CRIMINAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
correccional in its medium period
1. QUASI-OFFENSES under Art. 365 are committed to in four
ways:
(1) By committing through reckless imprudence any act which,
had it been intentional, would constitute a grave or less
grave felony or light felony.
Parricide or homicide, if committed with intent to kill, is a
grave felony because the first is punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death and the second is punishable by reclusion
temporal, both afflictive penalties and death is capital
punishment. If either is committed through reckless
imprudence or negligence.
(2) By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an
act which would otherwise constitute a grave or less serious
felony.
Less physical injuries are a less grave felony, because it is
punishable by arresto mayor, a correctional penalty. Slight
physical injuries are a light felony because it is punishable by
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200.
(3) By causing damage to the property of another through
reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence.
(4) By causing through a simple imprudence or negligence
some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have
constitute a light felony.
Art. 365. (par. 1) Imprudence and negligence. “…any act which, had
it been intentional,”
Grave felony – arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
Less grave felony – arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods shall be imposed.
Light felony – arresto menor in its maximum period shall be
imposed.
(par. 2) Simple imprudence
Grave felony – arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods
Less serious felony – arresto mayor in its minimum period
(par. 3) Damage to property of another – A fine ranging from an
amount equal to the value of the damages to three (3) times such
value but which in no case shall be less than P5,000.
-The question is whether or not the act would, if intentional,
result to a grave or less grave felony.
-Imprudence or negligence is not a crime in itself; it is simple a
way of committing a crime. It determines a lower level of
criminal liability.
When a person, by simple imprudence or negligence, caused
damage to the property = “Simple imprudence causing damages
to property.”
Criminal negligence = a quasi-offense, which is dealt separately
from willful offenses.
In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished however in
negligence or imprudence, what is penalized is the mental
attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, lack of care or foresight.
 The Revised Penal Code fixes the penalty for reckless
imprudence at arresto mayor in its maximum to prision
correccional in its minimum (medium) if the willful act would
constitute a grave felony.
A negligent act under the Revised Penal Code may produce civil
liability arising from crime but the victim cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
Imprudence = deficiency of an action, failure in precaution (may
kakulangan ka)
Negligence = deficiency of perception “failure in advertence”
failure in being attentive
The wrongful acts may be on two levels:
(1) By paying proper attention and using due diligence in
foreseeing them, and
(2) By taking the necessary precaution once they are foreseen.
Reckless Imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice,
doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform such act.
The elements are:
(1) The offender does or fails to do an act.
(2) Doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary.
(3) It is without malice
(4) Material damage results
There must be injury to person or damage to property as a
consequence or reckless or simple imprudence.
(5) Inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender,
taking into consideration:
(a) His employment
(b) Degree of intelligence, physical condition; and
(c) Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence the damage impending to be caused is not
immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
The elements are:
(1) There is lack of precaution on the part of the offender.
(2) Damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the
danger is not clearly manifest.
Doctrine of Pre-emption - in collision cases, although the driver of a
motor vehicle crossing a thru-street is supposed to wait (along the
intersection) for the driver of another vehicle running along said
thrustreet, if the driver crossing the street had already reached the
middle thereof, the other driver travelling along the thru-street,
although with a right of preemption, has the duty to stop his motor
vehicle in order to avoid a collision.
-Driving within the speed limit does not mean that he was exercising
due care.
-When reckless imprudence or the simple imprudence or negligence
resulted in damage to the property of another, the penalty is only
fine, not imprisonment, ranging from the amount of equal to the
value of the damages to three times such value, but shall not be less
than P25.00.
-Art. 64 to mitigating and aggravating circumstances is not
applicable to crimes committed through negligence. It is not bound
by the mathematical formula provided by the above-mentioned
provision.
Contributory negligence is not a defense, yet it may mitigate criminal
liability. It does not apply in criminal cases through reckless
imprudence, since one cannot allege the negligence of another to
evade the effects of his own negligence.
The "raison d'etre" behind this legal principle is that the negligence
of one person is in no sense justified by the concurring negligence of
another.
Doctrine of “last clear chance” the contributory negligence of the
party injured will not defeat the action if it be shown that the
accused might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence,
have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured
party.
This doctrine is not a defense, it is used to recover damages.
Emergency rule – when a person is suddenly placed in an emergency
and compelled to act instantly to avoid a collision or injury is not
guilty of negligence.
Reason: A sudden emergency may be left no time for thought; the
person must make speedy decision based largely upon impulse or
instinct.
Distinction of Emergency rule and last clear chance rule.
Appellant's claim that he perceived the presence of the offended
party's car almost immediately before the collision does not relieve
him of criminal responsibility. This is not a case for the application of
the emergency rule in which a driver, in order to save himself, has to
injure someone else. It is rather a case which falls under the
principle of last clear chance, as it is clear that the appellant had
time and opportunity to avoid the mishap had he been sufficiently
careful and cautious.
Art. 275 penalizes with arresto mayor "anyone who shall fail to help
or render assistance to another Whom he has accidentally wounded
or injured."
Failing to lend help is a qualifying circumstance that raises the
penalty by one degree.
Defendant is not criminally liable for the death or injuries caused by
his reckless negligent acts to trespassers whose presence in the
premises he was not aware of. (People v. Cuadra)
A quack doctor who treated a sick man, resulting in the latter's
death is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.
Action for damages against a surgeon whose patient died after
operation. The plaintiff has the burden of establishing the surgeon’s
negligence by preponderance of the evidence.
And for a reasonable conclusion of negligence, there must be proof
of breach of duty on the part of the surgeon as well as a casual
connection of such breach and the resulting death of the patient.
2. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
They are:
(1) Libel by means of writing or similar means (Art.355)
 (2) Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication
for a compensation. (Art. 356)
(3) Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of
official proceedings. (Art. 357)
(4) Slander (Art. 358)
(5) Slander by deed (Art. 359)
(6) Incriminating innocent person (Art. 363)
(7) Intriguing against honor (Art. 364)
(Art. 353) Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition,
status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory
of one who is dead.
Requisites of Libel:
(1) It must be defamatory. – the words to be used are to be
construed in their entirety and should be taken in their
plain, natural and ordinary meaning.
(2) It must be malicious. – (Malice in law) there is presumption
that the offender acted with malice. (Malice in fact) may be
shown by proof of ill-will.
(3) It must be given publicity. – there must be a third person
who has read or known the communication and it must be
sealed.
(4) The victim must be identifiable.
Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means the offense of
injuring a person’s character, fame or reputation through false and
malicious statements.
Libel is a defamation by means of writing, printing, lithography…
Slander is oral defamation. (Art. 335)
Elements of Defamation:
(1) There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or
circumstance.
(2) Imputation must be made publicly.
(3) It must be malicious. - (Malice in law) there is presumption
that the offender acted with malice. (Malice in fact) may be
shown by proof of ill-will.
(4) Imputation must be directed to a natural or juridical person,
or one who is dead. – It should be shown that the third
person could identify him as the object of the libelous
publication.
(5) Imputation must tend to cause dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of the person framed.
(Art. 354) Requirement of publicity – Every defamatory imputation
is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention
and justifiable motive for making it is shown in the following cases:
(1) A private communication made by any person to another in
the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty; and
(2) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any
comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other
official proceedings which are not confidential in nature, or
of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said
proceedings, of any other act performed by public officers in
the exercise of their functions.
Yet, the presumption of malice is rebutted, if it is shown by the
accused that –
 (a) The defamatory imputation is true, in case the law allows
proof of the truth of the imputation;
(b) It is published with good intention; and
(c) There is justifiable motive for making it.
However, there are circumstances where exceptions to the
presumption of malice is considered:
(1) A private communication made by any person…
(2) A fair and true report, made in good faith…
There are two kinds of privileged communications:
(a) Absolute Privilege = when it is not actionable, even if its
author has acted in bad faith. These are statements made
by the Congress, official communication of public officers,
and allegations and statements made by lawyers in their
pleadings. (legal, moral or social duty)
(b) Conditionally or Qualifiedly Privileged Communications =
would not be actionable unless made with malice or bad
faith.
However, in the case of pleadings, if proven that it contains
irrelevant and malicious language the qualified privilege would be
lost.
Requisites of Privileged Communication:
(1) The person who made the communication has a legal,
moral, or social duty to make the communication. (moral
and social duty depends upon the relationship of the giver
and recipient of the communication)
(2) Communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or
superior, having some interest or duty in the matter.
(3) Statements in the communication are made in good faith
without malice (in fact).
How to overcome the defense of privileged communication under
par. 1 of Art. 354:
(a) The defendant acted with malice in fact,
(b) There is no reasonable ground for believing the charge to be
true.
-If proven the defense would be rejected by the prosecution…
(Par. 2 of Art. 354) The conditions of a privileged communication:
(a) Fair and true
(b) Made in good faith; and
(c) Without any comments or remarks,
Doctrine of Fair Comment – while in general every discreditable
imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is
presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially approved.
Criticism – shall invite public attention or call for public comment. It
does not follow a public man into his private life nor pry in his
domestic concerns.
Defamation- the criticism follows the person into his private life
which has no connection with the performance of his public duties.
Republic Act No. 4200 “The Anti-Wire Tapping Act”
Acts penalized:
(1) To tap any wire or cable, or
(2) By using any other device or arrangement, to secretly
overhear, intercept, or record such communication or
spoken word…
 Also.. (2) Where any of the offended parties resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.
(1) To knowingly possess any recording file or device
(2) To replay the same for any other person or persons (Art. 361) Proof of the truth
(3) To communicate the contents verbally or in writing
(Art. 362) Libelous remarks
(4) To furnish transcriptions
If remarks or comments are made upon a matter privileged, and
(Art. 355) Libel by means of writing of similar means. – Prision malice in fact is proved, the author and the editor are liable.
correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging
The reporter of a newspaper publication, in publication what passes
from P40,000 to P1,200,000 or both in addition to the civil action
in a court of justice, must publish the whole case, and not merely
which may be brought by the offended party.
state the conclusion which he himself draws from the evidence.
Foregoing rule of preference of the Supreme Court on the matter of
He must not distort, mutilates or discolor the official proceedings
the imposition of penalties for the crime of libel bearing:
reported by him or add comments.
(1) The Administrative Circular does not remove imprisonment
(Art. 358) Slander is oral defamation. It is libel committed by oral
as an alternative penalty in Art. 355
means, instead of writing.
(2) The judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound
discretion, and taking into particular circumstances of each Two kinds of oral defamation:
case determine which best serves the interests of justice… (1) Simple slander; and
(3) Should only a fine be imposed, and the accused be unable (2) Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting nature.
to pay the fine…
Factors that determine the gravity of oral defamation.
(Art. 360) The persons responsible for libel are:
(1) Upon expression used
(1) The person who publishes, exhibits, or causes the (2) On the personal relationship of the accused and the
publication or exhibition of any defamation offended party
(2) The author or editor (3) The circumstances surrounding the case
(3) Editing or business manager (4) Social standing
(4) Owner of the printing plant
Slander need not to be heard by the offended party, because a
Venue of criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written
man’s reputation is the estimate in which other holds him, not the
defamation:
good opinion which he has of himself.
(1) Where the libelous article is printed and first published; or
(Art. 359) Slander by deed is a crime against honor by which is
committed by performing any act which casts dishonor, discredit, or
contempt upon another person.
Elements:
(1) Any act not included in any other crime against honor
(2) In the presence of other person or persons
(3) Act casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon the
offended party.
Slander by deed:
(a) Simple slander by deed
(b) Grave slander b deed, that is, which is of a serious nature.
It depends on the social standing of the offended party, the
circumstances under which the act was committed, the
occasion, etc.
An example is the slapping the face of another if the intention of the
accused is to cause shame and humiliation. As well as pointing a
dirty finger.
Slander by deed and maltreatment, distinguished.
The nature and effects of the maltreatment determine the crime
committed. If the offended party suffered from shame or
humiliation caused by maltreatment, it is slander by deed.
The common denominator present in unjust vexation, slander by
deed, and act of lasciviousness is irritation or annoyance. However,
if, in addition to the annoyance or irritation, there was present any
of the circumstances provided for in Art. 335 of the Code, the crime
would be an act of lasciviousness.
(Art. 356) Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such
publication for compensation. “Blackmail”
(1) By threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or
his parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family.
(2) By offering to prevent the publication of such libel for
compensation, or money consideration.
“Blackmail” any unlawful extortion of money by threats of
accusation or exports.
Blackmail is also possible in light threats (Art. 283)
(Art. 357) Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of
official proceedings.
Elements:
(1) The offender is a reporter, editor, or manager of a
newspaper daily or magazine.
(2) He publishes facts connected with the private life of
another.
(3) Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue, and reputation
of said person.
The published facts must be necessary in the narration of any
judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been
mentioned.
The extent of “Gag Law”
Newspaper reports on cases pertaining to adultery, divorce, issues
about legitimacy of children, etc., will necessarily be barred from
publication. This requires two things:
 (1) He publishes facts connected with the private life of
another.
(2) Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue, and reputation
of said person.
However, if one is not present, a suit of alimony is appropriate. It
refers to the private life of a person, but it is not offensive to the
honor of such a person.
Facts being talked about here are intimate facts about one’s
personal life.
Source of news report may not be revealed unless the court or
House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is
demanded by the security of the State.
(Art. 363) Incriminating innocent person “Planting of Evidence”
Elements:
(1) Offender performs an act
(2) Act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent
person the commission of a crime.
(3) Act does not constitute perjury.
This is limited to the act of planting evidence not to constituting
false prosecutions.
Incriminating a person is committed by an act by which the offender
directly incriminates or imputes the innocent person. It is limited to
the act of planting evidence.
On the other hand, perjury is the imputation itself, falsely made,
before an officer. It is giving false statements under oath, making a
false affidavit, and imputing to a person the commission of a crime.
(Art. 364) Intriguing against honor is committed by any person who
shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to
blemish the honor and reputation of another person. This consists
of some trickery.
3. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
(Art. 246) Parricide – Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or
descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be
punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
Elements:
(1) A person is killed.
(2) The deceased is killed by the accused.
(3) That the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or
descendants, or the legitimate spouse, of the accused.
Essential element of parricide is the relationship of the offender
with the victim.
If the relationship of the offender to the victim is illegitimate, it is
not a crime of parricide but of simple homicide or murder.
“Illegitimate” embraces all children born out of wedlock. Thus:
(A) Adulterine
(B) Incestuous
(C) Sacrilegious children
The child should not be less than three days old to qualify for
parricide. If the child is less than three days old, the crime is
infanticide (Art. 255).
Oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered. The
testimony of the appellant that he was married to the deceased is
an admission against his penal interest.
Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio = “a man and a woman
deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage.”
Parricide by mistake.
If a person killed another, not knowing that the letter was his son,
will he be guilty of parricide>
Yes. The law does not require knowledge of the relationship
between them.
(Art. 247) Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. – Any legally married person who, having surprised
his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious
physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
Requisites for the application:
(1) A legally married person or a parent surprise his spouse or
his daughter, the latter under 18 years of age and living with
him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person.
(2) He or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or
both of them any serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter.
(3) He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his
wife or daughter, or that he or she has not consented to the
infidelity of the other spouse.
The provision does not require whether the parent is legitimate or
not. It only requires that the daughter be under 18 years old, and
she is living with her parents.
The wors “surprise” means to come upon suddenly and
unexpectedly.”
In People vs. Gabriel, the accused saw his wife and paramour
already in the kitchen. He attacked them only when he saw that
they were about to commence sexual intercourse. The accused is
not held liable for the injuries suffered by the paramour.
The justification of Article 247, when the circumstances provided by
this article are present, considers the spouse or parent as acting in a
justified burst of passion. (People v. Gonzales)
No criminal liability when less serious or slight physical injuries are
inflicted.
Cases where a person who has committed parricide not to be
punished with reclusion perpetua to death.
(1) When Parricide is committed through negligence (art. 365)
(2) When it is committed by mistake (Art. 249)
(3) When it is committed under exceptional circumstances (Art.
247
(Article 248) Murder – Any person, who, not falling, within the
provision of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder
and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed It is also employing means to ensure its execution, without
with any of the following attendant circumstances: risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
1. Treachery
2. In consideration of price, reward, or promise;
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a
3. By means of inundation
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
4. On occasion of calamities
and that is taken advantage by him in the commission of the crime.
5. With evident premeditation
6. With cruelty
Employing means or persons to insure or afford impunity is
the prevention of the accused from being recognized and to secure
Elements: himself against detection.
(1) A person was killed
(2) The accused killed him The person who received the price or reward or who
(3) The killing was attended by any of the qualifying accepted the promise of price or reward would not have killed the
circumstances in Art. 248. victim were it not for the price, reward, or promise. Such a person is
(4) The killing is not parricide or infanticide. a principal by direct participation. And the person who gave the
Rules for the application of the circumstances which qualify the reward or prize is a principal by induction.
killing to murder.
(a) That murder will exist with only one of the circumstances By means of inundation
described in Article 248. Unlawful killing by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
(b) That when the other circumstances are absorbed or shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a
included in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the
considered as generic aggravating. use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;
(c) That any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in
Article 248 must be alleged in the information. On occasion of any of the calamities
Enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or other public
Treachery calamity;
Unlawful killing with treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, with the aid of armed men, o employing means to weaken Evident Premeditation
the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. This exists when the execution of the criminal act is preceded by
cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgment.
With cruelty
Unlawful killing with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.
Killing is done with cruelty when other injuries or wounds
inflicted deliberately by the offender which are not necessary for the
killing of the victim.
The word “outraging” means to commit an extremely
vicious or deeply insulting act.
(4) The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances or murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide.
Penalty when the victim of homicide is under 12 years of age is
reclusion perpetua.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted from the
act. Intent to kill must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
No offense of frustrated homicide through imprudence. The
element of intent to kill is not compatible with negligence or
imprudence.

The word “scoffing” means to jeer and implies showing of

irreverence (a lack of respect).

(Art. 249) Homicide – Any person not falling within the provision of
Article 246, shall kill another, without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be
deemed guilty of homicide and be punished reclusion temporal.

Homicide is the unlawful killing of any person, which is neither

parricide, murder nor infanticide.

Elements:

(1) A person is killed

(2) The accused killed him without justifying circumstances
(3) The accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed