UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

PAGE 104
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Title I. Crimes against
National Security and the Law
of Nations
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY:
(1) Art. 114: Treason
(2) Art. 115: Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit
Treason
(3) Art. 116: Misprision of Treason
(4) Art. 117: Espionage
CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS
(1) Art. 118: Inciting to War or Giving Motives for
Reprisals
(2) Art. 119: Violation of Neutrality
(3) Art. 120: Correspondence with Hostile Country
(4) Art. 121: Flight to Enemy’s Country
(5) Art. 122: Piracy in General and Mutiny on the
High Seas or in Philippine Waters
(6) Art. 123: Qualified Piracy
The crimes under this title can be prosecuted even if
the criminal act or acts were committed outside the
Philippine territorial jurisdiction.
This is one of the instances where the RPC may be
given extra-territorial application under Article 2 (5)
thereof. However, prosecution can proceed only if the
offender is:
(1) within Philippine territory, OR
(2) brought to the Philippines pursuant to an
extradition treaty.
Crimes against national security can be tried only in
the Philippines, as there is a need to bring the
offender here before he can be made to suffer the
consequences of the law.
In the case of crimes against the law of nations, the
offender can be prosecuted whenever he may be
found because the crimes are regarded as
committed against humanity in general.
The acts against national security may be committed
abroad and still be punishable under our law.
General rule: Almost all of these are crimes
committed in times of war.
Exceptions: The following can be committed in times
of peace:
(1) Espionage (Art 117) – This is also covered by
Commonwealth Act No. 616 which punishes
conspiracy to commit espionage.
PAGE 105
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) Inciting to War or Giving Motives for Reprisals
(Art 118) – This can be committed even if the
Philippines is not a participant.
(3) Violation of Neutrality (Art. 119) – The
Philippines is not a party to an on-going war.
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
ARTICLE 114 - TREASON
MODE 1: Levying War
Elements:
(1) The offender is a Filipino or resident alien
(2) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(3) The offender levies war against the government
MODE 2: Adherence to the Enemy and Giving of Aid
or Comfort
Elements:
(1) The offender is a Filipino or resident alien
(2) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(3) That the offender adheres to the enemies, giving
them aid or comfort
Treason is a breach of allegiance to a government,
committed by a person who owes allegiance to it. It
cannot be committed in the time of peace. There are
two ways of committing treason: (1) By levying war
against the Government and (2) By adhering to the
enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or
comfort. (Reyes, 2008)
To be treasonous, the extent of aid and comfort
given to the enemies must be to render assistance to
them as enemies and not as individuals, in the
furtherance of the enemies’ hostile designs.
Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of
treason, which in the absence of admission may be
gathered from the nature and circumstances of each
particular case. [People vs. Perez]
Mode 1: Levying War
Requirements:
Levying war requires the concurrence of two things:
(1) that there must be an actual assembling of
men;
(2) for the purpose of executing a treasonable
design by force.
There must be an actual assembling of men. The
mere acceptance of the commission from the
secretary of war of the Katipunan by the accused,
nothing else having been done, was not an overt act
of treason within the meaning of the law. [U.S. vs. De
los Reyes]
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The levying of war must be directed against the
government. It must be with intent to overthrow the
government as such, not merely to resist a particular
statute or to repel a particular officer. [Reyes, 2008;
th
citing 3 Wharton’s Criminal Law, 12 Ed.]
The levying of war must be in collaboration with a
foreign enemy. If the levying of war is merely a civil
uprising, without any intention of helping an external
enemy, the crime is not treason. The offenders may
be held liable for rebellion under Article 135 in
relation to Article 134 of the RPC. [Reyes, 2008]
Mode 2: Adherence to the Enemy
Adherence and giving aid or comfort to the enemy
must concur. Adherence to the enemy means intent
to betray. Aid or comfort means an act which
strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in the
conduct of war against the traitor’s country and an
act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of
the traitor’s country to resist or to attack the enemy.
[Cramer vs. US]
When there is no adherence to the enemy, the act
which may do aid or comfort to the enemy does not
amount to treason. [Reyes, 2008]
Acceptance of public office and discharge of official
duties under the enemy do not constitute per se the
felony of treason. But when there is adherence to the
enemy, then such constitute treason. [People vs.
Sison]
The term “enemies” applies only to the subjects of a
foreign power in a state of hostility with the traitor’s
country. [Reyes, 2008]
The overt act of aid and comfort to the enemy must
be intentional, as distinguished from merely
negligent or undesigned ones. [Cramer vs. US]
When the killings and other common crimes are
charged as overt acts of treason, they cannot be
regarded: (1) as separate crimes, or (2) as complexed
with treason.
Exception: But this rule would not preclude the
punishment of murder or other common crimes as
such, if the prosecution should elect to prosecute the
culprit specifically for these crimes, instead of relying
on them as an element of treason. [People vs. Prieto]
Treason by a Filipino citizen can be committed
outside of the Philippines. Treason by an alien must
be committed in the Philippines.
PAGE 106
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The crime of treason is of such a nature that it may
be committed by one single act, by a series of acts, or
by several series thereof, not only in a single time,
but in different times, it being a continuous crime.
[People vs. Victoria]
Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence
or by the extrajudicial confession of the accused.
Two Ways of Proving Treason
(1)Testimony of at least two witnesses to the same
overt act; or
(2)Confession of accused in open court.[Article 114,
par.2, RPC]
The Two-witness Rule
The testimony of two witnesses is required to prove
the overt act of giving aid or comfort. It is not
necessary to prove adherence. Each of the witness
must testify to the whole overt act; or if it is
separable, there must be two witnesses to each part
of the overt act. [People vs. Escleto]
Adherence may be proved:
(1) By one witness,
(2) From the nature of the act itself, or
(3) From the circumstances surrounding the act.
Adherence need not be proven by two witness
testimonies – may be inferred from one witness, or
from the nature of the act itself or other
circumstances [People vs. Adriano]
Reason why Two-witness Rule does not apply to
adherence: Adherence to the enemy is a state of
mind. It is never susceptible of proof by direct
testimony. [Reyes, 2008]
Confession must be made in open court.
Extrajudicial confession or confession made before
the investigators is not sufficient to convict a person
of treason. [Reyes, 2008]
Aggravating Circumstances
Cruelty and ignominy are aggravating circumstances
in treason.
But evident premeditation is not considered as one
since adherence and the giving of aid and comfort to
the enemy is usually a long continued process
requiring requiring reflective and persistent
determination and planning.[People vs. Racaza]
Superior strength and treachery are circumstances
inherent in treason. Treachery is merged in superior
strength. Therefore, they are not aggravating in
treason.[People vs. Adlawan]
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The presence of the aggravating circumstances of
treachery, the aid of armed persons to insure or
afford impunity, and deliberately augmenting the
crimes by causing other wrongs not necessary in the
commission thereof are inherent in the crime of
treason and thus shall not be appreciated as
aggravating circumstances. [People vs Victoria]
Defense of Suspended Allegiance and change of
sovereignty are not accepted because:
(1)A citizen owes an absolute and permanent
allegiance to his Government;
(2)The sovereignty of the Government is not
transferred to the enemy by mere occupation;
(3)The subsistence of the sovereignty of the
legitimate Government in a territory occupied by the
military forces of the enemy during the war is one of
the rules of International Law; and
(4)What is suspended is the exercise of the rights of
sovereignty.
In addition to the defense of duress or uncontrollable
fear, lawful obedience to a de facto Government is a
good defense in treason. The Philippine Executive
Commission, as well as the Republic established by
the Japanese occupation army in the Philippines, had
all the characteristics of a de facto Government. [Go
Kim Cham vs. Valdez]
Defense of loss of citizenship by joining the army of
the enemy is not valid. The accused cannot divest
himself of his Philippine citizenship by the simple
expedient of accepting a commission in the military,
naval or air service of such country. If his contention
is sustained, his very crime would be the shield that
would protect him from punishment. [People vs.
Manayao]
ARTICLE 115 - CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
TREASON
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON
Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) At least two persons come to an agreement to –
(a) Levy war against the government; or
(b) Adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or
comfort
(3) That person proposes its execution to other
persons
(4) They decide to commit it
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON
Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) At least one person decides to –
PAGE 107
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(a) Levy war against the government; or
(b) Adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or
comfort
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
felony is not punishable under Article 8.
Exception: Under Article 115, mere conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason is punishable. This is
because, in treason, the very existence of the state is
endangered. [Reyes, 2008]
The two-witness rule does not apply to conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason because this is a
separate and distinct offense from that of treason.
[US vs. Bautista]
ARTICLE 116 - MISPRISION OF TREASON
Elements:
(1) Offender owes allegiance to the government,
and is not a foreigner
(2) He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit
treason against the government
(3) He conceals or does not disclose and make
known the same as soon as possible to the
governor or fiscal of the province in which he
resides, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which
he resides
Misprision of treason is a crime that may be
committed only by citizens of the Philippines. It
cannot be committed by a resident alien.
The essence of the crime is that there are persons
who conspire to commit treason and the offender
knew this and failed to make the necessary report to
the government within the earliest possible time.
Article 116 does not apply when the crime of treason
is already committed by someone and the accused
does not report its commission to the proper
authority. The provision only speaks of “knowledge of
any conspiracy against” the Government of the
Philippines, not knowledge of treason actually
committed by another. The criminal liability arises if
the accused learned of the treasonous activity while
still at the conspiratorial stage because if he learned
of the treason when it had already erupted into an
overt act, then the implication is that the government
is already aware of it.
The offender in misprision of treason is punished as
an accessory to treason. Note that Article 116 does
not provide for a penalty. However, the offender is a
principal in the crime of misprision of treason.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Any person in authority having the equivalent
jurisdiction (of a mayor, fiscal or governor), like a
provincial commander, will already negate criminal
liability.
Blood relationship is always subservient to national
security. Article 20 of the RPC regarding accessories
who are exempt from criminal liability does not apply
in this case because persons found liable for this crime
are not considered accessories, but as principals.
Article 116 is an exception to the rule that mere
silence does not make a person criminally liable. [US
vs. Caballeros]
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of
misprision of rebellion.
ARTICLE 117 – ESPIONAGE
MODE 1: Entering of establishment to obtain
confidential information regarding defense of the
Philippines
Elements:
(1) That the offender enters a warship, fort, or naval
or military establishment or reservation;
(2) That he has no authority therefor;
(3) That his purpose is to obtain information, plans,
photographs or other data of a confidential
nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.
MODE 2: Disclosing by public officer of confidential
information to a foreign representative
Elements:
(1) That the offender is a public officer;
(2) That he has in his possession the articles, data
or information of a confidential nature relative to
the defense of the Philippines, by reason of the
public office he holds;
That he discloses their contents to a representative
of a foreign nation.
Under paragraph 1 of Article 117, the offender is any
person, whether a citizen or a foreigner, a private
individual or a public officer.
Under paragraph 2, the offender must be a public
officer who has in his possession the information by
reason of the public office he holds.
To be liable under paragraph 1, the offender must
have the intention to obtain information relative to
the defense of the Philippines. It is not necessary
that the information, etc. is obtained. It is sufficient
PAGE 108
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
that the offender has the purpose to obtain any of
them.
Espionage Treason
Not conditioned by the Not conditioned by the
citizenship of the offender citizenship of the offender
May be committed both in Committed only in time of
time of war and in time of war
peace
May be committed in Limited only to two ways
many ways of committing the crime:
levying of war and
adhering to the enemy
giving him aid or comfort
Crimes against the Law of
Nations
ARTICLE 118 - INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING
MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS
Elements:
(1) Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized
acts
(2) The acts provoke or give occasion for
(a) A war involving or liable to involve the
Philippines; or
(b) Exposure of Filipino citizens to reprisals on
their persons or property
This crime is committed in time of peace.
The intention of the offender is immaterial. The law
considers the effects produced by the acts of the
accused. [Reyes, 2008l citing Viada]
Examples [Reyes, 2008]
The raising, without sufficient authorization, of
troops within the Philippines for the service of a
foreign nation against another nation.
The public destruction of the flag or seal of a foreign
state or the public manifestations of hostility to the
head or ambassador of another state.
ARTICLE 119 - VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is not
involved
(2) There is a regulation issued by a competent
authority to enforce neutrality
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(3) Offender violates the regulation
Definition of neutrality. A nation or power which
takes no part in a contest of arms going on between
other countries.
ARTICLE 120 - CORRESPONDENCE WITH
HOSTILE COUNTRY
Elements:
(1) It is in time of war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) Offender makes correspondence with an enemy
country or territory occupied by enemy troops
(3) The correspondence is either –
(a) Prohibited by the government, or
(b) Carried on in ciphers or conventional signs,
or
(c) Containing notice or information which
might be useful to the enemy.
Definition of Correspondence. Communication by
means of letters which pass between those who have
friendly or business relations.
Even if the correspondence contains innocent
matters, if the correspondence has been prohibited
by the Government, it is punishable.
Prohibition by the Government is not essential in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 120.
Circumstances qualifying the offense under sentence
2, paragraph 3
The following must concur together:
(1)That the notice or information might be useful to
the enemy, and
(2) That the offender intended to aid the enemy.
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 for
treason. [Reyes, 2008]
ARTICLE 121 - FLIGHT TO ENEMY'S COUNTRY
Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) Offender must be owing allegiance to the
government
(3) Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy
country
(4) Going to the enemy country is prohibited by
compete
An alien resident may be guilty of flight to enemy
country. The law does not say “not being a
PAGE 109
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
foreigner.” Hence, the allegiance contemplated in
this article is either natural or temporary allegiance.
[Reyes, 2008]
Mere attempt to flee or go to enemy country
consummates the crime.
ARTICLE 122 - PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY
ON THE HIGH SEAS OR IN PHILIPPINE WATERS
Elements:
(1) The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine
waters
(2) Offenders are neither members of its
complement nor passengers of the vessel
(3) Offenders either –
(a) Attack or seize that vessel; or
(b) Seize the whole or part of its cargo, its
equipment or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers
(4) There is intent to gain
Acts Punished in Piracy:
(1) Attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or
in Philippine waters
(2) Seizing the whole or part of its cargo,
complement or passengers while the vessel is on
the high seas or in Philippine waters
Definition of High Seas
The Convention on the Law of the Sea defined it as
parts of the seas that are not included in the
exclusive economic zone, in the territorial seas, or in
the internal waters of a state, or in the archipelagic
waters of an archipelagic state.
Definition of Piracy
It is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas,
without lawful authority and done with animo
furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal
hostility. [People vs. Lol-lo]
Mutiny
Definition of Mutiny
It is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or
the raising of commotions and disturbances
Mutiny is punished in Article 122.Mutiny is usually
committed by the other members of the
complement and may be committed by the
passengers of the vessel.
Piracy Mutiny
Persons who attack the Persons who attack the
vessel or seize its cargo vessel or seize its cargo
are strangers to said are members of the crew
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Piracy Mutiny
vessels or passengers
Intent to gain is essential Intent to gain is not
essential. The offenders
may only intend to ignore
the ship’s officers or they
may be prompted by a
desire to commit plunder.
Abetting Piracy
In Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532, the act
of aiding pirates or abetting piracy is penalized as a
crime distinct from piracy.
Said section penalizes any person who knowingly
and in any manner aids or protects pirates, such as
giving them information about the movement of the
police or other peace officers of the government, or
acquires or receives property taken by such pirates,
or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or
who directly or indirectly abets the commission of
piracy.
Also, it is expressly provided in the same section that
the offender shall be considered as an accomplice of
the principal offenders and punished in accordance
with the Revised Penal Code.
This provision of PD No. 532 with respect to piracy in
Philippine waters has not been incorporated into the
RPC. Neither may it be considered repealed by RA
7659 since there is nothing in the amendatory law
which is inconsistent with said section.
Apparently, there is still the crime of abetting piracy
in Philippine waters under PD No. 532.
RA 9372
A person who commits an act punishable as piracy
and mutiny under Article 122 thereby sowing and
creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary
fear and panic among the populace, in order to
coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism.
ARTICLE 123 - QUALIFIED PIRACY
Elements:
(1) The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine
waters
(2) Offenders may or may not be members of its
complement, or passengers of the vessel
(3) Offenders either –
(a) Attack or seize the vessel; or
(b) Seize the whole or part of its cargo, its
equipment, or personal belongings of its
PAGE 110
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
crew or passengers
(4) The preceding were committed under any of the
following circumstances:
(a) Whenever they have seized a vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same;
(b) Whenever the pirates have abandoned their
victims without means of saving
themselves; or
(c) Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape
If any of the circumstances in Article 123 is present,
piracy is qualified.
Paragraph 2 of Article 123 specifically mentions
“pirates” thereby excluding mutineers from said
paragraph. It would seem, however, that it should be
in paragraph 1 where the word “pirates” should be
specifically mentioned and not in paragraph 2,
because in paragraph 1, the mutineers, being already
in the vessel, cannot seize the vessel by boarding or
firing upon the same. [Reyes, 2008]
Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are mere
circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot be
punished as separate crimes, nor can they be
complexed with piracy.
Although Article 123 refers to qualified piracy, there
is also the crime of qualified mutiny. Mutiny is
qualified under the following circumstances:
(1) When the offenders abandoned the victims
without means of saving themselves; or
(2) When the mutiny is accompanied by rape,
murder, homicide, or physical injuries
The first circumstance which qualifies piracy does not
apply to mutiny.
PD 532: ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY
ROBBERY
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms
shall mean and be understood, as follows:
(a) Philippine Waters. It shall refer to all bodies of
water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs,
bays around, between and connecting each of
the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or
dimension, and all other waters belonging to the
Philippines by historic or legal title, including
territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
(b) Vessel. Any vessel or watercraft used for
transport of passengers and cargo from one
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
place to another through Philippine Waters. It
shall include all kinds and types of vessels or
boats used in fishing.
(c) 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.
(d) Piracy. Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel,
or the taking away of the whole or part thereof
or its cargo, equipment, or the personal
belongings of its complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters,
shall be considered as piracy. The offenders
shall be considered as pirates and punished as
hereinafter provided.
(e) 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.
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 3. Penalties. Any person who commits piracy
or highway robbery/brigandage as herein defined,
shall, upon conviction by competent court be
punished by:
(a) Piracy. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are
committed as a result or on the occasion
thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed. If rape, murder or homicide is
committed as a result or on the occasion of
piracy, or when the offenders abandoned the
victims without means of saving themselves, or
when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon
or boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of
death shall be imposed.
(b) Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The penalty of
reclusion temporal in its minimum period shall
be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes
are committed during or on the occasion of the
commission of robbery or brigandage, the
PAGE 111
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed. If
kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder or
homicide, or rape is committed as a result or on
the occasion thereof, the penalty of death shall
be imposed.
Section 4. 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 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.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any
of the acts provided in this Section has performed
knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
RA 6235: ANTI-HIJACKING LAW
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to
compel a change in the course or destination of an
aircraft of Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the
control thereof, while it is in flight. An aircraft is in
flight from the moment all its external doors are
closed following embarkation until any of such doors
is opened for disembarkation.
It shall likewise be unlawful for any person to compel
an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine
territory or to seize or usurp the control thereof while
it is within the said territory.
Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, natural
or juridical, to ship, load or carry in any passenger
aircraft operating as a public utility within the
Philippines, and explosive, flammable, corrosive or
poisonous substance or material.
Section 4. The shipping, loading or carrying of any
substance or material mentioned in the preceding
section in any cargo aircraft operating as a public
utility within the Philippines shall be in accordance
with regulations issued by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
SEC. 3.Terrorism. Any person who commits an act
punishable under any of the following provisions of
the Revised Penal Code:
(1) Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the
High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
(2) Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
(3) Article 134-a (Coup d’etat), including acts
committed by private persons;
(4) Article 248 (Murder);
(5) Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention);
(6) Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction),
(7) or under
(1) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
(2) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and
Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of
1990);
(3) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy
Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
(4) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
(5) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and
Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
(6) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended
(Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and
Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in,
Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms,
Ammunitions or Explosives)
thereby sowing and creating a condition of
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the
crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of
forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the benefit
of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, as amended.
Who Are Liable
SEC. 4.Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. Persons
who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall
suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of the
crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and
decide to commit the same.
SEC. 5.Accomplice. Any person who, not being a
principal under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code
or a conspirator as defined in Section 4 hereof,
cooperates in the execution of either the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by
previous or simultaneous acts shall suffer the
PAGE 112
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
penalty of from seventeen (17) years, four (4) months
one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment.
SEC. 6.Accessory. Any person who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and
without having participated therein, either as
principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of
the Revised Penal Code, takes part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manner: (a) by
profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by
the effects of the crime; (b) by concealing or
destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or
instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
(c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the
escape of the principal or conspirator of the crime,
shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day
to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the penalties
prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed 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, with the single exception of
accessories falling within the provisions of
subparagraph (a).
Title II. Crimes against
Fundamental Laws of the
State
(1) Art. 124: Arbitrary Detention
(2) Art. 125: Delay in the Delivery Of Detained
Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities
(3) Art. 126: Delaying Release
(4) Art. 127: Expulsion
(5) Art. 128: Violation of Domicile
(6) Art.129: Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained
and Abuse in the Service of those Legally
Obtained
(7) Art. 130: Searching Domicile Without Witnesses
(8) Art. 131: Prohibition, Interruption and Dissolution
of Peaceful Meetings
(9) Art. 132: Interruption of Religious Worship
(10) Art. 133: Offending the Religious Feelings
Crimes under this title are those that violate certain
provisions of the Bill of Rights.
All offenses under this title can only be committed by
public officers except offending the religious feelings
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

under Article 133. In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay

The primary offender in ARTICLES 124-132 is a public
officer acting under supposed exercise of official
functions, albeit illegally.
A private person may be liable under these articles
ONLY WHEN he:
(1) Conspires with a public officer; OR
(2) He becomes an accomplice or accessory to said
crimes
ARTICLE 133 can be committed by EITHER a public
officer OR a private person.
ARTICLE 124 - ARBITRARY DETENTION
Elements:
(1) That the offender is a public officer or employee
(2) That he detains a person
(3) That the detention is without a legal ground.
The Crime of Arbitrary Detention assumes several
forms:
(1) Detaining a person without legal grounds
(Article 124);
(2) Having arrested the offended party for legal
grounds but without warrant of arrest, and the
public officer does not deliver the arrested
person to the proper judicial authority within the
period of 12, 18, or 36 hours, as the case may be
(Article 125); or
(3) Delaying release by competent authority with
the same period mentioned in number 2 (Article
126).
Chairman who unlawfully detains another was held
to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention. This
is because he is a person in authority vested with
jurisdiction to maintain peace and order within his
barangay. [Milo v. Salanga (1987)]
There must be an actual restraint of liberty of the
offended party.
The crime committed is only grave or light threats if
the offended party may still go to the place where he
wants to go, even though there have been warnings.
If the offender falsely imputes a crime against a
person to be able to arrest him and appear not
determined to file a charge against him, the crime is
arbitrary detention through unlawful arrest. [Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law]
A case where a DENR team was invited to Mayor
Astorga’s house from 530pm to 230am for dinner
and drinks, does not fall under Arbitrary Detention.
Absent any physical restraint, an element of the said
crime is fear. No record on evidence showed that the
mayor instilled fear into the minds of the DENR team
while they were in the Mayor’s house.[Astorga v.
People (2004)]
Arrest without warrant is the usual cause of arbitrary
detention.
Difference between Arbitrary Detention, Illegal
Detention and Unlawful Arrest

The detention of a person is without legal ground: (1) Arbitrary Illegal Unlawful
when he has not committed any crime or, at least, Detention Detention Arrest
there is no reasonable ground for suspicion that he Offender Public officer (1) Private Any person
has committed a crime, or (2) when he is not who has person;
suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment authority to OR
requiring compulsory confinement in a hospital. make arrests (2) Public
and detain officer
A public officer is deemed such when he is acting persons who is
within the bounds of his official authority or function. acting in a
private
A police officer who employs force in excess of what capacity
is necessary is acting outside the bounds of his duties or beyond
and is considered acting in his private the scope
capacity.[Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal of his
Law] official
duty
In the crime of arbitrary detention, although the
offender is a public officer, not any public officer can Criminal Violate the Deprive the Accuse the
commit this crime. Only those public officers whose Intent offended offended party offended
official duties carry with it the authority to make an party’s of his personal party of a
arrest and detain persons can be guilty of this crime. constitutional liberty crime he
freedom did not

PAGE 113
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Arbitrary Illegal Unlawful

Detention Detention Arrest Where the invitation comes from a powerful group
composed predominantly of ranking military officers
against commit, and the designated interrogation site is a military
warrantless deliver him camp, the same can be easily taken NOT as a strictly
arrest to the voluntary invitation. It is an authoritative command
proper that one can only defy at one’s peril. [Sanchez v.
authority, Demetriou (1993)]
and file the
necessary Detained person should be released when a judge is
charges to not available. [Albior vs. Aguis (2003)]
incriminate
him Waiver of the provisions of Article 125
Before the complaint or information is filed, the
ARTICLE 125 - DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF person arrested may ask for a preliminary
DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL investigation in accordance with Rule 112 of the
AUTHORITIES Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, but he must
Elements: sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee Revised Penal Code in the presence of his counsel.
(2) He detains a person for some legal ground Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail
(3) He fails to deliver such person to the proper and the investigation must be terminated within
judicial authorities within – fifteen days from its inception. (Section 7,par. 2, Rule
(a) 12 hours for light penalties 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
(b) 18 hours for correctional penalties
(c) 36 hours for afflictive or capital penalties ARTICLE 126 - DELAYING RELEASE
Elements:
This is applicable only when the arrest is without a (1) Offender is a public officer or employee
warrant. But the arrest must be lawful. (2) There is a:
(a) Judicial or executive order for the release of a
At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in prisoner or detention prisoner, OR
the pursuance of a lawful arrest. Detention becomes (b) A proceeding upon a petition for the
arbitrary when the: liberation of such person
(1) Applicable period lapses (3) Offender without good reason delays –
(2) Without the arresting officer filing a formal (a) The service of the notice of such order to the
charge with the proper court. prisoner
(b) The performance of such judicial or
The periods stated are counted only when the executive order for the release of the
prosecutor’s office is ready to receive the complaint prisoner; OR
or information. Nighttime is not included in the (c) The proceedings upon a petition for the
period. release of such person

“Delivery” means the filing of correct information ARTICLE 127 – EXPULSION

with the proper court (or constructive delivery --
Elements:
turning over the person arrested to the jurisdiction of
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
the court). The purpose is to determine whether the
(2) He either –
offense is bailable or not. (Upon delivery, judge or
(a) Expels any person from the Philippines; OR
court acquires jurisdiction to issue an order of release
(b) Compels a person to change residence
or of commitment of prisoner.) [Sayo v. Chief of Police
(c) Offender is not authorized to do so by law.
(1948)]

The elements of custodial investigation are:
(1) The suspect is deprived of liberty in any
significant manner;
(2) The interrogation is initiated by law enforcement
authorities;
(3) The interrogation is inculpatory in character.
[People v. Tan (1998)]
The city mayor of Manila committed the crime of
expulsion when he ordered certain prostitutes to be
transferred to Davao WITHOUT observing due
process since they have not been charged with any
crime. [Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919)]

PAGE 114
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The right to return to one’s country is not among the
rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,
which treats only of the Liberty of Abode and the
right to travel.
However, it is a well-settled view that the right to
return may be considered as a generally accepted
principle of international law and, under the
Constitution, forms part of the law of the land.
However, it is distinct and separate from the right to
travel.
The constitutional guarantees invoked by the
Marcoses are neither absolute nor inflexible for the
exercise of such freedoms has limits and must adjust
to the concerns which involve the public
interest.[Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)]
ARTICLE 128 - VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
Acts punished:
(1) Entering any dwelling against the will of the
owner thereof
(2) Searching papers or other effects found therein
without the previous consent of such owner, OR
(3) Refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave the same
Elements COMMON to the three acts:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He is not authorized by judicial order –
(a) To enter the dwelling;
(b) To make a search therein for papers or other
effects; or
(c) He refuses to leave, after having
surreptitiously entered such dwelling and
been required to leave the same
Qualifying circumstances:
(1) Night time
(2) Papers or effects not constituting evidence of a
crime are not returned immediately after the
search made by the offender.
RULE 113 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT: a
public officer, who breaks into the premises, incurs
no liability WHEN a person to be arrested enters said
premises and closes it thereafter, provided that the
officer first gives a notice of arrest.
The public officer should have first given notice of an
arrest.
According to People vs. Doria (1999) and People vs.
Elamparo (2000), the following are the accepted
exceptions to the warrant requirement:
(1) Search incidental to an arrest;
PAGE 115
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) Search of moving vehicles;
(3) Evidence in plain view;
(4) Stop and frisk;
(5) Customs searches; AND
(6) Consented warrantless search.
[M]ere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop
and frisk."
A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person detained has
weapons concealed about him.
Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest:
(1) The general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies the
recognition that a police officer may, under
appropriate circumstances and in an
appropriate manner, approach a person for
purposes of investigating possible criminal
behavior even without probable cause; and
(2) The more pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police officer to
take steps to assure himself that the person with
whom he deals is not armed with a deadly
weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be
used against the police officer. [Malacat v. CA
(1997)]
“Against the will” means that the offender ignored
the prohibition of the owner which may be express or
implied as when the door is closed even though not
locked. [Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal
Law]
The offender must be a public officer or employee. If
the offender is a private individual then the crime is
trespass to dwelling under Article 280.
ARTICLE 129 - SEARCH WARRANTS
MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED, AND ABUSE IN THE
SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED
Elements of procuring a search warrant without just
cause:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He procures a search warrant
(3) There is no just cause
Elements of exceeding authority or using unnecessary
severity in executing a search warrant legally
procured:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He has legally procured a search warrant
(3) He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary
severity in executing the same.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 130 - SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT
WITNESSES
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He is armed with search warrant legally
procured
(3) He searches the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person
(4) The owner, or any members of his family, or two
witnesses residing in the same locality are not
present.
RULE 116: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
A search warrant is an order in writing -
(1) Signed by a judge
(2) Directed to a peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property described therein
and bring it before the court
Requisites for issuing a search warrant:
(1) Probable cause, in connection with one specific
offense, to be determined personally by the
judge AFTER examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witness
he may produce
(2) Particular description of:
(a) Place to be searched; AND
(b) Things to be seized which may be anywhere
in the Philippines
An officer may break open any outer or inner door or
window of a house or any part of a house or anything
therein WHEN these circumstances concur:
(1) He is refused admittance to the place of directed
search;
(2) His purpose is to execute the warrant to liberate
himself or any person lawfully aiding him when
unlawfully detained therein; and
(3) He has given notice of his purpose and authority.
The warrant must direct that it be served in the
daytime. HOWEVER, it can be served at any time of
the day or night WHEN the affidavit asserts that the
property is on the person or in the place ordered to
be searched.
A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from
its date. Thereafter, it shall be void.
The officer seizing the property under the warrant
must give a detailed receipt for the same to the
lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence
the search and seizure were made.
In the absence of such occupant, the officer must:
PAGE 116
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(1) leave a receipt in the place in which he found the
seized property;
(2) In the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the
same locality.
ARTICLE 131 - PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION
AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He performs any of the following acts:
(a) Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal
ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting,
or by dissolving the same
(b) Hindering any person from joining any
lawful association, or from attending any of
its meetings
(c) Prohibiting or hindering any person from
addressing, either alone or together with
others, any petition to the authorities for the
correction of abuses or redress of grievances
The government has a right to require a permit
before any gathering can be made. HOWEVER, the
government only has regulatory, NOT
PROHIBITORY, powers with regard to such
requirement.
The permit should state the day, time, and place of
the gathering.
If the permit is denied arbitrarily, OR the officer
dictates the place where the meeting is to be held,
this article is VIOLATED.
If in the course of the assembly, which started out
peacefully, the participants committed illegal acts
like oral defamation or inciting to sedition, a public
officer or law enforcer can stop or dissolve the
meeting.
Two criteria to determine whether this article would
be violated:
(1) Dangerous tendency rule – applied during times
of national unrest such as to prevent coup
d’etat.
(2) Clear and present danger rule – applied during
times of peace. Stricter rule.
ARTICLE 132 - INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion are about to take place or are going on
(3) Offender prevents or disturbs the same
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Circumstances qualifying the offense: if the crime is
committed with violence or threats.
ARTICLE 133 - OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS
FEELINGS
Elements:
(1) Acts complained of were performed in a place
devoted to religious worship, OR during the
celebration of any religious ceremony
(2) The acts must be notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful.
In the phrase “in a place devoted to religious
worship,” it is not necessary that there is a religious
ceremony going on when the offender performs acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
The phrase “during the celebration” is separated by
the word “or” from the phrase “place devoted to
religious worship,” which indicates that the “religious
ceremony” need not be celebrated in a place of
worship. [Reyes (2008)]
Jurisprudence:
A Catholic priest complained against a group that
passed by the churchyard as they were holding the
funeral rites of a Church of Christ member.
An act is NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE to the religious
feelings when a person:
(1) Ridicules or makes light of anything constituting
religious dogma
(2) Works or scoffs at anything devoted to religious
ceremonies
(3) Plays with or damages or destroys any object of
veneration of the faithful
WON an act is offensive to the religious feelings, is a
question of fact which must be adjudged only
according to the feelings of the Catholics and not
those of other faithful ones. [People v. Baes (1939)]
Laurel Dissent: The determination should NOT be
made to depend upon a more or less broad or
narrow conception of any given religion. Facts and
circumstances should be viewed through an
unbiased judicial criterion. (Note: This later became
the majority decision in People v. Tengson)
The crime is only UNJUST VEXATION when the act is
NOT directed at the religious belief itself and there is
no intention of causing so serious a disturbance as to
interrupt a religious ceremony. [People v. Nanoy]
PAGE 117
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
RA 9372 : HUMAN SECURITY ACT
PERIOD OF DETENTION
SEC. 18. Period of Detention Without Judicial
Warrant of Arrest. – The provisions of Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code to the contrary
notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement
personnel, who, having been duly authorized in
writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken
custody of a person charged with or suspected of the
crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to
commit terrorism shall, without incurring any
criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained
persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said
charged or suspected person to the proper judicial
authority within a period of three (3) days counted
from the moment the said charged or suspected
person has been apprehended or arrested, detained,
and taken into custody by the said police, or law
enforcement personnel: Provided, That the arrest of
those suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism must result from the
surveillance under Section 7 and examination of
bank deposits under Section 27 of this Act.
The police or law enforcement personnel concerned
shall, before detaining the person suspected of the
crime of terrorism, present him or her before any
judge at the latter’s residence or office nearest the
place where the arrest took place at any time of the
day or night. It shall be the duty of the judge, among
other things, to ascertain the identity of the police or
law enforcement personnel and the person or
persons they have arrested and presented before
him or her, to inquire of them the reasons why they
have arrested the person and determine by
questioning and personal observation whether or not
the suspect has been subjected to any physical,
moral or psychological torture by whom and why.
The judge shall then submit a written report of what
he/she had observed when the subject was brought
before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction
over the case of the person thus arrested. the judge
shall forthwith submit his/her report within three (3)
calendar days from the time the suspect was
brought to his/her residence or office.
Immediately after taking custody of a person
charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism
or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law
enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the
judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension
or arrest: Provided, That where the arrest is made
during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office
hours, the written notice shall be served at the
residence of the judge nearest the place where the
accused was arrested.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve
(12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon
the police or law enforcement personnel who fails to
notify any judge as provided in the preceding
paragraph.
SEC. 19.Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual
or Imminent Terrorist Attack. In the event of an
actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not
be detained for more than three (3) days without the
written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or
regional official of a Human Rights Commission or
judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the
Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals
nearest the place of the arrest. If the arrest is made
during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office
hours, the arresting police or law enforcement
personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the
residence of any of the officials mentioned above
that is nearest the place where the accused was
arrested. The approval in writing of any of the said
officials shall be secured by the police or law
enforcement personnel concerned within five (5)
days after the date of the detention of the persons
concerned: Provided, however, That within three (3)
days after the detention the suspects, whose
connection with the terror attack or threat is not
established, shall be released immediately.
RA 9745: ANTI-TORTURE ACT
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 4. Acts of Torture. - For purposes of this Act,
torture shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or
punishment inflicted by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority upon another in
his/her custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion,
disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the
body, such as:
(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, 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, acid; by the rubbing of pepper or other
chemical substances on mucous membranes, or
acids or spices directly on the wound(s);
PAGE 118
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(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;
(i) The administration or drugs to induce confession
and/or reduce mental competency; or
(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain
symptoms of a disease; and
(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture; and
(b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts
committed by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority which are calculated to affect or
confuse the mind and/or undermine a person's
dignity and morale, such as:
(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 shall be summarily
executed;
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(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.
Section 5. Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. - Other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment refers to a
deliberate and aggravated treatment or punishment
not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act, inflicted
by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority against another person in custody, which
attains a level of severity sufficient to cause suffering,
gross humiliation or debasement to the latter. The
assessment of the level of severity shall depend on
all the 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.
Section 6. Freedom from Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
An Absolute Bight. - 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 cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment.
Section 7. Prohibited Detention. - Secret detention
places, solitary confinement, incommunicado or
other similar forms of detention, where torture may
be carried out with impunity. Are hereby prohibited.
In which case, the Philippine National Police (PNP),
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and other
law enforcement. agencies concerned shall make an
updated list of all detention centers and facilities
under their respective jurisdictions with the
PAGE 119
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
corresponding data on the prisoners or detainees
incarcerated or detained therein such as, among
others, names, date of arrest and incarceration, and
the crime or offense committed. This list shall be
made available to the public at all times, with a copy
of the complete list available at the respective
national headquarters of the PNP and AFP. A copy of
the complete list shall likewise be submitted by the
PNP, AFP and all other law enforcement agencies to
the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), such list to
be periodically updated, by the same agencies,
within the first five (5) days of every month at the
minimum. Every regional office of the PNP, AFP and
other law enforcement agencies shall also maintain
a similar list far all detainees and detention facilities
within their respective areas, and shall make the
same available to the public at all times at their
respective regional headquarters, and submit a copy.
updated in the same manner provided above, to the
respective regional offices of the CHR.
WHO ARE LIABLE
Section 13. Who are Criminally Liable. - Any person
who actually participated Or induced another in the
commission of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment or who
cooperated in the execution of the act of torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall
be liable as principal
Any superior military, police or law enforcement
officer or senior government official who issued an
order to any lower ranking personnel to commit
torture for whatever purpose shall be held equally
liable as principals.
The immediate commanding officer of the unit
concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior public
official of the PNP and other law enforcement
agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the
crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment for any act or
omission, or negligence committed by him/her that
shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether
directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by
his/her subordinates. If he/she has knowledge of or,
owing to the circumstances at the time, should have
known that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment shall be
committed, is being committed, or has been
committed by his/her subordinates or by others
within his/her area of responsibility and, despite such
knowledge, did not take preventive or corrective
action either before, during or immediately after its
commission, when he/she has the authority to
prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment but failed to prevent or investigate
allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due
to negligence shall also be liable as principals.
Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an
accessory if he/she has knowledge that torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment is being committed and without having
participated therein, either as principal or
accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission
in any of the following manner:
(a) By themselves profiting from or assisting the
offender to profit from the effects of the act of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment;
(b) By concealing the act of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof
in order to prevent its discovery; or(c) By harboring,
concealing or assisting m the escape of the
principal/s in the act of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment:
Provided, That the accessory acts are done with the
abuse of the official's public functions.
Title III. Crimes against Public
Order
(1) Article 134 - Rebellion/Insurrection
(2) Article 134-A - Coup d’ État
(3) Article 135 - Penalty for Rebellion, Insurrection or
Coup d’ État
(4) Article 136 - Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit
Coup d’ État, Rebellion or Insurrection
(5) Article 137 - Disloyalty of Public Officers or
Employees
(6) Article 138 - Inciting to Rebellion or Insurrection
(7) Article139 – Sedition
(8) Article141 - Conspiracy to Commit Sedition
(9) Article142 – Inciting to Sedition
(10) Article140 - Persons Liable for Sedition
(11) Article 143 - Acts Tending to Prevent the Meeting
of the Congress of the Philippines and Similar
Bodies
(12) Article 144 - Disturbance of Proceedings
(13) Article 145 - Violation of Parliamentary Immunity
(14) Article 146 - Illegal Assemblies
(15) Article 147 - Illegal Associations
(16) Article 148 - Direct Assault
(17) Article 149 - Indirect Assault
PAGE 120
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(18) Article 150 - Disobedience to Summons Issued
by Congress, Its Committees or Subcommittees,
by the Constitutional Commissions, Its
Committees, Subcommittees or Divisions
(19) Article 153 - Tumults and Other Disturbances of
Public Order
(20) Article 151 - Resistance and Disobedience to a
Person in Authority or the Agents of Such
Persons
(21) Article 154 - Unlawful Use of Means of
Publication and Unlawful Utterances
(22) Article 156 - Delivering Persons from Jail
(23) Article 155 - Alarms and Scandals
(24) Article 157 - Evasion of Service of Sentence
(25) Article 159 - Other Cases of Evasion of Service of
Sentence
(26) Article 158 - Evasion of Service of Sentence on
the Occasion of Disorders, Conflagrations,
Earthquakes, or Other Calamities
(27) Article 160 - Quasi Recidivism
CHAPTER I - REBELLION, COUP D’ETAT,
SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY
ARTICLE 134 - REBELLION /INSURRECTION
Elements:
(1) There is a public uprising and taking arms
against the government;
(2) The purpose of the uprising or movement is:
(a) To remove from the allegiance to the
government or its laws the Philippine
territory or any part thereof, or any body of
land, naval, or other armed forces; or
(b) To deprive the Chief Executive or Congress,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives
Rule on Complexing of Rebellion: Rebellion cannot
be complexed with, but absorbs other crimes
committed in furtherance of rebellion. There is no
complex crime of rebellion with murder and other
common crimes.
Jurisprudence:
The doctrine laid down in People v. Hernandez
remains good law. This prohibits the complexing of
rebellion with any other offense committed in the
occasion thereof, either as a means to its commission
or as an unintended effect of an activity that
constitutes rebellion. [Enrile v Salazar (1990)]
All crimes, whether punishable under special or
general law, which are mere components or
ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof,
become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes Rebellion vs. Sedition

themselves.[Ponce Enrile v Amin (1990)] Rebellion Sedition
Both motive and overt acts are essential components There must be taking up It is sufficient that the
of the crime of rebellion. If the political motive of a of arms against the public uprising be
supposedly rebellious act cannot be sufficiently government. tumultuous.
proven, the accused should be convicted of the
The purpose is always The purpose may be
common crime (e.g. murder) and not of rebellion.
political. political or social.
Rebellion is not covered by Art. 2 on extraterritorial
jurisdiction. [People v. Lovedioro (1995)] NOTE : When any of the objectives of rebellion is
pursued but there is no public uprising in the legal
Rebellion vs. Insurrection sense, the crime is direct assault of the first form.
Rebellion Insurrection ARTICLE 134-A - COUP D’ ÉTAT
Object is to completely A movement seeking to Elements:
overthrow and supplant effect some change of (1) Offender is a person or persons belonging to the
the existing government minor importance or to military or police or holding any public office or
prevent the exercise of employment;
governmental authority (2) It is committed by means of a swift attack
with respect to particular accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat,
matters or subjects strategy or stealth;
(3) The attack is directed against the duly
Rebellion vs. Treason constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
Rebellion Treason communication networks, public utilities or
The levying of war against The levying of war against other facilities needed for the exercise and
the government during the government would continued possession of power;
peace time for any constitute treason when (4) The purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish
purpose mentioned in Art. performed to aid the state power.
134 enemy; it would also
constitute adherence to Persons who may commit coup d’etat:
the enemy, giving him aid (1) It may be committed singly or collectively
and comfort (2) Requires as a principal offender a member of
the AFP, PNP, or a public officer with or without
Always involves taking up Mere adherence to the civilian support
arms against the enemy giving him aid and
government. comfort The crime of coup d’etat may be committed with or
without civilian participation.
NOTE: No crime of misprision of rebellion.
Coup d’etat, when considered as Terrorism
Rebellion vs. Subversion A person who commits an act punishable as coup
Rebellion Subversion d’etat under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code,
including acts committed by private persons, thereby
Crime against public Crime against national sowing and creating a condition of widespread and
order security extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in
There must be public Being officers and ranking order to coerce the government to give in to an
uprising to overthrow the members of subversive unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of
government groups constitute terrorism.
subversion
ARTICLE 135 - PENALTY FOR REBELLION, INSURRECTION
OR COUP D’ ÉTAT
NOTE: There is no longer a crime of subversion by
virtue of RA 7636, which repealed RA 1700. Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat
(1) The leaders:
(a) Any person who promotes, maintains or
heads a rebellion or insurrection; or
(b) Any person who leads, directs or commands

PAGE 121
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Conspiracy Proposal
when two or more when the person who has
persons come to an decided to rise publicly
agreement to rise publicly and take arms against the
and take arms against government for any of the
government for any of the purposes of rebellion
purposes of rebellion and proposes its execution to
decide to commit it some other person or
persons
others to undertake a coup d'etat;
(2) The participants:
(a) Any person who participates or executes the
commands of others in rebellion or
insurrection;
(b) Any person in the government service who
participates or executes directions or
commands of others in undertaking a coup
d’etat;
(c) Any person not in the government service
who participates, supports, finances, abets
or aids in undertaking a coup d'etat.
(d) If under the command of unknown leaders,
any person who directed the others, spoke
for them, signed receipts and other
documents issued in their name on behalf
of the rebels shall be deemed a leader.
It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never
took the oath of allegiance to, or that they never
recognized the Government. [US vs. del Rosario]
Mere silence or omission is not punishable in
rebellion. [US vs. Ravidas]
There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder
and other common crimes. Acts committed in
furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves
are deemed absorbed in one single crime of
rebellion. [ Enrile vs. Amin (1990)]
ARTICLE 136 - CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
COUP D’ ÉTAT, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Mode 1: Conspiracy to commit coup d’état, rebellion or
insurrection
Elements:
(1) Two or more persons come to an agreement to
swiftly attack or to rise publicly and take arms
against the Government for any of the purposes
of rebellion or insurrection;
(2) They decide to commit it.
PAGE 122
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Mode 2: Proposal to commit coup d’état, rebellion or
insurrection
Elements:
(1) A person has decided to swiftly attack or to rise
publicly and take arms against the Government
for any of the purposes of rebellion or
insurrection;
(2) Such person proposes its execution to some
other person or persons
ARTICLE 137 - DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
(2) Offender commits any of the following acts:
(a) Failing to resist a rebellion by all the means
in their power;
(b) Continuing to discharge the duties of their
offices under the control of the rebels
(c) Accepting appointment to office under
them.
The crime presupposes rebellion committed by other
persons. Offender must not be in conspiracy with the
rebels. Effect of conspiracy: Public officer is himself
guilty of rebellion.
ARTICLE 138 - INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Elements:
(1) Offender does not take arms or is not in open
hostility against the government;
(2) He incites others to the execution of any of the
acts of rebellion;
(3) The inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or
other representations tending to the same end.
NOTE: There is no crime of inciting to treason.
Inciting to Rebellion vs. Proposal to Commit
Rebellion
Proposal to Commit
Inciting to Rebellion
Rebellion
The offender induces another to commit rebellion.
Rebellion should not be actually committed by the
persons to whom it is proposed or who are incited.
Otherwise, they become principals by inducement in
the crime of rebellion.
The person who proposes There is no need that the
has decided to commit offender has decided to
rebellion. commit rebellion.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Proposal to Commit Sedition vs. Coup d’etat

Inciting to Rebellion
Rebellion Sedition Coup d’etat
The person who proposes The act of inciting is done
There is no distinction as Offender belongs to the
the execution of the crime publicly.
to who may commit; a military or police or
uses secret means.
private individual may holding any public office
commit the offense or employment
ARTICLE 139 - SEDITION
Primary purpose is to To seize or to diminish
Elements: disturb public peace state power
(1) Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously;
(2) Offenders employ force, intimidation, or other
Sedition vs. Treason
means outside of legal methods;
(3) Purpose is to attain any of the following objects: Sedition Treason
(a) To prevent the promulgation or execution of
any law or the holding of any popular It is the raising of It is the violation by a
election; commotions or subject of his allegiance
(b) To prevent the national government or any disturbances in the State. to his sovereign.
provincial or municipal government or any
public officer from exercising its or his A friction between the Philippine constabulary and
functions, or prevent the execution of an the Manila police escalated and resulted in the
administrative order; deaths of 6 policemen and 2 civilians and in the
(c) To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon serious injuries of 3 civilians.
the person or property of any public officer
or employee; The Court held that unlike the crime of rebellion,
(d) To commit, for any political or social end, common crimes committed in the occasion of
any act of hate or revenge against private sedition are to be appreciated as separate
persons or any social classes; crimes.[People v Cabrera (1922)]
(e) To despoil for any political or social end, any
person, municipality or province, or the ARTICLE 140 - PERSONS LIABLE FOR SEDITION
national government of all its property or (1) The leader of the sedition;
any part thereof. (2) Other person participating in the sedition

Tumultuous: If caused by more than three persons
who are armed or provided with the means of
violence. (Art. 163)
The purpose of this crime is not the overthrowing of
the government but the violation of public peace.
ARTICLE 141 - CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION
Elements:
(1) Two or more persons come to an agreement and
a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to
attain any of the objects of sedition;
(2) They decide to commit it.

Under R.A. 8294, sedition absorbs the use of
unlicensed firearm as an element thereof; hence, it is
not an aggravating circumstance, and the offender
can no longer be prosecuted for illegal possession of
firearm. (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal
Law).
Sedition vs. Rebellion
NOTE: There is no proposal to commit sedition.
ARTICLE 142 – INCITING TO SEDITION
Mode 1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any
of the acts which constitute sedition by means
of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, etc.

Sedition Rebellion Elements:

(1) Offender does not take direct part in the crime of
There must be a public uprising.
sedition;
It is sufficient that the There must be taking up (2) He incites others to the accomplishment of any
public uprising is of arms against the of the acts which constitute sedition by means of
tumultuous. government. speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems,
The purpose of the The purpose of the cartoons, banners, or other representations
offenders may be political offenders is always tending towards the same end.
or social political.

PAGE 123
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Mode 2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which
tend to disturb the public peace;
Mode 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.
Elements:
(1) Offender does not take part in the crime of
sedition.
(2) He uttered words or speeches and writing,
publishing or circulating scurrilous libels and
that
(a) Tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful
officer in conducting the functions of his
office;
(b) Tend to instigate others to cabal and meet
together for unlawful purposes;
(c) Suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or
riots; OR
(d) 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.
Considering that the objective of sedition is to
express protest against the government and in the
process creating hate against public officers, any act
that will generate hatred against the government or
a public officer concerned or a social class may
amount to Inciting to Sedition.
Article 142 is, therefore, quite broad.
Constitutional Tests relative to seditious words:
Clear and Present Danger Rule: The words must be
of such nature that by uttering them there is a
danger of a public uprising and that such danger
should be both clear and imminent. The danger
must not only be probable but very likely inevitable.
Dangerous Tendency Rule: If the words used tend to
create a danger of public uprising, then those words
could properly be the subject of a penal clause
The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the
dramatic play, in view of the time, place, and manner
of its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of hatred
and enmity against the American people and the
Government of the US in the Philippines.[US v
Tolentino (1906)]
PAGE 124
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
CHAPTER II - CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR
REPRESENTATION
ARTICLE 143 - ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING
OF THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SIMILAR
BODIES
Elements:
(1) There is a projected or actual meeting of
Congress or any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional committees or
divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or
city or municipal council or board;
(2) Offender, who may be any person, prevents such
meetings by force or fraud.
ARTICLE 144 - DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
Elements:
(1) There is a meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof,
or of any provincial board or city or municipal
council or board;
(2) Offender does any of the following acts:
(a) He disturbs any of such meetings;
(b) He behaves while in the presence of any
such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt
its proceedings or to impair the respect due
it.
Complaint may be filed by a member of the
legislative body. One who disturbs may also be
punished for contempt by Congress.
ARTICLE 145 - VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Mode 1: Using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to
prevent any member of Congress from
attending the meetings of Congress or of any
of its committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or
divisions thereof, or from expressing his
opinion or casting his vote;
Elements:
(1) Offender uses force, intimidation, threats or
fraud;
(2) The purpose of the offender is to prevent any
member of Congress from:
(a) Attending the meetings of the Congress or
of any of its committees or constitutional
commissions;
(b) Expressing his opinion; OR
(c) Casting his vote.
Note: Offender in mode 1 is any person
Mode 2: Arresting or searching any member thereof
while Congress is in regular or special session,
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

except in case such member has committed a (2) Persons merely present at the meeting, who
crime punishable under the Code by a penalty must have a common intent to commit the
higher than prision mayor. felony of illegal assembly.

Elements: In the first form of illegal assembly, the persons

(1) Offender is a public officer of employee;
(2) He arrests or searches any member of Congress;
(3) Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in
regular or special session;
(4) The member arrested or searched has not
committed a crime punishable under the Code
by a penalty higher than prision mayor.
Parliamentary immunity does not protect members
of Congress from responsibility in accordance with
the disciplinary rules of Congress itself.
1987 Constitution: Members of Congress cannot be
arrested for offenses punishable by a penalty less
than prision mayor (6 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs), while
Congress is in session. They can be prosecuted after
Congress adjourns.
CHAPTER III – ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND
ASSOCIATIONS
ARTICLE 146 - ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES
present at the meeting must be armed. But the law
does not require that all the persons present must be
armed. The unarmed persons present at the meeting
are also liable.
Presumptions if a person carried an unlicensed
firearm:
(1) The purpose of the meeting insofar as he is
concerned is to commit acts punishable under
the RPC
(2) He is considered a leader or organizer of the
meeting.
NOTE: Not all persons present at the meeting of the
first form of illegal assembly must be armed.
ARTICLE 147 - ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
(1) Associations totally or partially organized for the
purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code;
(2) Associations totally or partially organized for
some purpose contrary to public morals.

Mode 1: Any meeting attended by armed persons for the
purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code;
Elements:
(1) There is a meeting, a gathering or group of
persons, whether in a fixed place or moving;
(2) The meeting is attended by armed persons;
(3) The purpose of the meeting is to commit any of
the crimes punishable under the Code.
Persons liable for illegal associations:
(1) Founders, directors and president of the
association;
(2) Mere members of the association.
Public Morals: matters which affect the interest of
society and public convenience, not limited to good
customs
Illegal Assemblies vs. Illegal Associations

Mode 2: Any meeting in which the audience, whether Illegal Assembly Illegal Association
armed or not, is incited to the commission There must be an actual Actual meeting not
of the crime of treason, rebellion or meeting or assembly necessary
insurrection, sedition, or assault upon
person in authority or his agents. What is punished are the What is punished is the
meeting and the act of forming or
Elements: attendance therein organizing the association
(1) There is a meeting, a gathering or group of Persons liable: Persons liable:
persons, whether in a fixed place or moving; (1) Organizers or leaders (1) Founders, directors,
(2) The audience, whether armed or not, is incited to of the meeting president
the commission of the crime of treason, (2) Persons present (2) The members
rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct See also: BP 880 - Public Assembly Act of 1985
assault.

Persons liable for illegal assembly:

(1) The organizer or leaders of the meeting;

PAGE 125
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

CHAPTER IV - ASSAULT UPON AND RESISTANCE
AND DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS IN
AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS
ARTICLE 148 - DIRECT ASSAULT
Mode 1. Without public uprising, by employing
force or intimidation for the attainment of
any of the purposes enumerated in
defining the crimes of rebellion and
sedition;
Elements:
(1) Offender employs force or intimidation;
(2) The aim of the offender is to attain any of the
purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of the
objects of the crime of sedition;
(3) There is no public uprising.
Mode 2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by
employing force or by seriously
intimidating or by seriously resisting any
person in authority or any of his agents,
while engaged in the performance of
official duties, or on occasion of such
performance.
Elements:
(1) Offender makes an attack, employs force, makes
a serious intimidation, or makes a serious
resistance;
(2) The person assaulted is a person in authority or
his agent;
(3) At the time of the assault, the person in
authority or his agent is engaged in the actual
performance of official duties, OR that he is
assaulted by reason of the past performance of
official duties;
(4) Offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a
person in authority or his agent in the exercise of
his duties.
(5) There is no public uprising.
The first form of direct assault is tantamount to
rebellion or sedition, except that there is no public
uprising.
corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed
a person in authority.
“Directly vested with jurisdiction” means the power
or authority to govern and execute the laws.
Teachers, professors and persons in charged with the
supervision of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and universities shall be deemed
persons in authority, in applying the provisions of
Articles 148 and 151. For other purposes, such as to
increase the penalty by reason of the aggravating
circumstances where a person in authority is
involved, the teachers and professors are not persons
in authority.
When the assault results in the killing of that agent
or of a person in authority, the offense committed is
complex crime of direct assault with murder or
homicide. The only time when it is not complexed is
when material consequence is a light felony, that is,
slight physical injury. Direct assault absorbs the
lighter felony.
The force employed need not be serious when the
offended party is a person in authority;
Intimidation or resistance must be serious whether
the offended party is a person in authority OR an
agent of a person in authority
If the public officer is not a person in authority, the
assault on him is an aggravating circumstance in Art.
14, no. 3 (rank). (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in
Criminal Law).
There must be however an intent to disregard the
victim’s rank.
Gabutero was acting in the performance of his duties
[as he was trying to pacify Dollantes who was
causing trouble] as barangay captain when he was
stabbed to death. Thus, the crime committed was
murder with assault upon a person in
authority.[People v. Dollantes (1987)]

ARTICLE 152 - PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF

Classifications of direct assault: simple and qualified.
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY

Assault is qualified when: Agents of a Person

Public Officer (Art. Persons in
(1) There is a weapon employed in the attack in Authority (Art.
207) Authority (Art. 152)
(2) The offender is a public officer 152)
(3) The offender lays hands on a public authority Any person who Any person Any person who, by
takes part in the directly vested direct provision of
“Person in authority” means any person directly performance of with jurisdiction, law or by election
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or public functions in whether as an or by appointment
as a member of some court or governmental the government. individual or as a by competent

PAGE 126
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Agents of a Person
Public Officer (Art. Persons in
in Authority (Art.
207) Authority (Art. 152)
152)
member of some authority,
court or charged with
governmental maintenance
corporation, board public order
or commission. the protection
security of life
property.
Teachers, lawyers and heads of schools recognized by
government are persons in authority only for purposes
of Art. 152 in relation to Arts. 148 and 151, and in
connection with their duties.
A person in authority includes a barangay chairman
and members of the Lupong Tagapagkasundo as
provided under the Local Government Code. [Boado]
The status as a person in authority being a matter of
law, ignorance thereof is no excuse.
ARTICLE 149 - INDIRECT ASSAULT
Elements:
(1) A person in authority or his agent is the victim of
any of the forms of direct assault defined in
Article 148;
(2) A person comes to the aid of such authority or
his agent;
(3) Offender makes use of force or intimidation
upon such person coming to the aid of the
authority or his agent.
Indirect assault can only be committed when a direct
assault is also committed.
Article 152 clothes any person who comes to the aid
of a person in authority with the fiction of an agent of
a person in authority.
Any assault on him on the occasion of his aiding a
person in authority or his agent is indirect assault.
ARTICLE 150 - DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY
CONGRESS, ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES, BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, ITS COMMITTEES,
SUBCOMMITTEES OR DIVISIONS
Mode 1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey
summons of Congress, its special or
standing committees and subcommittees,
the Constitutional Commissions and its
committees, subcommittees or divisions, or
by any commission or committee chairman
or member authorized to summon
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
witnesses;
Mode 2. By refusing to be sworn or placed under
is affirmation while being before such
the legislative or constitutional body or official;
of
and Mode 3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to
and produce any books, papers, documents, or
and records in his possession, when required by
them to do so in the exercise of their
functions;
Mode 4. By restraining another from attending as a
witness in such legislative or constitutional
body;
Mode 5. By inducing disobedience to a summons or
refusal to be sworn by any such body or
official.
The testimony of a person summoned must be upon
matters into which the legislature has jurisdiction to
inquire.
ARTICLE 151 - RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A
PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENTS OF SUCH PERSONS
Mode 1: Resistance and serious disobedience
Elements:
(1) A person in authority or his agent is engaged in
the performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order to the offender;
(2) Offender resists or seriously disobeys such
person in authority or his agent;
(3) The act of the offender is not included in the
provision of Articles 148, 149 and 150.
Mode 2: Simple disobedience
Elements:
(1) An agent of a person in authority is engaged in
the performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order to the offender;
(2) Offender disobeys such agent of a person in
authority;
(3) Such disobedience is not of a serious nature
Resistance and Serious Disobedience
The accused must have knowledge that the person
giving the order is a peace officer. [US vs. Bautista]
The disobedience contemplated consists in the
failure or refusal to obey a direct order from the
authority or his agent.
PAGE 127
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Simple Disobedience
In simple disobedience, the offended party must be
only an agent of a person in authority. The order
must be lawful. The disobedience should not be of a
serious nature.
Serious Disobedience vs. Direct Assault
Serious Disobedience Direct Assault
Person in authority or his The person in authority or
agent must be in actual his agent must be
performance of his duties engaged in the
performance of official
duties or that he is
assaulted
Committed only by Committed in four ways
resisting or seriously (see Art. 148, Mode 2
disobeying a person in above)
authority or his agent
Use of force in resistance There is force employed
is not so serious, as there
is no serious
CHAPTER V - PUBLIC DISORDERS
ARTICLE 153 - TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF
PUBLIC ORDER
Mode 1: Causing any serious disturbance in a public
place, office or establishment;
Mode 2: Interrupting or disturbing performances,
functions or gatherings, or peaceful
meetings, if the act is not included in Arts.
131 and 132;
Mode 3: Making any outcry tending to incite
rebellion or sedition in any meeting,
association or public place;
Mode 4: Displaying placards or emblems which
provoke a disturbance of public order in
such place;
Mode 5: Burying with pomp the body of a person
who has been legally executed.
Serious disturbance must be planned or intended.
This article applies if the disturbance is not caused
by a public officer; or, if it is committed by a public
officer, he is a participant therein.
Definition of “outcry”: to shout subversive or
provocative words tending to stir up the people to
obtain by means of force or violence any of the
objects of rebellion or sedition.
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
If done unconsciously or without intent to incite the
listeners to rise to sedition or rebellion, this article
applies.
If done with intent to commit rebellion or sedition:
The crime is inciting to rebellion or sedition.
Definition of “tumultuous”: If caused by more than 3
persons who are armed or provided with the means
of violence
Definition of “burying with pomp the body of a
person”: ostentatious display of a burial
ARTICLE 154 - UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES
Mode 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.
Mode 2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or
to the constituted authorities or praising,
justifying or extolling any act punished by
law, by the same means or by words,
utterances or speeches;
Mode 3: Maliciously publishing or causing to be
published any official document or
resolution without proper authority, or
before they have been published officially
Mode 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.
To be liable, the offender must know that the news is
false.
Actual public disorder or actual damage to the credit
of the State is not necessary. The mere possibility of
causing such danger or damage is sufficient.
ARTICLE 155 - ALARMS AND SCANDALS
Mode 1: Discharging any firearm, rocket,
firecracker, or other explosive within any
town or public place, calculated to cause
(which produces) alarm or danger;
Mode 2: Instigating or taking an active part in any
charivari or other disorderly meeting
PAGE 128
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
offensive to another or prejudicial to
public tranquility;
Mode 3: Disturbing the public peace while
wandering about at night or while
engaged in any other nocturnal
amusements;
Mode 4: Causing any disturbances or scandal in
public places while intoxicated or
otherwise, provided Art. 153 is not
applicable.
The crime “alarms and scandal” is only one crime.
Scandal here does not refer to moral scandal; that
one is grave scandal in Article 200.
The essence of the crime is disturbance of public
tranquility and public peace.
Disturbance of serious nature falls under Article 153,
not under paragraph 4 of this article.
Any kind of disturbance of public order where the
circumstance at the time renders the act offensive to
the tranquility prevailing, the crime is committed.
Definition of charivari: includes a medley of
discordant voices, a mock serenade of discordant
noises made on kettles, tin, horns, etc. designed to
annoy or insult
NOTE: “Calculated to cause” should be “which
produces” alarm and danger according to the correct
translation of the RPC. Hence, the result, and not the
intent, that counts. (Reyes)
ARTICLE 156 - DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL
Elements:
(1) There is a person confined in a jail or penal
establishment;
(2) Offender removes therefrom such person, or
helps the escape of such person.
If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention
prisoner, he does not incur liability from escaping if
he does not know of the plan to remove him from
jail. But if such prisoner knows of the plot to remove
him from jail and cooperates therein by escaping, he
himself becomes liable for delivering prisoners from
jail as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
If the prisoner removed or whose escape is made
possible by the commission of the crime of delivering
prisoner from jail is a detention prisoner, such
prisoner is not criminally liable. A prisoner is
PAGE 129
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
criminally liable for leaving the penal institution only
when there is evasion of the service of his sentence,
which can only be committed only by a convict by
final judgment.
Offender is usually an outsider. The violation of
Article 156 is committed by a public officer when he
is not the custodian of the prisoner at the time the
prisoner was made to escape. If the offender is a
public officer who had the prisoner in his custody or
charge, he is liable for infidelity in the custody of a
prisoner under Article 223.
If three persons are involved – a stranger, the
custodian and the prisoner – three crimes are
committed:
(1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners [public
officer-custodian];
(2) Delivery of the prisoner from jail [stranger];
and
(3) Evasion of service of sentence [prisoner].
Cledera, as the governor, is the jailer of the Province.
Esmeralda is the Assistant Provincial Warden. As
public officials who have the custody or charge of the
prisoner, they cannot be prosecuted under Art. 156.
Art 223 would have applied; however, there is no
sufficient evidence to warrant their prosecution for
infidelity in the custody of prisoner. It is necessary
that the public officer had consented to, or connived
in, the escape of the prisoner under his custody or
charge. [Alberto v. Dela Cruz (1980)]
CHAPTER VI - EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE
ARTICLE 157 - EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a convict by final judgment;
(2) He is serving sentence which consists in the
deprivation of liberty;
(3) He evades service of his sentence by escaping
during the term of his imprisonment.
Qualifying circumstances as to penalty imposed if
such evasion or escape takes place:
(1) By means of unlawful entry (this should be “by
scaling” - Reyes);
(2) By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs
or floors;
(3) By using picklock, false keys, disguise, deceit,
violence or intimidation; or
(4) Through connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Evasion of service of sentence has three forms: If the prisoner fails to return within said 48 hours,
(1) By simply leaving or escaping from the penal there will be an additional penalty of 1/5 of the time
establishment under Article 157; still remaining to be served under the original
(2) Failure to return within 48 hours after having sentence. In no case shall that penalty exceed six
left the penal establishment because of a months.
calamity, conflagration or mutiny and such
calamity, conflagration or mutiny has been Mutiny is one of the causes which may authorize a
announced as already passed under Article 158; convict serving sentence in the penitentiary to leave
(3) Violating the condition of conditional pardon the jail provided he has not taken part in the mutiny.
under Article 159.
ARTICLE 159 - OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF
In leaving or escaping from jail or prison, that the SENTENCE
prisoner immediately returned is immaterial. It may Elements:
be mitigating, but it will not absolve his criminal (1) Offender was a convict;
liability. (2) He was granted a conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive;
Not applicable to sentence executed by deportation (3) He violated any of the conditions of such pardon.
because the convict was not sentenced to
imprisonment and thereafter broke jail. Violation of conditional pardon is a distinct crime. In
violation of conditional pardon, as a rule, the
Not applicable to sentence of destierro since Article violation will amount to this crime only if the
157 refers only to persons who are imprisoned in a condition is violated during the remaining period of
penal institution and completely deprived of their the sentence.
liberty.
Offender must be found guilty of subsequent offense
ARTICLE 158 - EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE
before he can be prosecuted under Article 159.
OCCASION OF DISORDERS, CONFLAGRATIONS,
[Torres vs. Gonzales]
EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER CALAMITIES
Elements: If the condition of the pardon is violated when the
(1) Offender is a convict by final judgment, who is remaining unserved portion of the sentence has
confined in a penal institution; already lapsed, there will be no more criminal
(2) There is disorder, resulting from – liability for the violation. However, the convict maybe
(a) conflagration; required to serve the unserved portion of the
(b) earthquake; sentence, that is, continue serving original penalty.
(c) explosion;
(d) similar catastrophe; or Violation of Conditional Pardon vs. Evasion of
(e) mutiny in which he has not participated; Service of Sentence by Escaping
(3) He evades the service of his sentence by leaving Violation of Conditional Evasion of Service of
the penal institution where he is confined, on the Pardon Sentence
occasion of such disorder or during the mutiny;
(4) He fails to give himself up to the authorities Does not cause harm or An attempt at least to
within 48 hours following the issuance of a injury to the right of evade the penalty inflicted
proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing another person nor does it by the courts upon
the passing away of such calamity. disturb the public order; criminals and thus defeat
merely an infringement of the purpose of the law of
Leaving the penal establishment is not the basis of the stipulated terms in either reforming or
criminal liability. What is punished is the failure to conditional pardon punishing them for having
return within 48 hours after the passing of the disturbed the public
calamity, conflagration or mutiny had been order.
announced.

Under Article 158, those who return within 48 hours

are given credit or deduction from the remaining
period of their sentence equivalent to 1/5 of the
original term of the sentence.

PAGE 130
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

CHAPTER VII - COMMISSION OF ANOTHER If the violation of this section is in furtherance of or

CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED incident to, or in connection with the crime of
FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup
d’etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
ARTICLE 160 - QUASI RECIDIVISM element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection,
Elements: sedition, or attempted coup d’etat.
(1) Offender was already convicted by final
judgment of one offense; The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner,
(2) He committed a new felony before beginning to president, manager, director or other responsible
serve such sentence or while serving the same. officer of any public or private firm, company,
corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating allow any of the firearms owned by such firm,
circumstance where a person, after having been company, corporation or entity to be used by any
convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new person or persons found guilty of violating the
felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or
while serving the same. He shall be punished by the knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for firearms or firearms without any legal authority to be
the new felony. carried outside of their residence in the course of
The first crime for which the offender is serving their employment.
sentence need not be a felony. [People vs. Peralta]
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon
any person who shall carry any licensed firearm
PD 1866 AS AMENDED BY RA 8294: ILLEGAL POSSESSION
outside his residence without legal authority
OF FIREARMS
therefor.
Section 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition
Sec. 2. Presumption of Illegal Manufacture of
or instruments used or intended to be used in the
Firearms or Ammunition.— The possession of any
manufacture of firearms or ammunition.— The
machinery, tool or instrument used directly in the
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
manufacture of firearms or ammunition, by any
and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos
person whose business or employment does not
(P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who
lawfully deal with the manufacture of firearms or
shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire,
ammunition, shall be prima facie evidence that such
dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as
article is intended to be used in the unlawful/illegal
rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of
manufacture of firearms or ammunition.
similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or
machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be
Sec. 3.Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
used in the manufacture of any firearm or
disposition or possession of explosives. — The
ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was
penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
committed.
reclusion temporal and a fine of not less than Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000) shall be imposed upon
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
any person who shall unlawfully manufacture,
and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall
assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose or possess hand
be imposed if the firearm is classified as high
grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other explosives,
powered firearm which includes those with bores
including but not limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov
bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter
cocktail bombs,' 'fire bombs,' or other incendiary
such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser
devices capable of producing destructive effect on
calibered firearms but considered powerful such as
contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any
caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and
person.
other firearms with firing capability of full automatic
and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That
When a person commits any of the crimes defined in
no other crime was committed by the person
the Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use
arrested.
of the aforementioned explosives, detonation agents
or incendiary devices, which results in the death of
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of
any person or persons, the use of such explosives,
an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
circumstance.

PAGE 131
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of, or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of
rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup
d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection,
sedition or attempted coup d'etat.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner,
president, manager, director or other responsible
officer of any public or private firm, company,
corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly
allow any of the explosives owned by such firm,
company, corporation or entity, to be used by any
person or persons found guilty of violating the
provisions of the preceding paragraphs
Sec. 3-A. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition,
Disposition, Importation or Possession of a Part,
Ingredient, Machinery, Tool or Instrument Used or
Intended to be Used for the Manufacture,
Construction, Assembly, Delivery or Detonation.—
The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
upon any person who shall willfully and unlawfully
manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose,
import or possess any part, ingredient, machinery,
tool or instrument of any explosive or incendiary
device, whether chemical, mechanical, electronic,
electrical or otherwise, used or intended to be used
by that person for its manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation, where the explosive
or incendiary device is capable or is intended to be
made capable of producing destructive effect on
contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any
person.
Provided, That the mere possession of any part,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument directly
used in the manufacture, construction, assembly,
delivery or detonation of any explosive or incendiary
device, by any person whose business activity, or
employment does not lawfully deal with the
possession of such article shall be prima facie
evidence that such article is intended to be used by
that person in the unlawful/illegal manufacture,
construction, assembly, delivery or detonation of an
explosive or incendiary device.
Provided, however, That a temporary incidental,
casual, harmless or transient possession or control of
any part, machinery, tool or instrument directly used
in the manufacture, construction, assembly, delivery
or detonation of any explosive or incendiary device,
without the knowledge of its existence or character
as part, ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument
directly used in the manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation of any explosive or
PAGE 132
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
incendiary device, shall not be a violation of this
Section.
Provided, further, That the temporary, incidental,
casual, harmless, or transient possession or control
of any part, ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument
directly used in the manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation of any explosive or
incendiary device for the sole purpose of
surrendering it to the proper authorities shall not be
a violation of this Section.
Provided, finally, That in addition to the instances
provided in the two (2) immediately preceding
paragraphs, the court may determine the absence of
the intent to possess, otherwise referred to as
“animus possidendi”, in accordance with the facts
and circumstances of each case and the application
of other pertinent laws, among other things, Articles
11 and 12 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Sec. 3-B. Penalty for the Owner, President, Manager,
Director or Other Responsible Officer of Any Public
or Private Firm, Company, Corporation or Entity.—
The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
upon the owner, president, manager, director or
other responsible officer of any public or private firm,
company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or
knowingly allow any explosive or incendiary device or
parts thereof owned or controlled by such firm,
company, corporation or entity to be used by any
person or persons found guilty of violating the
provisions of the preceding paragraphs.
Sec. 3-C. Relationship of Other Crimes with a
Violation of this Decree and the Penalty Therefor.—
When a violation of Section 3, 3-A or 3-B of this
Decree is a necessary means for committing any of
the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or
special laws, or is in furtherance of, incident to, in
connection with, by reason of, or on occasion of any
of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or
special laws, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a
fine ranging from One hundred Thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed.
Sec. 3-D. Former Conviction or Acquittal; Double
Jeopardy.— Subject to the provisions of the Rules of
Court on double jeopardy, if the application thereof is
more favorable to the accused, the conviction or
acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case
for violation of this Decree shall be a bar to another
prosecution of the same accused for any offense
where the violation of this Decree was a necessary
means for committing the offense or in furtherance
of which, incident to which, in connection with which,
by reason of which, or on occasion of which, the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
violation of this Decree was committed, and vice
versa.
Sec. 4. Responsibility and liability of Law
Enforcement Agencies and Other Government
Officials and Employees in Testifying as Prosecution
Witnesses.— Any member of law enforcement
agencies or any other government official and
employee who, after due notice, fails or refuses,
intentionally or negligently, to appear as a witness
for the prosecution of the defense in any proceeding,
involving violations of this Decree, without any valid
reason, shall be punished with reclusion temporal
and a fine of Five hundred Thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) in addition to the administrative
liability he/she may be meted out by his/her
immediate superior and/or appropriate body.
The immediate superior of the member of the law
enforcement agency or any other government
employee mentioned in the preceding paragraph
shall be penalized with prision correccional and a
fine of not less than Ten Thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual
absolute disqualification from public office if despite
due notice to them and to the witness concerned, the
former does not exert reasonable effort to present
the latter to the court.
The member of the law enforcement agency or any
other government employee mentioned in the
preceding paragraphs shall not be transferred or
reassigned to any other government office located in
another territorial jurisdiction during the pendency of
the case in court. However, the concerned member of
the law enforcement agency or government
employee may be transferred or reassigned for
compelling reasons: Provided, That his/her
immediate superior shall notify the court where the
case is pending of the order to transfer or reassign,
within twenty-four (24) hours from its approval:
Provided, further, That his/her immediate superior
shall be penalized with prision correccional and a
fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual
absolute disqualification from public office, should
he/she fail to notify the court of such order to
transfer or reassign.
Prosecution and punishment under this Section shall
be without prejudice to any liability for violation of
any existing law.
Sec. 4-A. Criminal Liability for Planting of
Evidence.— Any person who is found guilty of
“planting” any explosive or incendiary device or any
PAGE 133
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
part, ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument of any
explosive or incendiary device, whether chemical,
mechanical, electronic, electrical or otherwise, shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Planting of evidence shall mean the willful act by any
person of maliciously and surreptitiously inserting,
placing, adding or attaching, directly or indirectly,
through any overt or covert act, whatever quantity of
any explosive or incendiary device or any part,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument of any
explosive or incendiary device, whether chemical,
mechanical, electronic, electrical or otherwise in the
person, house, effects or in the immediate vicinity of
an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating
incriminating or imputing the commission of any
violation of this Decree.
Sec. 4-D. Types of Chemicals/Accessories Covered.—
The chemicals and accessories mentioned in the
preceding Section shall exclusively refer to chlorates,
nitrates, nitric acid and such other chemicals and
accessories that can be used for the manufacture of
explosives and explosive ingredients.
Sec. 5. Tampering of Firearm’s Serial Number.— The
penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed
upon any person who shall unlawfully tamper,
change, deface or erase the serial number of any
firearm.
Sec. 6. Repacking or Altering the Composition of
Lawfully Manufactured Explosives.— The penalty of
prision correccional shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify
the composition of any lawfully manufactured
explosives.
Sec. 7. Unauthorized Issuance of Authority to Carry
Firearm and/or Ammunition Outside of Residence.—
The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed
upon any person, civilian or military, who shall issue
authority to carry firearm and/or ammunition outside
of residence, without authority therefor.
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT (SEE SPECIAL LAWS IN
TITLE I)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Title IV. Crimes against Public
Interest
Acts of Counterfeiting
(1) Article 162 - Using Forged Signature or
Counterfeit Seal or Stamp
(2) Article 161 - Counterfeiting the Great Seal of the
Government of the Philippine Islands, Forging
the Signature or Stamp of the Chief Executive
(3) Article 164 - Mutilation of Coins
(4) Article 163 - Making and Importing and Uttering
False Coins
(5) Article 165 - Selling of False or Mutilated Coin,
Without Connivance
(6) Article 167 - Counterfeiting, Importing, and
Uttering Instruments Not Payable to Bearer
(7) Article 166 - Forging Treasury or Bank Notes or
Other Documents Payable to Bearer; Importing
and Uttering Such False or Forged Notes and
Documents
Acts of Forgery
(1) Article 168 - Illegal Possession and Use of False
Treasury or Bank Notes and Other Instruments
of Credit
(2) Article 169 - How Forgery is Committed
Acts of Falsification
(1) Article 170 - Falsification of Legislative
Documents
(2) Article 171 - Falsification by Public Officer,
Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastical Minister
(3) Article 172 - Falsification by Private Individual
and Use of Falsified Documents
(4) Article 173 - Falsification of Wireless, Cable,
Telegraph and Telephone Messages, and Use of
Said Falsified Messages
(5) Article 175 - Using False Certificates
(6) Article 174 - False Medical Certificates, False
Certificates of Merits or Service, etc.
(7) Article 176 - Manufacturing and Possession of
Instruments or Implements for Falsification
Other Falsities
(1) Article 177 - Usurpation of Authority or Official
Functions
(2) Article 179 - Illegal Use of Uniforms and Insignia
(3) Article 178 - Using Fictitious and Concealing
True Name
(4) Article 180 - False Testimony Against a
Defendant
(5) Article 181 - False Testimony Favorable to the
Defendant
(6) Article 182 - False Testimony in Civil Cases
(7) Article 184 - Offering False Testimony in
PAGE 134
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Evidence
(8) Article 183 - False Testimony in Other Cases and
Perjury in Solemn Affirmation
(9) Article 185 - Machinations in Public Auctions
(10) Article 186 – Monopolies and Combinations in
Restraint of Trade
(11) Article 187 – Importation and Disposition of
Falsely Marked Articles or Merchandise Made of
Gold, Silver, or other Precious Metals or their
Alloys.
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or
falsity to the public. Deceit perpetrated upon the
public is the act being punished.
ACTS OF COUNTERFEITING
ARTICLE 161 - COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FORGING THE
SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Acts punished: Forging the
(1) Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines;
(2) Signature of the President;
(3) Stamp of the President.
When the signature of the president is forged, the
crime committed is covered by this provision and not
falsification of public document.
Intent to use is necessary. Actual use, however, is not
required, as long as the forger intended to use it.
ARTICLE 162 - USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
Elements:
(1) The great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited
OR the Signature or stamp of the Chief
Executive was forged by another person;
(2) Offender Knew of the counterfeiting or forgery;
(3) He Used the counterfeit seal or forged signature
or stamp.
Remember:
Offender under this article should not be the forger.
Otherwise, he will be penalized under Article 161. The
participation of the offender is in effect that of an
accessory.
Although the general rule is that he should be
punished by a penalty of two degrees lower, under
Article 162 he is punished by a penalty only one
degree lower.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
ARTICLE 163 - MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING
FALSE COINS
Elements:
(1) There be False or counterfeited coins;
(2) Offender either made, imported or uttered such
coins;
(3) In case of uttering such false or counterfeited
coins, he Connived with the counterfeiters or
importers.
To utter is to pass counterfeited coins. It includes
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 utterer may not obtain the gain he
intended [Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain]
To import fake coins means to bring them into port.
The importation is complete before entry at the
Customs House [US vs. Lyman]
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished
A. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the
Central Bank of the Philippines;
B. Coins of the minor coinage of the
Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines;
C. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
The counterfeiting of foreign currency is punishable,
regardless of whether or not it is still in official
circulation. The reason behind this is not only the
harm that it may cause to the public in case it goes
into circulation again, but also the possibility that the
counterfeiter may later apply his trade to the making
of coins in actual circulation. [People vs. Kong Leon]
ARTICLE 164 - MUTILATION OF COINS
Acts punished
(1) Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the
further requirement that there be intent to
damage or to defraud another;
(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.
The first acts of falsification or falsity include:
(1) Counterfeiting
(2) Forgery
(3) Falsification
In so far as coins in circulation are concerned, there
are two crimes that may be committed:
(1) Counterfeiting coins
(2) Mutilation of coins
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Requisites of Mutilation under the RPC:
(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust
abstracted from the coin;
(3) It has to be a coin.
“Mutilation” means to take off part of the metal
either by filling it or substituting it for another metal
of inferior quality.
Since the coins before were made of silver and/or
other precious metal, shaving the metal from the
coins became a practice. Hence, the coin’s intrinsic
value is diminished.
This is the only article that requires that the
mutilated coin be legal tender.
Foreign coins are covered in this article.
Deliberate intent arises only when the offender
collects the precious metal dust from the mutilated
coin.
ARTICLE 165 - SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN,
WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
Mode 1: Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated
by another person, with intent to utter the
same, knowing that it is false or mutilated;
Elements:
(1) Possession;
(2) With Intent to utter; and
(3) Knowledge.
Mode 2: Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin,
knowing the same to be false or mutilated.
Elements:
(1) Actually uttering; and
(2) Knowledge.
Possession prohibited in this article is not only actual
and physical possession, but also that of a
constructive one, or the subjection of the thing to
one’s control. The possessor should not be the
counterfeiter, mutilator or importer of the coins.
As long as the offender has knowledge that the coin
is false or mutilated, there is no need for him to
connive with the counterfeiter or mutilator.
ARTICLE 166 - FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR
OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER; IMPORTING
AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR FORGED NOTES AND
DOCUMENTS
PAGE 135
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Acts punished
(1) Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes
or other documents payable to bearer;
(2) Importation of such false or forged obligations or
notes;
(3) Uttering of such false or forged obligations or
notes in connivance with the forgers or
importers.
“Forging”: By giving any treasury or bank note, or any
instrument payable to bearer, or to order the
appearance of a true and genuine document.
“Falsification”: By erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting or altering by any means, the figures,
letters, words, or signs contained therein.
The instrument is payable to bearer:
(1) When expressed to be so payable
(2) When payable to a person named therein or
bearer
(3) When payable to the order of a fictitious or non-
existing person, and such fact was known to the
person making it so payable
(4) When the name of the payee does not purport to
be the name of any person
(5) When the only or last endorsement is an
endorsement in blank.
Reason for this is that the forging tends to bring such
documents into discredit and the offense produces a
lack of confidence on the part of the holders of said
documents to the prejudice of society and of the
State.
ARTICLE 167 - COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND
UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER
Elements:
(1) There is an Instrument payable to order or other
document of credit not payable to bearer;
(2) Offender either Forged, imported or uttered
such instrument;
(3) In case of uttering, he Connived with the forger
or importer.
An instrument is payable to order where it is drawn
payable to the order of a specified person or to him
or his order.
This covers instruments or other documents of credit
issued by a foreign government or bank.
Forgery of currency is punished so as to maintain
integrity of the currency and thus insure the credit
standing of the government.
PAGE 136
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Connivance is not required in uttering if the utterer is
the forger.
ACTS OF FORGERY
ARTICLE 168 - ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE
TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF
CREDIT
Elements:
(1) Any treasury or bank note or certificate or other
obligation and security:
(a) Payable to bearer, or any instrument
payable to order or other document of
credit not payable to bearer is
(b) Forged or falsified by another person;
(2) Offender Knows that any of those instruments is
forged or falsified;
(3) He either –
(a) Uses any of such forged or falsified
instruments; or
(b) Possesses with intent to use any of such
forged or falsified instruments.
The rule is that if a person had in his possession a
falsified document and he made use of it, taking
advantage of it and profiting thereby, the
presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification.
Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone is
not a criminal offense.
Intent to use is sufficient to consummate the crime
when the offender is in possession of false or falsified
notes or obligations. [People vs. Sendaydiego, (1978)]
The accused must have knowledge of the forged
character of the note.
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;
(2) By Erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or
altering by any means the figures, letters, words,
or sign contained therein.
Forgery includes falsification and counterfeiting.
For possession of false treasury or bank note to
constitute a criminal offense, it must be with intent
to use.
The essence of forgery is giving a document the
appearance of a true and genuine document.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

ARTICLE 171 - FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER,

Not any alteration of a letter, number, figure or EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
design would amount to forgery. At most, it would Elements:
only be frustrated forgery. (1) Offender is a Public officer, employee, or notary
public;
Forgery can be committed through the use of (2) He Takes advantage of his official position;
genuine paper bills that have been withdrawn from (3) He falsifies a document by committing any of
circulation, by giving them the appearance of some the following acts:
other true and genuine document. [People vs. (a) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
Galano] signature or rubric;
(b) Causing it to appear that persons have
ACTS OF FALSIFICATION participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate;
ARTICLE 170 - FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE
(c) Attributing to persons who have
DOCUMENTS
participated in an act or proceeding
Elements: statements other than those in fact made
(1) There is a Bill, resolution or ordinance enacted by them;
or approved or pending approval by either (d) Making untruthful statements in a narration
House of the Legislature or any provincial board of facts;
or municipal council; (e) Altering true dates;
(2) Offender Alters the same; (f) Making any alteration or intercalation in a
(3) He has No proper authority therefor; genuine document which changes its
(4) The alteration has Changed the meaning of the meaning;
documents. (g) Issuing in an authenticated form:
(i) A document purporting to be a copy of
The writing must be: an original document
(1) complete in itself; and (ii) When no such original exists, or
(2) capable of extinguishing an obligation or (iii) Including in such a copy a statement
creating rights; or contrary to, or different from, that of the
(3) capable of becoming evidence of the facts genuine original;
stated therein. (h) Intercalating any instrument or note relative
to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
Five classes of falsification: registry, or official book.
(1) Falsification of legislative documents;
st
(2) Falsification of a document by a public officer, 1 Element: Persons Liable under this Article
employee or notary public; Under this article, only a public officer, employee or
(3) Falsification of a public or official, or commercial notary public, or ecclesiastical minister can be the
documents by a private individual; offender.
(4) Falsification of a private document by any
person; The ecclesiastical minister is liable with respect to
(5) Falsification of wireless, telegraph and any record or document that its falsification may
telephone messages. affect the civil status of persons.
nd
Falsification vs Forgery 2 Element: Offender Take Advantage of his Official
Forgery Falsification Position
Offender takes advantage of his official position in
As used in Article 169, The commission of any of falsifying a document when:
forgery refers to the the 8 acts mentioned in (1) He has the duty to make or prepare, or intervene
falsification and Article 171 on legislative in the preparation of the document; or
counterfeiting of treasury (only the act if making (2) He has the official custody of the document he
or bank notes or any alteration) public or falsifies.
instruments payable to official, commercial or
rd
bearer or to order private documents or 3 Element: Offender Falsifies a Document
wireless or telegraph A document is any written statement by which a
messages. right or status is established or an obligation is
extinguished.

PAGE 137
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third

PAR 1: Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, person is immaterial in falsification of a public
signature or rubric. document. [Siquian vs. People]
2 ways of committing falsification under this
paragraph: There can be falsification by omission. An assistant
(1) Counterfeiting, which is imitating any bookkeeper is guilty of falsification by intentionally
handwriting, signature or rubric not putting a record in his personal account of chits
(a) There should be an intent to imitate, or an and destroyed them so he could avoid paying the
attempt to imitate same. [People vs. Dizon]
(b) Two signatures, the genuine and the forged,
should bear some resemblance. PAR 5: Altering true dates
(2) Feigning, which is simulating a signature, (1) The date must be essential
handwriting or rubric out of one which does not (2) The alteration of the date must affect the
actually exist. veracity of the documents or the effects thereof
(such as dates of birth, marriage, or death).
PAR 2: Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they did PAR 6: Making any alteration or intercalation in a
not in fact so participate. genuine document which changes its meaning
Two Requisites: Four Requisites:
(1) Offender caused it to appear in a document that (1) There be an alteration (change) or intercalation
a person/s participated in an act or proceeding. (insertion) on a document.
(2) Such person/s did not in fact participate. (2) It was made on a genuine document.
(3) Alteration or intercalation has changed the
PAR 3: Attributing to persons who have participated in meaning of the document.
an act or proceeding statements other than those in (4) Change made the document speak something
fact made by them false.
Three Requisites:
(1) Person/s participated in an act or proceeding PAR 1 PAR 2 PAR 3 PAR 4
(2) Such person/s made statements in that act or
May be a May be a May be a May be a
proceeding
genuine genuine genuine genuine
(3) Offender, in making a document, attributed to
(later (later (later (later
such person/s statements other than those they
falsified) or falsified) or falsified) or falsified) or
in fact made.
an entirely an entirely an entirely an entirely
fabricated fabricated fabricated fabricated
PAR 4: Making untruthful statements in a narration of
document document document document
facts
Four Requisites:
(1) Offender makes in a document statements in a
narration of facts PAR 5 PAR 6 PAR 7 PAR 8
(2) He has a legal obligation to disclose truth of
facts May be a There must There must There must
(3) Facts narrated are absolutely false genuine be a be a be a
(4) Perversion of truth in the narration was made (later genuine genuine genuine
with the wrongful intent of injuring a third falsified) or document document document
person. an entirely
fabricated
There must be narration of facts, not conclusion of document
law. There should be a legal obligation to disclose
the truth. [Beradio vs. CA]
Change or insertion must affect the integrity or
The person making the narration of facts must be effects of the document. Furthermore, the alteration
aware of the falsity of facts narrated by him. The should make the document speak something false.
narration of facts must be absolutely false. If there is Otherwise, it would merely be a correction.
some colorable truth in such statements, crime of
falsification is not deemed to have been committed.

PAGE 138
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
PAR 7: Issuing in an authenticated form a document
purporting to be a copy of an original document when
no such original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original
Falsification in this paragraph cannot be committed
by a private individual, or by a notary public, or by a
public officer, who does not take advantage of his
official position.
This is because authentication of a document can
only be made by the custodian or the one who
prepared and retained a copy of the original.
(1) Purporting to be a copy of the original when no
such original exists.
(2) Including a copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine original.
A private person who cooperates with a public officer
in the falsification of a public document is guilty of
the crime and incurs the same liability and penalty.
There are four kinds of documents:
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a
person in authority or notary public has taken
part;
(a) A document created, executed or issued
(b) By a public official
(c) In response to the exigencies of the public
service,
(d) Or in execution of w/c public official
intervened.
(2) Official document in the execution of which a
public official takes part;
(a) A document issued by a public official in the
exercise of the functions of his office. It falls
within the larger class called public
documents.
(b) A document required by a bureau to be
filled by its officers for purposes of record
and information is a public document.
(3) Commercial document or any document
recognized by the Code of Commerce or any
commercial law; and
(4) A deed or instrument executed by a private
person without the intervention of a notary
public or other persons legally authorized. -
Private document in the execution of which only
private individuals take part.
The element of damage is not necessary because it is
the interest of the community which is intended to be
guaranteed.
The character of the offender and his faithfulness to
his duty is mainly taken into consideration.
PAGE 139
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Public and Private writings under the Rules of Court:
The following are public documents:
(1) Written official acts, or records, of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers
(2) Documents acknowledged before a notary
public except last will and testaments
(3) Public records kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to be entered
therein.
All other writings are private.
After an investigation, a group of public officers were
caught and convicted of falsifying cash vouchers.
On appeal the SC held that cash vouchers are NOT
commercial documents because they are not
documents used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate credit transactions nor they are
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or
other commercial law.
Rather, they are private documents which have been
defined as:
(1) Deeds or instruments executed by a private
person
(2) Without the intervention of a public notary or of
other person legally authorize,
(3) By which some disposition or agreement is
proved, evidenced or set forth.[People v.
Batulanon (2007)]
ARTICLE 172 - FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
Mode 1: Falsification of public, official or commercial
document by a private individual;
Elements:
(1) Offender is a Private individual OR Public
officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position;
(2) He committed any act of Falsification (Art.
171);
(3) The falsification was committed in a public,
official, or commercial Document or letter of
exchange.
Mode 2: Falsification of private document by any
person;
Elements:
(1) Offender committed any of the acts of
Falsification except Article 171(7), that is,
(a) Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
exists, or
(b) Including in such a copy a statement
contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original;
(2) Falsification was committed in any Private
document;
(3) Falsification causes Damage to a third party or
at least the falsification was committed with
intent to cause such damage.
Mode 3: Use of falsified document.
Elements in introducing in a judicial proceeding
(1) Offender Knew that the document was falsified
by another person;
(2) The False document is in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or
2);
(3) He Introduced said document in evidence in any
judicial proceeding.
Elements in use in any other transaction –
(1) Offender Knew that a document was falsified by
another person;
(2) The False document is embraced in Articles 171
or 172 (1 or 2);
(3) He Used such document;
(4) The use caused Damage to another or at least
used with intent to cause damage.
In the falsification of public or official documents, it is
not necessary that there be present the idea of gain
or the intent to cause damage. This is because the
principal thing punished is the violation of public
faith and destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed.
The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third
person is not necessary when the falsified document
is a public document. [Siquian vs People]
NOTE: This statement applies as well to commercial
documents, because as to this kind of document, a
credit is sought to be protected. [Reyes]
Since damage is not an element of falsification of a
public document, it could be complexed with estafa,
theft or malversation as a necessary means to
commit the latter crimes.
There is no crime of falsification of private document
through negligence or imprudence.
If the document is intended by law to be part of the
public or official record, the falsification, although it
was private at the time of falsification, it is regarded
as falsification of a public or official document.
PAGE 140
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Falsification through imprudence implies lack of
such intent, thus there is no crime of falsification of a
private document through negligence or
imprudence.
The possessor of a falsified document is presumed to
be the author of the falsification. [People vs.
Manansala]
The presumption also holds if the use was so closely
connected in time with the falsification and the user
had the capacity of falsifying the document. [People
vs. Sendaydiego]
There is no crime of estafa through falsification of a
private document. Both crimes, separately, require
the element of damage, which each of the two
should have its own.
The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit should
not be the very same damage caused by the
falsification of the private document.
In this case, the petitioners are charged under Article
171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of the RPC. Petitioners
Regidor and Zapatos, as Mayor, and Member and
Temporary Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod, respectively, made it appear that
private complainants, among others, participated in
the Sangguniang Panglungsod sessions when they
did not in fact so participate, and issued, in
authenticated forms, the assailed resolutions
purporting to be copies of original documents when
no such originals exist.
SC held that all the elements of the offense
punishable under Article 171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of
the RPC are present in this case.
Furthermore, it is a fundamental principle in the law
on public officers that administrative liability is
separate from and independent of criminal liability.
A simple act or omission can give rise to criminal,
civil or administrative liability, each independently of
the others. This is known as the “threefold liability
rule.”
Thus, absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar
to an administrative prosecution, and vice-versa.
In this criminal prosecution, the dismissal of the
administrative cases against the petitioners will not
necessarily result in the dismissal of the criminal
complaints filed against them.[Regidor v. People of
the Phils & Sandiganbayan (2009)]
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 173 - FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE,
TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES, AND USE OF
SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES
Mode 1: Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or
telephone message;
Elements:
(1) Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of a
private corporation, engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone
message;
(2) He utters fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or
telephone message.
Mode 2: Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone
message;
Elements:
(1) Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of a
private corporation, engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone
message;
(2) He falsifies wireless, cable, telegraph or
telephone message.
Mode 3: Using such falsified message.
Elements:
(1) Offender knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or
telephone message
(a) Was falsified by an officer or employee of
the government or an officer or employee of
a private corporation,
(b) Engaged in the service of sending or
receiving wireless, cable or telephone
message;
(2) He used such falsified dispatch;
(3) The use resulted in the prejudice of a third party
or at least there was intent to cause such
prejudice.
The public officer, to be liable, must be engaged in
the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable,
telegraph or telephone message.
A private individual cannot be a principal by direct
participation in falsification of telegraphic dispatches
under Article 173, unless he is an employee of a
corporation engaged in the business of sending or
receiving wireless, telegraph or telephone messages.
But a private individual can be held criminally liable
as principal by inducement.
PAGE 141
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE 174 - FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, FALSE
CERTIFICATES OF MERITS OR SERVICE, ETC.
Persons liable
(1) Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the
practice of his profession, issues a false
certificate (it must refer to the illness or injury of
a person);
Note: The crime here is false medical certificate by a
physician.
(2) Public officer who issues a false certificate of
merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;
Note: The crime here is false certificate of merit or
service by a public officer.
(3) Private person who falsifies a certificate falling
within the classes mentioned in the two
preceding subdivisions.
Note: The crime here is false medical certificate by a
private individual or false certificate of merit or
service by a private individual.
ARTICLE 175 - USING FALSE CERTIFICATES
Elements:
(1) The following Issues a false certificate:
(a) Physician or surgeon, in connection with the
practice of his profession, issues a false
Medical certificate;
(b) Public officer issues a false certificate of
Merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;
(c) Private Person falsifies a certificate falling
within the 2 preceding subdivisions.
(2) Offender Knows that the certificate was false;
(3) He Uses the same.
When any of the false certificates mentioned in Article
174 is used in the judicial proceeding, Article 172 does
not apply, because the use of false document in
judicial proceeding under Article 172 is limited to those
false documents embraced in Articles 171 and 172.
ARTICLE 176 - MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF
INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION
Acts punished:
(1) Making or introducing into the Philippines any
stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification;
(2) Possession with intent to use the instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification
made in or introduced into the Philippines by
another person.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
As in Article 165, the possession contemplated here
is constructive possession. The implements
confiscated need not form a complete set.
OTHER FALSITIES
ARTICLE 177 - USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS
Mode 1: Usurpation of authority. (no connection with
the office represented)
The mere act of knowingly and falsely representing
oneself to be an officer is sufficient. It is not
necessary that he perform an act pertaining to a
public officer.
Elements:
(1) Offender knowingly and falsely Represents
himself;
(2) As an Officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine
government or of any foreign government.
Mode 2: Usurpation of official functions. (excess of
authority)
In usurpation of official functions, it is essential that
the offender should have performed an act
pertaining to a person in authority or public officer, in
addition to other requirements.
Elements
(1) Offender Performs any act;
(2) Pertaining to any person in authority or public
officer of the Philippine government or any
foreign government, or any agency thereof;
(3) Under Pretense of official position;
(4) Without being lawfully entitled to do so.
The offender should have:
(1) represented himself to be an officer, agent or
representative of any agency of the government;
or
(2) performed an act pertaining to a person in
authority or public officer.
Article 177 may be violated by a public officer.
ARTICLE 178 - USING FICTITIOUS AND CONCEALING TRUE
NAME
Mode 1: Using fictitious name
Elements:
(1) Offender uses a name other than his real name;
(2) He uses the fictitious name publicly;
PAGE 142
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(3) Purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to evade
the execution of a judgment or to cause damage
[to public interest – Reyes].
Mode 2: Concealing true name
Elements:
(1) Offender conceals his true name and other
personal circumstances;
(2) Purpose is only to conceal his identity.
Use of Fictitious Name Concealing True Name
Element of Publicity Publicity not necessary
Purpose is to conceal a Merely to conceal identity.
crime, evade execution of
judgment, cause damage)
If the purpose is for causing damage, it must be
damage to public interest.
If it is damage to private interest, the crime will be
estafa under Art 315 2(a).
ARTICLE 179 - ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA
Elements:
(1) Offender makes Use of insignia, uniforms or
dress;
(2) The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to an
Office not held by such person or a class of
persons of which he is not a member;
(3) Said insignia, uniform or dress is Used publicly
and improperly.
Exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary; a
colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the
common run of people is sufficient.
RA 75 also punishes using the use of uniform,
decoration or regalia of a foreign state by people not
entitled to do so.
RA 493 punishes wearing an insignia, badge, or
emblem of rank of the members of the AFP or
constabulary.
ARTICLE 180 - FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT
Elements:
(1) There is a Criminal proceeding;
(2) Offender Testifies falsely under oath against the
defendant therein;
(3) Offender who gives false testimony Knows that it
is false.
(4) Defendant against whom the false testimony is
given is either acquitted or convicted in a Final
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
judgment.
The witness who gave the false testimony is liable
even if his testimony was not considered by the
court.
“False Testimony”: Committed by a person who,
being under oath and required to testify as to the
truth of a certain matter at a hearing before a
competent authority, shall deny the truth or say
something contrary to it.
False testimony is punished because of its tendency
to prejudice defendant.
Three forms of false testimony:
(1) False testimony in criminal cases under Article
180 and 181;
(2) False testimony in civil case under Article 182;
(3) False testimony in other cases under Article 183.
Articles 180 – 184 punish the acts of making false
testimonies because such acts seriously expose
society to miscarriage of justice.
ARTICLE 181 - FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO THE
DEFENDANT
Elements:
(1) A person Gives false testimony;
(2) In Favor of the defendant;
(3) In a Criminal case.
The testimony need not in fact be beneficial to the
defendant. It is not necessary that the testimony
should directly influence the decision of acquittal, it
being sufficient that it was given with the intent to
favor the accused.
Conviction or acquittal of defendant in the principal
case is not necessary.
Rectification made spontaneously after realizing the
mistake is not false testimony.
Penalty for false testimony against the accused is
based on the sentence imposed or if accused is
acquitted; that for testimony favorable to the
accused is based on the imposable penalty. The
rationale for the difference is the measure of the
wrong occasioned by the injustice in each case, i.e.
the undeserved sentence and the imposable penalty
avoided, respectively.
ARTICLE 182 - FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES
Elements:
(1) Testimony Given in a civil case;
PAGE 143
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) Testimony Relates to the issues presented in
said case;
(3) Testimony is False;
(4) Offender Knows that testimony is false;
(5) Testimony is Malicious
(6) And given with an intent to affect the issues
presented in said case.
Falsity of testimony must first be established.
Art. 182 does not apply in special proceedings. These
are covered by 183 under “other cases”.
Pending the determination of the falsity of the
subject testimonies in the civil case, the criminal
action for false testimony must perforce be
suspended.
ARTICLE 183 - FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND
PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
Acts Punished
(1) By falsely Testifying under oath;
(2) By Making a false affidavit.
Note: The false testimony should not be in a judicial
proceeding. [Diaz vs. People]
Elements of perjury:
(1) Offender Makes a statement under oath or
executes an affidavit upon a material matter;
(2) The statement or affidavit is made Before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oaths;
(3) Offender makes a Willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood in the statement or
affidavit;
(4) The sworn statement or affidavit containing the
falsity is Required by law, that is, it is made for a
legal purpose.
The statement should be outside the coverage of art
180-181.
“Oath”: Any form of attestation by which a person
signifies that he is bound by conscience to perform
an act faithfully and truthfully.
“Affidavit”: Sworn statement in writing; declaration
in writing, made upon oath before an authorized
magistrate or officer.
There could be no perjury through negligence or
imprudence. This is because of the requirement that
the assertion of a falsehood be made willfully and
deliberately. Hence, good faith or lack of malice is a
defense in perjury.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
It is not necessary that there be a law requiring the
statement to be made under oath, as long as it is
made for a legal purpose.
Perjury is a crime other than false testimony in
criminal cases or false testimony in civil cases, which
are perversions of truth in judicial proceedings.
Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other
than those taken in the course of judicial
proceedings. [US vs. Estrada]
Good faith or lack of malice is a defense in perjury.
Subornation of perjury is committed by a person who
knowingly and willfully procures another to swear
falsely and the witness suborned does testify under
circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury. [US vs.
Ballena] Subornation of perjury is not expressly
penalized in the RPC; but the direct induction of a
person by another to commit perjury may be
punished under Article 183 in relation to Article 17.
ARTICLE 184 - OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender Offers in evidence a false witness or
testimony;
(2) He Knows that the witness or the testimony was
false;
(3) The offer is made in any Judicial OR Official
proceeding.
Offer of evidence begins at the moment a witness is
called to the stand and interrogated by counsel. The
witness must testify.
ARTICLE 185 - MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS
Mode 1: Soliciting any gift or promise as a
consideration for refraining from taking part in any
public auction;
Elements:
(1) There is a Public auction;
(2) Offender Solicits any gift or a promise from any
of the bidders;
(3) Such gift or promise is the Consideration for his
refraining from taking part in that public
auction;
(4) Offender has the Intent to cause the reduction of
the price of the thing auctioned.
Mode 2: Attempting to cause bidders to stay away
from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or any
other artifice.
PAGE 144
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Elements:
(1) There is a Public auction;
(2) Offender Attempts to cause the bidders to stay
away from that public auction;
(3) It is Done by threats, gifts, promises or any other
artifice;
(4) Offender had the Intent to cause the reduction
of the price of the thing auctioned.
The crime is consummated by:
(1) Mere solicitation of gift or promise as
consideration for not bidding, or
(2) By mere attempt to cause prospective bidders to
stay away from an auction.
ARTICLE 186 – MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Mode 1: Combination to prevent free competition in the
market
Elements:
(1) Entering into any contract or agreement;
OR taking part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or
otherwise;
(2) In restraint of trade or commerce or to
prevent by artificial means free competition
in the market
Mode 2: Monopoly to restrain free competition in the
market
Elements:
(1) Monopolizing any merchandise or object of
trade or commerce; OR
(2) Combining with any other person or persons
to monopolize said merchandise or object in
order to alter the prices thereof by
spreading false rumors or making use of any
other artifice to restrain free competition in
the market
Mode 3: Manufacturer, producer, or processor or
importer combining, conspiring or agreeing
with any person to make transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase
the market price of merchandise
Elements:
(1) Person liable: (1) manufacturer, (2)
producer, (3) processor, or (4) importer of
any merchandise or object of commerce
(2) Crime committed by: (1) combining, (2)
conspiring, or (3) agreeing with any person
(3) Purpose: (1) to make transactions prejudicial
to lawful commerce, or (2) to increase the
market price of any merchandise or object
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
of commerce manufactured, produced,
processed, assembled, or imported into the
Philippines.
Theory of the law: Competition, not combination,
should be the law of trade
Mere conspiracy or combination is punished.
If the offense affects any food substance or other
article of prime necessity, it is sufficient that initial
steps are taken.
When offense is committed by a corporation or
association, the president and directors or managers
are liable.
ARTICLE 187 – IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF
FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR MERCHANDISE MADE OF
GOLD, SILVER, OR OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR
ALLOYS
Elements:
(1) Offender imports, sells or disposes of any of
those articles or merchandise (i.e. gold, silver,
other precious metals or their alloys)
(2) The stamps, brands, or marks of those articles of
merchandise fail to indicate the actual fineness
or quality of said metals or alloys
(3) Offender knows that the stamps, brands, or
marks fail to indicate the actual fineness or
quality of the metals or alloys.
Selling the misbranded articles is not necessary.
Article 187 does not apply to manufacturer of
misbranded articles – he would be liable for estafa
under Art. 315(2)(b).
RA 9194 ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT
'Covered transaction' is a transaction in cash or other
equivalent monetary instrument involving a total
amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) within one (1) banking day.
'Suspicious transaction' 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;
PAGE 145
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
"5. any circumstance relating to the transaction
which is observed to deviate from the profile of the
client and/or the client’s past transactions with the
covered institution;
"6. the transaction is in any way related to an
unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is
about to be, is being or has been committed; or
"7. any transaction that is similar or analogous to any
of the foregoing."
"SEC. 4.Money Laundering Offense. – Money
laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an
unlawful activity as herein defined are transacted,
thereby making them appear to have originated from
legitimate sources. It is committed by the following:
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property represents, involves, or
relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity,
transacts or attempts to transact said monetary
instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property involves the proceeds of any
unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act
as a result of which he facilitates the offense of
money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property is required under this Act to
be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money
Laundering Council(AMLC), fails to do so."
Title V. Crimes Relative to
Opium and Other Prohibited
Drugs
A. Acts Punished
B. Penalties for Unlawful Acts:
C. Definition of Important Terms:
D. Other Important Points.
NOTE: Art 190-194 were repealed by RA 6425,
known as the “Dangerous Drug Act of 1972.” RA No.
9165, known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous
Drug Act of 2002” in turn repealed RA No. 6425
ACTS PUNISHED
(1) Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemical
(Sec. 4)
(2) Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 5)
(3) Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. (Sec. 6)
(4) Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or
Resort(Sec. 7)
(5) Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
(Sec. 8)
(6) Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. (Sec. 9)
(7) Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia
for Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. (Sec. 10)
(8) Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 11)
(9) Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 12)
(10) Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties,
Social Gatherings or Meetings (Sec. 13)
(11) Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings(Sec. 14)
(12) Use of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 15)
(13) Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as
Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof. (Sec.
16)
(14) Maintenance and Keeping of Original Records of
Transactions on Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
(Sec. 17)
(15) Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous
Drugs(Sec. 18)
(16) Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs (Sec.
19)
PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS:
(1) The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) - Those acts which include or
involve any dangerous drugs (Sections 4, 5, 6, 8,
11, 16 and 19)
(2) The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day
to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00)
(a) Those acts which involve any controlled
precursor and essential chemical(Sections 4,
5, 6, 8, 9 and 10)
(b) Anyone who acts as a "protector/coddler" of
any violator of the provisions under sections
4, 5, 6, 8 and 16
(c) Sections 7, 10, 16, 17.
(3) The maximum penalty provided for under
sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 16 shall be imposed upon
any person, who organizes, manages or acts as a
"financier" of any of the illegal activities
prescribed in those sections.
(4) Any person charged under any provision of this
Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall
not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-
bargaining. Section 23, Article II, RA 9165
Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing
under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by
the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by
the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as
amended. [Section 24, Article II, RA 9165]
Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the
contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous
drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance
in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the
application of the penalty provided for in the Revised
Penal Code shall be applicable. [Section 25, Article II,
RA 9165]
The maximum penalties of the unlawful acts
provided for in this Act shall be imposed, in addition
to absolute perpetual disqualification from any
public office, if those found guilty of such unlawful
acts are government officials and employees.
[Section 28, Article II, RA 9165]
Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical, regardless of quantity and purity,
shall suffer the penalty of death. [Section 29, Article
II, RA 9165]
In case any violation of this Act is committed by a
partnership, corporation, association or any juridical
entity, the partner, president, director, manager,
trustee, estate administrator, or officer who consents
to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held
criminally liable as a co-principal. [Section 30, Article
II, RA 9165]
In addition to the penalties prescribed in the
unlawful act committed, any alien who violates such
provisions of this Act shall, after service of sentence,
be deported immediately without further
proceedings, unless the penalty is death. [Section 31,
Article II, RA 9165]
Accessory Penalties: A person convicted under this
Act shall be disqualified to exercise his/her civil
rights such as but not limited to:
(1) the rights of parental authority or guardianship,
either as to the person or property of any ward

PAGE 146
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(2) the rights to dispose of such property by any act
or any conveyance inter vivos,
(3) and political rights such as but not limited to,
(4) the right to vote and be voted for.
(5) Such rights shall also be suspended during the
pendency of an appeal from such conviction.
[Section 35, Article II, RA 9165]
32 possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale
thereof, except where the seller is further
apprehended in possession of another quantity of
the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in
the sale and which are probably intended for some
future dealings or use by the seller. [People v.
Lacerna]
Art. 36 (f), concerning mandatory drug testing for all
persons charged with crimes is declared
unconstitutional because it violates the right against
self-incrimination.
Art 36 (g), concerning mandatory drug testing for
candidates for public office is also
unconstitutional.[SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board]
DEFINITION OF IMPORTANT TERMS
Dangerous drugs: include those listed
(1) in the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by
the 1972 Protocol, and
(2) in the Schedules annexed to the 1971 Single
Convention on Psychotropic Substances as
enumerated in the attached annex which is an
integral part of this Act. [Section 3 (j), RA 9165]
Chemical Diversion: The sale, distribution, supply or
transport of legitimately imported, in-transit,
manufactured or procured controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, in diluted, mixtures, or in
concentrated form, to any person or entity engaged
in the manufactured of any dangerous drugs, and
shall include packaging, labelling, or concealment of
such transaction.
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals:
Include those listed in Tables I and II of the 188 UN
Convention Against Illicit traffic in Narcotics Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances.
OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS
May a drug dependent who is found guilty of the use of
dangerous drugs voluntarily submit himself for
treatment and rehabilitation? Yes. The drug
dependent may, by himself/herself or through
his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within
PAGE 147
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, apply
to the Board or its duly recognized representative, for
treatment and rehabilitation of the drug
dependency.
Upon such application, the Board shall bring forth
the matter to the Court which shall order that the
applicant be examined for drug dependency (Section
54, Article VIII, RA 9165).
Is there also compulsory confinement? Yes.
Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to the
contrary, any person determined and found to be
dependent on dangerous drugs shall, upon petition
by the Board or any of its authorized representative,
be confined for treatment and rehabilitation in any
Center duly designated or accredited for the
purpose.
A petition for the confinement of a person alleged to
be dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center may
be filed by any person authorized by the Board with
the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where
such person is found. (Section 61, Article VIII, RA
9165).
How long will the drug dependent be confined for
treatment and rehabilitation? Confinement in a Center
for treatment and rehabilitation shall not exceed one
(1) year, after which time the Court, as well as the
Board, shall be apprised by the head of the
treatment and rehabilitation center of the status of
said drug dependent and determine whether further
confinement will be for the welfare of the drug
dependent and his/her family or the community
(Section 54, Article VIII, RA 9165).
How will a drug dependent who is under the voluntary
submission program and is finally discharged from
confinement in the Center be exempt from criminal
liability?
(1) He/she has complied with the rules and
regulations of the center, the applicable rules
and regulations of the Board, including the
after-care and follow-up program for at least
eighteen (18) months following temporary
discharge from confinement in the Center
(2) He/she has never been charged or convicted of
any offense punishable under this Act, the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 or Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended; the Revised Penal Code,
as amended; or any special penal laws
(3) He/she has no record of escape from a Center
(4) He/she poses no serious danger to
himself/herself, his/her family or the community
by his/her exemption from criminal liability
(Section 55, Article VIII, RA 916)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
What are the functions of the Dangerous Drugs Board?
(1) Be the policy-making and strategy-formulating
body in the planning and formulation of policies
and programs on drug prevention and control.
(2) Develop and adopt a comprehensive, integrated,
unified and balanced national drug abuse
prevention and control strategy.
(3) Be under the Office of the President. (Section 77,
Article IX, RA 9165)
What is the PDEA? The PDEA is the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency. It serves as the implementing
arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board. It shall be
responsible for the efficient and effective law
enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical as provided in this Act. (Section 82, Article
IX, RA 916)
Title VI. Crimes against Public
Morals
CHAPTER I: Gambling and Betting
(1) Gambling (Art 195)
(2) Importation, sale and possession of lottery
tickets or advertisements (Art 196)
(3) Betting in sports contests (Art 197)
(4) Illegal betting on horse races (Art 198)
(5) Illegal cockfighting (Art 199)
CHAPTER II: Offenses against Decency and Good
Customs
(1) Grave Scandal (Art 200)
(2) Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions (Art 201)
(3) Vagrancy and prostitution (Art 202)
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
ARTICLE 200 - GRAVE SCANDAL
Elements:
(1) Offender performs an act or acts;
(2) Such act or acts be highly scandalous as
offending against decency or good customs;
(3) The highly scandalous conduct is not expressly
falling within any other article of this Code; and
(4) The act or acts complained of be committed in a
public place or within the public knowledge or
view. (Reyes).
Decency: means proprietary of conduct; proper
observance of the requirements of modesty, good
taste, etc.
PAGE 148
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Customs: established usage, social conventions
carried on by tradition and enforced by social
disapproval of any violation thereof.
Grave Scandal: consists of acts which are offensive to
decency and good customs which, having committed
publicly, have given rise to public scandal to persons
who have accidentally witnessed the same.
The acts must be performed in a public place or
within the public knowledge or view. If it is
committed in a private place, the crime of grave
scandal is not committed.
In conducts involving lasciviousness, it is grave
scandal only where there is mutual consent. (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)
Any act which is notoriously offensive to decency may
bring about criminal liability for the crime of grave
scandal, Provided such act does not constitute some
other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Grave
scandal is a crime of last resort.
ARTICLE 201 - IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS AND INDECENT SHOWS
Acts punished (as amended by PD No. 960, 969)
(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim
doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
(2) The authors of obscene literature, published
with their knowledge in any form,
(3) The editors publishing such literature;
(4) The owners/operators of the establishment
selling the same;
(5) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs, or
any other place, exhibit indecent or immoral
plays, scenes, acts, or shows,
it being understood that the obscene literature or
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows,
whether live or in film, which are proscribed by virtue
hereof, shall include those which:
(a) glorify criminals or condone crimes;
(b) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the
market for violence, lust or pornography;
(c) offend any race, or religion;
(d) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited
drugs; and
(e) are contrary to law, public order, morals,
good customs, established policies, lawful
orders, decrees and edicts
(6) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films,
prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which
are offensive to morals.
MORALS: imply conformity with the generally
accepted standards of goodness or rightness in
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
conduct or character, sometimes, specifically, to
sexual conduct.
Offense in any of the forms mentioned in the article
is committed only when there is publicity
The test of obscenity:
(1) The test is objective.
(2) It is more on the effect upon the viewer and not
alone on the conduct of the performer.
(3) If the material has the tendency to deprave and
corrupt the mind of the viewer then the same is
obscene and where such obscenity is made
publicly, criminal liability arises.
(4) As long as the pornographic matter or exhibition
is made privately, there is no crime committed
under the Revised Penal Code because what is
protected is the morality of the public in general.
Jurisprudence:
Postcards of Philippine inhabitants in native attire
were not obscene because the aggregate judgment
of the community, and the moral sense of the people
were not shocked by those pictures. They were not
offensive to chastity but merely depicted persons as
they actually lived. [People v Kottinger (1923)]
The reaction of the public during the performance of
a dance by one who had nothing to cover herself
with, except nylon patches over her breasts and too
abbreviated pair of nylon panties to interrupt her
stark nakedness should be made the gauge in the
determination of whether the dance or exhibition
was indecent or immoral. [People v Aparici (1955)]
An actual exhibition of the sexual act can have no
redeeming feature—no room for art. Therefore, it is a
clear and unmitigated obscenity. [People v Padan
(1957)]
ARTICLE 202 - VAGRANCY AND PROSTITUTION (SEE RA
10158)
Persons Liable:
(1) Any person having no apparent means of
subsistence, who has the physical ability to work
and who neglects to apply himself or herself to
some lawful calling;
(2) Any person found loitering about public or semi-
public buildings or places or trampling or
wandering about the country or the streets
without visible means of support;
(3) Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in
houses of ill fame; ruffians or pimps and those
who habitually associate with prostitutes;
(4) Any person who, not being included in the
provisions of other articles of this Code, shall be
found loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited
PAGE 149
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
place belonging to another without any lawful or
justifiable purpose; and
(5) Prostitutes.
Prostitutes: women who, for money or profit
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct
Dissolute: lax, unrestrained, immoral
Ruffian: brutal, violent, lawless persons
Pimp: One who provides gratification for the lust of
others
Even millionaires or one who has more than enough
for his livelihood can commit vagrancy by habitually
associating with prostitutes, pimps, ruffians, or by
habitually lodging in houses of ill-repute. The
purpose of the law is not simply to punish a person
because he has no means of livelihood; it is to
prevent further criminality.
Any person found wandering in an estate belonging
to another whether public or private without any
lawful purpose also commits vagrancy, unless his
acts constitutes some other crime in the Revised
Penal Code.
The term prostitution is applicable to a woman who
for profit or money habitually engages in sexual or
lascivious conduct.
A man, if he engages in the same conduct – sex for
money – is not a prostitute, but a vagrant.
In law, the mere indulging in lascivious conduct
habitually because of money or gain would amount
to prostitution, even if there is no sexual intercourse.
Virginity is not a defense.
Habituality is the controlling factor; it has to be more
than one time.
There cannot be prostitution by conspiracy. One who
conspires with a woman in the prostitution business
like pimps, taxi drivers or solicitors of clients are
guilty of the crime under Article 341 for white slavery.
See Special Law: PD 1563 (Mendicancy Law of 1978)
RA 10158: AN ACT DECRIMINALIZING VAGRANCY,
AMENDING ARTICLE 202 OF THE RPC
SECTION 1. Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code is
hereby, amended to read as follows:
“Article 202.Prostitutes; Penalty. – For the purposes
of this article, women who, for money or profit,
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes.
“Any person found guilty of any of the offenses
covered by this article shall be punished by arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case
of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium period
to prision correctional in its minimum period or a fine
ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the
discretion of the court.”
SEC. 2.Effect on Pending Cases. – All pending cases
under the provisions of Article 202 of the Revised
Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by
this Act shall be dismissed upon effectivity of this
Act.
SEC. 3.Immediate Release of Convicted Persons. –
All persons serving sentence for violation of the
provisions of Article 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.
Under the Mendicancy Law of 1978 (PD 1563),
(1) one who has no visible and legal means of
support, or lawful employment
(2) and who is physically able to work but neglects
to apply himself to some lawful calling
(3) and instead uses begging as a means of living,
(4) is a mendicant.
Any person who abets mendicancy by giving alms
directly to mendicants, exploited infants and minors
on public roads, sidewalks, parks and bridges shall
be punished by a fine.
P.D. 1602 – ANTI-GAMBLING ACT AS AMENDED BY R.A.
9287 – ILLEGAL NUMBERS GAME – WHICH REPEALED
ARTICLES 195-199 OF THE RPC
Sec. 2.Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the
following terms shall mean:
a) Illegal Numbers Game. - Any form illegal
gambling activity which uses numbers or
combinations thereof as factors in giving out
jackpots.
b) Jueteng. - An illegal numbers game that involves
the combination of thirty-seven (37) numbers against
thirty-seven (37) numbers from number one (1) to
thirty seven (37) or the combination of thirty-eight
(38) numbers in some areas, serving as a form of
local lottery where bets are placed and accepted per
combination, and its variants.
PAGE 150
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
c) Masiao. - An illegal numbers game where the
winning combination is derived from the results of
the last game of Jai Alai or the Special Llave portion
or any result thereof based on any fictitious Jai Alai
game consisting of ten (10) players pitted against
one another, and its variants.
d) Last Two. - An illegal numbers game where the
winning combination is derived from the last two (2)
numbers of the first prize of the winning
Sweepstakes ticket which comes out during the
weekly draw of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office (PCSO), and its variants.
e) Bettor ("Mananaya", "Tayador" or variants
thereof). - Any person who places bets for
himself/herself or in behalf of another person, or any
person, other than the personnel or staff of any
illegal numbers game operation.
f) Personnel or Staff of Illegal Numbers Game
Operation. - Any person, who acts in the interest of
the maintainer, manager or operator, such as, but
not limited to, an accountant, cashier, checker,
guard, runner, table manager, usher, watcher, or any
other personnel performing such similar functions in
a building structure, vessel, vehicle, or any other
place where an illegal numbers game is operated or
conducted.
g) Collector or Agent ("Cabo", "Cobrador", "Coriador"
or variants thereof). - Any person who collects,
solicits or produces bets in behalf of his/her principal
for any illegal numbers game who is usually in
possession of gambling paraphernalia.
h) Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor
("Encargado" or variants thereof). - Any person who
exercises control and supervision over the collector
or agent.
i) Maintainer, Manager or Operator. - Any person
who maintains, manages or operates any illegal
number game in a specific area from whom the
coordinator, controller or supervisor, and collector or
agent take orders.
j) Financiers or Capitalist. - Any person who finances
the operations of any illegal numbers game.
k) Protector or Coddler. - Any person who lends or
provides protection, or receives benefits in any
manner in the operation of any illegal numbers
game.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Punishable Acts
Sec. 3. Punishable Acts. - Any person who
participates in any illegal numbers game shall suffer
the following penalties:
a) The penalty of imprisonment from thirty (30) days
to ninety (90) days, if such person acts as a bettor;
b) The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years
and one (1) day to eight (8) years, if such person acts
as a personnel or staff of an illegal numbers game
operation;
The same penalty shall likewise be imposed to any
person who allows his vehicle, house, building or
land to be used in the operation of the illegal
numbers games.
c) The penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years
and one (1) day to ten (10) years, if such person acts
as a collector or agent;
d) The penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, if such person
acts as a coordinator, controller or supervisor;
e) The penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to ten (10) fourteen (14) years, if
such person acts as a maintainer, manager or
operator; and
f) The penalty of imprisonment from fourteen (14)
years and one (1) day to sixteen (16) years, if such
person acts as a financier or capitalist;
g) The penalty of imprisonment from sixteen (16)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, if such
person acts as protector or coddler.
Sec. 4. Possession of Gambling Paraphernalia or
Materials. - The possession of any gambling
paraphernalia and other materials used in the illegal
numbers game operation shall be deemed prima
facie evidence of any offense covered by this Act.
Sec. 5. Liability of Government Employees and/or
Public Officials. - a) If the collector, agent,
coordinator, controller, supervisor, maintainer,
manager, operator, financier or capitalist of any
illegal numbers game is a government employee
and/or public official, whether elected or appointed
shall suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from
Three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) to Five million
pesos (P5,000,000.00) and perpetual absolute
disqualification from public office.
PAGE 151
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
In addition to the penalty provided in the
immediately preceding section, the accessory
penalty of perpetual disqualification from public
office shall be imposed upon any local government
official who, having knowledge of the existence of
the operation of any illegal numbers game in his/her
jurisdiction, fails to abate or to take action, or
tolerates the same in connection therewith.
b) In the case of failure to apprehend perpetrators of
any illegal numbers game, any law enforcer shall
suffer an administrative penalty of suspension or
dismissal, as the case may be, to be imposed by the
appropriate authority.
Sec. 6.Liability of Parents/Guardians. - The penalty
of imprisonment from six (6) months and one (1) day
to one (1) year or fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any parent, guardian or person exercising
moral authority or ascendancy over a minor, ward or
incapacitated person, and not otherwise falling
under any of the foregoing subsections, who induces
or causes such minor, ward or incapacitated person
to commit any of the offenses punishable in this Act.
Upon conviction, the parent, guardian or person
exercising moral authority or ascendancy over the
minor, ward or incapacitated person shall be
deprived of his/her authority over such person in
addition to the penalty imposed.
Sec. 7.Recidivism. - The penalty next higher in
degree as provided for under Section 3 hereof shall
be imposed upon a recidivist who commits any of the
offenses punishable in this Act.
RA 9208 (ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT)
Section 4.Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be
unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to
commit any of the following acts:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, 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, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or
material, economic or other consideration, any
person or, as provided for under Republic Act No.
6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign national, for
marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
offering, selling or trading him/her to engage in
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated,
for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling,
or trading them to engage in prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans
consisting of tourism packages or activities for the
purpose of utilizing and offering persons for
prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in
prostitution or pornography;
(f) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for
the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(g) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport 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;
and
(h) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in
armed activities in the Philippines or abroad.
Section 5.Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons. -
The following acts which promote or facilitate
trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful:
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be
used any house, building or establishment for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued,
tampered or fake counseling certificates, registration
stickers and certificates of any government agency
which issues these certificates and stickers as proof
of compliance with government regulatory and pre-
departure requirements for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons;
(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or
distribute, or cause the advertisement, publication,
printing, broadcasting or distribution by any means,
including the use of information technology and the
internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any propaganda
material that promotes trafficking in persons;
(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or
fraud for purposes of facilitating the acquisition of
clearances and necessary exit documents from
government agencies that are mandated to provide
PAGE 152
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
pre-departure registration and services for departing
persons for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons;
(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of
persons from/to the country at international and
local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports
who are in possession of unissued, tampered or
fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons;
(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport,
travel documents, or personal documents or
belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance of
trafficking or to prevent them from leaving the
country or seeking redress from the government or
appropriate agencies; and
(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise,
or make use of, the labor or services of a person held
to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor,
or slavery.
Section 6.Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The
following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic
Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the "Inter-Country
Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in
large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another. It is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group;
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent,
sibling, guardian or a person who exercises authority
over the trafficked person or when the offense is
committed by a public officer or employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage
in prostitution with any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or
law enforcement agencies; and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of
trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
Section 7.Confidentiality. - At any stage of the
investigation, prosecution and trial of an offense
under this Act, law enforcement officers, prosecutors,
judges, court personnel and medical practitioners, as
well as parties to the case, shall recognize the right
to privacy of the trafficked person and the accused.
Towards this end, law enforcement officers,
prosecutors and judges to whom the complaint has
been referred may, whenever necessary to ensure a
fair and impartial proceeding, and after considering
all circumstances for the best interest of the parties,
order a closed-door investigation, prosecution or
trial. The name and personal circumstances of the
trafficked person or of the accused, or any other
information tending to establish their identities and
such circumstances or information shall not be
disclosed to the public.
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.
Section 10.Penalties and Sanctions. - 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 Section 4 shall suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and a fine of
not less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) but
not more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
(b) Any person found guilty of committing any of the
acts enumerated in Section 5 shall suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of fifteen (15) years and a fine of not
less than Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) but not more than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00);
(c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking
under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million
pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five
million pesos (P5,000,000.00);
(d) Any person who violates Section 7 hereof shall
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years
and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00);
PAGE 153
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(e) 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 or who shall have knowingly
permitted or failed to prevent its commission;
(f) The registration with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (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;
(g) If the offender is a foreigner, he shall be
immediately deported after serving his sentence and
be barred permanently from entering the country;
(h) 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/her
retirement and other benefits shall likewise be
forfeited; and
(i) Conviction by final judgment of the adopter for
any offense under this Act shall result in the
immediate rescission of the decree of adoption.
Section 11.Use of Trafficked Persons. - Any person
who buys or engages the services of trafficked
persons for prostitution shall be penalized as
follows:
(a) First offense - six (6) months of community
service as may be determined by the court and a fine
of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00); and
(b) Second and subsequent offenses - imprisonment
of one (1) year and a fine of One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00).
Section 17.Legal Protection to Trafficked Persons. -
Trafficked persons shall be recognized as victims of
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
the act or acts of trafficking and as such shall not be
penalized for crimes directly related to the acts of
trafficking enumerated in this Act or in obedience to
the order made by the trafficker in relation thereto. In
this regard, the consent of a trafficked person to the
intended exploitation set forth in this Act shall be
irrelevant.
Note Sec. 17: Persons trafficked (including
prostitutes) are exempt from criminal liability.
Note also: Under RA 9208, persons who hire
trafficked persons are criminally liable. Not so in Art
202 RPC.
Title VII. Crimes Committed
by Public Officers
Chapter 1: Preliminary Provisions
(1) Article 203 - Who Are Public Officers
Chapter 2: Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office
(1) Article 204 - Knowingly Rendering Unjust
Judgment
(2) Article 205 - Judgment Rendered Through
Negligence
(3) Article 206 - Unjust Interlocutory Order
(4) Article 207 - Malicious Delay in the
Administration of Justice
(5) Article 208 - Prosecution of Offenses;
Negligence and Tolerance
(6) Article 209 - Betrayal of Trust by an Attorney or
a Solicitor - Revelation of Secrets
(7) Article 210 - Direct Bribery
(8) Article 211 - Indirect Bribery
(9) Article 211-A - Qualified Bribery
(10) Article 212 - Corruption of Public Officials
(11) Article 214 - Other Frauds
Chapter 3: Frauds and Illegal Exactions and
Transactions
(1) Article 213 - Fraud against the Public Treasury
and Similar Offenses
(2) Article 215 - Prohibited Transactions
(3) Article 216 - Possession of Prohibited Interest by
a Public Officer
Chapter 4: Malversation of Public Funds and
Properties
(1) Article 217 - Malversation of Public Funds or
Property - Presumption of Malversation
(2) Article 218 - Failure of Accountable Officer to
Render Accounts
PAGE 154
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(3) Article 219 - Failure of a Responsible Public
Officer to Render Accounts Before Leaving the
Country
(4) Article 220 - Illegal Use of Public Funds or
Property
(5) Article 221 - Failure to Make Delivery of Public
Funds or Property
(6) Article 222 - Officers Included in the Preceding
Provisions
Chapter 5: Infidelity of Public Officers
(1) Article 223 - Conniving With or Consenting to
Evasion
(2) Article 224 - Evasion through Negligence
(3) Article 225 - Escape of Prisoner under the
Custody of a Person Not a Public Officer
(4) Article 226 - Removal, Concealment, or
Destruction of Documents
(5) Article 227 - Officer Breaking Seal
(6) Article 228 - Opening of Closed Documents
(7) Article 229 - Revelation of Secrets by an Officer
(8) Article 230 - Public Officers Revealing Secrets of
Private Individuals
Chapter 6: Other Offenses and Irregularities by Public
Officers
(1) Article 231 - Open Disobedience
(2) Article 232 - Disobedience to the Order of
Superior Officer When Said Order Was
Suspended by Inferior Officer
(3) Article 233 - Refusal of Assistance
(4) Article 234 - Refusal to Discharge Elective Office
(5) Article 235 - Maltreatment of Prisoners
(6) Article 236 - Anticipation of Duties of a Public
Officer
(7) Article 237 - Prolonging Performance of Duties
and Powers
(8) Article 238 - Abandonment of Office or Position
(9) Article 239 - Usurpation of Legislative Powers
(10) Article 240 - Usurpation of Executive Functions
(11) Article 241 - Usurpation of Judicial Functions
(12) Article 242 - Disobeying Request for
Disqualification
(13) Article 243 - Orders or Request by Executive
Officer to Any Judicial Authority
(14) Article 244 - Unlawful Appointments
(15) Article 245 - Abuses against Chastity.
Remember:
This is one of the instances where the Revised Penal
Code may be given extra-territorial application under
Article 2 (5) thereof.
Crimes under this title can be committed by public
officers or a non-public officer, when the latter
become a conspirator with a public officer, or an
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

accomplice, or accessory to the crime. The public him for decision;

officer has to be the principal. (3) Judgment is unjust;
(4) The judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
Defense: Mere error in good faith.
ARTICLE 203 - WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS
An unjust judgment is one which is contrary to law or
Requisites: is not supported by the evidence, or both.
(1) Taking part in the performance of public
functions in the government; There must be positive evidence imputing an unjust
(2) Performing in said government or in any of its judgment; presumption will not suffice.
branches public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, or any rank or class; The offense refers only to a judgment of an individual
(3) His authority to take part in the performance of judge in his court, and not to the judgment rendered
public functions or to perform public duties in a collegial court by the members thereof [In Re:
must be – Wenceslao Laureta (1987)]
(a) By direct provision of the law;
(b) By popular election; or Before a criminal action against a judge for violation
(c) By appointment by competent authority. of Articles 204 and 205 can be entertained, there
must be a trial or authoritative judicial declaration
The term “public officers” embraces every public that his decision or order is really unjust which may
servant from the highest to lowest. result from either an action of certiorari or
prohibition in a higher court. [De Vera v. Pelayo
Officers and employees of government owned and (2000)]
controlled corporations included but not those of a
sequestered corporation. ARTICLE 205 - JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE
The better rule is that GOCCs created by law are Elements:
covered while GOCCs registered with the SEC (1) Offender is a judge;
(including sequestered companies) are not. (2) He renders a judgment in a case submitted to
[Macalino v. Sandiganbayan] him for decision;
(3) The judgment is manifestly unjust;
The more recent case of People v. Sandiganbayan (4) It is due to his inexcusable negligence or
held that, based on RA 8249, presidents, directors, ignorance.
trustees, and managers of all GOCCs, regardless of
type, are subject to the jurisdiction of the A manifestly unjust judgment is one which is so
Sandiganbayan when they are involved in graft and manifestly contrary to law that even a person having
corruption. basic knowledge of the law cannot doubt the
injustice. Abuse of discretion or mere error of
CHAPTER II: MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE judgment, not punishable.
IN OFFICE
The Supreme Court held that a judgment is said to
Malfeasance Doing of an act which a be unjust when it is contrary to the standards of
(see Arts 210 and public officer should not conduct prescribed by law.
211) have done
Misfeasance (see Improper doing of an act The test to determine whether an order or judgment
Arts 204 to 207) which a person might is unjust may be inferred from the circumstances
lawfully do that it is contrary to law or is not supported by
Nonfeasance (see Failure of an agent to evidence. [Louis Vuitton SA v. Judge Villanueva]
Art 208) perform his undertaking for
the principal ARTICLE 206 - UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
Elements:
ARTICLE 204 - KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST
(1) Offender is a judge;
JUDGMENT
(2) He performs any of the following acts:
Elements: (a) Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory
(1) Offender is a judge; order or decree; or
(2) He renders a judgment in a case submitted to (b) Rendering a manifestly unjust interlocutory

PAGE 155
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
order or decree through inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
If the order 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.
The unjust interlocutory order must have been issued
by the judge with deliberate intent to cause damage
to the party concerned.
ARTICLE 207 - MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a judge;
(2) There is a proceeding in his court;
(3) He delays in the administration of justice;
(4) The delay is malicious, that is, with deliberate
intent to inflict damage on either party in the
case.
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
provision.
ARTICLE 208 - PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE
AND TOLERANCE
Mode 1. Maliciously refraining from instituting
prosecution against violators of the law;
Mode 2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of
offenses.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or officer of the law
who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to
prosecute, offenses;
(2) There is a dereliction of the duties of his office,
that is, knowing the commission of the crime, he
does not cause the prosecution of the criminal,
or knowing that a crime is about to be
committed, he tolerates its commission;
(3) Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent
to favor the violator of the law.
This crime can only be committed by a public officer
whose official duty is to prosecute offenders. Ex.
Chief of police, barrio captain and fiscal.
The crime committed by the law violator must be
proved first. [US v. Mendoza]
Also known as prevaricacion.
PAGE 156
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE 209 – BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR
A SOLICITOR – REVELATION OF SECRETS
Elements:
(1) Causing damage to his client, either—
(a) By any malicious breach of professional
duty;
(b) By inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
(2) Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned
by him in his professional capacity (damage is
not necessary);
(3) Undertaking the defense of the opposing party
in the same case, without the consent of his first
client,
(a) after having undertaken the defense of said
first client, or
(b) after having received confidential
information from said client.
When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of his
employment or inexcusable negligence or ignorance,
there must be damage to his client.
Communications made with prospective clients to a
lawyer with a view to engaging his professional
services are already privileged even though the
client-lawyer relationship did not eventually
materialize.
The confidential matters or information must be
confided to the lawyer in the latter’s professional
capacity.
Mere malicious breach without damage is not a
violation of Article 209; at most he will be liable
administratively as a lawyer, e.g., suspension or
disbarment under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Modes of Commission:
(1) Maliciously causing damage to his client
through a breach of his professional duty.
Note: The breach of professional duty must be
malicious. If it is just incidental, it would not give
rise to criminal liability, although it may be the
subject of administrative discipline;
(2) Through gross ignorance, causing damage to
the client;
(3) Inexcusable negligence;
(4) Revelation of secrets learned in his professional
capacity;
(5) Undertaking the defense of the opposite party in
a case without the consent of the first client
whose defense has already been undertaken.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The Supreme Court held that not all information
received by counsel from client is classified as
privileged.
A distinction must be made between confidential
communications relating to past crimes already
committed, and future crimes intended to be
committed by the client. [People v. Sandiganbayan]
ARTICLE 210 - DIRECT BRIBERY
Mode 1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present; an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his
official duties;
Mode 2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duty;
Mode 3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from
doing something which is his official duty
to do, in consideration of gift or promise.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer within the scope of
Article 203;
(2) Offender accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or through
another;
(3) Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or
present received by the public officer –
(a) With a view to committing some crime; or
(b) In consideration of the execution of an act
which does not constitute a crime, but the
act must be unjust; or
(c) To refrain from doing something which it is
his official duty to do.
(4) The act which offender agrees to perform or
which he executes be connected with the
performance of his official duties.
The crime of bribery has no frustrated stage. If one
party does not concur, then there is no agreement
and not all the acts necessary to commit the crime
were present.
Temporary performance of public functions is
sufficient to constitute a person a public officer.
Bribery exists when the gift is:
(1) voluntarily offered by a private person;
(2) solicited by the public officer and voluntarily
delivered by the private person;
(3) solicited by the public officer but the private
person delivers it out of fear of the
consequences should the public officer perform
his functions (here the crime by the giver does
PAGE 157
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
not fall under corruption of public officials due
to the involuntariness of the act).
In the FIRST MODE of bribery, actual receipt of the
gift is not necessary.
An accepted offer or promise of a gift is sufficient.
However, if the offer is not accepted, only the person
offering the gift is liable for attempted corruption of
a public officer.
In the SECOND MODE of bribery, the gift must be
accepted by the public officer.
The GIFT must have a value or capable of pecuniary
estimation. It could be in the form of money, property
or services. It cannot consist of a mere offer or
promise of a gift.
If the act required of the public officer amounts to a
crime and he commits it, he shall be liable for the
penalty corresponding to the crime.
The THIRD MODE of bribery and prevaricacion (art
208) are similar offenses, both consisting of
omission of an act required to be performed.
In direct bribery however, a gift or promise is given in
consideration of the omission. This is not necessary
in prevaricacion.
Direct bribery does not absorb Art. 208 (dereliction
of duty). See Qualified Bribery (211-A)
Police Sergeant Malfrosque asked and accepted
money in exchange for the recovery of the reported
stolen gas tanks to the owners.
This made him liable under the 2nd mode of Art 210
since in the act of returning the gas tanks to the
owners does not constitute a crime; he demanded
money and said act was in connection with the
performance of his duty as a policeman. [People v.
Malfrosque (2004)]
ARTICLE 211 - INDIRECT BRIBERY
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He accepts gifts;
(3) The gifts are offered to him by reason of his
office.
The principal distinction between direct and indirect
bribery is that in the former, the officer agrees to
perform or refrain from doing an act in consideration
of the gift or promise.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
In the latter case, it is not necessary that the officer
do any act. It is sufficient that he accepts the gift
offered by reason of his office.
If after receiving the gift, the officer does any act in
favor of the giver which is unfair to the others, the
crime continues to be indirect bribery.
Precisely the evil of indirect bribery is in its tendency
to produce future, unspecified, and unwarranted
favors from the official.
This is always in the consummated stage. There is
no attempted much less frustrated stage in indirect
bribery.
There must be clear intention on the part of the
public officer:
(1) to take the gift offered and
(2) consider the property as his own for that
moment.
Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other
sign, circumstance or act to show such acceptance is
not sufficient to convict the officer.
Public officers receiving gifts and private persons
giving gifts on any occasion, including Christmas are
liable under PD 46.
ARTICLE 211-A - QUALIFIED BRIBERY
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer entrusted with law
enforcement;
(2) He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime punishable
by reclusion perpetua and/or death;
(3) Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting
in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or
present.
The crime of qualified bribery may be committed
only by public officers “entrusted with enforcement”
(those whose official duties authorize them to arrest
or prosecute offenders).
The penalty is qualified if the public officer is the one
who asks or demands such present.
If the penalty imposed is lower than reclusion
perpetua and/or death had the offender been
arrested or the crime prosecuted, the crime is direct
bribery.
The dereliction of the duty punished under Article
208 of the Revised Penal Code is absorbed in
Qualified Bribery.
PAGE 158
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Dacumas v. Sandiganbayan expanded the meaning
of “official duties”. It included those which may be in
one’s capacity to perform by reason of his office.
ARTICLE 212 - CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Elements:
(1) Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts
or presents to a public officer;
(2) The offers or promises are made or the gifts or
presents given to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public officer
liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror of
the promise.
The act may or may not be accomplished.
CHAPTER III: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS
AND TRANSACTIONS
ARTICLE 213 - FRAUD AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY
AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
Mode 1 Entering into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or making
use of any other scheme, to defraud the
government, in dealing with any person
with regard to furnishing supplies, the
making of contracts, or the adjustment or
settlement of accounts relating to public
property or funds;
Mode 2 Demanding, directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger
than those authorized by law, in collection
of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts;
Mode 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;
Mode 4 Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
way of payment or otherwise, things or
objects of a nature different from that
provided by law, in the collection of taxes,
licenses, fees and other imposts.
Elements of Fraud against Public Treasury (par.1):
(1) That the offender is a public officer
(2) That he should have taken advantage of his
public office, that is, he intervened in the
transaction in his official capacity
(3) That he entered into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or made use of
any other scheme with regard to:
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(a) Furnishing supplies
(b) The making of contracts
(c) The adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds
Consummated by merely entering into agreement
with any interested party or speculator or by merely
making use of other scheme to defraud the
government.
It is not necessary that the Government is actually
defrauded by the reason of the transaction
Elements of Illegal Exactions (par.2.):
(1) That the offender is a public officer entrusted
with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and
other imports;
(2) He is guilty of the following acts or omissions:
(a) Demanding directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums of different from or larger
than those authorized by law;
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt as
provided by law, for ay sum of money
collected by him officially; or
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly,
by way of payment or otherwise, things or
object of a nature different from that
provided by law
This can only be committed principally by a public
officer whose official duty is to collect taxes, license
fees, import duties and other dues payable to the
government.
Mere demand of a larger or different amount is
sufficient to consummate the crime. The essence is
the improper collection (damage to government is
not required).
The act of receiving payment due the government
without issuing a receipt will give rise to illegal
exaction even though a provisional receipt has been
issued. What the law requires is a receipt in the form
prescribed by law, which means official receipt.
If sums are received without demanding the same, a
felony under this article is not committed. However,
if the sum is given as a sort of gift or gratification, the
crime is indirect bribery.
When there is deceit in demanding a greater fee than
those prescribed by law, the crime committed is
estafa and not illegal exaction.
Illegal exaction may be complexed with malversation
if illegal exaction was committed as a necessary
means to commit malversation.
PAGE 159
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Officers and employees of the BIR or Customs are
not covered by the article. The NIRC or the Revised
Administrative Code is the applicable law.
ARTICLE 214 - OTHER FRAUDS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He takes advantage of his official position;
(3) He commits any of the frauds or deceits
enumerated in Article 315 to 318 (estafa, other
forms of swindling, swindling a minor, other
deceits).
Additional penalty of temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
special disqualification, apart from the penalties
imposed in Arts 315-318.
ARTICLE 215 - PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
Elements:
(1) Offender is an appointive public officer;
(2) He becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in
any transaction of exchange or speculation;
(3) The transaction takes place within the territory
subject to his jurisdiction;
(4) He becomes interested in the transaction during
his incumbency.
Examples of transactions of exchange or speculation
are: buying and selling stocks, commodities, land etc
wherein one hopes to take advantage of an expected
rise or fall in price
Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is
simple investment and not a violation of the article.
However, regularly buying securities for resale is
speculation.
The offender may also be held liable under RA 3019
Sec 3(i).
ARTICLE 216 - POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST BY A
PUBLIC OFFICER
Persons liable:
(1) Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became
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, took part in any contract or
transaction connected with the estate or
property in the appraisal, distribution or
adjudication of which they had acted;
(3) Guardians and executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or the estate.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Fraud is not necessary. Intervention must be by
virtue of the public office held.
The basis here is the possibility that fraud may be
committed or that the officer may place his own
interest above that of the government or party he
represents.
CHAPTER IV: MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY
ARTICLE 217 - MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION
Mode 1. Appropriating public funds or property;
Mode 2. Taking or misappropriating the same;
Mode 3. Consenting, or through abandonment or
negligence, permitting any other person to
take such public funds or property; and
Mode 4. Being otherwise guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of such
funds or property.
Elements common to all modes:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He had the custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office;
(3) Those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable;
(4) He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take
them.
Malversation is also called embezzlement.
The public officer must have official custody or the
duty to collect or receive funds due the government,
or the obligation to account for them.
It is not necessary that the offender profited for as
long as the accountable officer was remiss in his duty
of safekeeping public funds or property. He is liable
for malversation if such funds were lost or otherwise
misappropriated by another.
It can be committed either with malice or through
negligence or imprudence. This is one crime in the
Revised Penal Code where the penalty is the same
whether committed with dolo or through culpa.
The nature of the duties of the public officer, not the
name of the office, is controlling. The funds or
property must be received in an official capacity.
Otherwise, the crime committed is estafa.
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
If the public officer is not accountable for the funds
or property but someone else is, the crime
committed is theft or qualified theft if there is an
abuse of confidence.
Returning the malversed funds is not exempting, it is
only mitigating.
A person whose negligence made possible the
commission of malversation by another can be held
liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation
Demand as well as damage to the government are
not necessary elements
A private person may also commit malversation
under the following situations:
(1) Conspiracy with a public officer in committing
malversation;
(2) When he has become an accomplice or
accessory to a public officer who commits
malversation;
(3) When the private person is made the custodian
in whatever capacity of public funds or property,
whether belonging to national or local
government, and he misappropriates the same;
(4) When he is constituted as the depositary or
administrator of funds or property seized or
attached by public authority even though said
funds or property belong to a private individual.
Technical malversation (Article 220) is not included
in the crime of malversation.
Presumption of misappropriation: When a demand is
made upon an accountable officer and he cannot
produce the fund or property involved, there is a
prima facie presumption that he had converted the
same to his own use. There must be indubitable
proof that thing unaccounted for exists.
Audit should be made to determine if there was
shortage. Audit must be complete and trustworthy.
If there is doubt, presumption does not arise.
The accused incurred shortage (P1.74) mainly
because the auditor disallowed certain cash
advances the accused granted to employees. But on
the same date that the audit was made, he partly
reimbursed the amount and paid it in full three days
later.
The Supreme Court considered the circumstances as
negative of criminal intent. The cash advances were
made in good faith and out of good will to co-
employees which was a practice tolerated in the
PAGE 160
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

office. There was no negligence, malice, nor intent to Demand for accounting is not necessary. It is also not
defraud. [Quizo v. Sandiganbayan] essential that there be misappropriation because if
present, the crime would be malversation.
Estafa with Abuse of
Malversation (Art. 217) ARTICLE 219 - FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC
Confidence (Art. 315)
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING THE
Funds or property usually Funds/property are COUNTRY
public always private
Elements:
Offender is usually a public Offender is a private (1) Offender is a public officer;
officer who is accountable for individual or even a (2) He is an accountable officer for public funds or
the public funds/property public officer who is property;
not accountable for (3) He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the
public funds/property Philippine Islands without securing a certificate
Crime is committed by Crime is committed by from the Commission on Audit showing that his
appropriating, taking, or misappropriating, accounts have been finally settled.
misappropriating/consenting converting, or denying
or through abandonment or having received money, The act of leaving the country must be unauthorized
negligence, permitting any goods or other or not permitted by law.
other person to take the personal property
public funds/property The purpose of the law is to discourage responsible
No element of damage. There is damage. or accountable officers from leaving without first
liquidating their accountability. It is not necessary
Demand not necessary. There is a need for that they really misappropriated public funds.
prior demand.
ARTICLE 220 - ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
A routine government audit was conducted in Wa- PROPERTY
Acon’s office and it was discovered that the sacks of Elements:
rice entrusted to him for safekeeping were missing. (1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) There are public funds or property under his
Art 217 no longer requires proof by the State that the administration;
accused actually appropriated, took, or (3) Such fund or property were appropriated by law
misappropriated public funds or property; instead, a or ordinance;
presumption, though disputable and rebuttable, was (4) He applies such public fund or property to any
installed upon demand by any duly authorized public use other than for which it was
officer, the failure of a public officer to have duly appropriated for.
forthcoming any public funds or property which said
officer is accountable for should be prima facie Illegal use of public funds or property is also known
evidence that he had put such missing funds or as technical malversation. The term technical
properties to personal use. [People v. Wa-Acon malversation is used because in this crime, the fund
(2006)] or property involved is already appropriated or
earmarked for a certain public purpose.
ARTICLE 218 - FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO
RENDER ACCOUNTS
Regardless of damage or embarrassment to the
Elements: public service.
(1) Offender is public officer, whether in the service
or separated therefrom by resignation or any Technical malversation
other cause; Malversation (Art. 217)
(Art. 220)
(2) He is an accountable officer for public funds or
property; The offender The public officer applies
(3) He is required by law or regulation to render misappropriates public the public funds or
account to the Commission on Audit, or to a funds or property for his property under his
provincial auditor; own personal use, or administration to another
(4) He fails to do so for a period of two months after allows any other person to public use different from
such accounts should be rendered. take such funds or that for which the public
property for the latter’s fund was appropriated by
own personal use. law or ordinance.

PAGE 161
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 221 - FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY
Mode 1. Failing to make payment by a public officer
who is under obligation to make such
payment from government funds in his
possession;
Mode 2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer
who has been ordered by competent
authority to deliver any property in his
custody or under his administration.
Elements:
(1) Public officer has government funds in his
possession;
(2) He is under obligation to either:
(a) make payment from such funds;
(b) to deliver any property in his custody or
under his administration
(3) He maliciously fails to make the payment or
refuses to make delivery.
(4) He maliciously fails to make the payment.
ARTICLE 222 - OFFICERS INCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING
PROVISIONS
(1) Private individual who, in any capacity, have
charge of any national, provincial or municipal
funds, revenue, or property
(2) Administrator or depositary of funds or property
that has been attached, seized or deposited by
public authority, even if owned by a private
individual.
Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term
“administrator.” A judicial administrator in charge of
settling the estate of the deceased is not covered by
the article.
Private property is included, provided it is (1)
attached, (2) seized or (3) deposited by public
authority.
CHAPTER V: INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
ARTICLE 223 - CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO
EVASION
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He had in his custody or charge a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
(3) Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
(4) He was in connivance with the prisoner in the
latter’s escape. (“shall consent to the escape”).
PAGE 162
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Classes of prisoners involved
(1) Those who have been sentenced by final
judgment to any penalty;
(2) Detention prisoners who are temporarily held in
custody for any crime or violation of law or
municipal ordinance.
This includes allowing prisoners to sleep and eat in
the officer’s house or utilizes the prisoner’s services
for domestic chores.
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.
ARTICLE 224 - EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He is charged with the conveyance or custody of
a prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
(3) Such prisoner escapes through negligence.
This covers only positive carelessness and definite
laxity which amounts to deliberate non-performance
of duties.
The fact that the public officer recaptured the
prisoner who had escaped from his custody does not
afford complete exculpation.
The liability of an escaping prisoner:
(1) If he is a prisoner by final judgment, he is liable
for evasion of service (Art. 157)
(2) If he is a detention prisoner, he does not incur
criminal liability (unless cooperating with the
offender).
ARTICLE 225 - ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE
CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER
Elements:
(1) Offender is a private person;
(2) The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or
person under arrest is confided to him;
(3) The prisoner or person under arrest escapes;
(4) Offender consents to the escape, or that the
escape takes place through his negligence.
If the offender who aided or consented to the
prisoner’s escaping from confinement, whether the
prisoner is a convict or a detention prisoner, is not
the custodian, the crime is delivering prisoners from
jail under Article 156.
The party who is not the custodian but who
conspired with the custodian in allowing the prisoner
to escape does not commit infidelity in the custody of
the prisoner.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Art. 225 not applicable if a private person was the
one who made the arrest and he consented to the
escape of the person he arrested.
Policeman Rodillas escorted detained prisoner Sacris
to the court. After the court adjourned he let her eat
lunch with her family, permitted her to go to the
ladies washroom unescorted and after her escape,
did not report it immediately to his superiors, instead
he went around looking for her.
SC held that he is guilty of the crime in Art 224 for
being negligent in the performance of his duties
which made the escape of Sacris possible. [People v.
Rodillas]
ARTICLE 226 - REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT, OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Revelation Of Secrets By An Removal, Concealment or
Officer (Art. 229) Destruction of Documents
(Art. 226)
The papers contain secrets The papers do not contain
and therefore should not secrets but their removal is
be published, and the for an illicit purpose.
public officer having
charge thereof removes
and delivers them
wrongfully to a third
person.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He abstracts, destroys or conceals a document
or papers;
(3) Said document or papers should have been
entrusted to such public officer by reason of his
office;
(4) Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party
or to the public interest has been caused.
Can only be committed by the public officer who is
made the custodian of the document in his official
capacity.
If the officer was placed in possession of the
document but it is not his duty to be the custodian
thereof, this crime is not committed.
The document must be complete and one by which a
right could be established or an obligation could be
extinguished.
If the writings are mere forms, there is no crime.
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Damage to public interest is necessary. However,
material damage is not necessary.
Removal is consummated upon taking 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.
This could cover failure on the part of the post office
to forward the letters to their destination.
Damage in this article may consist in mere alarm to
the public or in the alienation of its confidence in any
branch of the government service.
ARTICLE 227 - OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He is charged with the custody of papers or
property;
(3) These papers or property are sealed by proper
authority;
(4) He breaks the seal or permits them to be
broken.
In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking" should not
be given a literal meaning. Even if actually, the seal
was not broken, because the custodian managed to
open the parcel without breaking the seal.
The element of damage is not required.
ARTICLE 228 - OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) Any closed papers, documents, or objects are
entrusted to his custody;
(3) He opens or permits to be opened said closed
papers, documents or objects;
(4) He does not have proper authority.
The act should not fall under 227. Damage also not
necessary
ARTICLE 229 - REVELATION OF SECRETS BY AN OFFICER
Mode 1. Revealing any secrets known to the
offending public officer by reason of his
official capacity;
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He knows of a secret by reason of his official
capacity;
(3) He reveals such secret without authority or
justifiable reasons;
(4) Damage, great or small, is caused to the public
PAGE 163
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
interest.
Mode 2. Wrongfully delivering papers or copies of
papers of which he may have charge and
which should not be published.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He has charge of papers;
(3) Those papers should not be published;
(4) He delivers those papers or copies thereof to a
third person;
(5) The delivery is wrongful;
(6) Damage is caused to public interest.
Espionage is not contemplated in this article since
revelation of secrets of the State to a belligerent
nation is already defined in Art 117 and CA 616.
Secrets must affect public interest. Secrets of private
persons are not included.
“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.
If the papers contain secrets which should not be
published, and the public officer having charge
thereof removes and delivers them wrongfully to a
third person, the crime is revelation of secrets.
On the other hand, if the papers do not contain
secrets, their removal for an illicit purpose is infidelity
in the custody of documents.
Damage is essential to the act committed.
ARTICLE 230 - PUBLIC OFFICERS REVEALING SECRETS OF
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He knows of the secrets of a private individual by
reason of his office;
(3) He reveals such secrets without authority or
justifiable reason.
Revelation to one person is sufficient.
When the offender is a public attorney or a solicitor,
the act of revealing the secret should not be covered
by Art 209.
Damage to private individual is not necessary.
The reason for this provision is to uphold faith and
trust in public service.
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
CHAPTER VI: OTHER OFFENSES OR
IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
ARTICLE 231 - OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
Elements:
(1) Officer is a judicial or executive officer;
(2) There is a judgment, decision or order of a
superior authority;
(3) Such judgment, decision or order was made
within the scope of the jurisdiction of the
superior authority and issued with all the legal
formalities;
(4) He, without any legal justification, openly
refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or
order, which he is duty bound to obey.
ARTICLE 232 - DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER OF
SUPERIOR OFFICER WHEN SAID ORDER WAS SUSPENDED
BY INFERIOR OFFICER
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) An order is issued by his superior for execution;
(3) He has for any reason suspended the execution
of such order;
(4) His superior disapproves the suspension of the
execution of the order;
(5) Offender disobeys his superior despite the
disapproval of the suspension.
This does not apply if the order of the superior is
illegal.
ARTICLE 233 - REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) A competent authority demands from the
offender that he lend his cooperation towards
the administration of justice or other public
service;
(3) Offender maliciously fails to do so.
The request must come from one public officer to
another. If he receives consideration therefore,
bribery is committed.
But mere demand will fall under the prohibition
under the provision of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Applies whether or not serious damage to the public
interest was committed.
ARTICLE 234 - REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE
Elements:
PAGE 164
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(1) Offender is elected by popular election to a

ARTICLE 236 - ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC
public office;
OFFICER
(2) He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the
duties of said office; Elements:
(3) There is no legal motive for such refusal to be (1) Offender is entitled to hold a public office or
sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office. employment, either by election or
appointment;
Once an individual is elected to an office by the will (2) The law requires that he should first be
of the people, discharge of duties becomes a matter sworn in and/or should first give a bond;
of duty, not only a right. This only applies for elective, (3) He assumes the performance of the duties
not appointive officers. and powers of such office;
(4) He has not taken his oath of office and/or
ARTICLE 235 - MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS given the bond required by law.
Elements:
ARTICLE 237 - PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
AND POWERS
(2) He has under his charge a prisoner or detention
prisoner; Elements:
(3) He maltreats such prisoner in either of the (1) Offender is holding a public office;
following manners: (2) The period provided by law, regulations or
(a) By overdoing himself in the correction or special provision for holding such office, has
handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner already expired;
under his charge either (3) He continues to exercise the duties and powers
(i) By the imposition of punishment not of such office.
authorized by the regulations;
(ii) By inflicting such punishments (those The offenders here can be those suspended,
authorized) in a cruel and humiliating separated, declared over-aged, or dismissed.
manner;
(b) By maltreating such prisoners to extort a ARTICLE 238 - ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION
confession or to obtain some information
from the prisoner. Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
This is committed only by such public officer charged (2) He formally resigns from his position;
with direct custody of the prisoner. (3) His resignation has not yet been accepted;
(4) He abandons his office to the detriment of the
Offender may also be held liable for physical injuries public service.
or damage caused.
For the resignation to be formal, it has to be in
If the public officer is not the custodian of the written form.
prisoner, and he manhandles the latter, the crime is
physical injuries. The offense is qualified when the purpose of the
abandonment is to evade the discharge of duties of
The offended party can either be a convict by final preventing, prosecuting, punishing any of the crimes
judgment or a detention prisoner. To be considered a falling within Title One and Chapter One of Title
detention prisoner, the person arrested must be Three of book two of the RPC.
placed in jail even for just a short while.
Abandonment of Office or
Dereliction of Duty
The maltreatment does not really require physical Position
(Art. 208)
injuries. Any kind of punishment not authorized or (Art. 238)
although authorized if executed in excess of the Committed by any public Committed only by public
prescribed degree. officer officers who have the duty
to institute prosecution for
If the maltreatment was done in order to extort the punishment of
confession, the penalty is qualified to the next higher violations of the law
degree.
There is actual Public officer does not
See: Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. 9372) abandonment through abandon his office but

PAGE 165
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Abandonment of Office or
Dereliction of Duty The disobedient officer is liable even if the
Position
(Art. 208) jurisdictional question is resolved in his favor.
(Art. 238)
resignation to evade the merely fails to prosecute a ARTICLE 243 - ORDERS OR REQUEST BY EXECUTIVE
discharge of duties violation of the law. OFFICER TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

ARTICLE 239 - USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

Elements:
(1) Offender is an executive officer;
Elements: (2) He addresses any order or suggestion to any
(1) Offender is an executive or judicial officer; judicial authority;
(2) That he: (3) The order or suggestion relates to any case or
(a) makes general rules or regulations beyond business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction
the scope of his authority; or of the courts of justice.
(b) attempts to repeal a law; or
(c) suspends the execution thereof. The purpose is to maintain the independence of the
judiciary from executive dictations.
Arts 239-241 punish interference by public officers of
the executive or judiciary with the functions of ARTICLE 244 - UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
another department of government to keep them
within legitimate confines of their respective Elements:
jurisdictions. (1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He nominates or appoints a person to a public
Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of office;
powers. (3) Such person lacks the legal qualifications
therefore;
ARTICLE 240 - USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
(4) Offender knows that his nominee or appointee
lacks the qualification at the time he made the
Elements: nomination or appointment.
(1) Offender is a judge;
(2) That he: This can also be covered by RA 3019.
(a) assumes a power pertaining to the
executive authorities, or Recommending, knowing that the person
(b) obstructs the executive authorities in the recommended is not qualified is not a crime.
lawful exercise of their powers.
There must be a law providing for the qualifications
ARTICLE 241 - USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS of a person to be nominated or appointed to a public
Elements: office.
(1) Offender is an officer of the executive branch of
the government; ARTICLE 245 - ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
(2) That he: Mode 1. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
(1) assumes judicial powers, or advances to a woman interested in matters
(2) obstructs the execution of any order or pending before the offending officer for
decision rendered by any judge within his decision, or with respect to which he is
jurisdiction. required to submit a report to or consult
with a superior officer;
ARTICLE 242 - DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR
DISQUALIFICATION Mode 2. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
Elements: advances to a woman under the offender’s
(1) Offender is a public officer; custody;
(2) A proceeding is pending before such public
officer; Mode 3. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
(3) There is a question brought before the proper advances to the wife, daughter, sister or
authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is not relative within the same degree by affinity of
yet decided; any person in the custody of the offending
(4) He has been lawfully required to refrain from warden or officer.
continuing the proceeding;
(5) He continues the proceeding. Elements:

PAGE 166
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He solicits or makes immoral or indecent
advances to a woman;
(3) Such woman is –
(a) interested in matters pending before the
offender for decision, or with respect to which he
is required to submit a report to or consult with a
superior officer; or
(b) under the custody of the offender who is a
warden or other public officer directly charged
with the care and custody of prisoners or
persons under arrest; or
(c) the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the
same degree by affinity of the person in the
custody of the offender.
The crime is consummated by mere proposal.
The mother of the person in the custody of the public
officer is not included but the offender may be
prosecuted under the Section 28 of RA 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
If the offender were not the custodian, then crime
would fall under Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Solicit: means to propose earnestly and persistently
something unchaste and immoral to a woman. The
advances must be immoral or indecent.
Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is
sexual intercourse.
Abuse against chastity is not absorbed in rape
because the basis of penalizing the acts is different
from each other
RA 3019: ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
Section 2.Definition of terms. As used in this Act,
that term
(a) "Government" 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.
(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive
officials and employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt
service receiving compensation, even nominal, from
the government as defined in the preceding
subparagraph.
PAGE 167
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting
directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a
member of the public officer's immediate family, in
behalf of himself or of any member of his family or
relative within the fourth civil degree, either by
consanguinity 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.
(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
Section 3.Corrupt practices of public officers. In
addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and
are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another
public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated
by competent authority or an offense in connection
with the official duties of the latter, or allowing
himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commit such violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection with
any contract or transaction between the Government
and any other part, wherein the public officer in his
official capacity has to intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit,
for himself or for another, from any person for whom
the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has
secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any
Government permit or license, in consideration for
the help given or to be given, without prejudice to
Section thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family
accept employment in a private enterprise which has
pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
the discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or
request, without sufficient justification, to act within
a reasonable time on any matter pending before him
for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly,
from any person interested in the matter some
pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the
purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue
advantage in favor of or discriminating against any
other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the
public officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Director 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.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board,
panel or group of which he is a member, and which
exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes
against the same or does not participate in the
action of the board, committee, panel or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against
those public officers responsible for the approval of
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to
which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license,
permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not
qualified for or not legally entitled to such license,
permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere
representative or dummy of one who is not so
qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on account
of his official position to unauthorized persons, or
releasing such information in advance of its
authorized release date.
The person giving the gift, present, share,
percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs
(b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer
the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or
urging the divulging or untimely release of the
PAGE 168
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
confidential information referred to in subparagraph
(k) of this section shall, together with the offending
public officer, be punished under Section nine of this
Act and shall be permanently or temporarily
disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from
transacting business in any form with the
Government.
Section 4.Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It
shall be unlawful for any person having family or
close personal relation with any public official to
capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family
or close personal relation by directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any present, gift or material
or pecuniary advantage from any other person
having some business, transaction, application,
request or contract with the government, in which
such public official has to intervene. Family relation
shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity
or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close
personal relation" shall include close personal
friendship, social and fraternal connections, and
professional employment all giving rise to intimacy
which assures free access to such public officer.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to
induce or cause any public official to commit any of
the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.
Section 5.Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be
unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by
consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree,
of the President of the Philippines, the Vice-
President of the Philippines, the President of the
Senate, or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in
any business, transaction, contract or application
with the Government: Provided, That this section
shall not apply to any person who, prior to the
assumption of office of any of the above officials to
whom he is related, has been already dealing with
the Government along the same line of business, nor
to any transaction, contract or application already
existing or pending at the time of such assumption of
public office, nor to any application filed by him the
approval of which is not discretionary on the part of
the official or officials concerned but depends upon
compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules
or regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to any act
lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the
exercise of a profession.
Section 6.Prohibition on Members of Congress. It
shall be unlawful hereafter for any Member of the
Congress during the term for which he has been
elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary
interest in any specific business enterprise which will
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
be directly and particularly favored or benefited by
any law or resolution authored by him previously
approved or adopted by the Congress during the
same term.
The provision of this section shall apply to any other
public officer who recommended the initiation in
Congress of the enactment or adoption of any law or
resolution, and acquires or receives any such interest
during his incumbency.
It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of
Congress or other public officer, who, having such
interest prior to the approval of such law or
resolution authored or recommended by him,
continues for thirty days after such approval to retain
such interest.
Section 8.Prima facie evidence of and dismissal due
to unexplained wealth. — If in accordance with the
provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand
three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has
been found to have acquired during his incumbency,
whether in his name or in the name of other persons,
an amount of property and/or money manifestly out
of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful
income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or
removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and
dependents of such public official may be taken into
consideration, when their acquisition through
legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown.
Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive
expenditures incurred by the public official, his
spouse or any of their dependents including but not
limited to activities in any club or association or any
ostentatious display of wealth including frequent
travel abroad of a non-official character by any
public official when such activities entail expenses
evidently our of proportion to legitimate income,
shall likewise be taken into consideration in the
enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any
provision of law to the contrary. The circumstances
hereinabove mentioned shall constitute valid ground
for the administrative suspension of the public
official concerned for an indefinite period until the
investigation of the unexplained wealth is
completed.
Section 9.Penalties for violations.
(a) any public officer or private person committing
any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in
Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished
with imprisonment for not less than six years and
one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual
disqualification from public office, and confiscation
or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any
prohibited interest and unexplained wealth
PAGE 169
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other
lawful income.
Any complaining party at whose complaint the
criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case of
conviction of the accused, be entitled to recover in
the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in
favor of the Government, the amount of money or
the thing he may have given to the accused, or the
fair value of such thing.
(b) Any public officer violating any of the provisions
of Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of
not less than one thousand pesos nor more than five
thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding
one year six months, or by both such fine and
imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.
The violation of said section proven in a proper
administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause
for removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no
criminal prosecution is instituted against him.
Section 13.Suspension and loss of benefits.
Any incumbent public officer against whom any
criminal prosecution under a valid information under
this Act or under Title 7, 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 whether stage of
execution and mode of participation, is pending in
court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be
convicted by final judgment, 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.
“In the event that such convicted officer, who may
have already been separated from the service, has
already received such benefits he shall be liable to
restitute the same to the Government.
Section 14.Exception. Unsolicited gifts or presents of
small or insignificant value offered or given as a
mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship
according to local customs or usage, shall be
excepted from the provisions of this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice
or prohibit the practice of any profession, lawful
trade or occupation by any private person or by any
public officer who under the law may legitimately
practice his profession, trade or occupation, during
his incumbency, except where the practice of such
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
profession, trade or occupation involves conspiracy
with any other person or public official to commit any
of the violations penalized in this Act.
RA 7080: ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
Section 1. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act,
the term
a) Public Officer means any person holding any
public office in the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election
or contract.
b) Government includes the National Government,
and any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or -
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
c) Person includes any natural or juridical person,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property,
business enterprise or material possession of any
person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof,
acquired by him directly or indirectly through
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or series of
the following means or similar schemes:
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 decrees and orders
intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests; or
PAGE 170
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
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.
Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder;
Penalties - Any public officer who, by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by
affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons, amasses,
accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt or criminal acts as
described in Section 1(d) hereof, in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least Seventy-five million
pesos (P75,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the crime
of plunder and shall be punished by life
imprisonment with perpetual absolute
disqualification from holding any public office. Any
person who participated with said public officer in
the commission of plunder shall likewise be
punished. In the imposition of penalties, the degree
of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances shall be considered by
the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-
gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes
and assets including the properties and shares of
stock derived from the deposit or investment thereof
forfeited in favor of the State.
RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT
(Refer to Title I)
Title VIII. Crimes against
Persons
Chapter I: Destruction of Life
(1) Article 246 – Parricide
(2) Article 247 - Death or Physical Injuries Under
Exceptional Circumstances
(3) Article 248 – Murder
(4) Article 249 – Homicide
(5) Article 250 - Penalty for Frustrated Parricide,
Murder or Homicide
(6) Article 251 - Death Caused in Tumultuous Affray
(7) Article 252 - Physical Injuries Caused in
Tumultuous Affray
(8) Article 253 - Giving Assistance to Suicide
(9) Article 254 - Discharge of Firearms
(10) Article 255 – Infanticide
(11) Article 256 - Intentional Abortion
(12) Article 257 - Unintentional Abortion
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(13) Article 258 - Abortion Practiced by the Woman
Herself or by Parents
(14) Article 259 - Abortion by a Physician or Midwife
and Dispensing of Abortives
(15) Article 260 - Responsibility of Participants in a
Duel
(16) Article 261 - Challenging to a Duel
Chapter II: Physical Injuries
(1) Article 262 – Mutilation
(2) Article 263 - Serious Physical Injuries
(3) Article 264 - Administering Injurious Substances
or Beverages
(4) Article 265 - Less Serious Physical Injuries
(5) Article 266 - Slight Physical Injuries and
Maltreatment
(6) Article 266-A - Rape (amended by RA 8353)
About this Title: The essence of crimes involves the
taking of human life, destruction of the fetus, or
inflicting injuries.
CHAPTER I DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
ARTICLE 246 - PARRICIDE
Elements:
(1) Person is killed;
(2) Deceased is killed by the accused;
(3) Deceased is the
(a) legitimate/illegitimate father
(b) legitimate/illegitimate mother
(c) legitimate/illegitimate child
* should not be less than 3 days old,
otherwise crime is infanticide
(d) other legitimate ascendant
(e) other legitimate descendant
(f) legitimate spouse.
Essential element: relationship of offender with the
victim; except for spouses, only relatives by blood
and in direct line. Hence, adopted are not included.
[Reyes]
Supreme Court ruled that Muslim husbands with
several wives can be convicted of parricide only in
case the first wife is killed.
Parricide when the penalty shall not be reclusion
perpetua to death:
(1) Reckless or simple imprudence (Art. 365)
(2) Parricide by mistake (Art. 49)
(3) Parricide under exceptional circumstances
(Art. 247)
A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the
commission of the crime of parricide, is not guilty of
PAGE 171
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
parricide but only homicide or murder, as the case
may be.
The key element in parricide is the relationship of the
offender with the victim. Ergo, the fact of the
relationship should be alleged in the information.
[People vs. Dalag]
Since the accused’s relationship to the victim is not
alleged in the information, she can be convicted of
murder only. Relationship can be appreciated as a
generic aggravating circumstance onlyl. [People v.
Jumawan]
ARTICLE 247 - DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES UNDER
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Elements:
(1) A legally married person, or a parent, surprises
his spouse or his daughter, the latter under 18
years of age and living with him in the act of
sexual intercourse with another person;
(2) He or she kills any or both of them, or inflicts
upon any or both of them any serious physical
injury in the act or immediately thereafter;
(3) He has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that she
has not consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse.
“Living with parent(s)” is understood to be in their
own dwelling.
If done in a motel, article does not apply.
“Surprise” means “to come upon suddenly and
unexpectedly.”
Immediately thereafter: there is no set time as
jurisprudence has held 1 hour or even 4 hours as
“immediately thereafter”. However, the act done
must be a direct result of the outrage of the
cuckolded spouse, and a continuous act from the
moment of the surprising.
Article does not apply: If the surprising took place
before any actual sexual intercourse could be done.
Destierro for killer spouse is not so much a penalty as
it is meant to protect him from acts of reprisal by
relatives of dead spouse. This is because law regards
the act done in 247 as a lawful action.
No criminal liability when less serious or slight
physical injuries are inflicted.
Does this article apply even if the daughter is
married? Although the article does not use the word
“unmarried,” this article applies only when the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
daughter is single because while under 18 and single,
she is still under parental authority. If she is married,
her husband alone can claim the benefits of this
article.
Evidence of the victim’s promiscuity is
inconsequential to the killing. The offender must
prove that he actually surprised his wife and [her
paramour] in flagrante delicto, and that he killed the
man during or immediately thereafter. [People v.
Puedan]
The killing must be the direct result of the outrage
suffered by the cuckolded husband.
Although about one hour had passed between the
time the accused discovered his wife having sexual
intercourse with the victim and the time the latter
was actually killed, it was held that Article 247 was
applicable, as the shooting was a continuation of the
pursuit of the victim by the accused.
Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is
not murder.
Two other persons suffered physical injuries as they
were caught in the crossfire when the accused shot
the victim. A complex crime of double frustrated
murder was not committed as the accused did not
have the intent to kill the two victims. Here, the
accused did not commit murder when he fired at the
paramour of his wife. No aberratio ictus because he
was acting lawfully. [People v. Abarca]
ARTICLE 248 - MURDER
Elements:
(1) Person was killed;
(2) Accused killed him;
(3) Killing attended by any of the following
2 2
qualifying circumstances – (EPIC SW AT)
(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 railroad, fall of
an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or
with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin;
(d) on occasion of any of the calamities
enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or
of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
PAGE 172
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other
public calamity;
(e) with evident premeditation;
(f) with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or
corpse.
(4) The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
One attendant qualifying circumstance is enough. If
there are more than one alleged in the information
for murder, only one will qualify the killing to murder
and the other circumstances will be taken as generic
aggravating circumstance.
Any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in
Art. 248 must be alleged in the information. When
the other circumstances are absorbed or included in
one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be
considered as generic aggravating.
When the victim is already dead, intent to kill
becomes irrelevant. It is important only if the victim
did not die to determine if the felony is physical injury
or attempted or frustrated homicide.
TREACHERY
The essence of treachery is that the offended party
was denied the chance to defend himself because of
the means, methods, deliberately adopted by the
offender and were not merely incidental to the
killing.
Killing of a child of tender age is murder qualified by
treachery.
Abuse of superior strength is inherent in and
comprehended by the circumstance of treachery or
forms part of treachery.
FIRE
When a person is killed by fire, the primordial
criminal intent of the offender is considered.
If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to
kill and fire was only used as a means to do so, the
crime is only murder.
If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to
destroy property with the use of pyrotechnics and
incidentally, somebody within the premises is killed,
the crime is arson with homicide, a single indivisible
crime penalized under Article 326, which is death as
a consequence of arson.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Intent to kill must be present for the use of fire to be
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. Intending
to make fun of a mentally-disabled person, Pugay
poured gasoline on the latter while Samson set him
on fire. The victim died.
There was no animosity between the two accused
and the victim such that it cannot be said that they
resort to fire to kill him. It was merely a part of their
fun making but because their acts were felonious,
they are criminally liable. [People v. Pugay and
Samson]
POISON
Treachery and evident premeditation are inherent in
murder by poison only if the offender has the intent
to kill the victim by use of poison.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Act of the offender manifestly indicating that he
clung to his determination to kill his victim.
Evident premeditation is absorbed in price, reward or
promise, if without the premeditation the inductor
would not have induced the other to commit the act
but not as regards the one induced.
Pariseo Tayag was shot dead by several policemen in
the course of their pursuit to get his fan knife.
Although it has not been shown which of the
policemen fired the fatal shot each should be held
guilty of murder since they are in conspiracy to effect
the death of the victim. [People v. Buensuceso (1984)]
CRUELTY
Under Article 14, the generic aggravating
circumstance of cruelty requires that the victim be
alive, when the cruel wounds were inflicted and,
therefore, there must be evidence to that effect.
Yet, in murder, aside from cruelty, any act that would
amount to scoffing or decrying the corpse of the
victim will qualify the killing to murder.
ARTICLE 249 - HOMICIDE
Elements:
(1) Person was killed;
(2) Offender killed him without any justifying
circumstances;
(3) Offender had the intention to kill, which is
presumed;
(4) Killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide
or infanticide.
PAGE 173
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating
circumstance in homicide.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death
resulted. Evidence of intent to kill is important only in
attempted or frustrated homicide.
In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent
to kill. In physical injuries, there is none. However, if
as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the victim
died, the crime will be homicide because the law
presumes intent to kill and punishes the result, and
not the intent of the act. The accused will, however,
be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong.
Physical injuries sufficient to cause death are one of
the essential elements of frustrated homicide.
In accidental homicide wherein death of a person is
brought about by a lawful act performed with proper
care and skill and without homicidal intent, there is
no liability.
There is no offense of frustrated homicide through
imprudence.
Accused pharmacist prepared the medicine on
prescription but erroneously used a highly poisonous
substance. When taken by the patient, the latter
nearly died. Accused is guilty only of reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
The element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide is
incompatible with negligence or imprudence. [People
v. Castillo]
ARTICLE 250 - PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE,
MURDER OR HOMICIDE
Courts may impose a penalty:
(1) 2 degrees lower for frustrated parricide, murder,
or homicide
(2) 3 degrees lower for attempted parricide, murder,
or homicide.
For frustrated parricide, homicide or murder, the
courts, in view of the facts f the case, may impose a
penalty lower by one degree than that imposed
under Art. 50.
Art. 50 provides that the penalty next lower in
degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon a
principal in a frustrated felony. Thus, under Art. 50,
the court can impose a penalty of TWO DEGREES
LOWER for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
For attempted parricide, homicide, or murder, the
courts, in view of the facts of the case may impose a
penalty by one degree than that imposed under Art.
51.
Art. 51 provides that the penalty lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
principal in an attempted felony. Thus, under Art.
250, the court can impose a penalty of THREE
DEGREES LOWER for attempted parricide, murder,
or homicide.
NOTE: Any attempt on, or conspire against, the life
of the Chief Executive of the Philippines or that of
any member of his family, or against the life of any
member of his cabinet or that of any member of the
latter’s family, shall suffer the penalty of death.
ARTICLE 251 - DEATH CAUSED IN TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
Elements:
(1) There are several persons;
(2) They do not compose groups organized for the
common purpose of assaulting and attacking
each other reciprocally;
(3) These several persons quarreled and assaulted
one another in a confused and tumultuous
manner;
(4) Someone was killed in the course of the affray;
(5) It cannot be ascertained who actually killed the
deceased;
(6) The person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries or who used violence can be
identified.
Tumultuous affray is a commotion in a confused
manner to an extent that it would not be possible to
identify who the killer is if death results, or who
inflicted the serious physical injury, but the person or
persons who used violence are known.
Who are liable?
(a) The person or persons who inflicted the serious
physical injuries
(b) If it is not known who inflicted the serious
physical injuries on the deceased, all persons
who used violence upon the person of the victim
are liable.
If there is conspiracy, this crime is not committed.
The crime would be murder or homicide.
If nobody could still be traced to have employed
violence upon the victim, nobody will answer.
The crimes committed might be disturbance of
public order, or if participants are armed, it could be
PAGE 174
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
tumultuous disturbance, or if property was
destroyed, it could be malicious mischief.
ARTICLE 252 - PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSED IN
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
Elements:
(1) There is a tumultuous affray;
(2) A participant or some participants thereof
suffered serious physical injuries or physical
injuries of a less serious nature only;
(3) The person responsible thereof cannot be
identified;
(4) All those who appear to have used violence
upon the person of the offended party are
known.
Unlike in Article 251, the injured party in this article
must be one or some of the participants in the affray.
All those who appear to have used violence shall
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
provided for the serious physical injuries inflicted. For
less serious physical injuries, the penalty is arresto
mayor from five to fifteen days.
Physical injury should be serious or less serious.
No crime of physical injuries resulting from a
tumultuous affray if the physical injury is only slight.
Slight physical injury is considered as inherent in a
tumultuous affray.
ARTICLE 253 - GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
Mode 1: Assisting another to commit suicide,
whether the suicide is consummated or
not;
Mode 2: Lending his assistance to another to
commit suicide to the extent of doing the
killing himself.
Giving assistance to suicide means giving means
(arms, poison, etc.) or whatever manner of positive
and direct cooperation (intellectual aid, suggestions
regarding the mode of committing suicide, etc.).
If the person does the killing himself, the penalty is
similar to that of homicide, which is reclusion
temporal.
The relation of the offender to the person
committing suicide is not material, the law does not
distinguish. Hence, penalty would be the same if the
offender is the father, mother or child.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
There can be no qualifying circumstance because the
determination to die must come from the victim.
The person attempting suicide is not liable. Reason:
He should be pitied, not punished.
This does not contemplate euthanasia or mercy
killing where the crime is murder. (if without consent;
with consent, covered by Article 253). Euthanasia is
not lending assistance to suicide. In euthanasia, the
victim is not in a position to commit suicide.
A doctor who resorts to euthanasia of his patient
may be liable for murder. But if the patient himself
asks to be killed by his doctor, this Article applies.
ARTICLE 254 - DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
Elements:
(1) Offender discharges a firearm against or at
another person.
(2) Offender has no intention to kill that
person.
No crime if firearm is not discharged. It is essential
for prosecution to prove that the discharge of firearm
was directed precisely against the offended party.
The crime is discharge of firearm, even if the gun was
not pointed at the offended party when it fired, as
long as it was initially aimed by the accused at or
against the offended party
If there is intention to kill, it may be classified as
attempted parricide, murder, or homicide.
No presumed intent to kill if the distance is 200
meters.
There is a special complex crime of illegal discharge
of firearm with serious or less serious physical
injuries.
ARTICLE 255 - INFANTICIDE
Elements:
(1) A child was killed by the accused;
(2) The deceased child was less than 3 days
old.
If the offender is the parent and the victim is less
than three days old, the crime is infanticide and not
parricide.
The fact that the killing was done to conceal her
dishonor will not mitigate the criminal liability
anymore because concealment of dishonor in killing
the child is not mitigating in parricide.
PAGE 175
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Only the mother and maternal grandparents of the
child are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
concealing the dishonor. Concealment of dishonor is
not an element of infanticide. It merely lowers the
penalty.
A stranger who cooperates in the perpetration of
infanticide committed by the mother or grandparent
on the mother’s side, is liable for infanticide, but he
must suffer the penalty prescribed for murder.
If the child is abandoned without any intent to kill
and death results as a consequence, the crime
committed is not infanticide but abandonment under
Article 276.
No crime of infanticide is committed when the child
was born dead, or although born alive, it could not
sustain an independent life when it was killed.
ARTICLE 256 - INTENTIONAL ABORTION
Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman;
(2) Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages
administered, or that the accused otherwise acts
upon such pregnant woman;
(3) As a result of the use of violence or drugs or
beverages upon her, or any other act of the
accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb or
after having been expelled therefrom;
(4) The abortion is intended.
Ways of committing intentional abortion
(1) Using any violence upon the person of the
pregnant woman;
(2) Acting, but without using violence, without the
consent of the woman. (By administering drugs
or beverages upon such pregnant woman
without her consent.)
(3) Acting (by administering drugs or beverages),
with the consent of the pregnant woman.
ABORTION vs. INFANTICIDE
Abortion Infanticide
Fetus could not sustain Fetus could sustain an
independent life. No independent life after
legal viability. separation from the
mother’s womb.
If the mother as a consequence of abortion suffers
death or physical injuries, you have a complex crime
of murder or physical injuries and abortion.
In intentional abortion, the offender must know of
the pregnancy because the particular criminal intent
is to cause an abortion.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
If the woman turns out not to be pregnant and
someone performs an abortion upon her, he is liable
for an impossible crime if the woman suffers no
physical injury.
If she dies or suffers injuries, the crime will be
homicide, serious physical injuries, etc.
Frustrated abortion is committed if the fetus that is
expelled is viable and, therefore, not dead as
abortion did not result despite the employment of
adequate and sufficient means to make the pregnant
woman abort.
ARTICLE 257 - UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman;
(2) Violence is used upon such pregnant woman
without intending an abortion;
(3) The violence is intentionally exerted;
(4) Result of violence – fetus dies, either in the
womb or expelled therefrom.
Unintentional abortion requires physical violence
inflicted deliberately and voluntarily by a third
person upon the pregnant woman, without intention
to cause the abortion.
If the pregnant woman aborted because of
intimidation, the crime committed is not
unintentional abortion because there is no violence;
the crime committed is light threats.
If the pregnant woman was killed by violence by her
husband, the crime committed is the complex crime
of parricide with unlawful abortion.
Unintentional abortion may be committed through
negligence as it is enough that the use of violence be
voluntary.
If the act of violence is not felonious, that is, act of
self-defense, and there is no knowledge of the
woman’s pregnancy, there is no liability.
Jose is declared guilty of the crime of unintentional
abortion through reckless imprudence for having
bumped a calesa which resulted in a pregnant
woman bumping her abdomen against the wall of
the calesa and eventually led to an abortion. [People
v. Jose]
Mere boxing of the stomach taken together with the
immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is not
sufficient proof to show an intent to cause abortion.
PAGE 176
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The accused must have merely intended to kill the
victim but not necessarily to cause abortion.
The accused is liable for complex crime of parricide
with unintentional abortion for it was merely
incidental to the killing. [People v. Salufrania (1988)]
For the crime of abortion, even unintentional, to be
held committed, the accused must have known of
the pregnancy. [People v. Carnaso]
ARTICLE 258 - ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN
HERSELF OR BY PARENTS
Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an
abortion;
(2) Abortion is intended;
(3) Abortion is caused by –
(a) The pregnant woman herself;
(b) Any other person, with her consent; or
(c) Any of her parents, with her consent for the
purpose of concealing her dishonour.
If the purpose of abortion is to conceal dishonor,
mitigation applies only to pregnant woman and not
to parents of pregnant woman, unlike in infanticide.
If the purpose of parents is not to conceal dishonor,
the crime is intentional abortion.
Liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if
purpose is to conceal dishonor.
No mitigation for parents of pregnant woman even if
the purpose is to conceal dishonor. The penalty for
the parents in this case is the same as the penalty for
a pregnant woman committing abortion, without the
purpose of concealing dishonor.
ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION BY A PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE
AND DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES
Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an
abortion;
(2) The abortion is intended;
(3) Offender, who must be a physician or midwife,
caused or assisted in causing the abortion;
(4) Said physician or midwife took advantage of his
or her scientific knowledge or skill.
The penalties provided for intentional abortion shall
be imposed in the maximum period for physicians
and midwives violating this article.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Reason: heavier guilt in making use of their
knowledge for the destruction of human life, when it
should be used only for its preservation.
If the abortion is produced by a physician to save the
life of the mother, there is no liability.
Elements (for pharmacists):
(1) The offender is a pharmacist;
(2) There is no proper prescription from a physician;
(3) The offender dispenses any abortive.
Article punishes a pharmacist who merely dispenses
with an abortive without the proper prescription of a
physician.
It is not necessary that the pharmacist knows that
the abortive would be used to cause an abortion.
What is punished is the dispensing of the abortive
without the proper prescription. It is not necessary
that the abortive be actually used either.
If pharmacist knew that the abortive would be use for
abortion, her would be liable as an accomplice in the
crime of abortion.
ARTICLE 260 - RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN A
DUEL
Mode 1: Killing one’s adversary in a duel;
Mode 2: Inflicting upon such adversary physical
injuries;
Mode 3: Making a combat although no physical
injuries have been inflicted.
Persons liable
(1) The person who killed or inflicted physical
injuries upon his adversary, or both combatants
in any other case, as principals.
(2) The seconds, as accomplices.
Duel is a formal or regular combat previously
consented to by 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 the other conditions
of the fight to settle some antecedent quarrel.
Persons Liable:
(1) The person who killed or inflicted physical
injuries upon his adversary, or both combatants
in any other case, as principals.
(2) The seconds, as accomplices
There is no such crime nowadays because people hit
each other even without entering into any pre-
conceived agreement. This is an obsolete provision.
PAGE 177
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
If these are not the conditions of the fight, it is not a
duel in the sense contemplated in the Revised Penal
Code.
It will be a quarrel and anyone who killed the other
will be liable for homicide or murder, as the case may
be.
ARTICLE 261 - CHALLENGING TO A DUEL
Mode 1. Challenging another to a duel;
Mode 2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge
to a duel;
Mode 3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for
having refused to accept a challenge to fight a
duel.
Persons Responsible under Art. 261:
(1) Challenger
(2) Instigators
If one challenges another to a duel by shouting
“Come down, Olympia, let us measure your prowess.
We will see whose intestines will come out. You are a
coward if you do not come down”, the crime of
challenging to a duel is not committed.
What is committed is the crime of light threats under
Article 285, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code.[People v. Tacomoy]
CHAPTER II PHYSICAL INJURIES
ARTICLE 262 - MUTILATION
Mode 1. Intentionally mutilating another by
depriving him, either totally or partially, of
some essential organ for reproduction;
(Mutilation)
Elements:
(1) There be a castration, that is, mutilation of
organs necessary for generation, such as the
penis or ovarium;
(2) The mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately
Mode 2. Intentionally making other mutilation, that
is, by lopping or clipping off any part of the
body of the offended party, other than the
essential organ for reproduction, to deprive
him of that part of his body. (Mayhem).
Intent to mutilate must be established. If there is no
intent, the crime is only serious physical injury.
The offender must have the intention to deprive the
offended party of a part of his body. If there is no
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
such intention, the crime will be serious physical
injuries.
MUTILIATION – the lopping or clipping off of some
part of the body
CASTRATION - intentionally mutilating another by
depriving him, either totally or partially, of some
essential organ for reproduction
MAYHEM - intentionally making other mutilation
other than some essential organ for reproduction
and to deprive him of that part of the body
ARTICLE 263 - SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Modes of Commission:
(1) By wounding;
(2) By beating;
(3) By assaulting; or
(4) By administering injurious substance. (Art. 264)
Levels of Penalty: When the injured person, in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted—
(1) becomes insane, imbecilic, impotent or blind
(2) loses the use of speech or the power to hear or
to smell, or loses an eye, a hand, afoot, an arm,
or a leg;
(3) loses the use of any such member;
(4) becomes incapacitated for the work in which he
was theretofore habitually engaged, in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted;
(5) becomes deformed; or
(6) loses any other member of his body;
(7) loses the use thereof; or
(8) becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance
of the work in which he was habitually engaged
for more than 90 days in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted;
(9) becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more
than 30 days (but must not be more than 90
days), as a result of the physical injuries inflicted.
In physical injuries, there must not be intent to kill,
otherwise the crime is frustrated/attempted murder
or homicide as the case may be.
Impotence under first type means an inability to
copulate. It is used synonymously with ‘sterility’.
Penalty under the first type is one degree higher
when the victim is under 12 years of age.
Blindness under the second type must be of two
eyes. If there is loss of one eye only, the serious
physical injuries is of the second type.
Loss of power to hear under the second type must be
of both ears. If hearing in only one ear is lost, it falls
under the third type.
PAGE 178
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Loss of the use of hand, or incapacity for work under
the second type, must be permanent.
All the body parts mentioned in the second type are
principal members of the body (eye, hand, foot etc.)
The third type covers any other part of the body
which is not a principal member of the body.
Deformity – physical ugliness, permanent and
definite abnormality. It must be conspicuous and
visible.
Elements of deformity:
(a) physical ugliness,
(b) permanent and definite abnormality, and
(c) it must be conspicuous and visible. All these
elements must concur.
Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which
cannot be repaired by the action of nature. Loss of
both outer ears is a deformity. Loss of the lobule of
the ear is a deformity. Loss of index and middle
fingers only is either deformity or loss of a member,
not a principal one, of his body or use of the same.
Loss of power to hear of right ear only is loss of use
of other part of body.
Illness – when the wound inflicted did not heal with a
certain period of time.
Note that under serious physical injuries of the fourth
type, illness or incapacity is required, NOT medical
attendance.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 refers to the “work in which he
was theretofore habitually engaged
Must the injured party have an avocation at the time
at the time of the injury? YES, insofar as these two
paragraphs are concerned.
Incapacity therefore must related to a certain kind of
work only.
However, in paragraph 4, incapacity for any kind of
work is acceptable, because the phrase “incapacity
for labor” is used.
Injury requiring hospitalization for more than thirty
days is serious physical injuries under paragraph 4.
When the category of the offense of serious physical
injuries depends on the period of illness or incapacity
for labor, there must be evidence of the length of
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
that period; otherwise, the offense is only slight
physical injuries.
Lessening of efficiency due to injury is NOT
incapacity.
Distinguished from mutilation: In mutilation, the
body parts should have been purposely and
deliberately lopped or clipped off. This intention is
not present in serious physical injuries.
ARTICLE 264 - ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES
OR BEVERAGES
Elements:
(1) Offender inflicted upon another any serious
physical injury;
(2) It was done by knowingly administering to him
any injurious substance or beverages or by
taking advantage of his weakness of mind or
credulity;
(3) He had no intent to kill.
Physical Injuries vs. Attempted or Frustrated homicide
Physical Injuries Attempted or Frustrated
homicide
The offender inflicts Attempted homicide may
physical injuries. be committed, even if no
physical injuries are
inflicted.
Offender has no intent to The offender has an intent
kill the offended party to kill the offended party.
The reason why there is no attempted or frustrated
crime of physical injuries is because this felony is
defined by the gravity of the injury. It is a crime of
result. As long as there is no injury, there can be no
attempted or frustrated stage thereof.
Classification of physical injuries:
(1) Between less serious physical injuries and
serious physical injuries, you do not consider the
period of medical treatment. You only consider
the period when the offended party is rendered
incapacitated for labor.
(2) When the injury created a deformity upon the
offended party, you disregard the healing
duration or the period of medical treatment
involved. At once, it is considered serious
physical injuries.
(3) Deformity requires the concurrence of the
following conditions:
(a) The injury must produce ugliness;
(b) It must be visible;
PAGE 179
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(c) The ugliness will not disappear through
natural healing process.
Illustration:
(1) Loss of molar tooth – This is not deformity as it
is not visible.
(2) Loss of permanent front tooth – This is
deformity as it is visible and permanent.
(3) Loss of milk front tooth – This is not deformity as
it is visible but will be naturally replaced.
Serious physical injuries is punished with higher
penalties in the following cases:
(1) If it is committed against any of the persons
referred to in the crime of parricide under Article
246;
(2) If any of the circumstances qualifying murder
attended its commission.
See Special Law: RA 8049 (The Anti-Hazing Law)
See Special Law: RA 9745 (The Anti-Torture Law)
ARTICLE 265 - LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Elements:
(1) Offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10
days or more (but not more than 30 days), or
needs medical attendance for the same period
of time;
(2) The physical injuries must not be those
described in the preceding articles.
Qualified as to penalty
(1) A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition to
arresto mayor, when
(a) There is a manifest intent to insult or offend
the injured person; or
(b) There are circumstances adding ignominy
to the offense.
(2) A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is
either:
(a) The offender’s parents, ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers; or
(b) Persons of rank or person in authority,
provided the crime is not direct assault.
ARTICLE 266 - SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
MALTREATMENT
Mode 1. Physical injuries incapacitated the
offended party for labor from 1-9 days,
OR required medical attendance during
the same period;
Mode 2. Physical injuries which did not prevent
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

the offended party from engaging in his otherwise unconscious;

habitual work or which did not require (c) By means of fraudulent machination or
medical attendance; grave abuse of authority;
(d) When the woman is under 12 years of age
Mode 3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without (Statutory Rape) or is demented.
causing any injury.
Mode 2: Rape Through Sexual Assault
This involves even ill-treatment where there is no
sign of injury requiring medical treatment. Elements:
(1) Offender commits an act of sexual assault;
Slapping the offended party is a form of ill-treatment (2) The act of sexual assault is committed by any of
which is a form of slight physical injuries. the following means:
(a) By inserting his penis into another person's
But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor upon the mouth or anal orifice; or
person slapped, or to humiliate or embarrass the (b) By inserting any instrument or object into
offended party out of a quarrel or anger, the crime is the genital or anal orifice of another person;
slander by deed. (3) The act of sexual assault is accomplished under
any of the following circumstances:
Between slight physical injuries and less serious (a) By using force or intimidation; or
physical injuries, not only the healing duration of the (b) When the woman is deprived of reason or
injury will be considered but also the medical otherwise unconscious; or
attendance required to treat the injury. (c) By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; or
So the healing duration may be one to nine days, but (d) When the woman is under 12 years of age or
if the medical treatment continues beyond nine days, demented.
the physical injuries would already qualify as less
serious physical injuries. Classification of rape
(1) Traditional Rape
The medical treatment may have lasted for nine (a) Offended party is always a woman
days, but if the offended party is still incapacitated (b) Offender is always a man.
for labor beyond nine days, the physical injuries are
already considered less serious physical injuries. (2) Sexual assault
(a) Rape can now be committed by a man or a
Where there is no evidence of actual injury, it is only woman, that is, if a woman or a man uses
slight physical injuries. an instrument on anal orifice of male, she or
he can be liable for rape.
In the absence of proof as to the period of the (b) Inserting a finger inside the genital of a
offended party’s incapacity for labor or of the woman is rape through sexual assault
required medical attendance, the crime committed is within the context of ‘object’.
slight physical injuries.
Penalties
See Special Law: RA 7610 (Special Protection of Traditional Rape Sexual Assault
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and In general: Reclusion In general: Prision
Discrimination Act) perpetua mayor
(A) Committed:
ARTICLE 266-A - RAPE (AMENDED BY RA 8353) (1) with the use of a deadly weapon; or
Mode 1: Rape through sexual intercourse without (2) by 2 or more persons
consent of the woman: (Traditional Rape) Reclusion perpetua to Prision mayor to
death reclusion temporal
Elements: (B) Victim becomes insane by reason or on the
(1) Offender is a man; occasion of rape
(2) Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; Reclusion perpetua to Reclusion temporal
(3) Such act is accomplished under any of the death
following circumstances: (C) Rape is attempted & homicide is committed by
(a) By using force, threat or intimidation; reason or on the occasion thereof
(b) When the woman is deprived of reason or is Reclusion perpetua to Reclusion temporal to

PAGE 180
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

death reclusion perpetua

(D) Rape is consummated & homicide is committed by Old Anti-Rape Law RA 8353
reason or on the occasion thereof (a special complex
crime) parents, grandparents or
Death Reclusion perpetua guardian if the woman
Committed with any of the ff. aggravating was a minor or
circumstances: incapacitated
(1) On the VICTIM: Marriage of the victim w/ Marriage extinguishes
(a) victim is under 18 yrs. old, & the offender is a one of the offenders the penal action only as
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, benefits not only the to the principal (the
relative by consanguinity or affinity w/in the principal but also the person who married the
rd
3 civil degree, or the common law spouse accomplices and victim), and cannot be
of the parent of the victim accessories extended to co-
(b) victim is under the custody of the police / principals in case of
military authorities / law enforcement MULTIPLE RAPE
agency Marital rape NOT Marital rape recognized
(c) victim is a religious and such legitimate recognized
vocation is known by the offender before or
at the time of rape Complete penetration is NOT necessary. The
(d) victim is a child below 7 yrs. old slightest penetration—contact with the labia—will
(e) victim suffered permanent or physical consummate the rape.
mutilation or disability by reason or on the
occasion of rape Rape must have specific intent or lewd design.

(2) On the OFFENDER: A soldier raped a 19-year old student by poking a

(a) Offender is afflicted with a sexually
transmissible disease & the virus / disease is
transmitted to the victim
(b) Offender is a member of the AFP / PNP /
any law enforcement agency / penal
institution, & took advantage of his position
(c) Offender knew of the pregnancy of the
offended party at the time of the
commission of rape
(d) Offender knew of the mental disability,
emotional disorder, & / or physical handicap
of the offended party at the time of the
commission of rape
RD
(3) On 3 PERSONS: Rape is committed in full
view of the of the spouse, parent, any of the
rd
children, or other relatives w/in the 3 civil
degree of consanguinity
Old Anti-Rape Law vs. RA 8353
Old Anti-Rape Law RA 8353
knife on her neck. Only a portion of his penis entered
her vagina because the victim kept on struggling
until she was able to escape. The accused was
convicted of frustrated rape.
There is NO crime of FRUSTRATED RAPE because in
rape, from the moment the offender has carnal
knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his
purpose, all the essential elements of the offense
have been accomplished. [People v. Orita]
The accused had his pants down and was on top of
the 4-year old child when the child’s mother arrived.
Medical findings showed no signs of genital injury
and the victim’s hymen was intact.
For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or
scrape of the penis on the external layer of the
vagina will not suffice. Mere touching of the external
layer of the vagina without the intent to enter the
same cannot be construed as slight penetration.

Crime against chastity Crime against persons Accused is only liable for ATTEMPTED RAPE.
nd
May be committed by a Under the 2 type,
man against a woman sexual assault may be Conviction does not require a medico-legal finding of
only committed by ANY any penetration on the part of the woman.
PERSON against ANY
PERSON Force employed against the victim of the rape need
PRIVATE CRIME – May be prosecuted even not be of such character as could be resisted. When
Complaint must be filed if the woman does not the offender has an ascendancy or influence over the
by the woman or her file a complaint girl, it is not necessary that she put up a determined

PAGE 181
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
resistance. A rape victim does not have the burden of
proving resistance.
Rape by means of fraudulent machinations and
grave abuse of authority absorbs the crime of
qualified and simple seduction.
Statutory Rape is the rape of a woman who is below
12 years of age. In statutory rape, the under twelve
years old victim is conclusively presumed incapable
of giving consent to sexual intercourse with another.
[People v. Negosa, GR No. 142856-57, Aug. 25, 2003]
Statutory rape is consummated when the victim is
below 12 yrs. old. Victim’s consent is immaterial.
Offender’s knowledge of the victim’s age is
immaterial in statutory rape.
Carnal knowledge of a child below 12 yrs. old even if
she is engaged in prostitution is still considered
statutory rape. [People v. Campuhan]
A 16-year old mental retardate, who has the
intellectual capacity of a 9, was repeatedly raped by
the accused.
The accused was found guilty of raping a woman
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, and
was also held liable for rape under the provision that
pertains to a victim under 12 notwithstanding the
victim’s actual age.
Age requirement was subsequently amended to refer
also to mental age.
Incestuous rape refers to rape committed by an
ascendant of the offended woman. [People v. Atento]
Gallo was found guilty of the crime of qualified rape
with the penalty of death.
The information filed against him does not allege his
relationship with the victim, his daughter, thus, it
CANNOT be considered as a qualifying
circumstance. Special qualifying circumstances have
to be alleged in the information for it to be
appreciated.
The case was reopened and the judgment is
modified from death to reclusion perpetua. [People v.
Gallo]
A 14-year old was raped by her brother-in-law. To
effectively prosecute the accused for the crime of
rd
rape committed by a relative by affinity w/in the 3
civil degree, it must be established that:
PAGE 182
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(1) the accused is legally married to the victim’s
sister; and
(2) the victim and the accused’s wife are full or half-
blood siblings.
Since relationship qualifies the crime of rape, there
must be clearer proof of relationship and in this case,
it was not adequately substantiated. [People v.
Berana]
“Unconscious” or “Deprived of Reason”
Deprived or reason or unconscious mean that the
victim has no will to give consent intelligently and
freely. The inquiry should likewise determine whether
the victim was fully informed of all considerations so
as to make a free and informed decision regarding
the grant of consent.
Whether the complaint stated that the victim was
fast asleep or half-asleep or drowsy or semi-
conscious is not determinative of the crime of rape.
For he who lies with a woman while the latter is in a
state of being drowsy is guilty of rape. Drowsiness is
defined as the state of being drowsy, i.e., ready to fall
asleep or half-asleep. [People v. Siarza, Jr., GR No. L-
117682, Aug. 18, 1997]
Rape through Sexual Assault
The insertion of appellant’s fingers constituted
consummated rape through sexual assault under RA
8353. The contact of the male’s penis with the
woman’s vagina is referred to as ‘rape with sexual
intercourse”, while the sexual abuse under par.2 of
Art.266-A, RPC is categorized as “rape through
sexual assault”. In People vs. Soriano [G.R. Nos
142779-95, 388 SCRA 140], it was ruled that the
appellant is guilty of Rape through Sexual Assault
when he inserted his finger into the vagina of the
victim. [People v. Palma, GR No. 148869-74, Dec. 11,
2003]
Insertion of penis into the mouth of a 10-year old boy
is “Rape by Sexual Assault” punished under par.2,
Article 266-A, RPC. [Ordinario v. People, et al., GR No.
155415, May 20, 2004]
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 his consent
Rape shield rule: Character of the offended woman is
immaterial in rape.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
An accused may be convicted of rape on the sole
testimony of the offended woman.
When several persons conspired to rape a single
victim, each shall be liable for the rape committed
personally by him, as well as those committed by the
others.
An accused may be considered a principal by direct
participation, by inducement, or by indispensable
cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a
woman, provided, a man is charged together with
her.
What Determines the Number of Times the Victim
was Raped?
Appellant ejaculated twice during the time that he
consummated the rape. Appellant did not withdraw
his penis to insert it again into the vagina or to touch
the labia majora and the labia minora when he
ejaculated the second time. It is not the number of
times that appellant ejaculated but the penetration
or ‘touching’ that determines the consummation of
the sexual act. Thus appellant committed only one
count of rape.[People v. Ferrer, GR No. 142662, Aug.
14, 2001; People v. Orilla, GR No. 148939-40, Feb. 13,
2004]
Effect of Pardon
(1) Subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and the offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
(2) When the legal husband is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or the penalty, provided that their
marriage is NOT VOID ab initio.
Jurisprudence on TITLE EIGHT:
Frustrated Homicide
By invoking self-defense, accused, in fact, admitted
that he inflicted injuries on the victim. The burden of
proving with clear and convincing evidence the
justifying circumstances to exculpate him from
criminal liability was thereby shifted to him. [De Leon
v. People (2007)]
Homicide
Direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix
wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and
finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial
court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion of guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which
proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in
PAGE 183
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
issue may be established by inference. At times,
resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since
to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases,
result in setting felons free and deny proper
protection to the community.
All the circumstances must be consistent with one
another, consistent with the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent
with the hypothesis that he is innocent.
Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence
can be upheld, provided that the circumstances
proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to
one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person. [Salvador v. People (2008)]
Murder
Murder is committed by any person who, not falling
within the provisions of Article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), kills another, if the killing is
committed with treachery.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by an aggressor on an
unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real
chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
commission without risk to himself.
The killing occurred at around two o’clock in the
morning, an hour when generally people are asleep
and the victim was shot at the back. [People v. Bohol
(2008)]
Qualified Rape
There is qualified rape when the facts alleged in the
Information and the facts proven in court establish
the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship. [People v. Abellano (2007)]
A stepfather, who exercises moral and physical
ascendancy over his stepdaughter, need not make
any threat against her because the latter is cowed
into submission when gripped with the fear of
refusing the advances of a person she customarily
obeys.
Rape may, likewise, be committed in a room
adjacent to where the victim's family is sleeping, or
even in a room shared with other people. There is no
rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.
[People v. Glivano (2008)]
Rape
Physical resistance need not be established in rape
when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

submits against her will to the rapist’s lust because (7) RA 9372: Human Security Act
of fear for her life or personal safety.

The force, violence or intimidation in rape is a relative

term, depending not only on the age, size, and
strength of the parties but also on their relationship
with each other. Because of the victim’s
youthfulness, coupled with the fact that the assailant
is her stepfather, it was easy for her to believe that
appellant would make good his threat to kill her
should she resist. [People v. Tuazon (2007)]
Rape
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states
the elements of the offense and the acts or
omissions constitutive thereof.
The precise time or date of the commission of an
offense need not be alleged in the complaint or
information, unless it is an essential element of the
crime charged. In rape, it is not.
The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a
woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the
precise time when the rape takes place has no
substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the
date or time need not be stated with absolute
accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or
information states that the crime has been
committed at any time as near as possible to the
date of its actual commission. [People v. Domingo
(2007)]
Rape BY a Minor
The accused at the time of the commission of the
offense was only 13 years old and it occurred prior to
RA 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006.
The subsequently enacted law should be construed
to retroact in favor of the accused. While the latter is
now 25 years old as of this decision, he is still
exculpated from criminal liability.
However, RA 9344 does not relieve the minor of civil
liability arising from the offense. [Ortega v. People
(2008)]
See Also:
(1) RA 9262: Anti-Violence against Women and
their Children
(2) RA 9775: Anti-Child Pornography Law
(3) RA 8049: Anti-Hazing Law
(4) RA 7610: Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse
(5) RA 9344: Juvenile Justice and Welfare act
(6) PD 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code
Title IX. Crimes against
Personal Liberty and Security
Chapter I: Crimes against Liberty
(1) Article 267 - Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention
(2) Article 268 - Slight Illegal Detention
(3) Article 269 - Unlawful Arrest
(4) Article 270 - Kidnapping and Failure to Return a
Minor
(5) Article 271 - Inducing a Minor to Abandon His
Home
(6) Article 272 – Slavery
(7) Article 273 - Exploitation of Child Labor
(8) Article 274 - Services Rendered Under
Compulsion in Payment of Debt
Chapter II: Crimes against Security
(1) Article 275 - Abandonment of Persons in Danger
and Abandonment of Own Victim
(2) Article 276 - Abandoning a Minor
(3) Article 277 - Abandonment of Minor by Person
Entrusted With Custody; Indifference of Parents
(4) Article 278 - Exploitation of Minors
(5) Article 280 - Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
(6) Article 281 - Other Forms of Trespass
(7) Article 282 - Grave Threats
(8) Article 283 - Light Threats
(9) Article 284 - Bond for Good Behavior
(10) Article 285 - Other Light Threats
(11) Article 286 - Grave Coercions
(12) Article 287 - Light Coercions
(13) Article 288 - Other Similar Coercions
(14) Article 289 - Formation, Maintenance, and
Prohibition of Combination of Capital or Labor
through Violence or Threats
Chapter III: Discovery and Revelation of Secrets
(1) Article 290 - Discovering Secrets through
Seizure of Correspondence
(2) Article 291 - Revealing Secrets with Abuse of
Office
(3) Article 292 - Revelation of Industrial Secrets
CHAPTER I CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
ARTICLE 267 - KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION
Elements: (PICK)
(1) Offender is a private individual;
(2) He kidnaps or detains another, or in any

PAGE 184
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
other manner deprives the latter of his
liberty;
(3) The act of detention or kidnapping must be
illegal;
(4) In the commission of the offense, any of the
following circumstances is present:
(a) The kidnapping lasts for more than 3
days;
(b) it is committed simulating public
authority;
(c) Any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained or threats to kill him are
made; or
(d) The person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer.
The essential element of kidnapping is the
deprivation of the offended party’s liberty under any
of the four instances enumerated. But when the
kidnapping was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom, it is not necessary that one or any
of circumstances enumerated be present.
2
Qualifying Circumstances: (r kt)
(1) Purpose is to extort ransom.
(2) When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention.
(3) When the victim is raped.
(4) When victim is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts.
The offenders here are private individuals or public
officers acting in their private capacity. If they are
public officers, they are covered by the crimes under
Title 2.
When a public officer conspires with a private person
in the commission of any of the crimes under Title IX,
the crime is also one committed under this title and
not under Title II.
The purpose is immaterial when any of the
circumstances in the first paragraph of Art. 267 is
present.
Definition of ransom: It is the money, price or
consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a
captured person or persons, a payment that releases
a person from captivity.
When the kidnapping was done to extort ransom, it
is not necessary that one or any of circumstances
enumerated be present.
PAGE 185
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Actual demand for ransom not necessary, as long as
it can be proven that the kidnapping was done for
the purpose of extorting money.
In the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom, ransom
means money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for the redemption of a captured person
that would release him from captivity. No specific
form of ransom is required to consummate the
felony as long as the ransom was intended as a
bargaining chip in exchange for the victim’s freedom.
Whether or not ransom is actually paid to or received
by the perpetrator is of no moment. [People v.
Jatulan, GR No. 171653, April 24, 2007]
Essential: There be actual confinement or restriction
of the person of the offended party. It is not
necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure,
as long as he is deprived, in any manner, of his
liberty.
It suffices that there be actual or manifest restraint
on the person or liberty of the victim. Accused were
guilty of kidnapping although the victim was found,
at the time of her rescue, outside of the house where
she was brought, talking to the house owner who
was the uncle of the accused. Her failure to attempt
to escape was explained by her to be due to her fear
and threats of the accused to kill her should she do
so. In kidnapping, it is not necessary that the
offended party be kept within an enclosure to restrict
her freedom of locomotion. [People v. Cortez, et al.,
GR No. 131619-20, Feb 1, 2000]
The victim’s lack of consent is also a fundamental
element of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
The involuntariness of the seizure and detention is
the very essence of the crime. Although the victim
may have inceptually consented to go with the
offender to a place, but the victim is thereafter
prevented, with the use of force, from leaving the
place where he was brought to with his consent and
is detained against his will, the offender is still guilty
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. [People
v. Pickrell, GR No. 120409, Oct. 23, 2003]
When detention is illegal: It is not ordered by
competent authority nor permitted by law.
Special complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder:
When the victim dies or is killed as a consequence of
the detention, which is covered by the last paragraph
of Art. 267 as amended.
Forcible abduction: If a woman is transported from
one place to another by virtue of restraining her of
her liberty, and that act is coupled with lewd designs.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Serious illegal detention: If a woman is transported
just to restrain her of her liberty. There is no lewd
design or lewd intent.
Grave coercion: If a woman is carried away just to
break her will, to compel her to agree to the demand
or request by the offender.
Illegal detention Arbitrary detention
Committed by a private Committed by public
individual who unlawfully officer or employee who
deprives a person of his detains a person without
liberty legal ground
Crime against personal Crime against the
liberty fundamental laws of the
State
Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was
to kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot
be inferred that the latter’s purpose was to actually
detain or deprive the victim of his liberty, the
subsequent killing of the victim did not constitute
the crime of kidnapping. The demand for ransom did
not convert the crime into kidnapping, since no
deprivation of liberty was involved. [People v Padica
(1993)]
The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation
of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of the
accused to effect it. [People v Luartes (1999)]
The duration of the detention even if only for a few
hours does not alter the nature of the crime
committed. [People v Pavillare (2000)]
Physical detention is not necessary. It is enough that
the victim is under the complete control of the
perpetrators as in this case when the Japanese victim
had to rely on his abductors for survival after he was
tricked into believing that the police was after him.
It was also held in this case that keeping a person as
collateral for payment of an obligation is kidnapping.
[People v. Tomio]
The elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by
Republic Act (R.A.) 7659 warranting the imposition
of the death penalty, are as follows:
(1) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the
victim of his liberty;
(2) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and
(3) motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom
for the release of the victim.
PAGE 186
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Neither actual demand for nor payment of ransom is
necessary for the consummation of the felony. It is
sufficient that the deprivation of liberty was for
extorting ransom even if none of the four
circumstances mentioned in Article 267 were present
in its perpetration. [People v. Cenahonon (2007)]
Article 267 has been modified by Republic Act No.
7659 (AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY
ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR
THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS
AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES) in the following respects:
(1) Illegal detention becomes serious when it shall
have lasted for more than three days, instead of
five days as originally provided;
(2) In paragraph 4, if the person kidnapped or
detained was a minor and the offender was
anyone of the parents, the latter has been
expressly excluded from the provision. The
liability of the parent is provided for in the last
paragraph of Article 271;
(3) A paragraph was added to Article 267, which
states: When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention or is raped, or is
subjected to torture, or dehumanizing acts, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed.
(4) The amendment introduced in our criminal
statutes the concept of "special complex crime"
of kidnapping with murder or homicide.
(5) It eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts
between those cases where the killing of the
kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the
accused, and those where the killing of the
victim was not deliberately resorted to but was
merely an afterthought.
ARTICLE 268 - SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
Elements: (PrIKO)
(1) Offender is a private individual;
(2) He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other
manner deprives him of his liberty.
(3) The act of kidnapping or detention is illegal;
(4) The crime is committed without the attendance
of any of the circumstances enumerated in
Article 267.
This felony is committed if any of the five
circumstances in the commission of kidnapping or
detention enumerated in Article 267 is not present.
The penalty is lowered if:
(1) The offended party is voluntarily released within
three days from the start of illegal detention;
(2) Without attaining the purpose;
(3) Before the institution of the criminal action.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Delay in The Delivery of Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269)

The prevailing rule now is Asistio v. Judge, which Detained Persons (Art. 125)
provides that voluntary release will only mitigate
criminal liability if crime was slight illegal detention. Crime is committed by Committed by making an
If serious, it has no effect. failing to deliver such arrest not authorized by
person to the proper law
The liability of one who furnishes the place where the judicial authority within a
offended party is being held captive is that of a certain period.
principal and not of an accomplice.
ARTICLE 270 - KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A
ARTICLE 269 - UNLAWFUL ARREST MINOR

Elements: (ADU) Elements: (EF)

(1) Offender arrests or detains another person;
(2) The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to
the proper authorities;
(3) The arrest or detention is not authorized by law
or there is no reasonable ground therefor.
(unauthorized).
This felony consists in making an arrest or detention
without legal or reasonable ground for the purpose
of delivering the offended party to the proper
authorities.
Generally, this crime is committed by incriminating
innocent persons by the offender’s planting evidence
to justify the arrest – a complex crime results, that is,
unlawful arrest through incriminatory machinations
under Article 363.
If the arrest is made without a warrant and under
circumstances not allowing a warrantless arrest, the
crime would be unlawful arrest.
If the person arrested is not delivered to the
authorities, the private individual making the arrest
incurs criminal liability for illegal detention under
Article 267 or 268.
If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary
detention under Article 124.
If the detention or arrest is for a legal ground, but the
public officer delays delivery of the person arrested
to the proper judicial authorities, then Article 125 will
apply.
Note: This felony may also be committed by public
officers.
Unlawful Arrest vs. Delay in the Delivery of Detained
Persons
Delay in The Delivery of Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269)
Detained Persons (Art. 125)
Detention is for some Detention is not
legal ground. authorized by law.
(1) Offender is entrusted with the custody of a
minor person (whether over or under seven
years but less than 18 years of age)
(2) He deliberately fails to restore the said
minor to his parents or guardians
If any of the foregoing elements is absent, the
kidnapping of the minor will then fall under Article
267.
The essential element which qualifies the crime of
kidnapping a minor under Art. 270 is that the
offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor.
If the accused is any of the parents, Article 267 does
not apply; Articles 270 and 271 apply.
If the taking is with the consent of the parents, the
crime in Article 270 is committed.
What is punished is the deliberate failure of the
custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his
parents or guardians.
The deliberate failure to return a minor under one’s
custody constitutes deprivation of liberty.
Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is
necessarily included in kidnapping and serious illegal
detention of a minor under Article 267(4). [People v.
Generosa]
Where a minor child was taken by the accused
without the knowledge and consent of his parents,
the crime is kidnapping and serious illegal detention
under Article 267, not kidnapping and failure to
return a minor under Article 270. [People v. Mendoza]
Art. 270 distinguished from Art. 267
Art. 270 Art. 267
Offender is entrusted The offender is not
with the custody of the entrusted with the
minor custody of the minor.

PAGE 187
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 271 - INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS HOME
Elements: (LI)
(1) A minor (whether over or under seven years
of age) is living in the home of his parents or
guardians or the person entrusted with his
custody;
(2) Offender induces said minor to abandon
such home.
Inducement must be (a) actual, and (b) committed
with criminal intent
The minor should not leave his home of his own free
will.
What constitutes the crime is the act of inducing a
minor to abandon his home of his guardian, and it is
not necessary that the minor actually abandons the
home.
Father or mother may commit the crimes in Art. 170
and 171 where they are living separately and the
custody of the minor children is given to one of them.
ARTICLE 272 - SLAVERY
Elements: (PE)
(1) Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a
human being;
(2) The purpose of the offender is to enslave such
human being.
This is committed if anyone shall purchase, kidnap,
or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving
him.
The penalty is increased if the purpose of the
offender is to assign the offended party to some
immoral traffic.
If the purpose of the kidnapping or detention is to
enslave the offended party, slavery is committed.
The crime is slavery if the offender is not engaged in
the business of prostitution. If he is, the crime is
white slave trade under Article 341.
The employment or custody of a minor with the
consent of the parent or guardian, although against
the child’s own will, cannot be considered
involuntary servitude.
But where is proven that the defendant was obliged
to render service in plaintiff’s house as a servant
PAGE 188
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
without remuneration whatever and to remain there
so long as she has not paid her debt, there is slavery.
See Special Law: RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking of
Person Act of 2003)
ARTICLE 273 - EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR
Elements: (RARage)
(1) Offender retains a minor in his services;
(2) It is against the will of the minor;
(3) It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of
a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or
person entrusted with the custody of such
minor.
The existence of indebtedness constitutes no legal
justification for holding a person and depriving him
of his freedom to live where he wills.
ARTICLE 274 - SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION
IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
Elements: (CAP)
(1) Offender compels a debtor to work for him,
either as a household servant or farm laborer;
(2) It is against the debtor’s will;
(3) The purpose is to require or enforce the payment
of a debt.
See Special Law: RA 9231 (Anti-Child Labor Act of
2003)
Service under Compulsion distinguished from
Exploitation of Child Labor
Service under Compulsion Exploitation of Child
Labor
Does not distinguish Victim must be a minor
whether the victim is a
minor or not
The debtor himself is the The minor is compelled
one compelled to work to render services for the
for the offender supposed debt of his
parents or guardian
Limited to household Service is not limited
work or farm labor
CHAPTER II: CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
ARTICLE 275 - ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
AND ABANDONMENT OF OWN VICTIM
MODE 1: Failing to render assistance to any person
whom the offender finds in an
uninhabited place, wounded or in danger
of dying when he can render such
assistance without detriment to himself,
unless such omission shall constitute a
more serious offense.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

The ruling that the intent to kill is presumed from the

Elements: (UWOF) death of the victim of the crime is applicable only to
(1) The place is not inhabited; crimes against persons, and not to crimes against
(2) Accused found there a person wounded or in security, particularly the crime of abandoning a
danger of dying; minor under Art. 276.
(3) Accused can render assistance without
ARTICLE 277 - ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON
detriment to himself;
ENTRUSTED WITH CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS
(4) Accused fails to render assistance.
MODE 1: Delivering a minor to a public institution
MODE 2: Failing to help or render assistance to or other persons without the consent of
another whom the offender has the one who entrusted such minor to the
accidentally wounded or injured; (FA) care of the offender or, in the absence of
that one, without the consent of the
MODE 3: By failing to deliver a child, under seven proper authorities;
years of age, whom the offender has Elements:
found abandoned, to the authorities or to (1) Offender has charge of the rearing or education
his family, or by failing to deliver him to a of a minor;
safe place. (SAD). (2) He delivers said minor to a public institution or
other persons;
Does not apply: When a person intentionally wounds (3) The one who entrusted such child to the
another and leaves him in an uninhabited place. offender has not consented to such act; or if the
one who entrusted such child to the offender is
Immaterial: That the offender did not know that the absent, the proper authorities have not
child is under seven years. consented to it.

ARTICLE 276 - ABANDONING A MINOR MODE 2. Neglecting his (offender’s) children by

Elements: (SCAN) not giving them the education which
(1) Offender has the custody of a child; their station in life requires and
(2) The child is under seven years of age; financial condition permits.
(3) He abandons such child;
(4) He has no intent to kill the child when the latter Elements:
is abandoned. (1) Offender is a parent;
(2) He neglects his children by not giving them
education;
Circumstances qualifying the offense:
(3) His station in life requires such education and
(1) When the death of the minor resulted from such
his financial condition permits it.
abandonment; or
(2) If the life of the minor was in danger because of
the abandonment. Obligation to educate children terminates, if the
mother and children refuse without good reason to
The purpose in abandoning the minor under his live with the accused.
custody is to avoid the obligation of taking care of
said minor. Failure to give education must be due to deliberate
desire to evade such obligation. If the parents cannot
A permanent, conscious and deliberate give education because they had no means to do so,
abandonment is required in this article. There must then they will not be liable under this article.
be an interruption of the care and protection the
ARTICLE 278 - EXPLOITATION OF MINORS
minor needs by reason of his age.
Mode 1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 years of
Intent to kill cannot be presumed from the death of age to perform any dangerous feat of
the child. balancing, physical strength or
contortion, the offender being any person;
When there is intent to kill, this article does not
apply. The purpose in abandoning the minor must be Mode 2. Employing children under 16 years of age
to avoid the obligation of taking care of said minor who are not the children or descendants
of the offender in exhibitions of acrobat,
gymnast, rope-walker, diver, or wild-

PAGE 189
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
animal tamer, the offender being an
acrobat, etc., or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling;
Mode 3. Employing any descendant under 12
years of age in dangerous exhibitions
enumerated in the next preceding
paragraph, the offender being engaged in
any of the said callings;
Mode 4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age
gratuitously to any person following any
of the callings enumerated in paragraph
2, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar,
the offender being an ascendant,
guardian, teacher or person entrusted in
any capacity with the care of such child;
Mode 5. Inducing any child under 16 years of age
to abandon the home of its ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers to follow
any person engaged in any of the callings
mentioned in paragraph 2 or to
accompany any habitual vagrant or
beggar, the offender being any person.
Circumstance qualifying the offense:
(1) If the delivery of the child to any person
following any of the calling of acrobat, gymnast,
rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus
manager or to any habitual vagrant or beggar is
made in consideration of any price,
compensation or promise, the penalty is higher.
(2) The offender is engaged in a kind of business
that would place the life or limb of the minor in
danger, even though working for him is not
against the will of the minor.
Nature of the Business: this involves circuses which
generally attract children so they themselves may
enjoy working there unaware of the danger to their
own lives and limbs.
Age: Must be below 16 years. Article 278 has no
application if minor is 16 years old and above, but the
exploitation will be dealt with by RA 7610.
If the employer is an ascendant, the crime is not
committed, unless the minor is less than 12 years
old.
If the minor so employed would suffer some injuries
as a result of a violation of Article 278, Article 279
provides that there would be additional criminal
liability for the resulting felony.
PAGE 190
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE 280 - QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING
Elements (PrEA)
(1) Offender is a private person;
(2) He enters the dwelling of another;
(3) Such entrance is against the latter’s will.
DWELLING: This is the place that a person inhabits.
It includes the dependencies which have interior
communication with the house.
It is not necessary that it be the permanent dwelling
of the person; hence, a person’s room in a hotel may
be considered a dwelling.
It also includes a room where one resides as a
boarder.
If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not shown,
trespass is committed.
If the purpose is shown, it may be absorbed in the
crime as in robbery with force upon things, the
trespass yielding to the more serious crime.
If the purpose is not shown and while inside the
dwelling he was found by the occupants, one whom
he subsequently injured if there was a struggle, the
crime committed will be trespass to dwelling and
frustrated homicide or physical injuries, or if there
was no injury, unjust vexation.
If the entry is made by a way not intended for entry
that is presumed to be against the will of the
occupant (example, entry through a window).
It is not necessary that there be a breaking.
“Against the will”: This means that the entrance is,
either expressly or impliedly, prohibited or the
prohibition is presumed.
Fraudulent entrance may constitute trespass. The
prohibition to enter may be made at any time and
not necessarily at the time of the entrance.
To prove that an entry is against the will of the
occupant, it is not necessary that the entry should be
preceded by an express prohibition, provided that
the opposition of the occupant is clearly established
by the circumstances under which the entry is made,
such as the existence of enmity or strained relations
between the accused and the occupant.
Offender is public officer: crime is violation of domicile.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Qualified Trespass to
No overt act of the crime intended to be committed: Other Forms of Trespass
Dwelling
Crime is trespass to dwelling. (Art. 281)
(Art. 280)

Examples of trespass by means of violence: the owner or caretaker

(1) Pushing the door violently and maltreating the thereof
occupants after entering. Prohibition to enter is Prohibition to enter must
(2) Cutting of a ribbon or string with which the door express or implied be manifest
latch of a closed room was fastened. The cutting
of the fastenings of the door was an act of ARTICLE 282 - GRAVE THREATS
violence.
(3) Wounding by means of a bolo, the owner of the Mode 1. Threatening another with the infliction
house immediately after entrance upon his person, honor or property or
that of this family of any wrong
Examples of trespass by means of intimidation: amounting to a crime and demanding
(1) Firing a revolver in the air by persons attempting money or imposing any other condition,
to force their way into a house. even though not unlawful, and the
(2) The flourishing of a bolo against inmates of the offender attained his purpose;
house upon gaining an entrance
Elements:
In the prosecution for trespass, the material fact or (1) That the offender threatens another person with
circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the infliction upon the latter’s person, honor or
the trespass. The gravamen of the crime is violation property, or upon that of the latter’s family, of
of possession or the fact of having caused injury to any wrong.
the right of the possession. [Marzalado v. People] (2) That such wrong amounts to a crime.
(3) That there is a demand for money or that any
other condition is imposed, even though not
ARTICLE 281 - OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS unlawful.
(4) That the offender attains his purpose.
Elements:
(1) Offender enters the closed premises or the Mode 2. Making such threat without the offender
fenced estate of another; attaining his purpose;
(2) The entrance is made while either of them is
uninhabited; Mode 3. Threatening another with the infliction
(3) The prohibition to enter is manifest; upon his person, honor or property or
(4) The trespasser has not secured the permission that of his family of any wrong
of the owner or the caretaker thereof. amounting to a crime, the threat not
being subject to a condition.
Premises: signifies distinct and definite locality. It
may mean a room, shop, building or definite area, Elements:
but in either case, locality is fixed. (1) That the offender threatens another person with
the infliction upon the latter’s person, honor or
Qualified Trespass vs. Other Forms of Trespass property, or upon that of the latter’s family, of
Qualified Trespass to any wrong.
Other Forms of Trespass
Dwelling (2) That such wrong amounts to a crime.
(Art. 281)
(Art. 280) (3) That the threat is not subject to a condition.
Offender is a private The offender is any person
person Qualifying Circumstance: If threat was made
(1) in writing OR
Offender enters a Offender enters closed (2) through a middleman.
dwelling premises or fenced estate
Place entered is inhabited Place entered is It is essential that there be intimidation.
uninhabited
It is not necessary that the offended party was
Act constituting the crime It is the entering the present at the time the threats were made. It is
is entering the dwelling closed premises or the sufficient that the threats came to his knowledge.
against the will of the fenced estate without
owner securing the permission of

PAGE 191
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

When consummated: As soon as the threats came to

the knowledge of the offended party.

As the crime consists in threatening another with ARTICLE 284 - BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR
some future harm, it is not necessary that the When a person is required to give bail bond:
offended party was present at the time the threats (1) When he threatens another under the
were made. It is sufficient that the threats, came to circumstances mentioned in Art. 282.
the knowledge of the offended party. (2) When he threatens another under the
circumstances mentioned in Art. 283.
The crime of grave threats is consummated as soon
as the threats come to the knowledge of the person Bond for Good Behavior distinguished from Bond to
threatened. Keep the Peace
Threats made in connection with the commission of Bond for Good Behavior Bond to Keep the Peace
other crimes are absorbed by the latter.
Applicable only to grave Not made applicable to
threats and light threats any particular case
The offender in grave threats does not demand the
delivery on the spot of the money or other personal If offender fails to give If the offender fails to give
property demanded by him. When threats are made bail, he shall be bond, he shall be
and money is taken on the spot, the crime may be sentenced to destierro detained for a period not
robbery with intimidation. exceeding 6 months (if
prosecuted for grave/less
The penalties for the first two types of grave threats grave felony) or not
depend upon the penalties for the crimes threatened exceeding 30 days (light
to be committed. One degree lower if the purpose is felony)
attained and two degrees lower if the purpose is not NOT a distinct penalty A distinct penalty
attained.
ARTICLE 285 – OTHER LIGHT THREATS
If the threat is not subject to a condition, the penalty
is fixed at arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding Mode 1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by
500 pesos. drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless
it be in lawful self-defense;
In the first two types, if the threat is made in writing
or thorough a middleman, the penalty is to be Mode 2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of
imposed in its maximum period. anger, with some harm constituting a
crime, without persisting in the idea
The third type of grave threats must be serious and involved in his threat;
deliberate; the offender must persist in the idea
involved in his threats. The threat should not be Mode 3. Orally threatening to do another any
made in the heat of anger, because such is punished harm not constituting a felony.
under Article 285.If the condition is not proved, it is
grave threats of the third type. Under the first type, the subsequent acts of the
offender must show that he did not persist in the
ARTICLE 283 - LIGHT THREATS idea involved in the threat.
Elements:
(1) Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong; Threats which are ordinarily grave threats, if made in
(2) The wrong does not constitute a crime; the heat of anger, may be other light threats.
(3) There is a demand for money or that other
condition is imposed, even though not unlawful; If the threats are directed to a person who is absent
(4) Offender has attained his purpose or, that he and uttered in a temporary fit of anger, the offense is
has not attained his purpose. only other light threats.

ARTICLE 286 - GRAVE COERCIONS

The harm threatened must not be in the nature of
crime and there is a demand for money or any other Mode 1. Preventing another, by means of
condition is imposed, even though lawful. violence, threats or intimidation, from
doing something not prohibited by law;
Blackmailing may be punished under this article.

PAGE 192
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Mode 2. Compelling another, by means of
violence, threats or intimidation, to do
something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong.
Elements:
(1) A person prevented another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or that he
compelled him to do something against his will;
be it right or wrong;
(2) The prevention or compulsion be effected by
violence, threats or intimidation; and
(3) The person that restrained the will and liberty of
another had not the authority of law or the right
to do so, or in other words, that the restraint
shall not be made under authority of law or in
the exercise of any lawful right.
Purpose of the Law: To enforce the principle that no
person may take the law into his hands, and that our
government is one of law, not of men.
Arises only if the act which the offender prevented
another to do is not prohibited by law or ordinance.
If a person prohibits another to do an act because
the act is a crime, even though some sort of violence
or intimidation is employed, it would not give rise to
grave coercion. It may only give rise to threat or
physical injuries, if some injuries are inflicted.
In case of grave coercion where the offended party is
being compelled to do something against his will,
whether it be wrong or not, the crime of grave
coercion is committed if violence or intimidation is
employed in order to compel him to do the act.
A public officer who shall prevent by means of
violence or threats the ceremonies or manifestations
of any religion is guilty of interruption of religious
worship (Art. 132).
Any person who, by force, prevents the meeting of a
legislative body is liable under Art. 143.
Any person who shall use force or intimidation to
prevent any member of Congress from attending the
meetings thereof, expressing his opinions, or casting
his vote is liable under Art. 145.
The crime is not grave coercion when the violence is
employed to seize anything belonging to the debtor
of the offender. It is light coercion under Art. 287.
The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the
interference of another with the same, if the
interference is necessary to avert an imminent
danger and the threatened damage, compared to
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the damage arising to the owner from the
interference, is much greater. (Art. 432, Civil Code)
Neither the crime of threats nor coercion is
committed although the accused, a branch manager
of a bank made the complainant sign a withdrawal
slip for the amount needed to pay the spurious dollar
check she had encashed, and also made her execute
an affidavit regarding the return of the amount
against her better sense and judgment. The
complainant may have acted reluctantly and with
hesitation, but still, it was voluntary. [Lee v. CA]
ARTICLE 287 - LIGHT COERCIONS
Elements:
(1) Offender must be a creditor;
(2) He seizes anything belonging to his debtor:
(3) The seizure of the thing be accomplished by
means of violence or a display of material force
producing intimidation;
(4) The purpose of the offender is to apply the same
to the payment of the debt.
Deals with light coercions wherein violence is
employed by the offender who is a creditor in seizing
anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of
applying the same to the payment of the debt.
Unjust Vexation: Any act committed without violence,
but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent
person amounts to light coercion. It should include
any human conduct which, although not productive
of some physical or material harm would, however,
unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person.
Unjust Vexation is distinguished from grave coercion
by the absence of violence.
ARTICLE 288 - OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS
Mode 1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permitting the forcing or
compelling of the laborer or employee of
the offender to purchase merchandise of
commodities of any kind from him;
Elements:
(1) Offender is any person, agent or officer of any
association or corporation;
(2) He or such firm or corporation has employed
laborers or employees;
(3) He forces or compels, directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permits to be forced or compelled,
any of his or its laborers or employees to
purchase merchandise or commodities of any
kind from him or from said firm or corporation.
PAGE 193
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Mode 2. Paying the wages due his laborer or employee
by means of tokens or object other than
the legal tender currency of the
Philippines, unless expressly requested by
such laborer or employee.
Elements:
(1) Offender pays the wages due a laborer or
employee employed by him by means of tokens
or object;
(2) Those tokens or objects are other than the legal
tender currency of the Philippines;
(3) Such employee or laborer does not expressly
request that he be paid by means of tokens or
objects.
General rule: wages shall be paid in legal tender and
the use of tokens, promissory notes, vouchers,
coupons or any other forms alleged to represent
legal tender is absolutely prohibited even when
expressly requested by the employee. (Section 1, Rule
VIII, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code)
No employer shall limit or otherwise interfere with
the freedom of any employee to dispose of his
wages. He shall not in any manner force, compel,
oblige his employees to purchase merchandise,
commodities or other property from the employer or
from any other person. (Art. 112, Labor Code.)
ARTICLE 289 - FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
PROHIBITION OF COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR LABOR
THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS
Elements:
(1) Offender employs violence or threats, in such a
degree as to compel or force the laborers or
employers in the free and legal exercise of their
industry or work;
(2) The purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent
coalitions of capital or labor, strike of laborers or
lockout of employers.
Repealed by the Labor Code.
CHAPTER III: DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF
SECRETS
ARTICLE 290 - DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH SEIZURE
OF CORRESPONDENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a private individual or even a public
officer not in the exercise of his official function;
(2) He seizes the papers or letters of another;
(3) The purpose is to discover the secrets of such
another person;
PAGE 194
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(4) Offender is informed of the contents of the
papers or letters seized.
This is a crime against the security of one’s papers
and effects. The purpose must be to discover its
effects. The act violates the privacy of
communication.
The last paragraph of Article 290 expressly makes
the provision of the first and second paragraph
thereof inapplicable to parents, guardians, or
persons entrusted with the custody of minors placed
under their care or custody, and to the spouses with
respect to the papers or letters of either of them.
The teachers or other persons entrusted with the
care and education of minors are included in the
exceptions.
Distinction from estafa, damage to property, and
unjust vexation:
(1) If the act had been executed with intent of gain,
it would be estafa;
(2) If, on the other hand, the purpose was not to
defraud, but only to cause damage to another’s,
it would merit the qualification of damage to
property;
(3) If the intention was merely to cause vexation
preventing another to do something which the
law does not prohibit or compel him to execute
what he does not want, the act should be
considered as unjust vexation.
Relevant Special Penal Law: RA 4200 (ANTI WIRE
TAPPING ACT)
ARTICLE 291 - REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF
OFFICE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a manager, employee or servant;
(2) He learns the secrets of his principal or master in
such capacity;
(3) He reveals such secrets.
An employee, manager, or servant who came to
know of the secret of his master or principal in such
capacity and reveals the same shall also be liable
regardless of whether or not the principal or master
suffered damages.
Essence of this crime is that the offender learned of
the secret in the course of his employment.
He is enjoying a confidential relation with the
employer or master so he should respect the privacy
of matters personal to the latter.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
If the matter pertains to the business of the employer
or master, damage is necessary and the agent,
employee or servant shall always be liable.
Reason: no one has a right to the personal privacy of
another.
ARTICLE 292 - REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL SECRETS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a person in charge, employee or
workman of a manufacturing or industrial
establishment;
(2) The manufacturing or industrial establishment
has a secret of the industry which the offender
has learned;
(3) Offender reveals such secrets;
(4) Prejudice is caused to the owner.
Secrets must relate to manufacturing processes.
The act constituting the crime is revealing the secret
of the industry which the offender has learned.
The revelation of the secret might be made after the
employee or workman had ceased to be connected
with the establishment.
Prejudice is an element of the offense.
Title X. Crimes against
Property
Chapter I: Robbery in General
(1) Article 293 - Who Are Guilty of Robbery
(2) Article 294 - With Violence or Intimidation of
Persons
(3) Article 295 - Robbery with Physical Injuries, in
an Uninhabited Place and by a Band
(4) Article 296 - Definition of a Band and Penalty
Incurred by the Members Thereof
(5) Article 297 - Attempted and Frustrated Robbery
with Homicide
(6) Article 298 - Execution of Deeds through
Violence or Intimidation
(7) Article 299 - Robbery in an Inhabited House or
Public Building or Edifice Devoted to Worship
(8) Article 300 - Robbery in an Uninhabited Place
and by a Band
(9) Article 302 -In an Uninhabited Place or Private
Building
PAGE 195
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(10) Article 303 - Robbery of Cereals, Fruits or
Firewood in an Inhabited Place or Private
Building
(11) Article 304 - Possession of Picklock or Similar
Tools
(12) Article 305 - Defines False Keys
Chapter 2: Brigandage
(1) Article 306 - Who Are Brigands
(2) Article 307 - Aiding and Abetting a Band of
Brigands
Chapter 3: Theft
(1) Article 308 - Who Are Liable for Theft
(2) Article 309 – Penalties
(3) Article 310 - Qualified Theft
(4) Article 311 - Theft of the Property of the National
Library and National Museum
Chapter 4: Usurpation
(1) Article 312 - Occupation of Real Property or
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property
(2) Article 313 - Altering Boundaries or Landmarks
Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency
(1) Article 314 - Fraudulent Insolvency
Chapter 6: Swindling
(1) Article 315 – Estafa
(2) Article 316 - Other Forms of Swindling
(3) Article 317 - Swindling of a Minor
(4) Article 318 - Other Deceits
Chapter 7: Chattel mortgage
(1) Article 319 - Removal, Sale, or Pledge of
Mortgaged Property
Chapter 8: Arson and other Crimes involving
Destruction
Chapter 9: Malicious mischief
(1) Article 327 - Who Are Responsible
(2) Article 328 - Special Cases of Malicious Mischief
(3) Article 329 - Other Mischiefs
(4) Article 330 - Damage and Obstruction to Means
of Communication
(5) Article 331 - Destroying or Damaging Statues,
Public Monuments or Paintings
Chapter 10: Exemption from Criminal Liability
(1) Article 332 - Exemption from Criminal Liability
in Crimes Against Property.
CHAPTER I: ROBBERY IN GENERAL
ARTICLE 293 - WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY
Elements of Robbery in General: (PAUI, V/I/F)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(1) Personal property intimidation only offenders carry arms;

(2) Belonging to another
(3) There be Unlawful taking
(4) With Intent to gain
(5) Violence against or intimidation of any person
OR force upon anything ARTICLE 294 - WITH VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION OF
PERSONS
The property taken must be personal, if real
property/right is usurped the crime is usurpation Acts punished under:
(Art. 312). (1) When by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
Homicide is committed. (Robbery with
Prohibitive articles may be the subject of robbery, Homicide)
e.g., opium (2) When the robbery is accompanied by Rape or
Intentional Mutilation or Arson. (Robbery with
From the moment the offender gains possession of Rape, Robbery with Intentional Mutilation,
the object, even without the chance to dispose of the Robbery with Arson)
same, the unlawful taking is complete. (3) When by reason or on occasion of such robbery,
any of the Physical Injuries resulting in insanity,
“Taking”: depriving the offended party of possession imbecility, impotency, or blindness is inflicted.
of the thing taken with the character of permanency. (4) When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any
of the Physical Injuries resulting in the loss of the
Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking. use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or
It cannot be established by direct evidence, except in the loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg
case of confession. or the loss of the use of any such member, or
incapacity for the work in which the injured
It is not necessary that violence or intimidation is person is theretofore habitually engaged is
present from the beginning. The violence or inflicted.
intimidation at any time before asportation is (5) If the Violence or Intimidation employed in the
complete, the taking of property is qualified to commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
robbery. clearly Unnecessary for the commission of the
crime.
Violence against or Use of force upon things (6) When in the course of its execution, the offender
intimidation of person shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery
The taking is
always The taking is robbery only any of the Physical Injuries in consequence of
robbery. if force is used to: which the person injured becomes deformed or
(1) enter the building loses any other member of his body or loses the
VALUE OF THE (2) break doors, use thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for the
PROPERTY TAKEN IS wardrobes, chests, or any performance of the work in which he is habitually
IMMATERIAL. other kind of locked or engaged for labor for more than 30 days
sealed furniture or (7) If the violence employed by the offender does
receptacle inside the not cause any of the serious physical injuries
building; OR defined in Art. 263, or if the offender employs
(3) force them open intimidation only.
outside after taking the
same from the building The crime defined in this article is a special complex
(Art. 299 & 302) crime.
The penalty depends on: If committed in an
1) the result of the inhabited house, public “On the occasion” and “by reason” mean that
violence used (homicide, building, or edifice homicide or serious physical injuries must be
rape, intentional devoted to religious committed in the course or because of the robbery.
mutilation, serious worship, the penalty is
physical injuries, less based on: The violence must be against the person, not upon
serious or slight physical (1) the value of the thing the thing taken. It must be present before the taking
injuries resulted) and taken and of personal property is complete.
2) the existence of (2) whether or not the

PAGE 196
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
“Homicide” is used in its generic sense, as to include
parricide and murder. Hence, there is no robbery with
murder. The crime is still robbery with homicide even
if, in the course of the robbery, the person killed was
another robber or a bystander.
Even if the rape was committed in another place, it is
still robbery with rape. When the taking of personal
property of a woman is an independent act following
defendant’s failure to consummate the rape, there
are two distinct crimes committed: attempted rape
and theft. Additional rape committed on the same
occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty.
Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of
personal property grave coercion if there is violence
used (Art. 286).
If both violence/intimidation of persons (294) and
force upon things (299/302) co-exist, it will be
considered as violation of Art 294 because it is more
serious than in Art 299/302.
BUT when robbery is under Art 294 par 4 & 5 the
penalty is lower than in Art 299 so the complex
crime should be imputed for the higher penalty to be
imposed without sacrificing the principle that
robbery w/ violence against persons is more severe
than that w/ force upon things. [Napolis v. CA (1972)]
When the taking of the victim’s gun was to prevent
the victim from retaliating, then the crimes
committed are theft and homicide not robbery with
homicide. [People v. Millian (2000)]
ARTICLE 295 - ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES, IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND
Robbery with violence against or intimidation or
persons is qualified when it is committed:
(1) In an Uninhabited place, or
(2) By a Band, or
(3) By Attacking a moving train, street car, motor
vehicle, or airship, or
(4) By Entering the passengers’ compartments in a
train, or in any manner taking the passengers
thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances, or
(5) On a Street, road, highway, or alley, AND the
intimidation is made with the use of firearms,
the offender shall be punished by the maximum
periods of the proper penalties in Art. 294.
It cannot be offset by a generic mitigating
circumstance.
The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only
robbery on a street, road, highway, or alley.
PAGE 197
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Any of these qualifying circumstances must be
alleged in the information and proved during the
trial.
The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only
robbery on a street, road, highway or alley.
Art 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide, or
robbery with rape, or robbery with serious physical
injuries under par 1 of Art 263.
NOTE: the circumstances and applicability of Art 295
are very specific
ARTICLE 296 - DEFINITION OF A BAND AND PENALTY
INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS THEREOF
Outline of Art. 296:
When at least 4 armed malefactors take part in the
commission of a robbery, it is deemed committed by
a band.
When any of the arms used in the commission of
robbery is not licensed, penalty upon all the
malefactors shall be the maximum of the
corresponding penalty provided by law, without
prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal
possession of such firearms.
Any member of a band who was present at the
commission of a robbery by the band, shall be
punished as principal of any of the assaults
committed by the band, unless it be shown that he
attempted to prevent the crime.
Requisites for Liability for the acts of the other
members:
(1) Member of the band.
(2) Present at the commission of the robbery.
(3) Other members committed an assault.
(4) He did not attempt to prevent assault.
Conspiracy is presumed when robbery is by band.
When the robbery was not committed by a band, the
robber who did not take part in the assault by
another is not liable for that assault.
When the robbery was not by a band and homicide
was not determined by the accused when they
plotted the crime, the one who did not participate in
the killing is liable for robbery only. It is only when
the robbery is in band that all those present in the
commission of the robbery may be punished for any
of the assaults which any of its members might
commit.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
But when there is conspiracy to commit homicide
and robbery, all the conspirators, even if less than 4
armed men, are liable for the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide.
Art 296 is not applicable to principal by inducement,
who was not present at the commission of the
robbery, if the agreement was only to commit
robbery.
The article speaks of more than 3 armed malefactors
who “takes part in the commission of the robbery”
and member of a band “who is present at the
commission of a robbery by a band.” Thus, a
principal by inducement, who did not go with the
band at the place of the commission of the robbery,
is not liable for robbery with homicide, but only for
robbery in band, there being no evidence that he
gave instructions to kill the victim or intended that
this should be done.
When there was conspiracy for robbery only but
homicide was also committed on the occasion
thereof, all members of the band are liable for
robbery with homicide.
Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence
of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took
part in the commission of the robbery are also guilty
as principals in the crime of homicide unless it
appears that they endeavored to prevent the
homicide.
Proof of conspiracy is not essential to hold a member
of the band liable for robbery with homicide actually
committed by the other members of the band.
There is no crime as “robbery with homicide in
band”.
Band is only ordinary aggravating circumstance in
robbery w/ homicide
In order that special aggravating circumstance of
unlicensed firearm be appreciated, it is condition sine
qua non that offense charged be robbery by a band
under Art 295.
Pursuant to Art 295, circumstance of a band is
qualifying only in robbery under par 3, 4 & 5 of Art
294.
Hence, Art. 295 does not apply to robbery with
homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with
serious physical injuries under par. 1 of Art. 263.
PAGE 198
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed
firearm is inapplicable to robbery w/ homicide, or
robbery with rape, or robbery with physical injuries,
committed by a band. [People v. Apduhan]
ARTICLE 297 - ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY
WITH HOMICIDE
“Homicide” includes multiple homicides, murder,
parricide, or even infanticide.
The penalty is the same, whether robbery is
attempted or frustrated.
Robbery with homicide and attempted or frustrated
robbery with homicide are special complex crimes,
not governed by Art. 48, but by the special provisions
of Arts.294 & 297, respectively.
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 the
robbery.
ARTICLE 298 - EXECUTION OF DEEDS THROUGH VIOLENCE
OR INTIMIDATION
Elements:
(1) Offender has Intent to defraud another
(2) Offender Compels him to sign, execute, or
deliver any public instrument or document
(3) Compulsion is by means of Violence or
Intimidation.
If the violence resulted in the death of the person to
be defrauded, crime is robbery with homicide and
shall be penalized under Art 294 par. 1.
Art. 298 applies to private or commercial document,
but it does not apply if document is void.
When the offended party is under obligation to sign,
execute or deliver the document under the law, it is
not robbery but coercion.
BY FORCE UPON THINGS
Robbery by the use of force upon things is
committed only when either:
(1) Offender entered a House or Building by
any of the means specified in Art. 299 or
Art. 302, or
(2) Even if there was no entrance by any of
those means, he broke a wardrobe, chest, or
any other kind of locked or closed or sealed
furniture or receptacle in the house or
building, or he took it away to be broken or
forced open outside.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 299 - ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR
PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED TO WORSHIP
Elements of robbery with force upon things under
SUBDIVISION (A):
(1) Offender entered
(a) Inhabited House
(b) Public Building
(c) Edifice devoted to Religious Worship
(2) Entrance was effected by any of the following
means:
(a) Through an opening Not intended for
entrance or egress;
(b) By Breaking any wall, roof, or floor, or 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.
(e) That once inside the building, the offender
Took personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain.
There must be evidence that accused entered the
dwelling house or building by any of the means
enumerated in subdivision (a). In entering the
building, there must be the intent to take personal
property.
“Inhabited house”: any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons
even though the inhabitants thereof are temporarily
absent when the robbery is committed.
“Public building”: 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.
Any of the four means described in subdivision (a)
must be resorted to enter a house or building, not to
get out otherwise it is only theft. The whole body of
the culprit must be inside the building to constitute
entering.
Illustration: If the culprit had entered the house
through an open door, and the owner, not knowing
that the culprit was inside, closed and locked the
door from the outside and left, and the culprit, after
taking personal property in the house, went out
through the window, it is only theft, not robbery.
“Breaking”: means entering the building. The force
used in this means must be actual, as distinguished
PAGE 199
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
from that in the other means which is only
constructive force.
“False keys”: genuine keys stolen from the owner or
any keys other than those intended for use in the lock
forcibly opened by the offender. The genuine key
must be stolen, not taken by force or with
intimidation, from the owner.
If false key is used to open wardrobe or locked
receptacle or drawer or inside door it is only theft
Elements of robbery with force upon things under
SUBDIVISION (B) of Art. 299:
(1) Offender is inside a dwelling house, public
building, or edifice devoted to religious worship,
regardless of the circumstances under which he
entered it.
(2) Offender takes personal property belonging to
another, with intent to gain, under any of the
following circumstances.
(a) Breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any
other kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle; or
(b) Taking such furniture or objects away to be
broken or forced open outside the place of
the robbery.
Entrance into the building by any of the means
mentioned in subdivision (a) is not required in
robbery under subdivision (b)
The term “door” in par. 1, subdivision (b) of Art. 299,
refers only to “doors, lids or opening sheets” of
furniture or other portable receptacles—not to inside
doors of house or building.
Breaking the keyhole of the door of a wardrobe,
which is locked, is breaking a locked furniture.
It is theft, if the locked or sealed receptacle is not
forced open in the building where it is kept or taken
from to be broken outside.
The penalty depends on the value of property taken
and on whether or not offender carries arm. Arms
carried must not be used to intimidate. Liability for
carrying arms is extended to all those who
participated in the robbery, including those without
arms.
The provision punishes more severely the robbery in
a house used as a dwelling than that committed in
an uninhabited place, because of the possibility that
the inhabitants in the former might suffer bodily
harm during the robbery.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

or
ARTICLE 301 - WHAT IS AN UNINHABITED HOUSE, (e) A Closed or sealed receptacle was removed,
PUBLIC BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP even if the same be broken open elsewhere.
AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES: Even if the occupant was
(f) With intent to gain, the offender took
absent during the robbery, the place is still inhabited therefrom personal property belonging to
if the place was ordinarily inhabited and intended as another.
a dwelling.
“Building”: includes any kind of structure used for
“Dependencies”: all interior courts, corrals, storage or safekeeping of personal property, such as
warehouses, granaries or inclosed places contiguous (a) freight car ad (b) warehouse.
to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance
connected therewith, and which form part of the Entrance through an opening not intended for
whole (Art. 301, par. 2). entrance or egress is not necessary, if there is
breaking of wardrobe, chest, or sealed or closed
Requisites: furniture or receptacle, or removal thereof to be
(1) Contiguous to the building; broken open elsewhere.
(2) Interior entrance connected therewith;
(3) Form part of the whole. Breaking padlock is use of force upon things.
Orchards and lands used for cultivation or Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of
production are not included in the term public authorities is not covered under this article.
“dependencies” (Art. 301, par. 3).
A receptacle is a container, which must be “closed”
ARTICLE 300 – ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND or “sealed”.
BY A BAND
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or Penalty is based only on value of property taken.
edifice to religious worship is qualified when
committed by a band and located in an uninhabited Robbery in a store
place. Punishable under Punishable under
Art. 299 Art. 302
See discussion on Art. 296 for definition of “band.”
If the store is used as a If the store was not
To qualify Robbery w/ To qualify Robbery w/ dwelling, the robbery actually occupied at the
force upon things (Art violence against or committed therein would time of the robbery and
299) intimidation be considered as was not used as a
It must be committed in It must be committed in committed in an dwelling, since the owner
uninhabited place AND an uninhabited place OR inhabited house (People lived in a separate house,
by a band (Art 300) by a band (Art. 295) v Suarez) the robbery committed
therein (People v
ARTICLE 302 - IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE If the store is located on Silvestre)
BUILDING the ground floor of the
house belonging to the
Elements: owner, having an interior
(1) Offender entered an Uninhabited place or a entrance connected
building which was not a dwelling house, not a therewith, it is a
public building, or not an edifice devoted to dependency of an
religious worship. inhabited house and the
(2) That any of the following circumstances was robbery committed
present: therein (US v Tapan).
(a) Entrance was effected through an opening
Not intended for entrance or egress;
ARTICLE 303 - ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS OR
(b) A Wall, roof, floor, or outside door or
FIREWOOD IN AN INHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING
window was broken
The penalty is one degree lower only when robbery is
(c) Entrance was effected through the use of
committed by use of force upon things, without
False keys, picklocks or other similar tools;
intimidation or violence against a person.
(d) A Door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or
closed furniture or receptacle was broken;

PAGE 200
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Cereals are seedlings which are the immediate

product of the soil. The palay must be kept by the
owner as “seedling” or taken for that purpose by the
robbers. Brigandage Robbery in band
ARTICLE 304 - POSSESSION OF PICKLOCK OR SIMILAR Purpose (1) Commit Commit robbery,
TOOLS robbery in a and not
highway necessarily in a
Elements:
(2) Kidnap to highway
(1) Offender has in his possession Picklocks or
extort or get
similar tools;
ransom
(2) Such picklock or similar tools are especially
(3) Any other
Adopted to the commission of robbery;
purpose to be
(3) Offender does Not have lawful cause for such
achieved by
possession.
means of force
or violence
ARTICLE 305 - DEFINES FALSE KEYS
Proof Mere formation It is necessary to
TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
of a band for any prove that the
(1) Tools mentioned in Article 304;
of the above band actually
(2) Genuine keys Stolen from the owner;
purposes is committed the
(3) Any key other than those intended by the owner
sufficient. There robbery.
for Use in the lock forcibly opened by the
is no Conspiracy to
offender.
requirement that commit robbery
the brigands is not
CHAPTER 2: BRIGANDAGE (ARTICLES 306-307) consummate the punishable.
crime.
ARTICLE 306 - WHO ARE BRIGANDS
Elements of Brigandage:
ARTICLE 307 - AIDING AND ABETTING A BAND OF
(1) There be at least 4 armed persons
BRIGANDS
(2) They Formed a band of robbers
(3) The Purpose is any of the following: Elements:
(a) To commit Robbery in the highway; or (1) There is a Band of brigands
(b) To Kidnap for the purpose of extortion or to (2) Offender Knows the band to be of brigands
obtain ransom; or (3) Offender Does any of the following acts:
(c) To Attain by means of force and violence (a) He in any manner Aids, abets or protects
any other purpose. such band of brigands; or
(b) He gives them Information of the
Presumption of law as to brigandage: all are movements of the police or other peace
presumed highway robbers or brigands, if any of officers; or
them carries unlicensed firearm. (4) He Acquires or receives the property taken by
such brigands.
The arms carried may be any deadly weapon.
It is presumed that the person performing any of the
The main object of the law is to prevent the acts provided in this article has performed them
formation of band of robbers. knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.

The term “highway” includes city streets.
The following must be proved:
(1) Organization of more than 3 armed persons
forming a band of robbers
(2) Purpose of the band is any of those enumerated
in Art. 306.
(3) That they went upon the highway or roamed
upon the country for that purpose.
(4) That the accused is a member of such band.
Any person who aids or protects highway robbers or
abets the commission of highway robbery or
brigandage shall be considered as an accomplice.
See Special Law: PD 532 Anti-Piracy And Anti-
Highway Robbery
It is necessary to prove that the intention and
purpose of the accused was to commit robbery
indiscriminately and such robbery is committed on
any Philippine Highway. [People v. Pulusan (1998)]

PAGE 201
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

In accordance with the definition in Art 308, there is

CHAPTER 3 THEFT
ARTICLE 308 - WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT
Elements of Theft:
(1) Taking of personal property
(2) That Belongs to another
(3) With Intent to gain.
(4) Without the Consent of the owner.
(5) Accomplished Without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things.
Theft: committed by any person who, with intent to
gain but without violence against or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things, shall take personal
property of another without the latter’s consent.
no frustrated theft. The offender has either complete
control of the property (consummated) or without
(attempted). Intent to gain is presumed from the
unlawful taking of personal property belonging to
another. [Valenzuela v. People (2007)]
If a person takes property of another, believing it to
be his own, presumption of intent to gain is rebutted.
Hence, he is not guilty of theft.
If one takes personal property openly and avowedly
under claim of title made in good faith, he is not
guilty of theft even though claim of ownership is later
found to be untenable.
If possession was only material or physical, the crime
is THEFT. If possession was juridical, crime is
ESTAFA.

Selling share of a partner or co-owner is not theft.

Persons liable for theft:
(1) Those who, Actual or real gain is not necessary in theft.
(a) with intent to gain,
(b) without violence against or intimidation of The consent contemplated in this article refers to
persons nor force upon things, consent freely given, and not mere lack of opposition
(c) take, by owner of the property taken.
(d) personal property,
(e) of another, It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely
(f) without the latter’s consent. foreign to the fact of taking.

(2) Those who,
(a) having found lost property,
(b) fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner.
(3) Those who,
(a) after having maliciously damaged the
property of another,
(b) remove or make use of the fruits or object of
the damage caused by them.
(4) Those who,
(a) enter an inclosed estate or field where
(b) trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and, without the consent of its
owner,
(c) hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits,
cereals, or other forest or farm products.
Gulinao shot Dr. Chua and left. Then he went back &
took Dr. Chua’s diamond ring. The crime was Theft
and not robbery. Circumstances show that the taking
was merely an afterthought. Violence used in killing
Dr. Chua had no bearing on the taking of the
ring.[People v. Gulinao, (1989)]
Properties were taken after accused has already
carried out his primary criminal intent of killing the
victim. Considering that the victim was already
heavily wounded when his properties were taken,
there was no need to employ violence against or
intimidation against his person. Hence, accused can
only be held guilty of the separate offense of
theft.[People vs Basao (1999)]
One in possession of part of recently stolen property
is presumed to be thief of all.

The theft is consummated & taking completed once
the culprit is able to place the thing taken under his
control, and in such a situation that he could dispose
of it at once.
“Lost property”: embraces loss by stealing or by act
of the owner or by a person other than the owner, or
through some casual occurrence.
It is necessary to prove the following in order to
establish theft by failure to deliver or return lost
property:

PAGE 202
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(1) Time of the seizure of the thing
(2) It was a lost property belonging to another; and
(3) That the accused having had the opportunity to
return or deliver the lost property to its owner or
to the local authorities, refrained from doing so.
The law does not require knowledge of the owner of
the property.
Elements of hunting, fishing or gathering fruits, etc.,
in enclosed estate:
(1) That there is an enclosed estate or a field, where
trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another
(2) Offender enters the same
(3) Offender hunts or fishes upon the same or
gathers fruits, cereals or other forest or farm
products in the estate or field; and
(4) That the hunting or fishing or gathering of
products is without the consent of the owner.
ARTICLE 309 - PENALTIES
The basis of the penalty in theft is
(1) the value of the thing stolen, or
(2) the value and nature of the property taken, or
(3) the circumstances that impelled the culprit to
commit the crime.
If there is no evidence of the value of the property
stolen, the court should impose the minimum
penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of
P5.00. The court may also take judicial notice of its
value in the proper cases.
ARTICLE 310 - QUALIFIED THEFT
Theft is qualified if:
(1) Committed by a Domestic servant
(2) Committed with Grave abuse of confidence
(3) The property stolen is
(a) motor vehicle,
(b) mail matter, or
(c) large cattle
The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from
the premises of a:
(1) plantation
(2) The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond
or fishery
(3) The property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
The penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees higher.
PAGE 203
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. There’s
no need to prove grave abuse of discretion.
The abuse of confidence must be grave. 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.
Theft of any material, spare part, product or article
by employees and laborers is heavily punished under
PD 133.
“Motor vehicle”: all vehicles propelled by power,
other than muscular power. Theft of motor vehicle
may now fall under the anti-carnapping law.
When the purpose of taking the car is to destroy by
burning it, the crime is arson.
If a private individual took a letter containing postal
money order it is qualified theft. If it was the
postmaster, to whom the letter was delivered, the
crime would be infidelity in the custody of
documents.
Regarding the theft of coconuts and fish, what
matters is not the execution, but the location where
it is taken. It should be in the plantation or in the
fishpond.
RA 6539: ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW
Carnapping: taking, with intent to gain, of motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s
consent or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by force upon things (Izon
v. People, 1981)
Motor Vehicle: any vehicle which is motorized using
the streets which are public, not exclusively for
private use (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in
Criminal Law)
PD 533 ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW
Cattle rustling: taking away by means, methods or
schemes, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of
any large cattle whether or not for profit, or whether
committed with or without violence against or
intimidation of person or force upon things. It
includes killing of large cattle, taking its meat or hide
without the consent of owner/raiser.
Large cattle: include cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass,
other domesticated member of bovine family. A goat
is not included because it is not large (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Presumption: Every person in possession of large
cattle shall upon demand by competent authorities
exhibit required documents. Failure to do so is prima
facie evidence that large cattle in possession are
fruits of crime of cattle rustling
Killing of owner is absorbed in cattle rustling (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)
Considering that the gravamen of the crime is the
taking or killing of large cattle or taking its meat or
hide without the consent of the owner or raiser,
conviction for the same need only be supported by
the fact of taking without the cattle owner’s consent.
There is a disputable presumption that a person
found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a
recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the
whole act. [Ernesto Pil-ey vs. People (2007)]
PD 704: ILLEGAL FISHING
Prima facie presumption of illegal fishing when:
(1) Explosive, obnoxious or poisonous substance or
equipment or device for electric fishing are
found in the fishing boat or in the possession of
fisherman; or
(2) When fish caught with the use of explosives,
obnoxious or poisonous substances or by
electricity are found in a fishing boat
PD 1612: ANTI-FENCING LAW
Fencing:
(1) the act of any person who,
(2) with intent to gain for himself or for another,
(3) shall buy, receive, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell or in any other
manner deal in
(4) any article, item, object, or anything of value
(5) which he knows, or should be known to him,
(6) to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.
Elements:
(1) Robbery or theft has been committed.
(2) The accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in the crime of robbery or theft, buys,
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals,
sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
manner deals 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.
(4) There is, on the part of the accused, intent to
gain for himself or another.
PAGE 204
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
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. [People v. Dizon-Pamintuan]
Robbery/theft and fencing are separate and distinct
offenses.
ARTICLE 311 - THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL
LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM
Theft of property of the National Museum and
National Library has a fixed penalty regardless of its
value. But if it was with grave abuse of confidence,
the penalty for qualified theft shall be imposed.
CHAPTER 4: USURPATION
ARTICLE 312 - OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR
USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
Acts punishable under Art. 312:
(1) Taking possession of any real property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons
(2) Usurping any real rights in property belonging to
another by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons.
Elements:
(1) Offender takes possession of any real property
OR usurps any real rights in property
(2) Real property or real rights belong to another
(3) Violence against or intimidation of persons is
used by the offender in occupying real property
or usurping real rights in property.
(4) There is intent to gain.
If no violence or intimidation only civil liability exists.
Violence or intimidation must be the means used in
occupying real property or in usurping real rights.
Art. 312 does not apply when the violence or
intimidation took place subsequent to the entry into
the property.
Art. 312 does not apply to a case of open defiance of
the writ of execution issued in the forcible entry case.
Criminal action for usurpation of real property is not
a bar to civil action for forcible entry.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Usurpation Theft or Robbery

Art 314 Insolvency law
Act Occupation or Taking or No need for insolvency Crime should be
Usurpation asportation proceedings. committed after the
institution of insolvency
No need to be adjudged proceedings
What is Taken Real property or Personal bankrupt or insolvent
Real Right property
CHAPTER 6: SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
Intent To Gain To Gain
ARTICLE 315 - ESTAFA
Elements of Estafa in General:
RA 947 punishes entering or occupying public (1) That the accused defrauded another
agricultural land including lands granted to private (a) by abuse of confidence; or
individuals. (b) by means of deceit; and
(2) That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
ARTICLE 313 - ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS estimation is caused to the offended party or
Elements: third person.
(1) That there be boundary marks or monuments of (3) Through—
towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks (a) With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
intended to designate the boundaries of the (315 par. 1(a) (b) (c))
same. (b) Estafa by means of fraudulent acts (315 Par.
(2) That the offender alters said boundary marks. 2(A) (B) (C)(D) (E) ; BP22):
(c) Through other fraudulent means (315 par
Provision does not require intent to gain. 3(a) (b) (c) )

The word “alter” may include: With Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence (315 par.
(1) destruction of stone monument 1(a) (b) (c))
(2) taking it to another place Par 1(a): Altering substance, quantity or quality of
(3) removing a fence object subject of obligation to deliver

CHAPTER 5: CULPABLE INSOLVENCY Elements:

ARTICLE 314 - FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY
Elements:
(1) That the offender is a debtor; that is, he has
obligations due and payable
(2) That he absconds with his property
(3) That there be prejudice to his creditors.
(1) Offender has an Onerous obligation to deliver
something of value.
(2) That he Alters its substance, quantity, or quality
(3) That Damage or prejudice is caused to another.
Deceit is NOT an essential element of estafa with
abuse of confidence.

Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required.
Even if the debtor disposes of his property, unless it
is shown that it has actually prejudiced his creditor,
conviction will not lie.
Fraudulent concealment of property is not sufficient
if the debtor has some property with which to satisfy
his obligation.
“Abscond”: does not require that the debtor should
depart and physically conceal his property. Real
property could be the subject matter of Art. 314.
The person prejudiced must be creditor of the
offender.
Damage or prejudice must be capable of estimation,
because it is the basis of the penalty.
Delivery of anything of value must be “by virtue of an
onerous obligation to do so”.
When the fraud committed consists in the
adulteration or mixing of some extraneous
substance in an article of food so as to lower its
quantity, it may be a violation of the Pure Food Law.
It’s not estafa if the thing delivered is not acceptable
to the complainant when there is no agreement as to
its quality.

PAGE 205
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Estafa may arise even if thing delivered is not subject
of lawful commerce, such as opium.
Par.1(b): Misappropriation and Conversion
Elements:
(1) That Money, goods, or other personal property
be received by the offender in trust, or in
commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return, the same;
(2) There be Misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender, or denial on
his part of such receipt;
(3) That such misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the Prejudice of another; and
(4) That there is a demand made by the offended
party to the offender.
The 4th element is not necessary when there is
evidence of misappropriation of goods by the
defendant.
Check is included in the word “money”.
Money, goods or other personal property must be
received by the offender under certain kinds of
transaction transferring juridical possession to him.
The offender acquires both physical possession and
juridical possession when the thing received by the
offender from the offended party
(1) in trust, or
(2) on commission, or
(3) for administration,
“Juridical possession”: means a possession which
gives the transferee a right over the thing which he
may invoke even as against the owner.
When the delivery of a chattel does not transfer
juridical possession/title, it is presumed that the
possession/title of the thing remain w/ owner.
Failure to turn over to the bank the proceeds of sale
of goods covered by trust receipts is estafa.
The phrase “or under any obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of, or to return the same”,
includes quasi-contracts and certain contracts of
bailment. The obligation to return the thing must be
contractual but without transferring to accused
ownership of the thing.
When ownership is transferred to recipient, his
failure to return it results in civil liability only.
PAGE 206
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Applicable Civil Code provisions:
(1) Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall
be transferred to the vendee upon actual or
constructive delivery thereof.
(2) Art. 1482. Whenever earnest money is given in a
contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of
the price and as proof of the perfection of the
contract.
In estafa with abuse of confidence under par. (b),
subdivision 1 of Art. 315, the thing received must be
returned if there is an obligation to return it.
If no obligation to return there is only civil liability.
No estafa when:
(1) Transaction sale fails. There is no estafa if the
accused refused to return the advance payment.
(2) The money or personal property received by
accused is not to be used for a particular
purpose or to be returned.
(3) Thing received under a contract of sale on credit
Payment by students to the school for the value of
materials broken is not mere deposit.
Novation of contract of agency to one of sale, or to
one of loan, relieves defendant from incipient
criminal liability under the first contract.
He exerted all efforts to retrieve dump truck, albeit
belatedly and to no avail. His ineptitude should not
be confused with criminal intent. Criminal intent is
required for the conviction of Estafa. Earnest effort to
comply with obligation is a defense against estafa.
[Manahan vs CA (1996)]
3 Ways Of Committing Estafa With Abuse Of
Confidence Under Art. 315 Par. (B):
(1) Misappropriating the thing received.
(2) Converting the thing received.
(3) Denying that the thing was received.
“Misappropriating”: means to own, to take
something for one's own benefit.
“Converting”: Using or disposing of another’s
property as if it were one’s own.
“Conversion”: presupposes that the thing has been
devoted to a purpose or use different from that
agreed upon.
The fact that an agent sold the thing received on
commission for a lower price than the one fixed, does
not constitute estafa (US v Torres).
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
The law does not distinguish between temporary and
permanent misappropriations.
No estafa under Art. 315 par (b) when there is neither
misappropriation nor conversion.
Right of agent to deduct commission from amounts
(1) If agent is authorized to retain his commission
out of the amounts he collected, there is no
estafa.
(2) Otherwise he is guilty of estafa, because his right
to commission does not make the agent a co-
owner of money
3rd element of estafa with abuse of confidence is
that the conversion, or denial by offender resulted in
the prejudice of the offended party.
“To the prejudice of another”: not necessarily of the
owner of the property.
General rule: Partners are not liable for estafa of
money or property received for the partnership when
the business commenced and profits accrued.
Failure of partner to account for partnership funds
may give rise to civil obligation only, not estafa.
Exception: when a partner misappropriates the share
of another partner in the profits, the act constitutes
estafa.
A co-owner is not liable for estafa, but he is liable if,
after the termination of the co-ownership, he
misappropriates the thing which has become the
exclusive property of the other.
Estafa with abuse of
Theft
confidence
With juridical possession Only with physical /
of thing misappropriated material possession of
thing misappropriated
Offender receives the Offender takes the thing
thing from the victim
But when the money or property had been received
by a partner for specific purpose and he
misappropriated it, there is estafa.
Under the 4th element of estafa with abuse of
confidence demand may be required.
In estafa by means of deceit, demand is not needed,
because the offender obtains the thing wrongfully
from the start. In estafa with abuse of confidence,
PAGE 207
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
the offender receives the thing under a lawful
transaction.
Demand is not required by law, but it may be
necessary, because failure to account upon demand
is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
Presumption arises only when the explanation of the
accused is absolutely devoid of merit.
The mere failure to return the thing received for
safekeeping or under any other obligation w/ the
duty to return the same or deliver the value thereof
to the owner could only give rise to a civil action and
does not constitute the crime of estafa.
There is no estafa through negligence.
The gravity of the crime of estafa is based on the
amount not returned before the institution of the
criminal action.
Test to distinguish theft from estafa: In theft, upon
the delivery of the thing to the offender, the owner
expects a return of the thing to him.
General rule: When the owner does not expect the
immediate return of the thing he delivered to the
accused, the misappropriation of the same is estafa.
Exception: When the offender received the thing
from the offended party, with the obligation to
deliver it to a third person and, instead of doing so,
misappropriated it to the prejudice of the owner, the
crime committed is qualified theft.
Sale of thing received to be pledged for owner is
theft, when the intent to appropriate existed at the
time it was received.
Estafa with abuse of
Malversation
confidence
Entrusted with funds or property
Both are continuing offenses
Funds or property are Funds or property usually
always private public
Offender is a private Offender is a public officer
individual or public officer accountable for public
not accountable for public funds or property
funds or property
Committed by Committed by
misappropriating, misappropriating, or thru
converting or denying abandonment or
having received money, negligence, letting other
other personal property person to take the public
funds or property
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Estafa with abuse of
Malversation
confidence
There is no estafa through There can be
negligence. malversation through
abandonment or
negligence.
When in prosecution for malversation the public
officer is acquitted, the private individual in
conspiracy w/ him may be held liable for estafa,
depending on the nature of the funds.
Misappropriation of firearms received by a police
(1) ESTAFA: if it is not involved in the
commission of a crime
(2) MALVERSATION: if it is involved in the
commission of a crime.
(3)
Par.1(c): Taking advantage of signature in blank
Elements:
(1) Paper with the signature of the offended party
be in Blank.
(2) Offended party should have Delivered it to the
offender.
(3) That above the signature of the offended party a
Document is written by the offender without
authority to do so.
(4) That the document so written Creates a liability
of, or causes damage to, the offended party or
any third person.
Estafa by Means of False Pretenses or Fraudulent
Acts (315 par. 2(a) (b) (c) (d) (e); BP22):
Elements of estafa by means of deceit:
(1) There must be a False pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means.
(2) That such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or executed
Prior to or Simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud.
(3) Offended party must have Relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means,
that is, he was induced to part with his money or
property because of the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.
(4) As a result thereof, the offended party Suffered
damage.
The acts must be fraudulent. Acts must be founded
on, deceit, trick, or cheat, and such must be made
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud.
PAGE 208
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
In false pretenses the deceit consists in the use of
deceitful words, in fraudulent acts the deceit consists
principally in deceitful acts. The fraudulent acts must
be performed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud.
The offender must be able to obtain something from
the offended party because of the fraudulent acts.
Knowledge of criminal intent of the principal is
essential to be convicted as an accomplice in Estafa
through falsification of commercial document. There
must be knowing assistance in the execution of the
offense. [Abejuela vs People (1991)]
In the case where a tenant-landowner relationship
exists between the parties, the jurisdiction for the
prosecution of the crime Estafa is not divested from
the RTC; though the matter before us apparently
presents an agrarian dispute, the RTC cannot shirk
from its duty to adjudicate on the merits a criminal
case initially filed before it, based on the law and
evidence presented, in order to determine whether
an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged.
In a tenant-landowner relationship, it was incumbent
upon the tenant to hold in trust and, eventually,
account for the share in the harvest appertaining to
the landowner, failing which the tenant could be held
liable for misappropriation.
As correctly pointed out by the respondents, share
tenancy has been outlawed for being contrary to public
policy as early as 1963, with the passage of R.A. 3844.
What prevails today, under R.A. 6657, is agricultural
leasehold tenancy relationship, and all instances of
share tenancy have been automatically converted into
leasehold tenancy. In such a relationship, the tenant’s
obligation is simply to pay rentals, not to deliver the
landowner’s share.
Given this dispensation, the petitioner’s allegation that
the respondents misappropriated the landowner’s
share of the harvest – as contained in the information
– is untenable. Accordingly, the respondents cannot be
held liable under Article 315, paragraph 4, No. 1(b) of
the Revised Penal Code. [People v. Vanzuela (2008)]
It is well established in jurisprudence that a person
may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and
estafa. The reason, therefore, is not hard to discern:
illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while
estafa is malum in se.
In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
imperative. Petitioner’s claim that she did not
represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but that she
merely tried to help the complainants secure a
tourist visa could not make her less guilty of illegal
recruitment, it being enough that she gave the
impression of having had the authority to recruit
workers for deployment abroad; consequently she is
also held liable for the violation of Estafa under
Article 315(2)(a). [Lapasaran v. People (2009)]
Par 2(a): Using fictitious name or false pretenses at
power, influence… or other similar
deceits
Ways of committing the offense:
(1) By using fictitious name;
(2) By falsely pretending to possess:
(a) power,
(b) influence,
(c) qualifications,
(d) property,
(e) credit,
(f) agency,
(g) business or imaginary transactions;
(3) By means of other similar deceits..
For estafa under Art. 315 par. 2(a), it is indispensable
that the false statement or fraudulent representation
of the accused,
(1) be made prior to, or, at least simultaneously
with,
(2) the delivery of the thing by the complainant.
It is essential that such false statement or fraudulent
representation constitutes the cause or only motive
which induced the complainant to part with the
thing. If there be no such prior or simultaneous false
statement or fraudulent representation, any
subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent
and suspicious it may appear, cannot serve as a basis
for prosecution for the class of estafa.
A creditor who deceived his debtor is liable for
estafa.
In estafa by means of deceit under Art. 315 2(a),
there must be evidence that the pretense of the
accused is false. Without such proof, criminal intent
to deceive cannot be inferred. Fraud must be proved
with clear and positive evidence.
Where commission salesman took back the
machines from prospective customers and
misappropriated them, it is theft, not estafa.
Estafa through false pretenses made in writing is
only a simple crime of estafa, not a complex crime of
estafa through falsification.
PAGE 209
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Manipulation of scale is punished under the Revised
Administrative Code
Par 2(b): by altering the quality, fineness or weight
of anything pertaining to art or business
Par. 2(c): by pretending to have bribed any
government employee
Person would ask money from another for the
alleged purpose of bribing a government employee
but just pocketed the money.
Par 2(d): By postdating a check or issuing a bouncing
check
Elements:
(1) Offender Postdated a check, or issued a check in
payment of an obligation;
(2) Such postdating or issuing a check was done
when the offender had No funds in the bank, or
his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the check.
The check must be genuine, and not falsified.
The check must be postdated or for an obligation
contracted at the time of the issuance and delivery of
the check and not for pre-existing obligation.
Exception:
(1) When postdated checks are issued and intended
by the parties only as promissory notes
(2) When the check is issued by a guarantor
The accused must be able to obtain something from
the offended party by means of the check he issues
and delivers.
The mere fact that the drawer had insufficient or no
funds in the bank to cover the check at the time he
postdated or issued a check, is sufficient to make him
liable for estafa.
1
RA 4885 deleted the phrase “the offender knowing
at the time he had no funds in the bank”:
1
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION TWO, PARAGRAPH (d), ARTICLE
THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN OF ACT NUMBERED THIRTY-EIGHT
HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE. (re: issuance of checks.)
Section 1. Section Two, Paragraph (d), Article Three hundred
fifteen of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and fifteen is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(1) the failure of the drawer to deposit the amount
needed to cover his check
(2) within 3 days from receipt of notice of dishonor
of check for lack or insufficiency of funds
(3) shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
Good faith is a defense in a charge of estafa by
postdating or issuing a check. One who got hold of a
check issued by another, knowing that the drawer
had no sufficient funds in the bank, and used the
same in the purchase of goods, is guilty of estafa.
[People v. Isleta]
2 Offender must induce the offended party to sign the
PD 818 applies only to estafa under par 2(d) of Art.
315, and does not apply to other forms of estafa.
[People v Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95]
Hence, the penalty prescribed in PD 818, not the
penalty provided for in Art. 315, should be imposed
when the estafa committed is covered by par 2(d) of
Art. 315.
Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing crime.
Estafa Through Other Fraudulent Means (315 Par 3
(a) (b) (c))
Par 3 (a): By inducing another, through deceit, to
sign any document
Elements:
(1) Offender Induced the offended party to sign a
document.
(2) That deceit be Employed to make him sign the
document.
(3) Offended party Personally signed the document.
(4) That Prejudice be caused.
document. If offended party is willing from the start
to sign the document, because the contents are
different from those which the offended told the
accused to state in the document, the crime is
falsification.
There can be no conviction for estafa in the absence
of proof that defendant made statements tending to
mislead complainant.

See Special Law: BP 22 (Anti-Bouncing Checks Law) Par.3 (b): By resorting to some fraudulent practice
to ensure success in a gambling game

Par.3 (c): By removing, concealing or destroying

"(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an any court record, office files, document or
obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of
any other papers
the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from Elements:
receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that (1) That there be court Record, office files,
said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds
shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense
documents or any other papers
or fraudulent act."
Section 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. If there is no malicious intent to defraud, the
Approved: June 17, 1967 destruction of court record is malicious mischief.
2
AMENDING ARTICLE 315 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE BY
INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA COMMITTED BY
MEANS OF BOUNCING CHECKS Elements of deceit and abuse of confidence may co-
Section 1. Any person who shall defraud another by means of false exist.
pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in paragraph 2(d) of
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 4885, shall be punished by:
If there is neither deceit nor abuse of confidence, it’s
1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is not estafa, even if there is damage. There is only civil
over 12,000 pesos but not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such liability.
amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one
year for each additional 10,000 pesos but the total penalty which Deceit through Fraudulent Infidelity in Custody of
may be imposed shall in no case exceed thirty years. In such cases, Means Documents
and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be Offender is a private Offender is a public
termed reclusion perpetua; person OR a public person entrusted with the
2nd. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period, if the person not entrusted w/ documents
amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed
12,000 pesos;
documents
3rd. The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period, if such There is intent to defraud Intent to defraud is not
amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and,
4th. By prision mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does required
not exceed 200 pesos.
Section 2. This decree shall take effect immediately.

PAGE 210
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Double jeopardy does not apply because RPC is a
distinct crime from BP 22. Deceit and damage are
essential elements of RPC, which are not required in
BP 22. [Nierras vs Dacuycuy (1990)]
The element of damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation may consist in:
(1) The offended party being deprived of his money
or property, as result of the fraud;
(2) Disturbance in property right; or
(3) Temporary prejudice
Payment subsequent to the commission of estafa
does not extinguish criminal liability or reduce the
penalty.
The crime of estafa is not obliterated by acceptance
of promissory note.
A private person who procures a loan by means of
deceit through a falsified public document of
mortgage, but paid loan within the period agreed
upon, is not guilty of estafa but only falsification of a
public document.
Accused cannot be convicted of estafa with abuse of
confidence if charged w/ estafa by means of deceit
ARTICLE 316 - OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING AND DECEITS
Par 1. By conveying, selling, encumbering, or
mortgaging any real property, pretending to be the
owner of the same
Elements:
(1) That the thing be Immovable, such as a parcel of
land or a building.
(2) Offender who is not the owner of said property
should Represent that he is the owner thereof.
(3) Offender should have Executed an act of
ownership (selling, encumbering or mortgaging
the real property).
(4) Act be made to Prejudice of the owner or a third
person.
The thing disposed of must be real property. If it’s
chattel, crime is Estafa.
There must be existing real property.
Even if the deceit is practiced against the second
purchaser but damage is incurred by the first
purchaser, there is violation of par.1 of Art. 316.
Since the penalty is based on the “value of the
damage” there must be actual damage caused.
Par. 2. By disposing of real property as free from
PAGE 211
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
encumbrance, although such encumbrance be not
recorded
Elements:
(1) That the thing disposed of be Real property.
(2) Offender Knew that the real property was
encumbered, whether the encumbrance is
recorded or not.
(3) There must be Express representation by the
offender that the real property is free from
encumbrance.
(4) Act of disposing of the real property be made to
the Damage of another.
Act constituting the offense is disposing of the real
property representing that it is free from
encumbrance.
“Dispose”: includes encumbering or mortgaging.
“Encumbrance”: includes every right or interest in the
land which exists in favor of third persons.
The offended party would not have granted the loan
had he known that the property was already
encumbered. When the loan had already been
granted when defendant offered the property as
security for the loan, Art. 316 par. 2 is not applicable.
Usurious loan with equitable mortgage is not an
encumbrance on the property.
If 3rd element not established, there is no crime.
There must be damage caused. It is not necessary
that act prejudice the owner of the land.
The omitted phrase “as free from encumbrance” in
par 2 of Art. 316 is the basis of the ruling that silence
as to such encumbrance does not involve a crime.
Par. 3. By wrongfully taking by the owner of his
personal property from its lawful possessor
Elements:
(1) Offender is the Owner of personal property.
(2) Said property is in the Lawful possession of
another.
(3) Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful
possessor.
(4) Prejudice is thereby caused to the lawful
possessor or third person.
Offender must wrongfully take the personal property
from the lawful possessor. Wrongfully take does not
include the use of violence, intimidation.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
If the thing is taken by means of violence, without
intent to gain, it is not estafa, but grave coercion.
If the owner took the personal property from its
lawful possessor without the latter’s knowledge and
later charged him with the value of the property, the
crime is theft. If there is intent to charge the bailee
with its value, the crime is robbery. [US v Albao]
Par. 4. By executing any fictitious contract to the
prejudice of another.
Illustration: A person who simulates a (4) That the transaction is to the Detriment of such
conveyance of his property to another, to defraud his
creditors. If the conveyance is real and not simulated,
the crime is fraudulent insolvency.
Par. 5. By accepting any compensation for services
not rendered or for labor not performed
Elements:
(1) Accepting a compensation given to accused for
service not rendered
(2) Malicious failure to return the compensation
wrongfully received (fraud).
There must be fraud. Otherwise, it will only be solutio
indebiti, with civil obligation to return the wrong
payment.
If the money in payment of a debt was delivered to a
wrong person, Art. 316 par 5 is not applicable.
In case the person who received it later refused or
failed to return it to the owner of the money, Art. 315
subdivision 1(b) is applicable.
Par. 6. By selling, mortgaging or encumbering real
property or properties with which the offender
guaranteed the fulfilment of his obligation as surety
Elements:
(1) Offender is a Surety in a bond given in a criminal
or civil action.
(2) He Guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation
with his real property or properties.
(3) He Sells, mortgages, or, in any other manner
encumbers said real property.
(4) That such sale, mortgage, or encumbrance is
(a) Without express authority from the court, or
(b) Made Before the cancellation of his bond, or
(c) Before being relieved from the obligation
contracted by him.
There must be damage caused under Art. 316.
PAGE 212
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE 317 - SWINDLING OF A MINOR
Elements:
(1) That the offender Takes advantage of the
inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor.
(2) That he induces such minor
(a) to Assume an obligation, or
(b) to Give release, or
(c) to Execute a transfer of any property right.
(3) That the consideration is
(a) some Loan of money,
(b) Credit, or
(c) Other Personal property.
minor.
Real property is not included because only money,
credit and personal property are enumerated, and
because a minor cannot convey real property without
judicial authority.
ARTICLE 318 - OTHER DECEITS
Other deceits are:
(1) By Defrauding or damaging another by any
other deceit not mentioned in the preceding
articles.
(2) By Interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, by
telling fortunes, or by taking advantage of the
credulity of the public in any other manner, for
profit or gain.
Any other kind of conceivable deceit may fall under
this article. As in other cases of estafa, damage to
the offended party is required.
The deceits in this article include false pretenses
and fraudulent acts.
Chattel Mortgage
The object of the Chattel Mortgage Law is to give the
necessary sanction to the statute, so that mortgage
debtors may be deterred from violating its provisions
and mortgage creditors may be protected against
loss of inconvenience from wrongful removal or sale
of mortgaged property.
CHAPTER 7: CHATTEL MORTGAGE
ARTICLE 319 - REMOVAL, SALE, OR PLEDGE OF
MORTGAGED PROPERTY
Acts punishable under Art. 319:
(1) By knowingly removing any personal property
mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law to
any province or city other than the one in which
it was located at the time of execution of the
mortgage, without the written consent of the
mortgagee or his executors, administrators or
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

assigns. The consent of the mortgagee must be

(2) By selling or pledging personal property already (1) in writing,
pledged, or any part thereof, under the terms of (2) on the back of the mortgage, and
the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the consent (3) noted on the record thereof in the office of the
of the mortgagee written on the back of the register of deeds.
mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the
office of the register of deeds of the province Damage is NOT essential.
where such property is located.
Chattel mortgage may give rise to estafa by means
Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting. of deceit.
If chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of
good faith and is not registered, it is void and cannot Art 319 Art 316 Estafa
be prosecuted under Art 319
In both there is selling of a mortgaged property.
Elements of knowingly removing mortgaged personal Personal property Property involved is real
property: property(Art. 316 par 2)
(1) Personal property is mortgaged under the
Committed by the mere Committed by selling real
Chatter Mortgage Law.
failure to obtain consent property mortgaged as
(2) Offender knows that such property is so
of the mortgagee in free, even though the
mortgaged.
writing, even if offender vendor may have
(3) He removes such mortgaged personal property
should inform the obtained the consent of
to any province or city other than the one in
purchaser that the thing the mortgagee in writing.
which it was located at the time of the execution
sold is mortgaged
of the mortgage.
(4) That the removal is permanent. Purpose: to protect the Purpose: to protect the
(5) That there is no written consent of the mortgagee purchaser (1st or 2nd)
mortgagee or his executors, administrators or
assigns to such removal.
CHAPTER 8: ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES
A person other than the mortgagor who removed the INVOLVING DESTRUCTION
property to another province, knowing it to be
mortgaged, may be liable. The removal of the Kinds of Arson:
mortgaged personal property must be coupled with (1) Arson (PD 1613, Sec. 1)
intent to defraud. (2) Destructive arson (Art. 320, as amended by RA
7659)
No felonious intent if transfer of personal property is (3) Other cases of arson (Sec. 3, PD 1613)
due to change of residence.
Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Arson
If the mortgagee opted to file for collection, not Attempted arson: A person, intending to burn a
foreclosure, abandoning the mortgage as basis for wooden structure, collects some rags, soaks them in
relief, the removal of property to another province is gasoline and places them beside the wooden wall of
not a violation of Art 319 par1. the building. When he about to light a match to set
fire to the rags, he is discovered by another who
In estafa, the property involved is real property. In chases him away. In attempted arson, it is not
sale of mortgaged property, it is personal property. necessary that there be a fire.

Elements of selling or pledging personal property
already pledged:
(1) That personal property is already pledged under
the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law.
(2) That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such
property, sells or pledges the same or any part
thereof.
(3) That there is no consent of the mortgagee
written on the back of the mortgage and noted
on the record thereof in the office of the register
of deeds.
Frustrated arson: If that 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.
Consummated arson: If before the fire was put out, it
had burned a part of the building.
If the property burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling, it is not required that the house be
occupied by one or more persons and the offender
knew it when the house was burned.

PAGE 213
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW
No complex crime of arson with homicide. If by
reason of or on the occasion of arson death results,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed. Homicide is absorbed.
Any of 7 circumstances in Sec. 6 of PD 1613 is
sufficient to establish fact of arson if unexplained.
How is the crime of Arson proved?
In the prosecution for Arson, proof of the crime
charged is complete where the evidence establishes:
1. the corpus delicti, i.e., a fire because of criminal
agency; and
2. the identity of the defendant as the one
responsible for the crime.
In Arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of
the bare fact of the fire and of it having been
intentionally caused. [Gonzales, Jr. v. People, GR No.
159950, Feb. 12, 2007]
PD 1613, §1. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
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, or administrative or
other official proceeding.
(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
CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(3) Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or
mine shaft, platform or tunnel
(4) Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop,
grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
(5) Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central
(6) Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
warehouse
Article 320, RPC, as amended, with respect to
destructive arson, and the provisions of PD 1613
respecting other cases of arson provide only one
penalty for the commission of arson, whether
destructive or otherwise, where death results
therefrom. The raison d’etre is that arson is itself the
end and death is simply the consequence.
In cases where both burning and death occur, in
order to determine what crime/crimes was/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 means to cover up the killing, then
there are two separate and distinct crimes
committed – Homicide/Murder and Arson
CHAPTER 9 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF: It is the willful causing of
damage to another’s property for the sake of causing
damage because of hate, revenge or other evil
motive.
ARTICLE 327 - WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE
Elements of malicious mischief:
(1) Offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another.
(2) Such act does not constitute arson or other
crimes involving destruction
(3) Act of damaging another’s property be
committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
If there is no malice in causing damage, the
obligation to pay for the damages is only civil (Art.
2176)
PAGE 214
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Damage means not only loss but also diminution of
what is a man’s own. Thus, damage to another’s
house includes defacing it. [People v Asido]
ARTICLE 328 - SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Special cases of malicious mischief: (qualified
malicious mischief)
(1) causing damage to obstruct the performance of
public functions
(2) using any poisonous or corrosive substance
(3) Spreading infection or contagion among cattle
(4) causing damage to property of the National
Museum or National Library, or to any archive or
registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any
other thing used in common by the public.
ARTICLE 329 - OTHER MISCHIEFS
Other mischiefs not included in Art. 328 are
punished based on value of the damage caused.
If the amount involved cannot be estimated, the
penalty of arresto menor of fine not exceeding P200
is fixed by law.
When several persons scattered coconut remnants
which contained human excrement on the stairs and
floor of the municipal building, including its interior,
the crime committed is malicious mischief under Art.
329. [People v Dumlao]
ARTICLE 330 - DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF
COMMUNICATION
Committed by damaging any railway, telegraph, or
telephone lines. If the damage shall result in any
derailment of cars, collision, or other accident, a
higher penalty shall be imposed. (Qualifying
Circumstance)
Telegraph/phone lines must pertain to railways.
Q: What is the crime when, as a result of the damage
caused to railway, certain passengers of the train are
killed?
A: It depends. Art. 330 says “without prejudice to the
criminal liability of the offender for other
consequences of his criminal act.”
If there is no intent to kill, the crime is “damages to
means to means of communication” with homicide
because of the first paragraph of Art. 4 and Art. 48.
If there is intent to kill, and damaging the railways
was the means to accomplish the criminal purpose,
the crime is murder
PAGE 215
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ARTICLE 331 – DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES,
PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS
The penalty is lower if the thing destroyed is a public
painting, rather than a public monument.
CHAPTER 10: EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
ARTICLE 332 - EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Crimes involved in the exemption:
(1) Theft
(2) Swindling (estafa)
(3) Malicious mischief
If the crime is robbery, exemption does not lie.
Persons exempt from criminal liability:
(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 passed into the
possession of another.
(3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
The law recognizes the presumed co-ownership of
the property between the offender and the offended
party. There is no criminal, but only civil liability.
Art. 332 does not apply to a stranger who
participates in the commission of the crime.
Stepfather and stepmother are included as
ascendants by affinity. [People v Alvarez; People v
Adame]
Guevarra: An adopted or natural child should also be
considered as included in the term “descendants”
and a concubine or paramour within the term
“spouses”.
Art. 332 also applies to common-law spouses. [Art.
144, CC; People v Constantino]
Jurisprudence
THEFT
The fact that beans (subject of the crime were sacks
of beans) were scattered on the floor inside and in
front of the stall of petitioner and in the parking lot
does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
petitioner is the perpetrator of the crime.
This cannot be equated with the principle of law that
a person in possession or control of stolen goods is
presumed to be the author of the larceny. Absent
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
proof of any stolen property in the possession of a
person, as in the case at bar, no presumption of guilt
can arise. The place was a market and presumably,
petitioner was not the only vendor of beans.
Where the proven facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with innocence and the other with guilt,
the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to convict the accused.
[Aoas v. People (2008)]
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
It is clear that the place of the commission of the
crime was a residential and commercial building
located in an urban and populated area. This
qualifying circumstance places the offense squarely
within the ambit of Section 2(7) of P.D. 1613, and
converts it to “destructive arson.
It was also established that the subject building was
insured against fire for an amount substantially more
than its market value, a fact that has given rise to the
unrebutted prima facie evidence of arson, as
provided in Section 6 of P.D. 1613. [Amora v. People
(2008)]
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Does not include taking the gun to shoot its previous
holder. The Court disagrees with the Court of
Appeals that appellant committed the crime of
robbery with homicide. There is nothing in the
records that would show that the principal purpose
of appellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun
(Serial No. 9600942).
It must be emphasized that when the victim and
appellant met and had a heated argument, the
absence of the intent to rob on the part of the
appellant was apparent. Appellant was not trying to
rob the victim. Appellant’s act of taking the shotgun
was not for the purpose of robbing the victim, but to
protect himself from the victim.
No one would in one’s right mind just leave a firearm
lying around after being in a heated argument with
another person.
Having failed to establish that appellant’s original
criminal design was robbery, appellant could only be
convicted of the separate crimes of either murder or
homicide, as the case may be, and theft. [People vs.
Lara]
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
If the intention of the accused was to rob, but rape
was committed even before the asportation, the
PAGE 216
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
crime is the special complex crime of Robbery with
Rape. So long as the intent of the accused is to rob,
rape may be committed before, during or after the
robbery. But if the primary intent ofthe accused was
to rape and his taking away the belongings of the
victim was only a mere afterthought, two separate
felonies are committed: Rape and Theft or Robbery
depending upon the circumstances surrounding the
unlawful taking. [People v. Naag, GR No. 1361394,
Feb. 15, 2001]
QUALIFIED THEFT (Abuse of Confidence)
Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees
of Western does not suffice to create the relation of
confidence and intimacy that the law requires.
The element of grave abuse of confidence requires that
there be a relation of independence, guardianship or
vigilance between the petitioners and Western.
Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive
payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping,
preparation and issuance of invoices. They merely
assisted customers in making a purchase and in
demonstrating the merchandise to prospective
buyers. While they had access to the merchandise,
they had no access to the cashier’s booth or to the
cash payments subject of the offense. [Astudillo vs.
People(2006)]
THEFT (Corpus Delicti)
The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable
for the charges on the ground that he was not
caught in possession of the missing funds. This is
clutching at straws. To be caught in possession of
the stolen property is not an element of the corpus
delicti in theft.
Corpus delicti means the “body or substance of the
crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that
the crime has been actually committed.”
In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely:
(1) that the property was lost by the owner, and
(2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
In the case before us, these two elements were
established. The amounts involved were lost by WUP
because petitioner took them without authority to do
so. [Gan vs. People(2007)]
THEFT; Attempted or Consummated only
The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not
been designed in such fashion as to accommodate
the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, there is
no language in Article 308 that expressly or
impliedly allows that the “free disposition of the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

items stolen” is in any way determinative of whether (5) Some LGUs have anti-Cable Television Theft
the crime of theft has been produced. We thus Ordinances.
conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is (6) Theft of Forestry Products (PD 330);
no crime of frustrated theft.[Valenzuela vs. People (7) Theft of Minerals/Ores (PD 581);
(2007)]
Cases:
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; (Absorption Theory (a) Theft by bank teller considered Qualified Theft
applied) [Roque vs. People(2004)]
Attempted homicide or attempted murder (b) Grave abuse of confidence, requirements
committed during or on the occasion of the robbery, [Astudillo vs. People(2006)]
as in this case, is absorbed in the crime of Robbery (c) Carnapping vs. Qualified Theft [People vs.
with Homicide which is a special complex crime that Bustinera(2004)]
remains fundamentally the same regardless of the
number of homicides or injuries committed in ESTAFA
connection with the robbery. [People v. Cabbab, (a) “Conversion”/”Misappropriation”, explained [Lee
Jr.(2007)] vs. People (2005)]
(b) Estafa may coincide with Illegal recruitment
ESTAFA; Essence of Misappropriation [People vs. Hernandez (2002)]
The words “convert” and “misappropriate” connote (c) “Deceit”/”False Pretense”, explained [Pablo vs.
an act of using or disposing of another’s property as People (2004)]
if it were one’s own or devoting it to a purpose or use (d) SYNDICATED ESTAFA/Economic Sabotage
different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate (Presidential Decree No. 1689)—Ponzi scheme;
for one’s own use includes not only conversion to Pyramid Scams
one’s personal advantage but also every attempt to
dispose of the property of another without any right. Case:
[Tan vs. People] Soliciting funds from and eventually defrauding the
general public constitutes syndicated estafa
ESTAFA (Sale of jewelry; Failure to return) amounting to economic sabotage [People vs. Balasa
In an agency for the sale of jewelries, as in the (1998)]
present case, it is the agent’s duty to return the
jewelry upon demand of the owner and failure to do BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
so is evidence of conversion of the property by the (a) Modes of committing violations of BP 22;
agent. In other words, the demand for the return of (b) Presumptions/Evidentiary Rules
the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the
accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence Cases:
of misappropriation. However, this presumption is (a) Rule of Preference in BP 22 violations: Court
rebuttable. If the accused is able to satisfactorily may impose imprisonment or a fine [Bernardo vs.
explain his failure to produce the thing delivered in People (2007)]
trust or to account for the money, he may not be held (b) Only a full payment of the face value of the
liable for estafa. [People v. Manantan] second check at the time of its presentment or
during the five-day grace period could exonerate
ADDITIONAL NOTES one from criminal liability. [Macalalag vs. People
(2006)]
THEFT
(a) Presumption of thievery -- possession of stolen See Also:
goods [People vs. Dela Cruz (2000)] (1) PD 1612: Anti-Fencing Law
(b) No frustrated theft; Either attempted or (2) BP 22: Bouncing Check Law
consummated only [Valenzuela vs. People (3) RA 6539: Anti-Carnapping Act
(2007)] (4) RA 9372: Human Security Act
(5) PD 1613: Anti-Arson Law
QUALIFIED THEFT
Related Laws
(1) Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (RA 6539);
(2) Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (PD 533);
(3) Heavier Penalties for Thefts by Employees and
Laborers (PD 133);
(4) Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act (RA 7832);

PAGE 217
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Title XI. Crimes against The man, to be guilty of adultery, must have
Chastity knowledge of the married status of the woman.

A married man who is not liable for adultery,

(1) Art. 333: Adultery because he did not know that the woman is married,
(2) Art. 334: Concubinage may be held liable for concubinage.
(3) Art. 336: Acts of Lasciviousness
(4) Art. 337: Qualified Seduction Acquittal of one of the defendants does not operate
(5) Art. 338: Simple Seduction as a cause of acquittal of the other.
(6) Art. 339: Acts of Lasciviousness with the consent
of the offended party Under the law, there is no accomplice in adultery.
(7) Art. 340: Corruption of minors
(8) Art. 341: White Slave Trade Direct proof of carnal knowledge is not necessary.
(9) Art. 342: Forcible Abduction Circumstantial evidence is sufficient. (i.e. love letters
(10) Art. 343: Consented Abduction signed by the paramour, photos showing intimate
(11) Art. 344: Prosecution of the crimes of Adultery relations, testimony of witnesses)
(12) Art. 345: Civil Liability
(13) Art. 346: Liability of Ascendants, guardians, Pardon by the H does not exempt the adulterous W
teachers, or other persons entrusted with and her paramour from criminal liability for
custody of the offended adulterous acts committed subsequent to such
pardon, because the pardon refers to previous and
ARTICLE 333 - ADULTERY not to subsequent adulterous acts
Elements:
(1) that the woman is married; Effect of Pardon - applies to Concubinage as well:
(2) that she has sexual intercourse with a man not (1) The pardon must come before the institution of
her husband; the criminal prosecution; and
(3) that as regards the man with whom she has (2) Both the offenders must be pardoned by the
sexual intercourse: he must know her to be offended party. Act of sexual intercourse
married. subsequent to adulterous conduct is considered
as an implied pardon.
(3) Pardon of the offenders by the offended party is
LEGENDS:
a bar to prosecution for adultery or concubinage.
H – husband; W – wife; M - marriage
(4) Delay in the filing of complaint, if satisfactorily
explained, does not indicate pardon.
Offenders: Married woman and/or the man who has
carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married,
Effect of consent: The husband, knowing that his
even if the M be subsequently declared void. It is not
wife, after serving sentence for adultery, resumed
necessary that there be a valid M (i.e. void ab initio)
living with her co-defendant, did nothing to interfere
with their relations or to assert his rights as husband.
Essence of adultery: violation of the marital vow
The second charge of adultery should be dismissed
because of consent. [People v. Sensano and Ramos]
Gist of the crime: the danger of introducing spurious
heirs into the family, where the rights of the real heirs
Agreement to separate may be used as evidence to
may be impaired and a man may be charged with
show consent by the husband to the infidelity of his
the maintenance of a family not his own. (US v. Mata)
wife.
The offended party must be legally married to the
Effect of death of paramour: Offending wife may still
offender at the time of the filing of the complaint.
be prosecuted. The requirement that both offenders
should be included in the complaint is absolute only
Even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.
when the two offenders are alive.
Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of
Effect of death of offended party: The proceedings
adultery.
may continue. Art. 353 seeks to protect the honor
and reputation not only of the living but of dead
Abandonment without justification is not exempting,
persons as well.
but only mitigating. Both defendants are entitled to
this mitigating circumstance.

PAGE 218
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 334 - CONCUBINAGE
Elements:
(1) That the man must be married;
(2) That he committed any of the following acts:
(a) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
(b) Having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstance with a woman not his wife;
(c) Cohabiting with her in any other place;
(3) That as regards the woman, she must know him
to be married.
LEGENDS: H – husband; W – wife; M - marriage
Offenders: married man and the woman who knows
him to be married.
The woman only becomes liable only if she knew him
to be married prior to the commission of the crime.
rd
In the 3 way committing the crime, mere
cohabitation is sufficient; Proof of scandalous
circumstances not necessary. [People v. Pitoc, et. al.]
A married man is not liable for concubinage for mere
sexual relations with a woman not his wife. A man
would only be guilty of concubinage if he appeared
to be guilty of any of the acts punished in Art. 334.
A married man who is not liable for adultery because
he did not know that the woman was married, may
be held liable for concubinage. If the woman knew
that the man was married, she may be held liable for
concubinage as well.
Mistress – a woman taken by the accused to live with
him in the conjugal dwelling as his
mistress/concubine. [People v. Bacon and People v.
Hilao]
Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling – no
positive proof of sexual intercourse is necessary
Conjugal Dwelling – the home of the H and the W
even if the wife appears to be temporarily absent on
any account.
The dwelling of the spouses was constructed from
the proceeds of the sale of their conjugal properties.
The fact that W never had a chance to reside therein
and that H used it with his mistress instead, does not
detract from its nature. [People v. Cordova (1959)]
Cohabit – to dwell together as H and W for a period
of time (i.e. A week, a month, year or longer)
Scandalous circumstances – Scandal consists in any
reprehensible word or deed that offends public
PAGE 219
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
conscience, redounds to the detriment of the feelings
of honest persons, and gives occasion to the
neighbors’ spiritual damage or ruin. [People v.
Santos]
It is only when the mistress is kept elsewhere
(outside the conjugal dwelling) that “scandalous
circumstances” become an element of the crime. [US
v. Macabagbag]
Qualifying expression: Sexual act which may be
proved by circumstantial evidence
Scandal produced by the concubinage of H:
(1) H and mistress live in the same room of a house
(2) They appear together in public,
(3) Perform acts in sight of the community which
give rise to criticism and general protest among
the neighbors.
When spies are employed for the purpose of
watching the conduct of the accused and it
appearing that none of the people living in the
vicinity has observed any suspicious conduct, there is
no evidence of scandalous circumstances. [US v.
Campos Rueda]
Reason: Adultery is punished more severely than
concubinage because adultery makes possible the
introduction of another man’s offspring into the
family so that the offended H may have another
man’s son bearing H’s name and receiving support
from him.
ARTICLE 335 – RAPE
Repealed by R.A. 8353.
ARTICLE 336 - ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Elements:
(1) That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2) That the is committed against a person of either
sex;
(3) That is done under any of the ff. circumstances:
(a) By using force or intimidation; or
(b) When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
(c) When the offended party is under 12 years
of age or is demented.
Lewd – obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous;
signifies form of immorality which has relation to
moral impurity or that which is carried in wanton
manner
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Motive of lascivious acts is not important because the offender. the commission of rape.
the essence of lewdness is in the very act itself.
Abuses against chastity (Art. 245) v acts of
Example: If the kissing etc. was done inside church lasciviousness (Art. 336)
(which is a public place), absence of lewd designs
may be proven, and the crime is unjust vexation only. Offenses against Chastity Abuses against Chastity
But if the kissing was done in the house of a woman Committed by a private Committed by a public
when she was alone, the circumstances may prove individual, in most cases officer only
the accused’s lewd designs.
Some act of Mere immoral or indecent
Absent any of the circumstances of rape under the lasciviousness should proposal made earnestly
rd
3 element, the crime is UNJUST VEXATION. (e.g. have been executed by and persistently is
touching of breast) the offender. sufficient.

Lascivious intent is implied from the nature of the act The accused followed the victim, held her, embraced
and the surrounding circumstances. her, tore her dress, and tried to touch her breast.
When a complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed
Consider the act and the environment to distinguish against him, accused claimed that he had no
between Acts of Lasciviousness and Attempted intention of having sexual intercourse with her and
Rape. Desistance in the commission of attempted that he did the acts only as revenge. TC found the
rape may constitute acts of lasciviousness. accused guilty of FRUSTRATED ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS. SC held that there is no
No attempted and frustrated acts of lasciviousness. frustrated crime against chastity which includes acts
of lasciviousness, adultery, and rape. [People v.
Acts of Lasciviousness v. Grave Coercion Famularcano]
Acts of Lasciviousness Grave Coercion
Compulsion or force is Compulsion or force is the From the moment the offender performs all the
included in the very act constituting the elements necessary for the existence of the felony, he
constructive element of offense of grave coercion. actually attains his purpose.
force.
Must be accompanied by Moral compulsion Motive of revenge is of no consequence since the
acts of lasciviousness or amounting to intimidation element of lewdness is in the very act itself.
lewdness. is sufficient. Example: Compelling a girl to dance naked before a
man is an act of lasciviousness, even if the dominant
motive is revenge, for her failure to pay a debt.
Acts of Lasciviousness v. Attempted Rape
Acts of Lasciviousness Attempted Rape Two kinds of seduction:
(1) Qualified seduction (Art. 337)
Same means of committing the crime: (2) Simple seduction (Art. 338)
(1) Force, threat, or intimidation is employed; or
(2) By means of fraudulent machination or grave ARTICLE 337 - QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
abuse of authority; or
(3) The offended party is deprived of reason or Elements:
otherwise unconscious; or (1) That the offended party is a virgin, which is
(4) Victim is under 12 yrs. of age or is demented presumed if she is unmarried and of good
reputation;
Offended party is a person of either sex. (2) That the she must be over 12 and under 18 yrs. of
The performance of acts of lascivious character age; (13-17 years 11 months 29 days)
(3) That the offender has sexual intercourse with
Acts performed do not Acts performed clearly her;
indicate that the accused indicate that the (4) That the there is abuse of authority, confidence,
was to lie w/ the offended accused’s purpose was to or relationship on the part of the offender.
party. lie w/ the offended
woman. Seduction - enticing a woman to unlawful sexual
Lascivious acts are the Lascivious acts are only intercourse by promise of marriage or other means of
final objective sought by the preparatory acts to persuasion without use of force. It applies when there

PAGE 220
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
is abuse of authority (qualified seduction) or deceit
(simple seduction).
Two classes of Qualified Seduction:
(1) Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18
years of age by certain persons such as, a person
in authority, priest, teacher or any person who, in
any capacity shall be entrusted with the
education or custody of the woman seduced.
(2) Seduction of a sister by her brother, or
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her
age or reputation.
Virgin - a woman of chaste character and of good
reputation. The offended party need not be
physically a virgin.
If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of
lewdness are performed, the crime is acts of
lasciviousness. If any of the circumstances in the
crime of rape is present, the crime is not to be
punished under Art. 337.
The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted
of qualified seduction under the same information.
Offenders in Qualified Seduction:
(1) Those who abused their authority: (PaG-TE/C)
(a) Person in public authority;
(b) Guardian;
(c) Teacher;
(d) Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with
the education or custody of the woman
seduced.
(2) Those who abused confidence reposed in them:
(PHD)
(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.
“Domestic” - a person usually living under the same
roof, pertaining to the same house.
Not necessary that the offender be the teacher of the
offended party; it is sufficient that he is a teacher in
the same school.
Qualified seduction may also be committed by a
master to his servant, or a head of the family to any
of its members.
Qualified seduction of a sister or descendant, also
known as INCEST, is punished by a penalty next
higher in degree.
PAGE 221
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The age, reputation, or virginity of the sister or
descendant is irrelevant. The relationship need not
be legitimate.
A 15-year old virgin, who was brought by her mother
to the house of the accused and his wife to serve as a
helper, repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of the
accused, as she was induced by his promises of
marriage and frightened by his acts of intimidation.
HELD: DECEIT, although an essential element of
ordinary or simple seduction, does not need to be
proved or established in a charge of qualified
seduction. It is replaced by ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE. [People v. Fontanilla]
The accused, a policeman, brought a 13-year old girl
with low mentality, to the ABC Hall where he
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. The
complaint did not allege that the girl was a virgin.
The accused was charged with RAPE but convicted
of QUALIFIED SEDUCTION.
HELD: Though it is true that virginity is presumed if
the girl is over 12 but under 18, unmarried and of
good reputation, virginity is still an essential element
of the crime of qualified seduction and must be
alleged in the complaint. Accused is guilty of RAPE,
considering the victim’s age, mental abnormality and
deficiency. There was also intimidation with the
accused wearing his uniform. [Babanto v. Zosa]
Consented Abduction Qualified
Seduction
Means Requires the taking Requires abuse
away of the victim of authority,
w/ her consent confidence or
relationship
Act Offender has sexual Taking away
intercourse with lewd
designs
Wronged The girl The girl’s family
Perez succeeded in having sexual intercourse with
Mendoza after he promised to marry her. As he did
not make good on said promise, Mendoza filed a
complaint for Consented Abduction. Trial Court
found that the acts constituted seduction, acquitting
him on the charge of Consented Abduction.
Mendoza then filed a complaint for Qualified
Seduction. Perez moved to dismiss the case on the
grounds of double jeopardy.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

HELD: There are similar elements between under 18 yrs. of age but over 12 yrs., or a sister or
consented abduction and qualified seduction, descendant, regardless of her reputation or age;
namely: (3) The offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of
(1) the offended party is a virgin, and authority, confidence, relationship, or deceit.
(2) over 12 but under 18 yrs. of age
It is necessary that it be committed under
However, an acquittal for CONSENTED ABDUCTION circumstances which would make it qualified or
will not preclude the filing of a charge for QUALIFIED simple seduction had there been sexual intercourse,
SEDUCTION because the elements of the two crimes instead of acts of lewdness only.
are different. [Perez v. CA]
When the victim is under 12 yrs., the penalty shall be
NOTE: The fact that the girl gave consent to the one degree higher than that imposed by law. (sec. 10
sexual intercourse is not a defense. of R.A. 7610)
ARTICLE 338 - SIMPLE SEDUCTION Males cannot be the offended party.
Elements:
(1) That the offended party is over 12 and under 18 Acts of Lasciviousness Acts of Lasciviousness with
years of age; (Art. 336) consent (Art. 339)
(2) That she is of good reputation, single or widow;
(3) That the offender has sexual intercourse with her; Committed under Committed under
(4) That it is committed by means of deceit. circumstances w/c, had circumstances w/c, had
there been carnal there been carnal
Purpose of the law - To punish the seducer who by knowledge, would knowledge, would
means of promise of marriage, destroys the chastity amount to rape amount to either qualified
of an unmarried female of previous chaste character or simple seduction
Virginity of offended party is not essential, good Offended party is a Offended party should
reputation is sufficient. female or male only be female

Virginity of offended party is not required. ARTICLE 340 - CORRUPTION OF MINORS

Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled
promise of marriage.
Promise of marriage must be the inducement and
the woman must yield because of the promise or
other inducement.
What about unfulfilled promise of material things, as
when the woman agrees to sexual intercourse in
exchange for jewelry? This is not seduction because
she is a woman of loose morals.
Acts punishable: The promotion or facilitation of the
prostitution or corruption of persons under age
(minors), to satisfy the lust of another.
LIABILITY:
(1) Any person
(2) Punishable by prision mayor
(3) A public officer or employee, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations
(4) Shall also be penalized by temporary absolute
disqualification (As amended by BP 92).

Promise of marriage after sexual intercourse does
not constitute deceit. Promise of marriage by a
married man is not a deceit, if the woman knew him
to be married.
Seduction is not a continuing offense.
ARTICLE 339 - ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH
THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
Elements:
(1) Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or
lewdness;
(2) The acts are committed upon a woman who is a
virgin or single or widow of good reputation,
Habituality or abuse of authority or confidence is not
necessary.
It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall have
been done.
Mere proposal will consummate the offense.
The victim must be of good reputation, not a
prostitute or corrupted person.
SEE ALSO: RA 7610: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION,
AND DISCRIMINATION ACT

PAGE 222
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

There is a crime of ATTEMPTED CHILD (1) Acts of lasciviousness against the will or without
PROSTITUTION. (Sec. 6, RA 7610) the consent of the offended party
(2) Qualified seduction of sister or descendant
ARTICLE 341 - WHITE SLAVE TRADE (3) Forcible abduction
Acts punishable:
(1) Engaging in business of prostitution The taking away of the woman must be against her
(2) Profiting by prostitution will.
(3) Enlisting the services of women for the purpose
of prostitution. The taking away of the woman may be accomplished
by means of deceit first and then by means of
Habituality is not a necessary element of white slave violence and intimidation.
trade.
If the female abducted is under 12, the crime is
‘Under any pretext’ – one who engaged the services forcible abduction, even if she voluntarily goes with
of a woman allegedly as a maid, but in reality for her abductor.
prostitution, is guilty under this article.
When the victim was abducted by the accused
Victim is under 12 yrs., penalty shall be one degree without lewd designs, but for the purpose of lending
higher. her to illicit intercourse with others, the crime is not
abduction but corruption of minors.
Offender need not be the owner of the house.
Rape may absorb forcible abduction, if the main
Maintainer or manager of house of ill-repute need objective was to rape the victim.
not be present therein at the time of raid or arrest.
Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible
abduction.
Corruption of Minors White Slave Trade
Lewd designs may be shown by the conduct of the
Minority of victims Minority is not required
accused. When there are several defendants, it is
essential
enough that one of them had lewd designs. Husband
Victims may be male or Applies only to females is not liable for abduction of his wife, as lewd design
female is wanting.
May not necessarily be for Generally for profit
profit Attempt to rape is absorbed in the crime of forcible
abduction, thus there is no complex crime of forcible
Committed by a single act Generally committed abduction with attempted rape.
habitually
Nature of the crime - The act of the offender is
violative of the individual liberty of the abducted, her
ARTICLE 342 - FORCIBLE ABDUCTION honor and reputation, and public order.
Elements:
(1) The person abducted is any woman, regardless Forcible Abduction Grave Coercion
of her age, civil status or reputation;
(2) The abduction is against her will; There is violence or intimidation by the offender.
(3) The abduction is with lewd designs. The offended party is compelled to do something
against her will.
Abduction – the taking away of a woman from her
Abduction is No lewd design, provided
house or the place where she may be for the purpose
characterized by lewd that there is no
of carrying her to another place with the intent to
design. deprivation of liberty for
marry or to corrupt her.
an appreciable length of
time.
Two kinds of abduction:
(1) Forcible abduction (Art. 342)
(2) Consented abduction (Art. 343) Forcible Abduction Corruption of Minors

Crimes against chastity where age and reputation are Purpose is to effect his Purpose is to lend the
immaterial: lewd designs on the victim to illicit intercourse

PAGE 223
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Forcible Abduction Corruption of Minors HELD: The accused is guilty of FORCIBLE

ABDUCTION WITH RAPE. It was proven that the
victim. with others. victim was taken against her will and with lewd
design, and was subsequently forced to submit to
the accused’s lust, rendering her unconscious in the
Forcible Abduction Serious Illegal Detention process. [People v. Alburo]
There is deprivation of There is deprivation of
liberty and lewd designs. liberty and no lewd There can only be one complex crime of forcible
designs abduction with rape.

Commission of other The victim witnessed the killing of another by the 2

crimes during accused. Upon seeing her, the accused dragged her
confinement of victim is to a vacant lot where they took turns in raping her.
immaterial to the charge TC convicted them of rape.
of kidnapping w/ serious
illegal detention. HELD: FORCIBLE ABDUCTION is absorbed in the
crime of RAPE if the main objective is to rape the
Forcible Abduction with victim. Conviction of acts of lasciviousness is not a
Kidnapping (with rape)
Rape bar to conviction of forcible abduction. [People v.
The violent taking of the Not so motivated Godines]
woman is motivated by
lewd designs. ARTICLE 343 - CONSENTED ABDUCTION
Crime against chastity Crime against liberty Elements:
(1) Offended party is a virgin;
(2) She is over 12 and under 18 yrs. of age;
(3) Offender takes her away with her consent, after
Forcible Abduction with Rape - a complex crime solicitation or cajolery from the offender;
under Art.48, and not a special complex crime (4) The taking away is with lewd designs.

The victim was abducted by the accused and was Purpose of the law - Not to punish the wrong done to
brought to a hotel where the latter succeeded in the girl because she consents to it, but to prescribe
having sexual intercourse with her. punishment for the disgrace to her family and the
alarm caused by the disappearance of one who is, by
HELD: The elements of both rape and forcible her age and sex, susceptible to cajolery and deceit.
abduction are proven. The presence of lewd designs
in forcible abduction is manifested by the If the virgin is under 12 or is deprived of reason, the
subsequent rape of the victim. [People v. Sunpongco] crime is forcible abduction because such is incapable
of giving a valid consent.
This is the Maggie Dela Riva story wherein Maggie
was abducted and brought to a hotel, where the 4 The taking away of the girl need not be with some
accused took turns in raping her. character of permanence. Offended party need not
be taken from her house.
HELD: While the first act of rape was being
performed, the crime of forcible abduction had When there was no solicitation or cajolery and no
already been consummated, hence, forcible deceit and the girl voluntarily went with the man,
abduction can only be attached to the first act of there is no crime committed even if they had sexual
rape, detached from the 3 subsequent acts of rape. intercourse.
The effect therefore would be one count of forcible
abduction with rape and 4 counts of rape for each of ARTICLE 344 - PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE
the accused. [People v. Jose] OFFENSES
(1) Adultery
The accused and 2 other men raped the victim. The
(2) Concubinage
victim was a jeepney passenger who was prevented
(3) Seduction
from leaving the jeepney. She was taken to a remote
(4) Abduction
place where she was raped.
(5) Acts of lasciviousness

PAGE 224
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Nature of the complaint: The complaint must be filed
in court, not with the fiscal. In case of complex
crimes, where one of the component offenses is a
public crime, the criminal prosecution may be
instituted by the fiscal.
The court motu proprio can dismiss the case for
failure of the aggrieved party to file the proper
complaint even if the accused never raised the
question on appeal.
Crimes against chastity cannot be prosecuted de
oficio.
Adultery and Concubinage
Who may file the complaint: Adultery and
Concubinage must be prosecuted upon complaint
signed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including BOTH the guilty
parties if they are alive. Both parties must be
included in the complaint even if one of them is not
guilty.
Consent and pardon bar the filing of a criminal
complaint.
The imputation of a crime of prostitution against a
woman can be prosecuted de oficio, but crimes
against chastity cannot.
Prosecution of rape may be made upon complaint by
any person.
Effect of Pardon: (see Effect of Pardon in Art. 333
Adultery)
(1) Effect of Pardon in Adultery applies also to
Concubinage
(2) Condonation or forgiveness of one act of adultery
or concubinage is not a bar to prosecution of
similar acts that may be committed by the
offender in the future.
Consent:
(1) May be express or implied
(2) Given before the adultery or concubinage was
committed
(3) Agreement to live separately may be evidence of
consent.
(4) Affidavit showing consent may be a basis for
new trial.
PAGE 225
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
Seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness must
be prosecuted upon complaint signed by—
(1) Offended party - When the offended party is a
minor, her parents may file the complaint.
(2) When the offended party is of age and is in
complete possession of her mental and physical
faculties, she alone can file the complaint.
(3) Parents, Grandparents or Guardian in that order
When the offended is a minor or incapacitated and
refuses to file the complaint, any of the persons
mentioned could file.
The term “guardian” refers to legal guardian. He
must be legally appointed by the Court.
The State may also file the complaint as parens
patriae when the offended party dies or becomes
incapacitated before she could file the complaint
and has no known parents, grandparents, or
guardians
Effect of Pardon:
(1) Offended party cannot institute criminal
proceedings if the offender has been
EXPRESSLY pardoned by the offended party, or
her parents, grandparents or guardian.
(2) Pardon by the parent, grandparent, or guardian
must be accompanied by the express pardon of
the offended woman.
(3) The right to file action of the parents,
grandparents and guardian shall be EXCLUSIVE
of other persons and shall be exercised
successively in the order provided.
(4) Pardon by the offended party who is a minor
must have the concurrence of parents, EXCEPT
when the offended party has no parents.
Rape complexed with another crime against chastity
need NOT be signed by the offended woman, since
rape is a public crime. When the evidence fails to
prove a complex crime of rape with another crime,
and there is no complaint signed by the offended
woman, the accused CANNOT be convicted of rape.
Marriage of the offender with the offended party in
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape,
extinguishes criminal action or remits the penalty
already imposed.
Marriage (in cases of seduction, abduction, and acts
of lasciviousness) extinguishes the criminal action
even as to co-principals, accomplices, and
accessories.
Marriage must be entered into in good faith.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Marriage may take place AFTER criminal proceedings
have commenced, or even after conviction
(extinguishes criminal action and remits penalty).
ARTICLE 345: CIVIL LIABILITY
Those guilty of rape, seduction or abduction:
(1) To indemnify the offended woman
(2) To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law
should prevent him from doing so
(3) In every case to support the offspring, EXCEPT:
(a) in cases of adultery and concubinage
(b) where either of the offended party or
accused is married
(c) when paternity cannot be determined, such
as in multiple rape
(d) other instances where the law prevents such
The adulterer and the concubine can be sentenced
only to indemnify for damages caused to the
offended spouse.
Under the RPC, there is no civil liability for acts of
lasciviousness.
Art. 2219, CC: moral damages may be recovered in
seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts,
as well as in adultery and concubinage.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped,
or abused may also recover moral damages.
In multiple rape, all the offenders must support the
offspring.
Art. 283 (1), CC: Judgment to recognize the offspring
may only be given if there is pregnancy within the
period of conception, which is within 120 days from
the commission of the offense.
In rape of a married woman, only indemnity is
allowed.
ARTICLE 346 – LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS,
GUARDIANS, TEACHERS AND OTHER PERSONS
ENTRUSTED WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY
Liability of ascendants, guardians, teachers or other
persons entrusted with the custody of the offended
party
(1) Persons who cooperate as accomplices but are
punished as principals in rape, seduction,
abduction, etc. (see list below for the complete
set of crimes referred to in this article):
(a) ascendants
(b) guardians
(c) curators
PAGE 226
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(d) teachers, and
(e) any other person, who cooperate as
accomplice with abuse of authority or
confidential relationship
(2) The teachers or persons entrusted with
education and guidance of the youth shall also
be penalized with disqualification.
Jurisprudence for Title Eleven
CHILD ABUSE; Sweetheart defense not available
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 RA 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. [Malto v. People
(2007)]
RAPE; Exemplary Damages; Child Victims
Exemplary damages must also be awarded in these
child abuse cases to deter others with perverse
tendencies from sexually abusing young girls of their
own flesh and blood. [People vs. Abellera(2007)]
CHILD ABUSE; Pandering Child Prostitutes
Appellant’s violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of R.A. No.
7610 is as clear as day. The provision penalizes
anyone who engages in or promotes, facilitates or
induces child prostitution either by:
(1) acting as a procurer of a child prostitute; or
(2) inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means; or
(3) by taking advantage of influence or relationship
to procure a child as a prostitute; or
(4) threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) giving monetary consideration, goods or other
pecuniary benefits to the child with the intent to
engage such child in prostitution.
The purpose of the law is to provide special
protection to children from all forms of abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and
other conditions prejudicial to their development.
A child exploited in prostitution may seem to
“consent” to what is being done to her or him and
may appear not to complain.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
However, we have held that a child who is “a person
below eighteen years of age or those unable to fully
take care of themselves or protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of their age or mental disability or
condition” is incapable of giving rational consent to
any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. In fact, the
absence of free consent is conclusively presumed
when the woman is below the age of twelve. [People
vs. Delantar (2007)]
CHILD ABUSE; Definition of “Lascivious Conduct
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of
RA 7610 that must be proven in addition to the
elements of acts of lasciviousness are as follows:
(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.
(3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18
years of age. [Navarrete vs. People (2007)]
“Lascivious conduct” is defined under Section 2 (h) of
the rules and regulations of RA 7610 as:
(1) The intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin,
breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, OR the
introduction of any object into the genitalia,
anus or mouth, of any person,
(2) whether of the same or opposite sex,
(3) with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of
any person,
(4) bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of
the genitals or pubic area of a person
RA 9995: ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM
ACT OF 2009
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited
and declared unlawful for any person:
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or
group of persons performing sexual act or any
similar activity or to capture an image of the
private area of a person/s such as the naked or
undergarment clad genitals, public area,
buttocks or female breast without the consent of
the person/s involved and under circumstances
in which the person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or
reproduced, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act or any similar activity with or without
consideration;
PAGE 227
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or
distributed, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act, whether it be the original copy or
reproduction thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published
or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast
media, or show or exhibit the photo or video
coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any
similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet,
cellular phones and other similar means or
device.
RA 7610: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND
DISCRIMINATION
Child prostitution and other acts of abuse
Punishable acts
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual
Abuse. – Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to
the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or
group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
the following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
induce child prostitution which include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship
to procure a child as prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child
to engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or
other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent
to engage such child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse
of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse;
Provided, That when the victims is under twelve
(12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for
rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as
amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or
lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided,
That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be
reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom,
whether as manager or owner of the
establishment where the prostitution takes
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
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.
Comparison with art. 366, RPC
Acts of lasciviousness is punished under RA 7610
when performed on a child below 18 years of age
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse.
Obscene publications and indecent shows
Punishable acts
Section 9. Obscene Publications and Indecent
Shows. – Any person who shall hire, employ, use,
persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in
obscene exhibitions and indecent shows, whether
live or in video, or model in obscene publications or
pornographic materials or to sell or distribute the
said materials shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its medium period.
If the child used as a performer, subject or
seller/distributor is below twelve (12) years of age,
the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Any ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted in any
capacity with the care of a child who shall cause
and/or allow such child to be employed or to
participate in an obscene play, scene, act, movie or
show or in any other acts covered by this section
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
medium period.
RA 9208: ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT
Punishable acts
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be
unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to
commit any of the following acts:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, 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, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or
material, economic or other consideration, any
person or, as provided for under Republic Act
No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign
national, for marriage for the purpose of
acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading
him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated,
for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering,
PAGE 228
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
selling, or trading them to engage in
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation,
forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage;
(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans
consisting of tourism packages or activities for
the purpose of utilizing and offering persons for
prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in
prostitution or pornography;
(f) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for
the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(g) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport 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; and
(h) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in
armed activities in the Philippines or abroad.
Section 5. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons. -
The following acts which promote or facilitate
trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful:
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be
used any house, building or establishment for
the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued,
tampered or fake counseling certificates,
registration stickers and certificates of any
government agency which issues these
certificates and stickers as proof of compliance
with government regulatory and pre-departure
requirements for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons;
(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or
distribute, or cause the advertisement,
publication, printing, broadcasting or
distribution by any means, including the use of
information technology and the internet, of any
brochure, flyer, or any propaganda material that
promotes trafficking in persons;
(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or
fraud for purposes of facilitating the acquisition
of clearances and necessary exit documents
from government agencies that are mandated
to provide pre-departure registration and
services for departing persons for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons;
(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of
persons from/to the country at international and
local airports, territorial boundaries and
seaports who are in possession of unissued,
tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport,
travel documents, or personal documents or
belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance
of trafficking or to prevent them from leaving the
country or seeking redress from the government
or appropriate agencies; and
(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise,
or make use of, the labor or services of a person
held to a condition of involuntary servitude,
forced labor, or slavery.
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The
following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic
Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the "Inter-
Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said
adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in
large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by
a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3)
or more persons conspiring or confederating
with one another. It is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or
more persons, individually or as a group;
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent,
sibling, guardian or a person who exercises
authority over the trafficked person or when the
offense is committed by a public officer or
employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage
in prostitution with any member of the military
or law enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or
law enforcement agencies; and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of
trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,
becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted
with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
RA 9262: ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
THEIR CHILDREN
Punishable acts
SECTION 5. 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:
(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of
imminent physical harm;
PAGE 229
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(e) 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
or 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:
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving
the woman or her child of custody to her/his
family;
(2) 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;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the
woman or her child of a legal right;
(4) 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;
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on
oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions
or decisions;
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her
child to engage in any sexual activity which does
not constitute rape, by force or threat of force,
physical harm, or through intimidation directed
against the woman or her child or her/his
immediate family;
(h) 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:
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child
in public or private places;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside
the residence of the woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on
the property of the woman or her child
against her/his will;
(4) Destroying the property and personal
belongings or inflicting harm to animals or
pets of the woman or her child; and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or
violence;
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(i) 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.
Substitution of one child for another
This is committed when a child of a couple is
exchanged with a child of another couple without the
knowledge of the respective parents.

The substitution can also happen by placing a live

Title XII. Crimes against the child of a woman in place of another’s dead child.

Civil Status of Persons Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child

Requisites:
(1) The child must be legitimate
Chapter I: Simulation of Births and Usurpation of Civil (2) The offender conceals or abandons such child;
Status and
(1) Art 347: Simulation of births, substitution of one (3) The offender has the intent to cause such child to
child for another and concealment or lose its civil status.
abandonment of a legitimate child
(2) Art 348: Usurpation of civil status The unlawful sale of a child by his father is not a
crime under this article.
Chapter II: Illegal Marriages
(1) Art 349: Bigamy “Abandon” as used in art. 347 - The practice of
(2) Art 350: Marriage contracted against provisions abandoning newly born infants and very young child
of law at the door of hospitals and churches.
(3) Art 351: Premature marriages
(4) Art 352: Performance of illegal marriage Art. 347 Art. 246
ceremony
Offender: Any person Offender: The one who
CHAPTER I: SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND has the custody of the
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS child
Purpose: To cause the Purpose: To avoid
ARTICLE 347 - SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF
child to lose his civil obligation of rearing and
ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, AND CONCEALMENT OR
status. caring for the child.
ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD
Mode 1. Simulation of births; A physician or surgeon or public officer, who
cooperates in the execution of these crimes, is also
Mode 2. Substitution of one child for another; liable if he acts in violation of the duties of his
profession or office.
Mode 3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate
child with intent to cause such child to lose its ARTICLE 348 - USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
civil status. This crime is committed when a person represents
himself to be another and assumes the filiation or
The object of the crime under art. 347 is the creation the parental or conjugal rights of such another
of false, or the causing of loss of, civil status. person.
Simulation of birth Usurpation of profession may be punished under art.
Takes place when the woman pretends to be 348.
pregnant when in fact she is not, and on the day of
the supposed delivery, takes the child of another as There must be an intent to enjoy the rights arising
her own. from the civil status of another.
The simulation of birth which is a crime is that which CHAPTER II: ILLEGAL MARRIAGES
alters the civil status of a person.
ARTICLE 349 – BIGAMY
The fact that the child will be benefited by the
simulation of its birth is not a defense. Elements:

PAGE 230
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(1) Offender has been legally married;
(2) The marriage has not been legally dissolved or,
in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse could not yet be presumed dead
according to the Civil Code;
(3) He contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
(4) The second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.
The first marriage must be valid.
Nullity of marriage, not a defense in bigamy.
The fact that the first marriage is void from the
beginning is not a defense. As with voidable
marriage, there must be a judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage before contracting the second
marriage.
Good faith is a defense in bigamy.
Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the
whereabouts of the first wife is bigamy through
reckless imprudence.
One who contracted a subsequent marriage before
the declaration of presumptive death of the absent
spouse is guilty of bigamy.
The second marriage must have all the essential
requisites for validity.
One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for
concubinage as both are distinct offenses. The first is
an offense against civil status, which may be
prosecuted at the instance of the state; the second is
an offense against chastity, and may be prosecuted
only at the instance of the offended party.
The test is not whether the defendant has already
been tried for the same act, but whether he has been
put in jeopardy for the same offense.
The second spouse is not necessarily liable for
bigamy.
Whether the second spouse should be included in
the information is a question of fact that was
determined by the fiscal who conducted the
preliminary investigation in this case. (People v.
Nepomuceno, Jr., 64 SCRA 518)
The second husband or wife who knew of first
marriage is an accomplice.
PAGE 231
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The witness who falsely vouched for the capacity of
either of the contracting parties is also an
accomplice.
Bigamy is not a private crime.
ARTICLE 350 - MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST
PROVISIONS OF LAWS
Elements:
(1) Offender contracted marriage;
(2) He knew at the time that –
(a) The requirements of the law were not
complied with; or
(b) The marriage was in disregard of a legal
impediment..
Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage.
Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages
which are performed without complying with the
requirements of law, or marriages where the consent
of the other is vitiated, or such marriage which was
solemnized by one who is not authorized to
solemnize the same.
Conviction of a violation of art. 350 involves a crime
of moral turpitude. (Villasanta v. Peralta, 101 Phil. 313)
ARTICLE 351 - PREMATURE MARRIAGE
Persons liable:
(1) A widow who is married within 301 days from the
date of the death of her husband, or before
having delivered if she is pregnant at the time of
his death;
(2) A woman who, her marriage having been
annulled or dissolved, married before her
delivery or before the expiration of the period of
301 days after the date of the legal separation.
The purpose of the law punishing premature
marriages is to prevent doubtful paternity. (People v.
Rosal, 49 Phil. 509)
The Supreme Court considered the reason behind
making such marriages within 301 days criminal, that
is, because of the probability that there might be a
confusion regarding the paternity of the child who
would be born.
If this reason does not exist because the former
husband is impotent, OR was shown to be sterile
such that the woman has had no child with him, that
belief of the woman that after all there could be no
confusion even if she would marry within 301 days
may be taken as evidence of good faith and that
would negate criminal intent.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
ARTICLE 352 - PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE
CEREMONY
PERSONS LIABLE:
(1) Priests or ministers of any religious
denomination or sect, or civil authorities
(2) who shall perform or authorize any illegal
marriage ceremony
The offender must be authorized to solemnize
marriages.
Jurisprudence:
Bigamy
The primordial issue should be whether or not
petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether
his defense of good faith is valid.
In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, we laid down the
elements of bigamy thus:
(1) The offender has been legally married;
(2) The first marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse has not
been judicially declared presumptively dead;
(3) He contracts a subsequent marriage; and
(4) The subsequent marriage would have been
valid had it not been for the existence of the
first.
Applying the foregoing test to the instant case,
we note that the trial court found that there was
no actual marriage ceremony performed between
Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead,
what transpired was a mere signing of the
marriage contract by the two, without the
presence of a solemnizing officer.
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires
that the accused must have been legally married.
But in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner
was never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is
no first marriage to speak of.
Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage
being declared void ab initio, the two were never
married “from the beginning.” The contract of
marriage is null; it bears no legal effect.
Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, for
legal purposes, petitioner was not married to
Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage with
Maria Jececha. The existence and the validity of
the first marriage being an essential element of
the crime of bigamy, it is but logical that a
conviction for said offense cannot be sustained
PAGE 232
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
where there is no first marriage to speak of. The
petitioner, must, perforce be acquitted of the
instant charge. [Lucio Morigo v. People(2002)]
The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity
of the first marriage was immaterial because
prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had
already been consummated. Moreover,
petitioner's assertion would only delay the
prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an
accused could simply file a petition to declare his
previous marriage void and invoke the pendency
of that action as a prejudicial question in the
criminal case. We cannot allow that.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of
petitioner's marriage to Narcisa had no bearing
upon the determination of petitioner's innocence
or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because
all that is required for the charge of bigamy to
prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at
the time the second marriage is contracted. Thus,
under the law, a marriage, even one which is void
or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared
otherwise in a judicial proceeding.
In this case, even if petitioner eventually obtained
a declaration that his first marriage was void ab
initio, the point is, both the first and the second
marriage were subsisting before the first
marriage was annulled. [Abunado v.
People(2004)]
A careful study of the disputed decision reveals
that respondent Judge had been less than
circumspect in his study of the law and
jurisprudence applicable to the bigamy case. In
his comment, respondent Judge stated: “That the
accused married Manuel P. Diego in the honest
belief that she was free to do so by virtue of the
decree of divorce is a mistake of fact.”
This Court, in People v. Bitdu, carefully
distinguished between a mistake of fact, which
could be a basis for the defense of good faith in a
bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which does
not excuse a person, even a lay person, from
liability. Bitdu held that even if the accused, who
had obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan
custom, honestly believed that in contracting her
second marriage she was not committing any
violation of the law, and that she had no criminal
intent, the same does not justify her act.
This Court further stated therein that with respect
to the contention that the accused acted in good
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
faith in contracting the second marriage,
believing that she had been validly divorced from
her first husband, it is sufficient to say that
everyone is presumed to know the law, and the
fact that one does not know that his act
constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt
him from the consequences thereof.
Moreover, squarely applicable to the criminal
case for bigamy, is People v. Schneckenburger,
where it was held that the accused who secured a
foreign divorce, and later remarried in the
Philippines, in the belief that the foreign divorce
was valid, is liable for bigamy. [Diego v.
Castillo(2004)]
Title XIII. Crimes against
Honor
Chapter I: Libel
(1) Art 353: Definition of Libel
(2) Art 354: Privileged communication
(3) Art 355: Libel by means of writings or similar
means
(4) Art 356: Threatening to publish and offer to
prevent such publication for a compensation
(5) Art. 357: Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred
to in the course of Official Proceedings
(6) Art 358: Slander
(7) Art 359: Slander by Deed
Chapter II: Incriminatory Machinations
(1) Art 363: Incriminating innocent person
(2) Art 364: Intriguing against honor
CHAPTER I LIBEL
ARTICLE 353 - DEFINITION OF LIBEL
Elements:
(1) There must be an imputation of–
(a) a crime,
(b) a vice or defect, real or imaginary, OR
(c) any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance;
(2) The imputation must be made publicly;
(3) It must be malicious;
(4) The imputation must be directed at a natural or
juridical person, or one who is dead.
Libel as used in Art. 353. (Reyes)
Defamation is composed of:
(1) Libel – written defamation
(2) Slander- oral defamation
PAGE 233
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(3) Slander by deed – defamation through acts
Test of the defamatory character of words used:
Whether they are calculated to induce the hearers to
suppose and understand that the person against
whom they (i.e. the defamatory words) were uttered
was guilty of certain offenses; OR are sufficient to
impeach his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold
him up to public ridicule. (U.S. vs. O’Connell)
First element: There must be an imputation of a
crime, a vice or defect, real or imaginary, OR any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
Imputation of a criminal act may be implied from the
acts and statements of the accused.
Imputation of criminal intention is not libelous.
An expression of opinion by one affected by the act
of another and based on actual fact is not libelous.
Second element: The imputation must be made
publicly.
Publication: communication of the defamatory
matter to some third person or persons. There is no
crime if the defamatory imputation is not published.
Third element: The publication must be malicious.
Malice in fact – may be shown by proof of ill-will,
hatred or purpose to injure.
Malice in law – presumed from a defamatory
imputation. Proof of malice is not required. (Art. 354,
par.1)
But where the communication is privileged, malice is
not presumed from the defamatory words.
Malice in law is not necessarily inconsistent with
honest or laudable purpose. Even if the publication is
injurious, the presumption of malice disappears upon
proof of good intentions and justifiable motive.
But where malice in fact is present, justifiable motive
cannot exist, and the imputations become
actionable.
Fourth element: The imputation must be directed at
a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead.
It is essential that the victim be identifiable, although
it is not necessary that he be named.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons is without any comments or remarks, of

not actionable unless the statements are all- (a) any judicial, legislative or other official
embracing or sufficiently specific for the victim to be proceedings which are not of confidential
identifiable. nature, OR
(b) any statement, report or speech delivered in
Libel published in different places may be taken said proceedings, OR
together to establish the identification of the (c) any other act performed by public officers in
offended party. the exercise of their functions.
Fifth element: The imputation must tend to cause Defamatory remarks are PRESUMED malicious. The
dishonor, discredit or contempt of the offended presumption of malice is REBUTTED, if it is shown by
party. the accused that – (see discussion of Art. 361)
(1) The defamatory imputation is true, IN CASE the
Dishonor – disgrace, shame or ignominy law allows proof of the truth of the imputation;
Discredit – loss of credit of reputation; disesteem (2) It is published with good intention; AND
Contempt – state of being despised (3) There is justifiable motive for making it
For a statement to be considered malicious, it must Privileged communication is NOT PRESUMED
be shown that it was written or published with the malicious.
knowledge that they are false OR in reckless
disregard of WON they were false. Kinds of Privilege:
Reckless disregard– the defendant entertains serious ABSOLUTE QUALIFIED
doubt as to the truth of the publication, OR that he
NOT actionable. Narrow Actionable IF Malice or
possesses a high degree of awareness of their
and few: Bad faith is proven
probable falsity.
(1) Privileged speeches in (malice in Fact)
congress
To avoid self-censorship that would necessarily
(2) Statements made in Based on par 1 and 2 of
accompany strict liability for erroneous statements,
judicial proceedings Art 354, although the list
rules governing liability for injury to reputation are
as long as they are is not exclusive
required to allow an adequate margin of error by
relevant to the issue
protecting some inaccuracies. [Borjal v. CA (1999)]
(3) Military affairs
Fine preferred penalty in libel cases
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 stated the rule Art 354 does not cover absolute privilege because
of preference of fine only rather than imprisonment character of communications mentioned therein is
in libel cases, having in mind the ff. principles: lost upon proof of malice in fact.
1) The circular does not remove imprisonment as a n
alternative penalty MALICE IN LAW MALICE IN FACT
2) Judges may, in the exercise of their discretion,
determine whether the imposition of fine alone Presumed from To be proved by
would best serve the interest of justice defamatory character of prosecution ONLY IF
3) Should only a fine be imposed and the accused statement malice in law has been
unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to rebutted
the application of the RPC on subsidiary Statement is presented to Can be negated by
imprisonment. court, and the latter will evidence of:
decide whether it is (1) Good motives AND
ARTICLE 354 - REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY defamatory or not Justifiable ends; or
General rule: MALICE IS PRESUMED in every (2) Privileged character
defamatory imputation.
Requisites of privileged communication under par. 1
Exception: in privileged communications, namely: of art. 354:
(1) A private communication to an officer or a (1) That the person who made the communication
board, or superior, having some interest or duty had a legal, moral or social duty to make the
in the matter, made by any person in the communication, or, at least, he had an interest
performance of any legal, moral or social duty; to be upheld;
(2) A fair and true report, made in good faith,

PAGE 234
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(2) That the communication is addressed to an
officer or board, or superior, having some
interest or duty in the matter.
(3) The the statements in the communication are
made in good faith without malice in fact.
Applying to the wrong person due to honest mistake
does not take the case out of privilege. (US v. Bustos,
37 Phil. 731)
Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith.
The privileged character simply does away with the
presumption of malice.
The rule is that a communication loses its privileged
character and is actionable on proof of actual malice.
That the statement is a privileged communication is
a matter of defense. To overcome the defense of
privileged communication under par. 1 of art. 354, it
must be shown that:
1) The defendant acted with malice in fact; or
2) There is no reasonable ground for believing the
charge to be true.
Fair and true report of official proceedings
Official proceedings refer to proceedings of the 3
branches of the government: judiciary, legislative,
and executive.
Requisites:
(1) That it is a fair and true report of a judicial,
legislative, or other official proceedings which are
not confidential in 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 comments or remarks
The communication must be pertinent and material
to the subject matter.
Doctrine of fair comment: Fair commentaries on
matters of public interest are privileged and
constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or
slander.
In order that a discreditable imputation to a public
official may be actionable, it must either be:
(1) A false allegation of fact; OR
(2) A comment based on a false supposition. [People
v. Velasco (2000)]
PUBLIC FIGURE – one who, by his accomplishments,
fame, mode of living, OR by adopting a profession or
PAGE 235
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in
his doings, his affairs and his character, has become
a “public personage” [Ayer Productions v. Capulong
(1988)]
Based on the ruling in US v. Ocampo, proof of
knowledge of and participation in the publication of
the offending article is not required, if the accused
has been specifically identified as “author, editor, or
proprietor” or “printer/publisher” of the publication.
On January 25, 2008, the Court issued
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, entitled
Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in
the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases. The
Circular expresses a preference for the imposition of
a fine rather than imprisonment, given the
circumstances attendant in the cases cited therein in
which only a fine was imposed by this Court on those
convicted of libel.
It also states that, if the penalty imposed is merely a
fine but the convict is unable to pay the same, the
Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary
imprisonment should apply.
However, the Circular likewise allows the court, in the
exercise of sound discretion, the option to impose
imprisonment as penalty, whenever the imposition of
a fine alone would depreciate the seriousness of the
offense, work violence on the social order, or
otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice.
[Fermin v. People(2008)]
ARTICLE 355 - LIBEL BY WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS
Libel may be committed by means of:
(1) Writing;
(2) Printing;
(3) Lithography;
(4) Engraving;
(5) Radio;
(6) Photograph;
(7) Painting;
(8) Theatrical exhibition;
(9) Cinematographic exhibition; or
(10) Any similar means. (e.g. video broadcast)
Common characteristic of written libel: their
permanent nature as a means of publication.
Use of amplifier system is not libel but oral
defamation (slander). But the defamation made in
the television program is libel.
In a libel case filed in August 2006 against RP
Nuclear Solutions and blogger Abe Olandres, the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Pasig City Prosecutor dismissed the charges against
them because they have no participation in the
creation. Neither did they have the authority to
modify the content of the site being hosted where
3
the allegedly libelous remarks were posted.
The prosecutor however ordered the filing of cases
against two other respondents who never denied
authorship of the posted comments.
It remains debatable when the moment of
publication occurs with respect to statements made
4
over the Internet. One view holds that there is
publication once the statement is uploaded or posted
on a website. The other view maintains that
publication occurs only when another person gains
access or reads the statement on the site
ARTICLE 356 - THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO
PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION
Acts Punished:
(1) Threatening another to publish a libel
concerning – him, his parents, spouse, child or
other members of his family
(2) Offering to prevent the publication of such libel
for compensation or money consideration.
The essence of this crime is blackmail, which is
defined as any unlawful extortion of money by
threats of accusation or exposure.
Blackmail can also be in the form of light threats,
which is punished under ARTICLE 283.
ARTICLE 357 - PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS
REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
(GAG LAW)
Elements:
(1) Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a
newspaper, daily or magazine;
(2) He publishes facts connected with the private
life of another;
(3) Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and
reputation of said person.
Requisites of violation:
(1) That the article published contains facts
connected with the private life of an individual;
and
3
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/
view_article.php?article_id=68456
4
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/03/04/libel-on-
the-internet-under-philippine-law-part-ii/)
PAGE 236
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(2) That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue
and reputation of said person.
This article is referred to as the Gag Law.
Prohibition applies even if the facts are involved in
official proceedings.
Newspaper reports on cases pertaining to adultery,
divorce, legitimacy of children, etc. are barred from
publication.
Under RA 1477, a newspaper reporter cannot be
compelled to reveal the source of the news report he
made, UNLESS the court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by
the security of the state.
ARTICLE 358 - SLANDER
Slander, or oral defamation is composed of two kinds:
(1) Simple slander
(2) Grave slander
Factors that determine the gravity of the oral
defamation:
(1) Expressions used
(2) Personal relations of the accused and the
offended party.
(3) The surrounding circumstances.
Illustration of grave slander:
A woman of violent temper hurled at a respectable
married lady with young daughters offensive and
scurrilous epithets including words imputing
unchastity to the mother and tending to injure the
character of the daughters [U.S. vs. Toloso]
Illustration of simple slander:
(1) Calling a person a gangster
(2) Uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger
with some provocation on the part of the
offended party
(3) The word “putang ina mo” is a common
expression in the dialect that is often employed
not really to slander but rather to express anger
or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever taken in its
literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection
on the virtue of a mother. [Reyes vs. People]
The slander need not be heard by the offended party.
ARTICLE 359 - SLANDER BY DEED
Elements:
(1) Offender performs any act not included in any
other crime against honor;
(2) Such act is performed in the presence of other
person or persons;
(3) Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
upon the offended party.
Slander by deed is a crime against honor which is
committed by performing any act which casts
dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another
person.
Slander by deed is of two kinds
(1) Simple slander by deed
(2) Grave slander by deed
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.
Slapping the face of another is slander by deed if the
intention of the accused is to cause shame or
humiliation.
Fighting the offended party with intention to insult
him is slander by deed.
Pointing a dirty finger constitutes simple slander by
deed.
Slander by deed and acts of lasciviousness –
distinguished by presence of lewd designs. If such is
present, it is an act of lasciviousness.
Slander by deed and maltreatment – the nature and
effect of maltreatment determines the crime
committed. If the offended party suffered from
shame or humiliation caused by the maltreatment, it
is slander by deed.
Slander by deed and unjust vexation – If it merely
annoys and irritates, without any other concurring
factor, it is unjust vexation. If the irritation or
annoyance was attended by publicity and dishonor, it
is slander by deed.
ARTICLE 360 - PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL
(1) The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the
publication or exhibition of any defamation in
writing or similar means.
(2) The author or editor of a book or pamphlet.
(3) The editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper magazine or serial publication.
(4) The owner of the printing plant which
publishes a libelous article with his consent
and all other persons who in any way
participate in or have connection with its
publication.
PAGE 237
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Liability of the editor is the same as that of the
author.
Lack of participation in the preparation of libelous
articles does not shield the persons responsible from
liability.
Under Republic Act no. 8792, otherwise known as
the Electronic Commerce Act, a party or person
acting as a service provider incurs NO civil or criminal
liability in the making, publication, dissemination or
distribution of libelous material if:
(1) The service provider does not have actual
knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or
circumstances from which it is apparent that
making, publication, dissemination or
distribution of such material is unlawful or
infringes any rights;
(2) The service provider does not knowingly receive
a financial benefit directly attributable to the
infringing activity;
(3) The service provider does:
(a) not directly commit any infringement or
other unlawful act and
(b) does not induce or cause another person or
party to commit any infringement or other
unlawful act
(c) and/or does not benefit financially from the
infringing activity or unlawful act of another
person or party (Section 30, in relation to
5
Section 5, E-Commerce Law.
Where to file the criminal action? It depends on who
the offended party is.
If he is a public officer, the criminal action can only
be instituted in either:
(1) RTC of the province or city where the libelous
article is printed and first published, OR
(2) RTC of the province or city where he held office
at the time of the commission of the offense
If he is a private person, the criminal action may be
brought in:
(1) RTC of the province or city where the libelous
article is printed and first published, OR
(2) RTC of the province or city where he actually
resided at the time of the commission of the
offense
Civil and criminal action must be filed with the same
court.
5
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/03/04/libel-on-
the-internet-under-philippine-law-part-ii/)
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Offended party must filed the complaint for utterance is where the by which he
defamation imputing a crime which cannot be unknown and source of the directly
prosecuted de officio. the offender defamatory incriminates or
simply repeats nature of the imputes to an
Libel imputing a vice or defect, not being an or passes the utterance is innocent person
imputation of a crime, is always prosecuted upon same to blemish known, and the commission
information signed and filed by the fiscal. the honor or offender makes of a crime
reputation of a republication
An action for exemplary damages in libel may be another thereof
awarded if the action is based on quasi-delict.
As far as this crime is concerned, this has been
No remedy for damages for slander or libel in case of interpreted to be possible only in the so-called
absolutely privileged communication. planting of evidence. If this act is resorted to, to
enable officers to arrest the subject, the crime is
ARTICLE 361 - PROOF OF TRUTH
unlawful arrest through incriminating innocent
When admissible? persons.
(1) When the act or omission imputed constitutes a
crime regardless of whether the offended party is This crime cannot be committed through verbal
a private individual or a public officer. incriminatory statements.
(2) When the offended party is a Government
employee, even if the imputation does not Perjury by Defamation
constitute a crime, provided it is related to the Incriminating
making false
discharge of his official duties. innocent person
accusations

Rule of actual malice: Even if the defamatory act of planting giving of false public and
statement is false, NO liability can attach IF it relates evidence and the statement under malicious
to official conduct, UNLESS the public official like in order to oath or making a imputation
concerned proves that the statement was made with incriminate an false affidavit, calculated to
actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that it was false or innocent person imputing to the cause dishonor,
with reckless disregard of WON it was false. person the discredit, or
commission of a contempt upon
That the publication of the article was an honest crime the offended
mistake is not a complete defense but serves only to party
mitigate damages where article is libelous per se.
ARTICLE 364 - INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
ARTICLE 362 - LIBELOUS REMARKS (1) Intriguing against honor is referred to as
(1) Libelous remarks or comments gossiping: the offender, without ascertaining the
(2) connected with the matter privileged under the truth of a defamatory utterance, repeats the
provisions of Art. 354, same and pass it on to another, to the damage
(3) if made with malice, of the offended party
(4) shall NOT exempt the author thereof nor the (2) This crime is committed by any person who shall
editor or managing editor of a newspaper from make any intrigue which has for its principal
criminal liability. purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of
another person.
Libelous remarks or comments on matters
privileged, if made with malice in fact, do not exempt Committed by any person who shall make any
the author and editor. intrigue which has for its principal purpose to
blemish the honor or reputation of another person.
CHAPTER II: INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS
Jurisprudence
ARTICLE 363 - INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON
Intriguing Slander Incriminating Libel against a public official
against honor innocent person An open letter addressed to the stockholders of
the source of the offender made offender OPMC was the subject of a full-page advertisement
defamatory the utterance, performs an act published in 5 major daily newspapers. Coyiuto, Jr.,
wrote in his capacity as Chairman of the Board and

PAGE 238
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
President of OPMC, that there was a sweetheart deal
between Commissioner Mario Jalandoni of the PCGG
and Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) to the
prejudice of the Government .
In the recent case of Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, et.
al., the Court ruled that: "The question is whether
from the fact that the statements were defamatory,
malice can be presumed so that it was incumbent
upon petitioner to overcome such presumption.
Under Art. 361 of the Revised Penal Code, if the
defamatory statement is made against a public
official with respect to the discharge of his official
duties and functions and the truth of the allegation is
shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal
even though he does not prove that the imputation
was published with good motives and for justifiable
ends."
Moreover, the Court has ruled in a plethora of cases
that in libel cases against public officials which relate
to official conduct liability will attach only if the
public official concerned proves that the statement
was made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge
that it was false.
Imputations regarding official conduct do not carry
the presumption of malice, hence even if the
defamatory statement is false, if malice was not
proven, there is no libel. Here petitioner failed to
prove actual malice on the part of the private
respondents. Nor was the Court of the opinion that
the open letter was written to cast aspersion on the
good name of the petitioner.
The paid advertisement merely served as a vehicle to
inform the stockholders of the goings-on in the
business world and only exposed the irregularities
surrounding the PCGG and RCBC deal and the
parties involved. [Mario C.V Jalandoni v Secretary of
Justice(2000)]
Slander (Art. 358)
Atty. Benjamin C. Escolango was conversing with his
political leaders at the terrace of his house when
Rogelio Pader appeared at the gate and shouted
"putang ina mo Atty. Escolango. Napakawalanghiya
mo!" The latter was dumbfounded and embarrassed.
At that time, Atty. Escolango was a candidate for vice
mayor in the 1995 elections. Atty. Escolango filed
with the Municipal Trial Court a complaint against
Pader for grave oral defamation. The MTC rendered
decision convicting petitioner of grave oral
defamation.
HELD: Unquestionably, the words uttered were
defamatory. Considering, however, the factual
PAGE 239
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
backdrop of the case, the oral defamation was only
slight. The trial court believed the defamation to be
deliberately done to destroy Atty. Escolango's
reputation since the parties were political opponents.
The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the
parties were also neighbors: that petitioner was
drunk at the time he uttered the defamatory words;
and the fact that petitioner's anger was instigated by
what Atty. Escolango did when petitioner's father
died. In which case, the oral defamation was not of
serious or insulting nature.
In Reyes v. People, we ruled that 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. We do not
find it seriously insulting that after a previous
incident involving his father, a drunk Rogelio Pader
on seeing Atty. Escolango would utter words
expressing anger. Obviously, the intention was to
show his feelings of resentment and not necessarily
to insult the latter. [Rogelio Pader v. People (2000)]
Venue of criminal and civil actions in libel cases (Art.
360 and RA 4363 AN ACT TO FURTHER AMEND
ARTICLE THREE HUNDRED SIXTY OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE)
Alfie Lorenzo, Allen Macasaet, Nicolas Quijano, Jr.,
and Roger Parajes, columnist, publisher, managing
editor, and editor, respectively of the newspaper
"Abante" were charged before the RTC, with the
crime of libel. Respondents tried to have the
complaint dismissed on the basis that Trinidad, the
complainant was not a resident of Quezon City but
rather of Marikina. However, the RTC and the Court
of Appeals upheld Trinidad.
HELD: In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule
that venue is jurisdictional. Thus, the place where the
crime was committed determines not only the venue
of the action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction.
In the case of Uy v. Court of Appeals and People of the
Philippines, this Court had the occasion to expound
on this principle. It is a fundamental rule that for
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases:
(1) the offense should have been committed or any
one of its essential ingredients took place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
(2) Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
(3) Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense allegedly committed
outside of that limited territory.
(4) Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the
criminal case is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information.
(5) And once it is so shown, the court may validly
take cognizance of the case.
(6) However, if the evidence adduced during the
trial show that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the
action for want of jurisdiction.
The law, however, is more particular in libel cases.
The possible venues for the institution of the criminal
and the civil aspects of said case are concisely
outlined in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 4363.
In Agbayani v. Sayo, we summarized the foregoing
rule in the following manner:
(1) Whether the offended party is a public official or
a private person, the criminal action may be filed
in the Court of First Instance of the province or
city where the libelous article is printed and first
published.
(2) If the offended party is a private individual, the
criminal action may also be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the province where he actually
resided at the time of the commission of the
offense.
(3) If the offended party is a public officer whose
office is in Manila at the time of the commission
of the offense, the action may be filed in the
Court of First Instance of Manila.
(4) If the offended party is a public officer holding
office outside of Manila, the action may be filed
in the Court of First Instance of the province or
city where he held office at the time of the
commission of the offense.
In the case at bar, private respondent was a private
citizen at the time of the publication of the alleged
libelous article, hence, he could only file his libel suit
in the City of Manila where Abante was first
published or in the province or city where he actually
resided at the time the purported libelous article was
printed.
This Court finds it appropriate to reiterate our earlier
pronouncement in the case of Agbayani, to wit: In
order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the
criminal action for written defamation, the complaint
or information should contain allegations as to
whether, at the time the offense was committed, the
offended party was a public officer or a private
PAGE 240
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
individual and where he was actually residing at that
time.
Whenever possible, the place where the written
defamation was printed and first published should
likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine
qua non if the circumstance as to where the libel was
printed and first published is used as the basis of the
venue of the action. [Macasaet v. People (2005)]
Unsealed letters
Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended
party constitutes publication. [Magno vs.
People(2006)]
What constitutes publication; Fine Instead of
Imprisonment
There is publication in this case. In libel, publication
means making the defamatory matter, after it is
written, known to someone other than the person
against whom it has been written.
Petitioner’s subject letter-reply itself states that the
same was copy furnished to all concerned. Also,
petitioner had dictated the letter to his secretary. It
is enough that the author of the libel complained of
has communicated it to a third person. Furthermore,
the letter, when found in the mailbox, was open, not
contained in an envelope thus, open to public.
While Vaca case is for violation of B.P. 22, we find the
reasons behind the imposition of fine instead of
imprisonment applicable to petitioner’s case of libel.
We note that this is petitioner’s first offense of this
nature. He never knew respondent prior to the
demand letter sent by the latter to Mrs. Quingco
who then sought his assistance thereto. He appealed
from the decision of the RTC and the CA in his belief
that he was merely exercising a civil or moral duty in
writing the letter to private complainant. In fact,
petitioner could have applied for probation to evade
prison term but he did not do so believing that he did
not commit a crime thus, he appealed his case.
We believe that the State is concerned not only in the
imperative necessity of protecting the social
organization against the criminal acts of destructive
individuals but also in redeeming the individual for
economic usefulness and other social ends.
Consequently, we delete the prison sentence
imposed on petitioner and instead impose a fine of
six thousand pesos.
This is not the first time that we removed the penalty
of imprisonment and imposed a fine instead in the
crime of libel. In Sazon v. Court of Appeals, petitioner
was convicted of libel and was meted a penalty of
imprisonment and fine; and upon a petition filed
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
with us, we affirmed the findings of libel but changed
the penalty imposed to a mere fine. [Buatis vs. People
(2006)]
Slight Oral Defamation
The Court does not condone the vilification or use of
scurrilous language on the part of petitioner, but
following the rule that all possible circumstances
favorable to the accused must be taken in his favor, it
is our considered view that the slander committed by
petitioner can be characterized as slight slander
following the doctrine that: uttering defamatory
words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on
the part of the offended party, constitutes only a
light felony. [Villanueva vs. People (2006)]
Effect of Name-calling
While it is true that a publication's libelous nature
depends on its scope, spirit and motive taken in their
entirety, the article in question as a whole explicitly
makes mention of private complainant Rivera all
throughout.
It cannot be said that the article was a mere general
commentary on the alleged existing state of affairs
at the aforementioned public market. Rivera was not
only specifically pointed out several times therein but
was even tagged with derogatory names.
Indubitably, this name-calling was, as correctly
found by the two courts below, directed at the very
person of Rivera himself. [Figueroa vs. People (2006)]
Victim Identifiable
The last element of libel is that the victim is
identified or identifiable from the contents of the
libelous article.
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that
the victim be identifiable, although it is not
necessary that the person be named. It is enough
ifby intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent or if
the publication contains matters of description or
reference to facts and circumstances from which
others reading the article may know the person
alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by
extraneous circumstances so that those knowing
such person could and did understand that he was
the person referred to.
Kunkle v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid the rule
that this requirement is complied withwhere a third
person recognized or could identify the party vilified
in the article. [People vs. Ogie Diaz (2007)]
PAGE 241
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
See Also: AC 08-2008: Re: Guidelines in the
Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition
of Penalties in Libel Cases
Title XIV. Quasi-Offenses
ARTICLE 365 - IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
Quasi-offenses punished:
(1) Committing through reckless imprudence any
act which, had it been intentional, would
constitute a grave or less grave felony or light
felony;
(2) Committing through simple imprudence or
negligence an act which would otherwise
constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
(3) Causing damage to the property of another
through reckless imprudence or simple
imprudence or negligence;
(4) Causing through simple imprudence or
negligence some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light
felony.
Imprudence Negligence
Both indicate a deficiency of action
Failure in precaution Failure in advertence
Imprudence or negligence is not a crime itself; it is
simply a way of committing a crime.
The rules for graduating penalties (under Art. 64)
based on mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are NOT applicable to offenses punishable thru
criminal negligence.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: failure to render
immediate assistance to the injured party. This
qualifying circumstance must be distinguished from
6
the punishable OMISSION under Article 275.
6
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of
one's own victim. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed
upon:
1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any person
whom he shall find 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. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another
whom he has accidentally wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven
years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities
or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
If the danger that may result from the criminal
negligence is clearly perceivable, the imprudence is
RECKLESS. If it could hardly be perceived, the
criminal negligence would only be simple.
Criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring
criminal liability. This is so because under Article 3, a
felony may result from dolo or culpa. THEREFORE,
even if there are several results arising from ONLY
ONE CARELESSNESS, the accused may only be
prosecuted under one count for the criminal
negligence. Otherwise, double jeopardy would arise.
Reckless Imprudence:
(1) The offender does or fails to do an act
(2) The doing of or the failure to do the act is
voluntary
(3) It be without malice
(4) Material damage results
(5) There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the
part of the offender, taking into consideration:
(a) His employment/occupation
(b) Physical condition
(c) Degree of intelligence
(d) Other circumstances regarding the persons,
time and place
NOTE:
(1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
(2) Resulting in Physical Injuries
Inexcusable lack of precaution
Factors to be considered in determining inexcusable
lack of precaution:
1) Employment or occupation
2) Degree of intelligence and physical condition of
the offender; and
3) Other circumstances regarding persons, time, and
place.
Simple Imprudence
(1) There is lack of precaution on the part of the
offender
(2) The damage impending to be caused is not
immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
Test of negligence: Would a prudent man, in the
position of the person to whom negligence, foresee
harm as a result of the course actually pursued? If so,
it was the duty of the actor to take precautions
against its mischievous results, and the failure to do
so constitutes negligence.
PAGE 242
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The measure of the damage should be the difference
in value of property immediately before the incident
and immediately after the repair.
Art. 64 relative to mitigating and aggravating
circumstances is not applicable to crimes committed
through negligence.
The penalties provided in art. 365 are not applicable
in the ff. cases:
1) when the penalty provided for the offense is equal
to or lower than those provided in the first two
paragraphs of art. 365, in which case the courts shall
impose the penalty next lower in degree that that
which should be imposed, in the period which they
may deem proper to apply.
2) When, by imprudence or negligence and with
violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a
person shall be caused, in which case the defendant
shall be punished by prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.
When death or serious bodily injury to any person
has resulted, the motor vehicle driver at fault shall
be punished under the Penal Code.
Contributory negligence is not a defense. It only
mitigates criminal liability.
Doctrine of last clear chance
The contributory negligence or the party injured will
not defeat the action is it be shown that the accused
might, by exercise of reasonable care and prudence,
have avoided the consequences of the negligence of
the injured party.
Emergency rule
An automobile driver who, by negligence of another
and not by his own negligence, is suddenly placed in
an emergency and compelled to act instantly to
avoid collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if
he makes such a choice which a person of ordinary
prudence placed in such situation might make even
though he did not make the wisest choice.
Violation of a rule or regulation or law is proof of
negligence. But negligence cannot be predicated
upon the mere fact of minority or lack of an
operator’s license.
The penalty next to higher in degree is imposed if the
offender fails to lend on the spot help to the injured
parties.
(5) Failing to lend help is a qualifying
circumstance.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
Jurisprudence:
The gravamen of SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE is the failure
to exercise the diligence necessitated or called for by
the situation which was NOT immediately life-
destructive BUT which culminated, as in the present
case, in the death of a human being 3 days later.
[Carillo v. People (1994)]
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, which is a form of
negligence, consists in the failure of a physician or
surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that
degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed
by the profession generally, under similar conditions,
and in like surrounding circumstances (this is the test
applied). [Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio (1997)]
Elements involved in medical negligence cases:
(D.B.P.I.)
(1) Duty
(2) Breach
(3) Injury
(4) Proximate causation
Requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur:
(1) The accident was of a kind which does NOT
ordinarily occur UNLESS someone is negligent;
(2) The instrumentality or agency which caused the
injury was under the exclusive control of the
person in charge; and
(3) The injury suffered must NOT have been due to
any voluntary action or contribution of the
person injured.
Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of skill and
experience are competent to testify as to whether a
patient has been treated or operated upon with a
reasonable degree of skill and care.
HOWEVER, testimony as to the statements and acts
of physicians and surgeons, external appearances,
and manifest conditions which are observable by any
one may be given by non-expert witnesses. [Reyes v.
Sis. of Mercy Hospital (2000)]
While playing one day, a child-Honey Fe heard a
commotion from a nearby house and went to
investigate. She saw Randy Luntayao being tortured
and killed by Alexander Sibonga, Reynario Nuñez,
Eutiquia Carmen, Delia Sibonga, and Celedonia
Fabie. Apparently it was a ritual supposed to cure
him of demonic possession. The father of the boy
filed charges against the participants, and the child
who witnessed the macabre incident testified as to
what she saw. The trial court convicted the
participants of murder.
PAGE 243
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
HELD: It would appear that accused-appellants are
members of a cult and that the bizarre ritual
performed over the victim was consented to by the
victim's parents. With the permission of the victim's
parents, accused-appellant Carmen, together with
the other accused-appellants, proceeded to subject
the boy to a "treatment" calculated to drive the "bad
spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the
strange procedure resulted in the death of the boy.
Thus, accused-appellants had no criminal intent to
kill the boy.
Their liability arises from their reckless imprudence
because they ought that to know their actions would
not bring about the cure. They are, therefore, guilty
of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and not
of murder.
Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
states that reckless imprudence consists in
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do
an act from which material damage results by reason
of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
person performing such act.
Compared to intentional felonies, such as homicide
or murder, what takes the place of the element of
malice or intention to commit a wrong or evil is: the
failure of the offender to take precautions due to lack
of skill taking into account his employment, or
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition, and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.
The elements of reckless imprudence are apparent in
the acts done by accused-appellants which, because
of their lack of medical skill in treating the victim of
his alleged ailment, resulted in the latter's death. As
already stated, accused-appellants, none of whom is
a medical practitioners, belong to a religious group,
known as the Missionaries of Our Lady of Fatima,
which is engaged in faith healing. [People v. Carmen
(2001)]
The trial court found the accused "guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Double Homicide
Through Reckless Imprudence with violation of the
Motor Vehicle Law (Rep. Act No. 4136)."
HELD: There is no such nomenclature of an offense
under the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the trial court
was misled to sentence the accused "to suffer two (2)
indeterminate penalties of four (4) months and one
(1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3)
years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of prision
correccional, as maximum."
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO
This is erroneous because in reckless imprudence
cases, the actual penalty for criminal negligence
bears no relation to the individual wilful crime or
crimes committed, but is set in relation to a whole
class, or series of crimes. Unfortunately, we can no
longer correct this judgment even if erroneous, as it
is, because it has become final and executory.
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code,
criminal negligence "is treated as a mere quasi
offense, and dealt with separately from wilful
offenses. It is not a question of classification or
terminology. In intentional crimes, the act itself is
punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is
principally penalized is the mental attitude or
condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, and lack of care or foresight, the
imprudencia punible.
Much of the confusion has arisen from the common
use of such descriptive phrase as 'homicide through
reckless imprudence', and the like; when the strict
technical sense is, more accurately, 'reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide'; or 'simple
imprudence causing damages to property'." [Rafael
Reyes Trucking v People (2000)]
FACTS: Ireneo, Abundio and Lourdes Mangruban
were with their paralyzed aunt at a bus terminal.
Lourdes Mangruban was tasked to accompany their
paralyzed aunt to Butuan City. A dispatcher
informed them that a bus bound for Tacloban via
Cebu and Butuan was about to leave. They were told
to wait as the bus maneuvered to its proper position
prior to departure. The said bus, driven by Teofilo
Abueva, came to a full stop in front of the terminal
building. As they negotiated their way towards the
back of the bus, Lourdes, with luggage in hand, was
waiting on the first stepboard when the bus suddenly
moved. Due to the sudden movement, according to
the witness, Lourdes fell off the bus and hit her head
on the cement pavement below.
According to the witness, the driver did not
disembark to assist Lourdes, while a dispatcher of
the bus company assured them that there was
nothing to worry about because the victim was not
bleeding. Petitioner continued driving per his
scheduled trip.
Lourdes was taken to the San Pedro Hospital where
a brain scan revealed the presence of a blood clot
that needed immediate surgery. The bus company
refused to give financial assistance to the
Mangrubans. On their own, the family raised the
amount required by the hospital as downpayment
PAGE 244
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
for the operation. Surgery was performed but
Lourdes never regained consciousness and expired
five days later. The trial court convicted Teofilo
Abueva for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide.
HELD: After a careful review of the records, the Court
agrees with the factual findings of the lower courts
showing that the victim, Lourdes Mangruban, fell
rather than jumped off the bus.
The prosecution has provided sufficient, clear and
convincing basis for the conclusion that Lourdes fell
off the bus due to the reckless act of the petitioner.
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that
reckless imprudence consists in:
(1) voluntarily, but without malice,
(2) doing or failing to do an act from which
(3) material damage results
(4) by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the person performing or failing to
perform such act,
(5) taking into consideration:
(a) his employment or occupation;
(b) his degree of intelligence;
(c) his physical condition; and
(d) other circumstances regarding persons,
time and place.
Petitioner herein is a professional driver who has
been in the employ of the bus company for 18 years
26 and has undergone training courses and seminars
to improve his skills as a driver. He is expected to be
well aware of his responsibilities to his passengers.
Not only must he make sure that they reach their
destinations on time, he must also ensure their
safety while they are boarding, during the entire trip,
and upon disembarking from the vehicle. [Abueva v.
People (2002)]
FACTS: "In the evening of February 16, 1990, Pat.
Domingo Belbes and Pat. Jose Pabon were assigned
to maintain peace and order at the Junior and Senior
Prom of Pili Barangay High School. Around 9:00
p.m. while Teacher-In-Charge Mila Ulanca, Pat.
Pabon and Belbes were watching the dance, two
students approached Mrs. Ulanca and said "Ma'm, it
seems that there is somebody making trouble." Pat.
Belbes and Pat. Pabon, armed with an Armalite rifle
and a .38 caliber revolver, respectively, responded
forthwith. Moments after the two police officers left,
bursts of gunfire filled the air.
Fernando Bataller, a graduating student was hit on
different parts of his body and died. The accused Pat.
Belbes stated that they acted in self defense. The
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW: BOOK TWO BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

trial court convicted Pat. Belbes of murder and

sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

HELD: The offense is definitely not reckless

imprudence resulting in homicide because the
shooting was intentional.

Illustrations of reckless imprudence resulting in

homicide are: (1) exhibiting a loaded revolver to a
friend, who was killed by the accidental discharge
brought about by negligent handling; or (2)
discharging a firearm from the window of one's
house and killing a neighbor who just at the moment
leaned over the balcony front; or (3) where the
defendant, to stop a fist fight, fired his .45 caliber
pistol twice in the air, and, as the bout continued, he
fired another shot at the ground, but the bullet
ricocheted and hit a bystander who died soon
thereafter. In this case, appellant intended to fire AT
the victim, and in fact hit ONLY the victim. [People v.
Belbes (2000)]

Effect of Victim’s Contributory Negligence

Finally, as to petitioners’ argument that Jesus
Basallo (Victim; deceased) should be presumed
negligent because he was driving with an expired
license and the passenger jeepney owned by his
brother Teodorico did not have a franchise to
operate, we hold that the same fails to
convince. “The defense of contributory negligence
does not apply in criminal cases committed through
reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the
negligence of another to evade the effects of his own
negligence.” [Manzanares vs. People (2006)]

PAGE 245