PN17C YZCSG2VYPN17C YZCSG2VY

\ I

CRIMINAL LAW II
Criminal Law MEK✓Q~Y AID
San Beda University College of law - RGCT Bar Operations Center

BIGAMY AND ARTICLE 351 To satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be

ADULTERY/CONCUBINAGE,
SECTION ONE: shown that at least a third person or a stranger was
PREMATURE MARRIAGES
DISTINGUISHED
DEFINITIONS, FORMS, AND able to identify him as the object of the defamatory
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME statement (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at
ART. 351 ALREADY DECRIMINALIZED 653).
R.A. No. 10655, approved on March 13, 2015,
decriminalized the contracting · of a premature The meaning of the writer is immaterial. The
marriage by a woman· but without prejudice to the ARTICLE 353 question is, not what the writer meant, but what he
provisions of the Family Code on paternity and conveyed to those who heard or read (MVRS
LIBEL
filiation. Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the
Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 135306, January 28,
PERSONS LIABLE: ELEMENTS: (IPMaDiC) 2003).
1. A widow who married within 301 days from the
1. That there must be an !mputation of a crime, or
date of the death of her husband, or before
a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, If criminal intention is imputed against another, it is
having delivered if she is pregnant at the time of omission, condition, status or circumstance; not considered libelous because intent to commit a
Has no effect Bars the prosecution of
his death; and 2. That the imputation must be made fublicly; crime is not a violation of the law (REYES, Book
the case
2. A woman whose marriage having been annulled 3. That it must be Malicious; Two, supra at 1242).
As to Manner of ~ammission or dissolved, married before delivery or before 4. That the imputation must be Directed at a
expiration of the period of 301 days after the natural person or a juridical person, or one who An expression of opinion by one affected by the act
Celebration of the Mere cohabitation by the date of legal separation. is dead; and of another and based on -actual fact is not libelous
second marriage with husband with a woman 5. That the imputation must tend to ~ause the (Id.).
the first still existing who is not a wife dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the person
ARTICLE 352 defamed (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1239). Where the words imputed are not defamatory in
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL character, a libel charge will not prosper regardless
MARRIAGE CEREMONY Dishonor ift~ere is n1:a,[iceor not (Manila Bulletin Publishing
At the instance of the Only at the instance of Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or It means disgrace, shame or ignominy (REYES, .Ci,ip.v.Qom1iJgo, G.R. No. 170341, July 5, 2017).
c''.:,,
''- ::<", . .~ ~ '.;_I,, ,
State the.offeridecf party sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or Book Two, supra at 1250). -
(People v. Schneckenburger, GR. No. 48183, authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be IMPUTATION MAY COVER:
November 10, 1941). punished under the Marriage Law. Discredit 1. Crime ,;allegedly committed by the offended
It means loss of credit or reputation; disesteem (Id.). party;; • ,
ARTICLE 350 Art. 352 presupposes that the priest or minjster or 2_. Vice or ddfect;,real or imaginary, of the offended
civil authority is authorized to solemnize marriages. Contempt
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST p~;o.r ..t...... ':. •
If the accused is not authorized to solemnize It means state of being despised (Id.). 3. Ah,+l~.1.t~ion, condition, status of, or
PROVISIONS OF LAWS marriage and he performs an illegal marriage circumstaf'rcas relating to the offended party
(ILLEGAL MARRIAGE) ceremony, he is liable under Art. 177 (i.e., usurpation Publication (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1242).
of authority or public function) (REYES, Book Two, -· It is the communication of the defamatory matter to
ELEMENTS: (CRIB) supra at 1234). some third person or persons. Thus, sending a letter
containing defamatory words against 'another to a
i!·;•·h,wo.·::r¥PEs
oF MALICE:
1. That the offender fontracted marriag·e; ··. 1. Malice in fact
The solemnizing officer of illegal marriages who thi.rd person is sufficient publication (REYES, Book
2. That he knew at the time that is a positive desire and an intention to annoy
performs .. or authorizes the same, despite his Two, supra at 1243).
a. The ,Requirements of the law were not and injure. It may denote that the defendant was
knowledge of the illegality, shall be punished under
complied with; or actuated by ill will or personal spite. It is also
Sec. 39 of Act 3613 (/d.). TEST OF DEFAMATORY CHARACTER
b._ The marriage was in disregard of a legal called express malice, actual malice, real
!mpediment; and OF THE WORDS USED malice, true malice, or particular malice,
3. The offender must not be guilty of ~igamy A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to
(REYES, Book Two, supra at 1230). induce the hearers to suppose and understand that 2. Malice in law
TITLE THIRTEEN:· the person against whom they were uttered was is a presumption of law. It dispenses with the
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: If either of the
contracting parties obtains the consent of the other
CRIMES AGAINST guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach proof of malice when words that raise the
the honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold him up to presumption are shown to have been uttered. It
by means of violence, intimidation or fraud (RPG, HONOR public ridicule (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1239). is also known as constructive malice, legal
Art. 350, Par. 2). malice, or implied malice (Yuchengco v. The
In determining whether a statement is defamatory, Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp., G.R. No.
Conviction of a violation of Art. 350 involves moral the words used are construed in their entirety and 184315, November 25, 2009). ·
turpitude (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1233). CHAPTER ONE: taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as
LIBEL they would naturally be understood by persons When the communication is privileged, malice is not
reading them, unless it appears that they were used presumed from the defamatory words. Malice (in
(ARTS. 353-362) and understood in another sense (Manila Bulletin fact) must be proved (REYES, Book Two, supra at
Publishing Corp v. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, July 1245).
5, 2017).

YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VYYZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY

PN17C
GUIDELINES WHEN SEVERAL
PERSONS ARE DEFAMED:
1. If the defamation is made on different occasions
or by independent acts, there are as many
crimes of libel as there are persons directly
addressed with such statements or directly
referred to (Soriano v. /AC, G.R. No. 72383,
November 9, 1988).
2. If the defamation is made on a single occasion:
a. If defamatory words are used broadly in
respect to a large class or group of persons,
and there is nothing that points, or by proper
colloquium or innuendo can be made to
apply, to a particular member of the class or
group, no member has a right of action for
libel or slander. Where the defamatory
matter had no special, personal application
and was so general that no individual
damages could be presumed, and where
the class referred to was so numerous that
great vexation and oppression might grow
out of the multiplicity of suits, no private
action could be maintained (MVRS
Publications Inc. v. Islamic Qa'wah Council
of the Philippines, Inc.).
b. If the statement is . so sweeping or all-
embracing as to apply to every individual in
that group or class so that each Individual
therein can prove that .the defamatory
statement specifically pointed to him, he can
bring his action separately (Newsweek Inc.
v. /AC, G.R. No, L-63559, May 30, 1986).
c. If several identifiable victims are libeled in a
single article, there are as many crimes of
libel as there are persons defamed (Soriano
v. /AC, G.R. No. 72383, November 9, 1988). .
ARTICLE 354
REQUIREMENT OF PUBLICITY
Every defamatory imputation is presumed tb be
malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and
justifiable motive for making it is shown (RPG, Art.
354).
THE PRESUMPTION OF MALICE IS
REBUTTED IF IT IS SHOWN BY THE
ACCUSED THAT:
1. The defamatory imputation is true, in case the
law allows proof of the truth of the imputation
(see Art. 361 );
2. It is published with good intention; or
3. There is justifiable motive for making it (REYES,
Book Two, supra at. 1253).
YZCSG2VY
YZCSG2VYPN17C YZCSG2VY
& + \ I
CRIMINAL LAW II
Criminal Law MEM:Q.:RY
AlD
San Seda UniversityCollege of Law- RGCTBar OperationsCenter
MALICE IS NOT PRESUMED IN THE recognized in the Constitution as absolutely ARTICLE 355
FOLLOWING CASES INVOLVING privileged are statements made in official
LIB.EL BY MEANS OF WRITINGS
QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED proceedings of Congress by members thereof, as an
implementation of their parliamentary immunity {Id.). OR SIMILAR MEANS
COMMUNICATION:
1. Private communication made by any Absolute Privileged Statements (APS) are not WAYS OF COMMITTING LIBEL BY
person to another in the performance of actionable regardless of th~ existence of malice in MEANS OF WRITINGS OR SIMILAR
any legal, moral or social duty (RPG, Art. fact. Examples are privileged speeches by members MEANS: (P3WETLACE)
354, Par. 1). of Congress (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at
653-654). 1. f_rinting;
Requisites of the first kind of privileged 2. fhonograph;
communication: (LAG) 3. fainting;
a. That the person who made the Statements made in judicial proceedings are
privileged but only if pertinent or relevant to the case 4. Writing;
communication had a _begal,moral or social 5. s_ngraving;
duty to make the communication, or, at involved (Armovit v. Purisima, G.R. No. L-39258,
November 15, 1982). 6. !heatrical exhibition;
least, he had an interest to be upheld;
7. bithography;
b. That the communication is Addressed to an 8. · A_nysimilar means;
officer or a board, or superior, having some The enumeration under Art. 354 is not an exclusive
list of qualified privileged communication (Borja/ v. 9. ~inematographic radio; or
interest or duty in the matter; and 10. s_xhibition
. c. That the statements in the communication Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14,
1999). (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1278).
are made in Good faith without malice (in
fact). Defamation through an amplifier system is slander
TWO KINDS OF PRIVILEGED and not libel (People v. Santiago, GR. No. L-17663,
The defense of privileged communication COMMUNICATIONS May 30, 1962).
will be overcome if it is shown that:
1. The defendant acted with malice in fact; or
However, slanderous statements forming part of a
2. There is no reasonable ground for believing
manuscript• read by a speaker over the radio
the charge to be true (REYES, Book Two, constitute libel (People v. Santiago, G.R. No. L-
supra at 1256). 17663, May 30; 1962).
Totally not actionable, Actionable, . provided
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith', regardless of the the presence of malice If defamatory remarks are made in the heat of
without any comments or remarks, of existence of malice in in fact or actual malice passion which culminated in a threat, the derogatory
any judicial, legislative, or other official fact is established statements will not constitute an independent crime
progeedings which are not of of libel but a part of the more serious crime of threats
(BOADO, Boak Two, supra at 653-655).
confidential nature or of any statement, (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1279).
report, or ~peech delivered in said
DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT ARTICLE 356
proceedings, or of any other act
performed · by public officers in the While in general, every discreditable imputation ;,THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND
publicly made is deemed false, because every man
exercise of their functions (RPG, Art. 354, is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially OFFER TO PREVENT SUCH
Par. (2)). PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION
proved, and every false imputation is .directed
against a public person in his public capacity, it is nof
Requisites of the second kind of privile.ged necessarily actionable (Borja/ v. Court of Appeals,
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
communication: G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999).
a. That it is fair and true report of a judicial, 1. Threatening another to publish a libel
legislative, or other official proceedings conceming him, or his parents, spouse, child or
CRITICI.SM other members of the family; and
which-are not of a confidential nature, or of
a statement, report or speech delivered· in Deals only with such things as shall invite public 2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel
attention or call for public comment. It does not for compensation or money consideration
said proceedings, or of any other act
follow a public man into his private life nor pry into (REYES, BookTwo, supra at 1282).
performed by a public officer in the exercise
of his functions; his domestic concerns. If one's good name is
b. That it is made in good faith; and assailed in the newspaper, he may reply by BLACKMAIL
c. That it is without any comments or remarks defending himself, and if his reply is made in good It is any unlawful extortion of money by threats of
(REYES, Book Two, supra at 1265 ). faith, without malice and is not unnecessarily accusation or exposure (U.S. v. Eguia, G.R. No.
defamatory of his assailant, it is privileged (REYES, 13540, October 24, 1918). ·
Therefore, qualified privileged communications must Book Two, supra at 1271).
be made with malice and bad faith in order to be It is essential that the threatto publish, or to offer to
actionable (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1254). Retaliation or vindictiveness cannot be a basis of prevent the publication of libel must be for a
self-defense in defamation (REYES, Book Two, compensation or monetary consideration in order
An absolutely privileged communication is not supra at 1273). that it may be penalized under this article (REYES,
actionable even if made in bad faith. Specifically Book Two, supra at 1283).
YZCSG2VYYZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY
PN17C YZCSG2VY PN17C YZCSG2VY

ff \ /
CRIMINALLAW II
Criminal Law . MEM,Q~YAID
San Seda University College of Law - RGCT Bar Operations Center

party (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1287). STANDARD OF SERIOUSNESS OF Two, supra at 1295).
BLACKMAIL IS POSSIBLE IN THE SLANDER
FOLLOWING CRIMES: The slander need not be heard by the offended party An independent civil action may be filed
(REYES, Book Two, supra at 1288). There is no fixed standard in determining whether a
1. Light threats (Art. 283); simultaneously or separately in the same RTC
slander is serious or not; hence, the courts have
2. Threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the where the criminal action was filed and vice versa
Gossiping is considered as oral defamation if a sufficient discretion to determine the same, basing
publication of, a libel for compensation (Art. (Art. 360, Par. 3, as amended by R.A. No. 4363).
defamatory fact is imputed or intriguing against the finding on the attendant circumstances and
356). honor if there is no imputation (REGALADO, supra matters relevant thereto (Id. at 1291). ·
ARTICLE 361
at 812).
ARTICLE 357 SLANDER vs. UNJUST VEXATION PROOF OF THE TRUTH
PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the The common denominator present in unjust vexation
REFERREDTOINTHECOURSE utterance of the words, "Agustin, putang ina mo." and slander by deed is irritation or annoyance. WHEN PROOF OF TRUTH IS
OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS This is a common enough expression in the dialect Without any other concurring factor, it is only unjust ADMISSIBLE IN A CHARGE FOR LIBEL:
that is often employed, not really to slander but vexation; if the purpose is to shame or humiliate, the (CG)
rather to express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, offense is slander by deed (REYES, Book Two,
1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a
ELEMENTS: (REMPO) if ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, supra at 1292).
as a reflection on the virtues Qf a mother (Reyes v.
f rime regardless of whether the offended party
1. That the offender is a Reporter, g_ditor or is a private individual or a public officer; .
Manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine; People, G.R. Nos. L-21528 & L-21529, March 28, SLANDER vs. ACTS OF
1969). 2. When the offended party is a Gov~nment
2. He ,Eublishes facts connected with the private LASCIVIOUSNESS employee, even if the imputatio~ does not
life of another; and Kissing a girl in public and touching her breast constitute a crime, provided it is related to the
3. Such facts are Offensive to the honor, virtue and REQUISITES OF DEFENSE IN discharge of his official duties (REYES, Book
without lews designs, committed by a rejected suitor
reputation of said person (REYEiS, Book Two, DEFAMA'flON: (TGJ) to cast dishonor on the girl was held to be slander by Two, supra at 1302).
supra at 1284). 1. If it appeqrs·that the matter charged as libelous deed and not acts of lasciviousness (Id.)
..is!rue;' In such cases, if the defendant proves the truth of
Article 357 is referred to as Uie "Gag Law" because 2. It was p.ubHshed.withGood motives; and the imputaticn made by him, he shall be acquitted
SLANDER vs, MALTREATMENT
while a report of an official proceeding is allowed, it 3. It was made for ~stifiable ends (REYES, Book (RPG, Art. ~1, Par. 3).
gags those who would pubtish · therein facts which If the offended party suffered· fro shame or
Two, supra_at 1304).
this article prohibits, and punishes any violation humiliation caused by the maltreatment, it is slander
!he proof oMnith of the accusation cannot be based
thereof (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1284). by deed (Id.)
To justify one's hitting back, there must be a showing upon mere hearsay, rumors or suspicion. It must be
that he h·asbeeo libeled (Fieldman's Insurance Co., positive, direct evidence upon which a definite
The Gag Law prohibits the· .publication of cases Slapping the face of another is siander by deed if the
Inc. vs. Ku Nung, CA-G.R. No. 31559-R, May 26, finding may be made by the court (U.S. v. Sotto,
relating to adultery, divorce, legitinJacy of'.children, intention of the accused is to cause shame and
1964). G.R. No: 13~!9, Sep{ember 24, 1918).
etc (Id.). · · ·· · humiliation (Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351,
April 10, 2006).
ARTICLE 359 Pointing a dirty finger constitutes simple slander by REQUISITES OF DEFENSE IN
Under RA. No. 1477, a newspaper reporter cannot
be compelled to reveal the sourG13of the news report SL.ANDER BY DEED deed (Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351, April Dl:FAMATION: (TGJ)
he made, unless the court or a Ho.useor committee 10, 2006). · ?i;:Jtrapp~ars that the matters charged as libelot1s
of Congress finds that such revelation is demalided St.:ANOER BYDEED areJ)ue;
by the security of the state (REYES, Book Two, 2. It was published with Good motives; and
A crime committed by performing any act which 3. For Justifiable ends (REYES, Book Two, supra
supra at 1286). casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another SECTION TWO: at 1304).
person (RE.YES, Book Two, supra at 1289). GENERAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 358
If the statement is made against a public official with
SLANDER ELEMENTS: (NPA) respect to the discharge of his official duties and
(ORAL DEFAMATION) 1. That the offender performs any act Not included functions and the truth of the allegations is shown,
in any other crime against honor; ARTICLE 360 the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even
TWO KINDS OF SLANDER (ORAL 2. That such act is performed in the ,Eresence of PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL though he does not prove that the imputation was
DEFAMATION): other persons; and published in good motives and for justifiable end
3. That such Act casts dishonor, discredit, or (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14,
1. Simple slander; and
contempt upon the offended party (Id.). PERSONS LIABLE;: (PAEP) 2011).
2. Grave slander, when it is of a serious and 1. The person who fublishes, exhibits or causes
insulting nature (Id.). the publication or exhibition of any defamation in
If there is no intent to dishonor the offended party, ARTICLE 362
the crime is maltreatment by deed under Art. 266 writing or similar means;
FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE 2. The Author or editor of a book or pamphlet; LIBELOUS REMARKS
(Id.).
GRAVITY OF THE ORAL DEFAMATION: 3. The .!;_ditor or business manager of a daily Libelous remarks or comments connected with the
newspaper magazine or serial publication; and matter privileged under the provisions of Art. 354, if
1. Expressions used; TWO KINDS OF SLANDER BY DEED: made with malice, shall not exempt the author
2. Personal relations of the accused and the 4. The owner of the frinting plant whic.h publishes a
1. Simple slander by deed; and libelous article with his consent and all other thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a
offended party; 2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a newspaper from criminal liability (RPG, Art. 354).
3. Circumstances surrounding the case; and persons who in any way participate in or have
serious nature (Id.).
4. Social standing and position of the offended connection with its publication (REYES, Book

YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY

PN17C YZCSG2VY PN17C YZCSG2VY

1
MGM& '
CRIMINAL,LAWII MEM:Q~YAID
Criminal Law San Beda lJniverslty Collage of Law - RGCT Bar OperatiOns Center

Art. 362 does not punish the publication of privileged
matters but the libelous comments or remarks about
such privileged matters. Thus, the author and editor
of a newspaper who distorts, mutilates, or discolors
the official proceedings reported by him or add
comments thereon to cast aspersion on the
character of the parties concerned, is guilty of libel,
notwithstanding the fact that the defamatory matter,
published in connection with a privileged matter
(REYES, Book Two, supra at 1306-1307).
GUIDELINES IN THE OBSERVANCE OF
A RULE OF PREFERENCE IN THE
IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES IN LIBEL
CASES (ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR
NO. 08-2008)
The Revised Penal Code penalizes libel, committed
by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving,
radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means,
with prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods or fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or
both, in addition to the civil action which may be
brought by the offended party (RPG, Art. 355).
messages that earlier circulated around the INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR AND
subdivision, which he thought was the DEFAMATION, DISTINGUISHED
handiwork of the private complainant ( Sazon v.
Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 120715, March 29,
1996).
2. In a case where the crime involved is slander by incriminate an innocent affidavit, imputing to
deed, the Court modified the penalty imposed on person. the person the
the petitioner, an ordinary government commission of a crime.
employee, from imprisonment to fine of Source cannot be Source is known
P1,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case determined
of insolvency, on the ground that the latter
committed the offense in the heat of anger and It is committed by It is committed when the
in reaction to a perceived provocation (Mari v. performing an act by imputation was falsely
Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127694, May 31, which the offender made before an officer. Committed through Committed in a public
2000). directly incriminates or some tricky and secret and malicious manner
imputes to an innocent plot
The Court opted to impose upon petitioner, a person the commission
lawyer, the penalty of fine only for the crime of of a crime.
libel considering that it was his first offense and (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1310).
he was motivated purely by his belief that he was Remarks may be true Remarks made are
merely exercising a civic or moral duty to his or not claimed to be true
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSONS
client when he wrote the defamatory letter to
AND DEFAMATION, DISTINGUISHED (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1312).
private complainant (Buatis, Jr. v. People (G.R.
No.142509, March 24, 2006).

The circular laid down a rule of preference for the

Tl'TLE FOURTEEN:
imposition of a fine only rather than imprisonment CHAPTER TWO: QUASI-OFFENSES
in libel cases. The Administrative Circular provides Offender does not avail Imputation is public and
INCRIMINATORY himself of written or malicious calculated to
that:
1. It does not remove '
imprisonment as an MACHINATIONS spoken word in cause dishonor,
alternative penalty for the crime of libel under (ART. 363-364) besmirching the victim's discredit, or contempt
Art. 355, RPC. . reputation. upon the
party.
offended -·SOLECHAPTER:
2. The Judges may, in the exercise of sound ARTICLE 363
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
(Id).
discretion, and taking into cons.ideration the INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSONS (ART. 365)
peculiar circumstances of.each case, determine
ARTICLE 364
whether the imposition of a fine alone would best
serve the interests of justice or whether ELEMENTS: (PIN) INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
forbearing to impose imprisonment would 1. That the offender ferforms an act; It is committed by any person who shall make any ARTICLE 365
depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work 2. That by such act he directly Incriminates or intrigue which has for its principal purpose IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
violence on the social order, or otherwise be imputes to an innocent person the commission blemishing the honor or reputation of another
contrary to the imperatives of justice. of a crime; and (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1311).
3. That such act does Not constitute perjury PUNISHABLE ACTS: (RSDL)
3. Should only a fine to be imposed and the (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1308). This refers to such intrigues against a person's 1. Committing through Reckless imprudence any
accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no honor or reputation which are not otherwise act which, had it been intentional, would
legal obstacle to the application of the RPC punished under other articles of the RPG. It differs constitute a grave or less grave felony or light
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSONS felony (Par. 1);
provisions on subsidiary imprisonment. from defamation in that it consists of tricky or secret
AND PERJURY BY MAKING FALSE 2. Committing through §.imple imprudence or
plots and may be committed without using written or
In the following cases, the Court opted to impose ACCUSATION, DISTINGUISHED spoken words which are defamatory (Id.). negligence · an act which would otherwise
only a fine on the person convicted of the crime constitute a grave or less serious felony (Par. 2);
of libel: 3. Causing Qamage to the property of another
1. The Court modified the penalty imposed upon through reckless imprudence or simple
petitioner, an. officer of a homeowners' imprudence or negligence (Par. 3); and
association, for the crime of libel from 4. Causing through simple imprudence or
imprisonment and fine in the amount of P200.00 negligence some wrong which, if done
to fine only of P3,000.00 with subsidiary maliciously, would have constituted a bight
imprisonment in case of insolvency, for the Limited to the act of Giving of false felony (Par. 4).
reason that he wrote the libelous article merely planting evidence and statement under oath
to defend his honor against the malicious the like in order to or making a false

YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY

PN17C YZCSG2VY PN17C YZCSG2VY

\ I
CRIMINAL LAW II
Criminal Law MEM✓Q~Y AID
San Beda Univers\tyCoffegeof Law - RGCTBar Operations Center

IMP~UDENCE ANO NEGtlGENCE, results, and the failure to do so constitutes QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Failing to lend on- The SC held that reckless imprudence or negligence
DISTINGUISHED negligence (Sps. Ermina v. Golden Village the-spot help to the victims of his act of negligence is a crime in itself. Hence, once convicted or
Homeowner's Assoc, Inc., G.R. No. 180808, August raises the penalty one degree higher. acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence,
IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE 15, 2018). the accused may not be prosecuted again for that
EXCEPTION: The driver can leave his vehicle same act (/vier v. Hon. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R.
As to Effect In order· for conviction to be decreed for reckless No. 172716, November 17, 2010).
without aiding the victims if:
imprudence, the material damage suffered by the 1. He is in imminent danger of being harmed;
Both are notcrimes and merely determine a fower victim, the failure in precaution on the part of the
degree of criminal liability-they are means of 2. He wants to report to the nearest officer of the REASON: For the essence of the quasi-offense of
accused, and the direct link between material law; or criminal negligence under Art. 365 of the RPC lies in
committing crime. damage and failure in precaution must be 3. He desires to summon a physician or a nurse for the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that,
established beyond reasonable doubt (Tabao v. medical assistance to the injured (Sec. 55, R.A. if intentionally done, would be punishable as a
As to Nature
People, G.R. No. 187246, July 20, 2011). No. 4136). . felony. Thus, the law penalizes the negligent or
Deficiency of action Deficiency of perception careless act, and not the result thereof.
SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Failure in precaution Failure in advertence It consists in the lack of precaution displayed in Culpa is either a crime (Article 365) .or merely a
The doctrine of last dear chance states that a person
those cases in which the damage impending to be who has the last clear chance or opportunity of modality of committing a crime (Article 3). Article 365
As to Ex:emptionfrom l...iabillty caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly is culpa that is itself punished. Thus, reckless
avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent
manifest (REYES, Book Two, supra at 1320). acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely imprudence is not a mere modality of committing a
To avoid wrongful acts: To avoid wrongful acts: crime (Quizon v. Justice of the Peace, G.R. No. L-
one must take the paying proper attention responsible for the consequences of the accident
ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE: (Bustamante v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89880, 6641, July 28, 1955).
necessary precaution and using due diligence
once they are foreseen . in foreseeingth~m (L~Not) February 6, 1991).
The gravity of the consequence is only taken into
(REYES, Book Two, supra at 1320). 1. There is Lack of precaution on the part of the . account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify
offerider~.and . The contributory negligence of the party injured WiD·
not defeat the action if it be shown that the accused the substance of the offense.
2. ··The damage impending to be caused is Not
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE immediate· nor :the danger clearly manifest might, by the exercise of reasonable care a.nd
prudence, have avoided the consequences of the :; ~'.tt!t,.}i;f:•s act is single, whether the injurious
It consists in voluntarily but without malice, doing or (Rl9(ES, ~ook, Twp, supra at 1334).
negligence of the injured party. The antecedent result snolrfa~ffect one person or several persons,
failing to do an act from which. material damage
negligence of a person will not preclude recovery for the offense (qriminal negligence) remains one and
results by reason of inexcusable,,tatk of precaution Art. · 64 .. relative to mitigating and aggravating
damages for, or bar a defense against liability sought the same, anfi qannot be_split into different crimes
on the part of the person performing or failing to circumstances is not appLicableto crimes committed
by the other negligent party (REYES, Book Two, and prosecutipns.
perform such act, taking into consideration his through negligence (REYES, Book Two, supra at
employment or occupation, degree of in!eHigence, 1337). supra at 1340). -
physical condition and ···other . circtimstarices ART. 48 DOE$ NOT APPLY TO ACTS
regarding persons, time and place (kl.). Wnen the reckless imprudence or th imprudence or EMERGENCY RULE PEN . 'ER 4RT. 365
negligence r~sulted in damage to the property of An individual who suddenly finds himself in a Art. 48 is' a·"pmcedural device allowing single
ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS another, the penalty is onl, not imprisonment, situation of danger and is required to act without prosecution of multiple felonies while Art. 365 is a
IMPRUDENCE: (FVM-Mal'.n) ranging from an amount equal to the value of the much time to consider the best means that may be tive rule penalizing not an act defined as a
1. The offender does or .Eails to do,an act; damages tothree times such value, but shall not be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty Athe mental attitude behind the act, the
less than P25.00 ((REYES, Book Two, supra at of negligence if he fails to undertake what dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight.
2. The doing of or the failure to do that act is
1336). subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be Art. 48 is incongruent. to the notion of quasi-crimes
Y.oluntary;
3. It be without Malice; a better solution, unless the emergency was brought under· Art. 365. The application of Art. 48 in the
The defense of contributory negligence does not by his own negligence (Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. No. prosecution and sentencing of quasi-crimes is
4. Material damage results; and
apply in crlminal cases through reckless imprudence 115024, February 7, 1996). prohibited maintaining the distinct concept of quasi-
· 5. There is Inexcusable lack of precaution on the
since one cannot allege negligence of another to crimes as crafted under Art. 365.
part of the person performing or failing to
perform such act taking into consideration: evade the effects of one's own negligence. It only For the Emergency Rule to apply, the emergency
mitigates criminal liability (REYES, Book Two, supra situation must be: · Prosecutions under Art. 365 should proceed from a
(EDO)
at 1339). 1. Sudden and unexpected; single charge regardless of the number or severity
a. g_mploymentor occupation;
2. Deprives the actor of all opportunity for of the consequences. In imposing penalties, the
b. Qegree of intelligence, physical condition;
THI; PENALTIES PROVIDED FOR , IN deliberation; and judge will do no more than apply the penalties under
and
3. Must be such that the actor must have no Art. 365 for each consequence alleged and proven.
c. Other circumstances regarding persons, ART. 365 ARE NOT APPLICABLE WHEN:
knowledge that unusual consequences In short, there shall be no splitting of charges under
time and place ((REYES, Book Two, supra 1. The penalty provided for the offense is equal to
may result from his act (REYES, Book Two, Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in
at 1321). or lower than those provided in the first two
supra at 1341). the saine first level court (/vier v. Modesto-San
paragraphs of Art 365; or Pedro, G. R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010).
TEST OF NEGLIGENCE 2. By imprudence or negligence, and with violation
of the Automobile Law, the death of a person IVLER CASE DOCTRINE:
Would a prudent man, in the position of the person VIOLATION OF ART. 365 CANNOT
to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to shall be caused (REYES, Book Two, supra at PRIOR CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL OF
the person injured as a reasonable consequence of 1338). RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE BARS ABSORB VIOLATIONS OF SPECIAL
the course about to be pursued? If so, the law SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION FOR THE u~ws
imposes a duty on the actor to refrain fro111that SAME QUASI-OFFENSE A ma/a in se felony (such as Reckless Imprudence
course or to take precaution against its mischievous Resulting in Damage to Property) cannot absorb

YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY

PN17C YZCSG2VY

CRIMINAL LAW II
Criminal Law

ma/a prohibita crimes (such as those violating P.D.
No. 1067, P.O. No. 984, and R.A. No. 7942). What
makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or
. negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are
the special laws enacting them (Loney v. People,
G.R..No. 152644, February 10, 2006).
An offender previously charged with reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property with
multiple physical injuries under Art. 365 may also be
held liable for his failure to help or render assistance
to another whom one he has accidentally wounded
or injured under Par. 2 of Art. 275 which both crimes
arise from the same act (Lamera v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 93475, June 5, 1991).
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS AND OTHER
SIMILAR SUBSTANCES
It refers to the act of operating a motor vehicle while
the driver, after being· subjected to a confirmatory
test as mandated under Republic Act No. 9165, is
found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug
(Sec. 3 (f)).
FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS
They refer to standardized tests to initially assess
and determine intoxication, such as the horizontal
gaze nystagmus, the walk-and-turn, the one-leg
stand, and other similar tests (Sec. 3 (g)).

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE / MEDICAL PUNISHABLE ACT

NEGLIGENCE It shall be unlawful for any person to drive a motor
A wrong committed by a medical professional which vehicle while under the influence of alcohol,
has caused bodily harm to the offended party (Dr. Li dangerous drugs and/or other similar substances
v. Spouses Soliman, G.R. No. 165279, June 7, (Sec.5).
2011).
BASIS· OF PENAL TY
Such claims are most often brought as a pivil action The basis ofthe penalty depends whether or not
for damages under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code or as violation resulted in physical injuries or homicide.
a criminal case under Art. 365 of the RPC with which Furthermore, prosecution for any violation under this
the civil action for damages is impliedly instituted law shall be without prejudice to criminal prosecution
(Dr. Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122445, for violation of the RPG, R.A. No. 9165, and other
November 18, 1997). special ·•laws and existing local ordinances,
whenever applicable (Sec. 12).
DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL
NEGLIGENCE
Whether or not a physician has committed an
"inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of
his patient is to .be determined according to the
standard of care observed by other members of the
profession in good standing under similar
circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state
of the profession at the time of treatment or the
present state of medical science (Dr. Cruz v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 122445, November 18, 1997).

REPUBLIC ACT NO.10586

AN ACT PENALIZING PERSONS
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF
ALCOHOL, DANGEROUS DRUGS, AND
SIMILAR SUBSTANCES, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES .
Approved: May 27, 2013

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF

ALCOHOL
It refers tci the act of operating a motor vehicle while
the driver's blood alcohol concentration level has,
after being subjected to a breath analyzer test,
reached the level of intoxication (Sec. 3 (a)).

YZCSG2VY YZCSG2VY