Criminal Law 2 Case Digest

Benosa Chua Hernandez Llamas Lucas Migrio Moreto Parugao | Criminal Law 2 | Page 1 of 169
!"#$%&'(&)'*+%*+,&
-'.&+'&/%"$&.0+1&("2+,3204256,+"*2%,&7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&8&
9%:0%.&'(&)4060*"$&;".&<&7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&8&
!0+$%&<=>&?5",0@A((%*,%,&7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&=&
Impiuuence anu Negligence ................................................................................................................................................ 4
!0+$%&B>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&E%4,'*,&7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&F&
Chaptei 0ne: Bestiuction of Life ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Chaptei Two: Physical Injuiies ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Chaptei Thiee: Rape ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
!0+$%&<<>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&)1",+0+G&777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&HH&
Chaptei Two: (Rape anu) Acts of Lasciviousness ................................................................................................... 22
Chaptei Thiee: Seuuction, Coiiuption of Ninois anu White Slave Tiaue .................................................... 2S
Chaptei Foui: Abuuction ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Chaptei 0ne: Auulteiy anu Concubinage .................................................................................................................... 28
Chaptei Five: Piovisions Relative to the Pieceuing Chapteis of Title 11 ..................................................... 28
!0+$%&I>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&E%4,'*"$&;0#%4+G&"*/&J%2540+G&77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&8<&
Chaptei 0ne: Ciimes Against Peisonal Libeity ........................................................................................................ S2
Chaptei Two: Ciimes Against Secuiity ........................................................................................................................ S7
Chaptei Thiee: Biscoveiy anu Revelation of Seciets ............................................................................................ 44
!0+$%&<K>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&E4'L%4+G&7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&=M&
Chaptei 0ne: Robbeiy in ueneial .................................................................................................................................. 4S
Chaptei Two: Biiganuage .................................................................................................................................................. S4
Chaptei Thiee: Theft ........................................................................................................................................................... SS
Chaptei Foui: 0suipation .................................................................................................................................................. S8
Chaptei Five: Culpable Insolvency ................................................................................................................................ S9
Chaptei Six: Swinuling anu 0thei Beceits .................................................................................................................. S9
Chaptei Seven: Chattel Noitgage ................................................................................................................................... 69
Chaptei Ten: Exemption Fiom Ciiminal Liability in Ciimes Against Piopeity ......................................... 69
Chaptei Eight: Aison anu 0thei Ciimes Involving Bestiuctions ...................................................................... 7u
Chaptei Nine: Nalicious Nischief ................................................................................................................................... 72
!0+$%&<8>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&-'*'4&777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&F8&
Chaptei 0ne: Libel ................................................................................................................................................................ 7S
Chaptei Two: Inciiminatoiy Nachinations ............................................................................................................... 81
!0+$%&<H>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&+1%&)0:0$&J+"+5,&'(&E%4,'*,&7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&BH&
Chaptei 0ne: Simulation of Biiths anu 0suipation of Civil Status .................................................................. 82
Chaptei Two: Illegal Naiiiages ....................................................................................................................................... 8S
!0+$%&<>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&N"+0'*"$&J%2540+G&"*/&+1%&;".&'(&N"+0'*,&7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&BO&
Chaptei 0ne: Ciimes Against National Secuiity ...................................................................................................... 86
!0+$%&8>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&E5#$02&A4/%4&77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&I=&
Chaptei 0ne: Rebellion, Coup B'Etat, Seuition anu Bisloyalty .......................................................................... 94
Chaptei Two: Ciimes Against Populai Repiesentation ...................................................................................... 1uu
Chaptei Thiee: Illegal Assemblies anu Associations ........................................................................................... 1u1
Chaptei Foui: Assault 0pon, anu Resistance anu Bisobeuience to Peisons in Authoiity anu theii
Agents ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1u2
Chaptei Five: Public Bisoiueis ...................................................................................................................................... 1uS
Chaptei Six: Evasion of Seivice of Sentence ............................................................................................................ 1u7
Chaptei Seven: Commission of Anothei Ciime Buiing Seivice of Penalty Imposeu foi Anothei
Pievious 0ffense .................................................................................................................................................................. 1u8
!0+$%&=>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&E5#$02&P*+%4%,+&7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&<<K&
Chaptei 0ne: Foigeiies ..................................................................................................................................................... 11u
Chaptei Two: 0thei Falsifications ............................................................................................................................... 119
Chaptei Thiee: Fiauus ...................................................................................................................................................... 121
!0+$%&M>&)406%,&9%$"+0:%&+'&AL056&"*/&A+1%4&E4'10#0+%/&Q45D,&777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&<H8&
!0+$%&O>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&E5#$02&R'4"$,&777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&<H=&
Chaptei 0ne: uambling anu Betting ............................................................................................................................ 124
Chaptei Two: 0ffenses Against Becency anu uoou Customs ........................................................................... 12S
!0+$%&H>&)406%,&CD"0*,+&+1%&S5*/"6%*+"$&;".&'(&+1%&J+"+%&777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&<HI&
Chaptei 0ne: Aibitiaiy Betention oi Expulsion, violation of Bwelling, Piohibition, Inteiiuption,
anu Bissolution of Peaceful Neeting anu Ciimes Against Religious Woiship .......................................... 1Su
!0+$%&F>&)406%,&)'660++%/&#G&E5#$02&A((02%4,&777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777&<=K&
Chaptei 0ne: Pieliminaiy Piovisions ......................................................................................................................... 14u
Chaptei Two: Nalfeasance anu Nisfeasance in 0ffice ........................................................................................ 141
Chaptei Thiee: Fiauus anu Illegal Exactions anu Tiansactions ..................................................................... 1Su
Chaptei Foui: Nalveisation of Public Funus oi Piopeity ................................................................................. 1SS
Chaptei Five: Infiuelity of Public 0fficeis ................................................................................................................. 1S8
Chaptei Six: 0thei 0ffenses oi Iiiegulaiities by Public 0fficeis .................................................................... 162
How to deal with facts/circumstances (aka Sir Jims tips on how to answer the exam)
1. Determine if the subject/person/character has committed anything wrong.
This step entails gut feel! If your mind and heart tell you that the subject/person/character did
something wrong, you may proceed to the next step.
2. Determine which title the act falls under.
This narrows down the search for the particular felony.
Now it becomes important to know what each title deals with.
3. Determine which particular felony is committed.
Now the elements of each crime come into play. The decision on which particular felony to
charge the subject/person/character with is ultimately made based on the presence or absence of
the elements of the crime.
When all else fails, try to place yourself in the shoes of either the offender or the victim to figure
out what is wrong in the scenario.

Sample scenario (still from Sir Jim):
You have a party. During the party, a guest hides in your closet. After the party, you discover said guest
hiding in your closet. You ask him to leave. He refuses.

Step 1: Determine if the person has committed anything wrong.
Is the act of hiding in the closet to stay behind after the party wrong?
Is refusing to leave the house wrong?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, you may proceed to step 2.

Step 2: Determine which title the act falls under.
Was the act committed by a public officer? If not, Title 7 is automatically out.
What did the offender do, in general? It can be classified as a crime against security, which is Title 9.

Step 3: Determine which particular felony is committed.
Is there entry against the owners will? If he was a guest, the answer is no. It cannot be trespass to
dwelling.
There is refusal to leave the house. But he is not a public officer. It cannot be violation of domicile.
If you were the owner, what would you feel? Youd most likely be annoyed. It may be unjust vexation.

Review of Criminal Law 1

How does one incur criminal liability?
A combination of a criminal act and criminal intent makes one criminally liable.
Both act and intent must come from within the individual to make him criminally liable.

Elements of a felony (Art. 3)

act or omission + defined in the RPC + dolo or culpa

1. Act
Must come from the individual
Must be an external act
2. Intent
Must come from within the individual
3. Result
Some felonies need a result to be considered consummated. (e.g. homicide)
4. Circumstances justifying (Art. 11), exempting (Art. 12), mitigating (Art. 13), aggravating (Art. 14),
alternative (Art. 15)
Affect the intent of the person/accused
Some felonies require the presence of other circumstances, which become elements of the crime
itself. (e.g. murder)
The effect on the penalty is a mere consequence. What is actually considered is the level of
perversity in committing the act.
o Aggravating circumstances show a more perverse intent; hence a crime attended by such is
punished more severely.
o Justifying and exempting circumstances negate intent; hence a crime attended by such is
punished less severely.

Degree of participation principal (Art. 17), accessory (Art. 18), accomplice (Art. 19)
Also a reflection of intent
Affects the persons acts
If they have the same intent, the individual acts do not matter. The act of one is the act of all.
If they do not have the same intent, the individual acts come into play to determine liability.

Title 14: Quasi-Offenses

Criminal negligence: imprudence and negligence
based on Art. 3 (culpa)
imprudence - lack of skill (reckless imprudence)
negligence - lack of foresight (simple imprudence or negligence)

Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act
which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto
mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of
arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a
less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of
another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three
times such value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple
imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed
in Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs
of this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in
the period which they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be
caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such
act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other
circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to
be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who
fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in this hand to give.

General elements:
1. any act
2. had it been intentional
3. would constitute a grave, less grave, or light felony
grave felony capital punishment, or penalty which in any of their periods are afflictive
less grave felony penalty in the maximum period are correctional
light felony penalty of arresto menor or fine < P200

Elements of reckless imprudence:
1. Voluntary
2. Without malice
3. Doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results
4. Inexcusable lack of precaution performing or failing to perform such act
5. Taking into consideration his
a. employment or occupation
b. degree of intelligence
c. physical condition
d. other circumstances regarding persons, time and place

Elements of simple imprudence or negligence:
1. Lack of precaution
2. Damage impending
a. Not immediate
b. Danger not clearly manifest

Penalties:
If it would have been! Reckless imprudence Simple imprudence
!a grave felony AM max to PC med AM med to max
!a less grave felony AM min to med AM min
!a light felony AMenor max fine < P200 + censure

Why punish negligence (culpa)?
There is an expectation that everyone will exercise due care.
Acting with negligence (culpa) puts other people in harms way or creates a risk of harm. This is
essentially what is being punished.

Why require actual damage for culpa?
The law regards dolo as more condemnable. The criminal intent is punished, even if there is no
damage.
Culpa is regarded as a lower category of wrongfulness, hence the law does not see harmless culpa
as punishable.

Special rules
1. proximate cause
Was the act or omission the proximate cause of the injury?

Calimutan v. People
Facts: There was a brawl; Cantre hit Bulalacao, Calimutans companion. In retaliation, accused threw a stone
at Cantre while the latter was fleeing. Cantre was hit on his side, died the next day.

Held: Culpable felony, guilty of simple negligence; Calimutan did not intend to kill victim with the stone, only to
injure him.

2. emergency rule
The standard of caution is relaxed, depending on the emergency situation.

Gan v. CA
Facts: Gan was trying to avoid a head-on collision with car that was trying to overtake another car. She
swerved to the right, hitting an old man and instantly killing him.

Held: Acquitted. No negligence. Emergency rule applies. Death of old man caused by Gans instinct of self-
preservation in preventing a head-on collision.

3. right of way rule
first time vehicle rule
o At all intersections without stop or yield signs, slow down and prepare to stop. Yield to
vehicles already in the intersection or about to enter it.

same time vehicle rule
o At all intersections without "stop" or "yield" signs (or with stops in all directions). Yield to the
vehicle on your right if it has reached the intersection of same time as your vehicle.
stop signs
o Stop at any limit line or crosswalk. Yield to all approaching vehicles on the through street. Go
only when it is safe for you to cross. Approaching vehicles should slow down and allow you to
get across safely.
left turn
o Stop at any limit line or crosswalk. Yield to all approaching vehicles on the through street, go
only when it is safe for you to cross. Approaching vehicles should slow down and allow you to
get across safely.
last clear chance rule
o The person who has the last clear chance of avoiding accident must take such opportunity
and not insist on their rights.

GSIS v. Pacific Airways
Facts: PAC pilots tried to cross a runway (without the permission of the air control tower) where PAL was
currently taxiing. The two planes collided.

Held: PAL plane had the right of way but PAC pilots still crossed runway leading to head-on collision; PAC
pilots guilty of gross negligence.

4. accident (elements)
Person performing lawful act
With due care
Causes injury to another by mere accident
Without any fault or intention of causing it

People v. Agliday
Facts: Agliday and his wife were fighting; their son tried to intervene. Agliday shot him in the buttock, killing
the boy.

Held: Reckless imprudence N/A; Agliday intentionally shot son dead for meddling in argument between
accused and his wife, claims it was an accident.

5. medical negligence
defined as the wrong committed by medical professional causing harm or death to the patient
Elements:
o duty: standard behavior which imposes restrictions on ones conduct (the amount of
competence associated with the proper discharge of a profession)
o breach: when physician fails to comply with these professional standards. If the injury results
from this, he is liable for negligence.

6. res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself)
The very occurrence of the injury is evidence of the negligence.
Negligence is assumed, hence the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.

Ramos v. CA
Facts: Ramos was scheduled to undergo surgery to remove a stone in her gall bladder. During surgery, the
anesthesiologist inserted the oxygen tube into her esophagus instead of her trachea, leading to brain
damage.

Held: Res ipsa loquitur. Doctors were negligent, causing brain damage to Ramos.
Sps. Flores v. Sps. Pineda
Facts: Dr. Flores ordered to proceed with the operation (to be performed by Dra. Flores, his wife) on Pineda
despite the fact that she was experiencing symptoms of diabetes. Pineda died due to complications.

Held: Medical negligence; Doctor did not talk to patient before operation.

7. contributory negligence
Contributory negligence is NOT a defense in reckless imprudence. It is only mitigating.

Ibabao v. People
Facts: Ibabao bumped a person but did not stop, instead continued driving. Bystander chased his jeep and
wrote down the plate number. However the information did not allege that Ibabao failed to lend help on the
spot.

Held: Convicted of reckless imprudence through violation of Automobile Law. The failure to lend help to the
victim may be considered contributory negligence and constitutes a qualifying circumstance, raising the
penalty by one degree. However, it must be alleged in the information in order to be appreciated against the
accused.

Title 8: Crimes Against Persons
Title 8 covers wrongs committed against the persons life or the persons physical well-being.

Classes of felonies:
1. kill - infanticide, abortion, assistance to suicide, homicide, murder, parricide
2. injure - mutilation, serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, slight physical injuries
3. rape

Chapter One: Destruction of Life

Art. 256. Intentional abortion. Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented.

Elements:
1. pregnant woman
2. violence is exerted or drugs or beverages administered, or other acts inflicted by accused
3. fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled, as a result of accuseds acts
4. abortion is intended

Penalties:
without the mothers consent
! if another person uses violence on the mother RT
! if no violence is employed PM
with the mothers consent (regardless if done by mother or another person) PC med & max

Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be
imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.

Elements:
1. pregnant woman
2. violence is used upon her without intending an abortion
3. violence is intentionally exerted
4. fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled, as a result of the violence

Penalty: PC min & med

Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents. The penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall
consent that any other person should do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods.
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the consent
of said woman for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods.

Elements:
1. pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion
2. abortion is intended
3. abortion is caused by:
! the pregnant woman herself
! any other person with her consent
! any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of concealing her dishonor

Special mitigating circumstance:
mother commits abortion to conceal her dishonor
! penalty: PC min & med

State v. Merrill
Facts: Defendant shot and killed victim who was apparently 27 days pregnant.

Held: Guilty of murder of an unborn child. The statute protects the potentiaity of human life, which includes
all fetuses and embryos regardless of viability. It does not have to be human, as long as it is living, the law
protects the fetus.

Art. 255. Infanticide. The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be
imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be
committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prision mayor.

Elements:
1. kill any child, regardless of relationship
2. child is less than 3 days old

Penalty:
RP to death
A lower penalty is imposed if it was committed by the mother or the maternal grandparents to conceal
dishonor.

People v. Paycana
Facts: Defendant stabbed his wife, who was 7 months pregnant, several times. Wife died and so did the
unborn child.

Held: Guilty of complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. The unborn fetus was also killed in the
womb when the wife died. (Not infanticide because infanticide requires that the child be alive and viable.)

Art. 249. Homicide. Any person who, not falling within the provisions 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 by reclusion temporal.

Elements:
1. Kill another w/o qualifying circumstances of parricide, infanticide or murder
2. Intent to kill
3. Proximate cause
Note: Homicide requires a result (death) to be consummated.
Penalty: RT
People v. Eulo/People v. Bonilla
Eulo: Victim suffered a gunshot wound to the head. Hospital tests showed that her brain had irreversibly
ceased to function, though she was still attached to a respirator and her heart was still beating. Some of her
organs were then removed for transplantation.

Bonilla: Victim with a gunshot wound to the head became comatose. The brain had ceased to function and
there was no spontaneous breathing without the respirator. Death was pronounced and the kidneys were
removed for transplantation.

Held: Breathing and heartbeat are not independent indicia of life, but are instead part of an integration of
functions in which the brain is dominant. Death can mean the cessation of the breathing or heartbeat, or when
those functions are artificatially maintained (e.g. use of respirator). The shooting in both cases was held to be
the proximate cause of death.

US v. Paicaoan
Facts: Accused took victim from his house, asked several of his companions to kill the victim but they all
refused. No one saw the victim being killed and no one testified as to who did the killing.

Held: Acquitted. There was no evidence to support a charge of murder. Nobody has even testified that
Paiking is dead. The absence and unexplained whereabouts of Paiking is not such proof, nor is the fact the
accused sought unsuccessfully to induce three other persons to kill Paiking proof of the fact that the accused
himself killed Paiking.

reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
The term reckless imprudence connotes the absence of dolo or intent, thereby negating the element
of intent to kill in homicide.
The term homicide here pertains to death in general. Circumstances may make it murder, parricide,
infanticide, etc. but if was committed without intent, it will fall under this and will still be labeled
homicide.

People v. Pugay
Facts: Defendants Pugay and Samson were making fun of the victim, who was a retardate. Pugay took a can
of gasoline and poured it on the victim. Samson set the victim on fire. The victime died.

Held: Pugay is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. He failed to exercise the necessary
diligence. He should have smelled the gasoline and should have known that the can did not contain water.
Samson is guilty of homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem. He knew that the liquid
poured onto the victim was gasoline and was therefore flammable. However, the intent was only to set the
victims clothes on fire, not to kill.

State v. Minster
Facts: Victim was shot in the neck causing her paralysis. One year later, the victim died.

Held: The Court upheld the one year one day rule which bars a prosecution for murder when the victim dies
more than a year and a day after being injured. This rule argues that a substantial amount of time between
the act and the result can be a sufficient supervening circumstance.
*Note: There is no such rule in the Philippines.

acts of execution
requires the infliction of a wound that, given the normal turn of events, would have caused the death
of the victim
Until the offender inflicts a mortal wound, the acts of execution are not complete.
Until a mortal wound is inflicted, the felony cannot be frustrated.

other cases (not assigned but discussed in class)
US v. Kalalo
Accused fired successive shots at victim but victim did not die (perhaps due to poor aim, according to
the Court)
attempted homicide: He knew he didnt inflict a mortal wound because the victim was able to escape.
US v. Bolinaga
Accused stabbed victim but instead of hitting the victims body, he hit the chair.
What the chair prevented was not the victims death, but the sustaining of the mortal wound that
would have caused death.

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. person kills
2. victim is father, mother or child, legitimate or illegitimate, or descendants or ascendants, or spouse

Penalty: RP to death

Rationale:
The closeness of the relationship is the basis for the higher penalty.
For descendants and ascendants, the relationship must be legitimate.
The law assumes that there is a closer blood relationship between immediate members of the family,
hence it qualifies the killing of both legitimate and illegitimate parents and children.
In-laws are not included.

Art. 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be
guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
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
railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of
a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at
his person or corpse.

Elements:
1. kill any person
2. with the attendance of any of the circumstances
treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, aid of armed men, employing means to weaken
victims defense, means or persons to insure or afford impunity
in consideration of price, reward or promise
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranded vessel, derailment or assault on railroad,
fall of airship, by means of motor vehicles, use of any other means involving great waste and ruin
on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated, or of earthquake, volcanic eruption, destructive
cyclone, epidemic, any other public calamity
with evident premeditation
with cruelty, deliberately and inhumanely augmenting victims suffering, outraging or scoffing at
victims person or corpse

Penalty: RP to death

Notes on the circumstances:
If circumstances not mentioned in Art. 248 are attendant to the commission of the act of killing, they
are considered generic aggravating circumstances to the crime of homicide. Only the circumstances
enumerated in Art. 248 will qualify the killing from homicide to murder.
Outraging or scoffing at victims corpse shows disrespect for the victims corpse. Though he wont feel
anything anymore, but even beyond death, the offender commits further acts of abuse on the victim.
Offender violates the only thing left of the victim, his physical body. This is the reason why this is
considered a qualifying circumstance. This includes the chopping off of limbs etc. (chop-chop lady) or
performing sexual intercourse with the victim.
Necrophilia is outraging/scoffing at the corpse only if the person was the one who killed the victim.
Fire must be used a means to kill. The killing must not be incidental to the fire (not arson).
Treachery is not required as a means for killing. As long as the circumstances of the killing constitute,
treachery, it can be appreciated.

US v. Burns
Facts: Accused set a car on fire. The care was parked in the basement of a house. the fire ate up the entire
house and other neighboring houses. One died.

Held: Guilty of homicide, not murder. There was no actual design to kill. In order to be considered murder, the
use of fire should be purposely adopted as a means to that end.

People v. Paterno
Facts: The defendants stabbed and killed the victims. When they, the defendants set fire to the house. Their
lifeless bodies together with their 3-day old infant perished in the fire.

Held: Guilty of murder and arson (separate crimes). It is murder if the killing was the objective and the burning
was resorted to only as a means to accomplish such purpose. It is arson if the burning in itself was the
objective and death is a mere consequence.

People v. Cagoco
Facts: Accused approached the victim from behind and struck him with his fist on the back part of his head,
causing the victim to fall, hit his head on the ground and die.

Held: Guilty of murder. Treachery was appreciated in this case because the accused, although he did not
mean to kill, still employed means which rendered the victim unable to defend himself (i.e. approaching the
victim from behind).

Penalties for frustrated/attempted killing:
Taking into consideration the facts of the case, court may impose:
up to 2 degrees lower for frustrated killing.
up to 3 degrees lower for attempted killing.
Notice that the penalties for frustrated and attempted killing is lowered one degree further than other crimes.
Why? The taking of life has the gravest of the penalties and the law looks at the result (if someones
life was actually taken).
If the victim is killed, motivations are not taken into consideration. A grave penalty is imposed
(reclusion temporal if not qualified or no mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present)
If no one is killed, all other facts may now be considered to determine the proper penalty for the
accused. The penalty now could be from 6 months 1 day to 6 years (PC).
This is an exception to the general rule. You must have some faith in the law to trust that these
exceptions to rules are not arbitrarily made.

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.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents, with respect to their daughters under
eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.

Elements:
1. legally married person, or parent
2. surprises spouse, or minor daughters, in the act of having sexual intercourse with another person
3. does any of the following while in the act or immediately after
a. kills or seriously injuries either one or both of them
b. inflicts any other injury

Penalties:
if spouse/child/lover/seducer is killed: destierro
! Destierro is a penalty. No one can suffer the deprivation of life liberty and property without
due process.
! Destierro is a given in order to protect the accused but it is a penalty nonetheless (acts as
protection and penalty at the same time).
if any other injury is inflicted: no penalty (exempt from criminal liability)

People v. Gonzales
Facts: Husband (accused) surprised his wife and her lover in the act of adultery. The lover escaped and the
accused pursued him. Accused returned home and, obfuscated, attacked his wife with a knife.

Held: Guilty of parricide. Accused not entitled to the privilege granted by Art. 247 because he did not surprise
his wife in the very act of intercourse, but rather after (the man was buttoning his pants already). Hoever, the
dissents state that the accused need not have witnessed the actual copulation. The circumstances and how
any other rational man would have interpreted the facts could be enough for the person to enjoy the benefits
of Art. 247.

US v. Alano
Facts: Husband (accused) caught his wife in the act of adultery. The lover ran away. The accused ran after
him but did not catch him. Accused, upon finding his wife, stabbed her several times.

Held: Not guilty of homicide. Case falls within the ambit of Art. 247. The actions were an unbroken chain, the
act need not be done immediately after the act of surprising them (in this case he pursued the lover first
before killing his wife).

What if the person receives photos of his wife and her paramour together? Does this article apply?
No. Acts done in reaction to the photos are not covered by Article 247 (1). However, it may be appreciated as
a mitigating circumstance.

Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. When, while several persons, not composing groups
organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a
confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who
actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such
person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall have used violence upon the
person of the victim.

Art. 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. When in a tumultuous affray as referred to in the
preceding article, only serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the participants thereof and the person responsible
therefor cannot be identified, all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party shall
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided for the physical injuries so inflicted.
When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature and the person responsible therefor cannot be
identified, all those who appear to have used any violence upon the person of the offended party shall be punished by
arresto mayor from five to fifteen days.

Elements of death or serious physical injuries in a tumultuous affray:
1. several persons not composing organized groups
2. quarrel and assault each other
3. in a confused and tumultuous manner
4. someone is killed or injured by unidentified person/s

Penalties:
Actual injury inflicted Penalty Equivalent to penalty for
Death PM
PC med & max (if offender who
inflicted serious physical injuries
cannot be determined)
Serious physical injuries (Art.
263)
Serious physical injury Penalty next lower in degree than
provided for in Art. 263
Less serious physical injuries
(Art. 265)
Less serious physical injury AM (5-15 days) Slight physical injuries (Art. 266)
Slight physical injury n/a n/a
Penalty is imposed on those known to have inflicted serious injury or used violence upon the victim.
More or less 1 or 2 degree lower than if actual felony if injuries is committed
No provision for slight physical injury because there would be no other person left to charge, the
premise being not knowing who actually injured who

Art. 253. Giving assistance to suicide. Any person who shall assist another to commit suicide shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor, if such person lends his assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing himself, he shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. However, if the suicide is not consummated, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed.

Penalties:
assistant does the actual killing: RT (same penalty as principal in homicide)
assistant merely helps: PM (same penalty as accomplice in homicide)
suicide is not consummated: AM med & max

Why punish assistance to suicide?
The law expects people to prevent or discourage the person about to commit suicide from actually
doing it.
No punishment for persons who attempt to commit suicide, the rational being: no one has a better
right to ones life than the person.

Euthanasia
Doctors will not discontinue essential life support: food, water, oxygen, etc.
They can discontinue medicine (non-essential life support).
Life support machines likewise can be discontinued.

Art. 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon
any person who shall kill his adversary in a duel.
If he shall inflict upon the latter physical injuries only, he shall suffer the penalty provided therefor, according to
their nature.
In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, although no physical injuries have
been inflicted.
The seconds shall in all events be punished as accomplices.

Art. 261. Challenging to a duel. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall challenge another, or incite another to give or accept a challenge to a duel, or shall scoff at or
decry another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel.

Penalties for duel:
Act Penalty
Kills RT
Injures RT
Challenges another to a duel PC min
Incites another to give/accept challenge PC min
Scoffs at or decries another publicly for refusing to fight PC min
No injury AM

Art. 254. Discharge of firearms. Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, unless the facts of the case are such that the act can
be held to constitute frustrated or attempted parricide, murder, homicide or any other crime for which a higher penalty is
prescribed by any of the articles of this Code.

Elements:
1. deliberate shooting at another person
2. no intent to hit
3. must not fall under any other felony (frustrated/attempted killing, physical injuries, threats, grave
coercion)
Example: A shoots at B towards his feet. A shoots at B but it is clear that A does not have the intent to kill B
as shown by the part of the body aimed at by A.

Penalty: PC min & med
If it constitutes frustrated or attempted killing or any other crime, a higher penalty is imposed.
! Intent to kill is present, hence the higher penalty.

When to apply/use this provision:
Applicable if it does not hit the other person or does not kill the victim and the facts show that you
dont have the intent to kill
This is generally a fallback provision in cases wherein you cant charge the accused with homicide or
any other related felony (which are crimes against persons). This is also the reason why this is
classified under Title 8.

Chapter Two: Physical Injuries

General elements:
1. Wound, beat or assault
2. Without intent to kill
3. Graded according to:
a. Gravity of injury
b. Duration of medical attendance
c. Duration of inability to work

Art. 262. Mutilation. The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any
person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or partially, or some essential organ of
reproduction.
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.

Mutilation
intentionally depriving another of essential organ of reproduction
! RT to RP
! rationale: Depriving a person of the ability to create life is worse than taking that persons life.
More important than a persons life is the persons ability to procreate.
any other organ
! PM med to max

Sir Jims example (actual case):
Penis was cut off while the man was sleeping but was reattached in the hospital.
Frustrated mutilation? No, it was considered consummated.
Trivia: He eventually became a male porn star.

Aguirre v. Sec. of Justice
Facts: Larry Aguirre, who had a mental deficiency, was vasectomized. Consent was given by his adoptive
parents due to his incapacity. His sister filed a criminal complaint for mutilation, alleging that Larry was
maliciously declared incompetent by doctors and that the report was falsified.

Held: Vasectomy is not mutilation. Vasectomy renders the person sterile but does not deprive him of his
reproductive organ because it is the vas deferens which is operated on, and the procedure is reversible.
Mutilation entails castration, which is not the case in vasectomy.

Art. 263. Serious physical injuries. Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of
the crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the injured person shall
become insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an
eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have lost the use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated
for the work in which he was therefor habitually engaged;
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall
have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he as habitually
engaged for a period of more than ninety days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the
physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than thirty
days.
If the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Article 246, or with
attendance of any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248, the case covered by subdivision number 1 of this Article
shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods; the case covered by subdivision number 2
by prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period; the case covered by subdivision
number 3 by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; and the case covered by subdivision number 4 by
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a parent who shall inflict physical injuries
upon his child by excessive chastisement.

Elements:
shall become insane, imbecile, impotent or blind
! entails total, not partial, blindness (incurable)
cannot speak, hear or smell, or lose an eye, arm, hand, leg or foot, or their use, or become
incapacitated for his usual work
! psychological disorders may be considered under incapacity, even if it is not a physical
injury
become deformed, lose any other body part or its use, or become ill or incapacitated for his usual
work for over 90 days
! scars in inconspicuous places (e.g. the back of the person) would still fall under this article,
as it is still a deformity
become ill or incapacitated for work for more than 30 days

On penalties:
Higher penalties:
! if victim is any person covered by parricide
! if committed with any qualifying circumstance of murder
! NOTE: Higher penalty not imposed even in the presence of the circumstances mentioned if
the injury is inflicted by parent upon his or her child due to excessive chastisement.
Same penalties (Art. 264):
! knowingly administering injurious substances
! taking advantage of weakness of mind or credulity

US v. Punsalan
Facts: Accused attacked the victim with a pen knife. The victim lost the use of 3 of his fingers of his left hand.

Held: The accused is liable under par. 3 (lose any other part of the body or its use), not par. 2 (lose an eye,
arm, hand). The victim did not lose his entire hand, but only the use of the 3 fingers.

Difference between Art. 262 (mutilation) par. 2 and Art. 263 (serious physical injuries) par. 2:
Art. 262: accused had intent to dismember the other person
Art. 263: accused did not intend to make the victim lose a member of his body, but only physical
injuries that resulted in the loss of a body part
Example: Accused attempts to hack the victim but the victim used his arms to try to shield himself, which
results in the victim losing his arm. There is no intent on the part of the accused to make the victim lose his
arm, but only to cause physical injuries. Hence he is liable under Art. 263, not Art. 262.

Art. 265. Less serious physical injuries. Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not
described in the preceding articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall
require medical assistance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty
of arresto mayor.
Whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted with the manifest intent to kill or offend the
injured person, or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense in addition to the penalty of arresto mayor, a fine
not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the offender's parents, ascendants, guardians, curators,
teachers, or persons of rank, or persons in authority, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, provided that, in the case of persons in authority, the deed does not constitute the crime of assault upon such
person.

Elements:
become ill or incapacitated for work for 10-30 days
require medical assitance for 10-30 days

Penalties:
AM
additional fine if with manifest intent to insult or offend, or to add ignominy to the offense
higher penalty if against parents, ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, or persons of rank or in
authority (provided that it does not fall under assault)

Art. 266. Slight physical injuries. The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party
for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20 pesos and censure when the offender has caused physical
injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat
another by deed without causing any injury.

Elements:
become ill or incapacitated for work for 1-9 days
sustain other injury that does not require medical attendance or render him incapacitated for work
ill-treat another by deed without causing injury (e.g. pulling someones hair - causes physical pain but
not injury)

People v. Aviles
Facts: Accused stabbed the victim (jeepney driver)s passenger while inside the jeep. The victim tried to help
his passenger but the accused also stabbed him on the left knee.

Held: It was shown that the accused stabbed the victim on the knee only to prevent him from further helping
his passenger (the original victim). Since there was no proof of the extent of the injury or the period of
incapacity for labor or of the required medical assistance, the accused can only be convicted of slight physical
injuries.

RA 8049: Anti-Hazing Law
Definition of hazing
! initiation rite as a prerequisite for admission to an organization by subjecting applicant to
physical or psychological suffering or injury
law punishes participants as principals
! a persons presence is prima facie evidence of participation, unless person tried to prevent
hazing
punished as accomplices:
! owner of place
! teachers who do not consent
applies only to the admission of a person to an organization (No, CWTS is not included.)

Penalties:
reclusion perpetua
graduated penalties depending upon gravity of injuries (higher than those provided for in Arts. 263-
266)
maximum period imposed if:
! prevent quitting
! prevent reporting
! outside school
! victim is below 12 years old
mitigating circumstance of no intent to commit so grave a wrong is not appreciated

Chapter Three: Rape

Art. 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. Rape is Committed
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of
sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the
genital or anal orifice of another person.

History of the Provision
Rape used to be a crime against chastity (Title 11). Only after the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353)
was enacted did it become a crime against persons.
All acts under paragraph 2 were previously considered acts of lasciviousness.
Par. 1 (C) is a new provision. It pertains to a situation when a woman may have consented to a
sexual act but only because of an offenders gross abuse of authority. The woman is deemed never
to have consented at all.
Par. 1 (D) considers children unable to give any consent. It is statutory rape.

Elements under Paragraph 1: Rape by sexual intercourse
1. committed by a man
2. who has carnal knowledge of a woman
a. through force, threat or intimidation
b. victim in deprived of reason, or unconscious
c. through fraudulent machinations
d. with grave abuse of authority
e. victim is below 12 years old, or demented
Notes:
(a) and (b) implies that there is no consent given
(c) and (d) imply that consent, if present, is vitiated, therefore not effectual

Elements under Paragraph 2: Rape by sexual assault
1. committed by any person
2. against any person
3. act of sexual assault
a. inserts penis into mouth or anus
b. inserts any instrument or object into any genital or anal orifice
4. under any of the circumstances in Paragraph 1

Standards for rape
Slightest penetration
Fingers are contemplated in Par. 2.
Verbal refusal alone will not do. (This is a gray area.) At the same time, when a victim considers any
resistance she could put up as futile, she is considered not to have consented. In evaluating such
force inflicted upon her, it is also enough that the force used by the offender is sufficient to
consummate his purpose.
Test: whether the threat/intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she
resists, the threat would be carried out.
Moral ascendancy/influence could be tantamount to physical force/intimidation. In which case, it is not
necessary that a victim puts up resistance.
A victims illicit profession is immaterial, as long as there is force and violence
Rape may be proven by a victims uncorroborated testimony. The court finds acceptable and can
convict on the basis of a firm, categorical and straightforward account by the victim. Reasons:
" An accusation for rape can be made with facility, but is difficult to prove. It is more difficult,
however, for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove.
" In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution.
" The evidence for the prosecution must stand/fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weaknesses of the defenses evidence.
No such crime as frustrated rape. (People vs. Orita)
When there is lack of consent/will:
" Woman deprived of reason/unconscious
! Sleeping
! Woken up by offender
! Under the influence of a narcotic
! Administered with potions
" Sex with insane woman
" Cohabitation with feebleminded, idiotic woman; Mental abnormality/deficiency of woman can be a
defense, because it is not total depravity of reason
" Deaf mute and imbecile; but not deaf-mutes
" Statutory rape
! Premised on the fact that a child cannot legally give consent

Why man-carnal knowledge-woman?
Because of the actus reus of rape - sexual intercourse. There could be no sexual intercourse between man-
man, woman-woman.

Can a man be raped by a woman?
Approaches (based on class discussion):
If a man gets an erection in the process, he enjoyed it and wouldve consented to the act.
A man can get an erection whether or not he likes it. One can perform oral sex on a man, and the
sexual intercourse could come after. A woman can also poison a man first, then tie him up to have
sex with him.

Why is male rape not covered by our law?
Males are not thought of as victims; It is a less grave thing than say, the rape of a virgin.
Females are considered incapable of such aggression
It is, however, contemplated under Par. 2 (Rape under sexual assault). Does this mean then that the
law views the insertion of an object to a mans anus as a greater transgression?

Can a woman be a principal by direct participation in rape under paragraph 2?
Scenario: a woman forces a man to have sex with her, and not insert objects
Answer: No. Probably just acts of lasciviousness.

Art. 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim;
2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal
institution:
3. When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the
third civil degree of consanguinity;
4. When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be
such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;
5. When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
6. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV/Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the
victim;
7. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the
Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his
position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
8. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or
disability;
9. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime;
and
10. When the offender knew of the mental disability emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended
party at the time of the commission of the crime.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall
be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall
be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying
circumstances mentioned in this article.

Penalties:
Circumstances Penalty

Rape under paragraph 1
No special circumstances RP
Use of deadly weapon
RP to
Death
Committed by 2 or more persons
Victim becomes insane
Attempted rape + homicide
Rape + homicide Death
Aggravating/qualifying circumstances (Art. 266-B, 1-10)

Rape under paragraph 2
(rape by sexual assault)
No special circumstances PM
Use of deadly weapon PM to
RT Committed by 2 or more persons
Victim becomes insane RT
Attempted rape + homicide RT to RP
Rape + homicide RP
Aggravating/qualifying circumstances (Art. 266-B, 1-10) RT

Notes:
Rape with homicide is a special complex crime (by reason or on occasion of the rape, homicide is
committed). It is punished by death. Art. 48 on complex crimes does not apply.
On #3: Offender must be aware of the relatives presence.
o This shows his greater perversity.
o Not absorbed by ignominy as a generic aggravating circumstance, which would make it
subject to being offset by a mitigating circumstance. The law considers this circumstance
under the provisions on rape graver.
o If rape was committed in full view of other people who are not relatives, this could be
considered ignominy.
On #4: religious means a person engaged in a legitimate religious vocation (e.g. a nun), and not just
a religious person (e.g. goes to church every day).
On #6: Offender must be aware of his HIV/AIDS.
On #9: Offender must know of victims pregnancy at the time of the rape, or the victim is visibly
pregnant.

Art. 266-C. Effect of Pardon. The subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall
not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.

Effect of pardon
Co-conspirators not exempt (When rape was a crime against chastity, the pardon applied to co-
conspirators too.)
A husband can rape his wife (abandoning pre-RA 8353 rulings). However, her forgiveness of him
extinguishes liability, except if the marriage is void.
Marriage extinguishes criminal and civil liability.

Art. 266-D. Presumptions. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any
degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid
consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A.

Evidence of force or intimidation
Any overt act of resistance in any degree can be admitted in evidence.
Offended party is so situated as to be incapable of giving valid consent
This article is a provision on evidence.
Reason for article: Before, the victim must prove that she exerted efforts for maximum resistance.
However, this was found to be UNFAIR it should not be the victims burden to prove resistance.
Saying NO is enough resistance.

People v. Mariano
Facts: Accused raped his daughter on three occasions. On all three occasions, he tried to insert his penis into
her vagina but he was not able to penetrate. He instead stood up and masturbated until he ejaculated.

Held: Accused is guilty only of ATTEMPTED, not consummated, rape. There was no showing of the slightest
penetration of the female organ. For consummated rape to be established, it is essential that there be
penetration. There must be convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female
organ, and not merely stroked the external surface.

People v. Dagaojo
Facts: Accused was charged with raping his minor daughter (she was 11 years old when she was first raped)
on 7 different occasions (7 counts of rape). The victims hymen was, upon examination, found to be intact.

Held: Accused convicted of consummated rape. Hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. Only slightest
penetration of the labia by the male organ is enough to consummate the rape. The victim categorically stated
that her father was able to penetrate her because she felt pain in her genitalia. The fact that the victim was
under 18 years of age at the time of the rape and that the offender is a parent warrants the imposition of the
death penalty.

People v. Silvano
Facts: Accused repeatedly raped his daughter in the guise of parental authority, that the rape was his way of
disciplining his child. On one occasion, the accused inserted his fingers into the victims vagina.

Held: Accused convicted of rape and sentenced to death. Court discussed that since rape is a crime to which
only two people (accused and victim) are privy, the case revolves around the credibility of the witness. Even if
the victims testimony is uncorroborated, the accused may be convicted solely on this basis as long as it
meets the test of credibility. Moreover, the Court held that objects in paragraph 2 of Art. 266-A includes
other parts of the body, such as the fingers. Therefore, inserting fingers (or any part of the body) into the
victims genitalia or anal orifice, shall constitute rape by sexual assault under Paragraph 2 of Art. 266-A.
However, the incident in this case happened before the new rape law was passed, hence the accused cannot
be held liable under the new rape law.

People v. Siao
Facts: Accused ordered his house boy to have sex with his househelper while pointing a gun at them thrice.
The third time, the accused ordered them to do it doggy style.

Held: Accused convicted of rape. Although he never had intercourse (or any other sexual act) with the
househelper, he was a principal by inducement because he ordered his house boy to rape the helper.

People v. Balatozo
Facts: The victim was a 24-year-old woman who had the mental capacity of a child. The accused made her lie
down, then inserted his penis into her vagina. Victim had contusions on her knees as a result of the accused
pinning her down.

Held: Accused convicted of rape. Force or intimidation may be actual or constructive. In this case, the
accused took advantage of the fact that the victim had a limited mental capacity. Court cited Commonwealth
v. Stephens in ruling that if the victim is insane or too weak of mind to give consent, it follows that she has
been forcibly ravished. Furthermore, signs of physical force were evident in the victims contusions.

People v. Magabo
Facts: The accused invited the victim, a mental retardate, to go with him to his house. When they arrived
there, the accused made the victim lie on the floor where he had sex with her.

Held: Accused cannot be convicted of rape of a mental retardate. Even though the medico legal and the court
verified the state of the victim, such mental state was not alleged in the information filed against the accused.
The accused has the right to know the nature of the accusations against him.

People v. De la Cruz
Facts: The accused was a faith healer. The victims parents brought her to the accuseds house to have her
cured of her fainting spells. She was made to stay in the accuseds house, where she was raped twice by the
accused faith healer. The accused allegedly threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incidents.

Held: Accused convicted of rape. It was proven that in both instance of rape, the accused took advantage of
the victims unconsciousness in raping her. It was also proven that on one occasion, the accused threatened
the victim with death and used force on her in consummating his crime.

Title 11: Crimes Against Chastity
Crimes against chastity cannot be prosecuted de oficio, meaning they cannot be prosecuted except upon
complaint by the offended party.

Chapter Two: (Rape and) Acts of Lasciviousness

Art. 336. Acts of Lasciviousness. Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons
of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision
correccional.

Elements:
1. Actus Reus
Commit any act of lasciviousness
Upon another person of either sex
o As opposed to other crimes such as grave scandal, wherein one doesnt commit an act
UPON another person (e.g. streaking)
o Differentiates it from non-crimes as well (e.g. voyeurism)
Under circumstances of rape
o Through force, threat or intimidation
o Victim deprived of reason or otherwise rendered unconscious
o Fraudulent machinations or gross abuse of authority
o Victim under 12 or demented
2. Mens rea
Lewdness
o Differentiates it from other felonies

People vs. Alcoreza
Facts: Alcoreza was charged of raping his stepdaughters, Mary Joy and Estrella. Relevant part: While
Estrella was sleeping with her siblings, Alcoreza laid down beside her and started touching her. He was able
to touch her private parts but was not able to remove his own clothes because she kept resisting. The girls
mother walked in on them but did not believe Estrella when she accused Alcoreza of rape.

Held: Convicted for acts of lasciviousness, not rape. The mens rea or intent determines which crime (acts of
lasciviousness or attempted rape) the accused will be liable for. Intent can be inferred from overt acts.
Alcorezas acts are insufficient to prove that he intended to have carnal knowledge of Estrella because he did
not remove his clothes.

People vs. Bailosis
Facts: Saturnina Emeterio owed Bailosis a peso. Bailosis, who was the president of the pueblo, sent several
policemen to Emeterios house where after beating her with a stick, the defendant compelled her to take off
her clothes and dance before him and many other persons.

Held: Convicted for acts of lasciviousness. While the act may have been also a result of a desire to punish
Emeterio, the Court cannot believe that there was no lasciviousness in the thoughts and purposes of a man
who would devise such a method to exact satisfaction from a woman for nonpayment of a debt.

People vs. Balbar
Facts: Balbar entered the classroom where Ester Gonzales was holding classes. Without warning, he placed
his arms around her and kissed her on the eye. Gonzales pushed Balbar away and tried to flee. Balbar pulled
out a dagger and pursued her. He caught up with her before she was able to get out of the room. Balbar then
embraced her again. Both fell to the floor. Gonzales suffered slight physical injuries.

Held: Unjust vexation, not acts of lasciviousness. Because the acts were committed in a schoolroom and in
the presence of complainants students and within hearing distance of her co-teachers, the Court concluded
that Balbar could not have been actuated by a lustful design. The presence or absence of lewd designs is
inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the ENVIRONMENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

People vs. Ceballos
Facts: 6 counts of rape was charged against Ceballos. In one case, he was convicted only of acts of
lasciviousness. Relevant part: AAA (Ceballos daughter) and her four siblings were sleeping when Ceballos
touched her breasts and vagina, catching her by surprise. He then removed her clothes, but after trying
unsuccessfully to insert his organ in hers, he instead inserted his finger in her vagina and mashed her
breasts. She offered resistance by boxing him but was subdued. He then went to sleep afterwards.

Held: Convicted for acts of lasciviousness, not rape. Even though inserting a finger into anothers genital
constitutes sexual assault under Art. 266-A of the RPC, Ceballos was charged under Art. 335. Thus, Ceballos
cannot be convicted of Rape by means of sexual assault since doing so would violate his constitutional right
to be informed of the nature of the charge against him.

Chapter Three: Seduction, Corruption of Minors and White Slave Trade

Seduction
Enticing a woman to have sexual intercourse through either:
o Deceit
o Abuse of confidence, authority or relationship
Without force or intimidation
NOTE: Seduction per se is not criminal. Its natural in human interaction. It happens every day. However,
there is a line that men shouldnt cross, otherwise it would fall under the criminal kind of seduction. That is the
question that must be answered: How do we know that the line has been crossed?

Art. 337. Qualified Seduction. The seduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age,
committed by any person in public authority, priest, home-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any
capacity, shall be entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon any person who shall seduce his sister or descendant,
whether or not she be a virgin or over eighteen years of age.
Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction is committed when the offender has carnal knowledge of any of
the persons and under the circumstances described herein.

Elements:
1. Carnal knowledge
2. Victim who is:
a. Virgin
not in the literal sense
virgin means unmarried, of good reputation " excludes prostitutes
b. over 12, under 18
If the victim is under 12, it will fall under statutory rape.
Under 18 because otherwise, the victim would be of legal age. By then, it is presumed
that they already know what they are doing and do not need protection.
c. sister or descendant of offender
whether or not a virgin or under 18
penalty is 1 degree higher
The age limit of 18 does not apply to sisters or descendants of the offender because of
the inherent trust and confidence in the sibling relationship that is abused. Moral
ascendancy is also at play regardless of the age.
3. by person in authority or confidence
public authority
priest
home servant
domestic
guardian
teacher
any person entrusted with education or custody of the victim
People vs. Fontanilla
Facts: Fe Castro, 15-year old virgin, worked for Mariano Fontanilla and his wife. Fontanilla repeatedly
promised to leave his wife and marry Castro. He eventually succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her
several times. Eventually, the intercourse was voluntary on Castros part because she began to like him and
enjoy the intercourse.

Held: Convicted for qualified seduction. Deceit, although an essential element of ordinary or simple seduction,
does not need to be proven in qualified seduction. It is replaced by abuse of confidence. The seduction of a
virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age, committed by any of the persons enumerated in Art. 337,
constitutes the crime of qualified seduction, even though no deceit intervenes or even when such carnal
knowledge were voluntary on the part of the virgin.

Art. 338. Simple Seduction. The seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over
twelve but under eighteen years of age, committed by means of deceit, shall be punished by arresto mayor.

Elements:
1. Sexual intercourse
2. Single woman or widow of good reputation
3. Over 12 and under 18
4. Through deceit (e.g. unfulfilled promise to marry)

Seduction differentiated from under Art. 266-A Paragraph 1
Rape: fraudulent machinations; seduction: deceit
The difference lies in the DEGREE.
In rape, the deceit is greater and more complex.
It has to be more than just a lie. The offender has to go the extra mile in crafting the lie.
Fraudulent machinations involve more elaborate plans/schemes. Merely lying would fall under deceit.

Why is seduction limited only to women as victims?
The provisions are extensions of the rape law.

Can a woman be punished for seduction?
Sir Jims opinion: If you cant punish a woman when she forces a man to have sexual intercourse, then it
should follow that the woman cant be punished for seducing a man to have sex with her.

Art. 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party. The penalty of arresto mayor shall
be imposed to punish any other acts of lasciviousness committed by the same persons and under the same
circumstances as those provided in Articles 337 and 338.

Elements:
1. Actus reus
Committed acts of lasciviousness
Under circumstances of seduction
2. Mens rea
Lewdness

Art. 340. Corruption of minors. Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of
persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall be punished by prision mayor and if the culprit is a public officer or
employee, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall also suffer the penalty of temporary
absolute disqualification.

Elements:
1. Promote or facilitate prostitution
2. Of minors
3. To satisfy lust of another
Penalties:
Prision mayor
temporary absolute disqualification
o additional penalty if offender is a public officer or employee
RA 7610: Anti-Child Abuse Act
Punishes acts of abuse, exploitation and discrimination against children
o Sexual intercourse with a child exploited in prostitution
! RT med to RP
! Increased penalty as opposed to seduction (PC) and consented acts of lasciviousness (AM)
o Abuse of child under 12
! Rape or acts of lasciviousness
o Acts of lasciviousness, if under 12
! RT med
o Child trafficking
o Child pornography
o Other forms of abuse
Increased penalties of felonies if victim is under 12
o Murder, homicide, mutilation, serious physical injuries " RP
o Qualified seduction, consented acts of lasciviousness, corruption of minors " 1 degree higher

People v. Optana
Facts: Accused raped his stepdaughter on several occasions within two years (1993-1995). The victim was
11 years old when she was first raped. She became pregnant and delivered a boy in 1996. Multiple
informations were filed against the accused, charging him for violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 and for rape
under Art. 335 of the RPC.

Held: Charging the accused with two different offenses for the same act committed on the same date against
the same victim is illegal except when the law itself allows it. This is not the case with RA 7610, which
specifically provides that in instances where the victim is under 12, the case should fall under Art. 335 of the
RPC. Thus, only cases where the victim is over 12 but under 18 are covered by RA 7610. Nevertheless, it
was proven that the first incident of rape in 1993 occurred when the victim was below 12 years old (Art. 335)
and there was an incident where the victim was over 12 but under 18 (RA 7610). Accused was convicted for
both rape under Art. 335 and for violation of RA 7610.

De Guzman v. Perez
Facts: Petitioner and private respondent were lovers in UST Law. Respondent became pregnant and gave
birth to a boy, while petitioner married another woman. Petitioner sent financial support only 3 times twice
for the childs schooling, and once when the child was sick. He also dismissed all demands for support.
Respondent charged petitioner with neglect of child punishable under Art. 59(4) of PD 603 in relation to Sec.
10(a) of RA 7610.

Held: Petitioner held liable under under PD 603 for neglect of child. However, he cannot be held liable under
RA 7610. The law expressly penalizes any person who commits other acts of neglect, child abuse, cruelty or
exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the childs development, including those
covered by Art. 59 of PD 603 but not covered by the RPC. The crime punished under Art. 59(4) is also
penalized under Art. 277 of the RPC (indifference of parents). Hence, it is excluded from the coverage of RA
7610.

Malto v. People
Facts: Accused was a college professor who got into a relationship with one of his students. Accused tried
several times to have sex with the student but failed. He threatened to break up with her and so she agreed to
have sex. Later the student broke up with the accused upon learning that he had been either intimately
involved or sexually harassing other students. The students mother filed two informations one for violation
of Sec. 5(a), one for Sec. 5(b), both of RA 7610.

Held: Convicted under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610. The said section punishes sexual intercourse not only with a
child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuse, i.e. when a child, through
coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse. Sec. 5(a), on the other hand, punishes acts
connected with child prostitution. Consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Sec. 5, RA 7610. The
mere act of having sex constitutes the offense (malum prohibitum).

Art. 341. White Slave Trade. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or under any pretext, shall engage in the business or shall profit by
prostitution or shall enlist the services of any other for the purpose of prostitution.

Elements:
1. Any person
2. Prostitution
Engages in or profits by prostitution
Enlists others for prostitution
3. In any manner or under any pretext
Note: Art. 341 can only apply to prostitution by women due to the definition of prostitutes in the Philippines.

Chapter Four: Abduction

Art. 342. Forcible abduction. The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs shall be
punished by reclusion temporal.
The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the female abducted be under twelve years of age.

Elements:
1. Any woman
Regardless of age, civil status or reputation
2. Taken against her will
If under 12 years old, consent does not matter
May be accomplished using deceit or violence and intimidation
3. With lewd designs

Notes:
The lewd design is what differentiates forcible abduction from other felonies, such as kidnapping and
coercion.
You dont have to do anything to the woman, as long as there is evidence of lewd design. Sexual
intercourse is not necessary.
The taking away creates an opportunity for the offender to subject the woman to a situation of
vulnerability. Distance and time are not good criteria for determining away in the taking away.
However, distance and time are in some way, necessary for the opportunity to arise.
Husband cannot be found guilty of forcible abduction as lewd design is wanting.

Penalty: RT

Why punish abduction if there is no carnal knowledge?
The placing of the woman in a situation where she is vulnerable to lewd designs is what makes the act wrong
and why it is punished separately. Even if there is no rape, the woman would have gone through hell already.

People v. Crisostomo
Facts: A 30 year-old woman was dragged against her will to a rice field by a man whose marriage proposal
she had previously rejected. She was kissed many times while she was being held by the man, who was
accompanied by three companions who had helped in her capture.

Held: Intention to marry does not constitute unchaste design necessary in the felony of abduction. The
alleged kissing could not be proven as the woman was held by the waist and the back with her head hanging,
giving room for accidental collisions of heads or faces. Man convicted of illegal detention.

People v. Jose
Facts: Actress Maggie dela Riva was taken outside her house by 4 men, taken to a hotel, and was gang-
raped.

Held: Men convicted of complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and three counts of simple rape. It was
held that the forcible abduction was a necessary step to committing the first rape but since the forcible
abduction had already been consummated while the first act of rape was being performed, the latter three
rapes cannot legally be considered as still connected with the abduction.
*NOTE: This case is significant in that it changed the way the victims were perceived. Before, society looked
at women as if they were asking for it, which made some of the victims of rape hesitant in coming out and
filing rape cases. In this particular case, the victim was a famous star and the accused were men from well-to-
do families. She won and this was considered a landmark case.

People v. Godines
Facts: After other members of the household were killed by the two men, Ancajas tried to escape with her
baby. However, the men saw them, grabbed them and brought them to a nearby vacant lot. The men took
turns raping Ancajas.

Held: The men are guilty of rape. The Court held that the main objective of the men were to rape Ancajas,
therefore absorbing the forcible abduction.

Art. 343. Consented abduction. The abduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age,
carried out with her consent and with lewd designs, shall be punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods.

Elements:
1. Virgin
Can mean a virtuous woman of good reputation (not necessarily literal virginity)
2. Over 12, under 18
3. Taking away
With consent of offended party after solicitation or cajolery
4. With lewd design

Penalty: PC min to med

Why punish consented abduction?
This provision punishes the alarm and disgrace cause to the victims parents and family.

Perez v. CA
Facts: Eleuterio Perez had sex with Yolanda Mendoza twice in one night, after promising to marry her. Perez
was charged with Consented Abduction but was acquitted on the grounds that he should have been charged
with qualified seduction. Mendoza charged him with qualified seduction. Perez now raises his right against
double jeopardy.

Held: This case points out the similarities and differences between consented abduction and qualified
seduction.

Consented abduction v. Qualified seduction
Consented Abduction Qualified Seduction
Similarities Offended party is a virgin
Offended party must be over 12 and under 18

Differences
Taking away must be with consent, after
solicitation or cajolery from the offender
Committed through abuse of authority,
confidence, relationship
Taking away must be with lewd designs Offender has sexual intercourse with
victim
Mens Rea Alarm caused to parents and family Seduction of the woman

Differentiating felonies
Force Consent/enticement
Sexual intercourse Rape Seduction
Other lewd acts Acts of lasciviousness Consented acts of lasciviousness
Taking away, with lewd designs Forcible abduction Consented abduction

Chapter One: Adultery and Concubinage

Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery. Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married,
even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.
Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the offended spouse,
the penalty next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed.

Elements:
1. Married woman has sexual intercourse with man not her husband
2. Man has carnal knowledge of married woman, knowing her to be married
3. Even if marriage subsequently declared void

Penalty:
Prision correccional med to max
1 degree lower if accused was abandoned without justification

Art. 334. Concubinage. Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other
place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

Elements:
1. husband
2. keeps a mistress in the conjugal dwelling
3. has sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances
4. cohabits in any other place

Penalties:
PC min to med for husband
Destierro for concubine

Notes on adultery and concubinage:
The possibility of having an offspring from the sexual intercourse with a married woman is not a
requirement to convict for adultery.
Every act of sexual intercourse is considered a separate act of adultery; whereas in concubinage, no
matter how many times they have had sexual intercourse, it will be considered just one act of
concubinage.
In concubinage, it is an element that it is APPARENT that the man has sexual relations with another
woman, or that another woman is now living in the conjugal dwelling.
Checking into the same motel room would be sufficient evidence to file a concubinage case, because
it would lead to the conclusion that they had sex.

Chapter Five: Provisions Relative to the Preceding Chapter of Title 11

Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape, and acts of
lasciviousness. The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are both
alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been
expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph
shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.

What are the private offenses?
Remember CASA(R)AP!
1. Concubinage
2. Adultery
3. Seduction
4. Abduction
5. (Rape)
6. Acts of lasciviousness
7. Private offense of libel
Note: Rape has been excluded from the list of private offenses by virtue of the amendment to the Rape Law.

Prosecution of private offenses
CASA(R)AP
o Can be filed by offended party
o Note: CA cases are filed against both offenders (married person and third party)
SA(R)AP
o Can be filed by victim, parent, grandparent, guardian (in that order)
! Provided there is no pardon given by victim
! Marriage between offender and victim extinguishes offenders liability.
! Extends to co-principals, accomplices, accessories

Pardon
Benefits co-principals, accomplices, accessories
Has to be express in SAA (seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness)
May be either express or implied in CA (concubinage, adultery)
Must be given prior to criminal action (filing of complaint)

Art. 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. Person guilty of rape, seduction or
abduction, shall also be sentenced:
1. To indemnify the offended woman.
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing.
3. In every case to support the offspring.
The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided for in Articles 333 and 334 may also be sentenced, in the
same proceeding or in a separate civil proceeding, to indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse.

Civil Liability
Abduction/Seduction
o Indemnify offended woman
o Acknowledge offspring, unless prohibited by law
o Support offspring
Adultery/Concubinage
o Liable for damages to offended spouse

Art. 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians, teachers, or other persons entrusted with the custody of the
offended party. The ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and any person who, by abuse of authority or
confidential relationships, shall cooperate as accomplices in the perpetration of the crimes embraced in chapters, second,
third and fourth, of this title, shall be punished as principals.
Teachers or other persons in any other capacity entrusted with the education and guidance of youth, shall also
suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification.
Any person falling within the terms of this article, and any other person guilty of corruption of minors for the
benefit of another, shall be punished by special disqualification from filling the office of guardian.

Liability of Custodians
Custodians:
o ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers
Offense:
o Cooperate as accomplices in abduction, seduction, corruption of minors and prostitution
o By abuse of authority or confidential relationship

Penalty:
o Punished as principals
o Special disqualification from being guardian
o Special disqualification for teachers

People v. Nardo
Facts: Accused forced his 14-year-old daughter to have sex with him, threatening her with a knife and
warning her not to tell anyone or else he would kill their entire family. The victim filed a formal complaint with
the help of her aunt. RTC convicted accused of rape. While accused was in jail, the victim wrote letters to his
lawyer, concerned about her fathers situation in prison.

Held: Conviction for rape is affirmed. A daughter, a minor at that, would not testify against her father if she
had not really been aggrieved. The victims testimony was consistent in court. The fact that the victim wrote
letters showing concern for her father does not mean that she retracts her testimonies. Such retraction must
be done in an affidavit, which was not the case here. It is a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken
before the court just because the witness or victim changed her mind.

RA 7877: Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
Punishes sexual harassment in a work or educational setting
Sexual harassment
o Sexual favor made a condition for hiring, firing, promotion, salary increase, etc.
o Acts result in an intimidating or hostile environment
o Committed by any person who has authority, influence or power over another
Remedies
o Criminal prosecution
! Penalty of 1-6 months imprisonment and/or fine or P10,000-P20,000
! Offense prescribes in 3 years
o Independent civil action for damages

Statistics on sexual harassment cases
There are less than 20 decided Supreme Court cases between 1997 and 2007.
Most were administrative cases against judges.
2 out of 3 were found guilty.

On sexual harassment:
Sexual harassment IS gender-based discrimination.
Rejection of sexual advances may result in undeserved denial of benefits/privilege.
Acceptance of sexual advances may result in unwarranted grant of benefits/privilege.
Hostile environment is discriminatory to victims.

Aquino v. Acosta
Facts: Complainant is the Chief of Legal and Technical Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals. Respondent is the
presiding judge of the CTA. Complainant alleged that there were 6 instances when respondent sexually
harassed her. Respondent, on several occasions, called complainant to his chambers, kissed her and
embraced her.

Held: Complaint for sexual harassment dismissed. Court found no indication that respondent was motivated
by lewd design. Moreover, there is no showing that respondent demanded, requested or required any sexual
favor from complainant in exchange for favorable compensation, promotion, privileges, etc.

PAAUC v. NLRC
Facts: Petitioner Perez was fired from work on grounds of gross and habitual neglect of duties, serious
misconduct and fraud or willful breach of trust. She had thrown a stapler and utter abusive language at her
Plant Manager. Petitioner contends that she did so because he was sexually harassing her. He would run his
fingers on her arms, put his arms around her, sometimes even ask her out (which she refused). He made her
understand that if she did not give in, he would cause her termination. NLRC questioned why it took her 4
years to expose the harassment.

Held: There is no time period within which the victim is expected to complain through the proper channels,
because this depends on the needs, circumstances, and emotional threshold of the victim. The gravamen of
the offense of sexual harassment is not the violation of the employees sexuality but the abuse of power by
the employer.

Floralde v. CA
Facts: Complainants Yolanda Floralde, Nida Velasco and Normelita Alambra, employees of the Agricultural
Training Institute, filed sexual harassment cases against their superior, Paulino Rama. Florade alleged that
Rama repeatedly touched her butt and made nasty comments. Velasco alleged that Rama repeatedly
touched her breasts and made comments about her organ. Alambra alleged the same and that Rama
commented that he liked her big butt.

Held: Accused convicted of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment in the workplace is not about a man
taking advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire. It is about power being exercised by a superior
officer over his female subordinates. The Court believes that no woman would allow herself to be subject to
public scrutiny as in a trial if her allegations were not true.

Title 9: Crimes against Personal Liberty and Security

Two classes of felonies:
1. Crimes Against Personal Liberty
a. Kidnapping and illegal detention
Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention (Art. 267)
Slight illegal detention (Art. 268)
Kidnapping and failure to return a
minor (Art. 270)
Inducing a minor to abandon his/her
home (Art. 271)
b. Unlawful arrest (Art. 269)
c. Slavery
Slavery (Art. 272)
Exploitation of child labor (Art. 273)
Services rendered under compulsion in
payment of debt (Art. 274)
2. Crimes Against Personal Security
a. Abandonment
Abandonment of persons in danger
and abandonment of ones own victim
(Art. 275)
Abandoning a minor (Art. 276)
Abandonment of minor by person
entrusted with his custody (Art. 277)
b. Exploitation of minors (Art. 278)
c. Trespass
Qualified trespass to dwelling (Art. 280)
Other forms of trespass (Art. 281)
d. Threats
Grave threats (Art. 282)
Light threats (Art. 283)
Other light threats (Art. 285)
e. Coercion
Grave coercion (Art. 286)
Light coercion (Art. 287)
Other similar coercions (Art. 288)
Formation, maintenance and
prohibition of combination of
capital/labor through violence/threats
(Art. 289)
f. Discovery and revelation of secrets
Discovering secrets through seizure of
correspondence (Art. 290)
Revealing secrets with abuse of
confidence (Art. 291)
Revelation of industrial secrets (Art.
292)

What the penal provisions seek to address:
Not so much the rights (to life, liberty, property) protected by the constitution, or public order. The
guarantees in the bill of rights are for private persons against state intrusion. Title 2 also provides
sanctions for offenses by agents of the state.
In Title 9, the provisions are meant to govern relations among private individuals, particularly their
right to feel safe.
Title 8 (Crimes Against Persons) protect against individuals' physical well-being, while Title 9 caters to
one's psychological and emotional well-being.

Chapter One: Crimes Against Personal Liberty

Section One. Illegal Detention

Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
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 penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom
from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission
of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence o the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.

Elements:
1. Offender
Private individual
Kidnaps or detains another
Or deprives another of his liberty in any other manner
2. act of detention/kidnapping is illegal
3. attended by any of these circumstances
kidnapping/detention lasts more than 3 days
committed simulating public authority
serious physical injuries are inflicted upon person detained, or death threats are made
victim is a minor, female or public officer

Qualifying circumstances:
Purpose is to extort ransom
o Even without any of the circumstances
o Increased penalty from RP-death to death
Victim is killed, or dies, or is raped, or is subjected to torture/dehumanizing acts
o Maximum penalty

Notes:
There is no legal distinction between kidnapping and serious illegal detention; they can be used
interchangeably.
If offender is a public officer with a duty to detain, but does so without legal ground, the crime is
arbitrary detention. But if he does not have such duty, he is liable under this article.
Intent to deprive victim of his liberty for extortion is essential; does not pertain to a short period of
detention that is precedent to/part of a murder.
Actual detention/locking up/confinement is necessary, but there doesnt have to be an enclosure.

People v. Sabardan
Facts: Victim (minor) ran away from home. Accused invited her in his apartment to stay the night. On the 3rd
day of her stay, victim told the accused that she wanted to go home, but was dissuaded from leaving. When
the accused left the apartment, the girl realized that she was locked in. On the 4th day, she was raped by the
accused after he forced her to drink beer. This happened 5 more times before the victim was rescued by the
neighbors.

Held: Convicted of rape, not kidnapping. Not liable for serious illegal detention with rape. The accuseds
intention in keeping her inside the apartment was to rape her.

ransom
money/price/consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of captured persons
Ransom really does not have a clear definition in law. But it is certain that not all conditions
constitute ransom.
It can be inferred that ransom only refers to property or money, and not conditions. There is hardly
any case of kidnapping where the perpetrators do not intend to impose any condition, and does it just
for the sake of kidnapping/detention.
Not necessary that ransom demand be actually communicated; what is important is a showing that
such was the purpose
Payment is not necessary either.
Kidnapping with ransom is put at par with kidnapping attended by rape or a homicide because there
was a time that kidnapping became such a headline-hugging felony. When the purpose is to extort
ransom, kidnappers are less likely to kill the victims. That way, the families of future victims will have
some incentive to pay up.

People v. Kamad Akiran
Facts: Victim was on his way to Jolo when their vehicle was stopped by the accused, along with others who
were armed. Victim was abducted. Accused told victims brother to go home and get P1,600, or else the
victim will be killed. The victim was detained for more than a day and was released after his father paid
P1,000.

Held: Convicted of kidnapping for ransom. The amount demanded by the accused was for hospital bills, which
the victim promised to pay. Though only one in the group got the money, there was still concurrence with the
commission of the act. Conspiracy is present.

People v. Pagalasan
Facts: George and his son, Christopher, were taken away by 4 masked men who were armed using victims
own vehicle. The 3 men alighted the vehicle and brought Christopher with them. Accused and George
continued driving but were stopped by the police. While accused was detained, George received a letter
demanding P3M for the release of Christopher and ordered for Pagalasan and another accused to be
released. Another letter signed by Mubarak II or 2 was received which demanded the release of Ronnie
Putuan within 3 days or else the child will not be released alive. Christopher was later rescued by the police.

Held: Two crimes were commited: slight illegal detention (for taking George) and kidnapping (for taking
Christopher). They were only liable for slight illegal detention in Georges case because he was detained for
less than a day. The accused were only liable for kidnapping, not kidnapping for ransom, because the note
which demanded ransom was not signed with Mubarak II or 2, which indicated that it came from a different
source from the first letter.

People v. Castillo.
Facts: Accused was the former househelp of the family of the victim previously. She was able to take the child
away and asked for ransom for the release of the child. Accused argued that the money she was demanding
were unpaid wages.

Held: Convicted of kidnapping for ransom. Unpaid wages demanded was still considered ransom.

to detain
Actus reus
o Isolate from escape, rescue or release
o Against a persons will
o Need not be in an enclosed place
Mens rea
o To deprive of liberty

People v. Domasian
Facts: Accused tricked the boy into coming with him. They boarded several vehicles to get to a market
wherein the accused handed an envelope to a jeepney driver addressed to the boys father. Later barangay
tanods pursued the accused, who then left the boy behind. The boy was able to return home. Later that day
the father received a ransom letter demanding 1M for the boys release.

Held: Convicted of kidnapping. Even if the boy was not placed in an enclosure, there is still kidnapping since
the boy was deprived of his liberty. Sending of ransom note did not render it an impossible crime (kidnapping
for ransom) because the asking for ransom would only aggravate the penalty. The felony had already been
committed regardless of the note.

People v. Jatulan
Facts: Victim (child) was induced to go with the accused to the mountains. The accused asked for ransom but
was apprehended later in the nipa house in the mountains. The boy was rescued. Accused contends that
there was no deprivation of liberty because the victim went with him willingly and no force was used to keep
the boy against his will.

Held: Convicted of kidnapping for ransom. Even if the child freely went with the accused, this was done by
false inducement, and so there was still deprivation of liberty. Even if the boy could do anything as he wished
while in the custody of the accused, as a 5-year-old boy, he would not have known how to return home on his
own. Ransom would still be considered present even if the thing demanded was not actually paid.

Notes on detention:
Voluntary release is not mitigating.
Restraint need not be permanent. It can be momentary.
Lawful detention is possible, when
o no injury/disturbance of a right was intended by, or resulted from, an act of the accused
o the act of the accused was to a certain point justified (ex. when a private person arrests one
who commits a crime in his presence; or when ordered by competent authority)
o In these cases, one can be penalized under other acts (e.g. light coercion).
In a robbery, there is no illegal detention if the purpose is to prevent victims from reporting to the
police; detention here is incidental.
If the victim is a minor, and the accused is any parent, the penalty is similar to that in Art. 271
(inducing a minor to abandon his home) AM and/or fine < P300

Kidnapping with murder (Art. 267, last paragraph)
special complex crime by virtue of RA 7659
eliminated distinction between pre-RA 7659 classifications:
o Kidnapping with Murder (Art. 48)--If kidnapping was necessary to commit murder
o Kidnapping and Murder--If a victim is kidnapped, then murdered
If a victim is taken from one place to another for the purpose of killing him, the crime is murder.

People v. Lora
Facts: The accused gagged the boys mouth and placed the boy head-first inside a box, which was then kept
in the attic. Accused was able to demand money from the boys parents before the police apprehended her.
The next day the father discovered the body of the boy inside the box after he noticed blood dripping from
upstairs.

Held: Convicted of murder, not kidnapping with murder. The accused knew that the boy would be killed
moments after he was stuffed in the box. The intent was to kill the boy and not to deprive him of his liberty.
Asking for ransom does not make the crime a form of kidnapping since asking for ransom is not an element of
kidnapping.

Art. 268. Slight illegal detention. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private
individual who shall commit the crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of
circumstances enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the
commencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal
proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding
seven hundred pesos.

Elements:
1. kidnapping
2. minus circumstances in Art. 267

Penalties:
Principal RT
Accomplice who furnishes the place for the crime RT (punished as co-principal)

Privileged mitigating circumstances: PM min & med + fine <P700
1. Voluntary release within 3 days
2. Without having attained purpose
3. Before institution of criminal proceedings

Notes:
It must be shown that the accused was in a position to prolong detention but did not do so.
Not applicable to Art. 267. Release of a minor within 3 days is still kidnapping.
Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed
upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest
or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.

Elements:
If public officer
1. Without authority to arrest and detain
2. Or did not act in official capacity
If private person
1. Makes an arrest without reasonable ground therefor
2. Purpose is to deliver the person to the proper authorities

Notes:
The purpose is shown through overt acts if the private person actually delivers the detainee to the
proper authorities.
If the public officer had the authority but no legal ground, the crime is arbitrary detention (Art. 124).
If the arrest was on legal grounds, but there was a delay in the delivery to proper authorities, it is
punished under Art. 125.
What is important here is the determination of motive, not so much the length of time of detention.

Section Two. Kidnapping of minors

Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter to his
parents or guardians.

Elements:
1. Offender entrusted with the custody of minor person
2. Deliberately fails to restore said minor to his parents/guardians
Notes:
What is punished is the deliberate failure to return the child.
common in cases where one or both parents work abroad
If the crime is committed by the parent, the penalty is AM or fine < P300 fine.
It is not necessary that the offenders purpose be to separate the minor permanently from his
parents/guardians.
If the offender demands money, or does any of the circumstances in kidnapping, the crime is not
kidnapping, but the circumstances may aggravate the crime (aggravating circumstance of price,
reward or promise).

Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding seven hundred pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his
parent or guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.
If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall be the father or the mother
of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding three hundred pesos, or both.

Elements:
1. Minor (21 years old and below)
2. living in the home of his parents/guardians/a person entrusted with his custody
3. offender induces minor to abandon his home

Notes:
Inducement is enough; actual abandonment is not necessary.
Inducement must be actual, committed with criminal intent and determined by a will to cause damage
(efficient inducement).
The law is intended to discourage and prevent the disruption of filial relationships and undue
interference with the right and duty of parents to the custody of their minor children and to rear them.
The minor should not leave his home of his own free will.
A parent without custody would be liable (similar to Art. 270).

Section Three. Slavery and servitude

Slavery is employment without remuneration, while involuntary servitude is the employment of a non-
consenting minor with the consent of a parent/guardian.

Art. 272. Slavery. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 10,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him.
If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to some immoral traffic, the penalty
shall be imposed in its maximum period.

Elements:
1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human being
2. Purpose
a. to enslave such human being (penalty: PM)
b. to assign the victim to some immoral traffic (penalty: PM max)
Note: The purpose is the determining factor.

Art. 273. Exploitation of child labor. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a
debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's will,
retain him in his service.

Elements:
1. Offender retains a minor in his service
2. Against the minors will
3. Under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person
entrusted with minors custody
Indebtedness is not a ground for detention.

Art. 274. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt. The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in order to require
or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as household servant or farm
laborer.

Elements:
1. Offender compels a debtor to work
as house servant
as farm laborer
2. Against debtors will
No distinction as to whether the debtor is a minor or not
3. Purpose: to require/enforce the payment of a debt

IMPORTANT NOTE: The provisions on slavery and servitude are now punished under RA 9208.

RA 9208: Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
Acts punished as trafficking:
Recruit, transport, harbor, receive person by any means, for prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, slavery, or debt bondage
Filipina brides for sale
sex tours
maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography
adoption for sexual exploitation, pornography, slavery, or debt bondage
recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit,
violence, coercion or intimidation for removal or sale of organs
recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad

Acts punished as qualified trafficking:
Trafficked person is a child
Adoption is effected through RA 8043 (Inter-country Adoption Act) and purpose is prostitution,
pornography, slavery, etc.
By a syndicate (3 or more persons in conspiracy) or in large scale (against 3 or more persons,
individually or as a group)
By ascendant, sibling, guardian or person who exercises authority over the trafficked person, or by
public officer or employee
For prostitution with any member of the military or law enforcement agency
Offender is a member of military or law enforcement agency

Penalties:
Trafficking 20 years + P1M P2M fine
Qualified trafficking life imprisonment + P2M P5M fine

Chapter Two: Crimes Against Security

Section One. Abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors

Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. The penalty of
arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded
or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the
authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.

Elements:
failure to render assistance to a person
o found in an uninhabited place
o wounded or in danger of dying
o when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself
o unless such omission constitutes a more serious offense
failure to assist person whom he injured by accident
failure to deliver abandoned child
o to authorities
o to his family
o to a safe place

Art. 276. Abandoning a minor. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any one who shall abandon a child under seven years of age, the custody of which is incumbent upon him.
When the death of the minor shall result from such abandonment, the culprit shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods; but if the life of the minor shall have been in danger only, the penalty
shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs shall not prevent the imposition of the penalty
provided for the act committed, when the same shall constitute a more serious offense.

Elements:
1. Offender has custody of a child
2. Child is below 7
3. Offender abandons the child
4. No intent to kill the child when the latter is abandoned

Penalties:
Abandoning a minor AM
Resulting in death PC med to max
Puts minors life in danger PC min to med

Notes:
If there is intent to kill the child, the crime becomes murder/parricide/infanticide.
Unlike in crimes against persons, the intent to kill in Art.276 cannot be presumed from a childs death.
The abandonment required is not just momentary. It requires that such abandonment is conscious
and deliberate.
Guilty parents are stripped of parental authority. (Art 332 CC)

Art. 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents. The
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, having charge of the
rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor to a public institution or other persons, without the consent of the
one who entrusted such child to his care or in the absence of the latter, without the consent of the proper authorities.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them the
education which their station in life require and financial conditions permit.

Elements:
For guardians:
1. offender has charge of rearing/education of minor
2. delivers said minor to a public institution or other persons
3. the one who entrusted the child to the offender did not consent to the act, or the proper authorities did
not consent
For parents:
1. Neglect children by not giving education that familys financial condition permits (indifference)
Failure to give education must be due to deliberate desire to evade such obligation
Obligation to educate children terminates if mother and children refuse without good reason to
live with accused

Art. 278. Exploitation of minors. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and
a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous feat of
balancing, physical strength, or contortion.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of these kinds children under sixteen years of age who are not his
children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next paragraph preceding who shall employ any
descendant of his under twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child under sixteen
years of age, who shall deliver such child gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumerated in paragraph
2 hereof, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar.
If the delivery shall have been made in consideration of any price, compensation, or promise, the penalty shall in
every case be imposed in its maximum period.
In either case, the guardian or curator convicted shall also be removed from office as guardian or curator; and in
the case of the parents of the child, they may be deprived, temporarily or perpetually, in the discretion of the court, of their
parental authority.
5. Any person who shall induce any child under sixteen years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants,
guardians, curators, or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, or
to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.

Exploitation is an act endangering the life or safety of the minor.

Elements:
Making minors (below 16 years old) or descendants under 12 perform circus acts
Deliver child/descendant/ward to circus owner, habitual vagrant, beggar
Induce minor to abandon home and join the circus
Notes:
Art. 278(5) is different from Art. 271 where there is no purpose of joining the circus, and minors are
considered as those 21 years old and below.
If delivery in Art. 278 (4) is made in consideration of any price, compensation or promise, a higher
penalty will be imposed.
o If it is a guardian or curator, he/she shall be removed as such.
o If it is a parent, he/she shall be stripped of parental authority.

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.

Elements of simple trespass to dwelling (Art. 280, par. 1):
1. private person
2. enters dwelling
3. against owners will

Elements of qualified trespass to dwelling (Art. 280, par. 2):
1. private person
2. enters dwelling
3. against owners will
4. with violence or intimidation

Notes:
Mere absence of consent not enough. It should be AGAINST the consent of the owner.
Not applicable to:
o one who enters anothers dwelling to prevent harm to himself or the occupants or a third
person
o one who enters a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice
(However, this must not be lightly construed. Think about its application to beggars, Meralco
linemen, etc.)
o one who enters a cafe/tavern/inn and other public houses when theyre open
If offender is a public officer, the offense is violation of domicile (Art. 128).
With the utmost good faith, a person to whom entrance has not been denied beforehand may
suppose that the owner of the house has no objection to receiving him in it.
All members of a household are presumed to have authority to invite someone in.
Implied prohibition: nighttime, locked doors, inhabitants sleeping, entrance through windows and
other means not intended for ingress
In the case of boarders, the occupant has a ground to complain. The owner could also invoke the
protection of his proprietary rights in court.
Without proof of overt act for another intended crime (e.g., if one was caught before doing any harm),
the crime is qualified trespass to dwelling.
Qualified trespass to dwelling can be a separate crime, if for example homicide was committed in an
attempt to escape after trespassing.

with violence or intimidation
Trespass by means of violence:
o pushing the door violently and maltreating the occupants after entering
o cutting of the doors fastenings
o wounding by means of a bolo the owner of the house immediately after entrance (US vs.
Arceo)
Trespass by means of intimidation:
o firing a revolver in the air by persons attempting to force their way into a house
o the flourishing of a bolo against occupants upon gaining entrance

US v. Arceo
Facts: Accused were able to enter the house without the owners consent. They took out the light inside, took
Tiongson and took money immediately upon entry. They also carried away the sister-in-law of the Tiongson
and ill-treated her.

Held: Guilty of entering the residence of another against his will, with violence or intimidation. Even if they
were able to enter the house without enforcing violence or intimidation, their acts immediately upon entry
qualified the action in to that of the said crime.

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.

Elements:
1. Entry into uninhabited closed premises/fenced estate
2. There is manifest prohibition to enter
3. Entry is without permission of owner/caretaker

Qualified trespass to dwelling (Art. 280) Other forms of trespass (Art. 281)
Offender Private person Anyone
Premises entered Dwelling house Closed premises/fenced estate
Inhabited? Yes No
Defining act Entering against owners will Entering without first securing permission
Prohibition Express or implied Manifest

Section Three. Threats and coercion

Threats involve acts which threaten to inflict harm on another person, his property, his honor, or those of his
family.

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.

Elements:
1. Offender threatens another with the infliction of any wrong
2. upon his person/property/honor/family
3. and the wrong amounts to a crime
4. There is a demand for money, or any other condition (though not unlawful)

Penalties:
No condition AM + fine < P500
Purpose not attained 2 degrees lower
Purpose attained penalty next lower in degree of crime threatened to do
In writing/through middleman maximum period

Notes:
When the act of threatening could constitute other crimes, it could fall under either Art. 363
(incriminating other persons) or Art. 365 (threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication
for a compensation)
If threats are not subject to a condition, they must be deliberate and with the purpose of creating in
the persons mind the belief that the threats will be carried into effect; like shutting up.
Essence: intimidation; a promise of future harm/injury
Threat must be wrong. Filing a complaint, though threatening, is not wrong, and is therefore outside
the scope of this provision.
An indirect challenge to a gun fight is within grave threats. The point of consummation of the crime is
when the threat comes to the knowledge of the offended party.
Threats made in connection with other crimes are absorbed by such crimes--they become
intimidation. But if the threat was made with the deliberate purpose of creating the belief in a
persons mind that the threat will be carried out, it is still grave threats, and the minor crime should be
disregarded.
If the threat is for the delivery of money on the spot, the crime is robbery, not grave threats.

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.

Elements:
1. Offender threatens another with the infliction of any wrong
2. upon his person/property/honor/family
3. and the wrong does not amount to a crime
4. There is a demand for money, or any other condition
Blackmailing is a form of light threats. It is the unlawful extortion of money by an appeal to the
fear of another, or by threats of accusation or exposure.

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.

Acts prohibited:
1. Threaten another with a weapon
2. Oral threat of a harm which is a felony, made in anger
3. Oral threat of harm which is not a felony
No demand for money or condition imposed

Comparison of grave threats, light threats and other light threats
Grave threats Light threats Other light threats
Wrong IS a crime Wrong is NOT a crime Par. 2: wrong IS crime, but made in the heat of anger
Par. 3: wrong is NOT a crime

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.

Bond for good behavior applies ONLY to grave and light threats, NOT to other light threats.

Art. 286. Grave coercions. The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding six thousand pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, threats or intimidation
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 in violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage, or for the purpose of compelling
another to perform any religious act or to prevent him from exercising such right or from so doing such act, the penalty
next higher in degree shall be imposed.

Elements:
1. Prevent act not prohibited by law, or compel act (whether right or wrong) against his will
2. by violence, threat or intimidation
3. without legal authority

prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law
provision does not make the distinction whether the act is just or unjust
The act of preventing must be made at a time that the offended party was doing or about to do the act
to be prevented.

by means of violence, threats or intimidation
The violence, threats or intimidation must be immediate, actual or imminent.
A display of force (like showing up with arms) is not coercion. There has to be MATERIAL force.

Penalties:
PC + fine < P6,000
PM if committed:
o In violation of the right of suffrage
o To compel another to perform any religious act
o To prevent another from performing any religious act

Notes:
Purpose of the provision: so that one may not take the law into his own hands
Consummation: ill treatment and not accession by a victim.
When the victim is in the actual possession of a thing, even if he doesnt have a right to it, compelling
him to give it up, even by the owner, is grave coercion. If it was the owner in possession, he has the
right to defend his property.
Other acts of preventing may constitute other crimes.
o Art. 132: interruption of religious worship
o Art. 143: act tending to prevent the meeting of the Assembly and similar bodies
o Art. 145: violation of parliamentary immunity

Coercion as opposed to other crimes (sample scenarios)
No coercion if one prevents a murderer from killing.
If the offender himself does something that he was compelling another to do, it is still grave coercion.
If the act was already done when violence was exerted, even if threats were previously made, there is
unjust vexation.
A servant who is free to leave at times, but was compelled to leave his own home to be a servant is
coercion, not illegal detention.
In coercion, there is no clear deprivation of liberty. There is frustrated illegal detention, however, when
it is apparent that the accused would persist in restraining another. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art.
235), on the other hand, only applies to a real prisoner and not a metaphoric one.

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.

Elements:
1. offender is creditor
2. seizes anything belonging to debtor
3. by means of violence or display of material force producing intimidation
4. purpose is to apply the thing seized as payment for debt

Unjust vexation
Any human conduct which although not productive of some physical or material harm, would,
however, unjustly ANNOY or VEX an innocent person.
Coercion through deceit or misrepresentation, without physical violence but still gravely intimidating
Punished by AMenor and/or P5-P200 fine

IMPORTANT NOTE: Art. 288 (other similar coercions compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment
of wages by means of tokens) and Art. 299 (formation, maintenance, and prohibition of combination of capital
or labor through violence or threats) have been repealed by the Labor Code.

People v. Crisostomo
Facts: Accused took victim, who was on her way home, against her will to a rice field. Victim alleged that
accused kissed her several times while he was holding her. Accused said his intention was to elope with the
victim.

Held: No coercion because the compulsion of the victim into contracting marriage was not proven. The
external acts proven were insufficient to constitute coercion because absent intent, they might not be
connected with the said crime.

US v. Alexander
Facts: Victim was dragged away after she allegedly violated the ordinance prohibiting the act of obstructing
sidewalks. Victim set up ladders on the sidewalk to clean the walls of her house.

Held: Accused convicted of coercion. He was not justified in taking the victim away since the acts of the victim
did not coincide with the purview of the ordinance. If he suspected the victim of violating the ordinance, he
should have obtained a warrant of arrest first.

Sarabia v. People
Facts: Accused forced the victims to have sex at gunpoint. He also asked the female victim to masturbate his
penis while the male victim was away.

Held: Accused guilty of grave coercion. Witnesses were credible and even if the matter wasnt reported
immediately, this didnt make their accusations unreliable. They were threatened by the accused that they will
be harmed if they reported the incident to anyone. Also there was no double jeopardy. Accused was arguing
that this incident was already a subject of the criminal case for robbery with violence against or intimidation of
person. SC held that there was no identity of the offenses (coercion and robbery with intimidation or violence)
since coercion does not necessarily include and is included in the crime of robbery with violence or
intimidation.

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.

Elements:
1. Offender is either:
a. Private individual
b. Public officer not in the exercise of official function
If the offender is a public officer acting the exercise of his official function, the crime is
punished under Art. 230 (public officer revealing secrets of private individual).
2. Seizes papers/letter of another
Force or violence not necessary
3. Intent to discover secrets
4. Reveal contents

Notes:
The provision does not require that the offended party be prejudiced.
The provision does not apply to:
o Parents/guardians/custodians, in relation to minor children
o Spouses
Administrative Code Sec. 2756 punishes the unlawful opening of mail matter; penalty is P1000 or
imprisonment.

Penalties:
PC min & med + fine < P500
AM + fine < P500 if offender does not reveal secret

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.
Elements:
1. manager/employee/servant
2. learns secrets of principal
3. reveals such secrets
Secrets must be learned by reason of their employment
Damage not necessary
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.

Elements:
1. Manager/employee
2. In a manufacturing/industrial firm
3. Reveals industrial secrets
4. To the companys damage
The secret must relate to manufacturing processes--available only to a certain factory or limited
number
Can be committed by one even after employment

RA 4200: Anti-wiretapping Act
Prohibited acts:
Tap wire/cable or use device to overhear, intercept, record private conversation without consent of
parties
Possess, play, reveal contents or give transcripts
Such recordings are inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding, except if they are ordered by the
court

Ganaan v. IAC.
Facts: The accused was a lawyer of Lagonico and used an extension telephone to listen in on the
conversation between his client and Montebon who demanded money for the withdrawal of a case he filed
against Lagonico. Ganaan issued an affidavit that he heard Montebon demand money for the withdrawal of
the case. They were charged with violation of the anti-wiretapping act.

Held: Ganaan and Lagonico acquitted. Telephone extension not covered by the term device or
arrangement.

Garcillano v. House Committee on Public information, etc.
Facts: House investigation on the Hello Garci tapes. Garcillano wanted to prohibit the House committees
from playing the tape recordings and including the same in their committee reports on the ground that they
were obtained allegedly through wiretapping.
Held: Moot and academic. Tapes had already been played at the time the petition was heard.

Title 10: Crimes Against Property

General nature
Unlawful taking of personal property of another for the purpose of gain
Underlying reason is the deprivation of liberty to the use and enjoyment of ones property

Classes of felonies
1. Taking robbery, theft, brigandage, usurpation of real property, culpable insolvency
2. Misappropriation estafa
3. Destruction arson, malicious mischief

Chapter One: Robbery in General

Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property
belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of
robbery.

General elements of robbery:
1. Taking
2. Personal property
3. Belonging to another
4. Intent to gain
5. Means " this is what differentiates ROBBERY from THEFT
a. Violence against or intimidation of persons
b. Force upon things

#1: Taking
Actus reus of the crime of robbery
get, acquire, obtain, handle " PHYSICAL act
There must be some element of control or possession
Property is not received or found, nor possession withheld
Must be unlawful
o without legal authority
o not legally seized prior to taking
Dispossession should not be the only criterion. As long as it was taken forcibly and the liberty to
utilize or control the thing is lost to the owner, even if just momentarily, there is robbery.
Reyes says: Taking involving large objects within a compound should be immediately disposable
when it comes to the possession of the offenders, otherwise it is not consummated.

#2: Personal property
Anything transportable (includes money)
Includes prohibited articles stealing illegal goods will still give rise to criminal liability
Includes stolen articles a thief stealing from a thief would still be liable
Different from the definition of property in Civil Code

#3: Belonging to another
Not necessarily of the owner can be owned by offender but under lawful possession of victim
Co-owner cannot be liable for the crime

#4: Intent to gain
Animus lucrandi presumed upon taking
Must go hand in hand with the taking (taking must be done with the intent to gain)
Not under bona fide claim of ownership
o Honest mistake of fact is a defense good faith is required
! Taking by force gives reasonable basis to assume that the offender had intent to
gain. But if he believed that he was entitled to the possession, even if he took it with
force or intimidation, he cannot be liable for robbery and only for coercion.
Need not be personal gain
Can be permanent or temporary taking
o Disturbance of property rights is sufficient
o Borrowing is considered as utility to gain

Sir Jims examples:
borrowing a car for a joy ride counts as gain through utility, thus already taking
son grabs fathers gun and threatens him with it: not theft since intent is to threaten, not to gain
stealing a table with stuff on it transmits the intent to gain to all the stuff on the table

US v. Sana Lim
Facts: Group consisted of public officers and private individuals. Got a portion of the seized opium for them.
The issue was whether there was robbery or malversation.

Held: The taking qualifies as robbery because from the very start they intended to obtain the opium for
themselves.

Dissenting Opinion: Narrowly focuses on the fact that they are police officers, but mens rea is still initially for
personal gain.

Kinds of robbery:
1. With violence against or intimidation of persons (Arts. 294-298)
2. With force upon things (Arts. 299-305)

Section One. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons

Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. Any person guilty of
robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide shall have been committed.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua when the robbery shall have
been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical
injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been inflicted; Provided, however, that when the robbery
accompanied with rape is committed with a use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence
or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the
commission of the crime, or when the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 23.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.

Determinants of the penalty:
Violence or intimidation (Art. 294)
Place and use of firearm (Art. 295)
If committed by a band (Art. 295 and 296)
If mail matter or large cattle (Art. 302)

Degrees of violence or intimidation:
1. Homicide, rape, mutilation, arson
2. Serious physical injuries under Art. 263 (1)
5. In all other cases (e.g. less serious physical injuries, etc.)

by reason or on the occasion
Intent to commit robbery must precede the other crimes

People v. Suyu
Facts: Four accused pointed a gun at victim and her boyfriend and robbed them of jewelry and cash. All
accused then dragged victim to a hilly place and brought her to a house and raped her.

Held: Convicted of robbery with Rape. At the time of the commission of the crime, accused acted in concert,
each doing his part to fulfill their common design to rob the victim. Although only two of them, through force
and intimidation, raped the victim, the failure of two others to prevent its commission although they were
capable would make their act to be the act of all.

People v. Naag
Facts: Victim went home riding a tricycle. Accused trike driver began to abuse her, punched her in different
parts of her body and kept stabbing her with his screwdriver. Victim pretended to be dead. Accused brought
her to another place and raped her, then took her wristwatch, bracelet and wallet.

Held: Convicted of rape and theft separately. The primary intent of the accused was to rape her. Accused is
liable for the separate offense of theft since when he took the personal properties of Desiree, the element of
violence and intimidation was no longer present. The violence and intimidation was employed in pursuance of
the rape, not of the taking.

Even if the actual killing, rape, arson, or injury is committed before the robbery is consummated

People v. Ponciano
Facts: Accused, high on drugs, stole a bunch of stuff belonging to Ricardo Rivera and Alicia Rivera. Before
that, he stabbed Regina Villanueva, Ricardo Rivera and Alicia Rivera. They all died.

Held: Convicted of 3 separate crimes of homicide and another offense of theft. The intent to commit robbery
must precede the taking of human life. The taking of the wristwatches was just an afterthought after he had
killed his three victims. To constitute robbery with homicide, there should be a direct relation, an intimate
connection between the robbery and the killingwhether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former, or
whether both crimes were committed at the same time.

Includes killings in the following instances:
o accidental killings

People v. Mangulabnan
Facts: Armed men entered victims house and assaulted inhabitants. Victim hides in the attic. Intruders took
pieces of jewelry and cash. Intruder climbed a table, fired his gun at the ceiling then left the place. Inhabitants
found the victim dead.

Held: Convicted of robbery with homicide. It is enough that a homicide would result by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery. It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident, provided that the
homicide be produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery.

o to eliminate obstacles
o to escape/defend possession

People v. Java
Facts: Two men held up a gravel and sand establishment. They robbed the truck driver and the counter of
50k, then fled. The owners son went after them, got shot and died.

Held: Convicted of robbery with homicide. The act of killing was done in order to repel an aggression which
would have endangered the whole success of the robbery committed. The same is true even if the murder
was perpetrated at a place different from that of the robbery and after an appreciable interval of time.

o to suppress evidence (witnesses)
o killing bystanders or co-robbers (except under Art. 294 par. 4)
o crossfire

People v. Marquez
Facts: A JAC bus was held up while on the way to Lucena. A cop passenger drew his gun but accused was
able to fire at him. The conductor dies, cop was able to shoot victim. Accused gets away to a house to ask for
help, but then gets identified in the emergency room.

Held: Frustrated robbery with homicide. In the gun fight, the conductor was killed. Even if it was incidental,
frustrated robbery with homicide was committed. With regard to the charge of frustrated homicide, appellant,
in shooting the cop almost pointblank, had performed all the acts necessary to kill the latter, who survived
because of timely medical intervention.

Robbery with homicide/rape
Special complex crime not governed by Art. 48
homicide or rape are generic
o as to kind
! homicide = murder, parricide, etc.
! rape = rape, sexual assault
o as to number
! additional rapes/deaths are not aggravating

People v. Sultan
Facts: Victim on her way home was attacked by accused, who pointed a sharp instrument at her neck and
announcing it was a hold-up. He grabbed her and brought her to his house. Once inside the house, he
started divesting her of her watch, ring, earrings, and necklace. While pointing an ice pick at her he ordered
her to undress. He raped her, then told her theyd elope let her go home.

Held: Convicted of robbery with rape. When accused divested victim of her personal belongings, he
committed the crime of robbery. He might not have employed force in committing the rape but he definitely
used intimidation, which was sufficient to make victim submit herself to him against her will for fear of life and
personal safety since he was armed with an ice pick and threatened to kill her with it if she did not follow his
wishes.

! absorbs injuries to other persons and other rapes

People v. Cabbab
Facts: Victim went with his friends to a fiesta in a nearby town only to find that the celebrations were over.
They met accused and his cousin-in-law, who invited them to play a local version of Russian poker. Victim
won P12,000, got ambushed by accused on their way home, and died from multiple gunshot wounds.

Held: Convicted of robbery with homicide. So long as the intention is to rob, the killing may occur before,
during or after the robbery. It is immaterial that the death should supervene by mere accident, or that the
victim of homicide is other that the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed.

! homicide/rape must be consummated; if not, they must be charged as separate
felonies

People v. Lagmay
Facts: Accused rode a jeepney, brought out an unlicensed firearm and bladed weapons and told the
passengers that it was a holdup. They took away the passengers personal properties. When victim resisted,
one accused stabbed him in the chest while the other shot him on his thighs. The accused were convicted
with robbery with frustrated Homicide.

Held: There is no such felony as robbery with frustrated homicide. Inasmuch as the prosecution did not
establish with absolute certainty the gravity or seriousness of the physical injuries suffered by the victim, it is
proper that the accused be held liable under Sec. 4, Art. 294, in the course of the execution of which serious
physical injuries enumerated in pars. 3 and 4 of Art. 263 were inflicted and the circumstances mentioned in
Art. 295 were present.

! participant in the taking is also liable for robbery with homicide, even if he did not
participate in the killing

People v. Escote
Facts: Accused boarded a bus bound for Bolinao, Pangasinan at Balintawak. They staged a hold-up in
Bulacan, where they took the passengers possessions, including victim policemans ID. They also shot said
victim. One month after the crime, accused was caught after presenting victims ID and gun.

Held: Convicted of robbery with homicide. Intent to rob was proven when the two criminals announced the
robbery. Both are liable for the felony since there was conspiracy. Whenever homicide has been committed
by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be
held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it
appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.

Art. 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances. When by reason or
on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve
a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.

Notes:
In Art. 297, if offenders werent able to consummate the robbery but was able to kill one person, then
it would fall under this article. Why does the law make that distinction? Because the penalty in this
article is lower.
Robbery is generally committed with conspiracy. Therefore even if just one of the participants
committed the killing, both would be liable for the same crime.

with violence or intimidation
Essence is still crime against property
intent to gain determines whether special complex, complex, separate or continuing crime
taking determines stage of commission

Treachery as an aggravating circumstance in robbery
The general rule is that treachery is appreciated only in crimes against persons
The dilemma in robbery with homicide is that it is a crime against property AND persons.
People v. Arizobal
o Treachery cannot be appreciated in crimes against property.
People v. Escote
o Treachery can be appreciated in crimes against property.
o However, it did not overturn the doctrine in Arizobal because treachery was not alleged in the
complaint, therefore the accused were not convicted with it. Hence, the ruling on treachery
was merely obiter.
People v. De Jesus
o Adopted the obiter in Escote as doctrine, hence now treachery can be appreciated in robbery.

We modify felonies to affect the gravamen of the crime and in turn the penalty.
If we qualify just one constituent crime, but impose one penalty, then we could be affecting the
penalty of the other crime as well.
It would render the entire article useless.
Connotes just one intent and if we break it down into different crimes, then it would uncomplex it.

A note on the appreciation of treachery:
It would mean that robbery with homicide with treachery would be imposed with a higher penalty than robbery
with homicide of say, 10 people. Is that fair? How do we resolve that?
The penalty is already grave in robbery with homicide. The law has already taken into account all the
kinds of killings and imposed a higher penalty without discounting the fact that the intent was to kill.

Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the
use of firearm on a street, road or alley. If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the next
preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by a band, or by attacking a moving train, street
car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passenger's compartments in a train or, in any manner, taking the
passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation
is made with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the proper penalties.
In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon the leader of the band.

Circumstances:
Uninhabited place
By a band
Attacking train, motor vehicle, plane, ship, etc., or passengers rooms;
Street, road, etc. AND use of firearm
! These are special aggravating circumstances in Art. 294 (3) (4) (5) they cannot be offset
! However they are merely generic aggravating circumstances in Art. 294 (1) (2)

Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof. When more than three
armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. When
any of the arms used in the commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon all the
malefactors shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice of the criminal liability
for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearms.
Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal
of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.

band
More than 3 armed persons
All members liable as principal in any assault
! EXCEPT if he tried to prevent it
Maximum penalty on all members if any of the firearms used is unlicensed
For as long as there are at least 3 people were armed, even if there were actually 10 of them who
committed the crime it would still be considered as a band.

Art. 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation. Any person who, with intent to defraud
another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute or deliver any public instrument or
documents, shall be held guilty of robbery and punished by the penalties respectively prescribed in this Chapter.

Constructive taking
effect is the same as forcible taking
Same penalty as robbery
Applicable even if the property was immovable, such as parcel of land (taking committed by forcing
the owner to sign the transfer of property)

Section Two. Robbery by the use of force upon things

Kinds of robbery with the use of force upon things:
In an inhabited house, public building, edifice devoted to worship (Art. 299)
In an uninhabited place (Art. 302)

Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. Any armed
person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be
punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if:
(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery was committed, by any of the following
means:
1. Through a opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.
3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools.
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.
Or if
(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances:
1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle;
2. By taking such furniture or objects to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery.
When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos, the penalty next
lower in degree shall be imposed.
The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed, but the value of the property taken does not
exceed 250 pesos. When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not exceed 250
pesos, they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two next preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period.
If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building
dedicated to religious worship, the penalties next lower in degree than those prescribed in this article shall be imposed.

Art. 301. What is an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship and their
dependencies. Inhabited house means any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons,
even though the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed.
All interior courts, corrals, waterhouses, granaries, barns, coach-houses, stables or other departments or
inclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance connected therewith, and which form part
of the whole, shall be deemed dependencies of an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious
worship.
Orchards and other lands used for cultivation or production are not included in the terms of the next preceding
paragraph, even if closed, contiguous to the building and having direct connection therewith.
The term public building includes every building owned by the Government or belonging to a private person not
included used or rented by the Government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.

Art. 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools. Any person who shall without lawful cause have in his
possession picklocks or similar tools especially adopted to the commission of the crime of robbery, shall be punished by
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall make such tools. If the offender be a locksmith,
he shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

Art. 305. False keys. The term false keys shall be deemed to include:
1. The tools mentioned in the next preceding articles.
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner.
3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.

Elements of Art. 299(a):
1. Taking of personal property of another
2. Intent to gain
3. ENTRY into
Inhabited house
o Refers to a dwelling, even if occupants are temporarily absent
Public building
o Owned or rented by the government, even if temporarily vacant
Edifice devoted to religious worship
4. Entry through or by
Opening not for entrance or egress
o Entire body must enter
o Includes climbing down a chimney
Breaking any wall, roof, floor, door, window
o Refers to any outer door or door that encloses a personal space
False keys, picklocks or similar tools
o Includes keys stolen from the owner of the place (Art. 305)
! If stolen with violence or intimidation, it is robbery under Art. 294
o Must not have been given to offender with consent of owner
Fictitious name or pretend exercise of public authority

Elements of Art. 299(b):
1. Offender enters NOT through Art. 299(a)
2. Takes personal property with intent to gain by:
a. Breaking doors, wardrobes, chests, or other locked or sealed furniture or receptacle
b. Taking such furniture or objects to be broken or forced open elsewhere

Why does the law impose a higher penalty on robberies committed in these places?
Because these places demand great respect. Greater perversity is shown through the offenders lack of
respect for these establishments.

Art. 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an uninhabited place or private building. In the cases
enumerated in Articles 299 and 302, when the robbery consists in the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood, the culprit shall
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.

Modifying circumstances in Art. 299:
Uninhabited place AND band
o Maximum period (Art. 300)
Value of property < P250 AND/OR offender is not armed
o Lower penalty
Nature of property taken
o Mail matter or cattle
! 1 degree higher
! Mail matter is any mail that is still within the postal mailing system. Once the mail is delivered,
it ceases to be mail matter.
! Purpose of the provision: protect the reputation of the government agency
! Anything sent via private courier service (e.g. LBC) is NOT mail matter.

o Cereals, fruits or firewood
! 1 degree lower
! Only fruits and cereals are covered because this makes a (somewhat) special mitigating
circumstance due to desperate and immediate need (hunger).
! It does not cover a wide variety of necessities since only planting seeds and fruits are
logically stolen for food.
! Other stolen items seemingly out of necessity can be covered by the <P250 modifying
circumstance. But even Sir Jim is not sure whether its still P250.
Dependency
o 1 degree lower
o Any interior court, barn, garage or enclosed place contiguous to the building
o Has interior entrance
o Forms part of the whole
o Does not include orchards and lands used for cultivation

Art. 302. Robbery is an uninhabited place or in a private building. Any robbery committed in an
uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the
property taken exceeds 250 pesos, shall be punished by prision correccional if any of the following circumstances is
present:
1. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2. If any wall, roof, flour or outside door or window has been broken.
3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar tools.
4. If any dorm, wardrobe, chest or by sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been broken.
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has been removed even if the
same to broken open elsewhere.
When the value of the property takes does not exceed 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
imposed.
In the cases specified in Articles 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 302 of this Code, when the property taken is mail
matter or large cattle, the offender shall suffer the penalties next higher in degree than those provided in said articles.

Elements of robbery in an uninhabited place:
1. Enter an uninhabited place (house) or a building which is not a dwelling, public building or church
2. Take personal property belonging to another with intent to gain
3. Any of the circumstances under Art. 299 (a) or (b) EXCEPT using fictitious name or pretense of public
authority

Notes:
This provision speaks of a structure as opposed to a place
Not a dwelling, public building, or church
The different means of entry in Art. 299 are the same for this article except using fictitious name or
pretense of public authority. There is no one there to be fooled; thus, using these means is of no use.

Modifying circumstances in Art. 302:
Value of property <P250
o 1 degree lower
Nature of property taken
o mail matter or cattle
! 1 degree higher
o cereals, fruits or firewood
! 1 degree lower

Factors to consider in Robbery
Violence/intimidation against persons:
1. Result of violence
2. Place of commission
3. Band
4. Use of firearm
5. Nature of stolen property
Force upon things:
1. Type of structure
2. Value of stolen property
3. Whether armed
4. Nature of stolen property

Chapter Two: Brigandage

Art. 306. Who are brigands; Penalty. When more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for
the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain
ransom or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed highway
robbers or brigands.
Persons found guilty of this offense shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion
temporal in its minimum period if the act or acts committed by them are not punishable by higher penalties, in which
case, they shall suffer such high penalties.
If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearms, it shall be presumed that said
persons are highway robbers or brigands, and in case of convictions the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum
period.

Elements:
1. More than 3 armed persons
2. Formed to commit robbery on the highway, kidnapping for ransom, or for other purpose to be
attained by violence
3. If any carry unlicensed firearms, they shall be presumed brigands MAX PERIOD is imposed

PD 532: Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Act
Highway Robbery/Brigandage
seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes; OR
taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things or other unlawful means
committed by any person on any Philippine Highway
Any person who aids or protects highway robbers or abets the commission of highway robbery or
brigandage shall be considered as an accomplice.
Operative word is to commit not necessary for the group to commit but what is being prevented
by the article is the forming of a band for the purpose of robbery.

Philippine Highway
refers to any road, street, passage, highway and bridges or other parts thereof; AND/OR
railway or railroad within the Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for
the movement or circulation of persons or transportation of goods, articles, or property

People v. Puno
Facts: Accused posed as victims driver. Co-principal boarded the victims car and asked for money.
Victim gave cash and checks. Victim was able to jump out of the car.

Held: Convicted of kidnapping with ransom, not brigandage. If robbery is committed by a band whose
members were not primarily organized for the purpose of committing robbery or kidnapping on the
highway, the crime would be ROBBERY, not brigandage. The main object of PD 532 is to prevent the
formation of bands of robbers.

Art. 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands. Any person knowingly and in any manner aiding,
abetting or protecting a band of brigands as described in the next preceding article, or giving them information of the
movements of the police or other peace officers of the Government (or of the forces of the United States Army), when
the latter are acting in aid of the Government, or acquiring or receiving the property taken by such brigands shall be
punished by prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period.
It shall be presumed that the person performing any of the acts provided in this article has performed them
knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
Aiding and abetting brigands:
Knowingly helping brigands, such as by providing information, receiving property
Punished as accomplices
Knowledge presumed from acts of aid
More of a preventive measure
Chapter Three: Theft

Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things shall take personal property of another without the latters consent.

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without
violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the
latter's consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its
owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of
the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or other forest
or farm products.

Elements:
1. Taking
2. Personal property
3. Belonging to another
4. Intent to gain
5. Without owners consent
6. WITHOUT violence/force

taking
enough that the offended party had been deprived of the property
not required that the offender can dispose of the property
requires that the goods are under the offenders control (Valenzuela v. People)
o Sir Jim, however, disagrees with this.
not mere physical possession

Valenzuela v. People
Facts: Accused stole boxes of Tide detergent from the SM supermarket. They were apprehended by the
security guard in SMs parking lot.

Held: Convicted of consummated theft. There is no such thing as frustrated taking. Even if they were still
in the parking lot, they had already dispossessed the supermarket. It is not required that the offenders are
able to dispose of the stolen property. The only requirement is the taking of the property.

without violence or force
killings that are not related to the taking are considered separate, therefore theft

People v. Gulinao
Facts: Accused shot the victim at close range and began to leave. He turned around and took the victims
gold ring.

Held: Convicted of theft. Based on the testimony, the taking of the ring was a mere afterthought. The
force employed in the killing had no bearing on the taking of the ring.

People v. Consajero
Facts: This is the case where the owner of a motorized banca was taken by two accused somewhere,
and when the accused returned, the owner was no longer with them. Accused then detached the engine
of the motorized banca, loaded it in their own banca, and headed home.

Held: Convicted of murder, not robbery with homicide. The accused were primarily interested in taking the
life of the two deceased, and the taking of the engine was a mere afterthought that arose subsequent to
the killings.

Taking of intangible objects
Intangible objects CANNOT be the subject of taking
taking possession cannot be in the case of services
can be liable under RA 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act)

RA 8484: Access Devices Regulation Act
access device
any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, personal identification number
and other telecommunication services, equipment or instrumentalities-identifier or other means of
account access
can be used to obtain money, goods, services or any other thing of value, or to initiate transfer of
funds other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument

(Some of the) Prohibited acts
obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access device, with intent to defraud
or intent to gain, and fleeing thereafter
effecting transactions with one or more access devices issued to another person or persons to
receive payment or any other thing of value
conspiracy to commit access devices fraud

Laurel v. Abrogar
Facts: PLDT alleged Baynet IDD service (which is able to connect an international long distance call from
Japan to any part of the Philippines and make it appear as a call originating from Metro Manila, or an
NDD call) is stealing their property, because the other company was getting more subscribers for their
IDD service.

Held: Telecommunication services such as IDD calls are not considered personal property under Art.
308. Baynet could be held liable under RA 8484, however they are not charged with violation of said act,
hence they cannot be convicted of anything.

Also liable for theft:
Finder of lost property who fails to return it to owner or deliver it to proper authority
One who, having maliciously damaged property, removes or makes use of fruits or objects of
damage
One who hunts, fishes, or gathers farm or forest products after trespassing on anothers enclosed
property

Theft under Par. 1:
Lost property embraces loss by stealing (e.g. man finds a bike he knows to be stolen and keeps
it)
How to prove this kind of theft:
! Look at the time of seizure of the thing
! That the thing was lost property and belonged to another
! The accused had opportunity to return or deliver the stolen property to the owner or the
proper authorities but refrained from doing so.
Accused does not need to be the finder of the thing
The law does not require knowledge of who the owner of the lost property is.
Intent to gain is inferred from the deliberate failure to deliver the property to the proper person.

Theft under Par. 3:
1. Enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another
2. Offender enters the same
3. Offender hunts or fishes upon the same or gathers fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products
in the estate or field
4. Hunting, fishing, or gathering is without consent of the owner

Art. 309. Penalties. Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more
than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount
the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten
thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and
in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this
Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is
more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen
is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the
property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos.
5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos.
6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the circumstances
enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos. If
such value exceeds said amount, the provision of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable.
8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the thing stolen
is not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of
earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family.
Determinants of penalty:
Value of thing stolen
! from < P5 to > P22,000
! max penalty is RT
Nature of thing stolen
! Motor vehicle, mail matter, coconuts, fish qualified theft (Art. 310)
! large cattle PD 533
! illegally fished fish PD 534
! gold bearing ore or rocks from mining claim or mining camp PD 581
! use of tampered water or electrical meters to steal water or electricity PD 401
Circumstances
! Motivation hunger or poverty (Art. 309 par. 8)
! Abuse of Confidence qualified theft (Art. 310)
! On the occasion of fire, calamity, vehicular accident, etc. qualified theft (Art. 310)

Art. 310. Qualified theft. The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two
degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with
grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of
coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on
the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
When is theft qualified?
If the theft is committed by a domestic servant
If the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence
If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or large cattle
If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation
If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery
If the property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
Qualified theft raises the penalty two degrees higher.
Grave abuse of confidence
There must be an allegation in the information and proof of a relation, by reason of dependence,
guardianship, or vigilance between the accused and the offended party, that has created a high
degree of confidence between them, which the accused abused.
Theft by laborer is not qualified theft.
Theft by someone who has access to the place where the thing is kept is qualified theft.

motor vehicle
Defined as including all vehicles propelled by power, other than muscular power. Includes
automobile, jeep, motorcycle and even scooter.
Now covered by RA 6539: The Anti-Carnapping Act
RA 6539: Anti-Carnapping Act provides for special penalties for stealing cars enforcing a gradation of
penalties

mail matter
As long as the subject of the theft is mail matter, the theft is qualified. It does not matter who stole
it.
Q: If a man stole a letter from a mailbox, is it qualified theft?
A: NO. The letter has already been delivered and cannot be considered mail matter any longer. Mail
matter are those which are still in the custody of PhilPost.

large cattle
Includes horses, cows, carabaos, mules, asses, and all members of the bovine family. (Act. No.
2030)
Animal must be taken alive.
PD 533: Anti-Cattle Rustling Act
registration of cattle, permit to buy and sell large cattle
prescribes punishment of PM Max to RT Med when for stealing large cattle

People v. Escarda
Facts: Two accused removed the cyclone wire used for the corral of 2 carabaos. They untied the
carabaos and rode away on them.

Held: Convicted of cattle rustling, violation of PD 533. The gravamen of the crime is the taking or killing of
large cattle or their meat without the consent of the owner. No certificate of ownership needs to be
presented.

PD 1612: Anti-Fencing Law punishes those who purchase stolen property (supposedly accessories)
separately.

RA 7832 Anti-Electricity Pilferage considers electricity as property which can be taken.

PD 133: Theft by Laborers and Employees
Any employee or laborer who shall steal any material, spare part, product, or article that he is
working on, using or producing shall, upon conviction, be punished with imprisonment ranging
from prision correccional to prision mayor.

Chapter Four: Usurpation

Art. 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. Any person who, by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any
real rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by
him, shall be punished by a fine from 50 to 100 per centum of the gain which he shall have obtained, but not less than
75 pesos.
If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine of from 200 to 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Art. 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks. Any person who shall alter the boundary marks or
monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same,
shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 100 pesos, or both.

Chapter Five: Culpable Insolvency

Art. 314. Fraudulent insolvency. Any person who shall abscond with his property to the prejudice of his
creditors, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor, if he be a merchant and the penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, if he be not a merchant.

Constructive taking
taking of real property
! take possession of real property or usurp real rights by violence or intimidation (Art. 312)
" violence must be employed to take over the property, not to keep the owner of
the land from taking it back
! alter boundaries or landmarks (Art. 313)
fraudulent insolvency
! abscond with one own property
! to the actual prejudice of creditors

Chapter Six: Swindling and Other Deceits

Swindling
Involves misappropriation
Swindling entails that the victim basically hands over the property. The offender, therefore,
RECEIVES the property, as opposed to theft, where the offender TAKES the property.
Nevertheless, they have the same effect people are deprived of their property.

General elements of estafa:
1. To defraud another
2. Through
a. Abuse of confidence
b. Deceit
3. Damage

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter
sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases,
and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is
over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if such
amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in
the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of value which the offender shall deliver by
virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal
property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially
guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document
above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or of any third person.
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny
which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished
by the maximum period of the penalty.
(d) [By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender therein were
not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder
that said check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house,
lodging house, or apartment house and the like without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or
manager thereof, or by obtaining credit at hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house
by the use of any false pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from a hotel,
inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment house after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or
accommodation therein without paying for his food, refreshment or accommodation.
3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any
other papers.

Estafa under paragraph 1: with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
a. alter substance, quantity, quality of anything of value
b. misappropriate or convert money or property received
c. take undue advantage of a signature in blank, or write any document above such signature in
blank

Art. 315(1)(a): alter substance, quantity, quality of anything of value
onerous obligation to deliver
o includes obligations based on immoral or illegal considerations
o obligation has pecuniary value
alter anything of value as to substance, quality or quantity
there is damage
o If there is no onerous obligation, there can be no damage.

Art. 315(1)(b): misappropriate or convert money or property
Elements:
1. Receipt of funds or property
2. Receipt is in trust, on commission, for administration, or obligation with duty to deliver or
return
3. Misappropriation or conversion
4. Damage
Includes denying such receipt

#1: receipt of funds or property
receipt must pass JURIDICAL possession, not only PHYSICAL possession
o juridical possession legal/contractual possession that can be set up even against owner
o physical possession temporary possession that cannot be asserted against owner

#2: receipt in trust, on commission, for administration, or obligation with duty to deliver or return
e.g. trust, agency, lease, deposit, quasi-contract
no ownership transferred (e.g. in loan, inability to pay does not give rise to estafa)
demand required
o Art. 315 does not say so explicitly, but it is required as a practical matter.
o demand to deliver or demand to return
o not required when date or return/delivery has been specified, or when offender is in
hiding

Ceniza-Manantan v. People
Facts: Accused entered into an agreement with the complainant that they would act as the latters agent
in selling the pieces of jewelry worth 1.079m. They received the jewelry in trust with the obligation to sell
them within 2 weeks and remit the proceeds to complainant within another 2 weeks or return them within
the same period if unable to sell. Accused failed to remit the purchase price or return the pieces of
jewelry. They denied any business transaction with the complainant.

Held: Convicted of estafa. The offenders received in trust the pieces of jewelry from complainant for the
purpose of selling them. Absence of a written document showing receipt of the jewelry or other property in
trust does not necessarily mean that no such contract exists between the parties. Demand is not
necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion, and failure to account, upon
demand for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.

#3: misappropriation or conversion
to use as ones own or subject to ones disposition
includes denial of such receipt
US v. Sevilla
Facts: Accused was the treasurer and financial officer of the Manila Railroad Company. On 3 different
occasions, he took a total of P12,000 out of the companys funds, used them for personal purposes, and
replacing it with his personal checks.

Held: Convicted of estafa. There is no distinction between permanent and temporary misappropriation.
The disturbance in property rights caused by the misappropriation is in itself sufficient to constitute injury.

US v. Clarin
Facts: Larin delivered P172 to Tarug, in order that Tarug, together with Clarin and De Guzman, could buy
and sell mangoes. Believing that he would profit in this business, Larin made an agreement with the three
men by which the profits were to be divided equally between him and them. The three did in fact trade in
mangoes and obtained P203 but did not deliver Larin his half. Neither did they render him any account of
the capital.

Held: Not guilty. When two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to
a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves, a partnership is formed. The
P172 having been received by the partnership, the business commenced and profits accrued, the action
lies with the partner who furnishes the capital for the recovery of his money is not a criminal action for
estafa, but a civil one arising from the partnership contract.

#4: damage
ANY damage
o need not be to owner
o temporary damage sufficient
gain by offender not necessary
Novation is a defense but not in all cases
o premised on the fact that estafa is generally based on obligations/contracts

Ilagan v. CA
Facts: Petitioners, as agents of the respondent Hometrust Development Corp, defrauded and deceived
both Hometrust and the lot buyers by representing to the latter that they (petitioners) were authorized to
receive payments when in fact they were not, and were thus able to collect from the lot owners the total
amount of P353k which they subsequently misappropriated.

Held: Petitioners committed estafa against the corporation and against the buyers. For the corporation,
they failed to deliver the amounts collected from the buyers. For the buyers, they falsely pretended to
possess the power to collect payments. These are separate felonies, dictated by different criminal intents,
perpetrated by different acts, consummated on different occasions, and cause injury to different parties.

Art. 315(1)(c): take undue advantage of a signature in blank, or write any document above such
signature in blank
Elements:
1. Offender is entrusted with signature in blank
Signature in blank blank document containing only a signature
2. To the damage of offended party or third party
No damage malicious mischief

Batulanon v. People
Facts: Accused was the manager-cashier of a cooperative, entrusted with managing the affairs of the
cooperative, receiving payments to, and collections of the same, and paying out loans to members. She
issued vouchers to 4 different people, 3 of which were not members of the cooperative, though they never
applied. They never received said loans either.

Held: Convicted of falsification of private document, not estafa. There is no complex crime of estafa
through falsification of private document. Said vouchers were private documents, not commercial
documents because they are not used by merchants/businessmen to promote/facilitate trade/credit
transactions. If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the
crime is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without falsifying a document, the crime is estafa.

Estafa under paragraph 2: false pretenses or fraudulent acts prior to, or simultaneous with, the
commission of the fraud
a. Use fictitious name, or pretend to possess power, influence, etc.

Dela Cruz v. People
Facts: Dela Cruz proposed to Bellosillo a business transaction wherein the former would cause the
release from customs of used gas engines, which the latter would buy for 700k. The transaction did not
push through. Dela Cruz proposed instead to work for the release of used engines contained in 5
container vans. Dela Cruz was able to convince Bellosillo claiming she has influence and connections in
the Bureau of Customs. Dela Cruz failed to deliver as she has committed. Dela Cruz then offers the
release of a Mercedes benz, to which Bellosillo agreed to, adding an additional amount. Despite repeated
demands, Dela Cruz failed to deliver.

Held: Convicted of estafa. Dela Cruzs deceit through false pretenses is clearly shown by her having
assured private complainant that she possessed power, influence and qualifications to cause the
release of the 5 container vans of used engine. Petitioner received the money with no intention of
facilitating the release of the container vans. Obviously, her representation was resorted to by her to
deceive and inveigle the naive complainant into parting with his money.

Montano v. People
Facts: Complainants entered into separate contracts with the accused in his capacity as general manager
of Legarda Pine Home involving 2 townhouse units. Under the contract, the management, represented by
the accused, promised to deliver possession after one year. Complainants paid the accused. Accused
failed to deliver the townhouse and to return the money he received.

Held: Convicted of estafa. Accused deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented to complainants that
Legarda Pine Home is the owner of the subject lot on which townhouse units would be built (which they
never were), and that he has authority to sell the proposed townhouse units when in fact he has none.
Such acts were done in order to collect money from complainants.

b. Alter quality, fineness or weight of thing pertained to his art or business

Erquiaga v. CA
Facts: Agents persuaded complainant to purchase cans of a marine preservative from someone for
P1,500 each, which they in turn would buy from complainant at P2,000 each. Complainant purchased 215
cans of marine preservative, after being ascertained of the genuineness of the contents by the accused.
After purchase, accused and his companions disappeared. Complainant discovered that the cans were
nothing more than starch.

Held: Convicted for estafa under Art. 315(2)(b). Complainant was led to believe that the contents of the
cans were genuine, since the accused confirmed that it was indeed marine preservative before she
bought all 215 cans. However, upon purchase, it was no longer marine preservative but starch.

Distinguishing estafa under Art. 315(1)(a) and Art. 315(2)(b):
In 2(b), there is no onerous obligation. The deceit was done simultaneous with the parting of the
money. Nothing was done by the victim prior to the deceit.
In 1(a), the payment was made PRIOR to the deceit.

c. PRETEND to have bribed government employee
ACTUAL bribery is entirely different!
d. Post-date check
See BP 22
People v. Guilon
Facts: The checks subject of the case bear the accuseds signature, but came from the check booklet of
the complainant. Said checks were dishonored. Accused claimed that the checks were not his and that he
did not issue the check in favor of the complainant. Accused claimed that he signed the checks that were
laid out on his office table, thinking them to be his checks, prepared by his trusted secretary for the
payment of his usual bills.

Held: Acquitted. Complainant could never recover from the checks because the drawee bank would not
recognize the accuseds signature. The checks were dishonored because they were invalid, not because
the did not have sufficient funds.

Recuerdo v. People
Facts: Accused bought jewelry from complainant and delivered postdated checks in payment. Checks
were dishonored for having been drawn against closed accounts. Complainant made formal demands for
payment but accused refused to pay.

Held: Convicted of estafa. Prima facie evidence of deceit is established upon proof that the drawer of the
check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover the check within 3 days of receipt of the notice of
dishonor. There is no fraudulent act if a postdated check is issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation.
However in this case, the obligation was not pre-existing since the checks were drawn precisely to pay for
the newly-bought jewelry.

e. Obtain food/lodging without paying, with intent to defraud

BP 22: Bouncing Checks Law
Punishes the mere issuance of a check (malum prohibitum), NOT the non-payment of an
obligation
Damage not required, unlike in estafa
Although a person can be liable for both estafa and issuing bouncing checks. There is NO
DOUBLE JEOPARDY because the elements are not the same.
BP 22 punishes a crime against public interest, while the crime of estafa is against property.
Deceit is not an element of BP 22 but is an element of the estafa.
A written notice of dishonor is best; a simple oral reminder or demand to pay may be insufficient
for conviction.
Without said notice delivered to the offender, the presumption that he knew he had insufficient
funds cannot be applied.

Lozano v. Martinez
Facts: Petitioners contend that BP22 is unconstitutional for going against constitutional provisions against
imprisonment for debt, freedom of contract and the equal protection clause. It also unduly delegates
legislative and executive powers.

Held: BP 22 is constitutional. What the law punishes is the very act of making and issuing a worthless or
subsequently dishonored check, not incurring a debt or failing to comply with an obligation. Checks are
not mere contracts; they are commercial instruments that form part of the banking system and are not
free from the regulatory power of the State. Regarding equal protection, only the drawer of the check is
penalized, not the payee, because to punish them both would be like punishing both the swindled and the
swindler. Finally, the payee has not been given the power to prescribe the penalty or to define the
offense. The law does not delegate its enforcement to the offended party in any way.

Magno v. CA
Facts: Magno approached Corazon Teng for his needed car repair service equipment. Magno fully bared
that he had no sufficient funds to buy the equipment needed. The arrangement went through on condition
that Magno has to put up a warranty deposit equivalent to 30% of the total value of the pieces of
equipment to be purchased, amounting to P29,790.This deposit was to be refunded upon the satisfactory
completion of the entire period of Lease. Magno could not come up with such amount. However, unknown
to Magno, it was Corazon Teng who advance the deposit in question, on condition that the same would
be paid as a short term loan at 3% interest. Magno and LS Finance entered into a leasing agreement
whereby LS Finance would lease the equipment and Magno would pay the corresponding rent with the
option to buy the same. The equipment were delivered to Magno who in turn issued a postdated check
and gave it to Joey Gomez who, unknown to Magno, delivered the same to Corazon Teng. When the
check matured, Magno requested through Joey Gomez not to deposit the check as Magno was no longer
banking with Pacific Bank. To replace the first check, Magno issued a set of 6 postdated checks. 2 were
deposited and cleared while 4 were held momentarily by Corazon Teng, on the request of Magno as they
were not covered with sufficient funds. Magno became aware that Corazon Teng was the one who
advanced the warranty deposit. Magno promised to pay Corazon Teng but the payment never came and
when the 4 checks were deposited, they were returned for the reason account closed.

Held: Acquitted. To charge Magno for the refund of a warranty deposit which he did not withdraw as it
was not his own account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust "debt",
to say the least, since Magno did not receive the amount in question. All the while, said amount was in
the safekeeping of the financing company. Magno did not even know that the checks he issued were
turned over by Joey Gomez to Mrs. Teng, whose operation was kept from his knowledge on her
instruction. It is, in simple language, a scheme whereby Mrs. Teng as the supplier of the equipment in the
name of her corporation, Mancor, would be able to sell or lease its goods as in this case, and at the
same time, privately financing those who desperately need petty accommodations as this one. From the
very beginning, Magno never hid the fact that he did not have the funds with which to put up the warranty
deposit and as a matter of fact, he openly intimated this to the vital conduit of the transaction, Joey
Gomez, to whom Magno was introduced by Mrs. Teng.

Griffith v. CA
Facts: Phelps Dodge Philippines, Inc. leased its lot and factory building to Lincoln Gerard, Inc. for a term
of 2 years at a monthly rental of P75,000. When Lincoln Gerard, Inc. incurred rental arrearages, Geoffrey
Griffith, president of Lincoln Gerard, Inc., issued 2 checks: (1) P100,000 dated April 15, 1986, (2)
P115,442.65 dated May 1, 1986. The voucher for these checks contained this instruction: These checks
are not to be presented without prior approval from this Corporation to be given not later than May 30,
1986. On the face of the voucher was this note: However, if written approval of Lincoln Gerard, Inc. is
not given before May 30, 1986, Phelps Dodge, Phils. shall present the checks for payment. This is final
and irrevocable. On June 2, 1986, PD presented the 2 checks for payment but they were dishonored due
to insufficient funds. PD sent a demand letter to LG to fund them within the time prescribed by law. LG
still failed to pay but sent a letter explaining its inability to fund the checks due to the strike. PD notified
LG that its properties would be foreclosed. PD went ahead with the foreclosure and auction sale on June
20 despite LGs protest.

Held: Acquitted. Phelps Dodge, through a notarial foreclosure and auction that were later on judicially
declared invalid, sold Lincoln Gerards property for cash amounting to P1,120,540 to satisfy Phelps
Dodges claim for unpaid rentals. The obligation of Lincoln Gerard to Phelps Dodge for said rentals was
only P301,953.12. Thus by resorting to the remedy of foreclosure and auction sale, Phelps Dodge was
able to collect the face value of the two checks, totaling P215,442.65. This was the situation when, almost
two years after the auction sale, petitioner Griffith was charged with 2 counts of violation of BP 22. By that
time, the civil obligation of Lincoln Gerard to Phelps Dodge was no longer subsisting. (Because of the
invalid foreclosure and sale, Phelps Dodge was ordered to return P1,072,586.88 to Lincoln Gerard.)
Phelps, Dodge, in the Courts view, has already exacted its proverbial pound of flesh through foreclosure
and auction sale as its chosen remedy.

Arceo v. People
Facts: Pacifico Arceo obtained a loan of P100,000 from Josefino Cenizal. He obtained an additional
P50,000 some weeks after. Arceo issued in favor of Cenizal a BPI check post-dated August 4, 1991 for
P150,000. When August 4 came, Cenizal did not deposit the check immediately because Arceo verbally
promised that he would replace the check with cash. He promised 7 times but never got round to actually
paying. Cenizal eventually brought the check to BPI to encash it, but he was informed on December 5,
1991 that the check bounced because of insufficient funds. Cenizal, thru counsel, wrote a letter to Arceo
giving him 3 days to pay the amount but Arceo still failed to pay. Cenizal filed a complaint. However, the
check in question and the return slip were lost in a fire that occurred near Cenizals residence.

Held: Guilty. Arceo contends that there is no violation of BP 22 because the check was presented to the
bank only on December 5, 1991 or 120 days from the date August 4, 1991. He argues that this was
beyond the 90-day period allowed by law with the presentment of check. The 90-day period provided in
the law is not an element of the offense. Neither does it discharge Arceo from his duty to maintain
sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time from the date indicated in the check. According to
current banking practice, the reasonable period within which to present a check to the drawee bank is 6
months. Thereafter the check becomes stale and the drawer is discharged from liability. Cenizals
presentment of the check 4 months after its issue was still within the allowable period. Petitioner was
neither freed from the obligation to keep sufficient funds in his account nor his liability resulting from the
dishonour of the check.

SC Administrative Circular No. 12-2000
modified the sentence imposed for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 by deleting the penalty of
imprisonment and imposing only the penalty of fine in an amount double the amount of the check
They did away with the imprisonment for the same reason that the Indeterminate Sentence Law
was passed - redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of
liberty.
But that doesnt mean courts will completely do away with imprisonment; its just that theyll go
easy on people who acted in good faith or in a clear mistake of fact. Judges discretion.

Ong v. People
Facts: Remigio Ong asked Marcial de Jesus for a loan of P130,000 which he would use to pay his
employees 13th month pay. De Jesus obliged and required Ong to issue a post-dated check for the
same amount due on January 16, 1993. A discrepancy in the record exists showing that Ong
encashed/deposited the amount to his account on two different datesDecember 17, 1992 and May 26,
1993. On the other hand, when the time came for de Jesus to encash/deposit the check given to him by
Ong, it was returned to him for being drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF). De Jesus filed this case for
violation of BP 22 after his verbal and written demands were ignored by Ong.

Held: Guilty. The prosecution clearly established the existence of the loan and the subsequent
encashment of De Jesus' check. What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check, not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of
issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law
punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is
to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation.

Domagsang v. CA
Facts: Domagsang approached Ignacio Garcia, VP of Metrobank seeking financial assistance, for which
the latter gave her P573,800. In exchange, she delivered to him 18 postdated checks, which were later
dishonored because the bank account was closed. After demands were made on Domagsang without
yielding any payment, the complainant Garcia filed a criminal case for violating BP 22. She was convicted
for 18 counts and sentenced to suffer 1 year of imprisonment for each count. The CA affirmed this
judgment.

Held: Acquitted because of reasonable doubt. The lack of proof that Domagsang was presented with a
written notice of dishonor is a fatal flaw in her conviction. There is deemed to be a prima facie evidence of
knowledge on the part of the maker, drawer or issuer of insufficiency of funds in or credit with the drawee
bank of the check issued if the dishonored check is presented within 90 days from the date of the check
and the maker or drawer fails to pay thereon or to make arrangement with the drawee bank for that
purpose. The statute has created the prima facie presumption evidently because knowledge which
involves a state of mind would be difficult to establish.

Lim Lao v. CA
Facts: Lina Lim Lao was a junior officer of Premiere Investment House (Premiere) in its Binondo Branch.
As such officer, she was authorized to sign checks for and in behalf of the corporation. In the course of
the business, she met complainant Father Artelijo Pelijo, the provincial treasurer of the Society of the
Divine Word. Father Palijo was issued Traders Royal Bank (TRB) checks in payment of interest/as
guarantee of investments worth P150k, P150k and P26,010.73. All the checks were signed by Lao and
Teodulo Asprec, head of operations. When Father Palijo presented the checks for encashment, they were
dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. He immediately made demands on Premiere, going
first to the Binondo Branch, and then to the Cubao Main Branch where he talked with the President. He
was paid P5,000. Since no other payments followed he wrote a formal letter of demand.

Held: Acquitted. The Court found that Lao did not have actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in
the corporate accounts at the time she affixed her signature to the checks involved in this case, at the
time the same were issued, and even at the time the checks were subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank. The fact alone that petitioner was a signatory to the checks that were subsequently
dishonored merely engenders the prima facie presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of funds, but
it does not render her automatically guilty under BP 22. There can be no prima facie evidence of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds in the instant case because no notice of dishonor was actually sent to
or received by the petitioner. The notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee
bank. The trial court itself found absent a personal notice of dishonor to Petitioner Lina Lim Lao by the
drawee bank based on the unrebutted testimony of Ocampo (t)hat the checks bounced when presented
with the drawee bank but she did not inform anymore the Binondo branch and Lina Lim Lao as there was
no need to inform them as the corporation was in distress.

Tan v. People
Facts: Eliza Tan is the owner/developer of the South Garden Homes. She entered into a Construction
Agreement with Fidel Francisco, whose firm would undertake land development at the SGH, and the
payment would be on a monthly progress billing based on accomplishment reports. Tan paid Franciscos
construction firm with a check that was dishonored upon presentment for payment. Francisco verbally
notified Tan, who promised to pay but still didnt. He then sent her a demand letter but to no avail.

Held: Acquitted. The banks representative testified that Tans account at the time of the presentment of
the check she issued was funded, and she had a credit line to the extent of P25 million. Even without that
credit line, there were some deposits that were still uncollected - which became good. The check was
dishonored not because of insufficiency of funds, but Payment Stopped-Funded and DAUD (drawn
against uncollected deposits). Despite this, the bank can still honor the check at its discretion.
Furthermore, Tan requested the bank to stop payment of the check for a valid reason - the account has
been paid in cash.

Lim v. People
Facts: Rosa Lim bought jewelry from Maria Antonia Seguan and wrote two checks payable to cash.
When the checks were deposited, they were returned with a notice of dishonor. Lims account was
closed, and she promised to pay upon demand. But she never did.

Held: Affirmed. Lim never denied issuing the two checks, and the first and last elements were present -
making/drawing and issuance of a check and subsequent dishonor. The second element, knowledge of
insufficient funds, prima facie exists. Lim was unable to successfully rebut this, and failed to pay or make
arrangements to pay the amount within 5 banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor. However, the
Court deleted the prison sentence to redeem valuable human material.

Elements of Art. 315(2)(d) compared with BP 22
Art. 315(2)(d)
1. Check issued prior to or simultaneous
with obligation for value
2. Drawer does not have sufficient funds to
cover the check implied knowledge
3. Payee was not informed that drawer has
no funds
4. Dishonor

BP 22
1. Issue a check on account or for value
2. Knowledge of lack of funds implied
knowledge
3. Dishonor

Estafa under paragraph 3: through fraudulent means
a. Inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document
b. Resorting to fraudulent practices to insure success in gambling
c. Removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office file, document or
any other papers

Evangelista v. People
Facts: Accused taught complainant how to cheat in black jack. Accused asked the complaint to deposit
his money to them, with the assurance that he will win the game. Complainant was winning in the
beginning, however he began to lose when the accused stopped sending signals. Accused refused to
give back complainants money, saying that he lost all the money in the card game.

Held: While it is true that the complainant consented to accuseds scheme to defraud, the fact still
remains that it was the complainant who ended up being cheated. The party responsible for such a fraud
or damage cannot escape criminal responsibility even though the offended party consented to participate
in the illegal or immoral transaction.

Estafa compared with other crimes
Estafa / Malversation
Estafa with abuse of confidence Malversation
Misappropriation Private property/funds Public funds/property
Offender Private individual
Public officer NOT accountable for
funds
Public officer accountable for
public funds
Estafa / Theft
Estafa Theft
Offenders act Receives the thing Takes the thing
Possession Juridical possession Physical possession

Estafa / Robbery / Theft
Property of another Means
Robbery Taking Violence/force
Theft Taking Without violence/force
Estafa Receiving/converting Unfaithfulness, deceit, fraud

Art. 316. Other forms of swindling. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium period
and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real property, shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage
the same.
2. Any person, who, knowing that real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such
encumbrance be not recorded.
3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, to the prejudice
of the latter or any third person.
4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract.
5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him under the belief that it was in payment of
services rendered or labor performed by him, when in fact he did not actually perform such services or labor.
6. Any person who, while being a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action, without express
authority from the court or before the cancellation of his bond or before being relieved from the obligation contracted
by him, shall sell, mortgage, or, in any other manner, encumber the real property or properties with which he
guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation.

Other forms of swindling:
Sell, encumber, mortgage real property, pretending to be owner
Sell encumbered real property even if unrecorded
Owner takes personal property from lawful possessor
Execute fictitious contract
Accept compensation for services not performed
Sell/mortgage properties while being surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil case

Art. 317. Swindling a minor. Any person who taking advantage of the inexperience or emotions or
feelings of a minor, to his detriment, shall induce him to assume any obligation or to give any release or execute a
transfer of any property right in consideration of some loan of money, credit or other personal property, whether the
loan clearly appears in the document or is shown in any other form, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a
fine of a sum ranging from 10 to 50 per cent of the value of the obligation contracted by the minor.

Swindling a minor
1. Take advantage of inexperience, feelings, emotions
2. Induce minor to assume an obligation, release obligation, execute a transfer of any property right
3. In consideration of some loan of money, credit or other personal property
4. Transaction to the detriment of the minor

Art. 318. Other deceits. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the
damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or
damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter.
Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take advantage of
the credulity of the public in any other similar manner, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos.

Other deceits:
Defraud or damage another by any other deceit
Interpret dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes, take advantage of incredulity of public

Chapter Seven: Chattel Mortgage

Art. 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine
amounting to twice the value of the property shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall knowingly remove any personal property mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage
Law to any province or city other than the one in which it was located at the time of the execution of the mortgage,
without the written consent of the mortgagee, or his executors, administrators or assigns.
2. Any mortgagor who shall sell or pledge personal property already pledged, or any part thereof, under the
terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record hereof in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province where such property is located.

Acts punishable:
Knowingly removing any personal property mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law to any
province or city other than the one in which it was located at the time of execution without the
written consent of the mortgagee or his executors, administrators or assigns
Selling or pledging personal property already pledged, or any part thereof, under the terms of the
Chattel Mortgage Law, without consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record thereof in the office of the register of deeds

Chapter Ten: Exemption from Criminal Liability in Crimes Against Property

Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following
persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the
same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission
of the crime.

Crimes under this exemption:
Theft
Swindling/estafa
o robbery or estafa through falsification not included
Malicious mischief

Persons exempted from criminal liability:
Spouses
Ascendants
Descendants
Relatives by affinity in the same line
Widowed spouse with respect to property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the
same passed into the possession of another
Brothers and sisters and siblings-in-law if living together

Notes:
The rationale behind the provision is the presumed co-ownership between offender and offended
party.
It then follows that the provision also applies between common-law spouses, including
concubines.

Chapter Eight: Arson and Other Crimes Involving Destructions

Arson
malicious destruction of property by fire
burning ones own property counts if it endangers others or others property

Stages of commission:
attempted offender prepares to light a fire but wasnt able to, although he had already
performed all other acts. (e.g. He collected rags, soaked them in gasoline and placed them
beside the wooden wall of a building, but then he was chased away by someone before he could
set anything on fire.)
frustrated offender was able to light the fire but it was put out before any part of the building was
burned. (Sir Jim doesnt think there is frustrated arson.)
consummated a part of the building had been burned. Any charring counts, as well as burning
the contents of a building.

Kinds of arson:
1. Simple arson
2. Destructive arson Art. 320
3. Other cases of arson PD 1613: New Arson Law, Sec. 3

Destructive v. Simple Arson
distinguished by degree of perversity or viciousness of criminal offender
recognition of the need to lessen the severity of punishment if the facts call for it

Art. 320. Destructive Arson The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon any
person who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as a result of
simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or where people usually
gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not limited to, official governmental function or business,
private transaction, commerce trade workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose
such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops or terminals, regardless of
whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and
regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for
public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtances thereto, which are devoted to the
service of public utilities.
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another
violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons
or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning
merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordnance, storehouse, archives
or general museum of the Government.
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials.
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article, death results, the
mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.

Acts of destructive arson:
One or more buildings burned in one single act, simultaneous burnings, or different occasions
Public/private building where people usually gather
Train, ship, airplane
Building for public utilites
To conceal/destroy evidence or bankruptcy, to defraud creditors, to collect insurance
By 2 or more persons
Any arsenal, shipyard, fireworks factory, ordinance archives, general museum of the Government
In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials

Other arson (PD 1613, Section 3):
Inhabited house/dwelling
Industrial establishment
Plantation, farm, orchard, etc.
Rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill
Other arson is punished by RT to RP.

Special aggravating circumstances (PD 1613, Section 4):
Committed with intent to gain
Committed for the benefit of another
Committed out of spite or hatred

Prima facie evidence (PD 1613, Section 6):
Simultaneous fires
Storage of unnecessary amount of flammable materials
Substances, materials or contrivances to start a fire found in ruins/premises
Excessive insurance
More than 2 fires during term of one policy
Insured effects removed from building shortly before fire
Demand for money made before fire
In these cases, the presumption of arson shall arise, and it is up to the defense to rebut such
presumption.

Special rules in arson:
Conspiracy to commit arson is punished by PM min (PD 1613, Section 7)
Building and land shall be confiscated unless the owner proves he had no participation in or
knowledge of the arson despite exercise of due diligence (PD 1613, Section 8)

US v. Burns
Facts: Accused went to the house of the victim, who was his rival in the business of automobiles for hire,
and burned the automobile in the basement. The fire spread to the victims house and to adjacent
houses. As a result, one of the servants died.

Held: Convicted for arson. The death of the servant cannot be considered murder because an actual
design to kill was not proven. Burns shouting, Let those die who ought to die is not conclusive proof of
that. The killing was incidental to the burning.

People v. Malngan
Facts: Accused (victims housemaid) hurriedly and agitatedly left her employers house and got onto a
pedicab. Not long after, said house went up in flames, claiming the lives of her employer, his wife, and
their four children and damaging other houses nearby. To commit the crime, she crumpled up
newspapers, lit them with a disposable lighter and threw them on top of a table inside the house. When
she was apprehended, she confessed to the barangay chairman and was even featured on TV. A
disposable lighter was found in her bag.
Held: Convicted for simple arson. There is no such thing as arson with multiple homicide, and she only
intended to destroy her employers house (houses and dwellings fall under PD 1613). The lack of direct
evidence doesnt matter either, because the circumstances at hand show that the accused burned the
house - immediately before that, she left and rode a pedicab not knowing where to go, she was confused
and apprehensive and was found to have a disposable lighter.

Chapter Nine: Malicious Mischief

Crimes classified as malicious mischief:
1. Special cases
2. Other mischiefs
3. Damage and obstruction to means of communication
4. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or paintings

Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. Any person who shall deliberately cause the property
of another any damage not falling within the terms of the next preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief.

Elements:
1. Offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another
2. Act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction
3. Act committed merely for the sake of damaging anothers property (hate, revenge, pleasure of
destroying or other evil motive)

Damage
not only loss but also diminution
must not be an incident of another crime (e.g. robbery with force upon things)
no intent to gain
not committed through negligence (culpa is incompatible with malice)

Art. 328. Special cases of malicious mischief. Any person who shall cause damage to obstruct the
performance of public functions, or using any poisonous or corrosive substance; or spreading any infection or
contagion among cattle; or who cause damage to the property of the National Museum or National Library, or to any
archive or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public, shall be
punished:
1. By prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds
1,000 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor, if such value does not exceed the abovementioned amount but it is over 200 pesos;
and
3. By arresto menor, in such value does not exceed 200 pesos.

Qualified malicious mischief:
Causing damage to obstruct performance of public functions
Using any poisonous or corrosive substance
Spreading infection or contagion among cattle
Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or National Library, OR to any archive
or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, OR any other thing used in common by the public

Art. 329. Other mischiefs. The mischiefs not included in the next preceding article shall be punished:
1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000
pesos;
2. By arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value is over 200 pesos but does not
exceed 1,000 pesos; and
3. By arresto menor or fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than 200 pesos, if
the amount involved does not exceed 200 pesos or cannot be estimated.

Other mischiefs:
Not included in special malicious mischiefs
Penalty depends on amount of damage cause, or if the amount of damage cannot be estimated
Examples: killing animals / letting animals die / scattering human excrement

Art. 330. Damage and obstruction to means of communication. The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who shall damage any railway, telegraph or
telephone lines.
If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision or other accident, the penalty of prision mayor
shall be imposed, without prejudice to the criminal liability of the offender for the other consequences of his criminal
act.
For the purpose of the provisions of the article, the electric wires, traction cables, signal system and other
things pertaining to railways, shall be deemed to constitute an integral part of a railway system.

Art. 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or paintings. Any person who shall
destroy or damage statues or any other useful or ornamental public monument shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period.
Any person who shall destroy or damage any useful or ornamental painting of a public nature shall suffer the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of
the court.

Special cases of damage:
Damage and obstruction to means of communication (Art. 330)
o Damage railway, telegraph or telephone lines
o Includes electric wires, traction cables, signal system and other accessories of railways
o Higher penalty of damage causes derailment, collision or accident
Damage to statutes, public monuments and paintings (Art. 331)

Notes:
Derailment or collision of cars should not have been purposely sought for by the offender. It
should have been a result of the damage to railway, telegraph or telephone lines.
Removing rails from a railway track is a crime involving destruction punished under Art. 324. In
this provision, the offenders object is merely to cause damage.
No intent to kill, crime is damage to means of communication with homicide under Arts. 4 and 48
Its murder with intent to kill and damaging railways was the means sought for.

Title 13: Crimes Against Honor

Two classes of felonies
1. Defamation Arts. 355-359
2. Incriminatory machinations Arts. 363-364

Chapter One: Libel

Section One. Definition, forms and punishment of the crime

Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of 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.

Libel is a generic term for defamation. There is oral defamation and written defamation. When we talk of
libel, it could be written or oral.

Nature of libel
Why send the person to jail? Wouldnt paying damages be sufficient to pay for the crime?
Civil
o A persons reputation is considered part of his property under civil law.
o Once that possession is damaged, its almost impossible to restore. People value their
honor.
Criminal
o The person libeled may take the law in their own hands if they feel that he does not have
recourse through the law.
o He might commit a counter-libel against the one who first committed libel.
Constitutional
o The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression.
o There has to be a line between protected speech and criminal defamation.

US v. Bustos
Facts: Citizens of Pampanga charged Roman Punasalan (justice of the peace of Macabebe and
Masantol) with malfeasance, asking for his removal. The charges were dismissed. Punsalan alleged that
the accused published a writing, in the form of the charge of malfeasance against him, which was false,
scandalous, malicious, defamatory and libelous against him.

Held: The charges predicated on affidavits were made to the proper authorities and were therefore
qualifiedly privileged. Full disclosure of public affairs is essential to the maintenance of good government
and is in the interest of society. The ends and motives of the citizens to secure the removal from office
of a person thought to be venal were justifiable.

Procedure in libel suits:
1. Prosecution has to show that there is a defamatory imputation, publicity and identity. (See
Elements)
2. Defense has to show that it is privileged by showing that the accused has interest and the
communication was addressed to the proper authority. (See Defenses in Libel)
3. The prosecution has to show that there is malice in fact. (See Prosecution Rebuttal)
4. Defense would use the defense of truth. (See Truth under Defenses in Libel)

Elements:
1. Defamatory imputation
2. Publicity
3. Identity
4. Malice

#1: Defamatory imputation
1. Subject
Crime
Vice or defect
Any act, omission, condition, status, circumstance
Notes:
o Courts have always used the ORDINARY meaning of words. What is considered is the
EFFECT on the audience, not what the author meant.
o Sample case #1: Beltrans article saying that the president hid under her bed during the
coup. Cory showed that there was no space to fit her. He was convicted of libel, though
he tried to argue that it was a metaphorical statement to show that Cory was a coward.
However, the Court held that the statement itself is already defamatory based on the
ordinary meaning of the statement.
o Sample case #2: Putangina mo is not taken in its literal sense. In the Philippine context,
it doesnt really mean anything, just an expression of anger.

2. Effect
Tends to:
o Cause dishonor, discredit or contempt
o Blacken the memory of the dead
Notes:
o The speech does not ACTUALLY have to cause dishonor. It is enough that it will TEND
to cause dishonor.
o Even if nobody believes the statement, so long as the reasonable interpretation of the
statement will lead a person to conclude that the statement is defamatory.
o Libel is the only felony that could be committed against a dead person. This is because a
persons reputation outlives him. There is a public interest in ensuring that a person does
not completely lose his reputation even after he passes away.
3. Object
Target of the defamation (the person whose reputation is besmirched)
person can be either natural or juridical
not to be confused with the element of identity

#2: Publicity
1. Communication of the defamatory statement
2. To a third person
3. Whose presence is known or should be known
Notes:
o The defamation must be communicated to someone OTHER than the object (3
rd
person).
There must be at least THREE people the utterer, the object and the other persons who
become aware of the defamatory statement.
o Why require publication? Because what the law protects is your reputation, or how
OTHERS perceive you, not how you perceive yourself. If no one reads the imputation,
then your reputation is intact.
o The presence of the 3
rd
persons is known or should be known to the author/utterer. This
excludes overhearing things or hearing things by accident.
o The publication must be made by the author himself. If the person whose reputation is
besmirched is the one who publicized the statement, he cannot sue for libel as the
element of publicity is not present.
o Sample case: A third person reads another persons letter in an unsealed envelope. The
author is liable for libel, because there is a reasonable expectation that third persons will
be able to read it. However, if it is sent through a secretary, even if the envelope is not
sealed, it is not libel.

#3: Identity
Object of the defamation must be identified we need to know whose reputation is besmirched
Standard for identification:
o Person is named
o Person is sufficiently described
Unless it is clear that there is sufficient identity, there can be no libel.
Class of persons
o Description must refer to ALL members of the class
o Requirements: sufficient identification of the class + who their members are

Newsweek v. IAC
Facts: Newsweek published an article describing the situation of the sugar plantations in Negros. The
article allegedly portrayed Negros as a place dominated by big landowners who exploited the sugarcane
workers and brutalized and killed them. The association of sugar planters filed a class suit against
Newsweek in behalf of the all the sugarcane planters.

Held: The article was not libelous. The required standard is that the article must refer to all the members
of the class. The article did not say that each and every sugar planter in Negros is exploitative. Where the
defamation is alleged to have been directed at a group or class, it is essential that the statement is so
sweeping that it applies to every individual in that class, or sufficiently specific that each individual in that
class can prove that the statement refers to him.

#4: Malice
Malice for libel is not the same with dolo. It has a more specific meaning.
1. Malice in law
Presumed from every defamatory imputation (Art. 354)
If the first three elements are present, then there is an assumption that the statement is
malicious.
The presumption is that the intent is malicious in cases where one publishes a defamatory
imputation.
Presumption can be challenged; however no one has been successful in challenging the
presumption.
Evidence of malice is not required, unless the speech is shown to be privileged.
Defamatory statements are made at the speakers own peril.
2. Malice in fact
Malice is not presumed if the defamatory statement can be considered a privileged
communication (Art. 354)
Malice must be proven. Evidence must be presented to prove malice. Burden of proof will
shift to the prosecution.

Defenses in libel
Among other felonies that weve studied, libel is the only one that has specific provisions for defenses.
This is because of the complicated nature of libel.
1. privileged communication
a. absolute privilege
b. qualified privilege
2. truth
a. imputation of a crime, if made in good motives and with justifiable ends
b. imputation not of a crime, if made against a government employee and related to the
discharge of his duties

Art. 354. Requirement for 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, except 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 of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

Privileged communication
1. Absolute privilege
Pleadings, complaints, etc.
o These documents contain accusations of commissions of crimes by persons and are
published.
o But anything that is irrelevant to the issue of the case would not be privileged.
Court utterances
Statements in Congress (privilege speeches)
Others that are in the law on evidence (lawyer-client communication, etc.)
2. Conditional/qualified privilege
Private communication (e.g. personal letters)
o Communication made by author who has an interest legal, moral or social duty or
interest
o Addressed to concerned officer, superior or body
o Without actual malice
o Notes:
! The person must have interest in the subject matter.
! In order to enjoy the privilege of privacy of communication, the elements
(interest, addressed to proper body, no actual malice) must be satisfied. The first
two would be sufficient to rebut the presumption of malice. The prosecution
would now have to prove that there is no privilege because the communication
had malice.
Fair and true report
o Non-confidential judicial, legislative or official proceeding, speech, report or acts of
public officers
o Without actual malice
o Without comment
! There must be no commentary. It excludes opinion (op-ed) articles.

Mercado v. CFI of Rizal
Facts: Petitioner filed several complaints against respondent for several grounds (violations of civil
service rules, dishonesty, corrupt practices, etc.) in several bodies (Board of Transportation, Constabulary
Highway Patrol Group, Criminal Investigation Service, etc.). Petitioner sent the subject libelous telegram
to the Secretary of Public Works and Communication, in which he requested investigation of respondents
alleged corrupt practices. The complaints were dismissed for lack of merit or lack of evidence.

Held: Qualified privilege may be lost by proof of malice. This is what happened in this case. The tenacity
with which petitioner pursued a course of action would seem to indicate that he had bad intentions in the
filing of the complaints. Thus the complaints were not made in good faith, nor were they made without
malice.

Santos v. CA
Facts: Petitioner was a columnist of the Manila Daily Bulletin who wrote an article in his weekly column,
which quoted verbatim a statement from an unverified complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission against CMS Stock Brokerage Inc. He was later charged with libel for the said article.

Held: The article was a fair and true report and was made without malice. It was a faithful reproduction of
a pleading filed before a quasi-judicial body, without any embellishments. What petitioner did was to
simply furnish the readers with the information that a complaint has been filed against the brokerage firm.
It is therefore protected as privileged communication.

Sazon v. CA
Facts: Complainant Reyes circulated leaflets entitled Supalpal si Sazon to the members of the
homeowners association, alleging that petitioner Sazon had misappropriated the funds for the church, in
his anger over his defeat as president of the association. Petitioner started writing and circulating
newsletters about complainant, who later filed a libel case against him.

Held: The leaflets did not fall under privileged communication because it was not addressed to the
proper authority. For a communication to be privileged, it should be addressed solely to some official
having jurisdiction to inquire into the charges or the power to redress the grievance. None of the
homeowners had such power or jurisdiction. Neither does it fall under private communication precisely
because the leaflets were published and circulated and were not meant to be read by just one person.
Furthermore, in libel cases, it is a question of what the words used mean to those who read/hear it, not
what the writer/speaker means. The use of the word mandurugas was certainly meant to expose him to
public contempt and ridicule.
Art. 361. Proof of the truth. In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to
the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good
motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall be acquitted.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless
the imputation shall have been made against the government employees with respect to facts related to the
discharge of their duties.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

Truth
1. of an imputation of a crime, made in good faith (Art. 361, par. 1)
The person is acting for the benefit of the public. He is then given a chance to prove in court
that the accusation is true.
It is very hard to prove bad faith when a person reports a crime. Good faith is almost always
presumed.
2. of an imputation not of a crime, made against a public official and in relation to his office (Art. 361,
par. 2)
public official has been expanded to include public personalities
There is no public interest in purely private affairs.

Guingguing v. CA
Facts: Complainant filed a libel case against petitioner after the latter published the records of criminal
cases filed against the former in the Sunday Post.

Held: Complainant is a broadcast journalist hosting two radio programs, making him a public figure under
the definition in Ayer v. Capulong. As such, he has, in effect, given the public a legitimate interest in his
life and a stake in finding out if he himself had the integrity and character to have the right to criticize
others for their conduct. The criminal cases listed in the Sunday Post had indeed been filed. Their
pendency were actually matters of public record. Hence, the article is protected as privileged
communication and the petitioner cannot be convicted of libel.

Prosecution rebuttal
Defense only showed that the presumption of malice does not arise. Now the prosecution must
show malice in fact.
Malice is a state of mind, which makes it very hard to prove.
The standard is whether or not the author had reckless disregard for the truth.
o Scenario: In a libel case, a daily newspaper is more likely to be acquitted as opposed to a
monthly publication which received the information at the same time as the daily did. The
monthly publication had a whole month to verify the truth as opposed to the daily which
had a lot less time to do the same. This shows reckless disregard for the truth on the part
of the monthly publication.

Art. 362. Libelous remarks. Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under
the provisions of Art. 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor
of a newspaper from criminal liability.

Malice in fact
It has to be more than just mere vengefulness. The intent must be to wrong the reputation of the
person.
The defense of privilege is allowed to balance the damage to the individual against the benefit to
society of free speech.

Two kinds:
1. actual malice
The statement made is untrue, or even if it were true, the imputation was motivated by bad
faith.
2. constructive malice
exaggerated reports, even if partially true
reckless disregard for the truth

New York Times v. Sullivan
Facts: The New York Times published a full-page ad which alleged that the arrest of Martin Luther King,
Jr. was part of a campaign to destroy Kings efforts towards integration. Sullivan, the Montgomery city
commissioner, filed a libel suit against the newspaper.

Held: There was no reference to Sullivan in the allegedly libelous parts of the ad. A state cannot award
damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless actual malice
is proven. Actual malice entails that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless
disregard of whether it was true or false. In this case, actual malice was not proven.

Art. 355. Libel by means of writings or similar means. A libel committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to
6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

Libel in writing or similar means
Includes placards, mass media, presentations on stage/cinema, radio shows and now the
internet.
The penalty is higher in this case compared to oral defamation is because there becomes a
permanent record of the libel.

Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation. The
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both shall be imposed upon any person who threatens
another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter, or
upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money consideration.

Threat to publish and offer to prevent publication (blackmail)
Threaten to publish libel about any person, his parents, spouse, child of other family member
Offer to withhold publication
With a demand for money or compensation

Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. The penalty
of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or manager of
a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the
honor, virtue, and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the
pretext that is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been
mentioned.

Prohibited publication of facts referred to in official proceedings
Publish facts about private life of another and offensive to his honor, virtue and reputation
Under pretext of reporting official proceedings
Probably not covered by privilege

Art. 358. Slander. Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

Oral defamation or slander
Same requisites of publicity and identity
Penalty lower than written libel
2 types: simple and grave

Victorio v. CA
Facts: Atty. Castillo, counsel for Victorios in the administrative case against Judge Guiang, filed an urgent
motion to disqualify the Judge Avancena who was hearing the case. Atty. Ruiz, Judge Guiangs counsel,
moved that Castillo be cited in contempt. Outside the courtroom, the Victorios uttered words insulting
Ruiz, claiming that he is arrogant, greedy, a son of a bitch, and committed estafa.

Held: The determination of whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation will depend
upon their sense and grammatical meaning judging them separately, and also upon the special
circumstances of the case, antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender,
which might tend to prove the intention of the offender. Defamatory words uttered against a lawyer are
libelous per se. Oral statements that a lawyer is unethical, or a false charge, dealing with office, trade,
occupation, business or profession of a person charged, are slanderous per se.

Art. 359. Slander by deed. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in
its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform
any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person.
If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

Slander by deed
Perform any act which casts dishonor, discredit or contempt of another
In the presence of third party
Intent is to humiliate
Higher penalty for serious acts

Section Two. General Provisions

Art. 360. Persons responsible. Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or
exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper,
magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he
were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamation as provided for in this chapter, shall
be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of
Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City
of Manila, or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public
officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province
or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and
first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where
the libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court
where the criminal action is filed and vice versa; Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or
civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, provided, finally,
That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions which have
been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law.
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be
conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city of capital of the
province where such action may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de
oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party.

Procedural rules
Persons responsible
All persons who publish or exhibit libel
Newspaper or magazine author, editor, business manager, publisher
Book author, editor, publisher
They all participated in the libel. But if the persons work was proven to be stolen by the publisher,
then the one liable should be the publisher.

Jurisdiction and venue
Jurisdiction
o authority provided by law stating which court will try the case
o Jurisdiction goes to RTC, even if penalty lower than 6 years
! Lower court judges might not be that capable to try cases as complicated as this
one.
Venue
o Where the case should be filed
o offended party is a public official
! Place of office
! Place of first publication
o Offended party is a private person
! Residence
! Place of first publication

Soriano v. Intermediate Appellate Court
Facts: Tantuico, COA Chairman, filed a libel case against Soriano et. al. based on the press releases
imputing to Tantuico the tampering by COA personnel of election returns in the 1984 Batasan elections.
Soriano filed a motion to quash the information on the ground of improper venue, arguing that the case
should have been filed in Quezon City (where Tantuico holds office and where the publication house is
located) and not in Leyte.

Held: Motion to quash the information granted. The liability is deemed as commencing with the
publication of the allegedly libelous material in his newspaper and not with the typing of press releases in
different municipalities or cities, copies of which are sent to metropolitan newspapers for national
publications. In this case, it is where the original article was published, which was in Quezon City, which
is controlling. The amendments to the libel law were intended to free media persons from libel suits filed
in any place where a newspaper happens to be sold or circulated, and to avoid harassment of media
persons through libel suits instituted in distant or out-of-the-way towns by public officers who could more
conveniently file cases in their places of work.

o Civil and criminal actions filed simultaneously or separately, but in the same court.
! General rule is that the civil action could be filed anywhere but libel is an
exception.

Libel of a private crime
Imputation of a private crime
o Concubinage, adultery, seduction, abduction, etc.
Cannot be prosecuted except upon complaint by the offended party
o Offended party may not want to file a case because doing so would give publicity to the
published story.

Chapter Two: Incriminatory Machinations

Art. 363. Incriminating innocent person. Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall
directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto mayor.

Planting evidence
Requirement is that the evidence was planted against innocent persons
Mens rea is to damage the honor and reputation of the person by getting him falsely accused of a
crime.
Does not cover false accusations

People v. Alagao
Facts: Accused, members of the Manila Police Department, were charged with the complex crime of
incriminatory machinations through unlawful arrest. Complainant was allegedly unlawfully arrested and
the accused planted on the complainants person a marked P1.00 bill in order to impute bribery. Accused
filed motion to quash the information on the grounds that the complex crime does not exist.

Held: There is a complex crime in the sense that the unlawful arrest was used as a means to commit the
crime of incriminatory machinations. The accused had to detain the complainant through the unlawful
arrest before they could proceed with the planting. The unlawful arrest was a necessary act in order for
the planting of the evidence to have been committed.

Art. 364. Intriguing against honor. The penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall
be imposed for any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a person.

Rumor mongering
There is a deliberate conscious intent to malign the reputation of the person by spreading rumors.
Chismis out of curiosity is not covered by this provision.
If the rumors are true, it does not fall within the purview of Art. 364 because it does not satisfy the
element of spreading FALSE rumors.

Title 12: Crimes Against the Civil Status of Persons

Chapter One: Simulation of Births and Usurpation of Civil Status

Art. 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or abandonment
of a legitimate child. The simulation of births and the substitution of one child for another shall be punished by
prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall conceal or abandon any legitimate child
with intent to cause such child to lose its civil status.
Any physician or surgeon or public officer who, in violation of the duties of his profession or office, shall
cooperate in the execution of any of the crimes mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the
penalties therein prescribed and also the penalty of temporary special disqualification.

Acts punished:
1. Simulation of births
2. Substitution of one child for another
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent to cause them to lose civil status

Mens rea is the intent to create a false civil status, loss of such status on the part of the child affected.

Can the fact that the child was benefited by the simulation be a defense?
No. The crime creates a false status to the detriment of the family into which a child is deceitfully
introduced.

Pretending to be pregnant?
May fall under estafa or other deceits.

concealing/abandoning
1. Legitimate child (and a fully developed and living being)
2. Offender conceals or abandons the child
3. With intent to cause child to lose civil status

Sale of a child?
Doesnt count. The child was not abandoned - left in a public place where someone else may find him -
and neither does he lose his civil status.

Compare with Art. 276
Offenders with custody of the affected child are liable under Art. 276. Under this article, anyone
can be liable.
The intent under Art. 347 is to cause the child to lose his civil status. The offender liable under
Art. 276 tries to avoid the obligation of caring for the child.

Penalties:
PM + < P1,000 fine
PM + < P1,000 fine + temporary special disqualification for physicians, surgeons or public officers
who cooperate in violation of the duties of their offices

US v. Capillo and Paduga
Facts: Capillo, conspiring with Paduga, delivered his motherless 1-month-old child to a Chinese couple,
asked for money and promised not to claim the infant again. The case was dismissed because the
complaint did not state sufficient facts to constitute the crime charged (exposing a legitimate child to lose
his civil status).

Held: Judgment affirmed; selling a child is different from abandoning with intent to cause him to lose his
civil status. Abandonment was construed to refer to leaving children at doors of hospitals, churches and
other institutions with the possibility of being found (which means leaving a child in a forest would be an
attempt to kill him).

Art. 348. Usurpation of civil status. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person
who shall usurp the civil status of another, should he do so for the purpose of defrauding the offended party or his
heirs; otherwise, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed.

What is civil status?
Ones public station or the rights, duties, capacities and incapacities that determine a person to be part of
a certain class

Mens rea: Intent to enjoy the rights arising from the civil status of the person impersonated (otherwise,
may be liable under Art. 178 or Art. 315)

Penalties:
PC med to max
PM if with intent to defraud offended party or his heirs

Chapter Two: Illegal Marriages

Art. 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a
second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse
has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.

Elements:
1. Offender is legally married
2. Marriage not legally dissolved, or absent spouse not yet presumed dead according to CC
3. Contracting subsequent marriage
4. Subsequent marriage has all essential requisites for validity (the only thing keeping it valid is the
subsistence of the first marriage)

Causes of legal dissolution of marriage
Death
Judicial declaration annulling a void marriage
Annulment of voidable marriage
Note: Divorce only if validly obtained abroad by alien spouse rendering him or her to remarry under
Philippine law.

Can the nullity of the previous marriage be presumed?
No. A judicial declaration is still needed, according to the Family Code.

Is bigamy a private crime?
No, it is a public crime, so anyone can initiate an action.

Can a person convicted of bigamy still be prosecuted for concubinage?
Yes. The celebration of a second marriage with the first still existing is bigamy. Concubinage is
cohabitation by the husband with a woman who is not his wife.

Penalty: PM

Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy
Facts: Karl wanted to annul his marriage with Lilia on the ground that she still had a previously existing
marriage with Maxion. She, on the other hand, claimed that her first marriage was entered into because
of force, rendering it null and void.

Held: The first marriage is merely voidable, which means it is valid until annulled. Therefore, the first
marriage was still subsisting, and so Karl and Lilias marriage would be void.

Sermonia v. CA
Facts: Sermonia was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage in 1975 while his first
marriage was still subsisting and claims that the information for the charge should have been filed in 1990
and not 1992, as this crime prescribes in 15 years. He also believes that the prescriptive period begins to
run on the day the marriage contract was registered. But the complainant discovered the crime only in
1991.

Held: Guilty. While registration at the respective Register of Deeds is sufficient constructive notice for
property transactions, the same cannot be said for bigamous marriages, which are usually entered into in
secrecy and in a place where the offender is not known to be a married person. Discovery takes time, so
the period of prescription running from the date the complainant found out about the bigamous marriage
is reasonable.

Terre v. Terre
Facts: After convincing Dorothy that her husband was actually her first cousin and that their marriage was
void, lawyer Jordan married her. In their marriage license, he wrote single as her status and asserted
that there was no need to have the court declare her first marriage void. While this second marriage was
subsisting, Jordan left Dorothy, who gave birth to their son without him, and married another woman.

Held: When the second marriage was entered into, Jordans marriage with Dorothy was still subsisting
because no judicial declaration was obtained to nullify the latter. As a lawyer, he should have known
better. Disbarred.
Art. 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of laws. The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who, without being included in the provisions of
the next proceeding article, shall have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal
impediment.
If either of the contracting parties shall obtain the consent of the other by means of violence, intimidation or
fraud, he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided in the next preceding paragraph.

Elements:
1. Offender contracted marriage
2. He knew at the time that
the requirements were not complied with
the marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment
Note: Offender must not be guilty of bigamy.

Requirements for valid marriage:
1. Legal capacity
2. Consent freely given in the presence of solemnizing officer
3. Authority of solemnizing officer
4. Valid marriage license except in marriages of exceptional character
5. Marriage ceremony
a. contracting parties appear
b. before solemnizing officer
c. make personal declaration
d. before not less than two legal witnesses
Penalties:
PC med to max
Max period if consent of the other was obtained through violence, intimidation or fraud

Art. 351. Premature marriages. Any widow who shall marry within three hundred and one day from the
date of the death of her husband, or before having delivered if she shall have been pregnant at the time of his death,
shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any woman whose marriage shall have been annulled or
dissolved, if she shall marry before her delivery or before the expiration of the period of three hundred and one day
after the legal separation.

Who are liable?
A widow who married within 301 days from death of husband, or before delivery if she was
pregnant when he died
A woman who had her marriage annulled or dissolved, and married before delivery or before
expiration of 301-day period

Why 301 days?
It admits the possibility that a woman may be pregnant for more than 9 months. This period is
only for women who arent pregnant, or who dont know that theyre pregnant yet. Pregnant
women are only prohibited from remarrying before delivery.
The purpose is to prevent doubtful paternity.

Penalty: AM + < P500 fine

Art. 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. Priests or ministers of any religious denomination
or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in
accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law.

What if the accused is not authorized to solemnize marriage to begin with?
They will be liable under Art. 177.

Penalties:
Imprisonment for not less than 1 month nor more than 2 years
fine not less than P200 nor more than P2,000 (Sec. 39, Act 3613, Marriage Law)

Title 1: Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations
The wrong sought to be prevented by this article are acts which compromise the security and existence of
the state.

Chapter One: Crimes Against National Security

Section One. Treason and espionage

Art. 114. Treason. Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of the
Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or
comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a
fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt
act or on confession of the accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1
of this Article shall be punished by prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos.

Elements:
1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the Philippines; There is a war in which the
Philippines is involved;
2. The offender EITHER
a. Levies war against the Government, or
b. Adherence to her enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Allegiance
the obligation of FIDELITY AND OBEDIENCE which the individuals owe to the government under
which they live or to their sovereign in return for the protection they receive, whether it be
temporary or permanent:
o Permanent Allegiance obligation of fidelity and obedience which a citizen or subject
owes to his government or sovereign
o Temporary Allegiance obligation of fidelity and obedience which a resident alien owes
to our government

Treason is a wartime offense, an emergency measure that remains dormant til the emergency arises i.e.
can only be committed during times of war.
Unlike rebellion, espionage, sedition
Punished by the state as a measure of self-defense/self-preservation of the state itself

Enemy subjects of a foreign power
War basically, reciprocal armed conflict declared & waged between two or more countries. (PolSci
definition)
Any treasonous action supporting TERRORISTS as an enemy is NOT treason.

Levying war (The existence of a war is not required, since theyre practically making their own)
1. Actual assembling of men
2. For the purpose of executing a treasonable design by force
3. War must be directed against the government

Adherence to enemy
Mens Rea is the intent to betray
Identify with enemys cause
Intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy
As with all mental element, it may be inferred from overt acts

Give aid and comfort
Actus Reus, together with adherence as mental element
o An act that strengthens or tends to strengthen them OR weakens or tends to weaken us.
o It is not the degree of success of the method but the aim of the act
Material (not incidental) assistance to war effort
Must be overt act (may be crimes in themselves, e.g. physical injuries)
Depends on nature (e.g. food, gasoline), scale, frequency, effect
Within the Philippines or elsewhere

Example of specific acts of aid or comfort constituting treason:
Serving as an informer, agent, or spy
Taking part in the mass killing of civilians
Being Makapili or finger woman

Adherence & aid and comfort must concur TOGETHER. One without the other is NOT treason. Giving
information and commandeering food IS treason while acts of humanitarian, medical assistance to injured
enemy soldiers is NOT treason.

These are NOT per se treasonous acts:
The commandeering of women to fulfill lustful desires of enemy soldiers (People vs. Perez)
Governmental work during Japanese regime (People vs. Godinez)
o except if policy-determining position (Laurel vs Misa)
No treason through negligence since the overt act of giving aid and comfort must be intentional.

Aggravating circumstances in treason:
Cruelty, rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain, brutality, ignominy
Evident premeditation is not aggravating since adherence and giving aid is a long continued
process requiring reflective and persistent planning
Superior strength and treachery are inherent in treason.

Ways of proving treason:
Testimony of at least TWO witnesses to the same overt act (same what, when, where, who, and
how: strict)
o Why? Because penalty is severe, there is a higher burden.
o During times of confusion, hatred, envy, etc. people may be drawn to testify against one
another; so the need to be sure of the accusation requires more than one witness
Confession of accused in open court
o must be made be the accused to the judge during trial
o guilty plea, not a mere admission of facts
o extra-judicial confessions do not count

Laurel v. Misa
Facts: Laurel served as president of the Philippines under the Japanese regime. He claims the existence
of SUSPENDED ALLEGIANCEthat he cannot be tried for treason since his allegiance to the Philippines
was suspended at that time AND that there was NEW SOVEREIGNa change of sovereignty over the
country since his acts were against the Commonwealth which was already replaced by the Philippine
Republic.

Held: Guilty of treason. Sovereignty cannot be suspended; it is either subsisting or eliminated and
replaced. Sovereignty per se wasnt suspended; rather, it was the exercise of sovereignty that was
suspended. No change in the Sovereign: The Filipino people is the Sovereign.

Dissent: During the Japanese occupation, the political laws of the Philippines were suspended. This fact
is logical, wise and humane. Thus, treason under the Revised Penal Code cannot be punishable where
the laws of the land are momentarily halted. The inhabitants of the occupied territory should necessarily
be bound to the sole authority of the invading power.

Sir Jims stand on the case: Where do you draw the line to permit adherence to enemy and when do you
continue fighting the occupiers? Even the court did not attempt to draw the line. Had the Philippines not
prevailed over the occupying power, traitors wouldnt have been prosecuted. But we did win, so traitors
are guilty; thus citizen do either at their own risk.

People v. Perez
Facts: Susano Kid Perez took women and brought them to the Japanese soldiers for their lustful
designs using force , intimidation, and fraud in order for them to accompany him. Sol Gen said that his
acts were used to maintain and preserve the morale of the enemy soldiers.

Held: Not treason. The law of treason does not prescribe all kinds of social, business and political
intercourse between the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and its inhabitants.Commandeering
of women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers, to enliven the entertainments held in their honor was not
treason, even though the women and the entertainments helped to make life more pleasant for the
enemies and boost their spirit. Sexual and social relations did not directly and materially tend to improve
their war efforts.
Dissent: Entertainment tones up the nerves of the soldier. Services or favors that should have been
performed by Japanese women were done by Filipino women. This improved the phases of their military
activities.

People v. Adriano
Facts: Adriano was a member of MAKAPILI organization and participated with Japanese soldiers in
certain raids and in confiscation of personal property. The Peoples Court found Adriano guilty of treason.
The overt acts, however, were not established from the testimony of two witnesses since they stated
different dates.

Held: Not guilty. Mere fact of having joined a Makapili organization is evidence of adherence to enemy
and giving aid and comfort; it imports treasonable intent, considering the purposes for which the
organization was created. Such membership by its very nature gave the enemy aid and comfort.
Membership in Makapili as an overt act must be established by the deposition of two witnesses
The rule is that two witnesses shall testify to the same overt act. Each of the witnesses must testify to the
whole of the overt act; or, if it is separable, there must be TWO WITNESSES to EACH PART of the overt
act.

Dissent: Being a member of the Makapili during the Japanese was one single, continuous, and indivisible
overt act of the accused whereby he gave aid and comfort to the Japanese invader; it being SINGLE,
CONTINUOUS and INDIVISIBLE, at least two witnesses have testified to the fact that one saw it on one
day and the other another day.

People v. Prieto
Facts: Appellant Eduardo Prieto was accused of treason on 7 counts. On counts 1, 2, 3, 7, he committed
acts of killing and violence resulting in death and injuries. He was found guilty of treason complexed with
murder and physical injuries with aggravating circumstances. On count 4, two witnesses gave testimony
but their statements did not coincide in any single detail.

Held: Two-witness rule was not fulfilled. The execution of some of the guerrilla suspects and the infliction
of physical injuries on others are not offenses separate from treason. Even so, when the deed is charged
as an element of treason it becomes identified with the latter crime and cannot be the subject of a
separate punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty. This rule would not, of
course, preclude the punishment of murder or physical injuries as such if the government should elect to
prosecute the culprit specifically for those crimes instead on relying on them as an element of treason.

People v. Victoria
Facts: Victoria was accused of treason by giving aid and comfort to the Japanese troops in Manila by
being a spy, pointing out suspected guerillas, reporting guerrilla activity, and joining the Makapili
organization, even performing sentry duty. He admits being part of raids and arrests but tried to help the
resistance as a guerilla.

Held: His claim of helping guerillas does not relieve him from criminal responsibility. The performance of
righteous action, no matter how meritorious they may be, is NOT a justifying, exempting or mitigating
circumstance in the commission of wrongs, and although appellant had saved the lives of a thousand and
one persons, if he had caused the killing of a single human being to give aid and comfort to the enemy,
he is, nonetheless, a traitor.

Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. The conspiracy or proposal to commit
the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and
prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000 pesos.

Elements of conspiracy to commit treason:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. At least two persons come to an agreement to
a. levy war against the government; or
b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;
c. they decide to commit it.

Elements of proposal to commit treason:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. At least one person decides to
a. levy war against the government; or
b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort;
c. He proposes its execution to some other persons.

General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony is not punishable. (Art. 8)
Exception: Art. 115
Because the very existence of the State is endangered.
It is a preventive measure.
If planned treason succeeds, it is absorbed in treason.
Two-witness rule is not applicable.

Art. 116. Misprision of treason. Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government
of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals
or does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the
mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of
treason.

Elements:
1. Filipino citizen;
2. Has knowledge of conspiracy to commit treason;
3. Conceals or does not disclose to the governor, mayor, or prosecutor.

Notes:
This is an exception to general rule that silence does not make person criminally liable.
o Preventive measure against danger to the State.
o Punished as accessory to treason
Applies to knowledge of conspiracy, not knowledge of treason actually committed (treason
already done)

Art. 117. Espionage. The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any person who:
1. Without authority therefor, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain
any information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine
Archipelago; or
2. Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information referred to
in the preceding paragraph, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or employee.

Espionage
gathering, transmitting, or losing information respecting the national defense
with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the Republic of
the Philippines or to the advantage of any foreign nation
The information does not necessarily need to be useful to the enemy.

Two ways committing espionage (Art. 117):
1. Without authority therefore, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or
reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippines.
Elements:
1. Offender enters any of the places mentioned therein
2. He has no authority therefore
3. Purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential
nature relative to the defense of the Philippines
2. Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information
referred to above, discloses there contents to a representative of a foreign nation.
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in paragraph 1 of
Art. 117 by reason of the public office he holds;
3. He discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation

Commonwealth Act No. 616: Espionage Law
Acts punished:
Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense;
Unlawful disclosing of information affecting national defense;
Disloyal acts or words in times of peace;
Disloyal acts or words in times of war;
Conspiracy to violate preceding sections; and
Harboring or concealing violators of law.

Comparison of treason and espionage:
Treason
Can only be committed in times of war
Limited in two ways of commission
Levying war
Adhering to the enemy, giving him aid
and comfort
Espionage
May be committed both in time of peace
and in time of war
May be committed in many ways

BP 39: Foreign Agents Act of 1979
For reasons of national security and interest
regulate the activities of foreign agents
require them to register and disclose their political activities in the Republic of the Philippines
so that the government and the people of the Philippines may be informed of their identity and
may appraise their statements and actions.

Section Two. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war

Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee, and that of prision mayor upon any private individual, who, by unlawful
or unauthorized acts provokes or gives occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippine Islands or
exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.

Elements:
1. Public officer or private citizen
2. Commits unlawful or unauthorized acts
3. Either
a. Provokes or gives occasion for war involving or liable to involve the Philippines
b. Exposes Filipinos to reprisals on their persons or property

Art. 119. Violation of neutrality. The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon anyone who,
on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved, violates any regulation issued by competent
authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality.

Elements:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is not involved
2. There is a regulation issued by a competent authority to enforce neutrality
3. Any person violates the regulation

Art. 120. Correspondence with hostile country. Any person who in time of war, shall have
correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the Government;
2. By prision mayor, if such correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; and
3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be useful to the enemy. If the
offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or information, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal to death.

Elements:
1. Committed in time of war in which the Philippines is involved
2. Offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops
3. The correspondence is either
a. prohibited by the government (PC)
b. carried on in ciphers or conventional signs (PM)
c. containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy (RT-Death)

Art. 121. Flight to enemy country. The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who,
owing allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee or go to an enemy country when prohibited by competent
authority.

Elements:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved
2. Offender must be owing allegiance to the government
3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country
4. Going to the enemy country is prohibited by competent authority

Section Three. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas and in Philippine waters

Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its
complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal
belongings of its complement or passengers. The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas.

Why is piracy included in Title 1?
It has roots in history, from a time when ships were the largest means of trade and travel, and carried
flags of their countries. Therefore, an attack on the flag is an attack on the country itself.

Definitions:
Piracy
o robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done with
animo furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility (People v. Lol-lo and
Saraw)
Mutiny
o unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and disturbances
on board a ship against the authority of its commander
High seas
o parts of the seas that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial
seas, or in the internal waters of a state, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic
state

Ways of committing piracy:
1. Attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in Philippine waters;
2. Seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in Philippine waters the whole or part of its cargo,
its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.

Elements of piracy:
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters (latter was included by R.A. 7659);
2. Offenders are neither members of its complement nor passengers of the vessel; (expanded under
P.D. 532 to include ANY persons)
3. Offenders either
a. attack or seize that vessel
b. seize in the vessel while on the high seas or in Philippine waters the whole or part of its
cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers
Notes:
If offender is a passenger or crew member, it is just robbery.
Intent to gain is essential in piracy.

Elements of mutiny:
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters
2. USUALLY committed by members of its complement (crew) and/or passengers of the vessel
3. Offenders either
a. defies authority of superior officer
b. commotions and disturbances

Note: Offenders may have only intended to ignore the ships officers or may have only been prompted by
a desire to commit plunder.

Special laws:
PD 532: Anti-Piracy Law
o Expanded Art. 122 to include any person, even passengers, as offenders
RA 7659: Death Penalty Law
o Expanded Art. 122 to include acts committed within Philippine waters
RA 9372: Human Security Act
o Piracy and mutiny considered acts of terrorism if they sow and create a condition of
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand

People v. Tulin
Facts: Pirates boarded, detained the crew and took complete control of M/T Tabangao. They also
changed the name of the vessel to M/T Galilee.The crew sailed to Singapore, wherein somewhere near
Singaporean shoreline, M/T Tabangao met M/T Navi Pride. The cargos of the former were then
transferred to the latter under the supervision of Cheong San Hiong. The vessel went back to Calatagan,
Batangas and released crew there. Upon arrest, the accused were charged with qualified piracy or
violation of PD 532 (Piracy in Philippine Waters) and were convicted. Hiong contends there is a conflict
between P.D. 532 and the later R.A. 7659, which amended the Art. 122 of RPCHe maintains that in
order to reconcile the two laws, the word any person mentioned in Presidential Decree No. 532 must be
omitted such that Presidential Decree No. 532 shall only apply to offenders who are members of the
complement or to passengers of the vessel, whereas Republic Act No. 7659 shall apply to offenders who
are neither members of the complement or passengers of the vessel, hence, excluding him from the
coverage of the law.He also says the acts charged against him were outside the territory of the
Philippines, therefore, the courts have no jurisdiction. And P.D. 532 only punishes those committed within
Philippine waters.

Held: Heong is GUILTY of Piracy. RA 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy
under PD. 532. There is no contradiction between the two laws. All the presidential decree did was to
widen the coverage of the law. Although PD 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. 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. It is well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a
reprehensible crime against the whole world.

Art. 123. Qualified piracy. The penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be imposed upon those who
commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.

Elements:
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders may or may not be members of its complement, or passengers of the vessel; (in short,
any person)
3. Offenders either
a. attack or seize the vessel
b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its equipment., or personal belongings of the crew or
passengers
4. Committed under any of the following circumstances
a. seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same
b. pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves
c. whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape

Notes:
Qualified piracy is a SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME punishable by reclusion perpetua to death,
regardless of the number of victims. The number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not
material.
Any person who aids or protects pirates or abets the commission of piracy shall be considered an
accomplice.

Qualified mutiny is committed under the following circumstances:
When the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves
When the mutiny is accompanied by rape, murder, homicide, or physical injuries

RA 6235: Anti-Hijacking Law
Hijacking is another kind of piracy which is committed in an aircraft. In other countries, it is known as
aircraft piracy.

Situations governed by RA 9235:
Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight, compelling the
pilots thereof to change the course or destination of the aircraft;
Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within Philippine territory,
compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of Philippine territory;
Carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft in the
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance; and
Loading, shipping, or transporting on board a cargo aircraft operating as a public utility in the
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance if this was done not in
accordance with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by the Air Transportation Office
on this matter.

Title 3: Crimes Against Public Order
Crimes against public order are crimes that involve breaches of the peace and defiance of government
authority.

Chapter One: Rebellion, Coup dtat, Sedition and Disloyalty

Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrectionHow committedThe crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed
by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval,
or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive of the Legislature, wholly or partially of any of their powers or
prerogatives.

Elements:
1. Public uprising
2. Taking up arms against the government
3. Purpose is to:
a. Remove allegiance of territory or armed forces
b. Deprive President or Legislature of powers

Rebellion
Object of the movement is to completely overthrow and supersede the existing government

Insurrection
Movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor importance, or to prevent the
exercise of governmental authority with respect to particular matters or subjects

Notes:
Public uprising connotes mass crime involving a number of men and a complex net of intrigues
and plots
Rebellion and insurrection are consummated by failure. If they succeed, they will have already
overthrown the government, and would not have been prosecuted.
The objective is more with a view to go against or even overthrow the government, as opposed to
other felonies.
o Cannot be complexed with common crimes
o If there is no evidence that the common crime was committed for the purpose of
furthering the rebellion, then the common crime is NOT absorbed and is thus charged
separately.

People v. Hernandez
Facts: Hernandez was arrested because as president of the Congress of Labor Relations (CLO) and a
member of the Communist Party, he was charged with rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and
robberies. He was found guilty of the complexed crime by the lower courts.

Held: Murder and other common crimes cannot be complexed with rebellion. When murder and other
common crimes are committed in furtherance of rebellion, it is absorbed by rebellion as one single
offense.

Enrile v. Salazar
Facts: Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan were charged
with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the
period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. OSG argued that Hernandez
ruling should be abandoned because rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes, and that under Article
48 of the RPC rebellion may properly be complexed with common offenses.

Held: The Hernandez doctrine is applicable regardless of when the murder or other common crimes were
done with respect to the rebellion. That is, rebellion cannot be complexed with murder and other common
crimes done in furtherance of the rebellion or in the occasion of rebellion, provided that the common
crimes are done with political motivation.
NOTE: This case served as the basis to amend the Revised Penal Code to increase the penalty of
Rebellion to its current penalty, reclusion perpetua.

People v. Oliva
Facts: Ka Ambot Oliva, among other accused, was charged with murder for entering the house of Jacinto
Magbojos, Jr., hogtying him and killing him. Oliva argued that as an NPA commanding officer in the
Masbate area, he should instead be charged with rebellion.

Held: No rebellion since the killing was not committed in furtherance of rebellion but for personal
reasons/other motives. Killing must be punished separately even if committed simultaneously with the
rebellious acts there being no proof that the killing was in connection with or in furtherance of the
rebellious acts.

o Rebellion and insurrection are considered continuing crimes
! Example: The CPP-NPA which has been clashing with military forces for more
than 50 years can only be charged with one count of rebellion.
! Continuing crime does not mean that a rebel can be arrested at any time
without a warrant. For a warrantless arrest of a rebel, the rebel must be caught in
flagrante delicto of a felony. In other words, continuing crime refers to the
sequence of felonies committed that constitute the act of rebellion, not to the
status of being a rebel.
Actual clash of arms with government forces not necessary to convict accused who conspired
with others actually taking arms against the government.
Mere membership in a rebel organization does not make lighter crimes automatically absorbed in
a charge of rebellion. It must be proved by the defense that such acts were committed in
furtherance of the rebellion.

People v. Dasig
Facts: Rodrigo Dasig was apprehended as one of a group of men who attacked and killed Police Officer
Redempto Manatad. Originally charged with Murder with direct assault upon a person in authority, Dasig
contested the charge and claimed that he was a member of an NPA sparrow unit (assassination squad),
and that the charge should be rebellion.

Held: Guilty of rebellion, and not murder. The political motive behind the killing can be inferred from the
membership of the accused to an NPA sparrow unit and from the killing of a police officer, a person of
authority. In this context, the killing is done in furtherance of rebellion and is thus absorbed in the single
act of rebellion.
NOTE: Dasig doctrine applies only when the accused has been established to be a member of a
subversive organization. Further, it should be noted that the allegation of his membership should be done
at the earliest possible opportunity and not just a mere afterthought. Note also that the decision implies
that if an act is NOT done to further a rebellion, even if done by a rebel, then the crime will not be
absorbed in a rebellion charged, and should be charged separately.

Rebellion v. Treason
Rebellion
Committed by taking up arms against
the government
May be committed at a time of peace
(no declaration of war)

Treason
May be committed by mere adherence
to the enemy (giving aid and comfort,
levying war)
Cannot be committed at a time of peace
(needs declaration of war)

Cario v. People & CA
Facts: Cario was charged with rebellion for sending and furnishing cigarettes, powdered milk and
canned goods to a Hukbalahap leader, for changing dollars into pesos for a top level communist and for
helping Huks in the opening of accounts in a bank of which he was an official.

Held: Cario's acts did not constitute acts of cooperation in the execution of the acts to overthrow the
Government. Cario's acts were considered as merely an indirect assistance or aid in the rebellion.
Unlike in the crime of treason, the act of giving comfort or moral aid is not criminal in the case of rebellion
or insurrection, where the RPC expressly declares that there must be a public uprising and the taking up
of arms.

Persons liable (See Art. 135):
Leaders
Participants
Public officers
Financiers

Art 134-A. Coup detatHow committedThe crime of coup detat is a swift attack, accompanied by
violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communications networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for
the exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by
any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or employment, with or without
civilian support or participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power.

Elements:
1. Offender belongs to the military or police, or holding any public office or employment
2. Committed with swift attack with violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth
3. Committed against
a. Duly constituted authorities
b. Military camp or installation
c. Communication networks, public utilities, or other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power
4. Purpose is to seize or diminish state power

Note: In the case of the Oakwood mutiny, they were not after power; they just want GMA to resign. Also,
they committed the acts in a condominium. You could already imagine them talking to lawyers what they
could only do so that they would not be liable for coup detat.

Art. 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat. Any person who promotes, maintains, or
heads rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty
of reclusion temporal.
Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake a coup d'etat shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Any person in the government service who participates, or executes directions or commands of others in
undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period.
Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner supports, finances, abets or
aids in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat shall be under the command of unknown leaders, any person
who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, as
performed similar acts, on behalf or the rebels shall be deemed a leader of such a rebellion, insurrection, or coup
d'etat.

Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. The conspiracy
and proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall not
exceed eight thousand pesos.
The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished respectively, by prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos and by prision correccional
in its medium period and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos.

Notes:
Crime of rebellion should not be actually committed by offender or people to whom rebellion is
being proposed to.
Otherwise, offender is liable as principal by inducement.

Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon public officers or employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in
their power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept
appointment to office under them.

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee who:
a. Fails to resist rebellion by all the means of their power
b. Continues to discharge duties of office under the control of rebels
c. Accepts appointment to office under rebels
2. Must NOT be in conspiracy with rebels
Explanation: Otherwise, offender would be guilty of rebellion, because in conspiracy the
act of one is the act of all.

Art. 138. Inciting a rebellion or insurrection. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall
be imposed upon any person who, without taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government, shall incite
others to the execution of any of the acts specified in article 134 of this Code, by means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end.

Elements:
1. Offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the Government
2. Incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion
3. Inciting done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other
representations tending to the same end

Notes:
Rebellion must not be committed by the offender
Otherwise, he would be liable as principal by inducement
Art. 138 skirts the edges of constitutional freedom of speech
Not required that person/persons being incited to rebellion actually commit rebellion

Art. 139. Sedition; How committed. The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and
tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of the following
objects:
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election;
2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any public officer
thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order;
3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social
class; and
5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the National
Government (or the Government of the United States), of all its property or any part thereof.

Elements:
1. Public and tumultuous uprising
2. Thru force, intimidation, or other unlawful means
3. Purpose is to attain above listed objectives

People v. Umali
Facts: The CFI found Umali, Pasumbal and Capino of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery. Umali, together with armed men, raided and burned down
the house of Mayor Punzalan, Robles and Mortega. They caused the death of Patrolman Pisnigan, 2
civilians and the wounding of Patrolman Lacorte and 5 civilians. They also looted one house and 2
Chinese stores. The object of the raid was the political conflict between Umali and Punzalan. The armed
men were actually members of the Hukbalahap whom Umali had contracted with to do the job.

Held: Guilty of sedition. The purpose of the raiders in publicly taking up arms was not exactly against the
Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined in Art. 134 of the RPC under rebellion. The
object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or
revenge upon the person or property of a public official, namely, Punzalan who was then Mayor of
Tiaong.

People v. Tahil
Facts: Datu Tahil and Datu Tarson swore an oath on the Koran that they would would oppose the
Government by forcible means if Governor Moore did not give in to their demands. When government
forces tried to arrest Datu Tahil and company in their fort for sedition, the forces were twice ambushed by
Datu Tahil's men.

Held: Datu Tahil, in failing to surrender with the object of complying with a judicial warrant of arrest
against him and his followers, he resisted this order by means of force, thus preventing the officer
charged with this duty from performing it. No other information was available to show that Datu Tahil
intended to overthrow the government, so Datu Tahil is only found guilty of sedition.

Art. 140. Penalty for sedition. The leader of a sedition shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding 10,000 pesos.
Other persons participating therein shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and
a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos.

Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be
punished by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

Note: Proposal to commit sedition is not punished, unlike proposal to commit coup detat, rebellion or
insurrection.

Art. 142. Inciting to sedition. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not
exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition,
should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any
person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the
Government (of the United States or the Government of the Commonwealth) of the Philippines, or any of the duly
constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his
office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite
rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb
the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil
practices.

Elements:
1. Offender does not take direct part in crime of sedition
2. Incites others to the accomplishment of any acts constituting sedition
3. Inciting to sedition by:
a. Speeches, proclamations, writing, etc.
b. Utter seditious words, or write, publish, scurrilous libels against govt or which tend to
disturb the public peace
c. Knowingly conceal such practices

Rebellion v. Sedition
Sedition
Sufficient that the public uprising is
tumultuous
Motive may be political or social
Can only be committed by more than 3
persons
Taken from Art. 153, which defines an
act to be tumultuous if cause by more
than 3 persons who are armed and
provided with means of violence
Common crimes are not absorbed
Rebellion
There must be a taking up of arms
against the government
Motive is political
Common crimes are absorbed

Tests to determine incitement:
Clear & present danger
o Test used in Philippine jurisprudence
o Required that there be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is
imminent and that the evil to be prevented is a serious one.
o Danger must not only be probable but very likely inevitable.

Primicias v. Fugoso
Facts: Manila Mayor Fugoso refused to issue a permit to Primicias, campaign manager for Coalesced
Minority Parties, for the holding of a rally at Plaza Miranda.

Held: No factual finding of any imminent and serious danger that could justify denying the permit to rally.
The Court issued a mandamus order to Mayor Fugoso to issue the permit.

Dangerous tendency
o Words used TEND to create a danger of public uprising
o Words uttered or published could easily produce disaffection among the people and a
state of feeling in them incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government
and obedient to the laws.

People v. Perez
Facts: Isaac Perez made a statement in public that Filipinos ought to cut off the head of Governor-
General Wood, as a way of criticizing Wood's recent decisions. Lower court found Perez guilty of
contempt of ministers of the Crown or other persons in authority.

Held: Perez's actions constitute treason and sedition under Section 8 of Act No. 292 (Treason and
Sedition). There is a seditious tendency in the words used, which could easily produce disaffection
among the people and a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government
and obedient to the laws.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Facts: Johnson burnt the American flag while in a public demonstration against President Reagan.
Johnson was convicted for desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute. State
Criminal Appeals Court reversed, declaring the act as protected speech.

Held: Justice Brennan held that the act of desecrating the flag was deemed as an exercise of his freedom
of expression. Texas already punishes breaches of peace directly, and could charge similar behavior
without criminalizing flag burning. Furthermore, it was not seditious since there was no disturbance of
peace.

Chapter Two: Crimes Against Popular Representation

Art. 143. Act tending to prevent the meeting of the Assembly and similar bodies. The penalty of
prision correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, by
force or fraud, prevents the meeting of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or of any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial
board or city or municipal council or board.

Art. 144. Disturbance of proceedings. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 1,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who disturbs the meetings of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines)
or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any
provincial board or city or municipal council or board, or in the presence of any such bodies should behave in such
manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it.

Art. 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any
person who shall use force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of the National Assembly (Congress
of the Philippines) from attending the meetings of the Assembly (Congress) or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from expressing his opinions or
casting his vote; and the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
shall, while the Assembly (Congress) is in regular or special session, arrest or search any member thereof, except in
case such member has committed a crime punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor.

Crimes against popular representation:
Prevent meeting by force or fraud (Art. 143)
Disturb proceedings (Art. 144)
Violate parliamentary immunity (Art. 145)
o Any person who, by force, threat, intimidation or fraud, prevents Member from speaking
or voting
o Public officer who arrests or searches Member while Congress is in session
o Except for crime with penalty higher than PM (Constitutional immunity if < 6 years)

Chapter Three: Illegal Assemblies and Associations

Art. 146. Illegal assemblies. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor
in its medium period shall be imposed upon the organizers or leaders of any meeting attended by armed persons for
the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code, or of any meeting in which the audience is
incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in
authority or his agents. Persons merely present at such meeting shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, unless they
are armed, in which case the penalty shall be prision correccional.
If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that the purpose of
said meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts punishable under this Code, and he shall be considered a
leader or organizer of the meeting within the purview of the preceding paragraph.
As used in this article, the word "meeting" shall be understood to include a gathering or group, whether in a
fixed place or moving.

Acts considered as illegal assemblies:
Any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code.
o Not all must be armed. But if an unarmed person attended the meeting along with armed
persons he is still liable for the offense of illegal assemblies but with a lower penalty.
Any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission for the
crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault upon a person in authority or his
agents.

Presumption: If any person attending the meeting is carrying an unlicensed firearm, he shall be
considered to commit acts punishable under the RPC and the leader or organizer of the meeting.

Different penalties for:
Organizers or leaders PC max to PM med
Armed participants PC
Unarmed participants AM
Unlicensed gun carrier deemed organizer considered leader/organizer (PC max to PM med)

Art. 147. Illegal associations. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon the founders, directors, and presidents of associations
totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code or for some
purpose contrary to public morals. Mere members of said associations shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.

Illegal associations:
Any group organized to commit felonies or other purpose contrary to public morals
Higher penalty for founders, directors and president

Chapter Four: Assault Upon, and Resistance and Disobedience to, Persons in Authority
and their Agents

Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed as such.
In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction,
whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board, or commission, shall be
deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.
A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged
with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman,
barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed
an agent of a person in authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and persons charged
with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual
performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in
authority.

Persons in authority
Directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as member of court, government
corporation, board or commission
o Jurisdiction can be territorial (congressman, mayor) or functional (SC justice, UP Law
Dean)
o Mayor, Division superintendent of schools, President of Sanitary Division, Provincial
Fiscal, Councilor, Barrio Captain and Barangay chairman
Includes teachers
Lawyers are also considered persons in authority when they are in the actual performance of their
professional duties (As amended by BP 873)

Agent of person in authority
By direct provision of law, election, or appointment by competent authority
Charged to:
o Maintain public order and protection
o Protect security of life & property
o Person who comes to the aid of a person in authority
E.g. policeman, barangay tanod

Art. 148. Direct assaults. Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or
intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or
shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged
in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos, when the assault is
committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays hands upon
a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be present, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed.

Two forms of direct assaults:
#1: Use force or intimidation to achieve purposes of rebellion or sedition
1. The offender employs force or intimidation
2. Aim is to attain any of the purposes of rebellion or sedition
3. No public uprising
No need for offended party to be a person in authority or his agent

#2: Attack, employ force, seriously intimidate, or seriously resist person in authority or his agent while
engaged in or on occasion of performing his duty
1. Offender
a. Makes an attack
b. Employs force
Must be of serious character as to indicate determination to defy the law and
representative at all costs
c. Makes a serious intimidation
e.g. pointing a gun or weapon at a person of authority
d. Makes a serious resistance
Active resistance, eg. Attacking a police officer while police is trying to pacify the
situation
As opposed to passive resistance where the person wrapped his legs around a lamp
post to prevent police officers from arresting him.
2. Person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent
3. At the time of the assault the person in authority of his agent
a. Engaged in the actual performance of official duties
b. Assaulted by reason of past performance

Notes:
Person assaulted or resisted is a person in authority or his agent

US v. Garcia
Facts: Garcia was ordered by the justice of peace to leave the courtroom because he was causing some
interference in a case to which he was not a party. On leaving he threatened the justice and later waited
on a street corner where he imputed an indecent epithet to said justice and then attacked him, striking
him with a cane he was carrying and also slapping his face.

Held: Chief Justice Arellano Garcia is guilty of direct assault. The mere fact that the accused admitted
that he struck an officer of the law while the latter was discharging the duties of his office constitutes, in
the absence of further proof, the crime of direct assault.

Assault occurs while person is engaged in or on occasion of performing his duty
o On occasion, as interpreted, includes assaults made by reason of a persons
performance of duty.
o When a PIA or agent is not engaged in the performance of duty:
! PIA or agent exceeds his power or acts without authority, or uses unnecessary
force or violence
! Offending party and PIA/agent descend to matters which are private in nature

People v. Recto
Facts: Sacks of palay stored in a bodega were stolen. Authorities went to the scene to investigate. A
barangay tanod who was off-duty stopped by the scene to provide assistance. The authorities were later
attacked by a group who was accused of perpetrating the crime. One barangay tanod and a kagawad
were shot when the suspects attacked the authorities.

Held: Not direct assault with respect to the tanod as he was not in the performance of his duty when the
incident happened. On the other hand, the kagawad was in actual performance of his duty; hence, the
suspects are liable for qualified direct assault with homicide.

Attacker knows that person is a person of authority or an agent of a PIA

People v. Rodil
Facts: Anti-Smuggling Unit Lt. Masana was killed by Rodil during an altercation. At the time, Masana had
not introduced himself as a police officer, and while Rodil's identity was known to Masana, Rodil did not
know who Masana was.

Held: There was no information provided that showed Rodil knew that Masana was a public officer. It is
essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person attacked was a person in authority or his
agent in the exercise of his duties, because the accused must have the intention to offend, injure or
assault the offended party as a person in authority or his agent.

People v. Balbar
Facts: Tiburcio Balbar kissed Ester Gonzales in the eye while the latter was teaching. Shocked,
complainant instinctively pushed Balbar away and tried to flee. Defendant allegedly brought out his daga
(a local dagger) and pursued complainant, catching up with her before she was able to get out of the
room. Defendant embraced her again, at the same time holding on to his daga. They both fell to the
floor, as a result of which complainant sustained slight physical injuries. Lower Court later quashed a
Direct Assault charge because the information filed lacked the express allegation that the victim was a
person in authority

Held: Guilty of direct assault as a teacher is a person in authority. Gonzales is a teacher, and this is
sufficiently included in the information. Furthermore, Balbar knew that Gonzales was a teacher at the time
he attacked her, as the attack occurred while Gonzales was conducting classes. Balbar's ignorance of a
teacher's status as a public officer is not a defense, since this status is a matter of law.

Functions of the PIA or his agent must be clearly shown in the information.
Knowledge that attacker knew of PIAs position must also be shown in the information
If as a result of direct assault the PIA or his agent is killed: direct assault with homicide or murder
If with serious or less serious physical injuries: Direct assault with serious or less serious physical
injuries.
Crime of slight physical injuries absorbed in direct assault (People v. Acierto)
Question in class: What if attacker didnt know that the policeman was a PIA?
As long as the attacker knew that the offended party held a position that involves maintaining
public order. (e.g. attacking policeman while he was accosting attacker)

Qualified assault
1. When assault is committed with a weapon
2. Offender is a public officer or employee
3. Offender lays hands upon a person in authority
Lays hands=physical contact

Art. 149. Indirect assaults. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a
fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon
any person coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the commission of any of the crimes
defined in the next preceding article.

Elements:
1. PIA or his agent is the victim of any of the forms of Direct Assault in Art. 148
2. A person comes to the aid of the PIA or agent
3. Offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person coming to the aid of the authority
or his agent

Notes:
It must be on the occasion of a direct assault.
If policeman +10 other persons were ordered to subdue offender and offender attacks them, it is
considered direct assault. They aid him in performing his duty.
BUT if for example that the policeman says that he can attack the people alone, then these
people start to beat him up, and bystanders come to his aid and try to help him, the attack on the
bystanders would now fall under indirect assault.

Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or
subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. The
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and
imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the
National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional
Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or
member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present
before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to
answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by
them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall
restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn
by any such body or official.

Acts punished:
Refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons of Congress, Concoms, or any of their
committees, sub-committees or divisions.
Refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation while being before such legislative or
constitutional body or official.
Refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents in possession,
when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions.
By restraining another from attending as a witness in such legislative or constitutional body
By inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official

Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. The
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being
included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the
agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine ranging from 10 to 100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.

Elements of resistance and serious disobedience:
1. That a PIA or his agent is engaged in the performance of his official duty or gives a lawful order to
the offender
2. The offender resists or seriously disobeys PIA or agent
3. Act of offender is not included in Arts. 148, 149, 150

Elements for simple disobedience:
1. That an agent of a PIA is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the
offender
2. That the offender disobeys such agent
3. Disobedience is not of a serious nature
Sticking out tongue at officer and refusing to leave despite officers order to do so

Chapter Five: Public Disorders

Art. 153. Tumults and other disturbance of public orders; Tumultuous disturbance or interruption
liable to cause disturbance. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause any
serious disturbance in a public place, office, or establishment, or shall interrupt or disturb public performances,
functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in the provisions of Articles 131 and 132.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing any disturbance or interruption of
a tumultuous character.
The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be tumultuous if caused by more than three persons who
are armed or provided with means of violence.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who in any meeting, association, or public
place, shall make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or in such place shall display placards or emblems
which provoke a disturbance of the public order.
The penalty of arresto menor and a fine not to exceed 200 pesos shall be imposed upon these persons who
in violation of the provisions contained in the last clause of Article 85, shall bury with pomp the body of a person who
has been legally executed.

Elements:
1. Causing serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment
Must be planned or intended
2. Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions, gathering or peaceful meetings, if act not
included in Arts. 131, 132
e.g. Carlos Celdrans act of putting up a placard stating Damaso during a religious Catholic
mass
3. Making an outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public place
e.g. Shouting Ibagsak si Noynoy in a UP graduation ceremony (should be unplanned and
not intentionally calculated to induce others to commit rebellion or sedition)
4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in such place
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed

Notes:
Tumultuous disturbance is caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or provided with
means of violence
Objectives not political
QUALIFYING: Higher penalty if tumultuous

Art. 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances. The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or
cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest
or credit of the State;
2. Any person who by the same means, or by words, utterances or speeches shall encourage disobedience
to the law or to the constituted authorities or praise, justify, or extol any act punished by law;
3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to be published any official resolution or document
without proper authority, or before they have been published officially; or
4. Any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or cause to be printed, published, or distributed books,
pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified as anonymous.

Note: Under par. 1, offender must know that the news is false

Art. 155. Alarms and scandals. The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 pesos shall
be imposed upon:
1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall discharge any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other
explosives calculated to cause alarm or danger;
2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive
to another or prejudicial to public tranquility;
3. Any person who, while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusements,
shall disturb the public peace; or
4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause any disturbance or scandal in public places,
provided that the circumstances of the case shall not make the provisions of Article 153 applicable.

Notes:
What is considered is the RESULT, not the intent.
Charivari is defined as a medley of discordant voices or sounds made on kettles, tin horns, etc.
designed to annoy and insult.
If disturbance is of a serious nature, such as insulting a persons rendition of My Way in a beer
garden, and causing a bar brawl, would fall under Art. 153.

Art. 156. Delivery of prisoners from jails. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall remove from any jail or penal
establishment any person confined therein or shall help the escape of such person, by means of violence,
intimidation, or bribery. If other means are used, the penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed.
If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments by taking the guards by surprise,
the same penalties shall be imposed in their minimum period.

Elements:
1. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment
Also includes hospitals and asylums, as they are considered extensions of jail or prison, as in
if the person has been convicted and penalized with imprisonment but is placed in a hospital
or asylum instead due to special circumstances
2. That the offender removes therefrom such person or helps the escape of such person
e.g. All the guards and prisoners that helped Asiong Salonga escape Bilibid should be
charged under this provision. (See Asiong Salonga)
Note: QUALIFYING if committed with violence, intimidation or bribery

Alberto v. Dela Cruz
Facts: Eligio Orbita is a provincial guard who is being prosecuted for the crime of Infidelity in the Custody
of Prisoner as punished by Art. 224 of the RPC. During the cross-examination of prosecution witness
Jose Esmeralda, the defense brought forth and confronted the witness with a note, marked as exhibit,
purportedly written by Gov. Armando Cledera, asking Jose Esmeralda to send five men to work in the
construction of a fence at his house at Taculod, Canaman, Camarines Sur. Defense moved to include
Gov. Cledera and Esmeralda included in the charges.

Held: The Governor and Assistant Provincial Warden cannot be prosecuted for the escape of a prisoner
under Art. 156, as both are considered public officers who have custody over the escaped prisoners.
They could be penalized under Art. 223 (conniving with or consenting to evasion), but there was no
sufficient information to sustain the charge.

Chapter Six: Evasion of Service of Sentence

Art. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the
term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place by
means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false keys,
deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution, the
penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum period.

Elements:
1. Offender is convicted by final judgment
2. Serving sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty
3. Escapes during term of sentence

committed through unlawful entry
by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors
by using picklocks, false keys, deceit, violence or intimidation
through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution

Notes:
Detention prisoners and minor delinquents not covered as they have not been convicted by final
judgment
Art. 157 is applicable to the sentence of destierro.
o Destierro is a partial deprivation of liberty in the sense that, for example, a person is
banned from entering the City of Manila.
Art. 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion of disorder, conflagrations, earthquakes, or
other calamities. A convict who shall evade the service of his sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he
shall have been confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar
catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has not participated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of the time still
remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in no case shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to give
himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief Executive
announcing the passing away of such calamity.
Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall give themselves up to
the authorities within the above mentioned period of 48 hours, shall be entitled to the deduction provided in Article 98.

Elements:
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment who is confined in a penal institution
2. That there is disorder, resulting from:
a. Conflagration
b. Earthquake
c. Explosion
d. Similar Catastrophe
e. Mutiny in which he has not participated
3. Offender evades the service of sentence by leaving the penal institution where he is confined, on
the occasion of such disorder
4. That the offender fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance
of the proclamation by the President announcing the passing away of such calamity

Notes:
If offender fails to give himself up within 48 hours, he shall suffer an increase in penalty of
remaining sentence, not exceeding 6 months.
Prisoner who returns within 48 hours will be rewarded with a 1/5 reduction of remaining sentence.
Prisoner who did not escape from his place of confinement during the calamity is not entitled to a
deduction of the period of his sentence.

Art. 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon the convict who, having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief
Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of such
pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall then suffer the unexpired portion of his original sentence.

Elements:
1. Offender was a convict
2. He was granted a conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
3. Violated any of the conditions of the pardon

Notes:
Conditional Pardon
o a contract between President, who grants the pardon, and the convict, who accepts it
o The convict should fulfill all the conditions of the pardon in order to enjoy its benefits.
If penalty remitted is higher than 6 years, the convict shall suffer the unexpired portion of his
original sentence.
If less than or equal to 6 years, PC min.

Chapter Seven: Commission of Another Crime During Service of Penalty Imposed for
Another Previous Offense
This chapter deals with quasi-recidivism.

Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense;
Penalty. Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished
by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age
of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching
the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.

Elements:
1. Final conviction for one offense
2. Commits a felony
3. Before serving sentence or while serving sentence
Notes:
Second crime must be a felony.
o Prisoner who commits an offense under a special law cannot fall under Art. 160.
o Art. 160 speaks of the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by the law for the new
felony and a penalty prescribed by a special law has no periods of a divisible penalty.
Crime for first sentence need not be a felony.
o As compared to reiteracion: Quasi-recidivism does not require prisoner to serve out
sentence before committing the subsequent felony.
Penalty imposed is the maximum of the new felony.
Cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstance since quasi-recidivism is a special
aggravating circumstance that raises the penalty to the max period prescribed by law for the new
crime committed
o e.g. If second felony committed is murder and prisoner voluntarily surrendered, reclusion
perpetua sentence cannot be altered.
A quasi-recidivist may be pardoned at the age of 70
o Provided he has already served out his original sentence or when he shall complete it
after reaching such age, unless by reason of conduct or other circumstances, he shall not
be worthy of such clemency.
o Cannot be a habitual criminal

People v. Dioso
Facts: Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto Abarca were charged with for the crime of murder which was committed
inside the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinglupa, Rizal where both accused were serving sentence.

Held: Justice Escolin held that the accused are quasi-recidivists, having committed the crime charged
while serving sentence for a prior offense. On the matter of penalty, the Court was constrained to
commute the death sentence due to a lack of votes.

RA 8294: Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives
Punishable acts:
Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition or
instruments used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition.
Possession of:
o low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar
firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended
to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition, provided that no other crime
was committed
o high powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber
and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but
considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other
firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two or three, provided that
no other crime was committed
If homicide or murder committed, use of unlicensed firearm considered aggravating circumstance.
Absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup
d'etat.
Tampering of firearms serial number
Repacking or altering the composition of lawfully manufactured explosives
People v. Ladjaalam
Facts: Ladjaalam was charged and convicted by the Regional trial Court of Zamboanga City of the crime
of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide for firing on unlicensed M-14 rifle at several policemen
who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant. Under the same circumstance, he was
likewise charged and convicted for the crime Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition penalized
under PD1866, as amended by RA 8294.

Held: RA 8294 shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be
no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the other crime is murder or
homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate
offense. Since the direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant
can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms.

Felonies according to gravity of defiance to authority & order:
Levy war Treason
Armed uprising Rebellion
Use serious force Qualified direct assault
Attack, use force, seriously intimidate or seriously resist direct assault
Resist or seriously disobey resistance and serious disobedience
Disobey agent disobedience
Tumults
o Serious disturbance
o Outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or to provoke disturbance of public order
o Bury with pomp person legally executed

Title 4: Crimes Against Public Interest

Chapter 1: Forgeries

Forgeries v. Falsifications
The difference ultimately lies on the object of the crime.

Things that can be forged
Great seal of the Government of the
Philippines
Signature or stamp of the President
Coins
Treasury notes
Securities and other instruments of
credit

Things that can be falsified
Documents
Wireless, telegraph and telephone
messages
Certificates

Section One. Forging the seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, the signature or
stamp of the Chief Executive

Art. 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, forging the
signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any person
who shall forge the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands or the signature or stamp of the Chief
Executive.
Acts punished:
Forging the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines (GOP)
Forging the signature of the President
o must be on what is made to appear as an official document of the Republic of the
Philippines
Forging the stamp of the President
Art. 162. Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp. The penalty of prision mayor shall be
imposed upon any person who shall knowingly make use of the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp
mentioned in the preceding article.

Elements:
1. The Great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the Chief
Executive was forged by another person
2. That the offender knew the counterfeiting or forgery
Offender should NOT be the forger.
3. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature stamp

Section Two. Counterfeiting coins

Art. 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins. Any person who makes, imports, or utters,
false coins, in connivance with counterfeiters, or importers, shall suffer:
1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the
counterfeited coin be silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines of ten centavo
denomination or above.
2. Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not to exceed P2,000 pesos, if the
counterfeited coins be any of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines below ten-
centavo denomination.
3. Prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin
be currency of a foreign country.

Elements:
1. There be false or counterfeited coins
2. Offender either made, imported or uttered such coins
3. In case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connived with the counterfeiters or
importers

coin
includes even those out of circulation
Philippine coins penalty depends on value
Foreign coins lower penalty, regardless of value

import
bring the coins into port
completed even before entry at Customs House

utter
to use as money
lower penalty if not in connivance with forger
possession must be with intent to utter

Tecson v. CA
Facts: Mang Andy was involved in a syndicate engaging in the business of counterfeit US dollar notes
and was arrested after a buy bust operation.

Held: Possession of fake dollar notes must be coupled with the act of using or at least with intent to use
the same as shown by a clear and deliberate overt act in order to constitute a crime, as was sufficiently
proven in the case at bar.

Art. 164. Mutilation of coins; Importation and utterance of mutilated coins. The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who
shall mutilate coins of the legal currency of the United States or of the Philippine Islands or import or utter mutilated
current coins, or in connivance with mutilators or importers.
Acts punished:
Mutilating coins of legal currency, that there be intent to damage or defraud another
Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with connivance with the mutilator or importer

Mutilation of coins
Entails taking off part of the metal in the coin
Coins of foreign country not included
Single penalty imposed, regardless of denomination

Art. 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. The person who knowingly, although
without the connivance mentioned in the preceding articles, shall possess false or mutilated coin with intent to utter
the same, or shall actually utter such coin, shall suffer a penalty lower by one degree than that prescribed in said
articles.

Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent to utter the same,
knowing that it is false or mutilated
1. Possession
2. Intent to utter
3. Knowledge

Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false or mutilated.
1. Elements
2. Actual uttering
3. Knowledge
Note: Not required that the coin be of legal tender

Section Three. Forging treasury or bank notes, obligations and securities; importing and
uttering false or forged notes, obligations and securities

Art. 166. Forging treasury or bank notes on other documents payable to bearer; importing, and
uttering such false or forged notes and documents. The forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or
certificates or other obligations and securities payable to bearer and the importation and uttering in connivance with
forgers or importers of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall be punished as follows:
1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the document
which has been falsified, counterfeited, or altered, is an obligations or security of the United States or of the
Philippines Islands.
The word "obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands" shall be held to mean all
bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank notes, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or
drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States or of the Philippine Islands, and other
representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued under any act of the
Congress of the United States or of the Philippine Legislature.
2. By prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or altered
document is a circulating note issued by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same.
3. By prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or
counterfeited document was issued by a foreign government.
4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos, when the forged or altered
document is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized therefor.

Acts punished:
Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer
Importation of such false or forged obligations or notes
Uttering of such false or forged obligations or notes in connivance with the forgers or importers

How are forging and falsification committed?
Forging is by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the
appearance of a true and genuine document. Intends for the false instrument to pass off as a
genuine.
Falsifying is erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters,
words, or signs contained therein.

When is the instrument payable to bearer?
Expressed to be payable
Payable to person named therein or bearer
Payable to the order of a fictitious or non-existing person and such fact was known to the person
making it payable
Name of payee does not purport to be name of any person
Only or last indorsement is one in blank

What is obligation or security?
Representatives of value
e.g. bonds, coupons, checks, etc.

Art. 167. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer. Any person who
shall forge, import or utter, in connivance with the forgers or importers, any instrument payable to order or other
document of credit not payable to bearer, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos.

Elements:
1. Instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer
2. Offender forged, imported or uttered such instrument
3. In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer

Art. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit.
Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person who shall
knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this
section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.

Elements:
1. Any treasury or bank note or other obligation and security payable to bearer, or payable to order
or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person
2. Offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified
3. He performs any of these acts
a. Using forged or falsified instruments
b. Possessing with intent to use any of such instruments

Bearer notes v. non-bearer notes
Bearer notes
Normal paper bills
(obligations/securities)
Circulating note of any authorized bank
Issued by foreign government
Issued by authorized foreign bank
Higher penalty

Non-bearer note
Must present identification
e.g. checks

Art. 169. How forgery is committed. The forgery referred to in this section may be committed by any of
the following means:
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument, payable to bearer or order mentioned therein, the
appearance of a true genuine document.
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs
contained therein.

Acts prohibited:
counterfeiting or forging treasury, bank notes or other documents payable to bearer or to order
o giving to a treasury or bank note the appearance of a true document
o erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or
signs contained therein
falsification

Section Four. Falsification of legislative, public, commercial, and private documents, and
wireless, telegraph, and telephone message

Five classes of falsification:
1. Legislative documents (Art. 170)
2. Document by a public officer, employee or notary public (Art. 171)
3. Public, official or commercial document by a private individual (Art 172(1))
4. Private document by any person (Art. 172(2))
5. Wireless, telegraph and telephone messages (Art. 173)

document
Written instrument showing the establishment of a right or the extinguishment of obligation
creates rights or extinguishes obligations
establishes status
tends to prove a fact in issue
in words/figures
has to be on paper
has to have legal efficacy

Art. 170. Falsification of legislative documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period and a fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without proper authority
therefor alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of the
Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.

Elements:
1. There be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House
of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.
municipal council includes city council or municipal board
2. Offender alters the same
3. He has no proper authority
4. Alteration has changed the meaning of the document

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of
prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary
who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact
made by them;
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;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no
such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original;
or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses
enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that
its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article
in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any
private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of
another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next
preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in
degree.

Falsification of documents
Acts of falsification (Arts. 171-172)
1. Imitate or counterfeit handwriting, signature or rubric
There must be an effort to imitate signature
Forged signature must bear resemblance to the genuine signature
2. Make it appear that a person has participated in an act or proceeding
Intent to imitate not required

People v. Isla
Facts: Isla issued a check payable to Go Leco & Co making it appear that one Abdon Yacon Paradero
was a party to said check while in fact he was not, by forging, simulating and imitating the signature of
said Paradero.

Held: Falsification of a mercantile document, even though there was no attempt to imitate or simulate the
signature of the person whose name was illegally used is punishable. The execution and the delivery of
the check was a false representation. Following this doctrine, Isla is found guilty of the crime of estafa by
means of falsification of a private commercial document.

3. Attribute to persons statements they did not make in an act or proceeding
4. Make false statements in a narration of facts
There must be an obligation to tell the truth

People v. Quasha
Facts: William H. Quasha, charged with falsification of a public and commercial document in that, having
been entrusted with the preparation and registration of the articles of incorporation of the Pacific Airways
Corporation, a domestic corporation organized for the purpose of engaging in business as a common
carrier, he caused it to appear in said articles of incorporation that one Arsenio Baylon, a Filipino citizen,
had subscribed to and was the owner of 60.005 per cent of the subscribed capital stock of the corporation
when in reality, as the accused well knew, such was not the case.

Held: The perversion of truth in the narration of fact must be made with the wrongful intent of injuring a
third person and even if such wrongful intent is proven, still the untruthful statement will not constitute the
crime of falsification if there is no legal obligation on the part of the narrator to disclose the truth.

5. Alter true dates
Date must materially affect the document and its effects
6. Make alteration or intercalation in a genuine document that changes its meaning
7. Issue certified copy of non-existent document or whose contents differ from original
8. Intercalate instrument or note of its issuance in protocol, registry, or official book
Insert a document in a book

Under Art. 171
Committed by public officer, notary or ecclesiastical minister who takes advantage of official
position
o Ecclesiastical minister liable only if he commits acts of falsification with respect to any
document or record that may affect the civil status of persons

Under Art. 172
Private person public, official or commercial document
Any person private document with damage

Art. 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages, and use of said falsified
messages. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon officer
or employee of the Government or of any private corporation or concern engaged in the service of sending or
receiving wireless, cable or telephone message who utters a fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message of
any system or falsifies the same.
Any person who shall use such falsified dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or with the intent of cause
such prejudice, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree.


RA 8792: E-Commerce Act
Section 5. Definition of Terms
(c) "Information and Communications System - system for processing electronic documents and includes the
computer system or other similar device by or in which data is recorded or stored and any procedures related to the
recording or storage of electronic document.
(e) "Electronic document" - information or its representation, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by
which a fact may be prove and affirmed, which is receive, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced electronically.
(f) "Electronic key" - secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crossover public channels into
a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key.
Section 6. Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Messages. Information shall not be denied validity or
enforceability solely on the ground that it is in the form of electronic data message purporting to give rise to such legal
effect, or that it is merely incorporated by reference in that electronic data message.

Section 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic documents. Electronic documents shall have the legal effect, validity
or enforceability as any other document or legal writing, and
(a) Where the law requires a document to be in writing, that requirement is met by an electronic document if
the said electronic document maintains its integrity and reliability and can be authenticated so as to be usable for
subsequent reference, in that
i. The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any
endorsement and any authorized change, or any change which arises in the normal course of communication,
storage and display; and
ii. The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was generated and in the light of
all relevant circumstances.
(b) Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement therein is in the from of an obligation or whether the law
simply provides consequences for the document not being presented or retained in its original from.
(c) Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its original form, that requirement is
met by an electronic document if-
i. There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time when it was first
generated in its final from; and
ii. That document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented: Provided, That
no provision of this Act shall apply to vary any and all requirements of existing laws on formalities required in the
execution of documents for their validity.
For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent of a written document
under existing laws.
This Act does not modify any statutory any statutory rule relating to admissibility of electronic data massages
or electronic documents, except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence.

Section 8. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures.- An electronic signature on the electronic document shall
be equivalent to the signature of a person on a written document if the signature is an electronic signature and proved
by showing that a prescribed procedure, not alterable by the parties interested in the electronic document, existed
under which-
(a) A method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and to indicate said party's access to the
electronic document necessary for his consent or approval through the electronic signature;
(b) Said method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic document was generated
or communicated, in the light of all circumstances, including any relevant agreement;
(c) It is necessary for the party sought to be bound, in or order to proceed further with the transaction to
have executed or provided the electronic signature; and
(d) The other party is authorized and enable to verify the electronic signature and to make the decision to
proceed with the transaction authenticated by the same.

Section Five. Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or services and the like

Art. 174. False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or service, etc. The penalties of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000
pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any physician or surgeon who, in connection, with the practice of his profession, shall issue a false
certificate; and
2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any private person who shall falsify a certificate falling
within the classes mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.

Persons liable:
Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, issues a false
certificate
o Certificate must refer to the illness or injury of a person
o The crime here is false medical certificate by a physician.
Public Officer who issues a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or similar
circumstances
o The crime here is false certificate of merit or service by a public officer.
Private person who falsifies a certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the two preceding
subdivisions.

Art. 175. Using false certificates. The penalty of arresto menor shall be imposed upon any one who
shall knowingly use any of the false certificates mentioned in the next preceding article.

Elements:
1. Offender gets
a. Physician or surgeon, in connection with the practice of his profession, to issue a false
certificate
b. Public officer to issue a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances
c. Private person to falsify a certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the two
preceding subdivisions.
2. Offender knows that the certificate was false
3. He uses the same

Section Six. Manufacturing, importing and possession of instruments or implements intended
for the commission of falsification

Art. 176. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification. The penalty
of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon any person who shall make or introduce into the Philippine Islands any stamps, dies, marks, or other
instruments or implements intended to be used in the commission of the offenses of counterfeiting or falsification
mentioned in the preceding sections of this Chapter.
Any person who, with the intention of using them, shall have in his possession any of the instruments or
implements mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided
therein.

Acts punishable under Art 176:
Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification;
Possession with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification
made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person.

Notes:
Possession contemplated is constructive possession. Implements confiscated need not form a
complete set.
No such thing as estafa by means of falsification of documents.

Chapter Two: Other Falsifications

Section One. Usurpation of authority, rank, title, and improper use of names, uniforms
and insignia

Art. 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. Any person who shall knowingly and falsely
represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government
or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any
person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof,
without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods.

Art. 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true name. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
to exceed 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of
concealing a crime, evading the execution of a judgment or causing damage.
Any person who conceals his true name and other personal circumstances shall be punished by arresto
menor or a fine not to exceed 200 pesos.

Art. 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia. The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any
person who shall publicly and improperly make use of insignia, uniforms or dress pertaining to an office not held by
such person or to a class of persons of which he is not a member.

Other falsifications
Usurpation of authority or office (Art. 177)
o Falsely represent to be an official of the Philippines or foreign government
o Perform act pertaining to public office under pretense of authority

People v. Hilvano
Facts: Hilvano, Councilor, was designated by Mayor to discharge his duties while he was away. Later,
Vice Mayor Juan Latorre found Hilvano in the place of the mayor, he served written notices to the
corresponding municipal officers including Hilvano that he, (Juan Lattore) as vice mayor, was assuming
the duties of the absent mayor. However, Hilvano refused to yield, arguing that he had been designated
by the mayor.

Held: In the beginning, he might have pleaded good faith, invoking the designation by the Mayor; but after
he had been shown the letter of the Executive Secretary and the opinion of the provincial fiscal, he had
no right thereafter stubbornly to stick to the position.

Using fictitious name (Art. 178)
o Public use, to conceal crime, evade sentence or cause public damage
o Conceal identity for any other purpose
Illegal use of uniforms or insignias (Art. 179)
o Public use
o Improper use
o Uniform or insignia of an actual office or class
o To which offender does not belong

Section Two. False testimony

What is a false testimony?
Committed by a person who, being under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a certain
matter at a hearing before competent authority, shall deny the truth or say something contrary to
it.
False testimonies in the RPC are classified according to proceeding.

Art. 180. False testimony against a defendant. Any person who shall give false testimony against the
defendant in any criminal case shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the defendant in said case shall have been sentenced to death;
2. The penalty of prision mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to reclusion temporal or
reclusion perpetua;
3. The penalty of prision correccional, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to any other afflictive
penalty; and
4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a correctional penalty or a
fine, or shall have been acquitted.
In cases provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of this article the offender shall further suffer a fine not to exceed
1,000 pesos.

Art. 181. False testimony favorable to the defendants. Any person who shall give false testimony in
favor of the defendant in a criminal case, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the prosecution is for a felony punishable by
an afflictive penalty, and the penalty of arresto mayor in any other case.

False testimonies in criminal cases (Arts. 180-181)
If the testimony is against the accused, the penalty is based on sentenced imposed or acquittal
If the testimony is in favor of the accused, the penalty is based on the imposable penalty
Penalty is lighter for favorable testimony

Rationale behind the DIFFERENCE IN PENALTIES:
Giving a false testimony against the accused is motivated by more evil
o Why would you want to send an innocent person in jail?
Whereas giving a false testimony in favor of the accused is motivated by compassion (e.g. family)

Rationale behind the DIFFERENCE IN BASIS for penalties:
The penalty imposed is commensurate to the should-be penalty for the accused.

Art. 182. False testimony in civil cases. Any person found guilty of false testimony in a civil case shall
suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 6,000 pesos, if the amount in
controversy shall exceed 5,000 pesos, and the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy shall not exceed said
amount or cannot be estimated.

False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182)
Penalty is based on the amount in controversy
Only applies to special proceedings
Art. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. The penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person, who
knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall
testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer
an oath in cases in which the law so requires.
Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any of the falsehoods
mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided
therein.

Two ways of committing perjury:
1. Falsely testifying under oath
2. Making false affidavit

Elements:
1. Offender makes a statement under oath or executes an affidavit upon a material matter;
2. The statement or affidavit is made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oaths;
3. Offender makes a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in the statement or affidavit;
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law, that is, it is made for a
legal purpose.

What is an oath?
Any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act
faithfully and truthfully.

Art. 184. Offering false testimony in evidence. Any person who shall knowingly offer in evidence a
false witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding, shall be punished as guilty of false testimony and shall
suffer the respective penalties provided in this section.

Notes:
offer is formal procedure of submitting evidence to the court for consideration
Hence, it can only be committed by a lawyer.
Offender must know of its falsity but must not have procured the false witness.

Chapter Three: Frauds

Section One. Machinations, monopolies and combinations

Art. 185. Machinations in public auctions. Any person who shall solicit any gift or promise as a
consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction, and any person who shall attempt to cause bidders
to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice, with intent to cause the reduction of the
price of the thing auctioned, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine ranging
from 10 to 50 per centum of the value of the thing auctioned.

Acts punishable:
Solicit gift or promise to refrain from taking part in bidding
Attempt to cause bidders to stay away by threats, gifts, promises, with intent to reduce price

Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free
competition in the market;
2. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or shall combine with
any other person or persons to monopolize and merchandise or object in order to alter the price thereof by spreading
false rumors or making use of any other article to restrain free competition in the market;
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or processor of any merchandise or object of
commerce or an importer of any merchandise or object of commerce from any foreign country, either as principal or
agent, wholesaler or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any manner with any person likewise engaged in the
manufacture, production, processing, assembling or importation of such merchandise or object of commerce or with
any other persons not so similarly engaged for the purpose of making transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or
of increasing the market price in any part of the Philippines, of any such merchandise or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed, assembled in or imported into the Philippines, or of any article in the
manufacture of which such manufactured, produced, or imported merchandise or object of commerce is used.
If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food substance, motor fuel or lubricants, or other articles of prime
necessity, the penalty shall be that of prision mayor in its maximum and medium periods it being sufficient for the
imposition thereof that the initial steps have been taken toward carrying out the purposes of the combination.
Any property possessed under any contract or by any combination mentioned in the preceding paragraphs,
and being the subject thereof, shall be forfeited to the Government of the Philippines.
Whenever any of the offenses described above is committed by a corporation or association, the president
and each one of its agents or representatives in the Philippines in case of a foreign corporation or association, who
shall have knowingly permitted or failed to prevent the commission of such offense, shall be held liable as principals
thereof.

Acts punishable:
Agreement or conspiracy in restraint of trade, or to prevent free competition by artificial means
Monopolize merchandise, alone or in combination with others to alter price by spreading false
rumors or other means to restrain free competition
Transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce (e.g. hoarding, price fixing)

Note: Higher penalty imposed if goods are food, fuel or other essential goods.

Section Two. Frauds in commerce and industry

Art. 187. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver,
or other precious metals or their alloys. The penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed on any person who shall knowingly import or sell or dispose of any article or
merchandise made of gold, silver, or other precious metals, or their alloys, with stamps, brands, or marks which fail to
indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys.
Any stamp, brand, label, or mark shall be deemed to fail to indicate the actual fineness of the article on
which it is engraved, printed, stamped, labeled or attached, when the rest of the article shows that the quality or
fineness thereof is less by more than one-half karat, if made of gold, and less by more than four one-thousandth, if
made of silver, than what is shown by said stamp, brand, label or mark. But in case of watch cases and flatware
made of gold, the actual fineness of such gold shall not be less by more than three one-thousandth than the fineness
indicated by said stamp, brand, label, or mark.

Acts punishable:
Knowingly import or sell goods made of precious metals with marks of false fineness or quality
o Less by more than 0.5 karat for gold
o Less by more than 0.004 karat for silver
o Less by more than 0.003 karat for gold watches and flatware

IMPORTANT NOTE: Arts. 188-189 have been repealed by RA 8293 (Intellectual Property Code).

RA 8293: Intellectual Property Code
1. Infringement of trademark or patent
2. Unfair competition
3. False designation of origin

Title 5: Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs
IMPORTANT NOTE: The entire title has been repealed by RA 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

Prohibited substances:
Dangerous drugs
Controlled precursors and essential chemicals
Equipment, instruments, apparatus and other paraphernalia

Punishable acts:
Pushing (Sec. 5)
o Selling, trading, administering, dispensing, delivering, giving away, distributing,
transporting
o Maximum penalty if:
! Within 100 meters of a school
! Use minors or incapacitated persons as runners
! Victim is a minor or incapacitated person
! Drugs are the proximate cause of death
Maintaining a den (Sec. 6)
Manufacturing (Sec. 8)
Possession (Sec. 11)
o Actual or constructive
o With intent
o Absorbed in pushing, except if different drugs
Use (Sec. 15)
o Punishes past possession
o Positive drug test
o NOTE: This poses an issue. If you are caught and you test positive for drug use, then you
could be charged under sec. 15 of RA 9165.
Cultivation of plants (Sec. 16)
Unlawful or unnecessary prescription (Sec. 18-19)
o Not all physicians can prescribe certain drugs. If the person is authorized but gives
morphine for example to a person who does not need it, could be charged with
unnecessary prescription.

What is the difference between possession and selling?
The possession beyond a certain amount would be considered pushing.
If a pusher hands over shabu to the officer, and during the investigation more drugs were found in
his bag. He would be charged with selling and possession for the other drugs found in his bag

Persons liable:
Principal offender/s
syndicate 2 or more persons
Financier
Coddler

Special features of RA 9165
No plea bargaining (Sec. 23)
No probation (Sec. 24)
Qualifying aggravating circumstance of use of dangerous drugs (Sec. 25)
Same penalty for attempt or conspiracy to import, sell or manufacture (Sec. 26)
Liability for public officers who misappropriate seized drugs (Sec. 27), plant evidence (Sec. 29)
o Maximum penalty + perpetual absolute disqualification (Sec. 28)
Maximum penalty if committed at a party
o Social gathering or in the proximate company of at least 2 persons
People v. Salamat
Facts: Though Salamat was convicted by the trial court for the unlawful sale of shabu, he was acquitted
for the charge of illegal possession. According to the court, he is expected to be in possession of shabu at
all times, so why convict him for another act that is inherent in sale?

Held: He should have been convicted for both acts. As early as U.S. v. Look Chaw, illegal possession and
illegal sale have been treated as two separate crimes. Possession will be treated as a necessary means
to the sale only if all the paraphernalia is the subject of that one transaction.

People v. Hindoy
Facts: After receiving an anonymous tip, a policeman poseur-buyer went to Bella and Enriques house.
When the policeman asked if there was new stuff, Enrique said yes, and Bella brought a brick of
marijuana. The poseur revealed that he was actually an officer, and announced that they were going to
conduct a search. A bag with 12 more bricks of marijuana was found under a table.

Held: Guilty. The search was valid because the accused were arrested in the act of committing the crime
- an exception to the Bill of Rights. Possession of drugs is only absorbed in sale when the seller does not
have another quantity of drugs not included in the transaction.

People v. Adam
Facts: In the buy-bust operation in this case, Adam came at the appointed time with a plastic bag
containing a white crystalline substance. The poseur showed an envelope with the marked money and
identified himself as a police officer, arresting Adam. He was found guilty of illegal sale.

Held: Guilty of attempted sale. The transaction never actually took place because Adam only showed the
drugs to the poseur-buyer. There was no exchange of goods, but Adam did show through overt acts that
he intended to sell the shabu. It was also never proven that he knew that the envelope had money to
pay for the drug.

Buenaventura v. People
Facts: After a tip from an informant and surveillance, a buy-bust operation was conducted in which the
informant introduced Police Inspector Palisoc as the buyer. After inviting them in, Buenaventura asked for
payment, and received the marked money before taking out a brick of marijuana from a bag. Palisoc got
the brick and after he was convinced that it was indeed marijuana, he gave the signal, introduced himself
as a police officer and arrested Buenaventura. Other officers searched the premises and recovered the
bag.

Held: Guilty. The essential elements of illegal sale - identity of buyer, seller, object of sale and
consideration; and delivery and payment - were established by Palisocs testimony. Illegal possession
was also established (in possession of the drugs, fully and consciously aware of being in possession of
the drugs, no legal authority). Buenaventura cannot seek refuge in the defense of frame-up, without
convincing evidence to prove it.

Title 6: Crimes Against Public Morals

Chapter One: Gambling and Betting
IMPORTANT NOTE: This entire chapter has been repealed by PD 1602.

PD 1602: Increasing Penalties on Illegal Gambling
Gambling acts punished (Sec. 1):
o cockfighting, jueteng, jai alai or horse racing to include bookie operations and game
fixing, numbers, bingo and other forms of lotteries
o cara y cruz, pompiang and the like
o 7-11 and any game using dice
o black jack, lucky nine, poker and its derivatives, monte, baccarat, cuajao, pangguingue
and other card games
o paik que, high and low, mahjong, domino and other games using plastic tiles and the
likes
o slot machines, roulette, pinball and other mechanical contraptions and devices
o dog racing, boat racing, car racing and other forms of races, basketball, boxing,
volleyball, bowling, pingpong and other forms of individual or team contests to include
game fixing, point shaving and other machinations
o banking or percentage game, or any other game scheme, whether upon chance or skill,
wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative of value are at
stake or made
increased penalties
o from AM + < P200 fine, it became PC med or P1,000 to P6,000 fine
o in case of recidivism: from AM + P200-P6,000 fine, it became PM med or P5,000-
P10,000 fine
added an option of just paying a fine instead of imprisonment

Gambling
any game or scheme of CHANCE OR SKILL wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of
value, or representatives of value are at stake or made.
prohibited and punished to repress an evil that undermines the social, moral and economic
growth of the nation
has the effect of causing poverty, dishonesty, fraud and deceit
Special laws on gambling
o PD 449 (cockfighting)
o PD 483 (Game-fixing)
o PD 510 (slot machines)
There are certain occasions where cockfighting would be allowed (e.g. fiestas)
o Legalized gambling
! Lotto
! Casinos
! cockfighting
! horseracing
! bingo
Purpose of the law
o Social values
! encourage industry
! discourage fatalism, indolence
! prevent an activity that attracts those who can least afford it
Game shows and text promos
o Sir Jim: Texting for 15 pesos in order to win a greater prize is considered a disguised
form of gambling. Thats why in these kinds of promos, you get a ring tone when you text.

Chapter Two: Offenses Against Decency and Good Customs

Art. 200. Grave scandal. The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any
person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling
within any other article of this code.

Elements:
1. That the offender performs an act or acts
2. That such act or acts be HIGHLY SCANDALOUS as offending against decency or good customs
3. That the highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling within any other article of this Code
4. That the act or acts complained of be committed in a public place or within the public knowledge
or view
Definition of terms
Decency
o propriety of conduct
o proper observance of the requirements of modesty, good taste etc.
Customs
o means established usage, social conventions carried on by tradition and enforced by
social disapproval of any violation of it
Grave scandal
o acts which are offensive to decency and good customs, which having been committed
publicly, have given rise to public scandal to persons who have accidentally witnessed
the same

Nature of the acts
1. The nature must be those that can cause public scandal among the persons witnessing them.
By their publicity and character, these acts cause public scandal among those who witness
them
2. The act must be performed in a public place or within the public knowledge or view.
If acts are not committed in public places or within the public knowledge or view not
violative of this law.
This characteristic of the act is not explicitly stated in the provision but as a condition
precedent for the existence of this crime, the offense against decency and good custom must
have been made public
If the act was committed at night, in a private house, and only one other person was present
at the time the act was committed then the requirement of publicity is not present. Degree of
publicity is not sufficient.

Examples (from Sir Jim):
Streaking
Flashing
Janet Jacksons Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction
Oblation run
Voyeurism

Acts NOT punished under this article:
Acts of lasciviousness (art. 336 and 339)
o Even if committed publicly, the offender should not be prosecuted and punished under
this article because acts of lasciviousness is done upon another person.
Obscenity
Sedition
Other mischiefs under Art. 329

Art. 201 Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows. The
penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment
and fine, shall be imposed upon:
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
2. (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing
such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays,
scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1)
glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or
pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are
contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
3. Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are
offensive to morals.

#1: Publicly expound doctrines contrary to public morals
The word moral implies conformity with the generally accepted standards of goodness or
rightness in conduct or character, sometimes specifically, to sexual conduct.

#2a: Authors, publishers, sellers of obscene literature
The author is liable only when it is published with his knowledge. In any case, the editor
publishing it is liable.
obscene something offensive to chastity, decency or delicacy

Standard of obscenity
Appeal to prurient interest
Tendency to corrupt or deprave those open to immoral influences
Material taken as a whole
No redeeming social value
o Mere nudity in pictures or paintings not an obscenity. Motive of the picture is the basis of
whether it is pure or impure; or whether it is naturally calculated to excite impure
imaginations

US v. Kottinger
Facts: The photos depict non-Christian tribes with their breasts exposed. The author was charged
because these photos were allegedly obscene.

Held: There was nothing obscene with these photos, since these people were just depicted in their
everyday lives.

o Mere possession of obscene materials is not punishable if without intention to sell, exhibit
or give them away. The law does not require that a person be caught in the act of selling,
giving away or exhibiting obscene materials to be liable for as long as the said materials
are offered for sale, displayed or exhibited to the public.

Fernando v. CA
Facts: Judge issued a Search Warrant ordering the search of Fernando Music Fair and the seizure of the
following items New Rave Magazines, IOU Penthouse Magazines, Hustler International Magazines with
nude obscene pictures and VHS tapes containing pornographic shows.

Held: Mere possession is not punishable, but if the materials are offered for sale, displayed or exhibited to
the public, then the person is liable. The person need not to be caught in the act of selling.

#2b: Exhibitors of indecent plays, films or shows which glorify crime, satisfy violence or lust,
offend race or religion, etc.

#3: Selling, giving away, exhibition of films, etc. offensive to morals
Give away should be read as distribute and not merely the isolated, casual or occasional act of
giving such kind of literature to a single recipient.
Pictures with slight degree of obscenity, not used for arts sake but for commercial purposes, fall
under this article.
Purpose of the law in punishing obscene publications and exhibitions: to protect the morals of the
public
Additional penalties:
o If the offender is a government official or employee who allows the violations of Sec. 1,
the penalty shall be in its maximum period and in addition the accessory penalties
provided for in the RPC shall likewise be imposed
Limited by the constitutional freedom of expression
o Balancing of interests test public interest v. freedom of expression

Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.
Facts: Establishment with totally nude dancers. Indiana law required them to wear pasties and a G-
string.

Held: Nude dancing is a form of expressive activity. But the public indecency statute is justified despite
the incidental limitations on such expressive activity. The statute furthers a substantial government
interest in protecting order and morality. The proscription on public nudity is unrelated to the erotic
message the dancers seek to convey.

Pita v. CA
Facts: Anti-smut campaign implemented in Manila, Policemen seized publication and other reading
materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent. Among those seized was Pinoy Playboy
published and co-edited by Pita.

Held: Clear and present danger must be proved by objective and convincing proof. This is essential in
prior restraint.

Art. 202 Vagrancy and prostitutes Penalty. The following are vagrants:
1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to work and who
neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling;
2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places, or tramping or wandering about
the country or the streets without visible means of support.
3. Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill-fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually
associate with prostitutes;
4. Any person who not being included in the provisions of other articles of this code, shall be found loitering
in any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without any lawful or justifiable purpose;
5. Prostitutes.
For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes.
Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this article shall be punished by arresto menor or
a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.

vagrant
idle persons
able but without work
loitering in public places

prostitutes
woman who habitually engages in sex for money or profit

Broken windows theory (Papichristou case)
borrowed from social science
If the government doesnt fix broken windows, then it would allow the citizens to commit graver
acts. Citizens would think that the government doesnt care so citizens would start to break other
windows.
Vagrants and prostitutes related to this theory, before you know it they would have turned the
whole block that used to be a safe place to live in into an unsafe one. The theory then is an
instrument for social control.

Papichristou v. City of Jacksonville
Facts: There was a vagrancy ordinance which provided criminal penalties for common night
walkers,...persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object,
habitual loafers,...persons...frequenting...places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons
able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children.

Held: Failed to give fair notice. Also, it encourages arbitrary and unequal enforcement. It made criminal
actions that were normally innocent (like those who walk in the night for legitimate reasons). This statute
was incompatible with the constitutional notion of probable cause and the Fourth Amendment because it
allowed persons to be arrested solely because they appeared as if they might commit a crime in the
future.

Notes:
Article 202 not applicable to minors
o inconsistent with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child
o But, said persons shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment program.
Part. 1 and 2 require absence of visible means of support
Loitering around saloons and gambling houses is vagrancy only when there is evidence of
absence of visible means of support.
Vagrants under par. 3 must be either:
o An idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill-fame;
! Dissolute means lax, unrestrained, immoral
o Ruffian or pimp; or
! Ruffians are brutal, violent, lawless persons
! Pimp is one who provides gratification for the lust of others
o One who habitually associates with prostitutes.
! Prostitutes habitually indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct for
money or profit.

RA 7610: Anti-Child Abuse, Exploitation, & Discrimination Act
Prohibited acts:
Children exploited in prostitution (Sec. 5)
o Punishes the pimp, procurer, customer
o Under 12 rape under RPC
o acts of lasciviousness RT med
Child trafficking trading & dealing, for money or other consideration
Sec. 7 RT- RP; if under 12, max. period
Sec. 8 Attempted trafficking - 2 lower
Child pornography Sec. 9
Other acts of abuse or exploitation
Other acts not covered by RPC
o Offer, deliver, or have a child under 12 or more than 10 years younger in a hotel
o Owner or manager of hotel
o Use or force street child to beg, sell drugs, other illegal acts
Increased penalties for felonies if victim is under 12 years old
o Murder, homicide, intentional mutilation, serious physical injuries RP

Notes:
There is more than just one penalty for serious physical injuries depending on the gravity of the
effect on the victim. The problem is that it blurs the proportionality of the wrong and the penalty.
Separate liability from RPC

Title 2: Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the Land
Criminal sanctions for the violation of certain provisions of the Bill of Rights
Punishes public officials
Four sections:
! Arbitrary detention and expulsion
! Violation of domicile
! Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings
! Crimes against religious worship
Public officers, generally:
! Any person who:
! takes part in the performance of public functions in the Government
! performs in the government or any o its branches public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank or class
! By:
! direct provision of law (e.g. The IBP president becomes part of the Judicial and Bar
Council.)
! popular election
! appointment by competent authority

Chapter One: Arbitrary Detention or Expulsion, Violation of Dwelling, Prohibition, Interruption, and
Dissolution of Peaceful Meeting and Crimes Against Religious Worship

Section One. Arbitrary detention and expulsion

Art. 124. Arbitrary detention. Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a
person, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the
detention has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the detention has continued
more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days but not more than
six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of
the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person.

Elements:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee
2. who detains a person
3. without legal grounds
Public officer or employee
Public officer must be vested with authority to detain, or to order the detention of a person
accused with a crime. But to be an offender under Art. 124, the instance of detention must be
without legal ground.
! Policemen and other agents of the law
! Judges
! Mayors
If the offender is a public officer without the authority to detain, the crime may be illegal detention,
since they are acting in their private capacity.
If private individuals conspire with public officers they are guilty of arbitrary detention.

Detention
Placing a person in confinement, or putting restraint on his person.
Not just free movement, if one is being kept in a place where he is under the surveillance of
guards anyway.

Without legal grounds
No legal ground if
! a person has not committed a crime
! there is no reasonable ground of suspecting that he has committed one
! when he is not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory
confinement in a hospital
Mere suspicion not covered; or to detain because one wants to know if a private individual has
committed a crime
Warrantless arrests
usual evidence of lack of legal grounds
Warrantless arrests could, however, be lawful if:
o The person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an
offense in the officers presence.
! In his presence when officer sees the offense being committed , although at a
distance, or hears the disturbance created thereby and proceeds at once to the
scene thereof, or when the offense is continuing or has not been consummated
at the time the arrest is made
o The offense has been committed and officer has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
! Probable cause facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that
the object sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be
searched.
! The standard didnt use to be probable cause based on personal knowledge,
but it has evolved from the reasonable ground to believe standard.
! Must be acting in good faith
o When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another
! arbitrary detention can be committed through simple imprudence (negligence)
# ex. when a justice of the peace directed the detention of two individuals
without investigation (willful negligence)
# rearresting an individual upon the verbal order of a justice of the peace,
without verifying the order before proceeding
! law does not fix any minimum period of detention; even a 30-minute detention
could be contemplated as such
The legality of the detention does not depend on the acts of the person to be arrested meeting
the elements of a felony squarely at the time of arrest. The arresting officer cannot be expected to
determine such without all the necessary data and jurisdiction, as courts may be able to do later.
The indubitable existence of a crime is not a requisite for ones fulfillment of his obligation to
make an arrest. Reasonable inferences could be made judging by the nature of ones deeds.

Penalties:
3 days or less : AM Max to PC Min
3-15 days: PC Med-Max
15 days-6 months: PM
More than 6 months: RT

People v. Burgos
Facts: Accused was convicted of Illegal Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion, but
claimed that he was tortured, threatened and intimidated into confessing, and that his arrest and the
search of his house were not lawful.

Held: Warrantless arrest was not lawful because the arresting officer merely relied on an informant and
did not have personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the crime committed. It must be known that the
crime has actually been committed first. The facts did not show that subversion was committed and could
be asserted because Burgos was just farming when arrested.

Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. The penalties
provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any
person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period
of; twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or
offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon
his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel.

Elements:
2. who has detained a person for some legal grounds
3. but he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within:
a. 12 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
b. 18 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their
equivalent;
c. 36 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive
penalties, or their equivalent

Note: Art. 125 is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person without informing him of
his offense and without permitting him to go on bail.

Detention for some legal ground
detention was legal in the beginning; warrantless arrest was valid
detention became illegal after a certain period of time, because the detainee was not brought to
the proper judicial authority
Art. 125 does not apply when the arrest was with a warrant in which case a person may be
detained indefinitely until:
! his case is decided by the court
! he posts bail for temporary release

Shall fail to deliver
not a physical delivery; but making an accusation or charge or filing of an information against the
person arrested with the corresponding court or judge, whereby the latter acquires jurisdiction to
issue an order of release or of commitment of the prisoner
Reason: an arresting officer cannot transfer to the judge physical custody of the person arrested,
and the judge naturally cannot assume it.
Failure to deliver by an officer in time does not affect the legality of confinement, when a warrant
was subsequently issued; Art. 125 cannot be the basis for the quashal of an action.
! But the subsequent filing of information does not cure an officers liability under Art. 125.

Proper judicial authorities
1. Courts of justice or judges of the said courts vested with judicial power to order the temporary
detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a public offense
2. Special cases: City fiscal of Manila, which was given by the Revised Charter of Manila the power
to grant bail.

Waiver of Art. 125
1. when an accused is detained without warrant and he asks for a preliminary investigation by a
proper officer, he must sign a waiver; provided that the investigation is terminated within 7 days
from its inception
2. when one posts bail, it is also an implied waiver of his right to challenge the validity of his arrest.
Sir says there are those who opt to stay in detention so they could contest the manner of of their
arrest.

Circumstances considered in determining officers liability:
means of communication available
hour of arrest
other circumstances (time of surrender, material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation
and file the necessary information in time)
If a fiscal does not file the information within the period prescribed by law, but the arresting officer
continues holding the prisoner beyond that period, the fiscal will not be liable unless he ordered or
induced the arresting officer not to release the prisoner.

Rights of the person detained:
1. to be informed of the cause of his detention
2. to be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or
counsel and to be visited by his immediate relatives

Penalties: AM for a public officer who prevents an attorney from conferring with a person arrested at any
hour of day, or in urgent cases, of the night, if it has been requested by the accused or any person acting
in his behalf

RA 9372: Human Security Act of 2007
Allows detention of up to:
o 3 days: for terrorism & conspiracy to commit terrorism
o More than 3 days: for Actual or imminent terrorist attack

Art. 126. Delaying release. The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive
order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to
said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.

Acts punishable:
delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner
unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner
unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person

Elements:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee.
2. There is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or that
there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person.
3. Such officer/employee without good reason delays:
a. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner; or
b. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner; or
c. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.

Delaying release
jailer refuses to release the accused notwithstanding the order of release by the judge who
dismissed the case
wardens and jailers are the public officers most likely to violate Art. 126
also includes delay of service of summons

Art. 127. Expulsion. The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or
employee who, not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any person from the Philippine Islands or shall
compel such person to change his residence.

Acts punishable:
expelling a person from the Philippines
compelling a person to change his residence

Elements:
a. who expels any person from the Philippines, or compels him to change his residence
b. without authority to do so by law
Example: Mayor Lims tactic of spray-painting on the walls of a suspects house, Suspected Drug-
pushers house to drive the occupant out of the city of Manila.

Not being thereunto authorized by law
Only the president has the power to deport aliens whose continued presence in the country is a
menace to the peace and safety of the community, as an act of the State.
Only the court by a final judgment can order a person to change his residence.
o ejectment
o expropriation
o penalty of destierro

Section Two. Violation of domicile

Art. 128. Violation of domicile. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling
against the will of the owner thereof, search papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of
such owner, or having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to
do so.
If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime
be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.

Acts punishable:
1. entering any dwelling AGAINST the owners will
2. searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of the owner
3. refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered the dwelling and after having
been required to leave

Common elements:
2. who is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search therein for
papers/other effects.

Public officer or employee! not authorized by judicial order
if the offender is a private individual, the crime is trespass to dwelling (Art. 280)
! does not cover an instance where one refuses to leave; could be unjust vexation under
Art. 287
judicial order--search warrant duly issued by the court
if there is such a warrant, an arresting officer may break into a private house
if he doesnt have such warrant, but he knows that a crime is being committed within the house,
he still cannot lawfully enter the dwelling if it is against the will of the owner.

Against the will of the owner
owners opposition or prohibition; not mere lack of consent
can be express or implied

Search of papers, etc.
the court may consider the mere act of looking at what is in the sala of a house as outside the
meaning of search of papers or other effects
Art. 128 is not applicable when a public officer searched a person outside his dwelling, without a
search warrant, and such person is not legally arrested for an offense. (Reyes; What if he is later
arrested?)
! The crime would be grave coercion (Art. 286), if with violation or intimidation
! or unjust vexation (Art. 287), without violence or intimidation.

Having surreptitiously entered said dwelling
entrance is only without the owners consent
like when a public officer enters dressed as a pizza delivery guy
what constitutes the crime is the subsequent refusal of the offender to leave when required to,
and not so much the entrance

the offense is committed at nighttime
any papers/effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately after the
search made by the offender

US vs. De los Reyes & Esguerra
Facts: Esguerra was just visiting De los Reyes house when officers searched the latters house because
of Esguerras alleged possession of opium. De los Reyes refused the search because it was warrantless.

Held: Suspicion of possession of opium is no reason to enter the home of a person against his will for the
purpose of a search and without a warrant. Such persons refusal cannot also be interpreted immediately
as his complicity to an offense. The warrant is not given for the purpose of fishing evidence of an intended
crime; it can only issue after lawful evidence that an offense has been committed.

Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained.
In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or,
having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.
Acts punishable:
1. procuring a search warrant without just cause
2. exceeding ones authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally
procured

Elements:
2. who procures a search warrant
3. without just cause

Elements of exceeding authority or using unnecessary severity:
2. who has legally procured a search warrant
3. and exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same.
Search warrant
an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge or a
justice of the peace and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal
property and bring it before the court
may be issued for the search and seizure of the ff. personal property
! property subject of the offense
! property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense
! property used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense
shall not issue but
! upon probable cause
! in connection with one specific offense
! to be determined by the judge or justice of the peace
! after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce
! depositions must be taken in writing
! and attached to the record any affidavit presented to the judge
! particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized
only one specific offense must be alleged
valid for ten days
General warrants--not allowed. Warrants must be specific as to the offense being charged, place,
items, etc.
Exclusionary Rulefruits of illegal searches are inadmissible as evidence in court.

Search and seizure
cannot be made except in the presence of at least one competent witness, resident of the
neighborhood
a detailed receipt must be given to the person on whom or in whose possession certain items
were found
! in the absence of any person, a receipt must be left in the place where the item was
seized, in the presence of at least one witness
could be legal if warrantless search and seizure was an incident of a warrantless arrest
! other exceptions may be admitted, e.g. vessels for violation of custom laws, etc.
Probable cause
such reasons supported by facts and circumstances that will warrant a cautious man in the belief
that his action, and the means taken in prosecuting it, are legally just and proper.

Without just cause
when it appears on the face of the affidavits filed in support of the application therefor, or through
other evidence, that the applicant had every reason to believe that the search warrant sought for
was unjustified
! false cause is alleged in the application
! search warrant obtained to extort money
Test: whether the affidavit filed in support of the application has been drawn in such a manner
that the affiant could be charged with perjury and be held liable for damages.
! Perjury does not complex the crime committed; it is a separate charge
oath required is with respect to facts within an applicants personal knowledge and not of the facts
reported to him by a supposed reliable person

Exceeding authority/ unnecessary severity
public officer seized items having a remote or no connection with the subject items of the search,
even if he believed or suspected that they had some relation with it
contraband articles can be seized without a writ; flagrant violation of the law
destruction of furniture while executing the search
officers may enter the premises from all possible entryways if necessary to suppress any attempt
to escape or to secure the safety of those inside the premises; it is a homeowners problem if he
cannot afford to have witnesses look over the manner of search of every officer who enters his
home

Stonehill v. Diokno
Facts: A total of 42 search warrants against the petitioners were issued by judges, to search the persons
mentioned and their offices, and to seize and take possession of personal properties described only as
books of accounts, financial records, ledgers, journals, etc. as subjects of offenses described only as
violation of Central Bank laws, Tariffs and Customs Laws, etc.

Held: Such general warrants cannot be validly upheld. To constitute probable cause so a warrant could
issue, the elements of a specific offense must be alleged. Only items from the corporate offices were
admitted in evidence and not those procured from the petitioners residences, because the right against
illegal searches and seizures is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties or the corporate
officers in their individual capacity.

Burgos v. Chief of Staff
Facts: Jose Burgos, Jr., notable journalist and publisher-editor of We Forum was served two search
warrants pertaining to the same place but were used to search two different places. The belongings of his
co-petitioners which were not included in the search warrant were also seized. He alleged that real
property, comprised of the publications printing machinery, which couldnt be the subject of a seizure,
were also seized.

Held: The issuance of two warrants with the same address was obviously a typographical error, since the
proper subject address was alleged somewhere in the second document too. The belonging seized were
believed to be the property of Burgos, Jr. at the time of the search and seizures. The machinery can only
be considered real property if placed by the owner or his agent in a tenement, property or plant, but not
so when placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any other person having only a temporary right, like Burgos.

Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall
search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family,
or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.

Elements:
2. with a search warrant legally procured
3. searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person
4. without the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality
being present.

Shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings
papers or other belongings must be in the dwelling at the time the search is made
does not apply to vehicles or other means of transportation

Two witnesses
could be anyone, including public officers in the locality, like barangay tanods.
This article is a measure of security, to ensure that no evidence was planted. The idea of having
witnesses from the same locality is that it is assumed that they would be concerned for their
neighbors interests. After all, their houses could be the ones checked out later.
The media are not witnesses, as in those TV shows that arrange entrapment operations. But the
video they procure can be used to prove either the crime or the violation of proper search and
seizure.

Section Three. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings

Art. 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings. The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, without legal ground,
shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall hinder any person from
joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prohibit or hinder any
person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of
abuses or redress of grievances.

Acts punished:
prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting, or by
dissolving it
hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings
prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any
petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances
Note: The provisions in this section relate to a persons freedom of association.
Common elements:
2. who performs any of the acts above.

Public officer or employee
if a private individual commits the crime, it is disturbance of the public order (Art. 153).
the offender must be a stranger, not a participant in the meeting; could be unjust vexation (Art.
287)
public officer interrupting and dissolving the meeting of a legislative body (Art. 131)

Legal ground to prohibit, etc.
recognizes that the right to attend meetings or to peaceably assemble is not absolute
may be exercised in pursuance of the states police power
may be validly exercised if the meeting to be held is not peaceful
! meetings known to be of seditious nature
no legal ground if danger apprehended is not imminent, and the evil to be prevented is not
serious
a person talking about a prohibited subject at a public meeting, contrary to a previous agreement,
may be stopped

David v. Macapagal-Arroyo
Facts: PGMA issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 exercising her calling out powers toward the AFP
and PNP, and declaring a state of emergency in the country. Randy David and Ronald Llamas alleged
that they were arrested without warrants on their way to EDSA to celebrate the 20th Anniversary of
People Power I. The arresting officers cited PP 1017 as basis of the arrest.

Held: David, et. al. arrested while they were exercising their right to peaceful assembly; they were not
committing any crime, neither was there a showing of a clear and present danger that warranted the
limitation of that right. Tolerance is the rule and limitation is the exception. The wholesale cancellation of
all permits to rally is a blatant disregard of the principle that freedom is not to be limited, much less
denied, except on a showing of clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to
prevent.

Section Four. Crimes against religious worship

Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations
of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods.

Elements:
2. who prevents or disturbs
3. religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion, which are taking place or are about to.

Qualifying circumstance: commission with violence or threats

Religious ceremony
may be differentiated from meetings of religious organizations
or meetings preceded by Bible readings or prayers

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship
or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful.
Elements:
1. The acts complained of were performed
a. in a place devoted to religious worship; or
b. during the celebration of any religious ceremony
2. by anyone
3. and were notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

This is the only felony that can be committed by private persons under this title. The presumption from a
petitioners filing of a complaint is that he/she has already decided that the act complained of is offensive.
This makes the interpretation of this provision highly subjective, for the law leaves much to the testimony
of the offended party as to the effect of the act on him or his religion.

Place devoted to religious worship
Simultaneous occurrence of religious ceremony not necessary (devoted to, or)
Religious ceremonies--religious acts performed outside a church, such as processions and
special prayers for burying dead persons
Acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful
acts directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual
for the purpose of ridicule
! mocking or scoffing at or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration
! throwing a stone at a minister
! disparaging remarks
there must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithfuls; can be judged from a
complainants point of view

People v. Baes
Facts: Baes, the Catholic parish priest, charged members of the Church of Christ for offending religious
feelings by causing a funeral to pass through the church courtyard, over his objection, and with threats
from the said members.

Held: Whether or not the acts are offensive to Catholics is a question of fact which must be judged only
according to the feelings of Catholics. Art. 133 may be charged; coercion and trespass may also be
charged depending on fiscal.

Dissent: Criminal statutes must be strictly construed. Two elements must be present: (1) place of religious
worship or during celebration and (2) notorious acts. The incident happened in the patio, which was not
used for religious worship, and while no religious ceremony was being held. Notoriety of the acts must be
judged not only by the narrow standards of a particular sect, but with the full appreciation of the nature of
the acts committed and after the scrutiny of all the facts and circumstances which should be viewed
through the mirror of an unbiased judicial criterion.

Title 7: Crimes Committed by Public Officers

Chapter One: Preliminary Provisions

Art. 203 Who are public officers For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the preceding
articles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent
authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall
perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of
any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.

Public officers
embraces every public servant from the highest to the lowest; obliterates the distinction in the
law of public officers between officer and employee
Government laborer is not a public official. But temporary performance of public functions by
a laborer makes him a public officer.
Any person who:
o Takes part in the performance of public functions in the Government
o Performs in the government or any of its branches, public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official of any rank or class
By:
o Direct provision of law
o Popular election
o Appointment by competent authority

Laurel v. Desierto
Facts: Salvador Laurel was Chairman of the Philippine Centennial Commission. He was charged with
misappropriating the commissions funds. Laurels defense was that he was not a public officer because
he was not receiving salary for the post as chairman of the commission.

Held: Salary is not a requirement in being a public officer. That he was performing sovereign functions of
the government made him a public officer.

Macalino v. Sandiganbayan
Facts: Macalino was an employee of the Philippine National Construction Corporation, a private company
turned into a GOCC by the government for failure to pay its loans. Issue was WON Macalino could be
considered a public officer.

Held: No. Article 9 says that Ombudsman is responsible for complaints against public officials or
employees including GOCCs with original charter. Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC)
doesnt have one. Sandiganbayan doesnt have jurisdiction over Macalino. Court also made classification
of GOCCs: (1) GOCCs created by law (GSIS,SSS, MWSS) employees of these are public officers, (2)
GOCCs registered with SEC employees are not public officers. Macalino belonged to the 2
nd
type of
GOCC.

People v. Sandiganbayan (citing Quimpo v. Tanodbayan)
Based on RA 8249, PRESIDENTS, DIRECTORS, TRUSTEES, and MANAGERS of all
government-owned or controlled corporations regardless of type, are subject to the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan when they are involved in graft and corruption.
This ruling is often used to justify filing cases against the persons specified. However, it must be
emphasized that this ruling did not say that presidents, directors, trustees, and managers of all
GOCCs are public officers. Ruling only says that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over these
people if they are charged with GRAFT AND CORRUPTION.
The ruling in Macalino is still good law.

5 Groups of Felonies in Title VII
1. Malfeasance and misfeasance
a. Dereliction of duty
b. Bribery
2. Frauds and illegal exactions
3. Malversation
4. Infidelity
a. Custody of prisoners
b. Documents
c. Revelation of secrets
5. Others
80-95% of the cases of crimes committed by public officers involve:
1. Bribery
2. Malversation
3. Violation of RA 3019 Sec 3e
4. Violation of RA 3019 Sec 3g

Chapter Two: Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office

Definitions
Misfeasance improper performance of some act which might lawfully be done
Malfeasance performance of some act which ought not to be done
Nonfeasance omission of some act which ought to be performed

Section One. Dereliction of Duty

Committed by FELONY
Judges Art. 204 Knowingly render
unjust judgment
Unjust not in accordance with
law; favours one party

Rendering unjust judgment with
dolo (knowingly, with intent)

Very difficult to prove intent
Intent can usually be proven by a
state witness
Art. 205 Render manifestly
unjust judgment thru negligence
Rendering unjust judgment with
culpa (negligence)

Remedy to the difficulty in
proving intent in Art. 204.
Art. 206 Render unjust
interlocutory order
Counterpart of Art 204

Judgment final, ends the case;
decision on the merits

Interlocutory order does not
end the case
Art. 207 Malicious delay Safeguard against the three
preceding articles

Judge may not commit any of the
three above but commits what is
called upuan ang kaso

Simply not acting on the case
already favours one party. This
article prevents this. Justice
delayed is justice denied.
Police or Prosecutor Art. 208 Neglect to prosecute
offenses

Lawyer Art. 209 Betrayal of Trust

Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust
judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute
disqualification.
Elements:
1. Offender is a judge
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
3. Judgment is unjust
4. Judge knows that his judgment is unjust

Notes:
Judgment final consideration and determination of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the
matters submitted to it, in an action or proceeding
Unjust judgment is one which is contrary to law, or is not supported by the evidence, or both
An unjust judgment is rendered knowingly when it is made deliberately and maliciously. It is one
which is contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence, or both.
Sources of unjust judgment:
o Error in bad faith
o Ill-will or revenge
o Bribery
Knowingly consciously, intelligently, willfully or intentionally; sure knowledge, conscious and
deliberate intention to do an injustice
It is not the prosecutor who would pass judgment on the unjustness of the decision rendered by
a judge but the proper appellate court with jurisdiction to review such decision.
Art. 204 does not apply to members of a collegiate court.

Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. Any judge who, by reason of inexcusable negligence
or ignorance, shall render a manifestly unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision shall be punished
by arresto mayor and temporary special disqualification.

Elements:
2. He renders judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
3. Judgment is manifestly unjust
4. It is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance

Notes:
Manifestly unjust judgment so manifestly contrary to law, that even a person having a meager
knowledge of the law cannot doubt the injustice
Abuse of discretion does not necessarily mean that there is bad faith or ignorance of the law on
the part of the judge. Abuse of discretion also does not necessarily mean ulterior motive, arbitrary
conduct or willful disregard of rights.
Mere error of judgment cannot serve as basis for a charge of knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment, when there is no proof or allegation of bad faith, or ill motive or improper consideration.

Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order
or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted
by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the
penalty shall be suspension.

Elements:
2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. Knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree
b. Renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence
or ignorance

Notes:
This provision is the counterpart of Art. 206
Interlocutory order an order issued by the court between the commencement and the end of a
suit or action and which decides some point or matter, but which is not a final decision of the
matter in issue (Example: Order granting preliminary injunction, order denying motion to dismiss)
Interlocutory order vs. judgment: Judgment is final; decision on the merits; (example: Order
granting motion to dismiss)
Test in determining whether an order or judgment is interlocutory or final: Does it leave
something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case?
o Yes Interlocutory
o No Final

Art. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice.

Elements:
2. There is a proceeding in his court
3. He delays the administration of justice
4. The delay is malicious, that is, the delay is caused by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict
damage on either party in the case

Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon any public officers or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of
the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law,
or shall tolerate the commission of offenses.

Acts punishable:
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law
e.g. A fiscal who, knowing that the evidence against the accused is more than sufficient to
secure his conviction in court, drops the case
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses
e.g. The Chief of Police of a town instructed his policemen not to raid a gambling house for 2
days, as requested by a friend

Elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses:
1. Offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to
prosecute, offenses
2. There is dereliction of the duties of his office; that is, knowing the commission of the crime, he
does not cause the prosecution of the criminal or knowing that a crime is about to be committed,
he tolerates its commission
3. The offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law

Notes:
Negligence in this article means neglect of the duties of his office by maliciously failing to move
the prosecution and punishment of the delinquent.
Maliciously signifies deliberate intent
Crime committed by the law-violator must be proved first. If the guilt of the law-violator is not
proved, the person charged with dereliction of duty is not liable.

Offenders in Art. 208:
Public officer
o Extends to officers of the prosecution department, whose duty is to institute criminal
proceedings for felonies upon being informed of their perpetration
o Public officer must have a duty to prosecute or to move the prosecution of the violation of
the law. (e.g. chief of police, barrio lieutenant/captain)
Officer of the law
o Includes all those who, by reason of the position held by them, are duty-bound to cause
the prosecution and punishment of the offenders

Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. Revelation of secrets. In addition to the proper
administrative action, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial) who, by any malicious
breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the
secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial) who, having
undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from said client in a case, shall
undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client.

Acts punished as betrayal of trust by attorney:
1. Causing damage to his client, either (1) by any malicious breach of professional duty, (2) by
inexcusable negligence or ignorance
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity (damage not
necessary)
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first
client, after having undertaken the defense of said first client or after having received confidential
information from said client
Notes:
A lawyer is one of the pillars of the judiciary
Prejudicing client or revealing secrets thru malice or inexcusable negligence or ignorance is also
a violation of lawyers oath
Procurador judicial person who had some practical knowledge of law and procedure, but not a
lawyer, and was permitted to represent a party in a case before an inferior court
There is no solicitor or procurador judicial under the Rules of Court
Rule 138, Section 4 of the Rules of Court: In the court of a justice of the peace, a party may
conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend or with the aid of an attorney.
Sir Jim story: Atty. Jun Francisco in the case against Ombudsman Desierto Francisco
supposedly delivered the bribe to Ombudsman Desierto. Court ruled that his testimony was
inadmissible because it was a violation of lawyer-client confidentiality
Sir Jim believes that lawyers should not keep in confidence the clients criminal acts. When the
lawyer becomes part of the criminal act of the client, he is no longer just counsel but co-
conspirator in the crime. Implication of the decision: Criminals should get their lawyers to deliver
the bribe money.

Section Two. Bribery

Kinds of bribery:
1. Direct bribery (Art. 210)
2. Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
3. Qualified bribery (Art. 211-A)
4. Corruption of public officials (Art. 212)

Notes:
Direct, indirect and qualified bribery are committed by the bribed public officer. Corruption of
public officials is committed by the bribe-giver.
Bribery is usually not reported. It is a crime of consenting parties. It only gets out when one party
violates the agreement and speaks out.
While bribery, in the perception of the people, is prevalent, it actually has the lowest number of
incidences of the 4 major violations of Title 7.

Art. 210. Direct bribery. Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received
by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium
and maximum periods and a fine of not less than the value of the gift and not less than three times the value of the
gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if
said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium
period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing
something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of not less than three times the value of such gift.
In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of
special temporary disqualification.
The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators,
appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public duties.

Acts punishable:
Agreeing to perform, or performing, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present an act
constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties
Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official duty
Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which it is his official duty to do, in
consideration of gift or promise

Elements of direct bribery:
1. Offender is a public officer within the scope of Article 203
2. Offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another
3. Such offer or promise is accepted, or gift or present received by the public officer
a. With a view to committing some crime; or
b. In consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act
must be unjust; or
c. To refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do
4. The act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the
performance of his official duties

#1: Offender is a public officer within the scope of Art. 203
Public officer embraces every public servant from the highest to the lowest. The term obliterates
the standard distinction in the law of public officers between officer and employee.
Temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public officer for
the purpose of punishing bribery.
Persons who may be liable under this article is expanded
Generally, bribery is committed by public officers
Private persons may also commit bribery, by virtue of the last paragraph of Art. 210: arbitrators,
assessors, appraisal and claim commissioner, experts (psychiatrists in psychological incapacity
cases)

#2: Offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another
What is a BRIBE?
Money or gift
Offer or promise of money or a gift
Of value or capable of pecuniary estimation (undying love not bribe!)
Gift may be received personally by the public officer or through a third person.
In the first paragraph of Art. 210, the gift or present need not be actually received by the public
officer. An accepted offer or an accepted promise or gift is sufficient. In the 2
nd
paragraph, the
offer of gift or promise must be accepted. But what does acceptance mean? (See cases)
Bribery exists when the gift is
1. offered voluntarily by a private person
2. solicited by a public officer and the private person voluntarily delivers it to the public officer
3. solicited by a public officer as the consideration for his refraining from the performance of an
official duty, and the private person gives the gift for fear of the consequences which would result
if the officer performs his functions

Formilleza v. Sandiganbayan
Facts: Charge of bribery against Formilleza was on the basis of a photograph of them in the canteen.
Formilleza was photographed holding an envelope of money. Theory of prosecution: Formilleza had
accepted bribe money.

Held: Acquitted. Photo captures a split second event. Evidence must show not only physical acceptance.
The acceptance must be of a character that it can be shown that she took the money to be her own. She
was able to establish good faith: She received the envelope from under the table, thus she didnt know
what it was when it was handed to her. When she saw what it was, she immediately dropped it on the
table.

Huggland v. Judge Lantin
Facts: There were no traces of the powder of mark money in Judge Lantins hands. Traces of powder
were found in Judge Lantins drawer.

Held: There was acceptance. The fact that the money was in his drawer showed that he intended to keep
the money.

OCA v. Judge Bautista
Facts: Like in the case of Judge Lantin, there were no traces of the powder of mark money in his hands.
His wallet tested positive for the powder in mark money.

Held: There was acceptance. The fact that the money was in his wallet showed that he intended to keep
the money.

Sy v. Judge Fineza
Facts: Prosecution could not connect the money withdrawn from the police to the money seized from the
accused. The prosecutor must show that there was a chain starting from the withdrawal from the police to
the seizure of the money from the accused.

Held: Rules as far as bribery is concerned: Evidence must show unbroken chain continuous handling of
money from the source (withdrawn from bank / police) to person who received it. Other means to prove
bribery: Marked money / serial numbers, credible witness.

Evidentiary issues
Marked money
Previous acts of bribery
Testimony of bribe-giver, bagman or undercover agent
Unexplained wealth
#3: the three ways of accepting the offer or gift
Why does he accept the bribe?
1. Commit a crime
In relation to duties
Mere acceptance of offer/promise sufficient the moment public officer agrees to perform
the crime he is asked to commit, bribery is already consummated
If the crime is actually committed, offender will be imposed the penalty for the crime + the
penalty for bribery
2. Do an unjust act
Must receive gift mere offer/promise not enough
Must act mere agreement not enough
Not necessary that he completes the act
Penalty is higher if the unjust act is accomplished
Sir Jim example: Judge believes that plaintiff must win. Defendant approaches the judge,
offers money to rule in his favor. Judge declines because of the crime of rendering unjust
judgment. But judge approaches plaintiff and asks plaintiff to match the offer of the
defendant for him to render judgment in the plaintiffs favor.
3. Fail to perform a duty
Most difficult to catch/prove How do you catch non-action?
o More difficult to prove because of negative fact
o Easier to justify, especially for discretionary acts
Failure must not be a crime by omission
o In Sir Jims example above, the failure to render judgment in exchange for money is
a felony, and would not be punished under this article.
Sir Jim example: delay in approval of importations in Customs. Customs officers are paid
by operators of piers. Piers are paid for every day that the cargo stays in the pier.

Prevaricacion (Art. 208) v. Bribery
The third form of direct bribery is committed by refraining from doing something which pertains to
the official duty of the officer. Prevaricacion is committed in the same way.
But in bribery, the offender refrained from doing his official duty in consideration of a gift received
or promised. This element is not necessary in prevaricacion.
In bribery, the gift or present must be given to the public officer to corrupt him.
Direct Bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. It is a conduct clearly contrary to the accepted
rules of right and duty, justice, honesty, and good morals.

Bribe issues and defenses (What public officers usually allege):
Legitimate purpose
o Loan repayment Gen. Garcia case
o Reward for informant Marifosque vs People
o Family business, not in relation to case Uy vs Judge Osorio
o Court proceedings Maquiran vs. Grageda (bribe was trip to US, said that the trip was
for ocular inspection, court acquitted, given the benefit of the doubt)
At the end of the day, it becomes very difficult to convict unless there is a witness.

Art. 211. Indirect Bribery. The penalties of arresto mayor, suspension in its minimum and medium
periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason
of his office.

Elements:
2. He accepts gifts
3. Said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
a. Bribe-giver presently or potentially has transactions with defendant
b. Bribe is out of proportion to any legitimate purpose
by reason of office
Bribe giver not explicitly asking for anything, but is implied that there will be a favor to pay in the
future
Bribe giver presently or potentially has transactions with defendant
Bribe is out of proportion to any legitimate purpose (e.g. wine as birthday gift vs. car as gift)

Rationale for indirect bribery
Fallback position for direct bribery
o in case of insufficient evidence
o in case of failure to prove than direct bribery
Easier to prove
o need not prove consideration for bribe
o just that the person has transactions with office

Notes:
It is unlikely that someone would give anything without asking for anything in exchange
The gift given to the public officer in anticipation of future favor from the public officer.
The essential ingredient of indirect 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 so offered and consider the same as his property from then on.
There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery because it is committed by accepting gifts
offered to the public officer. If he does not accept the gifts, he does not commit the crime. If he
accepts the gifts, it is consummated.

Presidential Decree No. 46
Prohibits any gift on any occasion
Penalties:
o Imprisonment for 1-5 years
o Perpetual disqualification from public office
o Subject to administrative disciplinary action and suspension/removal, if found guilty
o Criminal penalty (imprisonment) distinct from administrative penalty (removal)
Rationale: Gifts make the public officer vulnerable. He will become indebted and will feel that he
needs to return the favor. Usually, the favor is in relation to his office.

Direct v. Indirect bribery
Direct Bribery Indirect Bribery
Public officer receives gift. Public officer receives gift.
There is an agreement between the public officer
and the giver of the gift or present.
No agreement exists
Offender agrees to perform or performs an act or
refrains from doing something, because of the gift
or promise.
It is not necessary that the officer should do any
particular act or even promise to do an act, as it is
enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by
reason of his office.

Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery. If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from
arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not
prosecuted.
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death.

Elements:
1. Law enforcement officer
2. Refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua and/or death
3. In consideration of an offer, promise or gift
Penalties:
Penalty for offense not prosecuted
Death penalty if offender asks or demands the gift or present

Summary of rules: Bribe depends on the PURPOSE.
Offer, promise, gift or present
o Direct Bribery
! To perform an act constituting a crime
! To refrain from doing duty
o Qualified bribery
Gift or Present
o Direct bribery
! To perform an act NOT constituting a crime
! Act performed
! Act not complexed
o Indirect bribery

Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except
those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or
promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles.

Elements:
1. Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer
2. Under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery

Notes:
Art. 212 punishes the person who made the offer or promise or gave the gift, even if the gift was
demanded by the public officer and the offer was not made voluntarily prior to said demand by the
public officer. Private person is not punished by bribery (which only applies to public officers).
Corruption of public officers is consummated by acceptance of the public officer. There must be a
meeting of the minds. If not accepted, attempted corruption.
It is hard to prove bribery, for the briber himself is punished by law and he is usually the only one
who could give direct evidence. In view of this, ways and means are resorted to, to catch the
public officer while he is in act of obtaining bribes. This is known as entrapment.

Presidential Decree No. 749
grants immunity from prosecution to any person who gives information about any violation of
Articles 210, 211, and 212 and who willingly testifies against public official or employee for such
violation.
The immunity even extends to givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery
and other graft cases against public officers, provided that these conditions concur:
o The information must refer to consummated violations
o Information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the accused public officer
o Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State
o Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points
o The informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude
The immunity granted shall not attach should it turn out subsequently that the information and/or
testimony is false and malicious or made only for the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any
way prejudicing the public officer denounced.

Chapter Three: Frauds and Illegal Exactions and Transactions

Frauds against public treasury (Art. 213)
Defraud government in making contracts, furnishing supplies, settling accounts
In collecting taxes, licenses, or fees:
o Demand unauthorized sums
o Voluntarily fail to issue receipt
o Collect or receive unauthorized payment in kind
Other frauds (Art. 214)
Estafa by taking advantage of official position
o Additional penalty of disqualification
Prohibited transactions (Art. 215)
Appointive public officer
During incumbency
Direct or indirect interest in any transaction of exchange or speculation
Within territory of his jurisdiction
Prohibited interest (Art. 216)
Any public officer
o Applies to private experts, arbitrators, and accountants re appraisal or adjudication of
property, and to guardians re property of their ward.
Direct or indirect interest in any contract or business
In which it is his official business to intervene

Art. 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. The penalty of prision correccional
in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of
contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds, shall enter into an
agreement with any interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the Government;
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts, shall be guilty of any of the
following acts or omissions:
a. Demanding directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by
law
b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially
c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the
provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied.

Acts punishable:
1. Entering into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or making use if any other
scheme, to defraud the Government, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing
supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public
property or funds
2. Demanding directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those
authorized by law, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts
3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him
officially, in the collection of taxes, licensed, fees and other imposts
4. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of
a nature different from that provided by law, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other
imposts

Elements of frauds against public treasury (Art. 213 par. 1):
2. He should have taken advantage of his office, that is, he intervened in the transaction in his
official capacity
3. He entered into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or made use of any other
scheme with regard to (1) furnishing supplies, (2) the making of contracts, or (3) the adjustment
or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds
4. The accused had intent to defraud the Government

Notes:
The crime of frauds against public treasury is consummated by merely entering into an
agreement with any interested party or speculator or by merely making use of any other scheme
to defraud the Government.
It is not necessary that the Government is actually defrauded by reason of the transaction. It is
sufficient that the public officer who acted in his official capacity had the intent to defraud the
Government.

Elements of illegal exactions (Art. 213 par. 2):
1. The offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other
imposts
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
a. Demanding directly or indirectly the payment of sums different from or larger than those
authorized by law (demanding unauthorized sums)
b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected
by him officially (voluntarily fail to issue receipt)
c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or
objects of a nature different from that provided by law (collect or receive unauthorized
payment in kind)

Notes:
Mere demand for larger or different amount is sufficient to consummate the crime. It is not
necessary that the taxpayer actually pay the amount larger than or different from that fixed by
law.
When there is deceit in demanding greater fees than those prescribed by law, the crime
committed is estafa and not illegal exaction.

Art. 214. Other frauds In addition to the penalties prescribed in the provisions of Chapter Six, Title Ten,
Book Two of this Code, the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special
disqualification shall be imposed upon any public officer who, taking advantage of his official position, shall commit
ant of the frauds of deceits enumerated in said provisions.

Elements:
2. He takes advantage of his official position
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in Articles 315-318

Notes:
Articles 315-318 define and penalize (1) estafa, (2) other forms of swindling, (3) swindling a minor
and (4) other deceits
Cases falling under this article are cognizable by the regional trial court regardless of the amount
or penalty involved, because the municipal trial courts have no jurisdiction to impose the penalty
of disqualification which is a principal penalty in this article
Article is not a separate felony
It merely provides for additional penalty of disqualification for estafa by taking advantage of
official position

Art. 215. Prohibited transactions. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine
ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any appointive public officer who, during his
incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the
territory subject to his jurisdiction.

Elements:
1. The offender is an APPOINTIVE public officer.
2. He becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in any transaction of exchange or speculation
3. The transaction takes place within the territory subject to his jurisdiction
4. He becomes interested in the transaction during his incumbency

Notes:
Example: officer buys land beside in a location where he knows a highway will be constructed, he
knows that land value will go up
Transaction of exchange or speculation examples: buying and selling stocks, commodities,
land, etc. hoping to take advantage of an expected rise or fall in price
Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simply an investment and not a violation of this
article.
Examples of appointive public officers: (1) justices, judges or fiscals, (2) employees engaged in
the collection and administration of public funds

Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. The penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon a public officer who, directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business in
which it is his official duty to intervene.
This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators and private accountants who, in like manner, shall take
part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in appraisal, distribution, or adjudication of
which they shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards
or estate.

Persons liable:
Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became interested in any contract or business in which it
was his official duty to intervene
Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in like manner, took part in any contract or
transaction connected with the estate or property in the appraisal, distribution or adjudication of
which they had acted
Guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or the estate

Notes:
Actual fraud is not necessary; the act is punished because of the possibility that fraud may be
committed or that the officer may place his own interest above that of the government or party
which he represents.
Intervention must be by virtue of public office held. The official who intervenes in contracts or
transactions which have no connection with his office cannot commit the crime defined in Art.
216.

Chapter Four: Malversation of Public Funds or Property

Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property. Presumption of malversation. Any public officer
who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or
shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to
take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the
misappropriation or malversation does not exceed 200 pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than 200
pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the
amount involved is more than 6,000 pesos but is less than 12,000 pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more
than 12,000 pesos but is less than 22,000 pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification
and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is
chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing
funds or property to personal uses.

Acts punishable:
Appropriating public funds or property
Taking or misappropriating the same
Consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such
public funds or property
Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property

Common elements:
2. He had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office
3. Those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable
4. He appropriated, look, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them

Who are accountable public officers?
Treasurer
Custodians of warehouses
Only accountable public officers can be held liable for malversation.

Quinon v. People
Facts: Chief of particular precinct charged with malversation for failure to account for firearms issued for
the precinct. Defense: He was not custodian for those.
Held: Court said that as chief of the precinct, he was responsible for everything in the precinct. He doesnt
have to be the designated custodian. It suffices that his duties include responsibility over all the matters
there. Thus, he was accountable.

Rueda v. Sandiganbayan
Facts: He was charged with malversation for failure to account for a certain amount of money (advances
on the salary of some employees). Advances to salary are not allowed. His defense was that he should
not be held accountable because the money was taken when he has not yet assumed office.

Held: Court ruled in favour of accused. Even if he is the treasurer, he cannot be held responsible for
disallowed disbursements before his time / before he took the position.

Castillo v. Buencillo
Facts: Issue on custodia legis (in custody of the court). The parties agreed on the settlement of the case.
Money involved in the settlement was given to the custody of Castillo, the clerk of court but he was later
not able to account for the whole amount. Defense: he received it as part of the compromise agreement.
It was not legally in custody of court.

Held: Court acquitted him. Physical custody by a court officer does not make the property in custodia
legis. The compromise agreement was a private arrangement. The money never lost its private character.

Public funds/property
Sample cases:
o Centennial Commission Fund Centennial Commission raised money from private
sector. Defense was it was not public money. Court said it was money collected for public
purpose, thus public fund.
o Coco levy fund Republic v. COCOFED
o Sugar levy fund Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank
o Oil price stabilization fund Osmea v. Orbos
o On-line lottery fund Kilosbayan v. Guingona
In all these cases, the common defense was that private persons contributed the money. This
money was to be used for the interests of these private persons. Thus the money never lost its
private character and is not public fund.
Public funds/property are of two kinds:
o Funds that actually belong to government (from taxes, etc)
o Funds vested with public interest (even if private sources) used for the benefit of a
sufficiently large sector of public / public industry
On the other hand, public funds loaned to a private entity become private funds. Thus, if the
borrower is unable to return or account for the money he loaned, he will not be liable for
malversation.

Notes:
A private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also
guilty of malversation (US vs. Ponte, People vs. Sendaydiego).
Test to determine negligence: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same
situation?
The return of the funds malversed is only mitigating, not exempting, circumstance.

misappropriate or take
act of diverting money away from public purpose, converting it for personal use or of some thrid
person
if public officer allowed others to take " same penalty for negligence
No difference in penalty for intentional and negligent malversation. A public officer who allows
others to take money through his negligence is punished as if he himself had taken the money
This is unique in malversation.
o Reason: PUBLIC TRUST. Officers should be zealous in guarding public funds or
property. It would be very easy to claim negligence

Presumption of misappropriation
Arises upon failure to deliver
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he
is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he
has put such missing funds or property to personal uses.
Disappearance of public funds in the hands of an accountable public officer is prima facie
evidence of their conversion
Requisites:
o Failure to have forthcoming any funds or property with which he/she is chargeable
o Upon demand by any duly authorized officer
Burden of proving that he has not misappropriated shifts to him
Rebuttable
o Agullo v. Sandiganbayan: She proved that the money was stolen when she suffered a
heart attack on her way to the bank. When she woke up the money was already stolen.
Whether the story is actually true or not, whats important is that the court believed in it
and the more important lesson here is that the presumption is rebuttable.

Querijero v. People
Facts: Accused is also a treasurer. Unannounced audit, cash count. The money found on the safe was
less than the expected amount. They charged the treasurer with malversation based on the presumption.
Querijeros defense: She questioned the correctness of auditing. She argued that the audit done was
flawed, that there were other safes inside the office which she was not in custody of.

Held: It was possible that the money missing were inside the other safes, and that she did not need to
explain herself yet since the audit was flawed and incomplete. Presumption of misappropriation cannot
yet arise. She is still not under obligation to explain the misappropriation. Case dismissed.

Evidentiary issues
Demand merely raises a prima facie presumption that missing funds have been put to personal
use. The demand itself, however, is not an element of, and not indispensable to constitute
malversation.
Demand is not an element of the offense but very helpful in proving guilt
Damage is not an element of malversation (unlike in estafa, demand helps to prove damage,
damage needed)
Essence of malversation is not so much the loss but the violation of public trust
Demand is required to raise the presumption of misappropriation. Until there is a demand on the
officer to make a delivery, presumption does not arise

Payment or return
Generally is not a defense
Exception immediate payment may sufficiently rebut the presumption of misappropriation
o Aquino vs. Olivares old employee approaching retirement, ruling was based on
humanitarian considerations than anything else. Maybe in his old age, it took him longer
to account for the money. Returned the money 6 months after. Stray decision.
Return is mitigating

Possible defenses
Lack of any element
Order of superior Tabuena defense
o Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan: lawful order of superior an exempting circumstance.
Tabuena raised the defense of an order of superior. He was then the Airport general
manager. He had the document with Pres. Marcos marginal note ordering him to deliver
152 M to Malacanang. Court said that at the time, it was really very had to refuse to
comply with Marcos order. Court in this case acquitted Tabuena in light of the
exceptional circumstances of the case.
o Requisites of Tabuena defense
! Confession and avoidance
! Burden of proof on the accused to show
Lawful order
Lack of discretion to disobey

Rebuttal of Tabuena defense
Unlawfulness of order
o Contrary to law and regulations
o Contrary to policies and practices
Other options Higher authority, COA
Personal benefit

Penalties:
Amount malversed Penalty
Less than or equal to P200 PC med & max
P201 P6,000 PM min & med
P6,001 P12,000 PM max RT min
P12,000 P22,000 RT med & max
> P22,000 RT max RP
in all cases:
Perpetual special disqualification
Fine = Funds or value of property malversed

Other types of malversation:
1. Failure to render accounts (Art. 218)
2. Failure to render accounts before leaving the country (Art. 219)
3. Illegal use of public funds (Art. 220)
4. Failure to make delivery of public funds (Art. 221)

Rationale for punishing other forms of malversation:
Legal standpoint preventive measure
Prosecutorial standpoint fallback position

Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. Any public officer, whether in the service or
separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the
Insular Auditor (now Commission on Audit), or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months
after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine
ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.

Elements:
1. The offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom
2. He must be an accountable officer for public funds or property
3. He is required by law or regulation tor ender accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a
provincial auditor
4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered

Notes:
Article 218 does not require that there be a demand for accounting by the Commission on Audit.
Reason why mere failure to render account by an accountable public officer is punished is that
the law does not so much contemplate the possibility of malversation as the need of enforcing by
a penal provision the performance of the duty incumbent upon every public employee who
handles government funds to render an account of all he receives or has in his charge by reason
of his employment.
Misappropriation here is not necessary.

Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country. Any
public officer who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a certificate from the
Insular Auditor (now the Commission on Audit), showing that his accounts have been finally settled, shall be punished
by arresto mayor, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both.

Elements:
2. He must be an accountable officer for public funds or property
3. He must have unlawfully left (or be on the point of leaving) the Philippines without securing from
the Commission on Audit a certificate showing that his accounts have been finally settled
Note: The act of leaving the country must be unauthorized or not permitted by law.

Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. Any public officer who shall apply any public funds or
property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such funds or property were appropriated
by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-
half to the total value of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damage or embarrassment shall
have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special
disqualification.
If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50
per cent of the sum misapplied.

Elements:
2. There is a public fund or property under his administration
3. Such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance
4. He applies the same to a public use other than that for which such fund or property has been
appropriated by law or ordinance

Technical malversation
It is preventive. The idea being that it would be very difficult if government had to track all the
transactions/uses of public funds.
It would be easier to commit malversation without this provision. Very large budget, very large
bureaucracy controlling it. We do not want public officers having liberties with the public money
There is no technical malversation if there is no law or ordinance appropriating public funds or
property for a particular purpose.
Technical malversation is not included in nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation
of public funds.
Abdulla v. People: Budget said that for this school, x amount of money for allowances. They
distributed money not as allowances but still for the personnel. Court acquitted them. The
purpose contemplated in the provision is the public purpose for which it was appropriated (that
made in the appropriations act).

Illegal use of public funds/property v. Malversation
Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220) Malversation (Art. 217)
Offender is a public officer Offender is a public officer
Offender does not derive any personal gain or profit Offender, in certain cases, profits from the
proceeds of the crime
Public fund or property is applied to another public
use
Public fund or property is applied to the personal
use and benefit of the offender or of another person

Art. 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property. Any public officer under obligation to
make payment from Government funds in his possession, who shall fail to make such payment, shall be punished by
arresto mayor and a fine of from 5 to 25 per cent of the sum which he failed to pay.
This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by competent authority to deliver any
property in his custody or under his administration, shall refuse to make such delivery.
The finder shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided that it shall not be less than 50
pesos.

Acts punishable:
1. Failing to make payment by a public officer who is under obligation to make such payment from
Government funds in his possession
2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has been ordered by competent authority to
deliver any property in his custody or under his administration
Elements:
1. Public officer had Government funds in his possession
2. He is under obligation to make payment from such funds
3. He fails to make the payment maliciously
Note: Again, this is preventive. Sooner or later, the person will be tempted to misappropriate the property.
Art. 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to
private individuals who in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular (now national), provincial, or municipal
funds, revenues, or property or to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized, or deposited
by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.

Persons liable:
Private individual who, in any capacity whatever, has charge of any national, provincial or
municipal funds, revenue or property
Administrator or depository of funds or property, attached, seized or deposited by public authority,
even if such property belongs to a private individual

Chapter Five: Infidelity of Public Officers

Three classes:
1. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners (Arts. 223-225)
2. Infidelity in the custody of documents (Arts. 226-228)
3. Infidelity in the custody of information/Revelation of secrets (Art. 229-230)

Section One. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners

Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. Any public officer who shall consent to the escape
of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its
maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to
any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive
shall not have been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or
municipal ordinance.

Elements:
2. He had in his custody or charge, a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody
4. He was in connivance with the prisoner in the latters escape

Classes of prisoners involved:
1. Fugitive sentenced by final judgment to any penalty
2. Fugitive held only as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance

Other notes:
Leniency or laxity is not infidelity
There is a real and actual evasion if service of a sentence when the custodian permits the
prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment and to escape the punishment of being
deprived of his liberty, thus making the penalty ineffectual, although the convict may not have
fled.
Equivalent felony for assisting, aiding prisoners to escape

Art. 224. Evasion through negligence. If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place through the
negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said official shall suffer the
penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special
disqualification.
Elements:
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner
by final judgment
3. Such prisoner escapes through his negligence
Notes:
What is punished in evasion thru negligence is such a definite laxity as all but amounts to
deliberate non-performance of duty on the part of the guard.
If the prisoner escapes through the negligence of the public officer, the latter suffers the same
penalty regardless of whether the prisoner is a convict or merely a detention prisoner.
Recapturing the escapee does not afford complete exculpation

Liability of the escaping prisoner:
1) If the fugitive is serving sentence by reason of final judgment, he is liable for evasion of the
service of the sentence under Art. 157
2) If the fugitive is only a detention prisoner, he does not incur criminal liability.

Art. 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer. Any private person to
whom the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, who shall commit
any of the offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed for the public officer.

Elements:
1. Offender is a private person
2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is confided to him
3. The prisoner or person under arrest escapes
4. The offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest, or that the escape
takes place through his negligence
The penalty for a private person liable under Art. 225 is only imprisonment one degree lower than that
prescribed for the public officer in Art. 223 or 224.

Section Two. Infidelity in the custody of documents

Art. 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents. Any public officer who shall remove,
destroy, or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to hi shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage shall have
been caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos, whenever the damage caused to a third party or to the public interests shall not have been serious.
In either case, the additional penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
special disqualification shall be imposed.
Elements:
2. He abstracts, destroys or conceals documents or papers
3. The said documents or papers should have been entrusted to such public officer by reason of his
office
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public interest is caused.
Notes:
3. The document must be complete and one by which a right could be established or an obligation
could be extinguished.
4. Books, periodicals, pamphlets, etc., are not documents.
5. A document is a written instrument by which something is proven or made of record.
6. Papers includes checks, promissory notes, and paper money.
7. Retaining the mail without forwarding the letters to their destination, even though without opening
them or taking the money they contained, already constitutes infidelity.
8. Section 2756 of the Revised Administrative Code punishes the unlawful opening or detention of
mail matter by any person other than an officer or employee of the Bureau of Posts. If the culprit
is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Posts, Art. 226 is applicable.
9. Object is to preserve public record. Public record is supposed to be open for public inspection.
10. No falsification should be involved
11. Exceptions if there are justification, e.g. emergency
Acts punishable:
12. Removing, or
13. Destroying, or
14. Concealing, documents or papers officially entrusted to the offending public officer

Notes:
Act of removal need not be coupled with proof of intention to conceal.
Removal, destruction and concealment must be viewed as distinct modes of committing the
offense.
The act of removal, as a mode of committing the offense, should be coupled with criminal intent
or illicit purpose.
o The removal is for an illicit purpose when the intention of the offender is:
! to tamper with it
! to profit by it
! to commit an act constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof.
The crime of removal of public document in breach of official trust is consummated upon its
removal or secreting away from its usual place in the office and after the offender had gone out
and locked the door, it being immaterial whether he has or has not actually accomplished the illicit
purpose for which he removed said document.
Infidelity in the custody of document by destroying or concealing it does not require proof of illicit
purpose.
o Reason: Offender could not have a good motive in destroying or concealing the
document. Offender could have a lawful or commendable motive in removing documents.
Delivering document to the wrong party is infidelity in the custody thereof.
There must be damage, great or small.

Art. 227. Offender breaking seal. Any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property
sealed by proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods, temporary special disqualification, and a fine not exceeding 2,000
pesos.

Elements:
2. He is charged with the custody of papers or property
3. These papers or property are sealed by proper authority
4. He breaks the seals or permits them to be broken

Other notes:
What is punished is the breaking of seals, not the opening of a closed envelope.
Where documents are sealed by competent authorities, it is evident that the purpose is to insure
their preservation.
It is sufficient that the seal is broken, even if the contents are not tampered with.
Art. 227 does not require damage or intent to cause damage.
Example: Court records in adoption cases are sealed, national security papers are sealed
Breaking the seal allows others to see the contents

Art. 228. Opening of closed documents. Any public officer not included in the provisions of the next
preceding article who, without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed papers,
documents or objects entrusted to his custody, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor, temporary special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

Elements:
2. Any closed papers, documents, or objects are entrusted to his custody
Custody guarding or keeping safe of such papers/documents/objects
3. He opens or permits to be opened said closed papers, documents or objects
4. He does not have proper authority

Section Three. Revelation of Secrets
This section involves the revelation of the contents of documents, not documents themselves.

Art. 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to
him by reason of his official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver paper or copies of papers of which he may have
charge and which should not be published, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification, and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos if the revelation of such
secrets of the delivery of such papers shall have caused serious damage to the public interest; otherwise, the
penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification, and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos shall be imposed.

Elements:
2. He knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity
3. He reveals such secret without authority or justifiable reasons
4. Damage, great or small, is cause to the public interest

Notes:
Secret must affect public interests
This article does not include the revelation of secrets of the State. If national security document,
espionage.
Secrets of private individuals are not included

Wrongful delivery of papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should
not be published

Elements:
2. He has charge of papers
3. Papers should not be published
4. He delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person
5. Delivery is wrongful
6. Damage is caused to public interest
Note: If papers do not contain secrets, their removal for an illicit purpose is infidelity in the custody of
documents.

Art. 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. Any public officer to whom the secrets
of any private individual shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer the
penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Elements:
2. He knows of the secrets of a private individual by reason of his office
3. He reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reason
Notes:
Revelation to one person is sufficient; public revelation is not required.
Reason for provision: to uphold faith and trust in public service
Damage to private individuals is not necessary
When the offender is an attorney-at-law or a solicitor, Art. 209 applies
Chapter Six: Other Offenses or Irregularities by Public Officers

Section One. Disobedience, refusal of assistance, and maltreatment of officers

Disobedience
Open refusal to execute judgment, order or decision of superior
Refusal to execute order after his suspension order is disapproved
Failure to assist administration of justice or other public service after demand from competent
authority
Refusal of elected officer to be sworn in or discharge duties of office

Art. 231. Open disobedience. Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the
judgment, decision or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued
with all the legal formalities, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in
its minimum period, temporary special disqualification in its maximum period, and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Elements:
1. Offender is a judicial or executive officer
2. There is a judgment, decision or order of a superior authority
3. Such judgment, decision or order was made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior
authority and issued with all the legal formalities
4. Offender without any legal justification openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or
order, which he is duty bound to obey

Art. 232. Disobedience to order of superior officer, when said order was suspended by inferior
officer. Any public officer who, having for any reason suspended the execution of the orders of his superiors, shall
disobey such superiors after the latter have disapproved the suspension, shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods and perpetual special disqualification.

Elements:
2. An order is issued by his superior for execution
3. He has for any reason suspended the execution of such order
4. His superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of the order
5. Offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the suspension
Reason for provision: A superior officer may sometimes err, and that orders issued by him may proceed
from a mistaken judgment.

Art. 233. Refusal of assistance. The penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be
imposed upon a public officer who, upon demand from a competent authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation
towards the administration of justice or other public service, if such failure shall result in serious damage to the public
interest, or to a third party; otherwise, arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos shall be imposed.

Elements:
2. A competent authority demands from the officer that he lend his cooperation towards the
administration of justice or other public service
3. Offender fails to do so maliciously

Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been elected by popular election to a public
office, shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.

Elements:
1. Offender is elected by popular election to a public office
2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office
3. There is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office
Reason for provision: Once an individual is elected to an office by the will of the people, the discharge of
the duties of said office becomes a matter of duty, not only a right.

Maltreat prisoners
Impose unauthorized punishments or inflict punishment in cruel and humiliating manner
Higher penalty if to extract confession
Also applicable to detention prisoners
In addition to liability for injuries

Art. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to prision
mayor in its minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused, shall be imposed
upon any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention
prisoner under his charge by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such
punishments in a cruel and humiliating manner.
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some information from the prisoner,
the offender shall be punished by prision mayor in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine
not exceeding 6,000 pesos, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused.

Elements:
2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention prisoner
3. He maltreats such prisoner in either of the following manners:
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under
his charge either
i. by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or
ii. by inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel and humiliating manner
b. By maltreating such prisoner to extort a confession or to obtain some information from the
prisoner

Notes:
Higher penalty if to extract confession
Also applicable to detention prisoners
Penalty for maltreatment + Penalty for injuries

Section Two. Anticipation, prolongation, and abandonment of the duties and powers
of public office

Exercise duties and powers of office
Before taking oath anticipation
After term expires prolongation

Abandonment
Prejudice public service by not performing duties before resignation is accepted
Higher penalties if to avoid duty to prevent, prosecute, or punish crimes

Art. 236. Anticipation of duties of a public officer. Any person who shall assume the performance of
the duties and powers of any public office or employment without first being sworn in or having given the bond
required by law, shall be suspended from such office or employment until he shall have complied with the respective
formalities and shall be fined from 200 to 500 pesos.

Elements:
1. Offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment, either by election or appointment
2. The law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or should first give a bond
3. He assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such office
4. He has not taken his oath of office and/or given the bond required by law

Art. 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers. Any public officer who shall continue to
exercise the duties and powers of office, employment, or commission, beyond the period provided by law, regulations
or special provisions applicable to the case, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period,
special temporary disqualification in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

Elements:
1. Offender is holding a public office
2. The period provided by law, regulations or special provisions for holding such office, has already
expired
3. He continues to exercise the duties and powers of such office
Note: A public officer who has been suspended, separated, declared overage, or dismissed cannot
continue to perform the duties of his office.

Art. 238. Abandonment of office or position. Any public officer who, before the acceptance of his
resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment of the public service, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
If such office shall have been abandoned in order to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing,
prosecuting, or punishing any of the crimes falling within Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two of
this Code, the offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, and by arresto
mayor if the purpose of such abandonment is to evade the duty of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any other
crime.

Elements:
2. He formally resigns from his position (written)
3. His resignation has not yet been accepted
4. He abandons his office to the detriment of the public service

Qualifying circumstance:
abandonment of office is to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting or
punishing any of the crimes falling within Title One, and chapter One of Title Three of Book Two

Abandonment of office v. Negligence in prosecution of offenses
Abandonment of office (Art 238) Negligence and tolerance in prosecution of
offenses (Art 208)
Committed by any public officer Committed only by public officers who have the
duty to institute prosecution for the punishment of
violations of the law
Public officer abandons his office to evade the
discharge of his duty
Public officer does not abandon his office but fails
to prosecute an offense by dereliction of duty or by
malicious tolerance of the commission of offenses

Section Three. Usurpation of powers and unlawful appointments

Usurpation of powers
Public officer encroaches upon legislative power by making unauthorized general regulations or
attempting to repeal or suspend a law (Art. 239)
Judge assumes executive power or obstructs exercise thereof (Art. 240)
Executive officer assumes judicial power or obstruct execution of judicial order or decision (Art.
241)
Public officer continues any proceeding after being required to desist & before question of
jurisdiction is resolved (Art. 242)
Executive officer addresses order or suggestion to judge in a case before the courts (Art. 243)

Unlawful appointments
Public officer who knowingly nominates or appoints an unqualified person to public office

Art. 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. The penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period,
temporary special disqualification, and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer
who shall encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch of the Government, either by making general rules or
regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof.
Elements:
1. Offender is an executive or judicial officer
2. Does any of the following:
a. makes general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority
b. attempts to repeal a law
c. suspends the execution thereof

Art. 240. Usurpation of executive functions. Any judge who shall assume any power pertaining to the
executive authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers, shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period.
Elements:
2. Does either:
a. assumes a power pertaining to the executive authorities
b. obstructs the executive authorities in the lawful exercise of their powers

Art. 241. Usurpation of judicial functions. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any officer of the executive branch of the Government who
shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his
jurisdiction.
Elements:
1. Offender is an officer of the executive branch of the Government
2. Does either
a. assumes judicial powers
b. obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his
jurisdiction
Notes:
Articles 239-241 punish interference by the officers of one of the three departments of
government with functions of officers of another department.
But it can be noted that there is no provision for legislative official usurping executive or judicial
powers. Guess who made the law? $

Art. 242. Disobeying request for disqualification. Any public officer who, before the question of
jurisdiction is decided, shall continue any proceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain from so doing, shall
be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
Elements:
2. A proceeding is pending before such public officer
3. There is a question brought before the proper authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is not yet
decided
4. He has been lawfully required to refrain from continuing the proceeding
5. He continues the proceeding

Art. 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority. Any executive officer who
shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos.

Elements:
1. Offender is an executive officer
2. He addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial authority
3. The order or suggestion relates to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the courts of justice
Purpose of the provision: To maintain the independence of the judiciary

Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any
public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine
not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Elements:
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a public office
3. Such person lacks the legal qualifications therefor
4. Offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the qualifications at the time he made the
nomination or appointment

Section Four. Abuses against chastity

Art. 245. Abuses against chastity. Penalties. The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special disqualification shall be imposed:
1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in
matters pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to, or
consult with a superior officer;
2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with the care and custody of prisoners or persons
under arrest who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman under his custody.
If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister, or relative within the same degree by affinity of any
person in the custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall be prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and temporary special disqualification.

Elements:
2. He solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman
3. Such woman must be
a. Interested in matters pending before the offender for decision, or with respect to which he
is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer
b. Under the custody of the offender who is a warden or other public officer directly charged
with the care and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest
c. The wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity of the person in
the custody of the offender

Notes:
Solicit to propose earnestly and persistently something unchaste and immoral to a woman
The crime of abuses against chastity is consummated by mere proposal.
Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is sexual intercourse.
Solicitation is sufficient. Engaging in lascivious conduct is not necessary.
Victim has to be a woman

RA 3019: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Purpose of the law: To promote morality in the public service (Morfe vs. Mutuc)
RA 3019 was enacted to deter public officials and employees from committing acts of dishonesty
and improve the tone of morality in public service. It was declared to be a state policy in line with
the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices.

Features of RA 3019
Punishes corrupt practices in addition to offenses under other laws (sec. 3)
Penalizes complicit private persons
Prohibits private individuals or cronyism (Sec 4-6)
Prima facie evidence of ill-gotten wealth and dismissal (Sec. 8)
Penalties:
o 6 years and 1 month to 15 years
o perpetual disqualification

Elements:
1. Public officer
2. Unwarranted benefits benefit not deserved or Undue injury
3. Evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or inexcusable negligence
(Examples: promotion because of sex, grant project / property even if not the winning bidder)

Corrupt practices (Sec. 3)
Persuade another, or allow oneself to be persuaded to violate rules
o Requesting or receiving any gift, present or benefit is not required.
o It is necessary that the accused acted for a consideration and had intended to obtain
personal gain or advantage
Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving gifts in connection with any contract or transaction
between the government and any other party
o Transaction one which involves some consideration, as in credit transactions
Requesting or receiving gift from any person for whom the public officer, has secured or obtained
any government permit or license
Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which
has pending business with him
o Prohibition refers to employment in a private enterprise, if the public officer or a member
of his family accepted employment in a Government department or agency, prohibition
does not apply.
Cause undue injury or give unwarranted benefit thru manifest partiality evident bad faith or
inexcusable negligence
o includes officers and employees of offices or government corporations which, under the
ordinary concept of public officers may not come within the term.
o does not refer to malversation or bribery. Thus there can be liability for both
malversation/bribery and RA3019
o Amount of undue injury or damage must be alleged
o Gallego vs. Sandiganbayan: Examiner gave a passing grade for an examinee who only
wrote the Lords Prayer in the paper. Court held it was unwarranted benefit
o Elements:
a) Public officer
b) Unwarranted benefits
c) Evident bad faith
! Examples: promotion because of sex, grant project/property even if not the
winning bidder

Neglect or refuse to act to obtain benefit, cause prejudice or grant favor
Enter into grossly disadvantageous contract on behalf of the government
o It is not necessary that the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
o It is enough to prove that the accused is a public officer; that he entered into a contract or
transaction on behalf of the government; and that such contract or transaction is grossly
and manifestly disadvantageous to that government.
o Act is malum prohibitum.
o Elements:
a) Public officer
b) Contract or transaction
c) Grossly disadvantageous to the government
o Sample cases:
! Ingco vs. Sandiganbayan: Ingco was acquitted because he was not the signatory
to the contract. He merely recommended the approval of the contract.
Recommendation is not a violation of 3g. He would be liable if he was in
conspiracy with the person who signed the contract.
! Argana vs Republic: PCGG had a policy : Compromise agreement to share ill-
gotten wealth . Sharing between govt and defendant 70%, 30%. Case involved
large tracts of land. 70 has. raw land, NPA land, valued at P300M. 30 has.
Subdivision land, valued at P700 M.
! Morales vs. People: Vehicle of the agency was sold to a private person. Private
person sold the vehicle to Morales who was head of agency for much less.
Morales planned this in order to get the vehicle for much less. In fact, Morales
then sold the vehicle for a larger amount.
Directly having financial interest in any business
o Actual intervention in the transaction in which one has financial or pecuniary interest in
order that liability may attach is required.
Have material interest in transaction requiring approval of board where he is a member, even if
he votes against it or does not participate
Approve license for unqualified person
o Requesting or receiving any gift, present or benefit is not required.
Divulge confidential information
o can also be liable in revelation of secrets

RA 6713: Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
Prescribes conduct
Provides for administrative penalties

RA 7080: Plunder Law
Elements:
1. Amass, accumulate, or acquire
2. By himself or with others
3. Ill-gotten wealth >P50M
4. Through a series or combination of predicate crimes malversation, bribery, fraudulent
conveyance of public property, establishing monopolies, take undue advantage of public office

RA 9160: Anti-Money Laundering Act
Idea of Government: take away incentive, remove corruption

Typical money laundering scheme:
1. Placement - collection of the dirty money, placed in a bank
2. Layering transfer to account to another company in another country, more layers, more secure
3. Integration purchase, investments means to access the money, public officer has to have a
way to access the money

Backward trace of money trail
There is a line/trail from officer to the money. This is what the chasers look for.
There will always be a trail, especially with the amount of money involved and because the
corrupt public officer needs to have access to the money.

RA 1379: Forfeiture of Ill-Gotten Wealth
Civil proceedings for forfeiture of unexplained wealth
Manifestly disproportionate to visible means of legitimate income
Presumption that the unexplained wealth is ill-gotten and subject to forfeiture, unless public officer
can prove the source
o Govt needs to prove the disproportion. If the accused cannot explain the
disproportionality then he would be liable.
o The government just targets the current wealth. Does not deal anymore with the source.

Special laws granting immunity to obtain evidence:
PD 749 givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery and other graft cases
against public officers
RA 6981 witness protection, security and benefit program

Criminal Law 2 Case Digest

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Criminal Law 2 Case Digest

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Benosa Chua Hernandez Llamas Lucas Migrio Moreto Parugao | Criminal Law 2 | Page 1 of 169

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi