CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y.
2018-2019
SIXTH WEEK OF DISCUSSIONS (February 21, 2019)
TITLE 1
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
TITLE 1 CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
compromise the security of the country)
1. Treason (Art. 114)
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115)
3. Misprision of treason (Art 116)
4. Espionage
All the crimes punished under title 1 are crimes wherein there is a
foreign country ingredient. Not necessarily element but an involvement.
TREASON:
Committed two ways –
A. Levying war against the Philippines:
 There must be an actual assemblage of men;
 Purpose must be to deliver in whole or in part to
the enemy;
 In collaboration with foreign enemy or some
foreign sovereign
B. Adhering to the enemies, giving them aid and comfort
TREASON IS ESSENTIALLY A WAR CRIME
How proved:
 2 witness rule for the same overt act; or
 confession by accused in open court
Who can commit Treason:
 Only Filipino citizens, regardless of residence, and resident
aliens can commit treason. Non-resident aliens CANNOT
commit this crime.
 (Regalado believes that non-resident aliens who conspire
with Filipino traitors can be liable.)
Even conspiracy and proposal to commit treason are crimes and
misprision of treason is also a crime. When we took up Art 8 on
conspiracy we said conspiracy can be 2 things – a means of incurring
criminal liability or a crime in itself. Proposal can also be a crime in itself
although it is not a means of incurring criminal liability. One of the
instances wherein conspiracy and proposal is a crime in itself is in
treason. Even if the treason will not push through, even if there is no
actual treason, the mere agreement or proposal to commit treason is
already crimes.
MISPRISION OF TREASON
 Misprision is only punishable in treason, and cannot be
committed by a foreigner. It is committed by dolo, not by
culpa, although it is a crime by omission.
 If the crime concealed knowingly is inciting to sedition, the
crime is also inviting to sedition. (Art. 142, last phrase)
(they
 There is NO crime of inciting to treason. But, persons who
organized or are present in a meeting where the audience is
incited to treason, are liable for illegal assembly. (Art. 146)
 The defenses of “righteous action” (that the collaborator also
helped save some guerillas from death) and of “suspended
allegiance” (by reason of change of sovereignty) were
declared untenable. (PP v. Victoria, 78 Phil 122; Laurel v.
Misa, 77 Phil 856)
 But since it is a crime by dolo, good faith can be a defense.
(e.g., accused thought that the person to whom he made the
report is an authority mentioned in the law, i.e., governor,
mayor, fiscal)
MISPRISION; accessory:
 While the law says that the penalty shall be that of
accessory to treason, the offender is actually charged as
principal to MISPRISION OF TREASON under Art. 116,
and NOT as ACCESSORY under Art. 114.
MISPRISION; conspiracy:
 Offender must have knowledge of conspiracy to commit
treason against the Philippines. If he knows of a
proposal to commit treason or of actual treason,
MISPRISION does not apply.
 Misprision cannot be committed by a foreigner, even if a
resident here.
Misprision is the failure to report treason. Misprision is a crime only in
treason. It does not mean to say that if you failed to report other crimes,
that there can be no crime anymore. There will still be a crime but we do
not call them misprision.
 ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY
There is no crime of inciting to commit treason. While there is a crime of
inciting to commit rebellion, inciting to commit sedition, there is no crime
of inciting to commit treason.
Does that mean that there is no crime anymore?
If you go to Art 146 which is illegal assembly, when there is a meeting
wherein the audience incited to commit treason, the organizers of that
meeting and even the participants can be liable for illegal assembly. To
be illegal assembly, there must be a meeting.
ESPIONAGE
Outdated.
Page 1 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS (they violate
international law in relationship among countries)
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118)
2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119)
3. Correspondence with hostile country (Art. 120)
4. Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121)
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122)
(Declared as hosstis humani generis by UNGA
Resolution)
Art 2 on extra-territoriality applies (as distinguished from universal
jurisdiction and transnational crime)
All the crimes that are punished under Title 1 can be prosecuted extra
territorially because under Art 2 provide crimes against national
security and law of nation.
Although rebellion and coup d’etat affect national security, they
were classified as crimes against public order because at the time
of the passage of RPC, rebellion was small- scale and coup d’etat
was unheard of.
As a rule, crimes in Title 1 involve a foreign element, which is not
resent in rebellion and coup d’etat.
Rebellion is not found in Title 1.
Is it a crime against national security?
Maybe in a sense but the threat to national security is internal.
Whereas our definition of crimes against national security involve a
foreign state. For treason there must be a war where the Philippines is
at war against a foreign sovereign state. If there is no war, there can
be no treason. There can be conspiracy or proposal but not treason.
Coup d’etat?
The threat to national security is internal and it is a new crime. It was
not punished under the RPC as adopted by the Spanish. This is only
invented by Gringgo Honasan and revised by Trillanes.
TREASON: Committed two ways –
a) Levying war against the Philippines:
- There must be an actual assemblage of men;
- Purpose must be to deliver in whole or in part to the
enemy;
- In collaboration with foreign enemy or some foreign
sovereign
b) Adhering to the enemies, giving them aid and
comfort
Treason can be committed two ways:
1.) Levying War and;
2.) Adhering to the Enemies, giving them aid and comfort
Levying War:
a.) there must be an actual assembly of men;
b.) purpose must be to deliver in whole or in part to the enemy;
c.) In collaboration with foreign enemy or some foreign
sovereign
So if you go to Fuente and magdiskurso ka didto! it is a war crime and I
don't know how this got to be in the Revised Penal Code which is
supposed to be a substantive law but the means of proving is
procedural.
Adhering to the Enemies, giving them aid and comfort:
- That which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy,
and weakens or tends to weaken the power of the traitor's
country, in the conduct of war between them. (Us. vs.
Cramer)
WHO CAN COMMIT TREASON:
Only Filipino citizens, regardless of residence, and resident
aliens can commit treason. Non-resident aliens CANNOT commit
this crime.
(Regalado believes that non-resident aliens who conspire with
Filipino traitors can be liable.)
So generally, it can only be committed by Filipino Citizens because
Treason is a crime involving breach of loyalty and loyalty can only be
expected from Citizens or Residents. If a person is neither a citizen nor
resident, we cannot expect Loyalty.
TREASON IS ESSENTIALLY A WAR CRIME
How proved:
1) 2-witness rule for the same overt act; or
2) confession by accused in open court
MISPRISION OF TREASON (1/2)
 Misprision is only punishable in treason, and cannot be
committed by a foreigner. It is committed by dolo, not by
culpa, although it is a crime by omission.
 If the crime concealed knowingly is inciting to sedition,
the crime is also inviting to sedition. (Art. 142, last
phrase)
It cannot be committed of a foreigner. It is a deliberate failure to report
Conspiracy to Commit Treason. Therefore, it is an intentional felony,
meaning the failure should be intentional. If it is not deliberate or
intentional, there is no misprision. Failure alone is not Misiprision, it
should be intentional. There should be dolo.
If the crime knowingly concealed in Inciting to Sedition, the crime is
also Inciting to Sedition. Failure to report treason itself is not a crime
Take note also that there is no Iciting to Commit Treason but there can
be Illegal Assembly.
MISPRISION OF TREASON (2/2)
 There is NO crime of inciting to treason. But, persons
who organized or are present in a meeting where the
audience is incited to treason, are liable for illegal
assembly. (Art. 146)
 The defenses of “righteous action” (that the collaborator
also helped save some guerillas from death) and of
“suspended allegiance” (by reason of change of
sovereignty) were declared untenable. (PP v. Victoria,
78 Phil 122; Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil 856)
 But since it is a crime by dolo, good faith can be a
defense. (e.g., accused thought that the person to
whom he made the report is an authority mentioned
in the law, i.e., governor, mayor, fiscal)
Summary:
Page 2 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
 Failure to report Conspiracy to Commit Treason –
Misprision of Treason
 Failure to report Inciting to Sedition – Inciting to Sedition
 Failure to Report Treason – Not misprision (because what
should be reported is the "Conspiracy" to commit Treason.
MISPRISION; ACCESSORY:
 While the law says that the penalty shall be that of
accessory to treason, the offender is actually charged as
principal to MISPRISION OF TREASON under Art. 116,
and NOT as ACCESSORY under Art. 114.
MISPRISION; CONSPIRACY:
 Offender must have knowledge of conspiracy to commit
treason against the Philippines. If he knows of a
proposal to commit treason or of actual treason,
MISPRISION does not apply.
 Misprision cannot be committed by a foreigner, even if a
resident here.
MISPRISION – GOOD FAITH AS A DEFENSE
Since Misprision of Treason is by dolo, good faith can be a defense.
(e.g., accused thought that the person to whom he made the report is
an authority mentioned in the law, i.e., governor, mayor, fiscal)
It is not really, mala in se, in a sense. It is prohibited if you think about
it but good faith may still be a defense.
The defenses of “righteous action” (that the collaborator also
helped save some guerillas from death) and of “suspended
allegiance” (by reason of change of sovereignty) were declared
untenable. (PP v. Victoria, 78 Phil 122; Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil 856)
In Misprision, there is failure to report and the penalty should be that of
an accessory but he will not be charged as accessory. it is only the
PENALTY as accessory.
While the law says that the penalty shall be that of accessory to
treason, the offender is actually charged as principal to
MISPRISION OF TREASON under Art. 116, and NOT as
ACCESSORY under Art. 114.
Can treason be complexed with common crimes?
 Treason absorbs crimes committed in the furtherance thereof
(PP v. Prieto, 80 Phil 138)
 Because Treason can only be committed during war, loss of
life and destruction are expected consequences.
 Treason is a political crime, by analogy the Political Offense
Doctrine (common crimes committed in the furtherance of a
political objectives acquires a political color and are
absorbed) applies. (Ocampo v. Abando, Feb. 11, 2014,
applied in Rebellion)
Can treason be complexed with common crimes?
NO. According to the case of Prieto, Treason absorbs crimes
committed in the furtherance thereof. Because Treason is a war crime
and being a war crime iot naturally involves destruction, death. Also, by
analogy, we apply the political offense doctrine (this doctrine is applied
in Rebellion case) and the reason for the application of the doctrine is
that, when the main crime is a political offense, the other crimes
committed ion the furtherance thereof will be absorbed.
Reasons why we cannot complex it are:
1. The SC said so; and
2. If we apply the political offense doctrine wherein there is a
political crime, all other offenses that are committed in
furtherance of such crime will acquire the political color and
will be absorbed, regardless of the penalties.
So it is common wherein the common crime carries with it a
higher penalty than the political crime. We adopt the doctrine
of absorption. All common crimes will be absorbed. We do
not also separate the crimes. We absorb.
CRIMES THAT CAN BE COMMITTED DURING PEACE TIME:
1. Espionage
2. Inciting to war or giving motives of reprisals
3. Violation of neutrality
4. Piracy and mutiny
ART. 117. ESPIONAGE
Acts punished:
 Entering without authority a warship xxx to obtain information
xxx of a confidential natural relative to the defense of the
Philippines.
 Disclosing to the representatives of a foreign nation the
contents of the information referred to above which he had by
reason of his public office.
Note: THIS IS OBVIOUSLY OUTDATED. Espionage by hacking
computers is not covered here.
The only way to commit this crime is either you enter a warship owned
by the Philippines, once inside you must steal information relating to
the defense of the Philippines. If you do not enter the warship, you
cannot violate this crime. The second way of committing this is while
you are in the custody of confidential information relating to the
defense of the Philippines and you disclose it to foreign country.
If you remember the elements in certain crimes, there are crimes
where the elements are very specific.
EXAMPLE:
 MALVERSATION
In order to commit malversation, the person must have custody of the
public funds in relation to his public function. But because the
jurisprudence had been enriched (ngano na enrich? >> kay sige mag
pangawat ang mga taw)
Pag enrich sa jurisprudence, it gave the SC an opportunity to interpret
the element. It interpreted public function to include private person
gaining custody over funds intended for public use and
misappropriated it. SO here, the meaning was expanded. But for
espionage, there is no opportunity to enrich our jurisprudence kay
mangita pa lagi tag warship.
Q: With regard to 2nd par. Is there also a need that you have to
enter a warship?
A: No. This is another one. You need not enter to gather the
information. You already have it.
Page 3 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
ART. 118 INCITING TO WAR AND GIVING MOTIVES FOR
REPRISALS
 This crime may be committed by a public officer or by a
private individual.
 The definition and elements of this crime are in the title of the
provision itself, it covers any act having such effect.
 Was the Sabah incident a violation of this law?
(though committed abroad, extra-territoriality applies)
It can cover any act. There is no specific act. Any act as long as it
gives the effect of inciting war and giving motive for reprisals. The
elements are those enumerated under the law.
So, this can be committed by a public officer or a private citizen.
ART. 119 VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
 There must be a regulation to enforce neutrality that is being
violated.
In order for it to be a crime, there should be a regulation enforcing
neutrality.
In wars with other countries, we don't usually adopt the concept of
neutrality. We are a part of the UN Peacekeeping troops whenever
there are conflicts outside of the country.
ART. 120 CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY
 Another war crime
 The law uses the word “with hostile country”, not “to”
somebody living in an enemy territory.
Another useless provision. If you post something in your Facebook
now, would you really know who is reading it? If they are from China or
from wherever, you don't really know.
ART. 121 FLIGHT TO ENEMY COUNTRY
 Going to the enemy country must be prohibited by
competent authority.
To be considered a crime, there should be a war. There was a time
when your passport has the tatak "not valid for flight to Iraq", it just
means that your passport will not be recognized because we don't
have diplomatic relations with that country. It does not mean that if you
go to Iraq, you will be punished. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of
workers there in Iraq.
PIRACY
Pertinent laws:
1. Art. 122 on Piracy in general and Art. 123 on
Qualified Piracy
o Piracy and mutiny can be committed on the
high seas only. Penalty was Reclusion
Temporal.
2. PD 532
o Piracy only in Philippine waters punished, but
not Mutiny. Any person can commit this crime.
Reclusion temporal unless other crimes are
committed. All kinds of boats included.
3. RA 7659
o Piracy and mutiny on the high seas and
Philippine waters punished, with a higher
penalty, i.e., reclusion perpetua. Piracy cannot
be committed by a passenger or crew
irrespective of venue. Amends Art. 122.
4. PD 6235
o Anti-Hijacking Law applies for aircraft
NOTE: aiding and abetting Piracy under RA 532 still stands.
Art. 122 – Piracy
Art. 123 – Qualified Piracy or Mutiny (because Mutiny can also be
qualified)
122 and 123 punish Mutiny whether simple or qualified.
Now, before the amendment of 122 and 123, Piracy and Mutiny could
only be committed in the high seas; but then came Republic Act 7659,
which was actually the new Death Penalty Law. And under that law,
the definition of Piracy has been EXPANDED – It does not also include
piracy committed in the high seas but also piracy committed within
Philippine waters.
PIRACY:
 Before the amendments of Arts. 122/123 and the passage of
PD 532, piracy within Philippine waters was simply Robbery.
 Robbery committed by passengers and crew and/or in small
boats outside of Philippine waters was not also piracy at the
time. Philippine laws did not apply then to such cases, unless
the boat/vessel is of Philippine registry.
So, what happened to piracies then committed within Philippine
territory? Kay sauna, atong piracy, high seas ra man.
They would simply be considered Robbery.
 PD 532
But then came PD 532. This was passed by President Marcos during
Martial Law to address the vacuum that piracy within Philippine waters
was only considered Robbery. Kailangan pa ka muadto sa gawas,
anha pa mahimong piracy.
It says that piracy committed within Philippine waters will be punished
as well as piracy. And, not only did it punish piracy within Philippine
waters, it also included any other boats, not necessarily a vessel. Any
boat can be covered by piracy.
EXAMPLE:
Muadto ka'g Olango Island, naay mu-pirate adto. That's still considered
piracy. It doesn't have to be a vessel.
Page 4 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Aside from that, PD 532 also punishes as piracy those acts committed
by PASSENGERS or CREW.
So, it punished piracy within Philippine waters and it also included not
only third persons or strangers, but also passengers or crew.
WHEREAS, under 122, 123, passengers or crew CANNOT commit
piracy. Under 532, EVEN passengers or crew can commit piracy.
 RA 7659
So when Congress passed 7659, it did not only prescribed the Death
Penalty Law for certain crimes, it also redefined the crimes that fell
under the coverage of the Death Penalty Law.
It redefined the crime of piracy. Not only did it say that the penalty for
the crime of piracy is death, it also redefined piracy to INCLUDE piracy
within Philippine waters.
7659 also redefined Rebellion. It redefined certain crimes, including
piracy.
When the new Death Penalty Law was subsequently repealed, the
repeal only covered the penalty - that there shall be no more Death
penalty. It did NOT restore the old definitions of the crime. So, when
the new Death Penalty Law redefined what is piracy, and subsequently
was repealed, it did not bring back the old definition. It has retained the
definition as redefined by the aforesaid law. Therefore, the new
definition still remains.
Now, therefore, what stands is that we have 122 and 123 as amended
by 7659. 122 and 123 talks about piracy committed in the high seas as
well as in Philippine waters, but only involving LARGE VESSELS. And
this kind of piracy can only be committed by STRANGERS or THIRD
PERSONS. They cannot be committed by passengers or crew.
PD 532 still remains.
 It covers vessels not covered under Articles 122, 123 of the
RPC
 It includes Piracy committed by passengers of the vessel
Q: Is there no mutiny in the Philippine waters involving small
boats?
Yes, because Mutiny can only be committed under RA 7659; RA 7659
only covers large vessels.
Q: How about if the Piracy is committed in the high seas by crew
members?
Apply People vs. Tulin. In People vs. Tulin, the charges were for
Qualified Piracy. Qualified Piracy is not found under PD 532, but in
Article of 132 of the Revised Penal Code. The Piracy in Tulin was
committed before RA 7659, which amended the RPC; therefore, RA
7659 should not have been applicable, but the SC somehow reasoned
the case pursuant to RA 7659. The case was decided by the Court ten
years after it was committed. There was indeed a mix-up in the
procedure, however, it would not affect the substance since under the
narration of the charges, there was no distinction of what Piracy law
was violated (whether under PD 532 or the RPC.)
SEVENTH WEEK OF DISCUSSIONS (FEBRUARY 27-28, 2019)
Fiscal was raising the issue on the application of PD 532 for crimes
committed in small boats and big vessels outside of the Philippine
territory since PD 532 specifically mentions that piracy can only be
committed within the Philippine territory.
This is when the celebrated case of PP v. Tulin comes in. Note that the
Supreme Court mixed up all the relevant laws including RA 7659 even
if this law was no longer existing at the time of the commission of the
crime. However, procedurally, the case would not be defective with
respect to the jurisdiction aspect because what matters is not the law
violated but the body in the information which described and narrated
the ultimate facts of the case. So long as the elements of crime are
mentioned, the information is sufficient.
Q1: What were the justifications or arguments of the court in
supporting the finding that Hiong is liable for piracy under the
Philippine law?
1. Concept of continuing crime.
As ruled by the Supreme Court, “As regards the contention that the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-
appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine
waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on and seizure
of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) and its
cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel
was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-
loaded, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under
accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. Although Presidential
Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and
its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the
pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of
piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.”
(People v. Tulin, 2001)
2. Piracy as a crime against humanity.
There is universal jurisdiction. Hence, it can be tried anywhere.
“Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised
Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in
criminal law. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant
case, were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the
penal code but under a special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which
penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No.
532 should be applied with more force here since its purpose is
precisely to discourage and prevent piracy in Philippine waters. It is
likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same,
piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world.” (People v.
Tulin, 2001)
Q2: Which of the justifications is the most compelling and why?
The compelling one is the argument on the extraterritoriality principle.
Hence, even if the crime (where Hiong actively participated) happened
in Singapore, pursuant to the extraterritoriality principle, the Philippine
courts can still try the case involving the crime of Piracy.
Q3: Which is more compelling on the two arguments in People vs.
Tulin?
Mali: I have to agree with Miss Gonzaga. Regardless if it’s a
continuing crime, it falls under Art 2 which provides that all courts have
jurisdiction on crimes against humanity (?)
Carreon: The first one is compelling, because when we talk about
Article 2 (can’t hear). Following the continuing crime doctrine, having
participated in a continuing crime of piracy which is a transnational
crime, would include Yong having participated in the crime. He is still
liable.
Villanueva: Both are very compelling. As to the first reason, the act of
Yong in disposing the goods was an essential part of piracy. That is
why he is still liable for being a continuing crime.
But the nature of the crime itself is a crime against humanity. It’s part of
the second article of the RPC. Territorial application is applicable. One
of the reasons is sufficient to convict Heong. But existence of both
fortifies the liable of Heong. Let’s go to the person and nature of the
crime itself.
Question: What if the crime now is piracy but committed outside
of the PH Territory in a small boat? Will People vs. Tulin answer
this question?
Page 5 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
The last time, we said that under the law itself not yet being interpreted
by Tulin, just the wording of the law, it would seem like PD 532 would
only tell us that the crime should be committed within the PH territory
and it does not matter what the boat is.
Under Art 122 and 123 as amended, it can be committed outside PH
waters but it must be committed in a large vessel.
So will Tulin answer the question?
Kung wa niagi sa Philippines, and therefore we take out the argument
of continuing crime… For example the piracy was committed in
Somalia, we can prosecute pursuant to the Extraterritorial Theory
under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code plus the justis humanis
generis.
Therefore, we can prosecute the Somali pirates thru Philippines laws
but we were not able to catch them.
Therefore can we prosecute Somali pirates using Philippine law?
Yes. Problem is enforcement. How can we arrest them? This is due to
Tulin, we can use Phil Laws to prosecute piracy wherever it is
committed and whatever the kind of boat is used in the crime. Tulin is
very important.
TITLE 2
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
What is the fundamental law of the state?
Constitution.
Meaning to say all the crimes under Title 2 are violations of the
Constitution particularly of the Bill of Rights. A violation of your bill of
rights will amount to a crime.
We have a separate title because for example one of the crimes
punished here is if a person is arrested or liberty is deprived without
proper procedure, there is a crime.
General Rule: Title 2 and all its crimes can only be committed by a
public official.
Exception: The only exception that can be committed by a private
person is offending religious beliefs.
Reason why only public officials can commit the crimes because the
constitution guarantees the respect by the state and its actors of the
citizens’ rights. so that if the pact is violated, the state will punish the
violation.
ART. 124 ARBITRARY DETENTION
Elements:
1. Offender is public officer or employee;
2. Offender detains a person;
3. Detention is without legal grounds.
 Where the public officer acted in good faith and without
culpable negligence, there is no arbitrary detention even if it
subsequently turns out that the person detained was innocent
of a crime. (PP v. Ancheta, 68 Phil 415) as in effect, the
accused acted under a mistake of fact.
 Arbitrary detention can be committed through unlawful arrest
or through imprudence. (PP v. Batallones 23 Phil 46), but
they cannot be complexed, because unlawful arrest becomes
an element.
Here we are talking about a person being arrested without lawful cause
by a public officer.
The difference between this and illegal detention is on who commits
the detention. Because if it’s a private person then it will be illegal
detention.
There should be arbitrariness or maliciousness in the decision. The SC
ruled that this crime can be committed via negligence or imprudence, it
is not always intentional. This crime is mala in se, thus good faith can
be a defense.
Example:
Naay gahantak (coin gambling game) or pot session, then here comes
the police rounding up all of them including Juan who was not actually
participating in the hantak. Niagi ra sya padung Criminal law class.
Having been detained will there be a case against him?
If there was negligence then kay wa sya magtarung kinsa iyang
gipanakup, if the police did not exercise enough prudence in the
arresting, even if he thought he was one of those, arbitrary detention
can still be committed. But if Juan actually participated then and there
was no negligence on part of the police then it would be valid plus
good faith.
Remember illegal detention is higher than Art 124. Slight illegal
detention is reclusion temporal, while serious illegal detention is
Reclusion perpetua.
Why is it that arbitrary detention carries a lower penalty compared
to illegal detention?
Because TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, a public official MAY actually
detain, whereas a private individual does not have any right at all. So if
the latter detains someone it is considered grave.
But if the reason why the public official is detaining somebody is not
because he thinks that that somebody has committed a crime, but
because he has private reasons like if nangutang siya nimo, the
motivation is not anymore in line with his public office. And so, it is not
anymore arbitrary detention but illegal detention. In fact, that is already
kidnapping for ransom.
Just because a person is a public official, it does not mean that he
cannot anymore commit illegal detention. He can if he is doing it in his
private capacity, and nothing to do with his public function.
Page 6 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
ART. 125. DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS
TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. (This is also a form
of arbitrary detention in its generic sense.)
Detention is for a legal ground!
 12 hours – light offenses
 18 hours – correctional penalties
 36 hours – afflictive or capital penalties
 72 hours for violations of Human Security Act
What do you mean by these periods?
These are the periods by which the person who arrested suspects can
legally detain them even without a court order. After the period of time,
the detaining officer must secure a Commitment Order. Otherwise, the
continued detention would be violative of Art125.
(8 hours under RA 10360 is period to refer to LSWDO)
 This contemplates of a warrantless arrest.
Under RA 9344 which is the Juvenile Justice Law, a child in conflict
(CICL) with the law can be taken into custody but within 8 hours the
police must submit the CICL to the Local Social Welfare and
Development Officer (LSWDO).
 Where PI is a matter of right, arrested person may execute a
waiver of Art. 125 if he wishes to avail PI.
SAYO V. CHIEF OF POLICE (GR L – 2128 MAY 12, 1948)
 Judicial authority within the meaning of Art. 125 must be a
judge.
 Delivery to judicial authority does not consist in a physical
delivery, but in filing of an information with the court whereby
the latter acquires jurisdiction.
 If the fiscal does not file the information within the hours
prescribed by law and the officer continues to hold the
prisoner, the fiscal will not be responsible for violation of Art.
125 because he is not the one who detained, unless he
ordered the continued detention.
As made clear in the case of Sayo vs Chief of Police:
1.) Judicial authority does not mean that you will have to bring
the person arrested with the prosecutor.
Judicial authority means that the case should be filed in court. The
term judicial authority refers to a judge. Filing with the prosecutor is not
enough.
2.) Delay in the delivery does not necessarily mean that you
have to bring the accused himself like what if the accused
had been injured and is currently confined in the hospital.
It does not mean that the person must be physically brought before the
judge, what delay in the delivery means is the filing of the case in court
before the judge and not any other official. Because the prosecutor is
not considered a judicial official.
SORIA V. DESIERTO (GR 153524-25, JAN. 31, 2005)
 In the evening of May 13, 2001, the day before elections,
accused were arrested without warrant for illegal possession
of firearms.
 At 6:30PM of May 14, the complaint was docketed at the
prosecutor’s office. He was ordered released by the
prosecutor as 22 hours had already elapsed. The information
was filed only on May 15.
 Citing Medina v. Orozco, SC ruled that there was no
violation of Art. 125. Sundays, holidays and election days are
EXCLUDED in the computation being “no office days”.
SAYO V. CHIEF OF POLICE (GR L – 2128 MAY 12, 1948)
 For the purpose of determining the criminal liability of an
officer detaining a person for more than 6 hours xxx, the
means of communication as well as the hour of arrest and
other circumstances, such as the time of surrender and the
material possibility of the fiscal to make the investigation and
file in time the necessary information, must be taken into
consideration (Cited in Soria v. Desierto)
 If there is an extraneous circumstance, the deadline may be
extended
Remember that depriving a person of his liberty is something that
interferes with a constitutional right because as we said, this crime
affect constitutional rights which is the right to be free. So any act
interfering this right shall be construed strictly against the State and
favorably against the citizen.
When do we start counting?
At the very moment of the deprivation of the liberty. Regardless of
when the arrest was made. There are no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. The counting
starts right away.
When does it end?
If the last day falls on a non-office day, then we can extend the last
day. We don’t extend the first day. It starts right then and then.
Sundays, holidays and election days are excluded in the computation
being no office days. Nowhere did the SC mention of “no office hours”.
This means, even if it is in the evening in the Sunday, you still have it.
But if the last day is a no office day, there will be an extention so that
the filing can be done on the first business day.
EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
There can also be extension if there are problems affecting the means
of communication as well as other circumstances surrounding the
arrest and whether it would be possible for the prosecutor to conduct a
proceedings.
Example:
What if it falls 1am in the morning, you cannot go to the fiscal
immediately. You should wait for the 8am of that day. The delay could
be justified.
TRANSPORTATION DELAY
A crime was committed in San Francisco Camotes. One week na nga
signal number 1 in Cebu City. There was no way for the public officials
to file the case. Because it would have to go to Cebu city where the
prosecutor’s office is and after go to Danao where the court is.
Because if the penalty needs a Preliminary Investigation, the case
should be file with the Proecutor before the court. So they filed it one
week after.
Page 7 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Was there delay?
No. because if there are extraneous circumstances, the deadline will
be extended.
MEDINA V. OROZCO
 From the time of accused’s arrest to the filing of the
Information, more than 72 hours have elapsed.
 Nov. 7 was a Sunday, Nov. 8 was a holiday, Nov. 9 was
election day. These were “no office days”, and are excluded
in the counting of the periods under Art. 125.
 The accused were brought to court the very first office day
following the arrest. Art. 125 was not violated.
ART. 126 DELAYING RELASE
 A decision dismissing a criminal case or acquitting an
accused is immediately final and executory, hence, delay
cannot be delayed. However, if there are other grounds for
continued detention, i.e., another pending case where no bail
was posted, release cannot be made.
When there is judgment of acquittal, it is not subject to appeal, it is not
subject to any kind of motion. Judgment of acquittal is immediately final
an executor. The judge may then issue an order of release. If there is
an order of release, it must be released immediately. Expect for some
procedural matters, the person must be released otherwise there will
be violation of delaying of release.
ART. 127 EXPULSION
 Public officer or employee compels a person to change
residence or leave the Philippines, without lawful authority.
The case where the mayor of Manila ordered the prostitutes to go
to Davao is a violation of this provision.
ART. 128 VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
Elements:
1. Committed by public officer
2. Who enters the dwelling against the owner’s will; OR
3. Searches for papers and other effects inside the
dwelling without previous consent of the owner; OR
(entry here is with consent)
4. Refuses to leave the premises which he surreptitiously
entered, after being required to depart. (what is
punished is the refusal to leave)
“Against the will”
- It different that without consent. Against the will means there
was prohibition but the prohibition was violated.
Searches for papers and other effects inside the dwelling without
previous consent of the owner
- Natuktok ka. Gipadayon ka. Igdayon nimo, wala raka ning
apil sa ilang paniudto, nanglili pajud ka. Searching for sud-
an.
“Refusing to leave”
- It can also be refusing to leave after being ordered to leave.
Question: What if the person enters but the owner was not given
the chance to prohibit?
A: It will fall under number 3. The asking to leave does not have to be
uttered.
If a house is locked then the entry is prohibited. If you enter
nonetheless even without a prohibition then that would be number 1.
Prohibition isn’t limited to the verbal prohibition or manifestation it may
also constitute an act that the entry is prohibited.
ART. 129 SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED
AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY
OBTAINED
 If witness-deponent executes an Affidavit which was used to
secure the warrant, he could be liable for Perjury if not in
conspiracy with public officials, otherwise, if there was
conspiracy, crime is Art. 129.
What if there is a search warrant?
Then the entry is valid since it lawful. Under Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court, the searching officers are even authorized to break a door,
window or whatever.
But it does not necessary mean that it always lawful since a public
officer even if armed with a search warrant, we still have to talk about
HOW the search warrant was OBTAINED.
Example:
It was obtained by reason by misrepresentation or if there is abuse in
the implementation then Art. 129 could be committed.
Situation #1:
The searching officer entered into a house and there was an occupant
and imo “gipang-karate” ang mga kwarto or whatever causing
unnecessary damage to the property. It is a crime under Art. 129.
The search warrant will only order the specific things. If it is generally
worded then it is a void search warrant for being a general warrant
thus all the things seized will be inadmissible as evidence. It will never
happen that the search warrant will be generally worded and will
always be specific.
The search warrant will not lump all the crimes in 1 search warrant
because it will void the search warrant since it will become a scatter
shot warrant.
Situation #2:
The search warrant says “To any officer of the law, you are hereby
ordered to search the house of juan dela cruz and seize the video
karera”. Then you went inside the house and when you are already
inside, you pickpocketed a wallet. You took a cellphone and laptop.
There is no such thing is an illegal possession of laptop.
There is no such thing as illegal possession of laptop.
You’re only commanded to search and confiscate video karera. You
cannot find a video karera inside a wallet. Why are you searching the
wallet? That would be an illegal search already. Therefore, that would
be a crime under Article 129.
That’s what I’ve been telling police officers when I give lectures.
Nganu man mu ingun ang SW you are authorized to search for
drugs, nya ig human ninyu ug search kay naa man lage jewelry,
laptop. Naa diay nay proceeds ang illegal possession?
Page 8 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Ang nay proceeds kay ang transaction. Transaction means there is
sale. That would be a crime.
ART. 130 SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES –
Only if the occupant is absent
 Art. 129 and 130 are also often referred to as Violation of
Domicile in its generic sense.
Then we go to search in domicile without witnesses. Now we have to
take into consideration two things here. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
says that public officials who are armed with an SW can legally search
a house even if there are no occupants provided there are at least two
witnesses.
Who should these 2 witnesses be?
They must be residents or people in the community itself who are of
legal and good moral standing. Otherwise known as barangay tanod.
So, therefore, if the police officers have SWs, they can bring barangay
tanods, so that when there are no occupants, they can still go ahead
and enter the place and conduct the search without violating the rules.
Because the rules say you can go ahead even if the house has no
occupant provided that there are 2 witnesses but they must come from
the community. There is no requirement that they should be elected.
Any person who is of good moral standing.
Take note however of the special law R.A. 9165. Under this law, the
inventory for drugs must be made in the presence of media OR DOJ
(we call it now NPS or National Prosecution Service).
Why is that?
Can you imagine DOJ is a very big department. Gamay ra nag budget
but dako na siya nga department. So DOJ actually includes NBI and
Bureau of Immigration. So when you say DOJ, how about kung ang
muadtu didtu kay Immigration? Unsa may kalibutan ana? Now they are
changing it in RA 10640, the amendatory law.
Under this law, they are changing it already to representative of
the NPS but what does representative of the NPS mean?
Because NPS means National Prosecution Service. And these are the
prosecutors. However it does not say prosecutor. It just says
representative of NPS. Ug nganu diay kung among janitor diay? Weird.
But it is not indispensable. Because the law says “media OR”. And the
law is so unclear. I don’t know if pabor sa kontra or whatever.
The law leaves a lot to interpret and if interpreted, the law favors the
accused and against the state. That would mean acquittals. So what
happens is that there’s a lot of acquittals.
So what does “media” mean?
If naa koy programa sa radio kay namaligya kog herbal. Or naa koy
programa kay nagmugna kog relihiyun? Diba? Media gihapun because
I have a regular media time. Media can be all kinds of media.
So that’s a different thing. It has nothing to do with Article 130. RA
9165 on the requirement of media or NPS or elected public official.
For elected public official, that is a must. But the elected public official
must be elected. Therefore, the barangay tanod will not do because
first he must be elected. Second, the elected public official need not
come from the place. There is no requirement. It can be the silingan
barangay captain.
So anyway, RA 9165 has nothing to do with Article 130. Here what is
important is if there is a SW, and there is no occupant, you still cannot
search if there are at least 2 witnesses from the community of good
moral standing or at least or presumed to be of good moral standing.
ART. 131 PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, DISSOLUTION OF
PEACEFUL MEETINGS
 The government has the right to require permits for
gatherings, unless done in declared “freedom parks”,
otherwise the meeting would be a violation. Such permit is
only to regulate the peace and not to inconvenient the public.
We know that although under the Constitution, everyone has a right to
peaceably assemble and air their grievances, the reality is that we still
need to secure a permit from the local chief executive. However, if the
local chief executive will not act on the request, then it can be deemed
approved. Specially for politicians, it can be deemed approved after a
lapse of a certain period.
However, in the case of Bayan Muna, the SC said that since this is a
constitutional right, LGUs are enjoined to make a proclamation or
declaration of certain spaces that they will designate as freedom parks
so they must designate a certain area in the locality where they can
still gather and do whatever peacefully even without a permit.
Where is the Freedom Park in Cebu City?
Colon Street.
Because if you go to Carbon, nobody actually will listen. “Freedom
Park” is actually the baligyaanan ug buwak dira sa Carbon. Plaza
Independencia and Fuente Osmena, you still need a permit. The only
place where you will not need a permit is in Colon Street. In the case, it
was said that every LGU must declare a Freedom Park.
But for Cebu City, the Freedom Park is not what we call the “Freedom
Park” in Carbon. Our Freedom Park is in Colon Street.
Question: What is the scope of interruption?
Any kind of interruption. In the Bayan Muna case, SC said it is a
constitutional right. Therefore, authorities can only interfere if there are
issues of peace and order. Before the Bayan Muna ruling, what was
implemented by the police was calibrated police response. That is so
vague which can be a license to abuse. So SC changed it to maximum
tolerance. That is now the legal response when there are meetings and
peaceful rallies. Rallies are not always peaceful, as long as the
meeting is peaceful, police are not supposed to interrupt. If they do, it
is a crime.
Question: If there is no permit to rally, can the police interrupt?
In the first place, you are not authorized to rally there. Then the police
can interrupt.
Under LGC, the City Sanggunian has a right to regulate the flow of
traffic and the use of city streets. If it is a city street, it falls under the
jurisdiction of the city government. If the city government says, you
cannot do it here. Then, you cannot do it. In case of national highways,
there is a law against obstruction of national highways, with more
reasons you cannot do it there.
TITLE 3
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
These are crimes where the threats to security are internal.
Page 9 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
 These are crimes which disrupt or tend to disrupt the
functions of government.
 Unlike Title 1, there is no foreign sovereignty involved in Title
3 felonies.
The definition of rebellion not only included the manner of committing
the crime but also the component crimes. The definition of rebellion
should be armed public apprising and the purpose must always be
political.
Under the old RPC, there should be an armed public apprising
committed by means of murder, robbery, so on and so forth. So the
means of committing rebellion was also included in the definition.
However, in the 1990s when legislator introduced as well the crime of
coup d’état they also redefined rebellion cutting the portion specifying
the component crimes.
Now, it is not enough you go to Fuente Osmena “mag rebelde ta”,
there must be a substantial number of rebels.
It is more massive than insurrection. Under our law, rebellion and
insurrection are both punished under the same provision. Whether
rebellion or insurrection, it doesn’t matter because the elements remain
the same. Both can be interchangeably used.
We used to have a law against subversion but we repealed it during
the time of Ramos. We do not punish subversion, meaning adherence
to another political thought opposed to the authorities is not anymore
punished. The rational was you cannot punish a person for a belief.
Rebellion is different because it involves unlawful acts. The arming is
what is really punished. The problem with rebellion is that unless you
are a leader or promoter, a ranking member of the rebellious group if
caught, the penalty will only be reclusion temporal, a bailable offense.
Other acts committed in pursuance of Rebellion are absorbed
in the crime itself because they acquired a political character.
 Divested of its common complexion, any ordinary act,
however grave, assumes a different color by being absorbed
in the crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter penalty than
the crime of murder. In deciding if the crime committed is
rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to
ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a
political end.
 PP v. Lavediora GR 112235 November 29, 1995
Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order,
as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a
political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive.
If a crime usually regarded as common, like homicide, is
perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the
Government the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part
thereof, then it becomes stripped of its “common” complexion,
inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the
former acquires the political character of the latter. (Pp. v
Hernandez, 99 Phil 515)
 In deciding if the crime is rebellion, not murder, it becomes
imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act
was done in furtherance of a political end.
 In such cases the burden of demonstrating political motive
falls on the defense, motive being a state of mind which the
accused, better than any individual, knows…[I]t is not enough
that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose
and overt acts are essential components of the crime. With
either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally
does not exist. (Prosecutor of Zamboanga v. CA, GR 125796
Dec. 27, 2000)
Under the Ocampo v. Obando case, where there is rebellion, you
cannot complex it because we adopt the Doctrine of Absorption.
Common crimes committed in the furtherance of rebellion are
absorbed by the political crime. It doesn’t matter that the common
crime absorbed carries a higher penalty.
Illustration:
A rebel in Marawi killed 20 people, committed arson or robbed. That
will only be rebellion. Because they are absorbed, it will result in a
bailable offense. If he is a ranking member, he can post bail. SO there
were cases filed for rebellion. If it was terrorism it would have been non
baliable.
Rationale?
Because they have to justify the imposition of Martial Law. Under the
Constitution, Martial Law can only be imposed if there is rebellion or
invasion. Later we will discuss that terrorism can be committed through
rebellion.
REBELLION FROM SEDITION
 In Rebellion, there is taking up arms against the
government. In Sedition, there is public uprising which is
tumultuous, but not armed.
(In Tumultuous Disturbance under there is public disturbance but
participants are lesser in number than sedition)
In Rebellion, the purpose is always political.
 In Sedition, the purpose maybe political or social. It is for
this reason that there may be complexing in Sedition
(PP v. Kamlon, Oct. 24, 1963), as the Political Offense
Doctrine may not apply.
REBELLION SEDITION
Always armed May or may not be armed
Always political May be social purpose
But in both crimes there must be public uprising. Without which, we
may have a crime of Direct Assault
(first kind).
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT REBELLION
 Attendance in meetings to discuss plant to bring down a
government is a mere preparatory step to commit the acts
constituting Rebellion.
 This is a crime punished under Art. 136 as Conspiracy To
Commit Rebellion, and not as Rebellion punished under Art.
134.
 Beltran, et al v. Gonzalez, June 1, 2007
Page 10 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Attendance in meetings is merely conspiracy to commit rebellion.
When we discussed Art 8 on conspiracy we said that conspiracy
maybe a crime in itself or mode of incurring criminal liability.
As a crime in itself, there can be conspiracy to commit rebellion. There
can also be conspiracy to commit sedition, or even conspiracy to
commit treason or conspiracy to commit coup d'etat.
PROPOSAL vs. INCITING
Proposal and Inciting are two different things and two different crimes:
Inciting
 The act must be done publicly
 The Inictor may or may not have decided to commit the
crime itself.
Proposal
 Usually done secretly
 The person proposing must have decided to commit the
crime
 Proposal can be a crime in itself for proposal to commit
treason, proposal to commit rebellion. There is no proposal
to commit Sedition. It can be a crime in itself but it is not a
mode of committing criminal liability meaning if the person
proposed to did not accept or if the crime itself does not
happen, then the proponent will not commit any criminal
liability because it is not a means of incurring criminal
liability.
 So, if there is no punishment for the mere proposal such as
proposal to commit murder then there will be no penalty but
if the murder has been committed, the crime will not be
proposal, he would be liable as principal by inducement.
PROPOSAL AND INCITING TO REBELLION
 In inciting, the acts must be done publicly, whereas in
proposal, the acts are usually done secretly
 In proposal, the one who proposes has decided to commit
rebellion, in inciting, the offender has not decided to commit
rebellion himself
 Acts punished are Conspiracy, Proposal and Inciting to
Rebellion and Coup d’etat; Conspiracy and Inciting to
Sedition.
COMPLEXING REBELLION
 On Oct. 24, 1990, RA 6968 amended Arts. 134, 135 and 136
and punished the crime of Coup d’etat. The amendment
removed the enumeration of the overt acts or means of
committing rebellion.
 According to some legal scholars, the amendment gave way
to the possibility of complexing.
 However, this view was never supported by the SC. Instead,
SC reiterated the Political Offense Doctrine that absorbs
common crimes committed in the furtherance of political
objectives (Ocampo v. Abando GR 176830, 185587, 185636,
190005 Feb 11, 2014) even crimes punished under SPL.
(Enrile v. Amin)
Complexing of Political Crimes
We have already agreed before Pre-Mid that there can be NO
COMPLEXING OF POLITICAL CRIMES.
In the case of ENRILE VS. AMIN, the Political Offense Doctrine does
not limit itself to crimes that are punishable under the Revised Penal
Code but as well as to crimes that are punished under Special Penal
Law.
What happened in this case is that iyang gitaguan si Gringo Honasan
and he has a pending case for Rebellion, he was charged under the
Law of Obstruction of Justice for helping the hiding of Honasan, his
defense was because a case for Rebellion was already filed against
him, they cannot anymore file a case for Obstruction of Justice
because the latter was in the furtherance of Rebellion, thus it is
absorbed. The Supreme Court agreed in his favor.
ART. 134 REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Elements:
1. Rising publicly and taking arms against the government;
2. Substantial number of rebels required;
3. For the purpose of removing from allegiance to the
government or its laws, the territory of the Philippines of
any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or for the
purpose of depriving the president or congress of any of
their powers or prerogatives.
Rebellion is more massive than Insurrection. The objective of
rebellion is the complete overthrow of the government, whereas in
Insurrection, only minor changes are desired.
The gravamen of the crime of rebellion is an armed public uprising
against the government. (Aquino, RPC)
Other acts committed in pursuance of Rebellion are absorbed
in the crime itself because they acquired a political character.
 Divested of its common complexion, any ordinary act,
however grave, assumes a different color by being
absorbed in the crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter
penalty than the crime of murder. In deciding if the crime
committed is rebellion, not murder, it becomes
imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the
act was done in furtherance of a political end.
 PP v. Lavediora GR 112235 November 29, 1995
WHAT ARE POLITICAL CRIMES?
Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order,
as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a
political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive.
If a crime usually regarded as common, like homicide, is
perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the
Government the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part
thereof, then it becomes stripped of its “common” complexion,
inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the
former acquires the political character of the latter. (Pp. v
Hernandez, 99 Phil 515)
POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE
Because they are part of the political offense, there can be no
complexing as they are deemed absorbed as part of the main crime
and because they are part of the main crime they cannot be charged
and punished separately.
Page 11 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019

OCAMPO v. ABANDO: THE RULE AND THE EXCEPTION TO ART. 139 SEDITION
POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE
 There must be a public and tumultuous uprising, not
 Under the Political Offense Doctrine, common crimes, necessarily armed;
perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are divested  There must be force, intimidation or other unlawful means;
of their character as “common” offenses and assume the  Purpose maybe political or social
political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere
ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished
separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the
same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.  Sedition does not absorb murder committed by reason or in
furtherance thereof. (Pp v Kamlon, Oct. 24, 1963). There may
be complexing. (But if the objective is political and NOT
We have this very interesting case that happened before. There was social, Political Offense Doctrine applies.
an accused in a rebellion case and he could not post bail because we
filed a case for murder which is not bailable. It was easy for the police
and prosecutor to file murder because you could just raise that
somebody died, and that person was killed by the accused. Very There is no proposal to commit Sedition.
simple, two things. But the accused who happens to be charged by
murder cannot post bail.
Sedition is punished even if the actual sedition does not happen. It is
punished even if it is still on its conspiracy stage but there is no such
The Supreme Court said, it's not the problem of the Prosecutor to
crime as proposal to commit sedition, only conspiracy and inciting to
prove that you committed it in the furtherance or Rebellion. You, the
sedition.
accused, have the burden to prove it. And so kini na accused niingon,
hoy fiscal dili man to murder kabalo man mong Rebellion. Nya, kay
Sedition may be political or social and because it may be social, the
wala man mi ebidensya na Rebelde ka. Paghimo sa ug affidavit (lol)
political offense may or may not apply. It depends on the objective of
malay namo sa reasons nimo ato. Because it would be harder to prove
the sedition.
Rebellion.
The main difference between sedition and rebellion is that in sedition it
So in the case of Prosecutor of Zamboanga, it tells us that "the
is not necessarily armed. There is still public uprising but not
burden of demonstrating the political motive falls on the
necessarily armed. If there are armed person involved in sedition, their
defense".
penalty is different from those who are not armed.
Q: What if the crime charged is murder but the defense proved
So, in order to be sedition, the manner of committing is by force,
that it was rebellion, procedurally, can he still be charged of
intimidation or unlawful mean.
rebellion?
If there is public uprising but the uprising is not by force, intimidation or
A: Yes. But that would be very easy because he is actually supplying
unlawful means, it would be constitutionally protected. It would be part
the evidence against you. Alkansi lang mi gamay because instead of
of the constitutionally protected thus it would not amount to crime. The
murder which is reclusion perpetua, you will only have to suffer
only time that it would be a crime of sedition is when it is committed
reclusion temporal.
with the use of force, intimidation or other unlawful means. So if there
are utterances, even if they tend to agitate the audience but does not
Q: Is there no double jeopardy here?
have the effect of inspiring them or agitating them or order that they
would commit unlawful acts, then it would still be a constitutionally
A: No. There is no double jeopardy here because they have different
protected right.
elements.
The objective need not be political.
In a situation where the accused is charged of murder but the accused
said that “I’m actually a rebel.” The accused here is actually
Can Sedition be complexed?
incriminating himself. Not only with the crime of rebellion but also with
the crime of murder except the murder in this case is absorbed.
The answer to that would depend on the objective of the sedition:

ART. 134-A COUP D’ETAT  If the purpose is POLITICAL

Elements: If the purpose of the sedition is POLITICAL, we would follow the

1. Offender is a person belonging to the military, police or
public officer;
2. Committed by means of a swift attack accompanied by
VISTS;
3. The attack is against the duly constituted authorities or
any military camp or installation, communication
networks, public utilities xxx
4. The purpose is to seize or diminish state power.
In the crime of coup d’etat, the offender must be a public officer usually
in the police or military. There is a swift attack and the attack is
accompanied by violence, strategy, threat, intimidation or stealth. The
attack is against the government and political in nature.
Political Offense Doctrine, in which case there would be no separation.
We would adapt the doctrine of absorption. Neither do we complex,
because we follow the doctrine of absorption. All the common crimes
will be absorbed, regardless of the fact that they carry a higher penalty.
 If the purpose is SOCIAL
But if the objective of the sedition is SOCIAL, we would not anymore
apply the Political Offense Doctrine, which means that we may
complex if the formula is there. What is the formula? It could be one
act resulting to two or more grave or less grave offenses; or one crime
as a means to commit another. So, if any of the formulas work, then
we complex under Art. 48.
THERE IS NO SUCH CRIME INVOLVING SPECIAL COMPLEX
CRIME OF SEDITION. The only way we can complex Sedition is if we
complex it under Art. 48.

Page 12 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
ART. 142 INCITING TO SEDITION
 Dangerous tendency rule - the test to determine whether an
utterance is a rightful expression of the freedom of speech or
inciting to sedition, usually used during politically tense
situations. (Espuelas v. People, 90 Phil 524)
 Clear and present danger – the evil consequence of the
utterance must be ‘extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high’ before the utterance can be
punished. This is more strict rule and usually used in normal
times. Adhered to by SC in a number of cases. (Primicias v.
Fugso; Ver v. Arca; ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, Jan 28, 2000)
The person may not really be involved in the sedition, or it is also
possible that the sedition itself will not materialize - it is a separate
crime. And this crime is the one committed by the INCITER.
Now, the last part of Art. 142 would tell us that FAILING to report
Inciting to Sedition will also be a crime of Inciting to Sedition.
So, Inciting to Sedition could be an ACT or an OMISSION.
Now, we have here two tests. What is the relevance or
significance of these two tests?
In order to determine seditious utterances and in order to constitute a
crime of inciting to sedition, as I said earlier, there's a thin line between
constitutionally-protected speech and inciting to sedition.
How do we know that the speech is constitutionally-protected and
a valid exercise of the freedom of speech, of the freedom of
expression, the freedom to air grievances against the government
- how do we know that it's a valid exercise or a crime constituting
inciting to sedition?
The test is not constant. It depends on the political situation.
During abnormal times, such as Martial Law - in Mindanao, there is
Martial Law. We would call that an abnormal situation because it is not
how the state of affairs should be. In Mindanao where there is Martial
Law, the test that should be adopted is the DANGEROUS TENDENCY
RULE.
Under the Dangerous Tendency Rule, just the fact that the utterance
will have a dangerous tendency in inspiring or motivating people to
commit seditious activities, even if it's not clear, even if it's only a
tendency, that would already be inciting to sedition.
During politically tensed situations, the test to be adapted is the
DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE.
Whereas, under more normal circumstances, it could be the CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER RULE – meaning, it will not be a crime
UNLESS it presents a clear and present danger. If it is only a
pasumbingay, the presumption is that it is constitutionally protected,
and therefore, it is not a crime. So, if sedition results, it will be liable for
the sedition. And if sedition results from inciting to sedition, he will be
liable for sedition as well and he will be considered as a PRINCIPAL
BY INDUCEMENT. But if sedition will not result, he will not be liable for
sedition but his crime would be INCITING TO SEDITION.
INCITING
 If Sedition results from the incitement, the inciter is
considered a principal by inducement for Sedition.
 If Sedition did not result, he will be liable only for Inciting To
Sedition.
 Inciting To Sedition is not a continuing crime.
 Umil v. Ramos Oct. 3, 1991
So, according to Umil vs. Ramos, it is not a continuing crime. For every
seditious utterance, one count. Igka-ugma, lain nasad; ig sunod adlaw,
another napud. It is not a continuing crime.
TREASON, REBELLION, SEDITION
 Treason – conspiracy, proposal, misprision,
o No complexing
 Rebellion – conspiracy, proposal, inciting
o No complexing (Political Offense Doctrine)
 Sedition – conspiracy, inciting, maybe complexed (PP
v. Kamlon; if objective is not political, otherwise Political
Offense Doctrine applies)
Here, we have crimes that are spin-offs from other crimes. We can
have Treason, Conspiracy, Misprision. For Rebellion, we have
Conspiracy, Proposal and Inciting. We do not have Misprision. For
Treason, we do not have Inciting to Commit Treason.
BUT under Art. 143, when there is a meeting conducted to commit
Treason, the attendants thereof, including the organizers thereof, could
be punished for ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY, but not for inciting.
For Sedition, we have Conspiracy and Inciting.
CRIMES AGAINST LEGISLATIVE BODIES
 Art. 143 in preventing the meeting of legislative bodies must
be with the use of force or fraud (but no absorption according
to Regalado, complexing principle)
 Art. 144 on disturbance of proceedings punishes the acts of
disturbing, interrupting proceedings or impairing the respect
due to legislative bodies
 Art. 145 on Violation of parliamentary immunity.
We have 143, 144 and 145.
ART. 143 - PREVENTING THE MEETING OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES
It applies to any kind of legislative body, whether national or local. It
should be with the use of force or fraud.
ART. 144 - DISTURBING THE PROCEEDING OF LEGISLATIVE
BODIES.
ART. 145 ON VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY.
This can only be committed against the National legislature.
ARTS. 146 AND 147 – ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY AND ILLEGAL
ASSOCIATION
 Art. 146 punishes the activity/meeting;
 Art. 147 punishes the association itself, whether meeting or
not.
Page 13 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019

b) Employs force;
ART. 146 PUNISHES THE ACTIVITY/MEETING; c) Makes a serious intimidation; or
d) Makes a serious resistance
There must be a meeting.
The intimidation and resistance must be serious, otherwise, it would
ART. 147 PUNISHES THE ASSOCIATION ITSELF, WHETHER fall under Art. 151.
MEETING OR NOT.
Example:
Meeting is not required. Membership in an illegal association is a
crime. In a checkpoint, a person is asked for his license, and he refuses to
present it, he is not liable for resistance, but for disobedience.

Art. 146 can be committed 2 ways (by leaders and organizers,
even if they are not the speakers):
 Audience is incited to commit treason, rebellion, sedition, or
direct assault;
 Attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing
any crime under the RPC (Teehankee dissenting, Alonto v.
Enrile, GR 54095, July 25, 1980)
3. At the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent
a) Is engaged in the actual performance of official duties;
b) That he is assaulted by reason of the past performance
of official duties;
Not in the actual performance of public functions.
Example:

A judge who came from the church, was attacked by a person he

previously convicted. The attacker is liable for direct assault.
ART. 148 DIRECT ASSAULT
4. Offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in
Two kinds: authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties.
1. Would have been rebellion or sedition but without public
uprising; This is a crime against the authority and not against the person.
2. Attack, force, SERIOUSLY intimidate or resist a person
in authority or his agent while engaged in the 5. There is no public uprising.
performance of official duties
All these elements must concur.

1. Would have been rebellion or sedition but without public

uprising;
In Rebellion, there must be armed public uprising. Without the requisite
public uprising, the crime would then be direct assault.
If there is a public uprising but the persons involved are not armed, it
cannot be rebellion, but can be sedition.
ART. 152 PERSONS IN AUTHORITY; AGENTS OF PERSONS
IN AUTHORITY
 Persons in Authority is a person who is vested with
jurisdiction recognized by law and clothed with authority in
law. Includes Brgy. Captain, lupon and kagawads per Sec.
388, RA 7160.

If there is both no public uprising and not armed, the crime is direct
assault. PP v Sion, Aug. 11, 1997

 Agents of Persons in Authority is a person charged with the

GELIG V. PEOPLE GR 173150, JULY 28, 2010
maintenance of public order and the protection and security
Elements of the 2nd mode of Direct Assault: of life and property. Includes Brgy. Tanods.

1. Offender
Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority need not be
a. Makes and attack;
public officials.
b. Employs force;
c. Makes a serious intimidation; or
d. Makes a serious resistance WHEN A PRIVATE PERSON CAN BE THE VICTIM OF DIRECT
ASSAULT:
2. The person assaulted is a person in authority or his
agent. 1. If he is a person in authority or an agent of a person in
authority, even if he is not a public officer, i.e.,
3. At the time of the assault the person in authority or his professors, lawyers;
agent
a. Is engaged in the actual performance of official 2. If offender employs violence against private person for
duties; similar purpose as rebellion or sedition but without public
b. That he is assaulted by reason of the past uprising;
performance of official duties;
3. If he comes to the aid of a person in authority Art. 152
4. Offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person aab [EA 1978 (1957); BP 873 on lawyers (1985)]
in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties.

5. There is no public uprising.

1. Offender:
a) Makes and attack;
Page 14 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
PENALTIES FOR DIRECT ASSAULT
 Penalty is higher if any of the ff. is present:
Prision Correccional med to max and P1,000 fine
1. Committed with a weapon;
2. Offender is public officer or employee;
3. Offender lays hand upon a PA
COMPLEXING DIRECT ASSAULT
 Art. 48 applicable
 There is no special complex crime invoking Direct
Assault.
 If the direct assault produces slight physical injuries,
there is no complexing. The latter is absorbed by the
former. It can also be the subject of a separate
information.
 If two separate informations are filed, conviction in one
negates the other.
Why? Because the conviction of one which is part of another
would bar a prosecution for the other;
 The only time when there can be two separate offenses
is when there are different victims during the commotion.
EIGHTH WEEK OF DISCUSSIONS (MARCH 6-7, 2019)
There is direct assault when a person in authority is assaulted, an
agent of a person in authority is assaulted. But when an ordinary
civilian comes to the aid of a person in authority, he will be treated as
an agent of a person in authority. Even that civilian can be a victim of
an indirect assault.
INDIRECT ASSAULT
 When can there be indirect assault?
When a civilian comes to the aid of an agent of a person in authority.
Because if the civilian comes to aid of a person in authority, the crime
would still be direct assault
ART. 150
Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its Committees or
sub-committees, Constitutional commissions, its committees or
sub committees:
1. Refusing to obey summons without valid excuse;
2. Refusing to be sworn;
3. Refusing to answer or produce documents;
4. Restraining another from attending or inducing
disobedience to summons
When there is summons from whatever committee from the congress,
then it has to be obeyed. So if Jonel refuses to obey the summons, he
will be criminally liable not only be cited in contempt. Remember the
case of Napoles, when summoned to testify, she had to answer the
questions, it is not allowed that questions be left unanswered.
ART. 151 RESISTANCE & DISOBEDIENCE
 Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or
the agents of such person can be committed if the
offender resists or SERIOUSLY disobeys such person.
 Disobedience which is not serious carries a lower
penalty. (2nd par. Of Art. 151)
Under 148, there is direct assault when there is assault, attack, or
when there is serious resistance or intimidation. If the resistance is not
serious, the crime is under 151.
Two kinds of disobedience:
1. Simple; and
2. Serious
Example:
When a person is flagged in a checkpoint, for example, and if he is
asked to show his driver’s license, he must do it otherwise he would be
committing a crime. If there is disobedience, he can be arrested, and
there can be SITA.
ART. 153 TUMULTUOUS DISTURBANCE; INTERRUPTION
LIABLE TO CAUSE DISTURBANCE
Elements:
1. Serious disturbance in a public place, office or
establishment; or
2. Interrupt or disturb public performances, functions or
gatherings or peaceful meetings not falling under Arts.
131 or 132 (which can be committed only by public
officers);
 The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed
tumultuous if caused by more than three persons who
are armed or provided with means of violence.
Tumultuous disturbance means there should be at least four persons
who are armed or provided with means of violence. The disturbance
should be in a public place, office, or establishment. Or even if not in a
public place, it interrupts or disturbs public performances, functions, or
gatherings or peaceful meetings not falling under Arts. 131 and 132.
ART. 154. UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND
UNLAWFUL UNTTERANCES
 Differs from slander or libel in that the purpose in Art.
154 is not to embarrass the victim. There is no private
offended party here.
 “Chona Mae”?
ART. 154 is unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful
utterances. Differs from libel or slander the purpose is to humiliate,
under Art. 154, the purpose is to cause alarm. If you spread false or
fake news, that can be Art. 154 if the purpose is to alarm. But if
purpose is not to alarm but to humiliate then that would be libel.
Page 15 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
ART. 155 ALARMS AND SCANDALS
1. Discharge firearm, rocket, firecracker, other explosive in
a town or public place calculated to cause alarm or
danger;
2. Instigate or take part in charivari or other disorderly
meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public,
tranquility;
3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at
night or while engaged in any other nocturnal
amusements;
4. Causing disturbance or scandal in public places while
intoxicated or otherwise, provided that the
circumstances do not fall under Art. 155.
Art. 155 is alarms and scandal, the purpose is to cause alarm.
Discharge of firearm is for the purpose of causing. If the firearm is
aimed at a person, that would be illegal discharge. Alarms and
scandals should not be aimed. Firing under alarms and scandals
should not be aimed. That is what we call an indiscriminate firing.
If you aim, without intent to kill, that would illegal discharge. But if
aimed, plus intent to kill, actually discharged, even if no injuries, that is
homicide, murder, parricide, or infanticide.
ART. 156 DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL
 Act punished is removing from jail a person confined
therein or help the escape of such person.
 Penalty is higher if by means of violence, intimidation or
bribery.
ART. 157 – 159 EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
 Only a convict can commit these crimes.
 Art. 157 – escaping under ordinary circumstances;
 Art. 158 – escaping on the occasion of disorder or
calamities
 Art. 159 – violation of conditional pardon
ART. 157 (Pangan v. Gatbalite, GR 141718, Jan 21, 2005)
 “Escape” is legal parlance and for purposes of Arts. 93
and 157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of
prisoner from the limits of his custody.
 Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison
cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.
Art 156, 17, 158, 159 – lumped together
156 – crime committed by somebody who removes a prisoner from jail.
The prisoner is not necessarily convicted; provided he is imprisoned.
Hence, he may or may not be convicted. Thus, Art 156 is crime
committed by a person who helps the prisoner
157, 158, 159 are the crimes committed by the prisoner himself. The
prisoner must be convicted, if not yet convicted and gets out of jail, he
is not liable under these provisions; because the law provides “evasion
of service of sentence.”
157 – escaping under ordinary circumstances.
So a person who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to
have escape therefrom.
ON BAIL
So if a person was on bail, he did not escaped but he did not appear
during the trial. Trial proceeded in absentia. And so, after the trial in
absentia, promulgation of judgment was also done in absentia. He
could not be found anymore.
Is he deemed to have escaped?
No, because he was not committed to prison and departed unlawfully.
When he went out of jail, there was a release order by virtue of the
posting of bail bond. So he did not depart unlawfully.
In relation to Art 93, on the prescription of penalty, the penalty will not
also prescribe because in order for it to proscribe, there must be an
escape.
Take note that if you are caught again after evading sentence, duha na
imong kaso. If you are not caught, the penalty on the first crime could
prescribe but the second crime will not prescribe. You can still be
convicted of Article 157.
When a case is already filed in court, you are now under the
jurisdiction of the court who can order a bench warrant. So you will be
arrested still, but not because you have committed another crime but
because of the first crime.
If you escape, remember you have a pending case thus court can
issue an alias warrant or a bench warrant (Was not able to hear the
question of the student huhu)
 Bench Warrant is for the disobedience to the court.
 Alias Warrant is for your crime.
ART. 160 QUASI-RECIDIVISM
 There is a quasi-recidivism when a person commits a
felony after having been convicted by final judgment,
before beginning to serve his sentence, or while serving
the same.
 Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance
which maximizes the penalty, and which cannot be
offset by ordinary mitigating circumstance.
KINDS OF REPEAT OFFENSE:
1. Recidivism as an ordinary aggravating circumstance
– increases the penalty by period; maybe offset by
ordinary mitigating
2. Reiteracion or habituality – ordinary aggravating
circumstance
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency results in
an additional penalty
4. Quasi-recidivism – special aggravating circumstance
which maximizes the penalty; cannot be offset by
ordinary mitigating
Quasi Recidivism is not a crime. It is a special aggravating
circumstance. If a person commits another crime before or during the
service of a sentence, and commits another crime, for the second
crime, the penalty will always be maximum because QR is a special
aggravating circumstance. It will always resolve in maximizing the
crime.
 Recidivism and Habituality – Ordinary Aggravating
 Multi-Recidivism or Habitual Deliquency – result in
additional penalty
 Quasi-Recidivism – Special Aggravating Circumstance
Page 16 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019

TITLE 4
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST ARTS. 166 and 167 punishes forging, importing and uttering
instruments payable to bearer and not payable to bearer.

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST (CAPI)

 CAPI are crimes which involve defraudation of the public
in general.
 Disturbance of the financial and economic affairs of the
state
ART. 161. COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE
PHILS. AND THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE
 Falsifying the President’s signature is not a crime of
Falsification, but falls under Art. 161.
ART. 169 HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED
Arts. 167 and 168 are committed by:
a. Giving a treasury or bank note or instrument the
appearance of a true and genuine document;
b. Erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering the
figures, letters, words or signs therein
If you have a play money which is usually having an indication that I t
is a play money, without an indication then that could be a crime.
If you place a beard to the face of Ninoy in the bill there would be a
crime because you are altering the bill.

If you write something like your cellphone number, it is not a crime, it is

The crime will not be falsification.
not one of those mentioned in the note. If you notice bank tellers place
signs on the notes.
ART. 162 PUNISHES THE USE OF FORGED SIGNATURE,
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP UNDER ART. 161.
FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS
Counterfeiting or Mutilating COINS:  ART. 170 FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE
 ART. 163 – making, importing, uttering false coins DOCUMENTS
 ART. 164 – mutilating coins or importing & uttering
mutilated coins (of legal tender) with connivance with  ART. 171 FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER BY
mutilators (other opinions; gain from metal dust or TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OFFICIAL POSITION
deliberately diminish value of coin, otherwise PD 247
applies)  ART. 172 (1) FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE
 ART. 165 – while the title indicates only the crime as INDIVIDUAL OF PUBLIC, OFFICIAL OR
selling, this article punishes as well possession with COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT
intent to utter and distribution of false or mutilated (2) FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE
coins without connivance of mutilators. DOCUMENT BY ANY PERSON, WITH
DAMAGE OR INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE
(3) USE OF ANY FALSIFIED DOCUMENT IN
163, 164, and 165 – these are crimes involving coins. JUDICIAL PROCEEDING OR TO THE
DAMAGE OR WITH INTENT TO CAUSE
163: Making and the distribution of fake coins DAMAGE TO ANOTHER

164: Mutilation and distribution of mutilated coins

 Mutilated coins should be legal tender
HOW COMMITTED:
 Example:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or
Maghimo mog costume sa belly dancing using one centavo
rubric;
from 1950s – not covered.
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in
any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
165: Selling and possession with intent to distribute these fake or
participate;
mutilated coins.
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by
PD 247 also punishes defacement or destroying notes and coins them;
for whatever reason. 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning;
ART. 168 ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE 7. Issuing in an unauthenticated form a document when no
TREASURY OR BANK NOTES such original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
 Mere possession is not punishable. genuine original; or
 There must be knowledge 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
 To be illegal, possession must be coupled with intent to issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
use

In 171 the penalty is higher being prision mayor compared to

If there is possession without intent to use then there is no crime even falsification committed by private citizen (172). The acts are the same!
if you have fake money. So there are stores that would even display
fake money that is not a violation. The purpose is to warn people.
Page 17 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
As to number 4. The narration of facts should not be in an affidavit. If it
is then the crime would be perjury.
Example:
There is a false a narration on a deed of sale or SPA then that would
be falsification. But if it is an affidavit being a sworn statement, the
crime would be perjury.
In one case the SC said when you make a correction because what is
reflected in the document is wrong. The SC said that would not be
falsification. Because you are not falsifying but merely correcting. The
essence of the crime is the falsifying.
The crimes punished are falsification of a public, official or commercial
document. Just the act of of falsification is already a crime.
Falsification of a private document with intent to damage and you will
see that on the first one damage is not required but if it is private then
there must be damage or intent to cause damage. Without such there
would be no falsification. There is no crime.
The use of a falsified document in a judicial proceeding or to the
damage or with intent to damage. So it is the use. Not the falsification.
KINDS OF DOCUMENTS:
 Public document – one authorized by law or regulation
or which a xxxx person authorized to administer oaths
intervenes for the purpose of authenticating the same
 Official document – public officers take part by virtue of
their office, or part of public records
 Commercial document – authorized and regulated by
commercial laws for use in trade and commerce
 Private document – does not fall under any of the
above categories
Damage is not required for public, official and commercial and that is
why you can complex it with estafa because damage is not required
here. So estafa can have its complete elements while falsification of a
public or commercial document is also complete; and because they are
complete and can stand on their own, now we can complex them. But
if one of the crimes cannot stand on its own because there’s only ONE
DAMAGE, then there can be NO COMPLEXING under Art. 48.
FALSIFICATION IS ESSENCE OF CRIME
 It is falsification, and not a correction which the law
punishes.
 Sarep v. SB GR 68203 Sept. 13, 1980, citing PP v
Mateo, 25 Phil 324; Arriola v. Republic 103 Phil 730
LAYUG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, AUG. 16, 2000
There is no falsification of a public document if the acts of the
accused are consistent with good faith. Although the accused
altered a public document or made a misstatement or erroneous
assertion therein he would not be guilty of falsification as long as
he acted in good faith and no one was prejudiced by the alteration
or error.
The crime charged in this case was falsification (Art 171) but he
interposed during the trial that it was not really him who ticked the box,
all he did was sign. SC still convicted him but under Art365.
Possible ba na you will be convicted for another crime even if you
were charged under another information?
Yes if all the elements are still there.
PRESUMPTION AGAINST POSSESSOR OF FALSIFIED
DOCUMENT:
 It is established rule that when a person has in his
possession a falsified document and makes use of the
same, the presumption or inference is justified that such
person is the forger. (PP v. Manansala, 105 Phil 1253;
Maliwat v CA, cited in Villamor v. PP GR 178652,
Dec. 8, 2010)
 Why is there no complex crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Private Document?
COMPLEXING: GONZAGA vs. PP, JAN 14, 2015
 Accused was charged with Estafa under Art. 315
Through Falsification for executing a mortgage of
property which has already been mortgaged 4 times. He
was convicted for the complex crime of Estafa under Art.
316 Through Falsification.
 The elements of Falsification are present:
1. Untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
2. Legal obligation to disclose the facts;
3. Facts narrated are absolutely false.
PP vs. PO GIOK TO, APRIL 30, 1955
 Distinction between Falsification of Public and Private
Documents:
 Falsification of public document is committed by mere
performance of any of the acts enumerated un Art. 171;
while Falsification of Private Document is committed not
only by the performance of any of the acts of falsification
but it must be shown that such act is committed to the
damage of a third party or with intent to cause such
damage.
SEVILLA vs. PEOPLE AUG 13, 2014
Q: Is Falsification an intentional felony?
Sevilla was charged with violation of Art. 171 for ticking
the “NO” box in the PDS on whether he had a pending criminal
case.
He argues that the PDS was filled up by his staff as he did
not yet have an office at the time.
 He was liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Falsification under Art. 365.
 Even if the Information charged an intentional felony of
Falsification, the Court ruled that Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Falsification in necessarily included in the
former. Thus, the right of the accused to be informed of
the charges has not been violated.
Page 18 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
It would seem that the SC regarded the imprudence resulting in
falsification as being included in the charges of falsification which is
intentional.
Question: Can a person be convicted of the crime not alleged in
the information?
In the SC, the crime of imprudence resulting to falsification is already
covered in the charges of falsification. So because it is covered, like
murder pwede homicide or frustrated murder pwede less serious
physical injuries. So I would say that is how the court looked at it.
Question: So if the crime was falsification, is it correct to say that
the reckless imprudence was the means in committing it?
Remember that he was not convicted under Art. 171. So we cannot
say that it is merely the mode. He was convicted under Art. 365. Which
means the crime is 365 and not 171.
That has been cleared in the case of Jaaassson Ivler. In the case, the
SC made it clear that negligence is not a mode of committing a felony.
Culpa can be a mode in committing a crime but it can also be felony in
itself. Art. 365 defines the penalty and the definition of the penalty
which means that it is a crime in itself.
But in this case, it would seem that SC deemed imprudence resulting
in falsification was covered in the orginal charges of Art. 171. So wala
natay mahims. So if you really want to be clarified, read the case!!!
Kay wala raba moy mahimo. Kinahangalan raba mo mutuo.
Question: So what’s the answer to the question – is falsification
intentional felony?
You would probably qualify. Art. 171 is a crime that is intentional
felony. But it can also be committed through culpa as decided by the
SC in the case of Sevilla.
Question: What penalty is graver?
Art 171 – prision mayon; Art 172 – prision correccional; Art 365 could
be arresto mayor. Kung ikiha apil ang staff, naa siyay defense of good
faith. Since this is a malum in se crime, good faith is a defense.
We do not have a problem on malversation because the law says it
can be committed through imprudence so you will not charge it under
Art 365. Malversation ra gihapon. But falsification is different.
PP vs. PO GIOK TO, APRIL 30, 1955
 Distinction between Falsification of Public and Private
Documents:
 Falsification of public document is committed by mere
performance of any of the acts enumerated un Art. 171;
while Falsification of Private Document is committed not
only by the performance of any of the acts of falsification
but it must be shown that such act is committed to the
damage of a third party or with intent to cause such
damage.
The difference is the staff in Sevilla nagbuot-buot. Here, siya nuon
nisumpay sa information (?). So it was purely clerical on the part of the
public officer. Wala siya gabuot-buot ug suwat. So the court convicted
him for Art. 172. So that is the difference ha.
US vs. INFANTE & BARRETO MARCH 31, 1917
When consummated?
The crime if Falsification of Private Document is consummated at
the time when and the place where the document is falsified to the
prejudice of, or with the intent to prejudice, a third person, and this
whether the falsified document is or is not thereafter put to the
improper or illegal use for which it was intended.
It is not the use but the time it was falsified.
PP vs. TAN BOMPING, MARCH 15, 1026
A deed acknowledged before a notary public is a public document
and the fact that the false dates were written into the documents
here in question BEFORE said documents were presented to the
notary does not alter the character of the crime as Falsification of
Public Document if they were so presented by the party who
committed the falsification or at his instance.
What if pagsuwat nimo di paman siya public kay wala pa siya gi
notaryohan?
SC said it already is public, the moment you write it, you do not have to
make it notarized just to make it public. (akin to your bar application)
 ART. 173 FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, TELEGRAPH,
TELEPHONE MESSAGE
 ART. 174 FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES,
CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE, ETC.
 ART. 175 USING FALSE CERTIFICATE
 ART. 176 MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF
INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS:
In Gigantoni v. PP, the petitioner was not accused of usurpation
of official functions (he did not do any official function). He was
only indicted for usurpation of authority, for claiming that he was a
CIS agent when he asked for flight records. SC ruled that he was
not liable because the records were given to him not because he
was entitled to it as part of official function, but because it was
readily available to anyone regardless of position.
ART. 177 PUNISHED THE FOLLOWING:
1. Usurpation of authority – a person knowingly and
falsely represents himself to be an officer or
representative of the Phil. or foreign gov’t.
2. Usurpation of official functions – a person, under
pretense of official position, performs any act pertaining
to a person in authority or officer of the Phil or foreign
gov’t.
 Gigantoni v. PP GR L-74727 June 16, 1988
Page 19 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
USURPATION
 ART. 178 – Using fictitious name and concealing
true name
- Purpose must be to conceal a crime, evade a
judgment, or cause public damage
 ART. 179 – Illegal use of uniform or insignia
 CA 142, aab RA 6085 – Anti Alias Law
FALSE TESTIMONIES
 ART. 180 – False testimony against a defendant
 ART. 181 - False testimony favorable to the
defendant
 ART. 182 – False testimony in civil cases
 It is not necessary that the testimony be actually be
considered by the Court in Its decision.
ART. 183 – FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND
PERJURY
 Art. 183 punishes two crimes.
ELEMENTS OF PERJURY:
1. Accused made a statement under oath or executed an
affidavit;
2. It pertains to a material matter;
3. It was made before a competent officer;
4. There is a deliberate assertion of falsehood;
5. It is required by law.
PERJURY
Material matter is the main fact which is the subject of the inquiry
or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact, or any fact or
circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the
testimony relative to the subject of the inquiry, or which legitimately
affects the credit of any witness who testifies.
ART. 185 MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS
There are two acts punished under this article:
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration
from refraining from taking part;
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away
NOTE: In both instances, there must be a public auction.
This 2nd mode of committing is more commonly known as a BUY-
OUT. It’s a buy-out wherein certain bidders will tell other bidders that
“bid-bid lang mo ug joke then we’ll buy you out.”. It’s actually common.
This crime can be committed by any person whereas under RA 3019
there must be collusion or conspiracy with a public official.
 ARTS. 188 and 189 have been repealed by The
Intellectual Property Act (RA 8293)
 ARTS. 190 – 194 have been repealed by the special laws
on drugs, the latest of which is RA 9165.
 ARTS. 195 – 199 have been replaced and modified by
PD’s 449, 483, 1602 and the Illegal Numbers Game Act.
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS
 ART. 200 – Grave scandal – is any highly scandalous
act offensive to morals and good customs and
committed publicly OR within the knowledge and view of
the public.
I hope by now you will be able to distinguish between alarms and
scandals and grave scandal.
Grave scandal is a crime against decency and good customs and it is
not a purpose of alarm otherwise the crime would be alarms and
scandals. In grave scandal, there is no specific act, it could be any act
which has the effect of being offensive to morals and good customs or
which is committed in public or within the knowledge of the public. It is
a catch-all provision.
NOTE: It applies only when there is no other felony
committed. It is a catch-all provision.
 Grave scandal must be directed to the sense of decency
or good customs and NOT on property.
 Public view is not always necessary as long as the fact
was performed in a public place.
QUESTIONS FROM THE CLASS:
Can grave scandal be committed in your home?
Yes. It does not mean it cannot be committed in your home. Like
exhibitionists, for example. You are in your home but it is within public
view. Because it says committed publicly OR within the knowledge and
view of the public.
How about in a private car?
Yes, if they exhibited and it is within public view or within the
knowledge and view of the public.
What if the car is tinted?
Yes, it’s not grave scandal. To be committed, it must be done publicly
or within public view. Now, here’s the problem though- if it’s a public
place because it can fall within the description of committed publicly.
Because it says “OR” so even if it’s not within public view but it is
committed publicly, like in a public place not in a public view like in SM
but in the parking lot. So it’s “OR”. Take note that the word used by the
law is “OR”.
Page 20 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019

ART. 201 TITLE 7: CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

 Art. 201 – Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and

exhibitions and indecent shows.
 Art. 203 – Who are public officers. (by provision of law,
popular election or appointment)
Note: mere possession of obscene literature is not punishable.
Possession must be coupled with publishing, exhibiting, and
distribution
Who are public officers?
 However, RA 9775 punishes mere possession of child porn
materials.
NOTES: For malversation (ARTS. 217 – 221), public officers
include those mentioned in ART. 222.

Here, the mere possession of obscene literature is not punished. What
is punished is possession coupled with distribution, publishing, selling
and exhibiting. This could be the crime committed by bars that have
these obscene exhibitions.
Q: How about the lingam massage?
 For RA 3019, “public officers” has a wider scope, and
includes temporary, contractual, casual employees or
those receiving compensation from the government.
 In Maniega v. PP 88 Phil 494, SC held that it is not the
nature of the appointment but the duties performed that
is determinative.

A: These are not necessarily within the under this provision. There are
no exhibitions. They are done privately, there could be prostitution. But
as long as there is no exhibition and shows, that might not be covered. MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE, NONFEASANCE
If it is just like 2 people in the room.
 Malfeasance is the doing of something which is wrong
and should not be done;
Art. 202 – VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES
 Misfeasance is the doing of an act which maybe
performed but is done erroneously
 Under the RPC, prostitutes are penalized.
 Non-feasance is the omission to do an act that should
 Under RA 9208, aab RA 10364, trafficked sexual
be done.
workers are considered victims.
 Under the RPC, only women can be considered
prostitutes
 Prostitutes under the RPC require habituality in NOTE: In terms of gravity, malfeasance is the most serious one
engaging in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. followed by misfeasance then non-feasance.
 Can Art. 202, RPC be reconciled with RA 9208, and RA
10364? Why do we need to know that?

Because while it is true that they are offenses, one may only give rise
to an administrative offense not a criminal offense.
1902. Thus prostitution can only be criminalized if they are women.

If the prostitute is not a woman, he is not a criminal. If he is a MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE

transgender, he is not considered a criminal.
Arts. 204 – 207 can be committed by judges only:
But there is a special penal law which is the RA 9208 which is the
Human Trafficking act. And under this law, prostitutes who are  ART. 204 – Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
trafficked are considered victims. And because they are considered  ART. 205 – Judgment rendered through negligence
victims, they will not prosecuted if caught. Instead, the ones who are  ART. 206 – Unjust interlocutory order
prosecuted are the managers, pimps, brokers and all other person who  ART. 207 – Malicious delay in the administration of
took advantage of the prostitute. justice.

What about the customer?

ART. 204 – Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
Under the RPC, only the prostitute is punished. Under the RA 9208,
the customer of the prostitute will be held liable and the penalty is The rendering of an unjust judgment is not a crime. It may give rise to
prision correctional. an administrative sanction but it is not a crime. What makes it a crime
is if it is done KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY.
Q: Can these two laws stand together? If the prostitute is treated
as victim under RA 9208, can be she be prosecuted under Art. ART. 207 – Malicious delay in the administration of justice.
202?
Delay is not yet a crime. It is a crime if the delay is done maliciously.
A: Under RA 9208, she is treated as a victim thus cannot be held liable
however the people surrounding her are the ones to be held liable
under RA 9208.

Q: What about if the prostitute is a freelancer? No agents or

brokers?

A: She could be prosecuted under RA 202. (lesson: hire pimps para

walay liability)

Page 21 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
VILLAROSA vs. YADAO, MARCH 13, 2013
 It is well-settled that a judge’s failure to interpret the law
or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does
not necessarily render him liable.
 Only errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross
ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an
injustice will be sanctioned.
 In this case, the Court ruled that a violation can only give
rise to administrative sanction and only the OCA can
impose such sanctions. Varies from Yasin v. Felix
YASIN vs. FELIX DEC. 4, 1995
 “Not every error of judgment can be attributable to a
judge’s ignorance of the law. A judge may not be
charged for mere errors of judgment in the absence of a
showing of any bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose on
his part.”
 Yasin reiterated Dela Cruz v. Concepcion: to constitute
gross ignorance of the law, the decision order or
actuation of the judge must not only be contrary to
existing law and jurisprudence but he must be moved by
bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.
 Knowingly rendering unjust judgment is both a criminal
and administrative charge. As a crime, it is punished
under Art. 204, the elements of which are:
a. The offender is a Judge;
b. He renders a judgment;
c. The judgment is unjust;
d. He knows it is unjust.
LAYOLA vs. GABO, JAN. 26, 2000
 For granting bail in a murder case, the judge was held
liable only for gross ignorance of the law. he was
relieved from charges of Knowingly Rendering Unjust
Interlocutory Order.
 The quantum of proof required for Knowingly Rendering
An Unjust Judgment is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Malice was not proven here.
 Bail is not a matter of right in murder cases, but maybe
granted by the court upon a sound discretion. Granting
bail without hearing is gross ignorance.
CRIMES THAT CAN ONLY BE COMMITTED BY A PROSECUTOR
ART. 208
 Art. 208 penalizes dereliction of office by prosecutor, by
maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution, or
tolerating the commission of offense.
 Art. 209 punishes “prevarication” or betrayal of trust by
an attorney
NOTE: Prevaricacion covers any dereliction of duty whereby the
public officer violates his oath of office.
In Crim Pro, the prosecutor cannot be compelled by mandamus from
instituting a criminal case because he is given a wide latitude of
discretion in determining probable cause.
However, in this case, despite that there is probable cause but the
prosecutor maliciously refrained from instituting a criminal case, he can
be liable under this article.
Aside from the refraining, there must also be proof of maliciously
refraining of filing the case.
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION:
Distinctions between bribery and corruption:
 Direct bribery – in connection with the performance of
his official duties
 Indirect bribery – given by reason of his office
 In Direct Bribery, mere promises are sufficient, but
not in Indirect Bribery.
In direct bribery, there must be an agreement to perform a public
function regardless if there is no consideration.
ELEMENTS OF DIRECT BRIBERY:
1. The offender is a public officer;
2. The offender accepts an offer, promise or gift or present
by himself or through another;
3. Such offer or promise or gift or present be received by
the public officer with a view to committing some crime,
or in consideration of the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to
refrain from doing something which it is his official duty
to do; and
4. The act which the offender agrees to perform or which
he executes is connected with performance of his official
duties.
MEANING OF “RECEIVING” IN BRIBERY
 The essential ingredient of direct bribery is that the
public officer must have accepted the gift or material
consideration. There must be a clear intention on the
part of the public officer to take the gift and consider the
same as his own property from then on, such as putting
away the gift to safekeeping or pocketing the same.
Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign,
circumstance or act is not enough to show that the crime
of indirect bribery has been committed. To
hold/otherwise will encourage unscrupulous individuals
to frame up public officers by simply putting within their
physical custody some gift, money or property.
 Formilleza v. SB GR 75160, March 8, 1988
There was an applicant for promotion and somehow she got this idea
that if she will give something to the supervisor, it will facilitate her
promotion. So, they agreed to meet in a restaurant. She literally
handed something under the table. The supervisor received it. Police
officers arrested her. The supervisor saw something so she received it
and then law enforcers swooped down on her and charged her for
bribery.
SC ruled that we cannot say that there is receiving for the purpose of
doing something in relation to her office. Something was being handed
she took it.
Does that mean that there was acceptance to do something?
It was not shown. It was not shown that they previously agreed. There
was no evidence that they already came into an agreement. What is
important is the parties must have come into an agreement in order
Page 22 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
that we can say that there is bribery. Minus that agreement, it could not
be bribery.
POZAR vs. CA OCT. 23, 1984
GOOD FAITH IS A DEFENSE IN CORRUPTION
 The accused in this case was a foreigner who is
unfamiliar with the rules. He alleged that he left the
money for photocopying expenses, and not as a gift.
 For lack of criminal intent, he was acquitted.
In Pozar, if the money was not accepted the crime would only be
attempted corruption.
In indirect bribery it is not necessary that there be an agreement
because there is nothing to be performed. There is just a giving and no
condition. Being a malum in se, good faith is a defense in corruption.
Here a foreigner gave money to certain public officials. He thought the
money would be use for pa Xerox. So he was acquitted.
PP vs. FRANCISCO, MARCH 26, 1924
 BRIBERY from ROBBERY
 Accused, a sanitary inspector, discovered dirty lard from
victim’s store. He threatened to take it to the municipal
building unless the victim pays him an amount. The
victim paid, but later the accused returned with a
policeman when the victim told others about the
incident. As the lard was already clean, accused secretly
dropped cigarette ashes thereto.
 Bribery is voluntary while Robbery is neither
voluntary nor mutual.
If there was some intimidation, because bribery should be voluntary
and there should be an agreement, if there was no agreement and the
money was given because of intimidation the crime would not be
bribery. It would be robbery or extortion because the latter is robbery.
Here the victim gave the money under duress, the crime is robbery.
US vs. JADER, JULY 18, 1902
 BRIBERY FROM ESTAFA
 A municipal official who demands and exacts gifts from
persons under promise to relieve them from certain
obligations to the municipality is guilty of estafa and not
of bribery.
A distinction was made between bribery and estafa. Here the public
official nangilad. SC said this is not bribery, this is estafa. The person
who gave money will not be liable for corruption because he is a victim.
QUALIFIED BRIBERY
 RA 7659 penalizes the crime of Qualified Bribery as
Art. 211-A, if the public official is entrusted with law
enforcement and he refrains from arresting or
prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime
punishable by RP or death in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift. He shall suffer the penalty of the crime not
prosecuted.
 If it was he who demanded the money, his penalty would
be death (subject to amendment under RA 9346
abolishing death penalty).
Here the public official must be a law enforcer and he did not arrest or
prosecute somebody who has committed a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua or death. He will serve the penalty for the person
that he let go.
FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTION
 The crimes penalized under Arts. 213 to 216 also fall
under the crimes punished as graft and corrupt practices
under RA 3019.
 ART. 213 – FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC
TREASURY AND SIMILAR OFFENSES.
 ART. 214 – OTHER FRAUDS
 ART. 215 – PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
 ART. 216 – POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED
INTEREST BY A PUBLIC OFFICER.
ART. 213
 Art. 213 can be committed only by:
1. A public officer who shall have official capacity to
deal with persons in furnishing supplies, making of
contracts, or adjustments or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds;
2. A public officer entrusted with the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts.
(The crime committed by No. 2 is illegal Exaction.)
ART. 213, PAR. 2
3 ways of committing Illegal Exaction:
1. Demanding an amount different than what the law
authorizes; (unless the person is authorized by law or
ordinance to make compromises)
2. Filing voluntarily to issue a receipt;
3. Collecting or receiving as payment things of nature
different from that required by law.
Illegal exactions means the person is charged with the collection of
certain fees and he demanded an amount different from what the law
authorized or he did not issue a receipt or collected payment things of
nature different from that required by law.
So instead of cash, kana nalang imong kanding.
Page 23 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
ART. 217, MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is an accountable officer;
2. Public funds or property are involved;
3. He has custody by reason of his office;
4. There is misappropriation (either by himself or by
another);
5. Committed through intent or negligence
In relation to Sevilla case, if the malversation is committed through
negligence such as for example a treasurer left the money with a
friend. The friend went away with the money. That will still be
malversation. The mode of committing is culpa. But you will not charge
under 365 but still under 217 because the crime itself can be
committed through culpa.
MALVERSATION FROM ESTAFA:
1. In malversation, offender acts in his public capacity, in
estafa, offender acts in his private capacity (offender
may commit estafa by pretending to possess public
office)
2. Funds in malversation is public, in estafa it is private
3. Damage is not an element in malversation
4. There is no need for demand in malversation
 PP v. Tolentino, 69 Phil 715
In one case, even if the public official reimbursed the money, the crime
would still be committed because damage is not an element in
malversation. But the reimbursement is treated as a mitigating
circumstance. It will not erase criminal liability.
WHEN PRIVATE PERSON MAY COMMIT MALVERSATION
1. When he conspires with a public official in the
malversation;
2. When he is an accomplice or accessory to malversation;
3. When he is entrusted with the custody of public funds
and misappropriates the same
4. When he made the depositary of funds or property
seized or attached by government order even if the
property belongs to a private person.
The SC had the occasion to expand the meaning of the elements.
SC says that an offender must be an accountable officer. He need not
be a public official such as when he falls under numbers 3 and 4. In
these cases the offender is not actually a public officer. It now includes
private persons who may have been entrusted with public funds.
“Public funds or property involved” has also been expanded.
It need not be funds coming from the government coffers. It may be
funds coming from private persons for public purpose such as donation
in Yolanda.
“It must have custody by reason of office.”
This now include private persons who had custody of the funds by
some other reason.
EXAMPLE:
4Ps in very remote places where there are no banks. What they do is
deposit in Palawan. If the staff of Palawan will misappropriate it, that
would still be malversation.
Will that be qualified theft?
(not answered)
In number 4, (example) here we have a court sheriff. So if there is a
judgment debt, the court sheriff will levy on the properties and he will
have custody of the properties which will be auctioned. If he
misappropriates, then he will be liable for malversation not qualified
theft.
UPDATES
 Lumauig v. PP July 7, 2014
 In malversation of public funds, the payment,
indemnification, or reimbursement of the funds
misappropriated may be considered a mitigating
circumstance being analogous to voluntary surrender.
ART. 220, TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
 In technical malversation, public funds are still used for a
public purpose, but it was earmarked for another
particular public purpose.
Technical Malversation is not necessarily misappropriation of fund.
There is nothing misappropriated here but if the public funds has been
earmarked for a certain project and is used for another project, then
there is technical malversation as a crime.
So it is not necessarily that the funds are stolen, the crime could
happen even when a fund already earmarked for a specific project has
been used in another project. What should have been done is
"Reallignment" to not commit technical marversation, meaning there
should be another law.
Technical Malversation is not necessarily included in Malversation.
Therefore if the charges is for malversation and if later on it turned out
that the money was not misappropriated, rather it was just spent for
some other purpose then the case would be dismissed and no double
jeopardy could happen if another case is filed for technical
malversation.
MALVERSATION FROM TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
 Parungao v. SB GR 96025, May 15, 1991
 May the SB, after finding that a municipal treasurer
charged with malversation of public funds is not guilty
thereof, nevertheless convict him, in the same criminal
case, for illegal use of public funds?
 No. Technical malversation is not a crime
necessarily included in Malversation. Their elements
are not the same.
In the case of Sevilla, he was not convicted for Technical Malversation
even if it was the crime proven.
The Supreme Court said “No you cannot be convicted for Technical
Malversation for a charged for Malversation because these are
different crime with different elements.”
Take note the difference between Parungao and Ppl vs. Sevilla, where
the crime was Falsification of a Public Document and the accused was
Page 24 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
convicted not for Intentional Falsification as charged but for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Falsification.
The Supreme Court said that for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Falsification is embraced and included in the charged of Falsification.
EVASION, REMOVAL & INFIDELITY
 Evasion of service of sentence is committed by the
convicted prisoner;
 Removal is committed by any person, prisoner maybe
convicted or not;
 Infidelity is committed by a public officer having custody
(Art. 223) or by private person having custody (Art. 225);
could refer to convicted or non-convicted prisoner
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Evasion – refers to convicts.
When we say evasion, it means evasion of service of sentence; so
therefore, the only ones that could commit those crimes are convicted
prisoners.
There can be Infidelity committed by a Public Officer but note that this
cannot be committed if there is no sort of a trust or confidence reposed
on them to perform such act.
OFFENSES IN RELATION TO ELECTIVE OFFICE
 ART. 234 – Refusal to discharge elective office
 ART. 236 – Anticipation of duties of a public office
 ART. 237 – Prolonging performance of duties and
powers
 ART. 238 – Abandonment of officer or position
Article 234, 236, 237 and 238 – these are offenses in relation to an
Elective Office. Therefore only those who have been elected in office
can commit these crime.
REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE (ART 234)
So when a person is elected but will not assume his office by June 30,
his crime would be Refusal.
ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICE (ART 236)
But if he was proclaimed and would start performing the functions of
Office before June 30, his crime would be Anticipation.
PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES AND POWERS (ART
237)
And if he has been defeated, he is supposed to relinquish his position
by June 30 but if he refuse to relinquish, his crime would be
prolonging.
ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION (ART 238)
When a public officer, before the acceptance of his resignation,
abandon his office, or refuses to perform the job
USURPATION OF POWERS AND UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
 ART. 239 – Usurpation of legislative powers
 ART. 240 – Usurpation of executive functions
(judge)
 ART. 241 – Usurpation of judicial functions
 ART. 242 – Disobeying request for disqualification
 ART. 243 – Orders or requests by executive officers
to any judicial authority
 ART. 244 – Unlawful appointments
USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER (ART 239)
Any person can commit this. Even the judge can commit this, if he
commit Judicial Legislation
USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS (ART 240)
This can only be committed by a Judge who usurps an Executive
Function.
USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS (ART 241)
Can only be committed by an Executive Official. When the Usurpation
involves Obstruction – it may give rise to 2 crimes.
EXAMPLE:
Sarah Duterte slapped the Sheriff because she did not want the Sheriff
to execute the order of the Court. That could be a violation of Art 241,
because that is obstruction and she could constitute the crime of
Obstruction of Justice.
UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS (ART. 244)
This does not only say appoint, it also includes nomination.
TITLE 8: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Killing a person:
 When Infanticide
 When Parricide
 When Murder
 When Homicide
This includes a person being killed or being injured. If the crime
against persons results in a death, then the crime can be murder,
homicide, parricide or infanticide.
It is infanticide if the victim is less than 3 days old.
So, if the victim is already 3 days old, the crime becomes murder.
Why murder?
Because of the presumption that if the victim is a child of tender years,
there is abuse of superior strength.
So in infanticide, the victim must be 2 years old or less.
Page 25 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
PARRICIDE (S-A-D)
 Ascendants, descendants – must be by consanguinity,
legitimate. Legitimacy not an issue if committed by
parents/children.
 Relationship must be by blood
 Spouse – must be legitimate
The victim and the offender are related as spouse, ascendant or
descendant. For spouses, the relationship should be legitimate. For
ascendants or descendants, the relationship must be legitimate as well
except in the case of parents and children because here the legitimacy
will not matter.
MURDER
 Qualifying circumstance must be specifically sought for
by the accused for the purpose of killing
 PP v. Galura CA 68 OG 3159, cantharides case. Here,
if serious physical injuries resulted, crime would be Art.
264
 PD 1613 applies if killing is on the occasion of arson.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken
the defense or to insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of means
involving great waste and ruin;
4. On the occasion of calamities
5. With evident premeditation
6. With cruelty, by augmenting the suffering of the victim,
or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
There are 6 groups of qualifying circumstances.
NOTE: MEMORIZE THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES!!
So if the killing is qualified with any of the enumerated, the killing is
qualified to murder. But in order to be qualifying, it should be
specifically sought in the commission of the crime.
In People vs Galura, it is the prevailing thought that in order the
circumstances to be qualifying, the circumstance should be specifically
sought.
Here the guy dated a girl and placed some chemical in the food of the
girl in the hope and fervent prayer that the girl will be excited for the
“next episode” and that did not happen because the victim died. So,
the guy was sued for murder and the CA said in order to qualify the
killing to murder, that use of the poison must be specifically sought
which is not present in this case.
NOTE: This is a Court of Appeals case
PREVAILING THOUGHT: The aggravating much more with the
qualifying circumstances, these circumstances must be specifically
sought to have the effect of increasing the crime.
What if there are more than one qualifying circumstances?
Only one will qualify the killing and the others will be considered as
ordinary aggravating circumstances.
EXAMPLE:
There was treachery and evident premeditation. The evident
premeditation will qualify the killing and treachery can now just be
ordinary aggravating on the penalty because whether there's additional
aggravating, we have already reached the most severe penalty.
It might not play a role in the seriousness of the penalty that the convict
will serve, but later on it will still have a bearing when time comes for
the application of parole; because early parole maybe denied if there
are other circumstances attending to the commission of the crime.
These are the qualifying circumstances. If there is treachery, taking
advantage of superior strength, aid of armed men, employing means to
weaken, that's only counted as ONE (1), because they are grouped as
one.
But if there is only one, that is enough. But if there is only treachery,
that is enough. But if there is treachery, etc., they will be treated as
one. So, the others will not be treated as ordinary aggravating
(circumstance).
However, if there is EVIDENT PREMIDITATION, that's enough. But if
there is as well treachery, that's what I said earlier that it will become
ordinary aggravating. Pero kung puros lang #1, that will be treated as
only one. The others will not be ordinary aggravating, because they are
lumped together.
[Story about one of her class in Crim 1]
Then there's this question, very interesting: WHAT IF THE INTENTION
WAS TO RAPE THE CORPSE, and in order to be able to rape the
corpse, he killed?
In a complex crime, one should be a means to commit another. In this
case, what is the other crime? An impossible crime. But we cannot
have an impossible crime if we have another crime, so what now?
This could actually be the case – the crime could possibly be murder
since it's premeditated. There's also outraging. So, if the crime is
already premeditated, the crime would already be murder!
So what will happen to the Necrophilia?
That would only be an ordinary aggravating, now because it's already
qualified.
This situation is actually outraging. But since we already qualified
because obviously, the killing was already premeditated kay gusto man
niyang patyon in order to commit something else. So, if it's already
premeditated PLUS this, that would translate the killing to murder and
since we have already TWO qualifying, the other qualifying will
become ORDINARY AGGRAVATING.
QUALIFYING: TREACHERY BY SUDDEN ATTACK
2 requisites:
1. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position
to defend himself;
2. The offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.
 PP v. Tadeo GR 127660 & 144011-12 Sept. 17, 2002
TREACHERY, requisites:
1. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in the position to
protect himself; and
2. Means should be particularly adapted
Page 26 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Although the court said in countless cases that treachery consists in
suddenness or employing means to facilitate the commission of the
crimes so that the victim won't be able to put up a defense, the
Supreme Court, in view of that, says that as a general rule, when a
victim was attacked from behind, it gives rise to the presumption of
treachery; but NOT ALWAYS; because the fact that the wound was on
the posterior part does not always mean treachery, or the fact that the
wound was on the front part of the body does not also exclude
treachery. In determining treachery, the sole criterion is not where the
wound is located.
There is examination of other circumstances surrounding the
commission of the crime.
TREACHERY:
 PP v. Umawid, June 9, 2014
 How young must the victim be in order that tender age
be appreciated as treachery to qualify the act of killing to
Murder?
TREACHERY: PP vs. UMAWID
 Treachery (unable to put up a defense) was appreciated
on account of victim’s minority, considering that he was
just 16 years of age when attacked.
 It cited the case of PP v. De Guzman which found
treachery because the victim was 17.
We earlier said that if the victim was a minor, the Supreme Court
presumes that there's employment of superior strength.
EXAMPLE:
A 5 year-old is killed. That's automatically murder because of this
presumption that there's abuse of superior strength.
How young should the victim be in order to say that a crime is
murder because of abuse of superior strength?
In Umawid, he was 16. In De Guzman, he's already 17. There was no
other reason given, in Umawid, it's just the fact that the victim was 16.
There was no justification as to the size, the strength – because it's
possible that a 16 could be stronger than 40 year-old; it could depend
to other factors.
When the victim is a minor and the offender is an adult, the crime could
likely be murder because treachery was appreciated here because of
the inability to defend himself. So there was no other discussion in
these cases of other attendant factors, just the fact that the age of the
victim was 16.
QUALIFYING: EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Requisites:
1. Offender was determined to commit the crime;
2. There was sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and the e
3. Execution of the act to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and his conscience to
overcome his will;
4. Act showing that the offender clung to his determination
Even in premeditation there are requisites. In the exams there will be
questions that would require you to give your reason as to why that is
the crime committed.
Why is it murder?
If your answer is anchored on the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation, it is not enough for you to say that there was evident
premeditation or even treachery. You should discuss the elements.
Unless that is done you will not get maximum points.
INFANTICIDE
 Victim must be less than 3 days old
 If victim is expelled and is less than 6 months old, crime
is abortion if he was born alive.
 If child is born dead and offender tried to kill him,
offender is guilty of impossible crime.
KILLING A PERSON:
A. VICTIM IS KILLED: (regardless of intent)
 HOMICIDE – with or without intent to kill; maybe
committed thru reckless or simple imprudence;
 MURDER – if qualifying circumstance/s is/are
present
 INFANTICIDE – if victim is less than 3 days old;
 PARRICIDE – if victim is ascendant/descendant or
legitimate spouse
B. WITH INTENT TO KILL:
a. Fatal injury – FRUSTRATED murder, homicide,
parricide, infanticide
b. Non-fatal injury or no injury – ATTEMPTED
homicide, murder, parricide, infanticide
So, killing a person, if it is not murder because there is no qualifying
circumstance, not parricide because there is no relationship, not
infanticide because of the age of the victim, then it is homicide.
NIGHT TIME
If night time was specifically sought in order to facilitate the
commission of the crime, that will only make it an ordinary aggravating.
BUT, if the night time was specifically sought in order to weaken the
defense or ensure or afford impunity, the night time will become
treachery.
Take note of the specific wordings. Do not be misled by “specifically
sought in order to facilitate,” that will not yet make it qualified.
The fact that something was specifically sought will not yet make it
qualified because that same requirement is also important to make a
circumstance ordinary aggravating. It is only enough to make it
ordinary aggravating.
To be qualifying, remember the wordings “means was specifically
sought to weaken the defense or ensure or afford impunity.” That is the
wording to make it qualified.
Q: You said that if one qualifying is present then the other would
be ordinary diba?
Yes, if one is there then the others would be ordinary. But, if all of them
belong to number 1, that will only be qualifying, no longer aggravating.
Q: Then if that’s the case what’s the point if its reclusion
perpetua?
Page 27 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
Even if there is no more bearing to the penalty to be imposed, it will
have a bearing for purposes of application for Parole. That was the
discussion with respect to special complex.
With special complex, if it’s murder it’s reclusion perpetua; if it’s
robbery with homicide, it’s still RP; if robbery with homicide nya naa
pajud Rape, still RP.
The point, like I said, is it will have no effect tungud RP na daan, pero
kung dili RP, such as Robbery with SPI, the other circumstances will
still have a bearing. But if its RP, what’s the point? Later on it will have
because for purposes of applying for parole, inig abot sa 20 years and
one day you are already eligible for parole but that may be denied if
there are other aggravating circumstances.
Q: So is it possible that there would be treachery as well as the
ordinary circumstance of night time if not specifically sought to
weaken defenses or ensure impunity?
Yes, because the treachery can consist in other things.
Q: But if specifically sought for that purpose it will be considered
as one? No longer in the maximum penalty?
EXAMPLE:
Juan wanted to kill Pedro, and to facilitate the crime he sought the
cover of darkness, but he employed other means of weakening the
defense, let’s say he applied other means. Let’s say it constitutes
treachery. That would be treachery in itself.
The Night time would be ordinary aggravating. Such as if the
perpetrator uses craft or disguise. The use of disguise is an ordinary
aggravating, coupled with treachery you would have a qualified as well
as an ordinary aggravating. You would still have to allege that all of
those were specifically sought.
Q: Would the aggravating(?) apply to the good conduct time?
Good conduct would usually have an impact if there if preventive
imprisonment. Good conduct would still have to be evaluated by the
Director of Prisons. Remember if there is good conduct if the minimum
penalty is reached then the person may already be granted parole.
However, despite the good conduct, if there are other crimes
committed, such as robbery with homicide and rape, or robbery with
homicide where 5 people died. That’s only one sentence due to the
one special complex crime. Death of one has the same penalty as
death of 5, although the same penalty is imposed, later on these
circumstances could play a role in the early grant of parole ASIDE
FROM the good conduct.
Unbeknownst to many, the heirs will actually be made to comment. If
the killer asks for parole then the heirs will be made to comment. All
these things play a role in the grant of early parole.
NINTH WEEK OF DISCUSSIONS (MARCH 13, 2019)
When there is evident premeditation, there is cruelty, and treachery,
evident premeditation is enough to qualify the crime. The other
circumstances may only be treated as ordinary aggravating
circumstances. Each one of those qualifying circumstance has their
own requisites.
TREACHERY – victim was not able to defend himself and the offender
consciously adopted a particular means in attacking the victim
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION – requisites must be mastered.
NOTE: YOU WILL HAVE TO STATE WHY THERE WAS EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION, TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, STATE THE
REQUISITES.
The best way to answer is to borrow the words of the law or the case.
When there is a question and I want certain words in the answer, I go
first by 10 points. It’s a method of deduction. If there are missing
keywords, I will deduct 2 points.
KILLING A PERSON:
A. VICTIM IS KILLED: (regardless of intent)
 HOMICIDE – with or without intent to kill; maybe
committed thru reckless or simple imprudence;
 MURDER – if qualifying circumstance/s is/are
present
 INFANTICIDE – if victim is less than 3 days old;
 PARRICIDE – if victim is ascendant/descendant or
legitimate spouse
B. WITH INTENT TO KILL:
c. Fatal injury – FRUSTRATED murder, homicide,
parricide, infanticide
d. Non-fatal injury or no injury – ATTEMPTED
homicide, murder, parricide, infanticide
When a person is killed, the crimes may be homicide, murder,
infanticide, or parricide.
Parricide has something to do with the relationship. Infanticide has
something to do with the age of the victim. Murder when there are
qualifying circumstances present.
But when the victim is not killed, you do not immediately assume that
there is intent to kill. You have to make a distinction whether there was
intent to kill or if none.
If no intent to kill, you cannot charge the accused of murder or
homicide or attempted or frustrated stages thereof. It can only be either
physical injuries which could be serious, less serious, or slight; or
mutilation when there is no intent to kill but there is intent to deprive the
victim of some part of the body or the use of it.
If there is no injury, but it resulted in public humiliation, it may be
slander by deed or maltreatment. Or if there is inconvenience, it could
be unjust vexation.
If there is intent to kill, we need to determine the wound. Whether it is
fatal or not. If fatal, it is frustrated, if not fatal or no wound at all, it
would be attempted.
What is important in the attempted is not the wound but the intent
to kill.
Q: Can there be a crime of Frustrated Homicide through
reckless imprudence?
 No. Frustrated or Attempted
Homicide/Murder/Parricide/Infanticide
 Can only be committed when there is Intent To Kill,
hence, it cannot be committed through imprudence.
We cannot have a crime of frustrated homicide through reckless
imprudence because in the frustrated stage, there has to be the
specific criminal intent to kill. Since the intent is inconsistent with
imprudence, then we cannot have such crime.
Page 28 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS AND USE OF FIREARM
NOTE:
 For frustrated stage, there must be fatal wound
 For attempted stage, the firearm must be fired
 For grave threats, threats must be clear
 Mere drawing of firearm in a quarrel is only Other Light
Threats
FOR FRUSTRATED STAGE, THERE MUST BE FATAL WOUND
There must also be intent to kill with fatal wound
FOR ATTEMPTED STAGE, THE FIREARM MUST BE FIRED
The wound is not necessary. What is necessary is the intent to kill. But
the firearm should be fired.
If the firearm is just wara-wara, that is not attempted stage even if
there is intent to kill.
FOR GRAVE THREATS, THREATS MUST BE CLEAR
This must be done in a clear manner otherwise the mere drawing of
the firearm is not grave threats. It’s only other light threats.
ART. 254. DISCHARGE OF FIREARM
 The firearm is aimed, but there is no intent to kill. Since,
it must be directed at another, it cannot be committed
thru imprudence.
 Is there a complex crime of discharge of firearm and
serious or less serious physical injuries? Yes (Justice
Javier)
 If only slight physical injuries are inflicted, there are 2
crimes: discharge and slight physical injuries. (Justice
Javier)
NOTE: Discharge of Firearm is a crime under RPC, not under
RA 10951, hence can be complexed. Ladjaalam does not
apply. (RA 10591)
Indiscriminate firing is not illegal discharge. It is considered as alarms
and scandals if the intent is to cause alarms.
Because discharge is a crime that is punished with a correctional
penalty, it can be complexed. When I give you a problem, do not forget
the complexing. (EXAMPLE: discharge of firearms then may namatay)
ABORTION
 Abortion is the killing of the fetus in the uterus, or the
expulsion of the fetus from the maternal womb which
results in the death of the fetus.
 Abortion is not a crime against the mother but against
the child.
 Under the Philippine Constitution, the unborn child is
protected.
Either the fetus is killed inside the womb, or is expelled from the womb
and lived for a while outside of the womb but eventually dies, and even
if the fetus that was expelled and lived for a number of days but the
fetus was not expected to survive because it is below six months, it is
still abortion.
The rights of the unborn child is protected.
INTENTIONAL ABORTION
1) Committed by a third person
2) By the mother herself
3) Relatives of the mother
This is the reason why abortion is not a crime against the mother
because even the mother herself can commit the crime of abortion.
ART. 257 UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
 Maybe committed even if the offender had no
knowledge of the pregnancy of the victim, contemplates
the use of force by another person, not the woman
herself
 In Unintentional Abortion, there must be violence,
which must be intentionally exerted, but there is no
specific intent to cause the abortion. It cannot be
committed through intimidation.
There must be force committed but it is not anymore necessary if there
is knowledge of the pregnancy.
A few years in the past, there was a debate on whether there should
be knowledge but no intent or no knowledge and no intent.
So, the knowledge is not important as long as the fetus died by
reason of force.
Regalado thinks that Unintentional Abortion may be committed without
force if committed by a pharmacist dispending a drug. But this is only
an opinion.
According to the law, there can be unintentional abortion if the crime is
committed with the use of force and violence.
It cannot be committed thru intimidation. So if you hate your neighbor
or classmate and you send her text in the evening that caused her
abortion, that cannot be unintentional abortion.
(Naay nangutana sa background: WHAT IF GIRECITS KA? Hahaha)
Can be complex?
Yes. If a person killed the mother and also in the process kille the fetus
inside, then we will probably have murder with unintentional abortion or
intentional abortion.
EXAMPLE:
If a person gave a drug which is meant to cause abortion but did not in
fact cause the abortion because the woman was not actually pregnant.
It would be an impossible crime or probably physical injuries.
MUTILATION
 Mutilation is the lopping or the clipping off of some part
of the body which is not susceptible to growth again. It
must be intentional.
KINDS OF MUTILATION:
a. Intentional mutilation by depriving victim, partially or
totally, of organ of reproduction;
b. Intentional mutilation by lopping off any part of the body
other than reproductive organ.
The second kind of mutilation carries a lower penalty than the first.
So what’s the difference between the second kind of mutilation
and serious physical injuries?
Page 29 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019

NOTE: When there is deformity it does not necessary mean that he

PHYSICAL INJURIES: SERIOUS, LESS SERIOUS, SLIGHT needs 30 days

Physical injuries is a formal crime. It has no stages.

PHYSICAL INJURIES

ART. 265 Less serious physical injuries

The difference between 2nd type of mutilation and serious
physical injuries:
In SPI (b) there is also the lopping off of a body part. The difference is
in the SPECIFIC CRIMINAL INTENT. Both of them are intentional.
If it is not, then it would be culpa. If the intent was to specifically
DEPRIVE the victim of his foot then the crime would be mutilation due
to such intent.
If it was an intentional quarrel and in the course of the quarrel the
offender cut the foot without necessarily targeting the foot, then the
crime would be SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES.
The difference lies in the specific criminal intent. In Serious
Physical Injuries the intent is more general.
ART. 266 Slight physical injuries
 Less serious physical injuries – up to 30 days to heal
 Slight physical injuries – up to 9 days
 Slight physical injuries cannot be complexed with another
crime.
 If committed against a minor, it is not automatically child
abuse under Art. 7610, unless it caused some degree of
psychological effect on the minor, or is cruel. (PP v. Araneta)
 Intent to kill is not always manifested by utterances. Other
overt acts may determine it.

ART. 263 SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES - 4 KINDS

RAPE
When is serious physical injuries qualified?
 RAPE as a crime against persons, per RA 8353
1. When it would have been parricide; incorporated as Art. 266-A, RPC (not against chastity)
2. When it would have been murder.
 RAPE is a public crime.
 RAPE and impossible crime, e.g. necrophilia
 ART. 264. Administering injurious substances or
beverages

2 KINDS OF RAPE:
ART. 263 SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES 1. Carnal knowledge
2. Sexual assault
3 factors that must concur in deformity:

1. There is ugliness/deformity;
2. Deformity/ugliness is visible; MEANS ADOPTED:
3. Deformity/ugliness will not heal naturally
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. Offended is deprived of reason;
Fiscal’s statement on exams: c. Fraudulent machination or abuse of authority;
d. Offended party is under 12 years old or demented
When I give you a problem in this chapter and the victim is a relative
like a father or a child please be specific if its serious physical injuries.
Be specific that it is serious physical injury by reason of qualifying THROUGH FORCE, THREAT OR INTIMIDATION
circumstance. This is one of the crimes which we usually take for
granted. There is such a thing as CONSTRUCTIVE FORCE – there is really no
physical force but when the offender is related to the victim or has
Serious physical injury can be qualified when any of these moral ascendancy over the victim, such that the mere fact alone of his
circumstances are present and there is no intention to kill. Otherwise if authority would already intimidate the victim, example the offender is
there was intent to kill then the crime could be frustrated parricide or the father or the ascendant of the victim then, the physical force may
murder. Minus the intent to kill then it is qualified serious physical not be required because the fact of being an ascendant already
injuries constitutes CONSTRUCTIVE FORCE.

SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES: In incest for example, tenacious resistance is NOT required anymore
because of constructive force.
ART 263. KINDS OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES: (DIFFERENT
PENALTIES)

 First and Most serious: When the person becomes blind or

becomes insane, etc.

 Second: When a person loses a part of his body

 Third: When the injury results in a deformity

 Fourth and least serious in terms of penalty: When the

victim needs to heal in more than thirty days

Page 30 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
STAGES OF RAPE:
 In the crime of Rape, penetration is an essential act of
execution to produce the felony. Thus, for there to be
an Attempted Rape, the accused must have
commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to
the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance, the
penetration, however slight, is not completed.
 Perez v. CA, GR 143838 May 9, 2002
IS THERE FRUSTRATED RAPE?
 Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration
of the female organ because not all acts of execution
were performed. Taking into account the nature,
elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape
and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable
how the frustrated stage of rape can ever be committed.
 PP v. Aca-ac, GR 142500, 20 April 2001; also PP v.
Orita
WHEN IS RAPE CONSUMMATED:
 PP v. Dalisay GR 133926 Aug. 6, 2003
 Full penetration is not required to consummate carnal
knowledge, as proof of entrance showing the slightest
penetration of the male organ within the labia or
pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. (also PP v.
Jalosjos, Nov. 16, 2001)
 PP v. Basquez GR 144035, Sept. 27, 2001
 Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia.
Even the briefest of contacts, without laceration of the
hymen, is deemed to be rape.
BALEROS vs. PP, FEB. 22, 2006
 When is rape consummated, attempted
 When is the crime attempted rape, when acts of
lasciviousness
 When is there no acts of lasciviousness, when there is
unjust vexation
 The attempt which the RPC punishes is that which has a
logical connection to a particular, concrete offense; that
which is the beginning of the execution of the offense by
over acts leading directly to its realization and
consummation.
 Absent the unavoidable connection, as where the
purpose of the offender is not certain, what obtains
is an attempt to commit an indeterminate offense.
 Overt or external act is some physical activity indicating
the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a
mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its
termination, will necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.
In this Balleros case, the accused was waiting for the woman to pass
by in some remote area and when she passed by, he immediately
hugged her and made her smell a cloth which is soaked in some kind
of chemical. Case filed was attempted rape. SC said no, we cannot
say that the intention was to rape.
Absent the nexus between the overt acts and the intent to have carnal
knowledge, we cannot say that the crime is the attempted stage of
rape. To be an attempted rape, the overt act should show that that is
the intention – to have carnal knowledge.
To be attempted, the avert act should already show that the intention is
to have carnal knowledge.
The slightest penetration should already consummate the crime of
rape. It’s either there is or none. If none yet but the acts who the
intention to penetrate – attempted. The reason is there are many
victims who are tender age. Hymenal laceration is not necessary so
long as there is penetration, however slight.
However, mere epidermal touching is not yet touching. It could be
attempted rape but not rape.
MAY A WOMAN COMMIT RAPE?
 Yes, but as a conspirator
 Rape by sexual assault may be committed by a
woman, against another woman.
 Rape by sexual intercourse may be committed by a
woman, provided that she commits it together with a
man.
 PP v. dela Torre GR 121213 Jan. 13, 2004. Also PP v
Villamala and PP v Saba
EXAMPLE:
The model who was a woman and who conspired with his boyfriend to
rape her co-model. Even is she was a woman, she lead the way for the
rape to happen, she can be charged with rape (by sexual intercourse.)
but a conspirator or accomplice.
DEGREE OF RESISTANCE REQUIRED
 PP v. Gondaway, July 23, 2002
 Any physical overt act manifesting resistance in any
degree from the victim is admissible as evidence of
lack of consent. Tenacious resistance is not
required. Neither is determined and persistent
physical struggle necessary.
 This is a deviation from PP v. Lago, CA 46 O.G 1356
which required tenacious resistance and not mere initial
reluctance
 PP v. Guttierez May 9, 2003
Tenacious resistance is no longer required because this can be
committed through intimidation or constructive force. When a person is
intimidated, he may not be able raise a tenacious resistance.
Character of the victim – immaterial in rape.
Page 31 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
 Physical resistance need not be proved in rape
when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and
she submits herself, against her will, to the rapist’s
advances because of fear for her life and personal
safety.
 Incestuous rape – physical resistance not required,
ascendancy of offender is considered constructive
force.
 Statutory rape – consent of the victim in statutory rape
has no bearing because her minority makes her
incapable of giving consent.
RAPE IN SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
 In Robbery with Rape, the primary purpose must be to
rob.
 In Kidnapping with Rape, the main purpose must be to
deprive liberty
 In Forcible Abduction with Rape, the taking must be
with lewd designs but not necessarily an element of
Rape, otherwise the crime would simply be Rape.
(Garcia and Lining cases)
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
If the primary purpose is to rob, the victim may even be a co-robber.
Provided, that the rapist is also a robber. (Regalado)
So long as the main purpose is to rob and the rape was also
committed. But even she was raped, she will be liable to rape. The
others who were present who did not try to prevent the rape will be
liable as will.
KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE
If the victim was taken from one place to another so that she could be
raped. The taking is part of the design of the act to rape. The effect of
that is if the victim was raped by several people and was raped several
times, there will be as many counts of simple rape as there were
sexual intercourse. So if she was taken by a gang, and brought half a
kilometer for the purpose of raping, the crime is rape.
If 3 people who rape her, 3 counts of rape. The penalties would be 3
reclusion perpetua.
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAP
Taking was with lewd design with forcible taking and it cannot be
shown it the purpose of the taking is to rape
PEOPLE vs. GARCIA
If you have a gang of 4 people who took the victim and brought her
from one place to another. Accused A, B, C, D and E raped her, the
crimes will be:
1. Forcible abduction with rape – for the first rape
2. Rapes – for the succeeding rapes.
For the forcible abduction was a means of committing the first rape. It
was not anymore the means to commit the subsequent rapes. So we
only ordinary complex the first.
RAPE: SIMPLE, ORDINARY COMPLEX AND SPECIAL
COMPLEX
 Taking of the victim for the purpose of rape, the taking
forms part of the crime of rape, the crime is simply
RAPE. There will be as many counts as there are rapes.
 Taking was with lewd designs, thereafter rapes were
committed – the first crime is ordinary complex crime
of Forcible Abduction with Rape, succeeding acts
are simple rapes.
 Taking was to deprive liberty, then rape committed,
crimes is special complex crime of Kidnapping with
Rape, all succeeding acts are absorbed.
So there were 5 rapes. The crimes would be forcible abduction with
rape but only for the 1st rape. For the succeeding rapes will be simple
rape.
What does that mean?
It means that the forcible abduction if we apply the formula under Art.
48. The forcible abduction was a means in committing the 1st rape. It
was not anymore used as a means in committing the succeeding
rapes. Because she was already in the place.
We ordinarily complex the first and not the succeeding rapes. It would
result in a graver penalty than a simple rape.
However, if the main purpose of the taking is to deprive the person of
her liberty then the crime would be a special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape. In this crime, there would only be 1 indivisible
crime. All other crimes committed, they will be absorbed.
EXAMPLE:
5 people kidnap her and took turns in raping her then there would be
no 5 counts of rape but only 1 kidnapping with rape and with 1 single
penalty.
PP vs. AMARO JULY 18, 2014
 A 7-year old girl met a man who promised to take her
home. She was given food to eat, which caused her to
pass out. She was brought to the accused’s house and
raped repeatedly.
 Forcible Abduction with Rape was committed;
Rape was statutory
 The employment of deception suffices to constitute the
forcible taking for a 7-year old.
Always be forcible abduction with if she consented. The girl here
consented because she was given food to eat, but then she can’t give
her consent.
But if she is 15 year old then we would probably have been consented
abduction. This is a crime of “taban” or elope with a minor.
Q: Can there be rape through forcible abduction because the
forcible abduction is used as a necessary means in committing
the crime of rape?
Because it is funny sounding. But yes, you could say that. There is no
hard and fast rule.
MARIA CLARA DOCTRINE
There have been numerous cases under that. For the longest time, SC
would use that “no woman would lie about being raped” line. But it
Page 32 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
does not mean that that is the only argument or reason for the ruling.
Otherwise, if that’s the only reason, then wala untay na acquitted.
It’s a combination of all those things. But that’s a standard line when it
comes to credibility of the testimony of the woman. That becomes
standard but it’s not always the case. Meaning to say, the SC already
believed the testimony and already believed that the crime was
committed and they interpose that line to justify why they believe so
but that’s not the only reason why the crime resulted. So, you will find
in many rape cases that that is the reasoning for the conviction.
Questions from class:
A man and a woman consented to have sex. The woman insists that
they have to use a condom during intercourse. However, in the middle
of the sexual encounter, the man took off the condom.
Is there rape?
That’s a case in the Netherlands. We do not have it here. It’s
criminalized in another country. What is criminalized in the Philippines
is the lack of consent and the sex against the will, not in the condom.
It’s the sex itself-if consented or not. If not consented, then that would
be rape. Not consented because maybe the victim was deprived of
reason or maybe it was against the will of the victim. What is not
consented was the sex. But if they consented on the sex but not on the
manner to do it, that’s not the issue in rape. The issue in rape is – was
the sex consented?
What if pag first nisugut nya in the middle, wala na nisugut. Is it
rape?
The penetration was consented. Di ko ka-relate ha. Single. LOL.
Input from Mi-Ann Balagon based on her thesis:
That’s the practice of STEALTHING. The consent is with the condition
that you are going to have protection. In the middle of sexual
intercourse, tantangun niya. The question now is- Is consent in a
continuum? Does it exist at one point nya kung matangtang ang
condition, does it invalidate the consent? Or mawala ba jud siya the
moment ang condition dili ma satisfy?
There is jurisprudence already from 2 foreign countries. The first one
was dismissed because it was a political case. The grounds were not
convincing when you tackle it with regard to rape. In the other case,
they really convicted the guy. But lower court pa lang. It did not reach
yet the SC. In our case, I found out in my thesis, a jurisprudence that
says that when you give consent, the conditions that attach to your
consent, must be present all through out. Otherwise, if the condition is
removed, consent did not exist.
Murag, matangtang ang consent from the start. It is not a continuum
nga from Point A where ni sugut ka; Point B, gitantang ang condition;
Point C ang end. Dili siya ang Point A to B valid, ang Point B to C dili
na. It is not a continuum. Ana ang SC nga pag abut sa point B, mawala
ang condition, the consent from point A itself, wala gyud.
Fiscal: What was the story there? Is it about a condom?
Mi-Ann: Yes.
Fiscal: In the Philippine case?
Mi-Ann: No. It was only a discussion by the SC. The conditions you
attach to your consent must be present all throughout the sexual
congress.
Fiscal: Was it specific on the condom?
Mi-Ann: We don’t have a case yet on that.
MEANS OF COMMITTING RAPE:
MEANS ADOPTED:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. Offended is deprived of reason;
c. Fraudulent machination or abuse of authority;
d. Offended party is under 12 years old or demented
A B C D E took X with lewd design, forcibly abducted her and took her
to a place to rape her. A raped X first then B, C, D and E.
What would be the cases?
SC said forcible abduction with rape for the rape committed personally
by A. Everybody will be liable because of the conspiracy. The second
rape committed by B, all of them will be liable. 5 cases, each case all
of the will be liable.
What if the rape was consented at first?
If the sex was consented at first then we do not have force, threat or
intimidation.
In the middle of the game, the woman changed her mind.
Was it through force, threat or intimidation when the guy
continued? Was she forced? Intimidated? Or deprived of reason?
If yes, that would be rape.
There has to be force, threat or intimidation. Older cases would require
physical force and the degree of resistance should be serious
resistance. It is the means above that would constitute rape.
Q: 9 year old boy; 30 year old woman?
Rape must be committed by a man and the victim must be a woman
for the first kind of rape, rape by carnal knowledge.
In rape by sexual assault, it may still involve the female genitalia, anus,
mouth. In the case of vagina, it should not be the male genitalia. Object
or other body part.
For anal sex and oral sex, it could be the male genetalia. But in oral
sex, to be rape by sexual assault, the one “nga gi blowjob” must be the
accused. “ni blow job” it is acts of lasciviousness. Not all kinds of sex
falls under rape by sexual assault.
Answer: child abuse nalang. It doesn’t fall to any kind of rape
Anal, vaginal or oral sex fall under rape by sexual assault. There’s only
a list of what these acts are. If the act is not one of those enumerated
then it is not rape by sexual assault.
So if it’s a 9 year old boy and there is carnal knowledge with a 30 year
old (of course it cannot be rape with carnal knowledge because it can
only be committed by a man. Unya sa sexual assault, vaginal man.) So
maybe it will be child abuse to be sure. In our jurisprudence the only
way you can commit rape is through the means stated in the law.
TITLE 9: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND
SECURITY
There’s lewd design in forcible abduction.
In arbitrary detention you have a public official who detained another
without lawful ground.
Kidnapping has 2 kinds: the serious and light (penalty is still
reclusion temporal).
Page 33 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
KIDNAPPING – MAIN OBJECTIVE IS DEPRIVATION OF
LIBERTY
ART. 267 Kidnapping, when serious:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more
than three days. (3 days per RA 7659, Dec. 13, 1993; 5
days per RA 1084, June 15, 1954 and RA 18, Sept. 25,
1946)
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public
authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted
upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to
kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,
female or a public officer.
The wording of the law is not proper such that it would seem like if the
kidnapper is a female, that the kidnapping is serious. No. It’s when the
victim is the female, not the kidnapper.
As added by RA 7659 if the kidnapping is for the purpose of collecting
ransom, it is always serious. It doesn’t have to be 3 days, etc.
Any other kind of kidnapping or detention is light.
PP vs. PAMATLOG GR 208682 JULY 7, 2016
 RA 7659 provides that death penalty shall be imposed if
the motive of the kidnappers is to extort ransom for the
release of the victim although none of the circumstances
mentioned under Par. 4 of the elements of kidnapping
were present.
 Kidnapping for ransom is always serious.
 Penalty is reclusion perpetua in lieu of death penalty
considering the passage of RA 9346.
ART. 267 (Kidnapping and Illegal Detention) cannot be
committed by a parent on his own child. Arts. 270 and 271 can
be committed by parents.
 If victim is minor, female or public officer, detention
is serious even if it is less than 3 days
Art 267 itself specifically excludes parents. If the victim is a minor,
except when the accused are parents. We apply Art 270 and 271. But
not Art 267.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES ARISING FROM KIDNAPPING
(RA 7659):
1. Kidnapping with death;
2. Kidnapping with rape;
3. Kidnapping with torture
Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Regalado p. 490) is
NOT a special complex crime but is Serious Illegal Detentions
as defined in Art. 268, No. 3) Torture may be committed
without injuries.
In kidnapping with death, the law does not say kidnapping with
homicide, unlike in robbery with homicide. When the law itself makes
the designation, you cannot change it. For homicide, it should be taken
in its generic sense. The same is true for serious physical injuries.
That’s in robbery with homicide or robber with serious physical injuries.
But for kidnapping, this special complexing was made possible
because of a special penal law, not the RPC. Therefore you can have
kidnapping with murder, parricide provided it’s not minor or ascendant.
There is no kidnapping with serious physical injuries. If kidnapping is
attended with serious physical injuries, it becomes illegal detention as
defined in Art 267 (3).
EXAMPLE:
When Vhong Navarro was padlocked in a condo unit for like 30 mins it
became serious illegal detention.
Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Regalado p. 490) is
NOT a special complex crime but is Serious Illegal Detentions
as defined in Art. 268, No. 3) Torture may be committed
without injuries.
KIDNAPPING WITH TORTURE
The torture here does not have the same definition as the Torture
punished under the Special Penal Law.
Why?
Because kidnapping with torture which is punished as a special
complex crime was only found in 7659 which is an earlier Law
compared to the Torture Law. So there was no Torture Law yet at the
time when we have the special complex crime of Kidnapping with
Torture.
Why is it important to know?
It is because under the Torture Law, Torture can only be committed by
a Public officer, by an officer of the law. Not just a public officer but an
officer of the law, meaning one is tasked with law enforcement.
And under the Torture Law, torture must be for a reason, and that
reason must be that the victim is tortured so that he will give
information or to be able to extract information.
That is not the same Torture that is required in order that we can have
Kidnapping with Torture. So even if we do not have kidnapping with
serious physical injuries, if the physical injuries amounts to torture as
well, even if it did not actually result in serious physical injuries that
would be special complex.
ELEMENTS OF KIDNAPPING: (BOTH MUST BE PRESENT)
1.) The actual deprivation of liberty and;
2.) The intent to deprive liberty.
Both must be present.
EXAMPLE:
You have a boardmate, nagdali ka kay premid ka. You locked the room
not knowing that your boardmate was still inside. There is deprivation
of liberty but there was no "intent" to deprive liberty, hence no crime of
kidnapping.
Page 34 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
MEANING OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY
 PP v. Madsali, GR 179570, Feb. 4, 2010
 The victim was fetching water when accused arrived and
took her to the forest against her will.
 Serious illegal detention consists not only of placing
a person in an enclosure, but also of detaining or
depriving him in any manner of his liberty.
 Although AAA was not actually confined in an enclosed
place, she was clearly restrained and deprived of her
liberty, because she was tried up and her mouth stuffed
with a piece of cloth.
 PP v. Benedicto Ramos, GR 118570 Oct. 12, 1998
 The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual
deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with an
indubitable proof of intent on the part of the
malefactor to effect such restraint of the offended party’s
liberty.
 The term “actual deprivation of liberty” consists not only
of placing a person in an enclosure but also of detaining
a person or depriving him in any manner of his liberty.”
In Ramos and other cases such as Madsali, the actual deprivation of
liberty consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, it may be
an open space.
In PP vs. MADSALI, the woman was taken into the forest and forest is
an open space but it still considered as kidnapping.
In Kidnapping, what is not necessary is not the taking. It is the
deprivation of liberty.
Earlier, we said there are only two elements and the taking is not part
because it is not necessary. Although we commonly call the crime
kidnapping, it may be that there is no taking at all.
EXAMPLE:
Imong gi-intentionally podlock imo roommate. Did you take your room
mate somewhere? NO, but can there still can be kidnapping.
In RAMOS, SC clarified that in RA 7659, with 7659, regardless of
whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought.
It doesn't matter, what is important is that there was Kidnapping as the
primary purpose and the death occurs whether the death was
intentional or not intentional, it will always be special complex.
Before, complexing was under Art 48, ordinary complexing, so
therefore before, the kidnapping must be a means to commit murder in
order that there can be complexing. NOW, IT’S NOT NECESSARY
ANYMORE.
KIDNAPPING
 Ransom – 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.
 In Kidnapping for ransom, voluntary release will not
mitigate the crime.
 When the creditor detains a debtor and releases him
only after the payment of the debt, there is kidnapping
for ransom.
When the creditor detains the debtor and releases him only after the
payment of the debt. The crime is kidnapping for ransom. Voluntary
release will not mitigate.
KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE
In MADSALI, the conspirator who did not rape but watched the rape
are liable for Kidnapping with Rape.
So therefore, we apply the Codrilla, wherein in Conspiracy (bec this
involves a special complex crime) that anybody who was present and
did not try to prevent will be liable as well provided that he is present.
COMPLEXING KIDNAPPING
 Accused convicted of the special complex crime of
Kidnapping For Ransom With Murder.
 The rule is, where the person kidnapped is killed in the
course of the detention, regardless of whether the
killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide
can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be
treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a
special complex crime under the last paragraph of
Art. 267, as amended. (PP v. Ramos, Oct. 12, 1998)
 The amendment under RA 7659 introduced in our
criminal statutes the concept of “special complex
crime” of kidnapping with or homicide. It effectively
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.
 Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person
kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention,
regardless of whether the killing was purposely
sought or was merely an afterthought, the
kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer
be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special
complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267,
as amended by RA No. 7659.
 PP v. Dionaldo y Ebron GR 207949 July 23, 2014;
also PP v. Larranaga,cited in PP v. Madsali, Feb. 4,
2010
CRIME COMMITTED IF THE VICTIM IS MINOR
 ART. 270 – offender is entrusted with custody and
refused to return the minor.
 PP v. Cherry Bondoc, May 23, 1994
The offender is entrusted with the custody and refuses to return the
minor. So, if the baby was entrusted but not with full consent or
knowledge, then it will not be Art. 270 but rather Art 267.
Remember the nurse who kidnapped a baby at Vicente Sotto. She
dressed up as a nurse and took the baby in the pretext that the baby
will be vaccinated but did not return the baby.
In that case, my take on that, it should not be Art. 270 but it should be
Article 267 because he was not really entrusted with the custody. He
was only made to take the baby in order to be vaccinated.
Page 35 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019
 ART. 271 – Offender induces the minor to abandon his home.
 If the victim is a minor, the penalty is RP, whether the child
was snatched or taken (Art. 267), or received by the
accused to whom custody was entrusted (Art. 270), unless
the offender be the father or mother, in which case the
penalty is Arresto Mayor.
PP vs. ANGELINA MENDOZA JULY 31, 1989
 Minor was lured away from his parents in Luneta, taken
elsewhere and later sold.
 The charges state that the crime committed was Art.
270, but the body of the Info also stated that the
accused “kidnap and carry away the victim,
separating him from his mother without the
knowledge and consent of his parents and
deliberately failing to return him…”
 Accused was convicted under Art. 267, not 270.
In Mendoza case, the family was in Luneta and the minor wa lured
away even if migo na sila sa bata, that would still be Article 267 and
not Article 270.
PP vs. AIDA MARQUEZ, APRIL 13, 2011
 What is punished is NOT the kidnapping but the
deliberate failure to restore the minor to his parents or
guardians.
 Indeed, the word ‘deliberate’ as used in Art. 270 must
imply something more than negligence – it must be
premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or
intentionally and maliciously wrong.
What happened here was she was the yaya, she took the baby and
failed to return the baby.
The SC said that this is not a crime because the yaya got sick that’s
why she wasn’t able to return the baby. What is punished is not the
kidnapping but the deliberate failure to return the minor.
SECTION TWO. — TRESPASS TO DWELLING
Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. — Any private person who shall enter
the dwelling of another against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor
and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty
shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not
exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter
another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself,
the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any
person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to
humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other
public houses, while the same are open.
Art. 281. Other forms of trespass. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who shall enter
the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, while either or them are
uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser has not
secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
Trespass may be committed in an uninhabited place or inhabited
place.
SECTION THREE. — THREATS AND COERCION
Art. 282. Grave threats. — Any person who shall threaten another with the
infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
crime be threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the
threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even
though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his
purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the
penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty
shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if
the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition.
Art. 283. Light threats. — Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime,
made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article,
shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Art. 284. Bond for good behavior. — In all cases falling within the two next
preceding articles, the person making the threats may also be required to give
bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he
shall be sentenced to destierro.
Art. 285. Other light threats. — The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum
period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next
preceding article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such
weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another
with some harm not constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts
show that he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided
that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the
provisions of Article 282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not
constituting a felony.
Art. 286. Grave coercions. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority
of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform
any religious act or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in
degree shall be imposed.
Art. 287. Light coercions. — Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize
anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the
payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than 75
pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a
fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.
Art. 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of merchandise
and payment of wages by means of tokens.) — The penalty of arresto mayor
or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
person, agent or officer, of any association or corporation who shall force or
compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee
employed by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to
purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages
due a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other
than the legal tender currency of the laborer or employee.
Art. 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital
or labor through violence or threats. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a
fine not exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, for the
purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions or capital or labor,
strike of laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ 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, if the act shall not constitute a more
serious offense in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
GRAVE THREATS, LIGHT THREATS AND OTHER LIGHT
THREATS
Page 36 of 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW FISCAL PETRALBA | MIDTERMS | S.Y. 2018-2019

What differentiates grave threats from the others is that in grave

threats, it must amount to a wrong. In light threats and other light
threats, it does not amount to a wrong.

COERCION

There are two kinds of coercion:

1. Preventive – it means you force somebody to not do
something;
2. Compulsive – you force somebody to do something

The reason for distinction is that if the grave coercion is to compel

somebody to do something, it is always a crime of grave coercion. If
the grave coercion is preventive in that the victim is forced not to do
something, it is only a crime if what is prevented to be done is not
illegal.

Grave Coercion that is preventive is only a crime of Grave Coercion if

what is prevented to be done is illegal.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THREATS AND COERCION:

COERCION THREATS
The purpose is immediately The act desired are not
achieved immediately consummated
Usually refers to future harm The harm is here and now
The harm is directed against the
The harm is directed towards the
person, family, honor and
person of the victim.
property
Absorbed in other crimes

DIFFERENT KINDS OF COERCION:

1. Grave
2. Light
3. Other similar coercions:
a) Unjust vexation

INSIGNIFICANT CRIMES (ACCORDING TO FISCAL):

Chapter Three
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS

Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. — The

penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any private individual who in order
to discover the secrets of another, shall seize his papers or letters and reveal the
contents thereof.

If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

The provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted

with the custody of minors with respect to the papers or letters of the children or
minors placed under their care or study, nor to spouses with respect to the
papers or letters of either of them.

Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. — The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager,
employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his
principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.

Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. — The penalty of prision

correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge, employee or workman of any
manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner
thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.

-END-

Page 37 of 37