. 10175)
281
Communication refers to the transmission of
information through ICT media, including voice,
video and other forms of data. (Sec. 3 [c], R.A. No.
10175)
Computer refers to an electronic, magnetic,
optical, electrochemical, or other data processing
or communications device, or grouping of such
devices, capable of performing logical, arithmetic,
routing, or storage functions and which includes
any storage facility or equipment or
communications facility or equipment directly
related to or operating in conjunction with such
device. It covers any type of computer device
including devices with data processing
capabilities like mobile phones, smart phones,
computer networks and other devices connected
to the internet. (Section 3 [d], R.A. No. 10175)
Computer data refers to any representation of
facts, information, or concepts in a form suitable
for processing in a computer system including a
program suitable to cause a computer system to
perform a function and includes electronic
documents and/or electronic data messages
whether stored in local computer systems or
online. (Sec. 3 [e], R.A. No. 10175)
Computer program refers to a set of
instructions executed by the computer to achieve
intended results. (Sec. 3 [f], R.A. No. 10175)
Computer system refers to any device or group
of interconnected or related devices, one or more
of which, pursuant to a program, performs
automated processing of data. It covers any type
of device with data processing capabilities
including, but not limited to, computers and
mobile phones. The device consisting of
hardware and software may include input, output
and storage components which may stand alone
or be connected in a network or other similar
devices. It also includes computer data storage
devices or media. (Sec. 3 [g], R.A. No. 10175)
Without right refers to either: (i) conduct
undertaken without or in excess of authority; or
(ii) conduct not covered by established legal
defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or
relevant principles under the law. (Sec. 3 [h], R.A.
No. 10175)
Cyber refers to a computer or a computer
network, the electronic medium in which online
282
communication takes place. (Sec. 3 [i], R.A. No.
10175)
Critical infrastructure refers to the computer
systems, and/or networks, whether physical or
virtual, and/or the computer programs, computer
data and/or traffic data so vital to this country
that the incapacity or destruction of or
interference with such system and assets would
have a debilitating impact on security, national or
economic security, national public health and
safety, or any combination of those matters. (Sec.
3 [j], R.A. No. 10175)
Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools,
policies, risk management approaches, actions,
training, best practices, assurance and
technologies that can be used to protect the
cyber environment and organization and user’s
assets. (Sec. 3 [k], R.A. No. 10175)
Database refers to a representation of
information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or
instructions which are being prepared, processed
or stored or have been prepared, processed or
stored in a formalized manner and which are
intended for use in a computer system. (Sec. 3 [l],
R.A. No. 10175)
Interception refers to listening to, recording,
monitoring or surveillance of the content of
communications, including procuring of the
content of data, either directly, through access
and use of a computer system or indirectly,
through the use of electronic eavesdropping or
tapping devices, at the same time that the
communication is occurring. (Sec. 3 [m], R.A. No.
10175)
Service provider – refers to:
1. Any public or private entity that provides to
users of its service the ability to communicate
by means of a computer system; and
2. Any other entity that processes or stores
computer data on behalf of such
communication service or users of such
service. (Sec. 3 [n], R.A. No. 10175)
Subscriber’s information – refers to any
information contained in the form of computer
data or any other form that is held by a service
provider, relating to subscribers of its services
other than traffic or content data and by which
identity can be established:
1. The type of communication service used, the
technical provisions taken thereto and the
period of service;
2. The subscriber’s identity, postal or geographic
address, telephone and other access
numbers, any assigned network address,
billing and payment information, available on
the basis of the service agreement or
arrangement; and
3. Any other available information on the site of
the installation of communication equipment,
available on the basis of the service
agreement or arrangement. (Sec. 3 [o], R.A. No.
10175)
Traffic data or non-content data – refers to
any computer data other than the content of the
communication including, but not limited to, the
communication’s origin, destination, route, time,
date, size, duration, or type of underlying service.
(Sec. 3 [p], R.A. No. 10175)
Punishable Acts:
Cybercrime Offenses – The following acts
constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:
A) Offenses against the confidentiality,
integrity and availability of computer
data and systems (IDSCIM)
1. Illegal Access – The access to the whole or
any part of a computer system without right.
2. Illegal Interception – The interception made
by technical means without right of any non-
public transmission of computer data to, from,
or within a computer system including
electromagnetic emissions from a computer
system carrying such computer data.
3. Data Interference – The intentional or
reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or
deterioration of computer data, electronic
document, or electronic data message,
without right, including the introduction or
transmission of viruses.
4. System Interference – The intentional
alteration or reckless hindering or interference
with the functioning of a computer or
computer network by inputting, transmitting,
damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or
suppressing computer data or program,
electronic document, or electronic data
message, without right or authority, including
the introduction or transmission of viruses.
5. Misuse of Devices
i. The use, production, sale, procurement,
importation, distribution, or otherwise
making available, without right, of:
a) A device, including a computer
program, designed or adapted primarily
for the purpose of committing any of
the offenses under this Act; or
b) A computer password, access code, or
similar data by which the whole or any
part of a computer system is capable of
being accessed with intent that it be
used for the purpose of committing any
of the offenses under this Act.
ii. The possession of an item referred to in
paragraphs 5(i)(a) or (b) above with intent
to use said devices for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under this
section.
6. Cyber-squatting – The acquisition of a domain
name over the internet in bad faith to profit,
mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive
others from registering the same, if such a
domain name is:
i. Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to
an existing trademark registered with the
appropriate government agency at the
time of the domain name registration;
ii. Identical or in any way similar with the
name of a person other than the registrant,
in case of a personal name; and
iii. Acquired without right or with intellectual
property interests in it. (Sec. 4[a], R.A. No.
10175)
B) Computer-related Offenses (FFI)
1. Computer-related Forgery
i. The input, alteration, or deletion of any
computer data without right resulting in
inauthentic data with the intent that it be
considered or acted upon for legal
purposes as if it were authentic, regardless
whether or not the data is directly readable
and intelligible; or
ii. The act of knowingly using computer data
which is the product of computer-related
forgery as defined herein, for the purpose
of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest
design.
2. Computer-related Fraud - The unauthorized
input, alteration, or deletion of computer data
283
 or program or interference in the functioning
of a computer system, causing damage
thereby with fraudulent intent:
Provided, that if no damage has yet been
caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1)
degree lower.
3. Computer-related Identity Theft - The
intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer,
possession, alteration or deletion of
identifying information belonging to another,
whether natural or juridical, without right:
Provided, that if no damage has yet been
caused, the penalty imposable shall be one
degree lower. (Sec. 4[b], R.A. No. 10175)
C) Content-related Offenses (CCUL)
1. Cybersex – The willful engagement,
maintenance, control, or operation, directly or
indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of
sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid
of a computer system, for favor or
consideration.
NOTE: The element of ‘engaging in a
business’ is necessary to constitute the illegal
cybersex. The Act actually seeks to punish
cyber prostitution, white slave trade, and
pornography for favor and consideration. This
includes interactive prostitution and
pornography, i.e., by webcam. (Disini vs.
Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11,
2014)
2. Child Pornography – The unlawful or
prohibited acts defined and punishable
by R.A. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography
Act of 2009, committed through a computer
system:
Provided, That the penalty to be imposed
shall be one degree higher than that provided
for in R.A. 9775.
NOTE: Child pornography committed online
as to which, charging the offender under both
Sec. 4(c)(2) of Republic Act 10175 and
Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009 also constitutes a
violation of the same proscription, shall be
void and unconstitutional for it is a violation
against the proscription against double
jeopardy. (Id.)
284
3. Unsolicited Commercial–Communications –
The transmission of commercial electronic
communication with the use of computer
system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer
for sale products and services are prohibited.
NOTE: This provision Sec. 4(c)3 was declared
void and unconstitutional. To prohibit the
transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a
person the right to read his emails, even
unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him.
Commercial speech is a separate category of
speech which is not accorded the same level
of protection as that given to other
constitutionally guaranteed forms of
expression but is nonetheless entitled to
protection. The State cannot rob him of this
right without violating the constitutionally
guaranteed freedom of expression.
Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate
forms of expression. (Id.).
4. Libel – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel
as defined in Art. 355 of the RPC, as amended,
committed through a computer system or any
other similar means which may be devised in
the future. (Sec. 4[c], R.A. No. 10175)
NOTES:
● Sec. 4(c)(4) on Online Libel that penalizes
online libel as valid and constitutional with
respect to the original author of the post; but
void and unconstitutional with respect to
others who simply receive the post and react
to it. (Disini vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No.
203335, February 11, 2014)
● Libel is not a constitutionally protected speech
and that the government has an obligation to
protect private individuals from defamation.
Indeed, cyberlibel is actually not a new crime
since Art. 353, in relation to Art. 355 of the
penal code, already punishes it. In effect, Sec.
4(c)[4] above merely affirms that online
defamation constitutes ‘similar means’ for
committing libel. (Id.)
● An offender cannot be charged under both
Sec 4(c)4 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act
and Art. 353 of the RPC. (Id.)
● These limitations imposed on libel actions filed
by private persons are hardly onerous,
especially as they still allow such persons to
file the civil or criminal complaint in their
respective places of residence, in which
situation there is no need to embark on a
 quest to determine with precision where the shall issue an order to restrict or block access to
libelous matter was printed and first such computer data. (Sec. 19, R.A. No. 10175)
published. (Bonifacio vs. RTC, Makati, Branch 149, NOTE: The following provisions were challenged
G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010) and was declared constitutional or
unconstitutional as the case may be: (Disini vs.
Other Offenses: Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11,
2014)
1. Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of
Cybercrime – Any person who willfully abets PROVISION JUDGMENT
or aids in the commission of any of the Sec. 4(a)(1) on Illegal Constitutional
offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held Access
liable. Sec. 4(a)(3) on Data Constitutional
Interference
2. Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime -
Sec. 4(a)(6) on Cyber- Constitutional
Any person who willfully attempts to commit squatting
any of the offenses enumerated in this Act Sec. 4(b)(3) on Identity Constitutional
shall be held liable. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 10175) Theft
Sec. 4(c)(1) on Cybersex Constitutional
NOTES: Sec. 4(c)(2) on Child Constitutional
Pornography
● Sec. 5 is valid and constitutional only in Sec. 4(c)(3) on Unconstitutional
relation to Sec. 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Sec. Unsolicited Commercial
4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Sec. 4(a)(3) on Communications
Data Interference, Sec. 4(a)(4) on System Sec. 4(c)(4) on Libel Constitutional with
respect to the original
Interference, Sec. 4(a)(5) on Misuse of
author of the post; but
Devices, Sec. 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Sec. Void and
4(b)(1) on Computer-related Forgery, Sec. Unconstitutional with
4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud, Sec. respect to others who
4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity Theft, simply receive the post
and Sec. 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. and react to it.
Sec. 5 on Aiding or Constitutional only in
● Sec. 5 is void and unconstitutional with Abetting and Attempt in relation to Sec. 4(a)(1)
respect to Secs. 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, Commission of on Illegal Access, Sec.
4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Cybercrimes 4(a)(2) on Illegal
Interception, Sec.
Communications, and 4(c)(4) on Online Libel.
4(a)(3) on Data
(Disini vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335,
Interference, Sec.
February 11, 2014)
4(a)(4) on System
Interference, Sec.
Aggravating Circumstance applicable to all 4(a)(5) on Misuse of
Crimes under RPC and Special Penal Laws Devices, Sec. 4(a)(6) on
Cyber-squatting, Sec.
If committed by, through and with the use of 4(b)(1) on Computer-
information and communications technologies related Forgery, Sec.
shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this 4(b)(2) on Computer-
Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed related Fraud, Sec.
4(b)(3) on Computer-
shall be one degree higher than that provided for
related Identity Theft,
by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and and Sec. 4(c)(1) on
special laws, as the case may be. (Sec. 6, R.A. Cybersex;
10175) but Void and
Unconstitutional with
Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer respect to Sec. 4(c)(2)
Data on Child Pornography,
4(c)(3) on Unsolicited
When a computer data is prima facie found to be Commercial
in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ

285
 Communications, and Corporate Liability
4(c)(4) on online Libel
When any of the punishable acts herein defined
Sec. 6 on the Penalty of Constitutional are knowingly committed on behalf of or for the
One Degree Higher
benefit of a juridical person, by a natural person
Sec. 7 on the Prosecution SC resolves to leave the
acting either individually or as part of an organ of
under both RPC and R.A. determination of the
10175 correct application of the juridical person, who has a leading position
Sec. 7 to actual cases, within, based on: (a) a power of representation
with the exception of: of the juridical person provided the act committed
(1) Online libel as to falls within the scope of such authority; (b) an
which, charging the authority to take decisions on behalf of the
offender under both juridical person:
Sec.4(c)(4) of R.A.
10175 and Art. 353 of Provided, That the act committed falls within the
RPC constitutes violation
scope of such authority; or (c) an authority to
of the proscription
against double jeopardy; exercise control within the juridical person, the
and, juridical person shall be held liable for a fine
(2) Child pornography equivalent to at least double the fines imposable
committed online as to in Sec. 7 up to a maximum of PhP10,000,000.00.
which, charging the If the commission of any of the punishable acts
offender under both herein defined was made possible due to the lack
Sec.4(c)(2) of R.A. of supervision or control by a natural person
10175 and R.A. 9775 or referred to and described in the preceding
the Anti-Child
paragraph, for the benefit of that juridical person
Pornography Act of 2009
also constitutes a by a natural person acting under its authority, the
violation of the same juridical person shall be held liable for a fine
proscription, equivalent to at least double the fines imposable
and, in respect to these, in Sec. 7 up to a maximum of PhP5,000,000.00.
is void and
unconstitutional The liability imposed on the juridical person shall
Sec. 8 on Penalties Constitutional be without prejudice to the criminal liability of the
Sec. 12 on Real-Time Unconstitutional natural person who has committed the offense.
Collection of Traffic Data (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 10175)
Sec. 13 on Preservation Constitutional
of Computer Data
Implementation
Sec. 14 on Disclosure of Constitutional
Computer Data
Sec. 15 on Search, Constitutional The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and
Seizure, and the Philippine National Police (PNP) shall be
Examination of responsible for the efficient and effective law
Computer Data enforcement of the provisions of this Act. The NBI
Sec. 17 on Destruction of Constitutional and the PNP shall organize a cybercrime unit or
Computer Data center manned by special investigators to
Sec. 19 on Restricting or Unconstitutional exclusively handle cases involving violations of
Blocking Access to this Act. (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 10175)
Computer Data
Sec. 20 on Obstruction of Constitutional
NOTES:
Justice
Sec. 24 on Cybercrime Constitutional
Investigation and ● To ensure that the technical nature of
Coordinating Center cybercrime and its prevention is given focus
(CICC) and considering the procedures involved for
Sec. 26 on CICC’s Powers Constitutional international cooperation, law enforcement
and Functions authorities specifically the computer or
technology crime divisions or units responsible
for the investigation of cybercrimes are

286
 required to submit timely and regular reports
including pre-operation, post-operation and
investigation results and such other
documents as may be required to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) for review and
monitoring. (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 10175)
● Where a search and seizure warrant is
properly issued, the law enforcement
authorities shall likewise have the following
powers and duties.
Within the time period specified in the
warrant, to conduct interception, as defined in
this Act, and:
a) To secure a computer system or a
computer data storage medium;
b) To make and retain a copy of those
computer data secured;
c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant
stored computer data;
d) To conduct forensic analysis or
examination of the computer data storage
medium; and
e) To render inaccessible or remove those
computer data in the accessed computer or
computer and communications network.
The law enforcement authorities may order
any person who has knowledge about the
functioning of the computer system and the
measures to protect and preserve the
computer data therein to provide, as is
reasonable, the necessary information, to
enable the undertaking of the search, seizure
and examination.
● Law enforcement authorities may request for
an extension of time to complete the
examination of the computer data storage
medium and to make a return thereon but in
no case for a period longer than thirty (30)
days from date of approval by the court. (Sec.
15, R.A. No. 10175)
Exclusionary Rule
Any evidence procured without a valid warrant or
beyond the authority of the same shall be
inadmissible for any proceeding before any court
or tribunal. (Sec. 18, R.A. No. 10175)
NOTE: Failure to comply with Secs. 10 to 20
hereof specifically the orders from law
enforcement authorities shall be punished as a
violation of PD 1829 with imprisonment of prision
correctional in its maximum period or a fine of
One hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) or
both, for each and every noncompliance with an
order issued by law enforcement authorities. (Sec.
20, R.A. No. 10175)
Jurisdiction
The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction
over any violation of the provisions of this Act
including any violation committed by a Filipino
national regardless of the place of commission.
Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was
committed within the Philippines or committed
with the use of any computer system wholly or
partly situated in the country, or when by such
commission any damage is caused to a natural or
juridical person who, at the time the offense was
committed, was in the Philippines.
There shall be designated special cybercrime
courts manned by specially trained judges to
handle cybercrime cases tribunal. (Sec. 21, R.A.
No. 10175)
O. NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 2016
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10883]
NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 2016
Repealing Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539
AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING
CARNAPPING
Definition of Terms:
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 (Sec. 2e,
R.A. No. 10883).
NOTE: 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.
287
Defacing or tampering with a serial number
refers to the altering, changing, erasing,
replacing or scratching of the original factory
inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle
engine, engine block or chassis of any motor
vehicle. (Sec. 2b, R.A. No. 10883)
NOTE: Whenever any motor vehicle is found to
have a serial number on its engine, engine block
or chassis which is different from that which is
listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for
motor vehicle imported into the Philippines, that
motor vehicle shall be considered to have a
defaced or tampered serial number. (Ibid.)
Dismantling refers to the tearing apart, piece-
by-piece or part-by-part, of a motor vehicle. (Sec.
2c, R.A. No. 10883)
Identity transfer refers to the act of
transferring the engine number, chassis number,
body tag number, plate number, and any other
identifying marks of a motor vehicle declared as
“total wreck" or is beyond economic repair by
concerned car insurance companies and/or law
enforcement agencies after its involvement in a
vehicular accident or other incident and registers
the same into another factory-made body or
vehicle unit, of the same classification, type,
make or model. (Sec. 2d, R.A. 10883)
Overhauling refers to the cleaning or repairing
of the whole engine of a motor vehicle by
separating the motor engine and the parts from
the body of the motor vehicle. (Sec. 2f, R.A. No.
10883)
Repainting refers to the act of changing the
color of a motor vehicle by means of painting.
(Sec. 2g, R.A. No. 10883)
Remodeling refers to the introduction of some
changes in the shape or form of the body of the
motor vehicle. (Sec. 2h, R.A. No. 10883)
Second hand spare parts refer to the parts
taken from a carnapped vehicle used in
assembling another vehicle. (Sec. 2i, R.A. No.
10883)
Total wreck refers to the state or status of a
motor vehicle after a vehicular accident or other
incident, so that it is rendered in operational and
beyond economic repair due to the extent of
288
damage in its body, chassis and engine. (Sec. 2j,
R.A. No. 10883)
Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates
refers to the use or transfer of a vehicle plate
issued by the LTO to a certain vehicle to another
vehicle. It presumed illegally transferred when
the motor vehicle plate does not correspond with
that as appearing to which it was issued. (Sec. 2k,
R.A. No. 10883)
Punishable Acts:
A. 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. (Sec. 3 [par.1], R.A.
No. 10883)
Elements:
1. That there is an Actual taking of the vehicle;
Note: The unlawful taking is deemed
complete the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he had no
opportunity to dispose the same. (People vs.
Gutierrez, G.R. No. 100699, July 5, 1996)
2. That the vehicle belongs to a person Other
than the offender himself;
3. That the taking is without the Consent of the
owner thereof; or that the taking was
committed by means of Violence against or
Intimidation of persons, or by using Force
upon things; and
4. That the offender intends to Gain from the
taking of the vehicle. (People vs. Lagat, G.R. No.
187044, September 14, 2011)
Penalty: Imprisonment for not less than 20
years and one day but not more than 30 years.
The penalty for carnapping may increase if
committed:
1. With violence or intimidation of persons or
force upon things.
Penalty: Imprisonment for not less than 30
years and one day but not more than 40
years; or
2. When the owner or driver or occupant of
carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in
the commission of carnapping.
 Penalty: Life imprisonment. (Sec. 3 [2], R.A.
10883)
NOTE: The accused shall be denied bail when
evidence of guilt is strong in the following
instances:
1. That the crime of carnapping is committed by
criminal groups, gangs, or syndicates;
2. By means of violence or intimidation of any
person or persons or forced upon things; or
3. When the owner, driver, passenger, or
occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or
raped in the course of carnapping. (Sec. 3 [par.
3], R.A. No. 10883)
B. Concealment of Carnapping – any person
who conceals carnapping shall be punished
with imprisonment of six years up to 12 years
and a fine equal to the amount of the
inquisition cost of the motor vehicle, motor
vehicle engine, or any other part involved in
the violation; provided, that if the violator is a
juridical person, the penalty herein provided
shall be imposed on its president, secretary,
and/or members of the board of directors or
any of its officers and employees who may
have directly participated in the violation. (Sec.
4, [par. 1], R.A. No. 10883)
NOTE: Any public official or employee who
directly commits the unlawful acts defined in this
Act or is guilty of gross negligence of duty or
connives with or permits the commission of any
of the said unlawful act shall, in addition to the
penalty prescribed, be dismissed from the
service, and his benefits forfeited, and shall be
permanently disqualified from holding public
office. (Sec. 4 [par. 2], R.A. No. 10883)
C. Defacing or Tampering with Serial
Numbers of Motor Vehicle Engines,
Engine Blocks, and Chassis – It shall be
unlawful for any person to deface or
otherwise tamper with the original or
registered serial number of motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks, and chassis. (Sec. 14,
R.A. No. 10883)
D. Identity Transfer – It shall be unlawful for
any person, office, or entity to cause and/or
allow the sale, registration, and/or transfer
into another name, the chassis number,
engine number, and plate number of a motor
vehicle declared as “total wreck” or beyond
economic repair by concerned insurance
company, and/or law enforcement agencies,
due to its involvement in a vehicular accident
or for some other causes. The LTO shall
cancel the registration of total wreck vehicle
as reported by PNP and/or as declared by
Insurance Commission. (Sec. 15, R.A. No.
10883)
E. Transfer of Vehicle Plate – It shall be
unlawful for any person, office, or entity to
transfer or use a vehicle plate from one
vehicle to another without securing the
proper authority from LTO. (Sec. 16, R.A. No.
10883)
F. Sale of Second-Hand Spare Parts – It
shall be unlawful for any person, office, or
entity to buy and/or sell any second hand
spare parts taken from a carnapped vehicle.
(Sec. 17, R.A. No. 10883)
P. Special Protection of Children Against
Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act
REPUBLIC ACT No. 7610, as amended by
R.A. No. 7658 and R.A. No. 9231
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER
DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION
AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION
AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
(Anti-Child Abuse Law)
Definition of Terms:
Children
1. Person below 18 years of age; or
2. Those over 18 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. (Sec. 3[a], R.A. No. 7610, as amended)
Child abuse
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;
289
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. (Sec. 3[b], R.A. No. 7610, as amended)
NOTE: When the laying of hands was done at the
spur of the moment and in anger, the loss of self-
control negates the specific intent to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being that was
essential in the third act of child abuse. (Bongalon
vs. People, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013)
Comparison with Art. 366, RPC
Acts of lasciviousness is punished under R.A. No.
7610 when performed on a child below 18 years
of age exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse.
Circumstances which gravely threaten or
endanger the survival and normal
development of children – include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1. Being in a community where there is armed
conflict or being affected by armed conflict-
related activities;
2. Working under conditions hazardous to life,
safety and normal which unduly interfere
with their normal development;
3. Living in or fending for themselves in the
streets of urban or rural areas without the
care of parents or a guardian or basic
services needed for a good quality of life;
4. Being a member of an indigenous cultural
community and/or living under conditions of
extreme poverty or in an area which is
underdeveloped and/or lacks or has
inadequate access to basic services needed
for a good quality of life;
5. Being a victim of a man-made or natural
disaster or calamity; or
6. Circumstances analogous to those above
stated which endanger the life, safety or
normal development of children. (Sec. 3[c],
R.A. 7610, as amended)
290
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.
Persons liable:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate
or induce child prostitution which include,
but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(ii) Inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
(iii) Taking advantage of influence or
relationship to procure a child as
prostitute;
(iv) Threatening or using violence towards a
child to engage him as a prostitute; or
(v) Giving monetary consideration goods or
other pecuniary benefit to a child with
intent to engage such child in
prostitution. (Sec. 5 [a], R.A. No. 7610, as
amended)
Non-applicability of Sweetheart
Theory In the case of People vs. Udang (ibid.),
the sweetheart theory applies in acts of
lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed
against or without the consent of the victim. It
operates on the theory that the sexual act was
consensual. It requires proof that the accused
and the victim were lovers and that she
consented to the sexual relations. For purposes
of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in
child abuse cases under R.A. No. 7610, the
sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to
sexual intercourse with another person.
(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
victim is under 12 years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Art.
335(3), for rape and Art. 336 of the RPC, for
 rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may
be. (Sec. 5 [b], R.A. No. 7610, as amended)
NOTE: Rape cannot be complexed with a
violation of Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
(People vs. Dahilig, G.R. No. 187083, June 13,
2011)
(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. (Sec. 5 [c], R.A. No.
7610, as amended)
Elements:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct;
2. The said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse; and
3. The child, whether male or female, is below
18 years of age. (Imbo vs. People, G.R. No.
197712, April 20, 2015)
NOTE: Consent is immaterial in cases
involving a violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of R.A.
7610, Thus, the sweetheart defense cannot
be validly raised.
A child cannot give consent to a contract
under our civil laws. The child is not capable
of fully understanding or knowing the nature
or import of her actions. (Caballo vs. People,
G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013)
(d) Penalty: Reclusion temporal in its medium
period to reclusion perpetua.(Sec. 5, R.A. No.
7610, as amended)
Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty, or
Exploitation and Other Conditions
Prejudicial to the Child’s Development
Persons liable:
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts
of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to
be responsible for other conditions
prejudicial to the child's development
including those covered by Art. 59 of
Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended,
but not covered by the RPC, as amended;
(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his
company a minor, 12 years or under or who
in 10 years or more his junior in any public
or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint,
discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna
or massage parlor, beach and/or other
tourist resort or similar places; Provided,
That this provision shall not apply to any
person who is related within the fourth
degree of consanguinity or affinity or any
bond recognized by law, local custom and
tradition or acts in the performance of a
social, moral or legal duty.
(c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer
a minor to any one prohibited by this Act to
keep or have in his company a minor as
provided in the preceding; Provided,
however, That should the perpetrator be an
ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the
minor, it should result in the loss of parental
authority over the minor;
(d) Any person, owner, manager or one
entrusted with the operation of any public or
private place of accommodation, whether for
occupancy, food, drink or otherwise,
including residential places, who allows any
person to take along with him to such place
or places any minor herein described; and
(e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or
intimidate a street child or any other child to:
(1) Beg or use begging as a means of
living;
(2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug
trafficking or pushing; or
(3) Conduct any illegal activities.
The victim of the acts committed under this
section shall be entrusted to the care of the
DSWD. (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 7610)
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse when the child
indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other
consideration; or (b) under the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group. (Pinlac
vs. People, G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015)
291
Prohibition Against Worst Forms of Child
Who may file a complaint?
Complaints on cases of unlawful acts committed
against children as enumerated herein may be
filed by the following:
a) Offended party;
b) Parents or guardians;
c) Ascendant or collateral relative within the third
degree of consanguinity;
d) Officer, social worker or representative of a
licensed child-caring institution;
e) Officer or social worker of the DSWD;
f) Barangay chairman of the place where the
violation occurred, where the child is residing
or employed; or
g) At least three concerned, responsible citizens
where the violation occurred.
Q. SWINDLING BY SYNDICATE
[PRESIDENTIAL DECREE (P.D.) NO. 1689]
INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR CERTAIN
FORMS OF SWINDLING OR ESTAFA
Estafa is committed when fraud is employed to
the prejudice of another person. It may be
committed in several ways, such as:
a) through unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence;
b) by false pretense or fraudulent acts executed
prior to or simultaneous with the commission
of the fraud;
c) by other fraudulent means; or
d) by swindling or other deceits.
2. That the Estafa or Swindling is committed by
a syndicate consisting of 5 or more persons
formed with the intention of carrying out the
unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise
or scheme; and
3. That such defraudation results in the
misappropriation of money contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, “samahang nayon(s)”, or farmers
association, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general
Public. (Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1689)
Penalties
Any person or persons who shall commit estafa
or other forms of swindling as defined in Arts. 315
and 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
shall be punished by life imprisonment to
death if the swindling (estafa) is committed by a
syndicate consisting of five or more persons
formed with the intention of carrying out the
unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or
scheme, and the defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperatives, “samahang nayon(s),” or farmers’
associations, or of funds solicited by
corporation/associations from the general public.
When not committed by a syndicate, the penalty
imposable shall be reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud
exceeds 100,000 pesos. (Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1689)

There is Syndicated Estafa when five or more

persons group together with the intention of
carrying out the unlawful or illegal act,
transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the
defraudation results in the misappropriation of
money contributed by stockholders, or members
of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang
nayon(s)," or farmers association, or of funds
solicited by corporations/associations from the
general public.

Elements of Syndicated Estafa:

1. That Estafa or other forms of Swindling as

defined in Art. 315 and 316 of the RPC is
committed;

292
IV. PRACTICAL EXERCISES

A. Drafting of Complaint, Information, Affidavits of Desistance, etc.

Sample form: INFORMATION (with Preliminary Investigation Conducted)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_____________ JUDICIAL REGION
_________TRIAL COURT
_________ CITY, BRANCH _______

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No.: _____

For: ______________
-versus-

Name of the Accused,

Accused.
x--------------------------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor accuses (name of the accused) of the crime of
(offense committed), defined and penalized under (legal basis for the offense), committed as follows:

That on or about (date and time) in (place, city, province and/or municipality of the commission of the
offense) and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above mentioned accused, not being authorized
by law to (circumstances), did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously, (acts or omission
constituting the crime).

Contrary to law.

(City or Municipality), (Date of filing).

(signed)
(Name of the Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor)
Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor

Approved By:

(signed)
(Name of the Provincial/City Prosecutor)
Provincial/City Prosecutor

293
 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a Preliminary Investigation was conducted in this case in accordance with
law; that I have examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe
that the offense charged had been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof; the accused was
given the opportunity to present controverting evidence and that the filing of this information is with the
authority of the Provincial/City Prosecutor.
(signed)
(Name of the Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor)
Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor

JURAT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________ in ___________.

(signed)
(Name of the Provincial/City Prosecutor)
Provincial/City Prosecutor

WITNESS/ES:
1.(Name and Address of witness)
2. (Name and Address of witness)

BAIL RECOMMENDED: Php (amount of bail)

294
Sample form: INFORMATION (with Inquest Proceeding Conducted)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_____________ JUDICIAL REGION
_________TRIAL COURT
_________ CITY, BRANCH _______

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No.: _____
For: ______________
-versus-

Name of the Accused,

Accused.
x--------------------------------------------x

INFORMATION

The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses (name of the accused) of the crime of (offense
committed), defined and penalized under (legal basis for the offense), committed as follows:

That on or about (date and time) in (place, city, province and/or municipality of the commission of the
offense) and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above mentioned accused, not being authorized
by law to (circumstances), did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously, (acts or omission
constituting the crime).

Contrary to law.

(City or Municipality)
(Date or Time)

(signed)
(Name of the Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor)
Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor

Approved By:

(signed)
(Name of the Provincial/City Prosecutor)
Provincial/City Prosecutor

295
 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the foregoing Information is filed pursuant to Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
accused not having opted to avail himself of his right to preliminary investigation and not having executed a
waiver pursuant to the Revised Penal Code. This further certifies that this Information is being filed with the
prior authority of the Provincial/City Prosecutor.

(signed)
(Name of the Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor)
Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor

JURAT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________ in ___________.

(signed)
(Name of the Provincial/City Prosecutor)
Provincial/City Prosecutor

WITNESS/ES:

1.(Name and Address of witness)

2. (Name and Address of witness)

BAIL RECOMMENDED: Php (amount of bail)

296
Sample form: COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

Republic of the Philippines}

Place of Execution of Document} S.S.

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, State personal circumstance/matters, as applicable), after being sworn in accordance with law, states
that:

1. (State personal circumstances of Complainant: Name, Age, Address, Citizenship );

2. (State personal circumstances of Respondent: Name, Age, Address, Citizenship );
3. (Details of the allegation).
4. (Details of the allegation).
5. Affiant has nothing more to say.

(Place) and (Date)

(signed)
(Name of the Complainant)

JURAT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in ___________, this _______. I hereby certify that I have
personally examined the affiant and that I am convinced that he voluntarily executed the foregoing affidavit
and that he understood the contents thereof.

(signed)
(Name of the Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor)
Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutor

297
Sample form: AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

Republic of the Philippines}

Place of Execution of Document} S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

I (name of the complainant), Filipino, of legal age and a resident of (place of residence), after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state, that:

1. I am the complainant in a criminal case of (name of the offense) against (name of the
accused) docketed as (case number), pending before the (name of court and branch) .
2. (Stipulation of circumstance)

3. I fully understand the consequences of executing an Affidavit of Desistance.

4. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing statements and
respectfully pray that the aforementioned case against (name of accused) be withdrawn.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this (Date) in the City of (Name of City),
Philippines.

(Name of Complainant)
Affiant

JURAT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this (Date) in the City of (Name of City) Philippines. Exhibiting
(Type of Identification) with (I.D. Number) issued on (Date of issuance).

NOTARY PUBLIC
Commission Expires on (place)(date)
Commission No. ____:
Roll No.: ____;
IBP No.: ____;
PTR No.: ____;
MCLE No.: ___.
(Office Address)
(Contact Details)

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of _____.

298
Sample form: DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_____________ JUDICIAL REGION
_________TRIAL COURT
_________ CITY, BRANCH _______

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No.: _____
For: ______________
-versus-

Name of the Accused,

Accused.
x--------------------------------------------x

MOTION

ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel, with leave of Court, respectfully submits this Demurrer
to the Prosecution’s Evidence and in support thereof, state:

GROUND

The pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED

The accused is charged under the information filed by the Office of the Provincial/City Prosecutor of
(Place/City/Municipality) through the (Name of the Prosecutor , the pertinent portions of which, read as
follows, to wit:

“That sometime on (date and time) at (place, city, province and/or municipality of the commission
of the offense) and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above mentioned accused,
not being authorized by law to (state circumstances), did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
knowingly, and feloniously, (acts or omission constituting the crime).

Contrary to Law.”

ARGUMENTS / DISCUSSIONS

(state arguments and discussions)

PRAYER

Accused respectfully prays that:

1. The Court takes note of this motion.

2. The Court dismisses the case.

299
 (place), (date)
(signed)
Atty. (Name of Counsel)
Roll No.: _____;
IBP No.:_____;
PTR No.: _____;
MCLE No.: _____;
Telephone No.:____;
Email Address:____.

Notice of Hearing and

Copy furnished to:

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Municipal/Regional Trial Court of (place), Branch __
(address)

Atty. (Name of Counsel)

Private Prosecutor
(address)

(Name of Public Prosecutor)

Public Prosecutor

Greetings!

Please be informed that a copy of this motion shall be submitted for the consideration of this Court on
(date) and (time).

(signature)

HAIL TO THE CHIEFS!!!

300