Crim Rev Book 2

CRIMINAL LAW 2
Dinty | Manalo | Navarez | Shyu | Tubio Page 1

TITLE ONE
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
LAW OF NATIONS (Articles 114 122)

ARTICLE 114 TREASON
- is committed by a Filipino citizen or an
alien residing in the Philippines who
levies war against the Philippine
Government or adheres to her enemies by
giving them aid and comfort
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is by birth, a
Filipino Citizen or an alien
residing in the Philippines, even
if temporary allegiance
The offender may either be
a Filipino citizen, because
a Filipino citizen owes
permanent allegiance to the
Philippine Government; or
another offender is a
foreigner, an alien
temporarily residing in the
Philippines. During his
temporary stay in the
Philippines, he is given
protection by the
Philippine Government under
its laws therefore it is
but incumbent upon him to
have temporary allegiance
to the Philippine
Government. That is why
even an alien, a foreigner
temporarily residing in the
Philippines can also commit
treason in times of war.

2. That there is a war in which the
Philippines is involved
The second element is that
there is a war in which the
Philippines is involved. In
the case of Laura vs. Misa,
treason is a war time
offense. It can be
committed only in times of
war. In times of peace,
Treason remains to be
dormant crime, however, the
moment when an emergency
arises, the moment a war
arises, it is immediately
put into effect as an act
self-defense and self-
preservation of the
Philippine Government.
Treason cannot be committed
in times of peace, because
in times of peace, there
are no traitors.

Who are these traitors?
These enemies are troops of
the enemy state which is in
war with the Philippines.
Filipino men like the MILF,
NPAs, even if they are at
war with the Philippine
government, they cannot be
considered as enemies
because they are still
considered as Filipino
citizens. So the aliens
refer to the citizens of
the enemy state which is at
war with the Philippines.

3. That the offender either
a) Levies war against the
Philippine government,
or
b) Adheres to the enemies
by giving them aid or
comfort.
The third element
refers to the mode of
committing treason.
treason may be
committed by either:
a. Levies war against
the Philippine
government, requires
the concurrence of two
elements:
1) there must be
an actual of assembly
of men
2) it is for the
purpose of
executing or
effecting a
treasonable
design by force.
This means that the
said offenders,
Filipino citizens who
are said to be in
collaboration with the
enemy troops in order
CRIMINAL LAW 2


to hand over the
Philippine Government
to the enemy troops.
Absent of that
collaboration, it
cannot be considered as
treason

b. Adheres to the
enemies by giving them
aid or comfort.
Adherence to the
enemies means that the
Filipino citizen or the
offender intentionally,
intellectually and
emotionally favors the
enemy. Therefore,
adherence to the
enemies is an internal
state of mind, it is
mental state, you
cannot see adherence to
the enemies

How now would you
know that a person
is adhering to the
enemy state?
It is manifested
by his acts of
giving aid or
comfort to the
enemy. That is
why these two
must concur:
1. Adherence to
the enemies
2. Giving them
aid or comfort

Mere adherence to
the enemies,
without any act
of giving aid or
comfort to the
enemy will not
bring along
treason, it is
the act of giving
aid or comfort
which is the
manifestation of
the adherence to
the enemies.

EXAMPLES OF ACTS OF ADHERING TO THE ENEMIES
BY GIVING AID OR COMFORT:
o By giving the enemies information,
transportation, arms, supplies, all
of these will weaken the defense of
the Philippines and strengthen the
enemy state.
o People vs. Perez: The court said,
"the act of commandeering women or
giving women to the enemy troops in
times of war, to satisfy the lust of
the enemy troops is not considered as
a treasonable act." Because according
the Court, whatever benefit is given
to the enemy is merely trivial in
nature, imperceptible and it was not
the intent of the offender
(unintentionally).

There are two ways of proving treason
under Article 114:
1. TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES, AT
LEAST, TO THE SAME OVERT ACT,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "TWO-WITNESS
RULE"
There must be two witnesses who
will prove only on the commission
by the offender of an overt act
showing that he adheres to the
enemy. Therefore, treason cannot
be proven by mere substantial
evidence. There must be direct
evidence, a witness to this act
of giving aid or comfort to the
enemy.
2. CONFESSION OF THE OFFENDER OR THE
ACCUSED MADE IN OPEN COURT
Confession of guilt must be made
before a court. Extra-judicial
confession will not give rise to
conviction in case of the crime
of treason.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if there is war which the
Philippines is involved? X was among those
who committed treason against the
government. Now X in committing treason
killed a public officer of the government
of the Philippines, in furtherance of his
act of treason. Will such act amounting to
murder give rise to a separate and distinct
crime? Will you charge him for two crimes
based on treason and murder?
CRIMINAL LAW 2


A: There is only one crime committed
by him and the crime committed is
treason. Common crimes such as
Murder, physical injuries, homicide,
arson, if they are committed in
furtherance to, in connection with or
incidentally to treason shall be
absorbed in the crime of treason
because they are atrocities for war
and therefore, they are considered as
absorbed in the crime of treason. It
cannot even be complex, they are
considered absorbed in the crime of
treason.

Q: What if A, B and C, conspired and agreed
to commit treason against the Philippine
Government. After their conspiracy and
agreement, A went to X. A told his friend X
that he was in conspiracy with B and C to
commit treason against the Philippine
Government. After A told him such
conspiracy with X, A left. X, despite
knowledge of the conspiracy to commit
treason among A, B, and C, did not disclose
such information to the proper authorities.
What crime/crimes is/are committed by A, B,
C, and X?
A: A, B, and C are liable for the
conspiracy to commit treason. There
is a meeting of two or more persons
come to an agreement to commit the
crime of treason and decide to commit
it. There is proposal to commit
treason when a person has decided to
commit the crime of treason and
proposes its execution to some other
person or persons. The moment that
other person whom the proposal was
given, raise to the commission of
crime, we no longer have proposal,
but we have Conspiracy to commit
treason. In the problem, A, B, and C,
conspired, agreed to commit the crime
of treason against the Philippine
government, therefore they are all
liable for conspiracy to commit
treason.

Q: X, who had knowledge of the conspiracy
to commit treason among A, B, and C,
however, despite that knowledge, he did not
disclose it to the proper authorities. What
is the liability of X?
A: X is liable for misprision of
treason is committed by any person
who owes permanent allegiance to the
Philippine Government who fails to
disclose of knowledge to commit
treason as soon as possible to the
proper authorities. In the problem,
C, despite having knowledge of the
conspiracy to commit treason among A,
B, and C did not divulge it, did not
disclose it to the proper
authorities, therefore, X is liable
for misprision of treason.

TREASON can be committed both by
Filipino citizens and a foreigner
temporarily residing in the Philippines,
but MISPRISION OF TREASON can only be
committed by a Filipino citizen who owes
permanent allegiance to the Philippine
government, it cannot be committed by a
foreigner residing in the Philippines.

ARTICLE 117 ESPIONAGE
There are two ways of committing espionage
under Article 117:
I. By entering, without authority
therefore, 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
The offender can be any person.
He can be a Filipino citizen, or
a foreigner, or he can be a
public officer or employee, or he
can be a private individual.

When will the crime of espionage
arise?
Under the first mode, the crime
of espionage will arise moment
the offender enters the warship,
fort or naval or military
establishment or reservation,
without authority if his
intention is to obtain any
information, plans, photographs
or other data of a confidential
nature, relative to the defense
of the Philippines.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


It is not necessary that for the
crime to arise that he is
successful in obtaining the data.
It is not necessary that he
indeed obtained the data. The
mere act of entering without
authority is sufficient if his
intention is to obtain the data
of confidential manner relative
to the defense of the
Philippines.

II. By disclosing to the representative
of a foreign nation the contents of
the articles, data or information
referred to in paragraph No. 1 of
art. 117, which he had in his
possession by reason of the public
office he holds.
This mode of committing espionage
can only be committed by a public
officer who has been trusted, by
reason of his public position, of
articles, data of confidential
nature relative to the defense of
the Philippines.
The crime of espionage will arise
the moment the offender divulges
or discloses the data and
information to a representative
of a foreign nation.
So even if he is in possession of
the same, but he does not divulge
it to any representative of a
foreign nation, the crime will
not arise.

Espionage can be committed in BOTH, in
times of peace and in times of war.

ARTICLE 118 INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING
MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender performs unlawful
or unauthorized acts by the
Philippine government.
2. That the said act provoke or give
occasion for a war involving or
liable to involve the Philippines or
expose Filipino citizens to reprisals
on their persons and property while
they are in a foreign country.
3. He is not legally authorized to do
so.

Inciting to war connotes that there is
yet no war. It is committed in times of
peace.

Case of CAPTAIN MENDOZA
Hostage drama in Luneta. There were
Hong Kong citizens boarded the bus
and here comes Captain Mendoza who
was no longer a member of the
military, he entered the bus, with
different weapons and grenades and
even killed some hongkong citizens.
Captain Mendoza performed unlawful,
unauthorized acts which expose
overseas Filipino workers in Hong
Kong and china to reprisals on their
person or property. In fact, there
were news at that time that Hong Kong
or China would be engaging in war
with the Philippines. Head captain
Mendoza, one of the crimes that may
be held against him is inciting to
war or giving motives for reprisals.

ARTICLE119 VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
ELEMENTS:
1. The crime is committed when there is
a war but the Philippines is not
involved in the said war and;
2. The competent authority issued a
regulation for the purpose of
enforcing neutrality among Filipino
citizens and ;
3. The offender violates such regulation
imposed.

Here, there is war but the Philippines
is not involved in the said war.

Q: There is a war between country X and
country Y. Here comes Pedro, a Filipino
citizen, he was siding with country X. Is
he liable?
A: No, he is not liable of violation
of neutrality because in the problem,
it did not say that the competent
authority (the President) issued a
proclamation or regulation imposing
neutrality.

The violation will only arise if there
is a proclamation or regulation imposing
neutrality and a Filipino citizen
violates such declaration or regulation
issued by a competent authority.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Therefore, absence of such declaration
of neutrality, the crime of violation of
neutrality does not arise.

ARTICLE120 CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE
COUNTRY
ELEMENTS:
1. That it is in time of war in which
the Philippines is involved.
2. That the offender makes
correspondence with an enemy country or
any territory occupied by enemy troops.
3. That the correspondence is either
a.) Prohibited by the Philippine
Government
b.) Carried on in ciphers or
conventional signs
c.) Containing notice or information
which might be useful to the
enemy
Here, there is a war in which the
Philippines is involved.

Q: The Philippines is at war with the
another country. Here comes X, a Filipino
citizen, he has a pen pal who is a citizen
of the country which is at war with the
Philippines. The competent authority or the
President issued a declaration of
proclamation saying that there should be no
correspondence to the enemy state. But X
missed his penpal, and so, he wrote in a
small piece of paper, "i love you, i miss
you, muamua!" Is X liable of the crime of
correspondence with the enemy?
A:X is liable because there was a
declaration issued by a competent
authority that correspondence with the
hostile country is prohibited and if
there is no declaration, proclamation
coming from the competent authority
prohibiting correspondence, the crime
will only arise if the said crime is
carried on in ciphers or conventional
signs or Containing notice or
information which might be useful to the
enemy.

ARTICLE 121 FLIGHT TO ENEMY'S COUNTRY
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is s war in which the
Philippines is involved.
2. That the offender must be owing
allegiance to the Philippine Government
3. That the offender attempts to flee or
go to enemy's country
4. That going to the enemy country is
prohibited by a competent authority

There must be a declaration or a
proclamation issued by a competent
authority, that no Filipino shall flee
to the enemy's country and the offender
violates such proclamation.
Mere attempt will readily rise to the
crime. It is not necessary that the
offender has actually gone to the
country.
There must be declaration or
proclamation prohibiting flight to enemy
state.

ARTICLE 122 PIRACY
ELEMENTS:
1. The first element is where the
vessel is located. The vessel can
either be on the high seas or on
Philippine waters (this was
brought about by the amendment of
RA 7659). Before the amendment of
RA 7659, Piracy under Article 122
can only be committed when the
vessel is on the high seas. But
because of this amendment brought
about by RA 7659, Piracy now
under Article 122 can be
committed when the vessel is on
Philippine waters.

2. The second element provides for
the offenders. The offenders must
NOT be members of the complement
or passengers of the vessel.
Therefore, the offenders must be
STRANGERS to the vessel. They
must be coming from the outside,
not from the inside.

3. The third element refers to the
mode of committing piracy.
a. The offenders either ATTACK
or SEIZE the vessel.
b. The offenders either SEIZE
IN WHOLE or IN PART the
cargo, the equipment or the
personal belongings of the
passengers or members of
the complement.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Based on these elements, you will notice
that piracy is akin to robbery. It is in
effect robbery. It is just called piracy
because the object of the thing is
either the vessel or the cargo or
equipment of the said vessel. There is
also the use of force or intimidation.
There is also the use of violence
against persons. There is also intent to
gain.So it is akin, similar to robbery.

ARTICLE122 MUTINY
COMMITTED WHEN:
1. The vessel is either on the high
seas or on Philippine waters
2. The OFFENDERS are MEMBERS OF THE
COMPLEMENT or PASSENGERS OF THE
VESSEL
3. The offenders raise a commotion
or disturbance on the board the
ship against the lawful command
of the captain or the commander
of the ship.
In mutiny, there is no taking because in
mutiny there is no intent to gain. Mutiny
is the rising of commotion, a resistance
against the lawful command, against the
lawful authority of the commander or
captain of the ship.
Since in mutiny, there is no intent to
gain, mutiny is akin to sedition. The
rising of commotion, an uprising, an act of
dissent against lawful authority.

SO HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH PIRACY VS.
MUTINY?
1. In piracy, the offenders are
strangers to the vessel, whereas, in
mutiny, the offenders are necessarily
inside the vessel, they are either
members of the complement or
passengers of the vessel
2. In Piracy, there is intent to gain
because it is similar to robbery,
whereas, in mutiny, there is no
intent to gain because the essence of
the crime is to go against the lawful
authority of the commander of the
ship.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: The vessel is on the sea going to
Mindoro. So while the ship is on its way to
Mindoro, suddenly there comes a big storm.
The commander or the captain of the ship
said that they should first move towards
the shore and let the storm comes calm in
order to ensure the safety of the
passengers of the vessel. The passengers of
the vessel and members of the complement
didnt want the decision of the said
captain of the ship and so they seize the
captain of the ship and manned the vessel
until they reach Mindoro. What crime, if
any, is committed by these members of the
complement and passengers of the vessel?
A: They are liable of MUTINY. The
vessel is on Philippine waters. The
offenders are members of the
complement and they go against the
lawful authority of the captain of
the ship. Therefore they are liable
of mutiny.
Q: While a vessel is on Philippine waters,
here comes a second vessel. Four men from
the second vessel boarded the first vessel
and at gunpoint, took the cargo and
equipment of the said vessel. Placed them
in the second vessel and off they went.
What crime is committed by these four men?
A: They are liable of PIRACY UNDER
ARTICLE 122. The vessel is on
Philippine waters, the offenders are
not members of the complement or
passengers of the ship. They seize
the cargo and equipment of the
vessel. Therefore, it is piracy under
Article 122.
Q: The vessel is on Philippine waters.
While the vessel is on Philippine waters,
the members of the complement and
passengers of the said vessel in conspiracy
with one another took the cargo and
equipment of the said vessel, and then they
boarded a second vessel and off they went.
What crime is committed by the members of
the complement and passengers of the said
vessel?
A: The members of the complement and
passengers of the vessel committed
ACTS OF PIRACY because they seize in
whole or in part the cargo or
equipment of the vessel but NOT
PIRACY UNDER ARTICLE 122 because in
Article 122, it is a requisite that
the offenders must be strangers to
the vessel. Here, the offenders are
members of the complement and
passengers of the vessel. So the
crime committed is PIRACY BUT UNDER
PD 532.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-ROBBERY LAW OF 1974
(PD 532)
Under PD 532, piracy is committed by
attacking or seizing the vessel or seizing
in whole or in part the cargo, equipment or
personal belongings of the members of the
complement or passengers of the vessel
IRRESPECTIVE of the value thereof,
committed by means of force and violence
and committed by any person whether he may
a member of the complement or passenger of
the vessel or strangers to the vessel BUT
the vessel is on Philippine waters.
Therefore, for PIRACY UNDER PD 532 to
arise, it necessary that the vessel is on
Philippine waters. If the vessel is on the
high seas, immediately rule out PD 532.

HOW COULD YOU KNOW IF IT IS PIRACY UNDER PD
532 OR PIRACY UNDER ARTICLE 122 OF RPC?
If the vessel is on Philippine
waters, your choice is either Piracy
under PD 532 or Piracy Article 122.
Where lies the difference?
Since Article 122 of
RPC is the main law, we
have to reconcile it
with PD 532. Or PD 532
must be reconciled with
Article 122. Piracy
under PD 532, the
offenders can be any
person. He can be a
stranger. He can be
members of the
complement.
Therefore, where does PD 532
apply?
It will apply when the
offenders are members
of the complement or
passengers of the
vessel and the vessel
is on the Philippine
waters.

Q: The vessel is on Philippine waters,
suddenly men from the outside committed
acts of piracy. What crime is committed?
A: Piracy under Article 122
Q: The vessel is on Philippine waters. Acts
of piracy were committed by the members of
the complement or passengers of the vessel.
What crime is committed?
A: Piracy under PD 532
Q: What if the vessel is on the high seas?
While the vessel is on the high seas, there
comes a second vessel. Four men from the
second vessel boarded the first vessel and
at gunpoint took the cargo and equipment of
the first vessel. What crime is committed
by these four men?
A: Piracy under Article 122. The
vessel is on the high seas. The
offenders are not members of the
complement or the passengers of the
vessel. They seize in whole or in
part the cargo and equipment of the
said vessel.

Q: While the vessel is on the high seas,
members of the complement or passengers of
the vessel in conspiracy with one another
took away the cargo and equipment of the
vessel. What crime is committed?
NOTE: It is not piracy under
Article 122 because here, the
offenders are members of the
complement or passengers of
the vessel. In Article 122, it
is required that the offenders
must be strangers to the
vessel. It cannot be piracy
under PD 532 because the
vessel must be on Philippine
waters. In our problem, the
vessel is on the high seas.
So, what crime is committed?
A: Again, piracy is akin to robbery.
Since Piracy under Article 122 and
Piracy under PD 532 do not apply, the
crime committed is ROBBERY IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE.

ARTICLE 123 QUALIFIED PIRACY
What are the circumstances which will
qualify piracy?
Under Article 122, the
following circumstances will
qualify piracy:
1. Whenever the offender have
seized a vessel by boarding
or firing upon; or
2. Whenever the offenders have
aband0ned their victims
without means of saving
themselves; or
There is intent to
kill.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


3. Whenever the crime is
accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries
or rape
Whenever these four
crimes accompanied
the act of piracy,
it will not bring
about a separate and
distinct crime or a
separate and
distinct charge of
murder, homicide,
physical injuries or
rape. These crimes
are absorbed because
they are
circumstances which
will qualify the
penalty to death.
NOTE: These circumstances are
separate and distinct from
each other. It is not
necessary that all of them
must be present. The presence
of one will qualify piracy.
Notice the conjunction OR.
These are qualifying
circumstances which are
prejudicial to the accused
therefore they must be
strictly construed.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if the vessel is on Philippine
waters, and there comes a second vessel.
Four men from the second vessel boarded the
first vessel and at gunpoint, they asked
the passengers to give to them all their
valuables. One woman didnt want to give
her wedding ring because it was so precious
to her and so one of the men forcibly took
the wedding ring from the finger such that
the finger was severed from it. What crime
is committed?
A: QUALIFIED PIRACY because piracy
was accompanied by physical injuries.

Q: What if in the same problem, the woman
didnt want to give the ring, one of the
men slapped the woman on the face three
times and the face of the woman became
reddish. She suffered slight physical
injuries. What about the fact that the
injury suffered was only slight?
A: It will not make a difference
although the injury suffered was only
slight. In the third circumstance
which will qualify piracy, the word
physical injuries is used in its
generic sense. Therefore, whatever be
of kind of physical injuries, whether
serious or slight for as long as it
was accompanied by piracy, it will be
considered as qualified piracy.

Q: What if in the same problem, the woman
didnt want to give the ring and one of the
men touched the private parts of the said
woman and after touching the private parts
of the said woman with lust, he forcibly
took the ring. What crime is committed by
the said men?
A: All of them will be liable for
piracy. However, the man who touched
the private part of the woman will be
liable for two crimes: piracy and
acts of lasciviousness. Acts of
lasciviousness is not mentioned in
Article 123. Therefore, its presence
will not qualify piracy. It will
bring about a separate and distinct
charge of acts of lasciviousness.
So, only these four crimes (murder,
homicide, physical injuries and rape)
will qualify piracy. If other crime is
committed and accompanied by piracy
and is not among these four crimes
mentioned in Article 123, it will
bring about a separate and distinct
charge.

QUALIFIED MUTINY
Insofar as mutiny is concerned, what are
the circumstances which will qualify
mutiny?
In Article 123, there is no
specific mention of qualified
mutiny, however according to
Reyes and other legal luminaries,
of the three circumstances stated
in Article 123, paragraphs 2 and
3 are considered as circumstances
which will qualify mutiny. That
is:
1. whenever the offenders
have abandoned their
victims without means
of saving themselves;
or
CRIMINAL LAW 2


2. whenever the crime is
accompanied with
murder, homicide,
physical injuries or
rape
According to Reyes
and other legal
luminaries, only
these two are
considered qualified
in mutiny because in
mutiny, the
offenders are
necessarily,
ordinarily inside
the vessel because
they are members of
the complement or
passengers of the
vessel.

ANTI-HIJACKING LAW (R.A. No. 6235 otherwise
known as An Act Prohibiting Certain Acts inimical
to Civil Aviation)
Under RA 6235, there are four prohibited acts.
1. By compelling the pilot of an aircraft of
Philippine registry to change its course or
destination OR by seizing or usurping control
thereof while it is in flight

2. By compelling an aircraft of foreign registry
to land in Philippine territory OR by seizing
or usurping control thereof while the same is
in Philippine territory

These are the first two prohibited acts. How
could you distinguish the first act from the
second act?
If the aircraft is of Philippine
registry, the seizure or usurpation
to amount in violation of RA 6235,
requires that the aircraft must be in
flight. An aircraft is in flight the
moment all its external doors had
been closed, following embarkation
until any of it external doors had
been opened for purposes of
disembarkation.
On the other hand, if the aircraft is
of foreign registry, the seizure or
usurpation did not need while it is
in flight. For as long as the aircraft
of foreign registry is within the
Philippine territory, seizure or
usurpation thereof will bring about
violation of RA 6235 even if all its
doors are opened; even if it is not in
flight.
Insofar as these two prohibited acts are
concerned, what are the circumstances
which will qualify the penalty?
Under RA 6235, the following
circumstances will qualify the first
two acts:
a. By firing upon the pilot or the
member of the crew or
passenger of the aircraft; or
b. By exploding or attempting to
explode by mean of a bomb or
explosive for purposes of
destroying the aircraft; or
c. Whenever the crime is
accompanied by murder,
homicide, serious physical
injuries or rape

NOTE: In case of piracy, the
law uses the word physical
injuries in its generic sense.
Whatever be the kind of
physical injury that will
accompany piracy, the crime
committed is qualified piracy.
But in case of hijacking
under RA 6235, the law is
specific; it must be serious
physical injuries. Therefore, if
the physical injuries that
would accompany the act of
usurpation and seizure of the
aircraft would only be less
serious physical injuries or
slight physical injuries, the
penalty is not qualified. The
penalty is qualified because
from the penalty of 12 to 20
years, it would become 15
years to death.

3. By carrying or loading on board a
PASSENGER AIRCRAFT operating as a public
utility in the Philippines materials or
substances which are explosive, flammable,
corrosive or poisonous
4. By shipping, carrying or loading on board a
CARGO AIRCRAFT operating as a public
utility in the Philippines materials or
CRIMINAL LAW 2


substances which are explosive, flammable,
corrosive or poisonous in a manner not in
accordance with the rules and regulations of
the Air Transportation Office

HOW WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH THE 3
RD
FROM
THE 4
TH
ACT?
If the aircraft is a PASSENGER
AIRCRAFT, the mere act of carrying or
loading explosive, flammable, corrosive or
poisonous substances will immediately
constitute a violation of RA 6235.
If however the aircraft is a CARGO
AIRCRAFT, the loading of these
poisonous substances, flammable
substances, is allowed because it is a
cargo aircraft. The crime will only arise if
such act of loading is not in accordance
with the rules and regulations of the Air
Transportation Office.

HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
Q: What if there is a bus and the bus is parked at
Lunetapark and it was full of children. And here
comes X, X had different kinds of explosive all over
his body. And at gunpoint, entered the said bus and
told the children to keep quiet. Thereafter, there is a
cartolina on the glass window of the said bus. Written
on the cartolina were his demands to the
government. His demands were first, that his brother,
a member of NPA and who is being incarcerated by
the military be released and his second demand, was
that funds be transferred to his account. So these
were the demands made by X against the
government. Because of this, the parents of the
children arrived, the media arrived, all the cabinet
secretaries arrived. Only the president did not arrive.
So everybody was there. They were afraid that the
children might die so there was chaos in the entire
Philippines. It took the members of the military and
police 12 hours to subdue X. So after 12 hours, they
were able to arrest X. What crime, if any, may be filed
against X?

A: X will be charged of the crime of
terrorism under RA 9372, the Human
Security Act of 2007. Under Section 3 of Ra
9372, terrorism is committed when the
offender commits any of the following acts
punishable under the RPC:
a. Piracy
b. Rebellion
c. Coup dEtat
d. Murder
e. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention
f. Crimes involving Destruction
If the offender commits any of these acts
punishable under the RPC or any of the
following acts punishable under special penal
laws:

1. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the
High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
2. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
3. Article 134-a (Coup dEtat), including acts
committed by private persons;
4. Article 248 (Murder);
5. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention);
6. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction,
or under
1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and
Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory
and Liability Act of 1968);
4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-
highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree
Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)
If the offender commits any of these crimes
under the RPC and any of the crimes under
special penal laws, thereby sowing and
creating a condition widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace in order to coerce the government
to give in to an unlawful demand, he is liable
of terrorism and the penalty is 40 years
imprisonment without the benefit of parole
under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. So it
is the maximum penalty of 40 years. He has
to serve it totally. Even if he has already
served the minimum, he cannot be given the
benefit of parole under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. So it is necessary that he
must commit any of these predicate crimes
and after committing these predicate crimes,
where lies the difference? Because his act
that sowed and created fear and panic among
CRIMINAL LAW 2


the populace coupled with an unlawful
demand against the government.

Q: So let us say that X was charged with terrorism
based on a valid complaint or information a case of
terrorism was filed against him before the RTC.
However, after trial on the merits, the judge acquitted
him. According to the judge, the prosecution failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt therefore acquittal for reasonable doubt. Since
he is acquitted of terrorism under RA 9372, can he
still be prosecuted for his predicate crime of
kidnapping and illegal detention because he detained
the children for more than 12 hours? Can he still be
prosecuted for Illegal and Unlawful Possession of
Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives because he was
full of firearms and ammunitions and explosives?
A: No more. Because of Section 49 of RA
9372. Under Section 49 of RA 9372,
whenever a person has been charged of
terrorism, or any act punishable under RA
9372, based on the valid complaint or
information, sufficient information and
substance to bring about and thereafter he is
acquitted or the case is dismissed, he can no
longer be subsequently prosecuted for any
other felony or offense necessarily included in
the crime charged. The crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention is necessarily
included in terrorism because it is one of the
predicate crimes. Likewise, violation of PD
1866, as amended Illegal and Unlawful
Possession of Firearms is also necessarily
included in terrorism because it is one of the
predicated crimes in terrorism. Or any of
these predicated crimes, he can no longer be
charged because they are necessarily
included in terrorism. This is known as the
ABSORPTION PRINCIPLE in terrorism.

Q: But what if in the same problem, while X was
waiting for his demands to be given by the
government, he saw a girl and with lewd design, he
touched the private parts of the seven-year old girl.
Therefore he committed a violation of RA 7610 the
Anti-Child Abuse Law. He was acquitted of terrorism.
Can the state prosecute him for violation of RA 7610?
A: Yes, because it is not among the
predicate crimes. It is not a crime
necessarily included in the crime of
terrorism.
TITLE TWO
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE
STATE (Articles 124 133)

The acts under TITLE TWO are made criminal
because they both appease the Bill of
Rights. The rights stated under the
Constitution and the first of these is
under ARTICLE 124, 125 and 126 Arbitrary
Detention.

3 KINDS OF ARBITRARY DETENTION:
1. Arbitrary Detention by detaining a
person without legal ground under
Article 124
2. Arbitrary Detention by failing to
deliver the detained person to the
proper judicial authorities within
12, 18 or 36 hours under Article 125
3. Arbitrary Detention by delaying the
release of prisoners despite the
judicial or executive order to do so
under Article 126

ARTICLE124 ARBITRARY DETENTION BY
DETAINING A PERSON WITHOUT LEGAL GROUND
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer
or employee
Who is the offender in Article
124?
The offender is a public
officer or employee. BUT
NOT ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES can commit
arbitrary detention. The
public officer of employee
can commit arbitrary
detention are only those
who have been vested with
authority to effect arrest
and detain a person or at
least to cause the
detention of a person.
Public officers who have been
vested with authority to
effects arrest and detain a
person are POLICE OFFICERS. On
the other hand, public
officers vested with authority
to cause the detention of a
person are MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS. They can order the
detention of a person who has
been cited of contempt for
failing to accurate their
CRIMINAL LAW 2


proof, or we have JUDGES they
can order the summary
detention of persons cited in
contempt of court.
2. That he detains a person
The second element requires that
the offender detains a person.
So when is there detention?
There is detention when the
offended party is placed in
incarceration. When the
offended party is placed
behind bars or when the
offended party is
restrained of his person or
liberty.
In order to amount
arbitrary detention there
must be an act of restraint
on the person or liberty of
the offended party. Absent
that intent, absent the
actual restraint on the
person or liberty of the
offended party It can be
any other crime BUT NOT
ARBITRARY DETENTION.
Therefore, Supreme Court
said that intent to detain
must be manifest, it must
be evident. Absent that,
it can be any other crime
but not arbitrary
detention.
3. That the detention is without legal
grounds
The third element requires that
the detention must be without
legal ground.
So when is detention without
legal grounds under Article
124?
1. When the said offended
party was arrested without
a warrant of arrest.
2. When the said offended
party was arrested and his
arrest and detention does
not fall under any of the
circumstances or a valid
warrantless arrest.
3. When he is not suffering
from violent insanity or
any other ailment which
requires compulsory
confinement.
All of these are not
considered valid
grounds for
detention.
So to reverse, what are the
valid grounds for detention?
The following are valid
grounds for detention:
a.) If the person does not
receive and detained by
virtue of a warrant of
arrest.
b.) If a person was
arrested and detained
under any of the
circumstances for a
valid warrantless
arrest
c.) If a person was
suffering violent
insanity or any illness
which requires
compulsory confinement.
These are the valid
ground for the
arrest and detention
of a person.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So if a person, driving his vehicle
entered a one way street and in violation
of the LTO rules and regulation, was
stopped by police officer, his license was
taken and gave him a ticket and was bought
to the nearest PNP station and was placed
behind bars. He was detained. That was 8
oclock in the morning then the arresting
officer left. And on the afternoon, the
police officer returned to the police
station. Upon his arrival, he immediately
released the incarcerated person whom he
detained for entering a one way street. Is
the said police officer liable for
arbitrary detention under Article 124?
A: YES, he is liable of ARBITRARY
DETENTION. He is a public officer
vested with authority to effect
arrest and detain a person. If he
detained the person, the detention
was without legal ground. It is
without legal ground because entering
a one way street and violating the
traffic rules and regulation is not a
ground for incarceration. It is not a
CRIMINAL LAW 2


ground for a person to be placed
behind bars. If a person committed a
violation of traffic rules and
regulation like entering a one way
street or beating the red light, he
should only be given a ticket. There
should not even be a confiscation of
license. After that, he should be
allowed to leave but that is not a
ground for him to be placed under
detention. Since the officer detained
the person without any legal ground
HE IS LIABLE FOR ARBITRARY DETENTION.
Q: What if X is suspected to be a snatcher
and many complaints was filed against him.
One time, when the police officers were
conducting a patrol they saw X who was
perhaps waiting for a ride. When the police
officers saw X they immediately arrested X
and brought him to the nearest police
station. They told X that he is to be
investigated for he is said to be a
cellphone snatcher. So he was brought to
the investigation room however, the
investigation officer was not around so the
arresting officer told him that he needs to
be investigated and that he can leave but
he must make sure to come back for purposes
of investigation otherwise if he does not
come back the next time they see him they
will kill him. So because of that, X would
get out of the precinct but would
immediately return. Are the police officers
liable for arbitrary detention?
A: NO, the police officers are not
liable for arbitrary detention.
There is no intent to restrain or
detain the person or liberty of X,
the offended party. In order to
amount to arbitrary detention it is
necessary that the intent of the
public officer to restrain the person
or liberty of the offended party must
be manifest and it must be evident.
In this case however, it is not.
Even if there is a threat on the part
of the police officer there is
however no intent to detain X. What
are the crimes if any are the police
officer liable for?
They committed GRAVE THREATS
because they threatened to kill X
if he would not come back. It is
the grave threats that made X
come back in the police station.
ARTICLE125 ARBITRARY DETENTION BY FAILING
TO DELIVER THE DETAINED PERSON TO THE
PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES WITHIN 12, 18
OR 36 HOURS
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender here is a public
officer or employee vested with
authority to effect arrest and
detain a person

2. That offender has detained a
person for some legal ground
The second element requires that
the offender arrests and detains
a person for some legal
ground.

What are these legal grounds
referred to under Article 125?
The legal ground being
referred to in Article 125
is not the fact that the
said arrest was made by
virtue of a warrant of
arrest because if the
offended party was arrested
by the public officer by
virtue of a valid warrant
of arrest he does not have
the obligation to deliver
him to the proper judicial
authorities.

So what are these valid
instances in arresting a
person?

These refer to
circumstances of valid
warrantless arrests under
Section 5 Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court. It requires
that a peace officer or a
private individual may even
without a warrant arrest a
person under the following
circumstances:

a.) That in his presence
the person to be
arrested has
committed, is
actually committing,
or is attempting to
commit a crime. This
CRIMINAL LAW 2


is otherwise known
as INFLAGRANTE
DELICTO ARREST

b.) When a crime has in
fact just been
committed, and the
police officer has
probable cause to
believe based on
personal knowledge
of facts and
circumstances that
the person to be
arrested is the one
who committed the
crime. This is
otherwise known as
HOT PURSUIT ARREST.

c.) When the person to
be arrested is a
prisoner who has
escaped from a penal
establishment or a
place where he is
serving final
sentence or
temporarily detained
while his case is
pending, or has
escaped while being
transferred from one
penal institution to
another.
These are the
circumstances for
a valid
warrantless
arrest. These are
the circumstances
referred to in
the second
element of
Article 125.

3. That the offender fails to
deliver the person arrested to
the proper judicial authorities
within 12, 18 or 36 hours.
The third element requires that
that the offender fails to
deliver the person arrested to
the proper judicial authorities
within 12, 18 or 36 hours.
What do you mean by delivery?
Delivery does not mean that
you really have to deliver
the physical body of the
person arrested to the
court. It means
constructive delivery or
legal delivery, meaning,
the filing of the
appropriate case before the
proper court. That is
delivery to proper judicial
authorities - filing of the
case before the proper
court.
The law says that a public
officer must deliver to the
proper judicial authorities.
So judicial authority, what
does it mean?
The proper judicial
authorities refers to
COURTS OF JUSTICES OR
JUDGES OF THE COURTS THAT
HAS THE POWER TO ORDER THE
INCARCERATION OR DETENTION
OF A PERSON OR HIS
TEMPORARY RESTRAIN UPON
POSTING OF APPROPRIATE
COMPLAIN.
The FISCAL does not belong
to the proper judicial
authority because he
belongs to the executive
branch. The Fiscal is under
the Department of Justice
and not under the Supreme
Court. The head of the
Fiscal is Secretary De Lima
and the President and not
Chief Justice Sereno.
Thats why a Fiscal is not
within the meaning of a
judicial authority. Second,
the fiscal may fix or the
fiscal may recommend the
bail but he does not have
the power to fix the bail
and allow the accused to go
on temporary liberty. Only
the judges are allowed to
fix the bail and order the
temporary liberty of the
accused until upon the
posting of the said bail.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


The law says that a public officer must
deliver the person arrested to proper
judicial authority within:
a) 12 hours, for crimes punishable by
light penalties, or their equivalent
b) 18 hours, for crimes punishable by
correctional penalties, or their
equivalent
c) 36 hours, for crimes punishable by
afflictive or capital penalties, or
their equivalent
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a person has been arrested
Inflagrante Delicto in possession of an
unlicensed firearm. Possession of
unlicensed firearm is punished by a special
penal law (P.D. 1866 as amended). Is the
arresting officer required to deliver the
accused to the proper judicial authorities?
Does Article 125 apply even to violation of
special penal laws?
A: Yes, because the law says or
their equivalent. 12 hours, for
crimes punishable by light penalties,
or their equivalent. That means all
their equivalent refers to their
equivalent even in cases of violation
of special penal laws. Therefore,
even if the crime committed or the
crime for which the offender is being
arrested is based on violation of
special penal laws, the arresting
police officer has the obligation to
deliver the person arrested to the
proper judicial authorities in
consonance with Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Q: What if the police officers caught X in
the actual act of killing Y. So they saw X
and Y fighting and they saw X stabbed Y to
death. Therefore, X is liable of homicide.
They arrested X and that was Saturday, 3
oclock in the afternoon. Sunday, there is
no office. The following day, Monday,
happens to be declared a special non-
working holiday. Therefore, the police
officers were able to deliver X to the
proper judicial officer only on Tuesday, 8
oclock in the morning. They were able to
file the case in the Fiscals office for
purposes of proceedings Tuesday, 8 oclock
in the morning, beyond 36 hours which was
required by law. Are the police officers
liable for arbitrary detention?
A: NO, the police officers are not
liable for arbitrary detention. The
Secretary of the Department of
Justice has made a legal opinion that
the said 12, 18 and 36 hours refers
to WORKING HOURS. These refer to the
time when the courts are open in
order to receive the cases to be
filed against them. This does not
include the crime wherein the courts
are closed and they did not receive
the complaint or information to be
filed against the accused.

ARTICLE126 ARBITRARY DETENTION BY
DELAYING THE RELEASE OF PRISONERS DESPITE
THE JUDICIAL OR EXECUTIVE ORDER TO DO SO
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer
or employee
2. That there is a judicial or
executive order for the release
of the prisoner or detention
prisoner, or that there is a
proceeding upon a petition for
the liberation of such person.
3. That the offender without
good/valid reason delays: (1) the
service of the notice of such
order to the prisoner; or (2) the
performance of such judicial or
executive order for the release
of the prisoner; or (3) the
proceeding upon a petition for
the release of such person.
NOTE: What is punishable is the delay
without valid reason, the delay of the
release of the prisoner despite the
judicial or executive order to do so.
Example of judicial order for the
release of a prisoner lets say that
a person has been charged in court
and the public prosecutor failed to
present any evidence for consecutive
times and no witnesses has ever been
presented since the beginning. The
judge will dismiss the case and order
the release of the accused from jail.
This is an example of a judicial
order for the release of a prisoner.
Or lets say the judge acquitted the
accused then he will order the
release of the said accused from
jail.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


How about an example of an executive
order for a release of a prisoner? A
person was arrested and placed behind
bars and proceeding was filed before
the fiscals office. The fiscal
ordered the release of the prisoner.
This is an example of executive order
for the release the prisoner.

Q: What if X has been charged of two crimes
- Illegal sales of dangerous drugs and
illegal possession of dangerous drugs? So,
two crimes were filed against him. The
illegal possession of dangerous drugs was
filed before the RTC Branch 6 on the other
hand; the illegal sale was filed before RTC
Branch 87. Two different courts were filed
with. In the illegal possession of
dangerous drugs which was filed in RTC
Branch 6, no witnesses were ever presented
and so the judge immediately declared the
dismissal of the case and he ordered that X
should already be released from jail.
However, the case for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs under RTC Branch 87 is
still ongoing. The jail warden receives the
order coming from the judge RTC Branch 6
that X should be released. The jail warden
did not compel. Is the jail warden liable
for arbitrary detention under Article 126 -
Arbitrary Detention by delaying the release
of prisoners despite the judicial or
executive order to do so?
A: NO, the jail warden is not liable
for arbitrary detention under Article
126 because there is still another
pending case against the said
prisoner before another court.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon him
not to compel with the judge of
Branch 6 since there is another case
in Branch 87 which is still ongoing.
What the law punishes is delay
without valid reason for the release
of the prisoner.

ARTICLE127 EXPULSION
Expulsion is committed by public officers
or employees who shall expel any person
from the Philippines or who compels him to
change his residence without any lawful
authority to do so.Again, the offender is a
public officer or employee who acts either:
a.) By expelling a person from the
Philippines
b.) By compelling a person to change
his residence

What the law prohibits is that if
this public officer or employee
expels him from the Philippines or
compels him to change his residence
without lawful authority to do so
because there are persons who have
been authorized by law to deport a
person from the Philippines or to
compel a person to change his
residence.

For example, the President has the
power to deport or expel a person
from the Philippines. Another example
is a foreigner who is known to be a
persona non grata; the President may
order his deportation to his home.

The courts on the other hand, have
the power to compel a person to
change his place of residence. Lets
say the offender is a concubine and
the penalty to be imposed to a
concubine is destierro. Therefore,
the concubine is prohibited from
entering a particular place based on
the judgment of the court. Now, the
prohibited place from which she is
prohibited from entering is the place
where she lives. She cannot enter the
said place therefore; the court is
empowered to compel her to change her
place of residence because she cannot
enter the place wherein her house is
situated.

VIOLATION OF DOMICILE (ARTICLE 128, 129,
130)
a public officer or employee entered
into a dwelling of another which is
not armed with a search warrant
different prohibited acts
constituting violation of domicile:
I. By entering any dwelling
against the will of the owner
thereof; or
II. By searching papers or other
effects found therein without
the previous consent of such
owner; or
III. By refusing to leave the
premises, after having
surreptitiously entered

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ARTICLE128 VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer or
employee

Who is the offender in the violation of
domicile?
He must be a public officer or
employee acting under color of
authority
A public officer or employee is
said to be acting under color of
authority if he has been vested
with the authority to implement a
search warrant, but when he
entered in the said dwelling, he
is not armed with a search
warrant. Therefore, he was acting
under color of authority.
Even if he is a public officer or
employee, but he did not act
under color of authority, is
liable only, not for violation of
domicile, but is either liable
for qualified trespass to
dwelling or trespass to property
because the public officer or
employee is acting under his
private capacity.

2. He was not authorized by a judicial
order to enter the dwelling and/or
make a search therein for papers or
other effects
The second element requires
that entering upon the
dwelling of another which is
not authorized by a judicial
order. The judicial order
refers to a search warrant

3. He either enters the dwelling of
another against the will of the
latter or searching for papers or
other effects found therein without
the consent of the owner, or after
having surreptitiously entered the
dwelling, being discovered and asked
to leave, he refuses to leave.

The third elements provides for the
different modes of violation of domicile
(These three modes are separate and
distinct from each other do not look for
all the three modes in a problem, violation
of one of them will bring about violation
of domicile)

1. By entering any dwelling against the
will of the owner thereof; or
- There must a prohibition, an opposition
from entering. It can either be an
implied or expressed opposition from
entering.

Example:
implied opposition the door is
closed. It can be said that the
owner is saying that No one can
enter my house
expressed prohibition when the
owner is inside the house and the
officer knocks upon the door and
upon seeing the officer, the owner
closes the door.
if there are sayings Do not
enter, No entry

- It does not mean entering without the
consent. An entry without the consent is
not an entry against the will.
- When you say entry against the will,
there must be an opposition or a
prohibition from entering the dwelling.

2. By searching papers or other effects
found therein without the previous
consent of the owner; or
- The consent of the owner matters. Even
if the public officer or employee is
allowed inside, the fact that he is
allowed inside does not mean that he is
allowed to conduct the search.
- He must ask first for the previous
consent of the owner before proceeding
with the search. Without the previous
consent of the owner to conduct the
search, any search would be a violation
of domicile.

3. By refusing to leave the premises, after
having surreptitiously entered the
dwelling
- it is his refusal to leave the premises
that will bring about the violation of
domicile, NOT the surreptitiously
entering. But it is required that
entering must be done surreptitiously.
- Surreptitious entering means entering
the dwelling secretly, candidly.
- Therefore, it is important that he mus-t
refuse to leave after being discovered
and asked to leave in order to amount to
violation of domicile.
- Mere surreptitious entering will not
bring about violation of domicile.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q:What if the door of the house was opened,
a police officer without being armed with a
CRIMINAL LAW 2


search warrant, entered the door of the
house and went up to the sala. The owner of
the house saw him and asked him to leave,
and he left. Is he liable for violation of
domicile?
A: He is not liable for violation of
domicile. When the door of the house
is open, there is no prohibition;
there is no opposition from entering.
Anybody may enter even without a
search warrant; therefore, since
there is no prohibition or opposition
from entering, violation of domicile
cannot be committed under the first
act. Under the second act, it cannot
be committed because he did not
conduct the search. The third act
also not done because the entering of
the house is not done
surreptitiously.

Q: What if in the same problem, the door of
the house was opened, a public officer with
the intent to conduct a search warrant
entered the house, when he was in the sala,
the owner of the house saw him and told him
to leave. He did not leave; he just stayed
there and sat on the sofa. Is he liable for
violation of domicile?
A: He is not liable for violation of
domicile. Under the first act, is
entry against the will? NO, the door
was opened. Therefore, there was no
opposition or prohibition from
entering. Under the second act, he did
not conduct a search. Under the third
act, is the entering done
surreptitiously? NO, because the
door of the house was opened;
therefore, he did not violate any of
the following acts amounting to

But he did not leave the house,
although the owner of the house asked
him to leave. Is he liable?
Yes. He is liable for unjust
vexation. (Nangiinis lang
siya)
Although he did not the
house, he cannot be liable
for violation of domicile
because his act does not
constitute the acts
prohibited by Article 128.

Q: The door of the house was closed, but it
was not locked. A police officer without a
search warrant opened the door, realizing
it was not locked, entered the house and
went up to the sala intending to conduct
the search. Before he could conduct the
search, the owner of the house saw him, and
told him to leave and he left. Is he liable
for violation of domicile?
A: Yes. He is laible for violation of
domicile. Even if he left the said
place upon being told to do it, he is
already liable because his entry was
against the will of the owner. The
door was closed although it was not
locked. Therefore, there was an
implied opposition, an implied
prohibition from entering.When he
entered without a search warrant
intending to conduct a search is
already a violation of domicile

Q: What if the police officer knocked on
the door of the house of X. X opened the
door, upon seeing the public officers, X
allowed them to enter. The police officer
told X that they were looking for a stolen
car stereo in the neighborhood; we are
going to conduct a search in your house. X
said, "No, you cannot conduct a search
inside my house. The police officers
agreed and left the house. Are they liable
for violation of domicile?
A: They are not liable. It is not
entry against the will. They did not
conduct a search. The entry was not
done surreptitiously. It does not
fall any of the acts, therefore, they
are not liable for violation of
domicile.

Q: In the same problem, when they told the
owner that they were conducting a search
for the stolen car stereo, the owner of the
house said, No, you cannot conduct a
search. There is nothing stolen inside my
house but the police officers proceeded
with the search.
A: This time, they are liable for
violation of domicile because they
made a search without the previous
consent of the owner under the
second act of Art. 128

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Q: What if in the same problem, the owner
of the house told the police officers, No
you cannot conduct a search, there is
nothing stolen inside my house The police
officers obliged, they were going to leave
the house, obeying the order of the owner.
However, on their way out, before they
could go out, they saw near the door, a
table and on top of it, there were drug
paraphernalia, contraband. And so, they
seized and confiscated the contraband and
then thereafter they leave the house. Are
they liable for violation of domicile? Are
the evidences confiscated admissible
against the owner?
A: They are not liable of violation
of domicile. When they were told not
to conduct the search, they did not
conduct the search and they were
about to leave, therefore, not liable
for violation of domicile. But they
confiscated the drug paraphernalia
that they saw. Yes, the confiscated
drug paraphernalia were admissible
against the owner because they were
contraband. They are illegal per se.
And the police officers saw them
without conducting the search, they
saw them inadvertently. Even without
conducting the search, the police
officers would see contraband,
narcotics, in their presence, in
their plain view, they are mandated
by law to seize and confiscate the
same under the plain view doctrine.
So in this case, these drug
paraphernalia where under the plain
view and therefore under the
obligation to seize and confiscate
them and these are admissible as
evidence against the owner of the
house.

Q: What if a police officer was conducting
a surveillance of X, a well-known drug
pusher, so he was always within the
vicinity of the house of X. One time, it
was the birthday of X, the gate of the
house was open, and the door of the house
was opened. The police officer disguised
himself as one of the guests and he entered
the house together with the flow of the
guests. His intention was to conduct a
search. He was already about to conduct the
search when the owner of the house
recognized him. The owner of the house came
up to him. I know you, you are a police
officer. Get out of my house right now and
he left. Is he liable for violation of
domicile?
A: No, he is not liable for violation
of domicile. The entry was done
surreptitiously, secretly, candidly,
he was in disguise. It was not
against the will of the owner because
the gates and the door were open. He
did not conduct the search because
the owner saw him before he could do
so. The entry was done
surreptitiously. He was discovered
and ordered to leave, and he left.
Therefore, he is not liable for
violation of domicile
However, upon being discovered and
ordered to leave and stayed in the
house.
Here, he is not liable for
Under Articles 129 and 130, there is
still violation of domicile despite the
public officer or employee is armed with
a search warrant.

ARTICLE129 SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY
OBTAINED AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE
LEGALLY OBTAINED
Prohibited acts violation of domicile
is committed through:
I. By procuring a search warrant
without just cause
When a public officer or
employee conducts a search
and the search warrant was
an illegally procured search
warrant. It was procured
without just cause.

SEARCH WARRANT is an order in writing,
issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed
to a peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property described
therein and to bring to court the
particular things to be seized.

Before a search warrant may be issue, the
following are the requisites to a valid
search warrant:
1.) It is required that it is for one
specific offense.
2.) There must be probable cause
3.) The probable cause must be determined
personally by the issuing judge
CRIMINAL LAW 2


4.) The said probable cause was determined
by the issuing judge personally through
searching questions and answers in
writing, under oath or affirmation as
the testimony given by applicant of the
said search warrant or any witnesses he
may produce.
5.) The applicant of the search warrant and
his witnesses must testify only as to
facts personally known to them
6.) The said search warrant must
specifically state the place to be
searched and the place to be seized.

- If any of these requisites is wanting,
then the said search warrant is
illegally procured. It is procured
without just cause
- A search conducted by virtue of a search
warrant illegally procured without just
cause is a kin to a search without a
search warrant.

Q: What if the police officer was armed
with a search warrant, he procured the
search warrant illegally without just
cause. The police had an enemy, B, then
proceeded to a judge to issue a search
warrant testifying under oath, the he is
positive under his surveillance that B was
in possession of an unlicensed firearm
inside his house. The judge believed the
police and issued a search warrant against
B. The police officer is now armed with a
search warrant, and went to the house of B
and showed it to B. B, upon reading the
search warrant, knew it was maliciously
procured, it was procured without just
cause. Should B allow the police officer to
conduct the search?
A: Yes. Even if the said search
warrant was procured without just
cause, the police officer must be
allowed to enter and conduct the
search, because of the so-called,
REGULARITY OF PERFORMANCE OF DUTY on
the part of the judge in issuing the
said search warrant. He is armed with
a search warrant issued by the judge
and therefore, he must allow him to
enter his house and to conduct his
search.
What now would be the remedy of
the owner of the house?
The owner of the house has
the following remedies:
1.) He can file a motion to
quash the said warrant
2.) He can file a motion to
suppress the evidence that
have been confiscated
inside the house.
In addition to these
motions, he can file a case
of violation of domicile
against the said public
officer who conducted the
search. Violation of
domicile under Art. 129
because he procured the said
search warrant without just
cause.
So in other words, the said
police officers must be
allowed to enter and allowed
to conduct the search and
the owner of the house shall
have the abovementioned
remedies thereafter.

II. By exceeding his authority or by
using unnecessary severity in
executing a search warrant
legally procured

A search warrant is valid only for
a period of 10 days from the date
of its issuance appearing on the
search warrant.

ILLUSTRATION:
A search warrant was dated Dec. 1, a police
officer received it on Dec 3. The search
was conducted Dec. 13. The said search
warrant is already invalid.
When they conducted the said search
on Dec. 13, they already exceeded
the authority in the said search
warrant. Therefore, they are liable
of violation of domicile under
Article 129.

Q: What if the said search warrant says
that they could conduct the search, anytime
of the day. They conducted the search at
night time.
A: They are liable of violation of
domicile under Article 129 because
they exceeded the authority in the
said search warrant.

A search warrant may only be conducted at
day time. It may only be implemented at day
time, EXCEPTIONS:
When there is a specific order
in the search warrant stating
that if can be conducted at
anytime of the day or night.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Absence of such order in the
said search warrant, a search
warrant can only be
implemented at day time.

Q: What if a search warrant was issued
against X, the place to be search is
located at 123 valentiono St. They police
went there. The house was owned not by X,
but by Y. So they look for the house of X,
the house of X was 321 valentino St. They
presented a search warrant to X. X said,
you cannot conduct a search inside my
house. The address in the search warrant is
123 valentinost. and my address is 321
valentinost. Nevertheless, the officers
conducted the search and they found the
illegal items inside the house. Are the
police officers liable of violation of
domicile? Are the confiscated admissible
evidence against the owner?
A: The officers are liable for the
violation of domicile. When they
conducted the said search, on a house
that has a different address from
that said search warrant, they
exceeded their authority in the said
search warrant. The search warrant is
so worded, expressly, as to the thing
or place to be searched. The police
officer cannot exercise discretion.
They have to follow what is stated in
the search warrant. The moment they
did not follow what is stated in the
search warrant, then they exceeded
the authority.

In that case, when there is variance
between what is stated in the search
warrant and the actual facts of the
case to be searched, they have to go
back to the judge that issued the
said search warrant and they have to
ask or move for the amendment of the
said search warrant.

Q: What if the third punishable act under
Art. 129 amounting to the violation of
domicile, when the public officer or
employee exercised excessive severity in
the implementation of the said search
warrant.

What if a search warrant is issued
against X, the police officers went to the
house of X, upon reaching the house of X,
they showed the warrant to X and he allowed
them to enter. The search warrant said that
they could search for dangerous drugs,
particularly, shabu. In searching for
shabu, they turned upside down and
deliberately destroyed each and every
furniture and appliance inside the house of
X. When the wife of X saw this, she told
the police officers to stop, but she was
slapped twice. she then suffered less
serious physical injuries. In deliberately
destroying the furniture and appliances of
X, the public officers committed malicious
mischief. In slapping the wife, they
committed less serious physical injuries.
What crime/crimes would you file against
the police officers?
A: You have to file 3 cases:
1. Violation of domicile because
they exercised excessive
severity in the implementation
of the said search warrant.
They need not destroy the
property. They need not slap
the wife. All of these are
excess of the search warrant.
Therefore they should be
filed in violation of Art.
129, violation of
domicile, for exercising
excessive severity.
2. Malicious mischief for
destroying the furniture and
appliances
3. less serious physical injuries
for slapping the wife

Are you going to file all 3 cases or is
it absorbed and must be file within the
court?
Violation of domicile cannot absorb
malicious mischief nor less serious
physical injuries.
Although in reality, these two are
merely the manifestations of the
excess in the implementation of the
said search warrant, they cannot be
absorbed, they cannot be complex.
Under Art. 129, he expressly
prohibits such absorption and such
complexity of crimes
Under Article 129, the liability
for violation of domicile shall be
in addition to the liability
attaching to the offender for
commission of any other crime.
Therefore, if aside from violation
of domicile, another crime is
committed by the police officers,
they had to be charged with all
these cases. Art. 129 prohibits the
CRIMINAL LAW 2


complexing of a crime. It also
prohibits the absorption of this
crime, therefore all 3 cases must
be filed against the said police
officers.

ARTICLE130 SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT
WITNESSES
Prohibited act:
I. By conducting a search in the absence
of the owner of the house, or any
member of his family, or two
witnesses residing in the same
locality

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if under Article 130, violation of
domicile is committed when the search was
conducted in the absence of the owner of
the house, or any member of his family or
two witnesses residing from the same
locality.
A search warrant was issued against X
and the police officers went to the house
of X. They showed the search warrant to X
and they were allowed inside to conduct the
search. In conducting the search, the
search was witnessed by 2 barangay tanods
who came with them, who arrived with them
in the house of X. in the conduct of the
search, they told the owner of the house,
X, that his wife and his two children to
remain in the sala while they conduct the
search inside the bedroom of X. In
conducting the search in the bedroom of X,
the search was witnessed by 2 barangay
tanods and they found 2 plastic sachets of
shabu underneath the pillow inside the
bedroom of X. Are the police officers
liable of violation of domicile under
Article 130? Are the evidence seized
admissible against the owner?
A: The police officers are liable of
violation of domicile under Article
130.
Article 130 provides for an hierarchy
of witnesses who must be present in
the conduct of the search. The law
says it must witnessed by the owner
of the house, it is only in the
absence of the owner of the house
that it must be witnessed by any
member of his family. It is only in
the absence of the owner of the house
or any member of his family that
there must be 2 witnesses residing
from the same locality.
In the problem, the owner of the
house was there, the members of his
family were there but, they were
not allowed to witness the said
search. Therefore, the said search
was conducted in violation of
Article 130 and any evidence
confiscated will be inadmissible
against the owner of the house for
being fruits of poisonous tree
under the exclusionary rule in
Political Law

GALVANTE VS. CASIMIRO
The Supreme Court says,
There is no such crime as illegal
search. So, what is prohibited only the
searching of the dwelling under Article
129. But, in case of search under vehicle
or any other places, there is no such thing
as illegal search. The remedy is to file an
action for damages, a civil action for
damages.

ARTICLE131 PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
This is committed by a public officer
or employee who commits any of the
following acts:
I. By prohibiting or by
interrupting, without legal
ground, the holding of a
peaceful meeting, or by
dissolving the same. (any
peaceful meeting)
II. By hindering any person from
joining any lawful association
or from attending any of its
meetings.
III. By 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.

For the crime to arise, it is necessary
that the meeting that was prevented,
interrupted or dissolved must be a
peaceful meeting and it must be for any
lawful purpose. If the meeting is not a
peaceful meeting or if the meeting is
not for lawful purpose, a public officer
or employee has all the rights to
prevent, interrupt or dissolve the said
meeting.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


This is in the exercise of the freedom
of speech, freedom of expression and
freedom of assembly. However, these 3
freedoms are not absolute. The Supreme
Court has enjoined the power of the State
to regulate these meetings through permits.

Before any of these peaceful meetings for a
lawful purpose may be held in a public
place, there must be a permit coming from
the local authority of the place. The
permit is only to regulate the said meeting
and not to prohibit it. Regulate as to the
time, place and to the date, so that the
public would not be in inconvenience.

ARTICLE132 INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP
ELEMENTS:
1. This is committed by an offender
who is again a public officer or
employee.
2. Then there is a religious
ceremony or manifestations of any
religion are about to take place
or are going on.
3. That the offender prevents or
disturbs the said religious
worship or religious ceremony.
If the offender makes us of violence
or threats in committing the crime,
such use of violence or threats would
not constitute a separate and
distinct charge. Rather it is
considered as an aggravating or
qualifying circumstance which would
mean an imposition of a higher
penalty.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if there is a barrio fiesta and
the priest is about to celebrate the mass.
Here comes X and he went to the priest and
point the gun to the priest. Then the
priest was about to celebrate the mass. At
first the priest did not mind him. But X
intentionally pointed the gun to the head
of the priest and said, I will kill you if
you will celebrate the mass! So the priest
did not celebrate the mass and all the
faithful went out of the church. What
crime if any is committed by X?
A: X is liable for interruption of
religious worship under Article 132.
What about the fact that he pointed a
gun at the head of the priest? Would
it constitute a separate and distinct
crime of grave threats? It will not.
The fact that threats were employed
in the commission of the crime would
only mean the penalty will be imposed
in its maximum period. It would be
considered an aggravating
circumstance in committing the crime
of interruption of religious worship.
BUT, IT WILL BRING ABOUT A SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT CHARGE FOR GRAVE THREATS
OR EVEN UNDER LIGHT THREATS.

ARTICLE133 OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS
FEELINGS
ELEMENTS:
1. Committed by a public officer or
employee or a private individual.
The first element provides
for the offender. The
offender may be a public
officer or employee or a
private individual. This is
the only crime under Title
Two where the offender can
be a private individual.
From Article 124 to Article
132 under Title Two, the
offender can ONLY be a
public officer or employee.
The only exception is
Article 133, offending the
religious feelings wherein
the offender can either be
a public officer or
employee or a private
individual. The reason is,
whoever may be the
offender, a public officer
or employee or a private
individual, there will be
the same offense made on
the feelings of the
faithful.

2. The said offender performs acts
(1) in a place devoted to
religious worship, or (2) during
the celebration of any religious
ceremony.
The second element requires
that the offender performs
acts notoriously offensive
CRIMINAL LAW 2


to the feelings of the
faithful. Acts notoriously
offensive to the feelings
of the faithful are those
acts directed against their
religious dogma, ritual,
faith of the religion, or
mocks, ridicule, or scoffs
of the said dogma, ritual,
faith or he attempts to
damage the object of
veneration of a certain
religion. The law says
notoriously offensive,
according to Reyes, it
means that it is offensive
to all kinds of religion.
If the same thing would be
done to any religion they
will also be offended.

3. That the acts must be notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the
faithful.
The third element requires
that the said acts
notoriously offensive to
the feelings of the
faithful can be committed
only (1) in a place devoted
to religious worship, or
(2) during the celebration
of any religious ceremony.
The law uses the word or
therefore, if the act is
done in a place devoted to
religious worship, it is
not necessary that there be
a religious ceremony
ongoing. Because it can
either be with or without a
religious ceremony for as
long as the place is
devoted for religious
worship.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if X (A private individual)
entered a catholic church after that the
tabernacle was opened and he took out the
chalice and inside the chalice was the host
which was being received by Catholics
during communion. He poured the host in the
floor then he destroyed them, spit on them
and stepped on them. Is he liable under
Article 133?
A: YES. The act he performed is
notoriously offensive to the feelings
of the Catholics. If the same act is
done to the object of veneration of
the Buddhists or if the same act is
done to the object of veneration of
the Muslims, they will also be
offended. Therefore, it is
notoriously offensive to the feelings
of the faithful because even if it is
applied to other religions they would
be offended too. And it was done in a
place devoted to religious worship
because it is done inside the church
even if no religious ceremony is
ongoing.

Q: What if inside the PICC there was this
art exhibit ongoing and one artist, this
was a controversy before right? There was
this picture of Jesus Christ and on the
picture of Jesus Christ he put a
representation of a penis on his face. Is
the said artist liable under Article 133
offending the religious feelings?
A: NO. He cannot be liable for
offending religious feelings under
Article 133. Because the PICC is not
a place devoted for religious worship
and the art exhibit is not a
celebration of a religious ceremony.
Therefore, since the last element is
not present even if it offends
religious feelings, he cannot be held
liable under Article 133 for the
absence of the 3
rd
element.

TITLE THREE
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER (Articles
134 160)

ARTICLE134 - REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
ELEMENTS:
1. That there must be (a) public
uprising, and (b) taking arms
against the Government
2. That the purpose of the uprising
or movement is either
a. to remove from the allegiance
to said Government or its
laws:
(1) the territory of the
Philippines or any part
thereof; or
(2) any body of land, naval
or other armed forces;
or
CRIMINAL LAW 2


b. to deprive the Chief Executive
or Congress, wholly or
partially, of any their powers
or prerogatives.
The essence or the gravamen of REBELLION
is :
- The armed uprising against the
Philippine Government. So it is a public
uprising with the taking up of arms. AN
ARMED PUBLIC UPRISING.
In case of Rebellion, it can be
committed by any person, or with a
participation of the public.

THE LEADERS - Any person who
(a) promotes
(b) maintains or
(c) heads a rebellion or insurrection

THE PARTICIPANTS Any person who
(a) participates
(b) executes the commands of others in
rebellion or insurrection

ARTICLE134-A COUP DETAT
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a person or
persons belonging to the military or
police or holding any public office
or employment;
2. That it is committed by means of a
swift attack accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth;
3. That the attack is directed against
duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any
military camp or installation,
communication networks, public
utilities or other facilities needed
for the exercise and continued
possession of power;
4. That the purpose of the attack is to
seize or diminish state power.

Committed by any person or persons
belonging to the military or police or
holding any public office or employment,
with or without civilian support,
carried out singly or simultaneously
anywhere in the Philippines for the
purpose of seizing or diminishing state
power.

The essence of COUP DETAT is a swift
attack directed against the duly
constituted authorities, with or without
civilians.

REBELLION COUP DETAT
Essence an Armed
public Uprising
against the
Government
Essence swift
attack against the
duly constituted
authorities
Crime of the Masses,
it involves a
multitude of people
It can be committed
with or without the
participation of the
public because it
says, with or without
civilian support,
provided it has been
committed by any
member of the
military, the police
or those holding
public office or
employment.
Purpose Overthrow
the Government of
the Philippines and
replace it with the
Government of the
Rebels
Purpose only to
diminish state power,
to destabilize the
government, not
entirely to overthrow
the government.
Can only be
committed by means
of force and
violence
Can be committed not
only by means of
force and violence
but also by means of
intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth

THE LEADERS - Any person who
(a) leads
(b) directs or
(c) command others to undertake a coup
detat

THE PARTICIPANTS Any member of the
Government who
(a) participates
(b) executes the commands of others in
undertaking a coup detat

Any person who is not in the Government
service who
(a) Participates
(b) Supports
(c) Finances
(d) abets or
(e) aids in the undertaking of a coup
detat

What if common crimes are committed in
the course of Rebellion?
Common crimes committed in
furtherance of, incident to or in
connection with Rebellion are
considered as ABSORBED in the crime
of Rebellion known as the THEORY OF
ABSORPTION IN REBELLION.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


THEORY OF ABSORPTION IN REBELLION
Whenever in the course of committing
rebellion, murder, homicide, arson,
physical injuries, other common
crimes are committed, and these
common crimes are in furtherance to,
incident to, in connection with
Rebellion is considered as absorbed
in the crime of Rebellion. Therefore,
only one charge of Rebellion should
be charged against the said offender.

ENRILE v SALAZAR
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged with
the Following crimes:
1. charged with Rebellion
2. charged with multiple Murder
3. Multiple frustrated murder
4. violation of PD 1829 obstruction of
Justice because he harbored or concealed
then Colonel Gregorio Honasan.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court said:
only one charge and it should be
rebellion. The violation of PD 1829,
the multiple murder and multiple
frustrated murder are absorbed in
Rebellion under the theory of
absorption in Rebellion.
The Supreme Court further said that
although violation of PD 1829 is a
violation of a special penal law,
still if it is committed in
furtherance of Rebellion, it can
still be absorbed in the crime of
Rebellion.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a police officer was on his way
to the office, suddenly here comes a member
of the NPA, he saw the police officer and
shot him. What crime is committed? is it
Rebellion or murder?
Rebellion can only be absorbed
common crime such as murder,
if the commission of the
crimes was done in furtherance
of Rebellion. Therefore, it is
necessary that there must be
evidence shown in what way the
said killing has promoted,
fostered the idea of the
Rebels. Absent any connection
with the commission of the
common crime and the
furtherance of rebellion, the
appropriate charge is only
murder, homicide, arson or
physical injuries as the case
maybe.
A: In the case, the proper charged
would be murder. There was no
evidence showing in what way the said
NPA has promoted the ideas of the
Rebels in killing of the said police
officer. Absent of that evidence, it
would be a charge of murder and not
rebellion.
Rebellion is a continuing crime.
Therefore, these NPA who rebelled
against the Government, to overthrow
the Government, that one time
uprising is sufficient, they are
already considered as rebels because
it is a continuing offense.

GONZALES v ABAYA
Senator Trillanes and company was charged
with 2 crimes, coup detat in the RTC of
Makati and the violation of articles of
war, particularly acts of unbecoming of an
officer and a gentleman filed before the
military court. While the case was pending
in the RTC of Makati, the lawyer filed a
petition, a motion, saying that the
violation of the articles of war should be
absorbed by the case filed before the RTC
of Makati. Can Coup detat absorb the
violations of article of war?

The Supreme Court ruled in the
NEGATIVE.
According to the Supreme Court, for
the theory of absorption to apply,
it is necessary that both cases
must be heard or may be heard
before the same civilian court.
In this case, the coup detat must
be heard in a civilian court, RTC
of Makati, whereas the violations
of the articles of war can be heard
only before a military court.
Therefore, one cannot absorb the
other.
Second reasoning given by the
Supreme Court, for the theory to
absorption to apply, it is
necessary that both crimes are
punished by the same penal statute
Third reasoning, violation of the
articles of war is sui generis. It
is a kind of its own. Nothing
compares to it. Therefore, it
cannot be absorbed by any other
crime.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ARTICLE136 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT COUP DETAT, REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION
There is CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
REBELLION when two or more persons
come into an agreement concerning the
commission of rebellion (to rise
publicly and take arms against the
Government to any of the purposes of
rebellion) and decide to commit it.
There is PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION
when a person who decides to commit
rebellion proposes its execution to
another person it is necessary that
the other person would not agree, if
that person agree, then it is already
conspiracy to commit rebellion
Conspiracy is a bilateral act which
involves two or more persons, whereas
proposal is a unilateral act only one
person decides to commit the crime
and he proposes its execution to
another person.
There is a conspiracy to commit coup
detat the same way of committing it.
Also the proposal to commit coup detat.

ARTICLE138 INCITING TO REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION
Inciting to Rebellion is a crime under the
Revised Penal Code.
ELEMENTS:
1. It is committed by any person who
does not take up arms or is not in
open hostility with the Government
2. he incites others to uprise for any
of the purposes of rebellion (incite
others to the execution of any of the
acts of rebellion)
3. by means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, banners or other
representations tending to the same
end.

There is NO SUCH CRIME AS INCITING TO
COUP DETAT.

SEDITION (ARTICLE 139)
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender rise (1) publicly,
and (2) tumultuously;
2. That they employ force, intimidation
or other means outside of legal
methods;
3. That the offenders employ any of
those means to attain any of the
following objectives:

a. To prevent the promulgation or
execution of any law or the
holding of any popular
election
b. To prevent the National
Government, or any provincial
or municipal government, or
any public officer thereof
from freely exercising its or
his functions, or prevents the
execution of any
administrative order;
c. To inflict any act of hate or
revenge upon the person or
property of any public officer
or employee;
d. To commit, for any political
or social end, any act of hate
or revenge against private
persons or any social class;
and
e. To despoil, for any political
or social end, any person,
municipality or province or
the National Government of all
its property or any part
thereof
There is a public uprising again but
no taking up of arms but it is done
tumultuously by means of force,
intimidation or any other means
outside the legal methods.

Therefore, based on the objects of
sedition, the purposes of sedition can
either be political in nature or social
in nature.

The purpose of sedition is not to
overthrow the government but to go
against what the government wants to
implement. To go against a new law,
an administrative order or public
officer or employee.
It is a disturbance, a commotion
against the lawful command of the
authority.
The rallies that you see every day,
the rallies against a new law to be
implemented, they are considered as
ordinary protest or rallies, but the
moment they are carried outside of
legal methods, by means of force and
violence, they will become to be a
seditious act.

So, sedition is like any other rally, it
only becomes seditious because there is
the public uprising, done tumultuously,
by means of force, violation or any
other means outside of the legal method.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


REBELLION SEDITION
Both have a public uprising
Objective Political
in nature
To overthrow the
Government and to
replace the it with
the Government of the
Rebels
Objective can
either be Political
or social in nature

ARTICLE141 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION
There is a crime conspiracy to commit
sedition but not proposal to commit
sedition. A proposal to commit
sedition is not a punishable act
under the RPC.

ARTICLE142 INCITING TO SEDITION
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is not a participant
(does not take direct part) in the
crime of sedition
2. He incites others to uprise for any
of the purposes of sedition
3. By means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, cartoon, banners,
or other representation tending to
the same end.

Inciting to Rebellion or Inciting to
Sedition can only be committed by a
person who is not a participant in
the Rebellion or the Sedition,
because if he is a participant in the
Rebellion or Sedition, the
appropriate charge is Rebellion or
Sedition as the case may be. Not
merely inciting to Rebellion or
Sedition.

Inciting to Sedition is committed not
only by inciting others for any of
the purposes of sedition. Different
acts of inciting to sedition:
I. Inciting others to the
accomplishment of any of the acts
which constitute sedition by
means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, etc.
II. Uttering seditious words or
speeches which tend to disturb
the public peace
III. Writing, publishing or
circulating scurrilous libels
against the Government, or any of
the duly constituted authorities
thereof, which tend to disturb
the public peace.

USE OF UNLICENSED FIREARM (PD 1866 as
amended by RA 8294 otherwise known as the laws
on illegal/unlawful possession, manufacture,
dealing in, acquisition or disposition of firearms,
ammunition or explosives or instruments used in
the manufacture of firearms, ammunition or
explosives)

See: People vs. Ladjaalam and Celino Sr. vs.
People
Under Section 1 If the use of an unlicensed
firearm is in furtherance of, incident to, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion or
sedition, or attempted coup dtat, such use
of unlicensed firearm shall be absorbed in
the crime of rebellion, sedition or attempted
coup dtat.
Therefore, the use of unlicensed firearm in
case of rebellion or sedition, or attempted
coup dtat will not bring about a separate or
distinct charge. There is only one crime that
is rebellion or sedition, or attempted coup
dtat. The use of unlicensed firearm is not
even an aggravating circumstance. It is
absorbed in the crime of rebellion or sedition,
or attempted coup dtat.
Under the same Section 1 of PD 1866 as
amended by RA 8294, if the use of an
unlicensed firearm is in the crime of
homicide or murder, as the case may be, the
use of unlicensed firearm shall be considered
as an aggravating circumstance. So in the
law, it is an AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE.

WHAT KIND OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE?
As decided by the Supreme Court in
number of cases, it is a SPECIAL
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
which cannot be offset by any mitigating
circumstance. The Supreme Court also
held that the use of the word homicide
or murder under Section 1 is in its
generic sense, therefore, whatever be
the kind of killing for as long as the
unlicensed firearm is used, such use of
unlicensed firearm is considered as a
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So if a son had an argument with his father, in the
course of the argument with his father, the son killed
the father, the firearm was recovered. What crime or
crimes would you file against the son?
A: The son is liable of the crime of
PARRICIDE, for having killed his own father.
The use of unlicensed firearm shall be
considered as a SPECIAL AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE. Because as held by the
Supreme Court, the use of the word murder
is in its generic sense, therefore it includes
any kind wherein the imposable penalty is
RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH such as
Parricide.
Under Section 1 of PD 1866 as amended, it also
provided that a person can only be held liable of
illegal possession of unlicensed firearm provided that
no other crime was committed by the person
arrested. It is necessary that no other crime was
committed by the person arrested.

PEOPLE VS. LADJAALAM
The police officers armed with a warrant of
arrest went to the house of WalpanLadjaalam
to effect the warrant of arrest.
WalpanLadjaalam, upon seeing the police
officers, fired shots at the officers. Hence, he
was charged with direct assault with multiple
attempted homicide. Aside from that, he was
also charged with illegal possession of
unlicensed firearms. He was convicted of
both crimes before the Regional Trial Court.
On appeal before the Supreme Court, SC said
the illegal possession of firearms case should
be dismissed. He should be acquitted in the
said case because he committed another
crime, and that is, DIRECT ASSAULT WITH
MULTIPLE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE.

What about in the case of CELINO, SR. VS.
PEOPLE?
In this case, it was election time, there was a
COMELEC gun ban. A person was found in
possession of an unlicensed firearm.
Arrested, he was charged of 2 crimes: (1)
violation of the COMELEC gun ban, and (2)
illegal possession of unlicensed firearms.
During the arraignment for the violation of
the COMELEC gun ban, he pleaded not
guilty. However, during the arraignment for
illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm,
he filed a motion to quash the information.
According to him, he cannot be charged of
illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm
because the law says that you can only be
charged of illegal possession of an unlicensed
firearm provided that no other crime is
committed by the person arrested. He said
here, he committed violation of COMELEC
gun ban, therefore, he can no longer be liable
for violation of PD 1866 that is Illegal
Possession of Unlicensed Firearm.
IS HIS CONTENTION CORRECT?
His contention is wrong because
according to the Supreme Court, when
the law says provided that no other
crime is committed by the person
arrested, the word committed means
that there is already a final
determination of guilt a final conviction
of guilt based on a successful
prosecution or a judicial admission.
Therefore, the word committed means
he has already been held guilty beyond
reasonable doubt a final judgment.

In the case of CELINO SR., he was not yet convicted.
He was only being prosecuted. He was only being
charged of illegal possession of unlicensed firearm.
Therefore, both cases can proceed. He can be charged
both of illegal possession of unlicensed firearms and
violation of COMELEC gun ban. However, the
moment he is convicted of violation of COMELEC gun
ban, he should be acquitted of illegal possession of
unlicensed firearm, because this time, the law says
provided that no other crime is committed by the
person arrested. Therefore, a final conviction is
necessary before the illegal possession of
unlicensed firearm may be dismissed or he may
be acquitted of the same. So that is the relation of
PD 1866 to sedition, rebellion and coup dtat.

ARTICLE143 ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE
MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY AND SIMILAR BODIES
Punishes acts preventing the meeting
of Congress
The crime is committed if there is a
projected or actual meeting of the
Congress and the offender, by means
of force or fraud, prevents such
meeting
The offender here is any person: he
may be a private individual, public
officer or employee
CRIMINAL LAW 2


It is necessary that the offender
prevents the meeting of the Congress
or any of its committees, or
constitutional committees or any
provincial city or municipal board.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if there is a meeting of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod. It was being
presided by the Vice Mayor as the presiding
officer of the city council. During the
session of the SangguniangPanlungsod, here
comes the mayor together with some police
officers. They entered the session of and
disturbed and prevented the said meeting by
force. What crime, if any, was committed?
A: It is the violation of Article 143
ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING
OF CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES.

ARTICLE144 DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
Punishes disturbance of proceedings
In disturbance of proceedings, there
is a meeting of Congress 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
The offender either disturbs any of
such proceedings or he behaves while
in the presence of such proceedings
in such a manner as to interrupt the
proceedings or impair the respect due
it.
So here, it is necessary that the
offender, who was present in the
meeting, either he disturbs the said
proceeding, or while being there, he
performed an act which impair the
respect due to them or which
interrupted the said proceeding

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: The FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL was on
the committee level. It was votation time.
On the right side of the said place or
meeting, there were some observers or
people who were coming from the media. On
the left side, there were ordinary people
who do not agree on the freedom of
information bill. It was time to vote for
the passage of Freedom of Information bill,
the members of the committee were voting
when suddenly some members of the media
immediately pulled out a placard and
shouted: YES TO FREEDOM TO INFORMATION
BILL!Are they liable of any crime?
A: YES. They are liable of
disturbance of proceedings under
Article 144. Because while in the
presence of the said meeting, they
behaved in such a manner as to
interrupt the proceedings, or impair
the respect due it.

ARTICLE145 VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY
IMMUNITY
Punishes violation of parliamentary
immunity
There are TWO (2) ACTS PUNISHED IN
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY:
1. Penalty: Prision Mayor
committed by any person who
by means of force,
intimidation, fraud or
threat, or any other means
and by said means, he tried
to prevent any member of
the Congress either from
attending any meeting of
the Congress or its
committees or
subcommittees,
constitutional commissions
or committees or divisions
thereof , from expressing
his opinions or casting his
vote
can be committed
by anyone
(private
individual,
public officer or
employee)
2. Penalty: Prision
Correccional can only be
committed by a public
officer or employee who
shall, while the 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.
Offender should
be only a public
CRIMINAL LAW 2


officer or
employee and not
any individual
because any
individual cannot
make a search or
arrest a member
of the Congress
It is necessary
that at the time
of the arrest,
the member of
Congress, the
Congress must be
in its regular or
special session.
Likewise, it is
necessary that
the said member
of Congress has
committed a crime
which is not
higher than
Prision Mayor.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: How about in the case of Panfilo Lacson?
A: The case against Sen. Lacson was
fortunately dismissed by the Court of
Appeals. But let us say, it is not
dismissed by the Court of Appeals, he
was being charged of double murder
Dacer-Corbito double murder slay. He
went into hiding. Let us say that he
made his appearance. Can he be
arrested even if the Congress is in
regular or special session? YES.
Because the crime committed by him is
punishable by a crime committer
higher than prision mayor. It is
punishable by reclusion perpetua.
Therefore, had it not been dismissed
by Congress and he apparently
appeared and the Congress is in
regular or special session, he could
be arrested.

Q: What if a Congressman is charged with
the crime of libel before the RTC. The RTC
issued a warrant of arrest against the
Congressman. The police officers armed with
a warrant of arrest went inside the walls
of Congress and they arrested the said
Congressman. Are the police officers liable
under this Article?
A: YES, they are liable for violation
of parliamentary immunity under the
second. Because at the time the
Congress is in its regular session
and they arrested the said
Congressman, Libel under Article 355
is punishable only by Prision
Correcional in its minimum and medium
period, therefore it is below Prision
Mayor, hence, the Congressman cannot
be arrested while the Congress is in
its regular or special session.

Q: What if Congressman A is charged with
the crime of attempted homicide. The fiscal
found probable cause, the case was filed in
court. The court agrees with the fiscal and
a warrant of arrest was issued against
Congressman A. The warrant of arrest was
issued by the judge on December 24, the
police officers had possession of the said
warrant of arrest on December 25, on
Christmas Day. While Congressman was inside
his house, the police officers arrived and
arrested the said Congressman for having
been charged of the crime of Attempted
Homicide. The penalty for Attempted
Homicide is Prision Correcional because
under Article 249, the penalty for Homicide
is Reclusion Temporal and the attempted is
two degrees lower, one degree is Prision
Mayor, two degrees lower is Prision
Correcional, therefore, the penalty to be
imposed in this Attempted Homicide is
Prision Correcional. So the police officers
armed with a warrant of arrest went inside
the house of the Congressman and arrested
him on Christmas Day, December 25, are the
police officers liable for violating
parliamentary immunity under Article 145?
A:YES, they are liable for violation
of Parliamentary Immunity. Because
during Christmas break or during Holy
week break or any other kind of
break, Congress is still in its
regular session. Because as stated in
Political Law, in Constitution, when
does Congress start? 4
th
Monday of
July, that is when the President
states his SONA. When Congress does
ends? 30 days before the start of
Congress. Therefore, during Christmas
break or during Holy week break or
any other break, the Congress is
still in its regular session. Any
CRIMINAL LAW 2


arrest of a member of Congress during
this time, if the said member of
Congress has not committed a crime
where a penalty is higher than
Prision Mayor, shall be punished as
violation parliamentary immunity
under Article 145.

ARTICLE146 ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY
There are 2 KINDS OF ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY:
I. Any meeting attended by armed
persons for the purpose of
committing any of the crimes
punishable under this Code
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be a
meeting, a gathering
or group of persons,
whether in fixed
place or moving
2. The meeting is
attended by armed
persons
3. The purpose of the
meeting is to9
commit any of the
crimes punishable
under the Code

II. Any meeting in which the
audience, whether armed or not,
is incited to the commission of
the crime of treason, rebellion
or insurrection, sedition or
assault upon a person in
authority or his agents

ELEMENTS:
1. There is a meeting,
a gathering or group
of persons, whether
in fixed place or
moving
2. The audience,
whether armed or
not, is incited to
the commission of
the crime of
treason, rebellion,
or insurrection,
sedition or direct
assault
The said
gathering of men
or men, may or
may not be armed.
It is not
required that
they be armed.
Provided that the
audience where
incited to commit
treason,
rebellion, or
insurrection,
sedition or
assault upon a
person in
authority or his
agents)

In case of illegal assembly, it is
only necessary that there be a
meeting, the meeting must be attended
by armed persons, under the first
mode. In here, when it says armed
persons, it is not required that all
those persons present in the meeting
must be with arms. It suffices that
one, two or more, or some of them
would be with arms.
When we say arms, it does not only
mean firearms, it refers to any
things, knives, stones, anything which
can cause violence or injury to
another person.
It is necessary however, that the
purpose of the meeting is unlawful
that is to commit any of the crimes
punishable under the RPC.
Under the second mode of committing
illegal assembly, again there is a
meeting, and there is no requisite
that those in attendance must be
armed, therefore, they may or may not
be with arms. But it is requires for
the crime to arise that the audience
must be incited to commit treason,
rebellion, or insurrection, sedition
or assault upon a person in authority
or his agents. Otherwise, the crime
will not arise.
In case of illegal assembly, the
organizers or leader of the meeting
will be criminally liable, as well as
the persons merely present in the said
meeting.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Under Article 146, first paragraph,
last sentence it is provided that
persons who are merely present at the
meeting shall be punished by Arresto
Mayor, unless they are armed, the
penalty shall be Prision Correcional,
therefore, whether you are armed or
not, you can be held criminally liable
for illegal assembly, it will only
differ in the penalty.
o If you are armed - Prision
Correcional
o Not armed - Arresto Mayor
(lower)

ARTICLE147 ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
WHAT ARE ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS?
1. Associations totally or partially
organized for the purpose of
committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code
2. Associations totally or partially
organized for some purpose contrary
to public morals
In case of illegal associations, it is
necessary that there be a formation of
a group, not merely a meeting and in
the said association, not only the
members of the association should be
penalized, but also the founders,
directors and president of the said
association or organization should be
held criminally liable.

ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION
the purpose will
always be a violation
under the RPC. Even
under the second mode
inciting to commit
treason, rebellion,
or insurrection,
sedition or assault
upon a person in
authority or his
agents
the purpose of the
association may be
for purpose of
committing crimes
violating the RPC or
even in violation of
special penal laws,
provided that it is
in violation of
special penal law,
it must be against
public morals
Necessary that there
is an actual meeting
or assembly
Not necessary that
there be an actual
meeting
Meeting and the
attendance at such
meeting are the acts
punished
Act of forming or
organizing and
membership in the
association are the
acts punished
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if A, B and C gathered 20
persons and proposed to them the idea of
committing simultaneous bank robbery all
over Metro Manila, so they will commit
robbery in 4 banks simultaneously. So these
20 men agreed to the said commission of
bank robbery, and after they have come to
the agreement, here comes the police, the
police got a tip from an informer, the
police arrived and they were all arrested.
What crime or crimes if any should they be
charged of?

A:They could not be charged of any
crime. There is no such thing as
conspiracy to commit robbery. Because
in robbery, robbery is only a mode of
committing the crime, it is not a
crime by itself, unlike in case of
treason, rebellion, there is such a
crime of conspiracy to commit
treason, conspiracy to commit
rebellion, and they are punished by
such acts. There is no such crime as
conspiracy to commit robbery. So
here, conspiracy is a mere
preparatory act which is not yet
punishable by law. For them to be
punished, it is necessary that they
must at least perform an overt act
directly connected to bank robbery.
So here, they just merely conspired
to commit robbery without the
performance of any overt act directly
connected to robbery. Hence, they are
not criminally liable. What they did
is only a preparatory act not
directly connected to robbery.

Q: Why not illegal assembly?
A: Because in the problem, it is not
mentioned that the persons were
armed. Also, the crime of bank
robbery is not among the crimes
mentioned in the second act.

Q: Why not illegal association?
A: Because what they did was only a
mere meeting, it was not an
organization or association.
- Therefore, they are not liable of any
crime.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


LET US ADD FACTS TO THE PROBLEM.
Q: Let us say A, B, and C gathered 20 men
10 were armed and the other 10 were not
armed. Again, they conspired and agreed to
commit simultaneous bank robbery all over
Metro Manila. After their agreement here
comes the police officers, the police
officers arrested them. Of what crime or
crimes may the police officer file against
them?
A:They should be charged of illegal
assembly under the first act. They
have the gathering of men and their
purpose is to commit a crime
punishable under the RPC which is
robbery and it is attended by armed
persons, even if only 10 were with
arms, still it is considered as
illegal assembly. Because the law
does not require a number as to the
persons who should be armed. So, all
of them should be held criminally
liable.
A, B and C, as leaders or organizers
of the said meeting, are liable for
illegal assembly. Those persons who
are armed, the penalty is higher than
those who are not armed. Prision
Correcional if they are armed
Arresto Mayor if they are not armed

Q: What if A, B and C gathered 1000 men and
women. Their intention was to incite the
people to uprise against the government to
overthrow the present administration. These
1000 men and women arrived in the said
designated place. These 1000 men and women
were arranging the chairs when suddenly
here comes the police officers who got a
tip about the said meeting. The police
officers immediately arrested A, B and C
and the 1000 men and women. What crime or
crimes if any may these 1000 men and women
be charged of?

A:They have not committed any crime.
It cannot be under the first act of
illegal assembly because the said
1000 men and women were not armed. It
cannot be under the second act of
illegal assembly, because for one to
be liable under this act, note that
even if not all of them need not to
be armed, it is required that the
audience must be incited to commit
treason, rebellion, or insurrection,
sedition or assault upon a person in
authority or his agents. Here the
intention of A, B and C is to incite
them to commit rebellion, BUT there
was no statement in the problem that
they were indeed incited to commit
rebellion. In fact, they were just
arranging the chairs, the meeting was
only about to begin. Therefore, they
have not yet committed any crime.

Q: What if the jueteng lords of Southern
Tagalog gathered, they gathered in
Batangas. So their purpose was to define
ways and means to propagate jueteng
considering that the government would not
want to legalize jueteng, their decision
was define ways and means to propagate
jueteng by using minors, those 15 years of
age or below as kubrador in the case of
jueteng, so that was the purpose of their
meeting. In the said meeting, they elected
their would-be president, vice president,
treasurer, etc. So they formed an
organization, an association and they said
that at the end of the month, they would
meet and define ways and means to propagate
jueteng. The police officers arrived and
they were all arrested. But they are not
with arms, it is not mentioned that any of
them were with arms.
A:The crime committed is illegal
association under Article 147. It is
an association totally and partially
organized for some purpose contrary
to public morals. Jueteng is in
violation of PD 1602, illegal
gambling as amended and it is against
public morals because it has not yet
been legalized by law.

ARTICLE148 DIRECT ASSAULT
The two forms in committing the crime of
direct assault under Article 148 are:
I. Without public uprising, by employing
FORCE or INTIMIDATION for the
attainment of any of the purposes
enumerated defining the crimes of
rebellion and sedition.
The intention of the offender is
to commit any of the purposes of
rebellion or sedition.
PURPOSES OF REBELLION:
CRIMINAL LAW 2


1. To remove from the
allegiance to the
Government or its laws:
(a) the territory of the
Philippines or any
part thereof; or
(b) any body of land,
naval, or other
armed forces; or
2. To deprive the Chief
Executive or Congress, wholly
or partially, of any of their
powers or prerogatives.
PURPOSES OF SEDITION:
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;
5. To DESPOIL, for any
political or social end,
any person, municipality,
province, or the National
Government of all its
property or any part
thereof
NOTE: The law says that there is no
public uprising, therefore whenever
there is actual commission of
rebellion or sedition, direct assault
can never be committed because the
element of direct assault in whatever
form is that there be no public
uprising, on the other hand, a
necessary element in the crime of
sedition or rebellion is there be
public uprising.

ELEMENTS:
1. The offender employs force or
intimidation
2. AIM of the offender is to
attain any of the purposes of
the crime of rebellion or any
of the objects of the crime of
sedition
3. There is no public uprising

II. Without public uprising, by
ATTACKING, by EMPLOYING FORCE, or by
SERIOUSLY INTIMIDATING or SERIOUSLY
RESISTING any person in authority or
any of his agents, while in the
performance of official duties, or on
the occasion of such performance.
Most popular form of direct
assault

ELEMENTS:
1. The offender
a. Makes an attack,
b. Employs force,
c. Makes a serious
intimidation, or
d. Makes a serious resistance

If the offended party
is a person in
authority, the attack
or the employment of
force need not be
serious because under
Article 148, the mere
act of laying of hands
in the person in
authority is already
qualified direct
assault. Therefore, the
mere act of pushing a
person in authority is
already qualified
direct assault because
the offender already
laid hands upon a
person in authority.
Hence, it need not be
serious. However, if
the offended party is a
mere agent of a person
in authority, it is
necessary that the
employment of force
must be serious. The
CRIMINAL LAW 2


reason is that in order
to show defiance of law
against a mere agent of
person in authority, it
is necessary that the
attack or force
employed must be
serious in nature.
If what has been done
is intimidation or
resistance, to amount
to direct assault, it
must always be serious
whether the offended
party is a person in
authority or a mere
agent of a person in
authority.

2. The second element requires
that the assault is against a
person in authority or an
agent of a person in authority
Who are these so-
calledpersons in authority?
(Art 152)
1. Any person directly
vested with
jurisdiction,
whether as an
individual or as a
member of some court
or government-owned
and controlled
corporation, board
or commission
2. A barangay captain
and a barangay
chairman
3. Teachers,
professors, or
persons charged with
the supervision of
public or duly
recognized private
schools, colleges or
institutions
4. Lawyers while
engaged in their
professional duties
or while in the act
of their
professional duties

Who is an agent of a person
in authority? (Art 152, par
2)
A person who, by
direct provision of
law, 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 (e.g. police
officer, councilors).
Likewise, it is
stated that any
person who comes to
the aid of a person
in authority is
deemed an agent of

3. The third element provides
that at the time of the
assault, the person in
authority is engaged in the
performance of his official
duties or the attack was on
occasion of such performance
of official duty.

Direct assault can be
committed whether the
public officer or
employee.
Direct assault can be
committed whether the
public officer or
authority is in the
engaged in the
performance of his
official duties or on
occasion of such
performance.
If a person in
authority or his
agent is engaged in
the performance of
his official duty at
the time of the
assault, regardless
of the motive of the
offender, direct
CRIMINAL LAW 2


assault will always
arise. Whether there
is a personal
vendetta, whether it
is a public reason or
whatever reason,
there is always
direct assault. There
is defiance of
authority because the
person in authority
or his agent is
actually engaged in
the performance of
official duty
But if the person in
authority or his
agent is not engaged
in the performance of
his official duty at
the time of the
assault, motive on
the part of offender
becomes material. You
have to determine the
motive on the part of
the offender. If the
motive on the part of
the offender is a
personal vendetta,
the crime committed
is murder, homicide,
serious physical
injuries or less
serious physical
injuries, as the case
may be. But if the
motive is by reason
of the authorities
past performance of
his official duty,
the crime committed
is still direct
assault.
The phrase on
occasion of such
performance means
that the said assault
was by reason of the
past performance of
official duty. So on
occasion means it is
by reason of the past
performance of
official duty.
4. The fourth element provides
that the offender knows him to
be a person in authority or an
authority. So it is that the
offender knows him to be a
person in authority because
otherwise, he cannot be said
that he defied the law, he
defied the authority. In the
first place, he didnt know
that the person he is
attacking is a person in
authority or an agent of a

5. The fifth element requires
that there be no public
uprising.

QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
There are three circumstances which will
qualify direct assault:
1. When the assault is committed by
means of a weapon;

WEAPON - firearms, knives or any
other items which will inflict
injury.

2. When the offender is a public officer
or employee;
So when a public officer or
employee attacks a person in
authority, it is always qualified
direct assault.

3. When the offender lays hands upon a
person in authority
Will only lie if the laying of
hands is upon a person in
authority.
Any of these three circumstances will
qualify direct assault.

NOTE: The first two qualifying circumstance
affects both a person in authority or agent
of a person in authority. However, the
third qualifying circumstance (laying hands
upon a person in authority) will only lie
if the offended party is a person in
authority. Mere laying of hands to an agent
of person in authority is not qualified. It
will only qualify if the laying of hands is
upon a person in authority.

COMPLEX CRIME OF DIRECT ASSAULT:
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Whenever the crime of direct assault is
committed, and there is a resulting felony
(e.g. death, physical injuries), you always
complex it.
Under Article 48, you should always complex
it because from a single act, two or more
grave or less grave felonies had resulted.
Under Article 48, Book I, you have to
complex it. So it could be:
o Direct assault with Murder
o Direct assault with Homicide
o Direct assault with Serious
Physical Injuries
o Direct assault with Less
Serious Physical Injuries

But if the resulting felony is only
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES, you cannot
complex it. It is prohibited under
Article 48 because:

1. It is only a light felony. Under
Article 48, you can only complex
two or more grave or less grave
felonies but not a light felony.
2. Slight physical injury or light
felony is already absorbed in
direct assault because whenever
you assault somebody, definitely,
somehow, any injury would happen
to him. That is why it is already
absorbed in direct assault.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if the city mayor attended the flag
ceremony. It was a mandate. So there was
this flag ceremony attended by the city
mayor. After the flag ceremony, the mayor
went to the platform and was making an
announcement to the city hall employees.
Suddenly here comes X. X went near the
mayor and shot the mayor on the head. The
mayor died. What crime is committed by X?

A: QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH
MURDER. The city mayor was engaged in
the performance of his official duty
at the time of the assault therefore
it is direct assault. Because the
city mayor was engaged in the
performance of his official duty
regardless of the motive of X, even
if it is by mayors past performance
of official duty or by reason of
personal vendetta, regardless of the
motive of X, the offender, since the
mayor is engaged in the performance
of his official duty, it is direct
assault.

Now, the mayor died. Therefore there
is a resulting felony of murder
because obviously there was
treachery; therefore, it is direct
assault with murder.

Now, the offender made use of a
weapon, he made use of a pistol gun,
a firearm which is a qualifying
circumstance, therefore, the crime
committed is QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
WITH MURDER.
(EXAM TIP: the corresponding
explanation must be completewhat is
the qualifying circumstance, what is
direct assault, what is a complex
crime)

Q: What if the city mayor has just attended
a Sunday mass. He and his wife and children
were getting out of the church when
suddenly here comes X. X, onboard the
motorcycle went straight to the city mayor
and fired at the head of the city mayor.
The city mayor died. It was found that X
was a former employee of the city hall, who
was dismissed by the city mayor because he
engaged in an anomalous transaction. What
crime is committed by X?

A:QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH
MURDER.The city mayor was not engaged
in the performance of his official
duty. Since the city mayor was not
engaged in the performance of his
official duty, he is a person in
authority, you have to know the
reason, the motive of the offender.
The offender was a city hall employee
who was dismissed by the city mayor,
therefore the motive was by reason of
the past performance of the said
person in authority. So it is by
reason of the past performance of his
official duty, the attack, the firing
was done on occasion of such
performance of official duty
therefore the crime committed is
direct assault.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


The mayor died. Obviously there was
treachery therefore it is direct
assault with murder.
The offender made use of a firearm,
which is a qualifying circumstance in
direct assault therefore it is
QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH MURDER.

Q: What if in the same problem, here comes
X, the mayor was coming out of the church,
X shot the city mayor. Now X happened to be
a former gardener who was dismissed from
the service of the household because he
performed a wrongful act while gardening.
Therefore his reason was a personal
vendetta. What crime is committed by X?

A: X committed a crime of MURDER.
Obviously, there was treachery on the
part of X.
It is not direct assault because the
mayor was not engaged in the
performance of his official duty and
the reason behind the assault was
personal vendetta. Therefore it
cannot be said that the attack was on
occasion of such performance of
official duty.

Q: What if the judge has just rendered
judgment. After rendering the judgment,
after finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, the accused got mad. He
jumped on the judge and he boxed the judge
several times. The court interpreter, the
person nearest to the judge, came to the
aid of the judge. This angered the accused.
The accused got mad at the court
interpreter and he boxed the court
interpreter as well. Thereafter the
security guards arrived and took away the
said accused. The judge suffered serious
physical injuries whereas the court
interpreter suffered slight physical
injuries. What crime or crimes is/are
committed by the accused, first against the
judge, and second against the court
interpreter?

A: As against the judge, the accused
is liable of the crime of QUALIFIED
DIRECT ASSAULT WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES. The judge is a person in
authority under Article 152. He was
engaged in the performance of his
official duty at the time of the
assault therefore the crime committed
is direct assault. It has a resulting
felony, serious physical injuries;
therefore it should be direct assault
with serious physical injuries. The
accused in boxing the judge, laid
hands upon a person in authority
therefore it is QUALIFIED DIRECT
ASSAULT WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES.

As against the court interpreter, the
accused is liable of the crime of
DIRECT ASSAULT. At the time the court
interpreter came to the aid of a
person in authority, who was the
victim of direct assault. Note under
Article 152, any person who comes to
the aid of a person in authority is
deemed an agent of a person in
authority therefore, when the court
interpreter came to the aid of the
said judge, who was a person in
authority, he became an agent of a
person in authority. And under
Article 148, any attack on an agent
of a person in authority is direct
assault. Therefore the crime
committed is direct assault. The said
interpreter suffered slight physical
injury. You cannot complex it because
it is only a light felony. Therefore
it is only direct assault not
complex. The said accused laid hands
upon the court interpreter, would you
qualify it? No, because he is mere
agent of person in authority.
Therefore the crime committed is only
direct assault.

ARTICLE149 INDIRECT ASSAULT
Indirect assault can be committed only
when a direct assault is also committed
ELEMENTS:
1. An AGENT of a person in authority
is the victim of any of the forms
of direct assault defined in
Article 148.
2. A person comes to the aid of such
agent
3. Offender makes use of force or
intimidation upon such person
coming to the aid of the agent.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Q: What if a police officer was manning the
traffic and it was a heavy traffic so the
vehicles were stuck. What if one of the
owners of the vehicles got mad at the
police officer and he went straight to the
police officer, who at the time has no
pistol, and boxed the police officer. While
he was boxing a police officer a pedestrian
saw the incident .the pedestrian came to
the aid of the police officer. This angered
the owner of the vehicle so he, too, boxed
the said pedestrian. The said pedestrian
suffered slight physical injuries while the
police officer suffered less serious
physical injuries. What crime or crimes
is/are committed by the said owner of the
vehicle against:
a. The police officer
b. The pedestrian?
A: a. DIRECT ASSAULT WITH LESS
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES. The said
owner of the vehicle boxed the said
police officer. The police officer is
an agent of a person in authority
under Article 152 because he was
charged with the maintenance of
public order. The police officer is
in the actual performance of his
official duty at the time of the
assault therefore the crime committed
is direct assault. There is also a
resulting felony which is less
serious physical injuries, a less
grave felony; therefore we have to
complex it, direct assault with less
serious physical injuries. The
offender laid hands upon the police
officer, however, laying of hands
will not qualify because he is a mere
agent of person in authority;
therefore the crime committed against
the police officer is direct assault
with less serious physical injuries.
(NOTE: an MMDA officer is also an
agent of a person in authority
because he is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and
property)

b. INDIRECT ASSAULT under Art 149. An
agent of a person in authority was
the victim of direct assault. A
person came to his aid who is the
pedestrian. When the pedestrian came
to the aid of this agent of person in
authority, he did not become an agent
of a person in authority under Art
152 because under Art 152, a person
would only become an agent of a
person in authority if he came to the
aid of a person in authority. Here,
the pedestrian merely came to the aid
of an agent of a person in authority
who is the police officer. Therefore,
when the pedestrian came to the aid
of the police officer, he did not
become also an agent of a person in
authority; as such, the crime
committed is INDIRECT ASSAULT. When
the pedestrian came to the aid of the
police officer, force and
intimidation were employed against
him so the crime committed by the
owner of the vehicle against the
pedestrian is indirect assault.
Are you going to complex it to
the crime of slight physical
injuries?
No, because it is absorbed
and it is only a light
felony.

Under Article 149, INDIRECT ASSAULT is
committed if a person in authority or an
agent of a person in authority is the
victim of direct assault. Any person who
came to his aid and that person was
employed with force or intimidation by the
offender.
Why is it in the given problem, when
the person under attacked is a person
in authority and when someone came to
his aid, and that someone was also
attacked, the crime committed is direct
assault against that someone. But when
the victim of direct assault is a mere
agent of a person in authority, and
someone came to his aid, and that
someone was also attacked, the crime is
indirect assault.
The reason is that the
Congress amended Article 152
without correspondingly
amending Article 149.
Based on the amendment made by
Congress in Article 152, it is
stated that any person who
comes to the aid of a person
in authority is deemed an
CRIMINAL LAW 2


agent of person in authority.
And if an agent of a person in
authority is attacked, such
attack is under Article 148
which is direct assault and
not indirect assault under
Article 149.
But if the victim of the said
direct assault is a mere agent
of a person in authority, and
someone who comes to his aid
will not become an agent of a
person in authority; therefore
when he is also attacked, it
will only be indirect assault
under Article 149.
In statcon, when there are two
provisions which are contrary, you
reconcile. So to reconcile, Article
149 or indirect assault will only
apply if the victim of direct assault
is a mere agent of person in
authority and someone came to his
aid, and that someone was also
employed with force and intimidation.

ARTICLE150 DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED
BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, ITS COMMITTEES OR
SUBCOMMITTTES, BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSIONS, ITS COMMITTEES, SUBCOMITTEES
OR DIVISIONS
Acts Punished:
I. By refusing, without legal
excuse, to obey summons issued by
the Congress or any of its
extensions or any of its standing
committees or subcommittees, by
the Constitutional Commissions,
its committees, subcommittees or
any other body which has the
power to issue summons.
Under the first act, for the
crime to arise, it is
necessary that the offenders
refusal to obey the summons
is without any legal excuse.
If there is a valid reason, a
legal excuse, why the
offender didnt attend the
said committee hearing of the
congress or why he failed to
comply with the said summons
or any of the acts under Art.
150; the crime will not
arise.
II. By refusing to be sworn or placed
under affirmation while being
before such legislative or
constitutional body or official.
Under the second act the
public official or the person
was required to appear in the
said meeting and obey the
summons however, the moment
he appeared in the said
meeting, he refused to be
sworn to. He does not want to
be sworn to and he refused to
be placed under affirmation
before such legislative or
constitutional body. Art. 150
is still violated.
III. By refusing 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.
IV. By refusing another from
attending as a witness in such
legislative or constitutional
body.
Under the fourth act punished,
the said offender did not fail
to attend in the summons; he
restrained another from
attending as a witness. He
prevented another person in
attending as a witness in such
legislative or constitutional
body hearing.
V. By inducing disobedience to a
summons or refusal to be sworn by
any such body or official.
NOTE that Congress where it be
the House of Representatives
or the Senate has the power to
issue summons because they
have the power to investigate
that is inquiry in aid of
legislation. Whatever be the
findings in the said
investigating body, it will be
used in the making of a bill,
a proposal. NOTE that they
dont have the power to file a
case so whatever be the
product of their
investigation, they will give
it either to the Ombudsman or
CRIMINAL LAW 2


to the DOJ. It is up to the
DOJ or to the Ombudsman to
file a case because the
purpose of the Senate or the
HOR is only inquiry in aid of
legislation.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if there is this committee hearing,
an investigation about anomalous
transactions entered into by a former
officials of the DENR. While the said
official received the summons, he failed to
appear because he was at St. Lukes. He was
confined because he was suffering from
hypertension. Can he be held liable under
Art. 150?
A: He cannot be held liable because
he has a legal excuse to attend or to
obey the summons issued by the
Congress. The moment that there is a
legal excuse, the crime will not
arise BUT if his measure is without
any legal excuse NOTE that aside from
violation of Art. 150, he can also be
held liable or cited for contempt by
the said committee of Congress and
usually when cited for contempt, he
is placed in detention in the Senate
Blue Ribbon Committee.

Q: He obeyed the summons, he appeared, he
allowed himself to be sworn in however, the
moment that the Senators asked him
questions, and he refused to answer the
questions. He said: I invoke my right
against self-incrimination. When he was
solely required to produce the books which
were confirmed to be in his possession; He
didnt want to produce the said books
because according to him, the production of
these books would incriminate himself. Can
he be held liable under Art. 150?
A: He cannot. If the answer to any of
the questions or if the conduction of
the same will incriminate the person
in the said crime; he has the right
not to do so. Under the Constitution,
No person can be compelled to be a
witness against himself and asking
him, requiring him, ordering him to
produce the books or to answer any
questions which would incriminate
himself is akin to making him a
witness against himself and it is
unconstitutional.
ARTICLE151 RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO
A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENTS OF SUCH
PERSON
Punishes two acts:
I. RESISTANCE AND SERIOUS DISOBEDIENCE
(PAR 1)
ELEMENTS:
1. The person in authority or
his agent
a. is engaged in the
performance of
official duty; or
b. gives a lawful order
to the offender
2. Offender resists or
seriously disobey such
person in authority or his
agent
3. That such resistance or
disobedience will not
amount to
a. direct assault (Art
148),
b. indirect assault
(Art 149); or
c. disobedience to
summons issued by
Congress

II. SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (PAR 2)
ELEMENTS:
1. An AGENT of a person in
authority
a. is engaged in the
performance of official
duty; or
b. gives a lawful order to
the offender
2. The offender disobeys such
order of the agent
3. Such disobedience is not
serious in nature

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if the mayor has a project, a
cleaning act operation in order to prevent
dengue. So they were cleaning up the
canals. While the mayor was cleaning up the
canals together with other city hall
employees, here comes Mang Pedro who had
taken beer and was a little tipsy. So the
went there and was shouting and making
noise, disturbing the people who were busy
cleaning up the canals. And so the police
officer cleaning told Mang Pedro to go home
CRIMINAL LAW 2


because he was disturbing the cleaning up
operation. Mang Pedro, instead of going
home, merely sat nearby the canal being
cleaned by the people. What crime, if any,
did Mang Pedro commit?
A: Mang Pedro committed SIMPLE
DISOBEDIENCE UNDER ARTICLE 151 par 2.
Article 151, second paragraph, simple
disobedience is committed when an
agent of a person in authority is
engaged in the performance of
official duty or gives a lawful order
to the offender, that the offender
disobeys and such disobedience is not
of serious nature. In the problem, it
was the police officer, an agent of a
person in authority, who gave the
order to Mang Pedro and Mang Pedro
disobeyed him but such disobedience
was not serious in nature because he
merely sat nearby the canal;
therefore there was no showing that
such disobedience is serious in
nature so the crime committed is
simple disobedience.

Q: Is there direct assault with robbery?
Lets say that the city mayor was assaulted
and thereafter he took the watch of the
mayor.
A: No, there is no such crime. The
crime committed is not direct assault
with robbery. It is already robbery
with any resulting felony, if there
is one.
What if the original motive was to
assault the city mayor?
If the original motive is to
assault the city mayor and not to
commit robbery, but the offender
took the watch, there will be two
crimes because the offender
already performed two acts.
If there are two separate and
distinct crimes, there shall be
two information that will be
filed to the court. If it is a
complex crime, only one
information is filed before the
court.
If the intention is to rob, and in
the occasion of the said robbery,
homicide, serious physical
injuries, rape, intentional
mutilation, arson was committed,
the crime committed under Article
294 is robbery with homicide,
robbery with intentional
mutilation, robbery with rape,
robbery with arson or robbery
with serious physical injuries.
If the original intention was to
assault the city mayor and
thereafter he committed robbery,
there will be two acts. Because
his intention was to assault and
thereafter he committed the
second act of taking away the
personal property of the city
mayor.
In case of DIRECT ASSAULT WITH
MURDER or HOMICIDE, it is
considered a complex crime under
Article 48 because based on the
single act performed, two or more
grave or less grave offense was
committed. Because with the
single act of boxing, the
offender committed direct assault
and serious/less serious physical
injuries.

ARTICLE152 PERSONS IN AUTHORITHY AND
AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
Q: Who are persons in authority?
A: The following are the persons
in authority:
1. Municipal Mayors
2. Division Superintendent of
schools
3. Public and private school
teachers
4. Teacher-nurse
5. President of the sanitary
division
6. Provincial Fiscal
7. Judges
8. Lawyers in actual
performance of duties
9. Sangguniang Bayan member
10. Barangay Chairman

Q: Who is an agent of a person in
authority?
A: Those who are in charged with:
The maintenance of public
order; and
The protection and security
of life and property

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ARTICLE153 TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES
Acts punished:
I. Causing any serious disturbances
in a public place, office or
establishment;
For the said disturbance to
be considered as a
violation of Art 153; it is
necessary that the said
offender deliberately
intended to disturb the
said meeting or public
place. It was a planned
intentional act.

II. Interrupting or disturbing
performances, functions or
gatherings, or peaceful meetings,
if the act is not included in
Arts. 131 and 132;
NOTE that there is a
qualification made by law
provided that the said
interruption or disturbance
of public gatherings,
functions and peaceful
meetings must not fall as a
violation under Art 131 or
Art 132.

III. Making any outcry tending to
incite rebellion or sedition in
any meeting, association or
public place.

IV. Displaying placards or emblems
which provoke a disturbance of
public order in such place;
Whether this making of an
outcry or the displaying of
placards or emblems, it is
necessary that such act of
displaying placards or
emblems must be an
unconscious outburst of
emotion. It must not be
intentionally calculated to
incite people to rebel or
to commit sedition because
otherwise, the crime would
be inciting to rebellion or
inciting to sedition.

V. Burying with pomp the body of a
person who has been legally
executed.
When you say legally
executed; it means that the
said person has committed a
heinous crime. The penalty
prescribed by law is death
and so he was killed by
means of lethal injection
but at present because of
Republic Act No. 9346, we
have no more death penalty.
Death Penalty is prohibited
to be imposed.

But in burying with pomp
the body of the person who
has been legally executed;
the said person must be
legally executed because
the said person has
committed a heinous crime
yet when he was buried he
was buried with such
extravagance as if as he is
a hero, as if as the
government has committed a
crime in legally executing
him therefore it causes
sympathy arising on the
part of the people hence,
it was a disturbance of
public order.

If any of these prohibited
acts constituting violation
of Art 153 is committed by
more than 3 persons who are
provided with arms or any
means of violence it is
said to be tumultuous
therefore there must be at
least four persons who are
armed or provided with
means of violence for it to
be considered as
tumultuous.

SO WHERE LIES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ART
153 AND ART 131 OR 132?
Article 153 punishes TUMULTS ANS OTHER
DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER, Article
131 punishes PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION
AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS,
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Article 132 punishes INTERRUPTING OF
RELIGIOUS FEELINGS

Articles 131 and 132 can only be
committed by a Public Officer. It
cannot be committed by a private
individual whereas under Art 153, it
can be committed both by a Public
Officer and a private individual.

What if the offender is a public officer
and he disturbs a peaceful meeting. How
would you distinguish if it is a
violation of Art 153 or a violation of
Art 131?

First, In Art 131, the public officer
must not be a participant in the
meeting that he disturb or
interrupted. He must be an outsider,
a stranger in the said meeting. On
the other hand, in Art 153, the said
Public Officer must be a participant,
one in attendance in the said
meeting.

Second, in Art 131, the mere
intention of the public officer is to
prevent a person from freely
exercising his freedom of speech and
expression whereas in Art 153, the
intention of the offender is to
disturb public peace and tranquility.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if since RH Bill was enacted into
law, there was a huge rally at the EDSA
Shrine which was initiated by the members
of the CBCP. They were against this law and
they encouraged the people to file a case
before the Supreme Court questioning the
constitutionality of the said law. At
first, the head of the CBCP spoke then
after him another person, a private
individual spoke, the head of the
organization spoke and he kept on attacking
and attacking the President. He said that
the President bribed the members of the
Congress in order to pass this bill so he
kept on attacking and attacking the
President. One of the police officers, who
was assigned to maintain the peace and
order in the place, heard the attacks
against the President. This Police Officer
was indebted to the President he owed his
position to the President. He went straight
to the person talking against the President
and told him to stop. When he didnt stop,
the Police Officer fired shots in the air
and the people scampered away and the
peaceful meeting/gathering was dissolved/
interrupted. What crime was committed by
the Police Officer?
A: The crime committed by the Police
Officer is not Art 153 but Art
131.Because the distinctions lie in
this case. First, the said Public
Officer, a Police Officer is not a
participant in the said meeting. He
is a stranger, an outsider in the
said meeting. Second, his only
purpose is to prevent the said person
in freely exercising his freedom of
speech and expression, it is his
right to express his anger against
the President yet the said person
prevented him in exercising such
freedom of Speech and expression
therefore the Police Officer is
liable under Art 131 and not under
Art 153.

For him to be liable under Art 153,
lets say that he is a public
officer, he is a participant in the
said meeting and while participating
in the said meeting, he interrupted
the said meeting in order for him to
cause a disturbance of the said
meeting. The crime is Art 153.

Q: There was this peaceful gathering, lets
say a public meeting, a peaceful meeting
about the increase of fares of the MRT and
the LRT. One of the participants therein,
one of the persons therein went to the
platform and took the mic and then he
incite the people, induced the people to go
to the streets, uprise, rebel against the
government, to overthrow the government.
What crime was committed?
A:The crime committed was inciting to
rebellion.

Q: What if, he was among the participants.
The head of the meeting, the Public Officer
was discussing about the increase of fares
of the MRT and LRT. This person could no
longer control his emotions. Suddenly he
stood up and he said: buwisit na gobyerno
CRIMINAL LAW 2


na ito naiinis na ako. Dapat na tayong mag
rebelled sa gobyerno walang ginawa kundi
increase ng taxes. They go and rebel
against the government. What crime was
committed?
A:Tumults and other disturbances of
public order. It is just an
unconscious outburst of emotions not
an intentionally calculated to incite
people to rebel against the
government.

ARTICLE154 UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCESActs
punished:
I. By publishing or causing to be
published by means of printing
lithography or any other means of
publication, as news any false
news which may endanger the
public order, or cause damage to
the interest or credit of the
State.
II. By encouraging disobedience to
the law or to the constituted
authorities or by praising,
justifying ot extolling any act
punished by law, by the same
means or by words, utterances or
speeches.
III. By maliciously publishing or
causing to be published any
official resolution or document
without proper authority, or
before they have been published
officially.
NOTE that in the third act
there is the word
Malicious. The offender
must maliciously publish or
cause to be published any
official resolution. If the
publication of the official
resolution without official
authority or the
publication was not done
maliciously, there was no
intent to cause damage, it
was not done maliciously.
Art 154 is not violated. It
is necessary that the said
publication must be done
maliciously under the third
act.
IV. By printing, publishing or
distributing (or causing the
same) books, pamphlets,
periodicals, or leaflets which do
not bear the real printers name
or which are classified as
anonymous.
It is necessary that any
publication has contained
the real printers name. It
must have been anonymous.
The publisher, the printer,
the author, must be stated
even at the bottom.

Q: What if the Philippine Daily Inquirer
has as its headline: KC Concepcion
said..Piolo Pascual is gay. So that is the
headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
It was posted. KC never categorically
stated that Piolo is gay, she only
impliedly stated it but she never
categorically stated it. So the Daily
Inquirer published a false news and
PioloPascual filed a case in violation of
Art 154 against the Philippine Daily
Inquirer. The Philippine Daily Inquirer
knew that it is a false news yet they still
published it as news.
A: Art. 154 is not violated because
whether or not Piolo is gay it will
not endanger public order. It will
not cause damage to the credit or
interest of the state.

Q: What if the headline of the Philippine
Daily Inquirer said: Tomorrow, Megamall
will be bombed from a very reliable
source. That was the headline of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer. The Philippine
Daily Inquirer later on learned that it was
false nevertheless; since it was already
there they still published it and
distributed it. Can they be held liable
under Art 154?
A: Yes because the said news will
endanger public order. It can cause
damage to the credit or interest of
the state. Imagine Megamall will be
bomb, no person will go to the said
place, tourists will not go to the
said place therefore it will endanger
public order and can cause damage to
the interest of the state when the
said newspaper published it despite
CRIMINAL LAW 2


knowing that it was false news. Art
154 is violated.

Q: What if members of the CBCP, they are
against the RH Law. They made leaflets,
pamphlets and distributed it to all persons
in the church, in market.. Therein is
stated: Anyone who would obey or comply
with the RH Bill which is a Catholic will
be ex-communicated. Can they be held liable
of Art 154?
A:Yes because they encouraged
disobedience to the law. It has been
enacted into law and by encouraging
the people that they would be ex-
communicated if you will obey it,
then you can be held liable for
unlawful use of means of publication.

ARTICLE155 ALARMS AND SCANDALS
Acts punished:
I. Discharging any firearm, rocket,
firecracker, or other explosives
within any town or public place
calculated to cause (which
produces) alarm or danger.
II. Instigating or taking an active
part in any charivari or other
disorderly meeting offensive to
another or prejudicial to public
tranquility.
Charivari includes a medley
of discordant voices, a
mock serenade of discordant
noises made on kettles,
tins, horns, etc. designed
to annoy and insult.
III. Disturbing the public peace while
wandering about at night or while
engaged in any other nocturnal
amusement.
IV. Causing any disturbance or
scandal in public places while
intoxicated or otherwise,
provided Art 153 is not
applicable

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: In a public park, there were so many
people here comes X. X went in the middle
of the park and fired shots in the air. The
people were so afraid they scampered away.
A: Alarms and Scandals under Art 155.
His act can cause damage to public
peace and tranquility.

Q: What if in the same problem, in a public
park, there were so many people and here
comes X. X saw his enemy Y. He took out his
firearm, aiming his firearm at Y without
any intent to kill because he knew Y would
not be killed and he discharged the
firearm. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is illegal
discharged of firearms under Art.
1254.

Q: What if in the same public place, X saw
his enemy Y. He pulled out his firearm with
intent to kill, he aimed his firearm at Y,
discharged the firearm but Y was not
killed. What crime was committed?
A: Attempted murder or Homicide as
the case may be.
In case of alarms and
scandals, the only intention
of the offender is to cause
damage to public peace and
tranquility that is to cause
alarm and danger. That is his
intention.

In Illegal Discharge of
Firearms under Art 1254 his
intention is to threaten the
said person or any other
persons. He aimed the firearm
and discharges the firearm
pointing at a particular
person absent: intent to kill.
There was no intent to kill,
it is illegal discharge of
firearm.
But given in the same problem,
he knows his enemy, pointed
the firearm at his enemy but
with intent to kill. He
discharged the firearm but his
enemy was not killed. It is
attempted homicide or murder
as the case may be. Since
there is an intent to kill on
the part of the offender even
if the victim was not killed
it is still in the attempted
stage.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Q: What if in the same problem, it was in a
public place, X went to the said place, he
saw his enemy Y. He went near Y, took out
his gun and poked the gun at Y but did not
discharge the said gun. What crime is
committed?
A:The crime committed is other light
threats. NOTE that under other light
threats the offender merely poked the
firearm at the victim without
discharging or firing the firearm. If
the firearm has been discharged, 3
crimes may be committed depending on
the intent. It can be alarms and
scandals, illegal discharge of
firearms or attempted homicide or
murder as the case may be.

Q: You have a neighbor, it was his
birthday. They rented a videoke and kept on
singing along till 12mn. The guests already
left, the birthday celebrant was the only
one left, its already 1:30am and hes
still singing at the top of his voice with
the use of the mic. His neighbors cannot
sleep because of his ugly voice. Everyone
in the neighborhood could hear him and
cannot sleep. Can he be held liable under
Art 155 alarms and scandals?
A: Yes. He can be held liable under
alarms and scandals because his only
intention that night is to cause a
disturbance of public peace and
order.

Q: Lets say a person was intoxicated. He
was drunk. He was on his way home. He was
singing at the top of his voice. Is he
liable for alarms and scandals?
A: No because it is normal to sing at
the top of his voice.

Q: What if he saw this lead pipe (tubo) and
upon seeing this lead pipe, he would bang
all the gates that he would pass by. Is he
liable for alarms and scandals?
A: Yes because his acts caused damage
to public peace and tranquility.

ARTICLE156 DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a person confined in a
jail or penal establishment.
2. That the offender removes therefrom
such persons, or helps the escape of
such person.
The PENALTY for the crime is QUALIFIED
if violence or intimidation has been
used in the commission of the crime also
if bribery is used in delivering
prisoners from jail.

Who is the offender?
The offender is any person. He can be
a private individual or a public
officer or employee provided that he
is not the custodian of the said
prisoner because if the offender who
helped in the escape of the prisoner
from jail is the custodian of the
said prisoner, the crime is under Art
223 Infidelity in the custody of
prisoners because the element of
breach of trust and confidence
reposed on him by the government.
Who is the prisoner being referred to in
delivering persons from jail?
He can be a detention prisoner or a
prisoner convicted by final judgment
for as long as he is in a jail or
penal institution.
A detention prisoner is a
prisoner who is behind bars but
the case against him is ongoing
either because the crime he
committed is a non-bailable
offense and evidence of guilt is
strong or the crime he committed
is a bailable offense but he does
not have the enough funds to put
up the required bail.

The prisoners at the provincial
jail, city jail, municipal jail,
they are merely detention
prisoners. They are not yet
convicts. They are only accused,
suspects therefore they are
presumed innocent unless and
until proven that theyre guilty
of the crime charged. They are
merely detention prisoners.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


On the other hand, a prisoner
that is convicted by final
judgment is one who has been
convicted by the lower court and
who did not appeal his conviction
within the period to perfect an
appeal then the judgment becomes
final and executory. He has to
serve the sentence. Or he has
been convicted then he appealed
to the higher court within the
period to perfect an appeal and
the said higher court affirmed
the said conviction. The
conviction will now become final
and executory so he is now a
prisoner convicted by final
judgment. Generally, they are
those who are serving sentence in
Muntinlupa.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: Lets say A is a prisoner convicted by
final judgment. He is serving his sentence
in Muntinlupa. B his friend visited him. B
was a rich man. He planned As escape on
his birthday. He did this by talking to the
jail warden custodian. B the friend gave
the jail warden custodian P500,000.00. He
gave bribe to the jail warden custodian to
allow A his friend to escape at that night.
He also went to the guard at the entrance
gate of the New Bilibid Prison and gave the
guard P100,000.00, also to allow his friend
to leave at that night. That night, A
escaped and left the penal institution. He
went to the house of another friend who
harbored him and concealed him despite the
fact that he was an escapee from a penal
institution. What are the crimes committed
by A (the prisoner), B (the friend), jail
warden custodian, the guard of the penal
institution, and the friend who harbored
him?
A: A is liable of evasion of service
of sentence under Art 157. He is a
prisoner convicted by final judgment
therefore he is liable for evasion of
service of sentence.

Q: What if he is not serving his sentence
in Muntinlupa. Lets say he is just a
detention prisoner. Can he be held liable
for evasion of service of sentence?
A: No. Evasion of service of sentence
can only be committed by a prisoner
convicted by final judgment.
In the given problem, A is
convicted by final judgment
therefore A is liable for evasion
of service of sentence under Art
157.
B the friend is liable under Art
156 Delivering prisoners from
jail qualified by the giving of
bribe therefore his penalty will
be qualified because he gave
bribe money inorder to help in
the escape of his friend. He will
not be liable for another crime
of corruption of public official
because the giving of bribe is
considered clearly as a
qualifying or as an aggravating
circumstance in delivering
prisoners from jail.
The jail warden custodian who
received the bribed money and
allowed As escape is liable
under Art 223 infidelity in the
custody of prisoners. Aside from
that, he is also liable for
direct bribery because in case of
infidelity in the custody of
prisoners, the giving and
receiving of bribe is not a
qualifying or aggravating
circumstance therefore the jail
warden custodian will be liable
for 2 crimes; Infidelity in the
custody of prisoners and direct
bribery for having received the
bribed money in the amount of
P500,000.00.
The guard at the entrance gate of
the penal institution will be
liable for delivering prisoners
from jail. He is not the
custodian and he helped in the
escape/removal of the prisoner
from jail. Therefore, he is
liable for delivering prisoners
from jail. The fact that he
received bribed money will not
make him liable of direct bribery
because in delivering prisoners
from jail, it is only a
qualifying circumstance which
CRIMINAL LAW 2


will only increase the imposable
penalty.
The friend who harbored and
concealed him will be liable
under PD 1829 that is obstruction
of justice. It is committed by
any person who willfully or
deliberately obstructs or impedes
the investigation or the
apprehension of a criminal.
Why not an accessory?
o Because I did not mention in
the problem the crime
committed by the prisoner. For
an accessory to the crime, it
is necessary that the crime
committed by the prisoner must
be treason, parricide, murder,
attempt to take the life of
the chief executive or is
known to be habitually guilty
of some other crime. I did not
mention the crime committed by
the prisoner. Therefore his
liability is under PD 1829
Obstruction of Justice.

ARTICLE157 EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
(Art 157)
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a convict by
final judgment.
2. That he is serving his sentence which
consists in deprivation of liberty.
3. That he evades the service of his
sentence by escaping during the term
of his sentence.

Evasion of service of sentence can only
be committed by a person convicted by
final judgment. It cannot be committed
by a mere detention prisoner.

PENALTY IS QUALIFIED if such evasion or
escape takes place:
1. By means of unlawful entry
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates,
walls, roofs or floors;
3. By using picklocks, false keys,
disguise, deceit, violence or
intimidation; or
4. Through connivance with other
convicts or employees of the penal
institution.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: You often read in the newspapers, heard
over the radios, watch on TV, 5 prisoners
escaped from the Caloocan city jail, 10
prisoners escaped from Palawan Provincial
Jail. Did they commit evasion of service of
sentence?
A: No. These persons did not commit
evasion of service of sentence under
art 157 because they are merely
detention prisoners. For evasion of
sentence to arise, the prisoner who
has escaped must be a prisoner
convicted by final judgment.
Under Art 157, the said prisoner the
said prisoner must be serving which
involves deprivation of liberty and
he escapes during the service of his
sentence by evading the service of
sentence.
The law says, it is a prisoner
serving his sentence which involves
deprivation of liberty. It is
necessary that the sentence imposed
on him must involve deprivation of
liberty either it is behind bars or
he has been convicted of a crime
wherein the penalty is destierro.
Even if the penalty prescribed is
destierro, the moment he enters the
place wherein he is prohibited from
entering in the judgment of the
court, he also committed evasion of
Destierro under Art 27;
Destierro is also a penalty
which involves deprivation of
liberty although partial not
complete deprivation of
liberty because the offender
or the convict is not allowed
to enter a place designated in
the judgment of the court. The
moment he enters the said
place, he commits evasion of

ON THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS,
CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER
CALAMITIES (ART 158)
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a convict by
final judgment who is confined in a
penal institution.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


2. That there is a disorder resulting
from ----
a. Conflagration
b. Earthquake
c. Explosion
d. Similar catastrophe
e. Mutiny in which he has not
participated
3. That the offender evades the service
of his sentence by leaving the penal
institution where he is confined, on
the occasion of such disorder or
during the mutiny.
4. That the offender fails to give
himself up to the authorities within
48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation by the Chief Executive
announcing the passing away of such
calamity.
It is required under Art 158 that the
prisoner is serving his sentence in a
penal institution.
In this kind of evasion of service of
sentence under Art 158, the crime will
arise not upon the act of leaving the
penal institution but upon the convicts
failure to return/to give himself to the
proper authorities within 48 hours. That
is only when the crime will arise.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if there was this earthquake, X was
a prisoner convicted by final judgment.
Everything was shaking and because of the
earthquake, X escaped the penal
institution. He went to the house of his
mother. That night while watching the
television, he saw the president
announced/declared that the calamity had
already ceased/passed away. Within 48hrs he
returned. What is the effect on his
criminal liability?
A:If the said convict escaped and
returned to the proper authorities
within 48hrs; there shall be a credit
or a deduction from his sentence.
There is 1/5 deduction/credit from
his sentence. Under Art 98 this is
special time allowance for loyalty.
He was too loyal to the government
that even if he already left the
penal institution he still returned;
such kind of loyalty must be
rewarded.

Q: What if 48hrs had lapsed, still he did
not return. What is the effect of his
criminal liability?
A:There will be an additional penalty
imposed on him. 1/5 on the basis of
the remainder of his sentence but
note that it shall not exceed six
months.
Q: There was this earthquake, everything
was shaking. He just hid under the table.
He did not leave the penal institution. He
was so loyal to the government that he did
not even think to leave. Will he be given
credit?
A:No. Under Art 158 there is no
credit to be given to him. Under Art
98, there is no special time
allowance of loyalty for just hiding
under the table and not leaving the
penal institution.
Q: Why those who are loyal to the
government and did not leave the penal
institution be not given credit? Isnt it
unfair?
A: The reason is that prisoners are
considered as accountabilities of the
government. It is the duty of the
government to protect the prisoners.
In times of calamities or public
disorders, the state cannot protect
these prisoners therefore the State
encourages them to leave in order to
protect themselves. But important
thing is that they show their loyalty
to the government hence they will
return.

BY VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender was a convict
2. He was granted a conditional pardon
by the Chief Executive
3. He violated any of the conditions of
such pardon

TWO KINDS OF PARDON:
1. Absolute Pardon which totally
extinguishes the criminal liability
2. Conditional Pardon which partially
extinguishes criminal liability.
Conditional Pardon is said to
only partially extinguishes
criminal liability because the
said pardon is subject to strict
CRIMINAL LAW 2


terms and conditions. Therefore,
there must be an acceptance in
the part of the prisoner granted
pardon. The moment he accepts the
conditional pardon, it means it
is incumbent upon him to comply
to all of the strict conditions.
The moment he violate any of the
terms and conditions he commits
evasion of service of sentence
because it shows that he just
accepted the conditional pardon
so as to free himself from taking
place behind bars.

Is violation of conditional pardon a
substantive offense or not?
It depends. If you will look at
Art 159, there are 2 situations.
Under Art 159, if the penalty
remitted by the grant of pardon
does not exceed 6yrs, the moment
he violates any of the
conditional pardon, there is a
new penalty imposed upon him that
is prision correccional minimum 6
months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
months. A new penalty is imposed
on him therefore in this case,
violation of the conditional
pardon is a substantive offense
because a new penalty is imposed
on him. BUT on the second part of
Art 159, if the penalty remitted
is more than 6 years; no new
penalty is imposed on him for
having violated the terms of the
pardon. He is only required to
serve the remainder of the
sentence. In this case, violation
of the conditional pardon is not
a substantive offense because
there is no new penalty imposed
for the commission of the crime.

ARTICLE160 COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME
DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR
ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender was already convicted by
final judgment of one offense.
2. He committed a new felony before
beginning to serve such sentence or
while serving the same.

Who is a quasi-recidivist?
A quasi-recidivist is any person who
shall commit a felony after having
been convicted by final judgment
before serving his sentence or while
serving his sentence.

Under Art 160 it is stated that the
maximum penalty prescribed by law shall
be imposed therefore it is a special
aggravating circumstance.
Art 160 is a misplaced article because
book 2 is about felonies and art 160 is
a special aggravating circumstance.

TITLE FOUR
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST (Articles
161 189)
ARTICLE161 COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS, FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Acts punished:
I. Forging the Great Seal of the
Government of the Philippines.
II. Forging the signature of the
President.
III. Forging the stamp of the President.

Art 161 punishes the person who forges
the great seal of the Philippines,
signature of the chief executive and
forging the stamp of the chief
executive.
Art 161 is the crime when the person is
the one who committed the forgery, but
if the offender is not the one who
forges the great seal, signature but he
knows that the document contain a forge
stamp, signature of the President and
despite such knowledge that it was a
forgery he makes use of the same,
liability is under 162.

ARTICLE162 USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP (Art 162)
ELEMENTS:
1. That 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 of the
counterfeiting or forgery.
3. That he used the counterfeit seal or
forged signature or stamp.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Art 162 punishes the person who, despite
knowledge of the forged signature, stamp
or great seal of the Republic of the
Philippines still he makes use of the
same document.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: In an official document, the signature
of the President was forged by A then it
was given to B. B knew that it was a
forgery nevertheless he made use of the
same. What crime was committed?
A:A committed a crime under 161. And
B committed a crime under 162.

ARTICLE163 MAKING AND IMPORTING AND
UTTERING FALSE COINS
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be false or counterfeited
coins
2. That the offender either made,
imported or uttered such coins.
3. That in case of uttering such false
or counterfeited coins, he connived
with the counterfeiters or importers

When is it committed?
A. Counterfeiting (imitation of
false coins) is committed by any
person who shall imitate a
genuine and authentic coin making
it appear that it is a true,
genuine, and authentic coin. The
offender copies the peculiar
design of the coin and makes a
spurious one out of it.

B. Importing false coins is
committed by any person who shall
bring into the Philippine ports
any false and counterfeited
coins. It is not necessary for
the offender to be liable that he
shall circulate the false coins
because there is a third act of
uttering false coins.

C. Uttering false coins is
committed by any person who shall
circulate, give away to another,
pass from one person to another
any counterfeited or false coins.

In case of counterfeited or imitated
false coins, it is not necessary that
the coins be the subject of
counterfeiting must be of legal tender.
Even if the coin is not a gold coin, if
the offender copies or imitates or
counterfeits the peculiar design of the
said coin; he becomes liable under Art
163.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: A is in possession of a coin which was
of legal tender during the time of Marcos
in 1972. It was a proven genuine coin. He
copied the said coin and made a spurious
one out of it. Is he liable under Art 163?
A: Yes he is liable for making and
importing and uttering false coins
under Article 163.

Q: What if while he was in possession of
the said coin; he took out a part of the
metal content of the said coin. Can he be
liable for Mutilation of coins under Art
164?
A: No, he cannot because in Art 164
or mutilation of coins, it is
necessary that the coin subject of
mutilation must be of legal tender.
It must be in present currency
because otherwise, it cannot be said
that the public has been deceived.

ARTICLE164 MUTILATION OF COINS
Acts punished:
I. Mutilating coins of the legal
currency, with the further
requirement that there be intent to
damage or to defraud another.
II. Importing or uttering such mutilated
coins, with the further requirement
that there must be connivance with
the mutilator or importer in case of
uttering.

Mutilation is the act of taking off a
part of the metal content by filing it
or substituting it for another metal of
inferior quality.
The offender gathers the metal dust that
he has taken off from the said coin.
While the offender took out a part of
the metal coin, he is in effect
diminishing the intrinsic value of the
said coin therefore who would be given
CRIMINAL LAW 2


the said coin would be deceived of the
this crime hence a crime in violation of
public interest is committed.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: There were 3 children/adults. They were
playing kara-krus. So they toss the coin,
however before doing that, they would
scratch the coin on the steel therefore the
metal content of the coin is diminished.
Can they be held liable under Art 164?
A: No. because there was no intent to
gather the metal dust of the said coin.
Can they be held liable of any crime?
Yes. They can be held liable
under PD 247

PD 247 punishes any person who willfully
or knowingly defaces, mutilates, tears,
burns or destroys any currency notes or
coins issued by the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas.
In case of violation of PD 247 it is not
required that there is intent to
mutilate on the part of the offender. It
is not required that the offender has
the intent to gather the metal dust of
the coin although these are required
under Art 164.

Q: In a P 1000.00 bill, a person put his
cell phone no. on it. Is he liable under PD
247?
A: Yes he is liable under PD 247.

But PD 247 is akin to a dead law because
no one has been prosecuted by it.

ARTICLE165 SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED
COIN, WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
Acts punished:
I. Possession of coin, counterfeited or
mutilated by another person, with
intent to utter the same, knowing
that it is false or mutilated.

ELEMENTS:
1. Possession,
2. With intent to utter, and
3. Knowledge
Under the first act, the
offender is in possession of
the false, mutilated,
counterfeited coin. It is
another person who
counterfeited the coin. The
offender is only in possession
of it but in order for him to
be held liable; he must have
the knowledge that the coin is
counterfeited or mutilated and
despite having such knowledge;
he has the intent to utter,
circulate, pass away, to give
away to another the said coin.

II. Actually uttering such false or
mutilated coin knowing the same to be
false or mutilated.

ELEMENTS:
1. Actually uttering, and
2. Knowledge.
In the second act it is the
act of actually circulating or
uttering the counterfeited
coin despite knowledge that it
is counterfeited or mutilated.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if A is under surveillance, reports
came to the police that he had been
circulating false coins. A went to the
bakery store, he bought bread worth P
50.00. He gave the store owner 5 P 10.00
counterfeited coins. Thereafter, after
giving the counterfeited coins, he
immediately left. The police arrived and A
was gone and it was the owner of the store
who is left. The police officer asked the
owner of the store to open the cash bin.
There they saw the 5 P 10.00 coins which
were counterfeited. They arrested the owner
of the store. Is the owner of the store
liable under Art 165?
A:No he is not liable of selling of
false coins or mutilated coins, without
connivance under Article 165. First, he was
caught in possession.
Was there possession?
Yes. The counterfeited coins
were found in his cash drawer.
Possession does not only mean
physical or actual possession.
Possession means constructive
possession which means that
the counterfeited or mutilated
coins are in his control and
custody. Therefore the first
element of possession is
present.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Was there intent to utter the
counterfeited coins on the part of
the said owner?
Yes. The fact that he placed
it in the cash drawer means he
can use it to buy another
thing or as a change to the
people who will buy from his
bakery therefore circulation
has a way from one person to
another. Therefore the second
element is also present.
How about the third element of
knowledge on his part the coin was
counterfeited?
The third element is absent
evidently based on the facts
that the store owner has no
knowledge that the coins are
counterfeited. In fact he gave
bread worth P 50.00. He was
also deceived. If he had only
known that the coins were
counterfeited, he would not
have given bread worth P
50.00.
Therefore, he may not be held
liable because also he is in
possession, and he has the
intent to utter the coins; he
does not have the knowledge
that the said coins were
counterfeited.

ARTICLE166 FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES
OR OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER;
IMPORTING, AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR
FORGED NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
Acts punished:
I. Forging or falsification of
treasury or bank notes or other
documents payable to bearer.
II. Importation of such false or
forged obligations or notes.
III. Uttering of such false or forged
obligations or notes in
connivance with the forgers or
importers.

ARTICLE167 COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND
UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be an instrument
payable to order or other
document of credit not payable to
bearer.
2. That the offender either forged,
imported or uttered such
instrument.
3. That in case of uttering, he
connived with the forger or
importer.

ARTICLE168 ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF
FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER
INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT
ELEMENTS:
1. That any treasury or bank note or
certificate or other obligation
and security payable to bearer,
or any instrument payable to
order or other document of credit
not payable to bearer is forged
or falsified by another person.
2. That the offender knows that any
of those instruments is forged or
falsified.
3. That he performs any of these
acts ----
a. Using any of such forged or
falsified instruments; or
b. Possessing with intent to
use any of such forged or
falsified instruments.

An instrument is payable to bearer when
it can be transferred by mere delivery.
e.g. Check payable to cash.
Whoever is in possession of
the said check can come to the
bank. It can be transferred by
mere delivery.
On the other hand a check is payable to
order where it can be transferred by
mere delivery when there is an
endorsement coming from the person named
or specified therein. It is an
instrument payable to the order of a
specific person or his order.
e.g. Payable to the order of
Charmaine. This cannot be
transferred from one person to
another without an order
coming from Charmaine.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ARTICLE169 HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED (Art
169)
1. By giving to a treasury or bank
note or any instrument payable to
bearer or to order mentioned
therein, the appearance of a true
and genuine document.
2. By erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting, or altering by
any means the figures, letters,
words, or sign contained therein.

If what has been falsified is a coin;
you call it counterfeiting.
If it is the stamp, seal or signature of
the President; you call it forging.
If it is treasury or bank notes; it is
considered as forging.
It is a document; you call it
falsification.

FALSIFICATION (ART 170, 171, 172)
In case of FALSIFICATION, to amount to
falsification, it is necessary that the
writing that is falsified must be a
document in a legal sense of the word
capable of making rights and/or
extinguishing an obligation. Therefore,
it must be complete in itself so that it
would be sufficient in evidence.
Falsification of mere forms does not
amount to falsification of a public
document. Because the said form is not
yet complete in itself it has no name,
no address an unfilled-out/up form. It
is not falsification.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if A was found outside the
building of the LTO office. He was carrying
falsified unfilled-out/up forms of drivers
license. It was distinct, it was falsified,
it was not the real drivers license form.
He was arrested by the NBI. Can he be held
liable for falsification of a public
document?
A: NO. Because what he is carrying is
only an unfilled-out form. It is not
yet complete in itself. It is not yet
capable of creating rights or
extinguishing an obligation. It is
not yet susceptible of evidence of
the facts stated thereon.

Q: So what crime if any was committed by A?
A: A merely committed violation of
Article 176 that is mere possession
of instrument or implements for
falsification, but not yet
falsification of a public document.
There 4 types of documents which may be
falsified:
1. PUBLIC DOCUMENT a document which is
issued by a notary public or
competent public official with the
solemnities required by law

2. OFFICIAL DOCUMENT a document issued
by a public official in the exercise
of his official functions
3. COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT any document
defined and regulated by the Code of
Commerce or any other mercantile law

4. PRIVATE DOCUMENT a document, a deed
or instrument executed by a private
person without the intervention of
the notary public of any other person
legally authorized, by which document
some disposition or agreement is
proved, evidenced or set forth

Is a public document distinct from an
official document?

All official documents are
considered as public documents,
but not all public documents are
considered official documents.
Before a public document may be
considered as an official
document, it is necessary that it
shall be issued by a public
officer in the exercise of his
official functions. There is a
law that requires a public
officer to issue the said public
document, then it becomes an
official document.

A PRIVATE DOCUMENT, one which has been
executed by a private person, if there
is no intervention of public official.

A PRIVATE DOCUMENT however, even though
executed by a private person without the
intervention of a notary public or a
legally authorized person, can also
become a public document. That is when
the said private document is submitted
to the public officer and it becomes
part of the public records. The moment
the said private document becomes part
of the public records, it is now a
public document and when it is issued
and it is falsified, what is falsified
is a public document and no more a
private document.

It is necessary to distinguish the kind
of document that is being falsified -
whether it is a public, official,
CRIMINAL LAW 2


commercial or private because of the
different effects.

If what has been falsified is a PUBLIC,
OFFICIAL OR COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT, damage
or intent to cause damage to the
offended party or to any other person is
not an element.

On the other hand, if what has been
falsified is a PRIVATE DOCUMENT, for the
crime to arise, it is necessary that
there must be damage or at least, intent
to cause damage to the private offended
party or to any other party.
If what has been falsified is a PUBLIC
OR OFFICIAL DOCUMENT, it is not
necessary that there be damage or intent
to cause damage. Because a public
document an official document - is
presumed authentic and legal. It is
presumed to be prima facie evidence of
the facts stated therein. As such,
the moment it is falsified, the crime
will immediately arise, without need
that there be damage on the part of the
offended party. Because in Falsification
of a Public Document, what has been
violated is the PERVERSION OF TRUTH
being solemnly proclaimed by the said
document. Hence DAMAGE IS NOT AN
ELEMENT.

ARTICLE171 FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC
OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
The first kind of falsification under
Article 171, we have the falsification
committed by a public officer, employee
or notary public or an ecclesiastical
minister.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer,
employee, notary public or an
ecclesiastical minister.

2. He takes advantage of his official
position.
The offender is said to have
taken advantage of his
position or office when:
a. He has the duty to make or
prepare or to otherwise
intervene in the
preparation of the
document; or
b. He has the official custody
of the document which he
falsifies

3. That the said offender falsifies a
document by committing any of the
following modes stated therein:
a. By counterfeiting or
imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric.
b. Causing it to appear that
persons have participated
in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact
so participate.
c. Attributing to persons who
have participated in an act
or proceeding statement
other than those in fact
made by them
d. Making untruthful
statements in a narration
of facts
e. Altering true dates
f. Making any alteration or
intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its
meaning
g. Issuing in authenticated
form a document purporting
to be a copy of any
original document when no
such copy a statement
contrary to, or different
from that of the genuine
original
h. Intercalating any
instrument or note relative
to the issuance thereof in
a protocol, registry or
official book.
i.
4. In case the offender is an
ecclesiastical minister, the act of
falsification is committed with
respect to any record or document of
such character that the falsification
may affect the civil status of
persons.

EXPLANATIONS:
1. The offender is a public officer,
employee, notary public or an
ecclesiastical minister.
If the offender is an
ecclesiastical minister, for
him to be liable under Article
171, it is necessary that the
document that he falsifies
must affect the civil status
of a person.
If the document falsified by
an ecclesiastical minister
will not affect the civil
status of a person, he is
still liable for
falsification, but not under
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Art. 171, rather under Art.
172.
So, a priest falsified the
communion certificates of one
of the students/pupils
receiving the first communion,
the crime committed is
falsification under Art. 172,
not under Art. 171 because a
certificate of communion will
not affect the civil status of
the said child.

position.
It requires that the offender
takes advantage of his
official position.
taken advantage of his
position or office when:
a. He has the duty to make or
prepare or to otherwise
intervene in the
preparation of the
document; or
b. He has the official custody
of the document which he
falsifies

3. That the said offender falsifies a
document by committing any of the
following modes stated therein:
If you will look at Art. 171,
it does not state the kind of
document that has been
falsified, it may not be
stated because it necessarily
follows that the document
falsified is a public or
official document because the
offender is public officer or
employee or notary public.
Therefore necessarily, the
document being falsified in
Art. 171 is a public official
or official document.

Art. 171 provides for the DIFFERENT ACTS OF
FALSIFICATION. These acts of falsification
are also applicable in Art. 172:
I. BY COUNTERFEITING OR IMITATING ANY
HANDWRITING, SIGNATURE OR RUBRIC.
So what is COUNTERFEITING?
counterfeited a signature,
handwriting or rubric if he
has imitated an official
handwriting, signature or
rubric.
So there is an original
handwriting or signature and
the offender imitiated or
copied the said original
handwriting or signature.

Is COUNTERFEITING the same as
FEIGNING?
Feigning a handwriting,
signature or rubric is NOT THE
SAME as counterfeiting. When
you say FEIGNING, it means
simulating a handwriting,
signature or rubric. That is,
making a handwriting,
signature or rubric out of
nothing which does not exist.
It is an imaginable, an
inexistent handwriting,
signature or rubric.

II. CAUSING IT TO APPEAR THAT PERSONS HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN ANY ACT OR PROCEEDING
WHEN THEY DID NOT IN FACT SO
PARTICIPATE.

Q: What if a notary public issued, he
prepared or issued an extrajudicial
settlement of an estate. In the said
extrajudicial settlement of an estate, it
is stated that all the heirs of a certain
decedent can already agree by themselves to
partition the property. So it is an
extrajudicial settlement of an estate and
in it, the notary public made it appear
that all the 12 heirs of the decedent had
participated, but un truth and in fact, two
of the heirs where in another country and
they did not participate in the execution
of this extrajudicial settlement of the
estate. Is the notary public liable?
A: YES. The notary public is LIABLE
under the second act (causing it to
appear that persons have participated
in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate).He
caused it to appear that A and B
participated in the execution of the
extrajudicial settlement of the
estate, when they did not in fact so
participate.

III. ATTRIBUTING TO PERSONS WHO HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN AN ACT OR PROCEEDING
STATEMENT OTHER THAN THOSE IN FACT MADE
BY THEM
So under the third act, persons
participated in an act or
proceeding, they made statements
therein, however, the offender in
a document may appear that these
persons have made certain
statements which were not in fact
made by them.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Q: So what if in the Sangguniang
Panglungsod, an ordinance was being passed.
There was a votation, majority of the
councilors voted, two of the councilors
dissented and their vote were NO. they just
stated that they were voting in the
negative, but, they did not give any
explanation for their dissent or the vote
of NO. However, in the minutes appeared by
the Sangguniang Secretary, the latter made
it appear that the two councilors made
statements that they voted NO because the
said ordinance is contrary to law. Is the
said secretary liable for falsification?

A: YES. He is a public officer. He is
the one who prepared the minutes for
the SangguniangPanglungsod and he
made it appear that the 2 councilors
stated that the said ordinance is
contrary to law and in truth and
fact, they did not made those
statements. So the said secretary is
liable for falsification.

IV. MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A
NARRATION OF FACTS
The evidence of this act of
falsification requires:
i. That the offender makes in a
document untruthful
statement in a narration of
facts;
ii. That he has legal obligation
to disclose the truth of the
facts narrated by him
iii. The facts narrated by the
offender are absolutely
false
iv. The untruthful narration
must be such as to effect
the integrity of the
document and that the
offender does so with the
intent to injure or
prejudice another person

It is necessary that the
intention of the intention of the
offender must be to INJURE
ANOTHER PERSON.
In case of making false
statements in a narration of
facts, it is necessary that the
offender must have the legal
obligation to disclose the truth
in the said narration of facts.
Absence of such legal obligation,
then it cannot be said that he is
liable for falsification.
When you say legal obligation,
there is a law which requires him
to state nothing but the truth in
the said document.

Q: So what if the offender, a public
officer, falsified the statement in his
residence certificate or community tax
certificate. Although he stated his true
name, he did not state his address,
citizenship, etc. So makes false statement
of facts in his residence certificate or
community tax certificate, otherwise known
as cedula. So he was charged with
falsification. He contended that there is
no law which requires him to state the
truth in his residence certificate. Is his
contention correct?
A: His contention is wrong. According
to a ruling in the Supreme Court, if
it is a residence certificate or
community tax certificate, there need
not be a law which requires a person
to state the truth in the said
residence certificate, it is inherent
in the kind of document. Since it is
a residence certificate or cedula, it
is inherent that in this document,
nothing but the truth must be stated
no falsity. Because it requires
identification.

V. ALTERING TRUE DATES
It is necessary that what has
been altered must be a true date
and in the alteration of the said
true date, the document will no
longer have any effect.

VI. MAKING ANY ALTERATION OR INTERCALATION
IN A GENUINE DOCUMENT WHICH CHANGES ITS
MEANING
2 ACTS:
i. The offender makes an
alteration
ii. The offender makes an
intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its
meaning
ALTERATION changes in a
document
INTERCALATION there must be
some insertion made in the said
document, in a genuine document
that changed the meaning of the
said document

VII. ISSUING IN AUTHENTICATED FORM A DOCUMENT
PURPORTING TO BE A COPY OF ANY ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT WHEN NO SUCH COPY A STATEMENT
CONTRARY TO, OR DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF
THE GENUINE ORIGINAL
2 ACTS PUNISHED:
CRIMINAL LAW 2


1. The offender issued in an
authenticated form a document
purporting to be an authenticated
copy of an original document, but
no such original exists
2. By including such copy a
statement contrary to or
different from a genuine original

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a notary public issued a deed of
absolute sale and he said that it is an
original copy of a deed of absolute sale
between A and B. A selling his property to
B, but in truth and in fact, no such deed
of absolute sale was executed between A and
B. Is the notary public liable?
A: YES. He is liable under the second
act of falsification in the seventh
act of the 3
rd
element in Art. 171.

Q: What if a civil registrar issued a
certificate of live birth. So here comes A.
A was asking that he should be given a
certified copy of a certificate of live
birth. In the said certificate of live
birth issued by the said civil registrar,
there was a statement that A was an
illegitimate child, but in the original
copy of the certificate of live birth
submitted to the office of the Office of
the Civil Registrar, there was no such
statement. Is the civil registrar liable?

A: YES. He is liable under the second
act of falsification in the seventh
act of the 3
rd
element in Art. 171.
Because he included in the said copy
a statement contrary to or different
from that of a genuine original.

VIII. INTERCALATING ANY INSTRUMENT OR NOTE
RELATIVE TO THE ISSUANCE THEREOF IN A
PROTOCOL, REGISTRY OR OFFICIAL BOOK.
INTERCALATION making any
insertion in any instrument or
note

So these acts, under ARTICLE 171, are
also the very same acts punished under
Art. 172.

ARTICLE172 FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
THREE PUNISHABLE ACTS/FELONIES?
I. Falsification of a public, official
or commercial document by a private
individual
So in case of FALSIFICATION OF A
PUBLIC, OFFICIAL OR COMMERCIAL
DOCUMENT by a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL,
is just the same as ARTICLE 171
they only differ in that in Art.
171, the offender is a public
officer or employee.
In ARTICLE 172, yes, the document
falsified is a public, official
or commercial document, but, the
offender is a private individual
even if the offender is a private
individual, since the document
falsified is a public, official
or commercial document, DAMAGE OR
INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE IS NOT AN
ELEMENT.

II. Falsification of private document by
any person
The document falsified is a
PRIVATE DOCUMENT. The offender is
any person. He can be a private
individual, he can be a private
officer or employee for as long
as the document falsified is a
private document, it necessary
that there must be damage caused
to a third person or at least the
intention of the offender is to
CAUSE DAMAGE.
Absence of damage or intent to
cause damage, then falsification
of a private document will not
arise.

III. Use of falsified document
A document has been falsified and
the offender uses the said
document.
If the falsified document is used
in a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, again,
DAMAGE or INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE
is NOT AN ELEMENT because it is a
judicial proceeding.
But if the said falsified
document is used in any other
transaction, this time, damage or
intent to cause damage is an
ELEMENT.

ARTICLE173 FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS
TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES
Punishable acts
I. Uttering fictitious, wireless,
telegraph or telephone message
II. Falsifying wireless, telegraph
or telephone message
III. Using such falsified message

If the act punished is UTTERING
FICTITIOUS, WIRELESS, TELEGRAPH OR
TELEPHONE MESSAGES and FALSIFYING
WIRELESS, TELEGRAPH OR TELEPHONE
MESSAGES, note that these can only be
CRIMINAL LAW 2


committed by a person working in a
department, agency or corporation which
is engaged in a business of receiving
and sending wireless, telegraph and
telephone messages.
Under the third act USING FALSIFIED
WIRELESS, TELEGRAPH OR TELEPHONE
MESSAGES, this time, it can be committed
by any person.

Articles 174 and 175 refer to the persons
who shall be criminally liable in case of
falsified document.

ARTICLE174 FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES,
FALSE CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE, ETC
Under Art. 174, if the offender is a
PHYSICIAN OR SURGEON who issues a false
medical certificate in the practice of
his profession, he becomes liable under
Art. 174.
Likewise, Art. 174 punishes a PUBLIC
OFFICER who issues a false certificate
of merit, service or good conduct, moral
character, etc.
And, under Art. 174, ANY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL who falsifies a medical
certificate or certificate of merit or
service or good conduct shall be also
criminally liable.
The offender is the person who
falsifies, issues the false medical
certificate or certificate or merit.
If the offender is not the falsifier,
but he knows that the said document is
falsified and he makes use of the same,
his liability is under Art. 175.

ARTICLE175 USING FALSE CERTIFICATE
Under Art. 175, the offender knows that
the medical certificate or certificate
of merit has been falsified and despite
that knowledge, he makes use of the
same.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if the defense counsel is about
to present his witness. The witness is a
person who was present in the scene of the
crime who actually saw the incident that
is according to the defense counsel.
However, on the date of the said hearing,
the said witness failed to appear, the
defense counsel said to the judge: Your
Honor, my witness is in the hospital, he
cannot even get out of bed. He is very,
very sick. The judge, however, was
doubtful of the said manifestation of the
defense counsel and so the judge told the
defense counsel: Okay, let him appear in
the next hearing and make sure that he
brings with him a medical certificate to
show that indeed he can testify in this
hearing. With that, the defense counsel
informed the witness of the said order of
the court. The said witness was in that
time, healthy, it is just that he was too
afraid to testify. However, in the next
hearing, he is deemed required to produce a
medical certificate showing that he was
bedridden. And so, he went to his medical
doctor. He asked the doctor to issue a
medical certificate saying that he was
very, very sick and that he could not get
out of bed on the said date. The said
doctor issued the said medical certificate
and then his witness appeared on the second
hearing and presented him to the court. It
was submitted to the records of the court.
What crime or crimes is/are committed by
doctor or the physician as well as by the
witness?

A: The PHYSICIAN is liable under Art.
174. He issues a false medical
certificate in the exercise or in the
practice of his profession.
On the other hand, the WITNESS,
despite knowledge that it is a
falsified medical certificate, still
made use of the same and he presented
and submitted it to the court.

ARTICLE176 MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION
OF INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR
FALSIFICATION
This is the felony that is if a person
was found in possession of unfilled-out
forms of drivers license, he can be
held liable for falsification of a
public document and liable only in
Article 176.
Under Art. 176, what was being punished
are:
1. Making or introducing into the
Philippines any stamps, dies, marks
or other instruments or implements
for counterfeiting or falsification.
2. Possessing with intent to use the
instrument or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification made
in or introduced into the Philippines
by another person.

ARTICLE177 USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
I. Usurpation of authority is committed
when a person knowingly and falsely
represents himself to be an officer
or agent of any department of the
Philippine government or agency
thereof or of a foreign government.
The crime will immediately arise
from the mere act of person of
knowingly and falsely
CRIMINAL LAW 2


representing himself to be an
officer or agent of any
department or agency of the
Philippines or of a foreign
country. It is not necessary for
the offender to commit any act,
to perform any act. It suffices
that he falsely represents
himself to be an officer or agent
of the Philippine government. The
crime will immediately arise.
However, the said false
representation, aside from being
done knowingly, must be such that
he intended to be known by such
other person or by public as a
representative or agent of
Philippine government.

II. There is usurpation of official
function if any person performs an
act pertaining to a person in
authority or a public officer of the
Philippine Government or of a foreign
government or agency thereof, under
pretense of official position, and
without being lawfully entitled to do
so.
It is necessary that the offender
performs an act. Mere
representation will not suffice.
It is necessary that he performs
an act pertaining to a person in
authority or a public officer of
any department or agency of the
Philippine government or of a
foreign government.
In usurpation of official
functions, it is necessary that
the act pertaining to a person in
authority or a public officer
must be under pretense of
official position and without
being lawfully entitled to do so.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if an administrative case was filed
against the mayor before the Office of the
Ombudsman. During the investigation of the
case, the Ombudsman preventively suspended
the mayor for a period of six months. The
DILG implemented the suspension order and
the vice-mayor was made the acting mayor.
However, upon advice of his counsel, the
suspended mayor began working, began
performing the acts of being a mayor after
90 days of preventive suspension. That is
because according to his counsel, he can
only be suspended for a period of 90 days.
So on the 91
st
day of his suspension, he
again began assuming the function of a
mayor. He signed documents, he issued
memorandum, etc. as the city mayor. Is he
liable under Article 177 for usurpation of
official function?
A: Yes, he is liable for usurpation
of official function under Article
177. The reason is that he is still
under preventive suspension. Unless
and until it is lifted by the
Ombudsman and the said lifting was
implemented by the DILG, he remains
to be a suspended mayor. And for
having acted, for having performing
an act pertaining to the office of a
mayor, he is said to be committed a
violation of Article 177, usurpation
of official function.

Q: What if there was heavy traffic. So
there was no MMDA officer or policeman
manning the traffic. One of the owners of
the vehicle caught in the traffic alighted
from the vehicle and he manned the traffic
to ease the flow of the traffic. The said
man performed an act pertaining to an
officer of the MMDA, pertaining to a
traffic enforcer. Is the said man liable
for usurpation of official function?
A: NO. While the man performed
however he did not do so under
pretense of official position and
without being lawfully entitled to do
so. There was no intent on his part
to falsely represent himself as to be
in that position. There was no false
pretense of official position
therefore he cannot be held liable
under Article 177 or usurpation of
official function because his act was
only done out of pacific (promote
peace; to end a conflict) spirit to
help ease the said traffic.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ARTICLE178 USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND
CONCEALING TRUE NAME
Punishes two acts:
I. USING FICTITIOUS NAME
Committed by any person who
shall use a name other than
his real name publicly for
concealing a crime, or evade
the execution of a judgment,
or to cause damage to public
interest.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender uses a name other
than his real name
2. That he uses that fictitious
name publicly
3. That the purpose of the
offender is either:
a. to conceal a crime; or
b. to evade execution of a
judgment; or
c. to cause damage to public
interest.
II. CONCEALING TRUE NAME
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender conceals
a. his true name; AND
b. all other personal
circumstances
2. That the purpose is only to
conceal his identity

HOW WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH IF THE CRIME
COMMITTED IS USING FICTITIOUS NAME OR
CONCEALING TRUE NAME?
In case of using fictitious name, the
use of a name other than his real
name, is done publicly. There is the
element of publicity. Whereas, in
case of concealing true name, it is
not necessary that the use of another
name, concealing his true and real
name must be done publicly.
Using fictitious name and concealing
true name differ in purposes. In case
of using fictitious name, the purpose
is to conceal a crime, evade the
execution of judgment or to cause
damage to public interest. On the
other hand, in concealing true name,
the only purpose of the offender is
to conceal his true and real
identity.

ANTI-ALIAS LAW (C.A. No. 142, as amended)
SO RELATED IN ARTICLE 178 IS C.A. 142 AS
AMENDED
What is an alias? What does C.A. 142, as
amended, or the Anti-Alias Law provide?
According to the SC, an alias is a name or
names use intended to be used by a person
publicly and habitually, usually in business
transaction other than the name registered at
birth for the first time before the local civil
registrar.
Under C.A. 142 as amended, except as
pseudonym, in literary, cinema, television,
radio and other entertainment purposes, and
in athletic events wherein the use of a
pseudonym is a normal practice, no person
can use any name other than his name by
which he is registered at birth at the local
civil registrar or by which he is registered by
the Bureau of Immigration upon his entry
into the Philippines.
The use of any other name must only be
upon approval by the judicial or competent
authority.
Therefore, no person can use any other name
other than the name by which he is baptized
at the office of the civil registrar in your place
other than the name by which he is recorded
in Bureau of Immigration, if case he is a
foreigner coming here in the Philippines. He
can only use his name. EXCEPT if he is an
actor, if he is an athlete, then he is allowed to
use a pseudonym. When he is a writer of a
book, then he is allowed to use a pseudonym,
a pen name other than his real name
because it is a normal practice OR if he files
the use of a substitute name before the court
and he is allowed by judicial or competent
authority to use any other name, then he can
also use another name. But outside these, a
person can only use the name by which he is
registered at the office of civil registrar.

CESARIO URSUA v. CA
The said accused made use of a different
name. he used the name of Oscar Perez in
the office of the Ombudsman as he was
trying to get a copy of the complaint filed
against him. It was however discovered that a
case of violation of CA 142 was filed against
him.
The SC held that he is not criminally liable.
The SC acquitted the accused because
CRIMINAL LAW 2


according to the SC, the use of the name
Oscar Perez in an isolated transaction,
without any showing, absent an evidence
that henceforth he wanted to be known by
the name of Oscar Perez in not within the
prohibition of CA 142 as amended. There was
no evidence that showed that henceforth he
wanted to be known by that name. There was
no showing that henceforth, he wanted to be
called by the said name therefore it cannot be
said that Oscar Perez is an alias of the
accused.

PEOPLE v. ESTRADA
In this case, the former president made use
of the name Jose Velarde in signing a trust
account. So he signed a trust account, using
the name Jose Velarde and so he was
charged with violation of CA 142 as
amended.
Again, the SC said, the use by Erap of the
name Jose Velarde in a single, isolated
transcation, without any showing that
henceforth he wanted to be known by such
name, is not within the prohibition of CA 142
as amended. First, it was not done publicly
and was in fact done secretly in the presence
of Laquian and Chua and the said act of
signing does not make it public because
these two are his close friends therefore it
was done secretly, in a discreet manner.
Hence, it was not done publicly. It was also
not done habitually. The element of
habituality is not present because there was
no showing that in any other transaction, he
made use of the name Jose Velarde. Hence,
he was also acquitted although convicted by
Sandiganbayan, he was acquitted by the SC.

Q: What if a lawyer was having a massage in a sauna
bath parlor. He did not know that as a front it is a
sauna bath parlor but in truth and in fact, it was a
prostitution den. At the time that he was having this
massage service, the police raided the place because
they were able to secure a search warrant. And
among those arrested was the said attorney. The said
attorney was brought to the PNP station and he was
asked of his name, ashamed to reveal his true
identity, his true name, he said that he was Y and did
not state that he was Atty. X. However, when he was
asked his residence, he stated the truth. As of the
name of his wife, he stated the truth. As of the name
of his children, he stated the truth. Is he liable for
using fictitious name?
A: He is not liable for using fictitious
name. First, he did not do so publicly.
Second, his use of the name was not done to
conceal a crime, to evade the execution of
sentence or to cause damage to public
interestnone of these purposes is present;
therefore he is not liable for using fictitious
name.
Is he liable for concealing true name?
No, he is not liable for concealing
true name. Although he concealed his
real name, Atty. X, he did not conceal
his other personal circumstances. He
divulged his address. He divulged the
name of his wife, the names of his
children; therefore, it cannot be said
that he has the intention to conceal his
true identity. In fact, his true identity
can easily be verified just by going to the
said address; therefore he is not also
liable for concealing true name.
Is he liable under CA 142, as amended?
He is also not liable under CA 142, as
amended, because the use of the name
Y in a single transaction, in a single
isolated transaction, without any
showing that henceforth he wanted to
be known as Y is not within the
prohibition of CA 142, as amended.

ARTICLE179 ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS AND
INSIGNIA
Committed by any person who makes use
of any insignia, uniform or dress
which pertains to an office not being
held by the offender or to a class of
person of which he is not a member
and he makes use of such insignia,
uniform or dress publicly and
improperly.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender makes use of
INSIGNIA, UNIFORM or DRESS
2. That the insignia, uniform or
dress pertains to an office not being
held by the offender or to a class of
person of which he is not a member.
3. That the said insignia, uniform or
dress is used publicly and
improperly.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


The offender uses the insignia, uniform
or dress of an office not held by him or
a by a class of person of which he is
not a member and he used the same
publicly and improperly.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a person was wearing a uniform.
So he said that it was a uniform of a
certain organization known as H world but
in fact, no such organization ever existed.
Is he liable under Article 179?
A: No, he is not liable of Illegal
use of insignia, uniform or dress
Article 179. The reason is that H
world does not belong to any office,
doesnt refer to a class of persons;
therefore, he is not liable under
Article 179.

Q: What if a person made use of a uniform
of a prisoner. So you see a person, he was
receiving a holy communion, he was wearing
an orange t-shirt with a big letter P at
the back which means Prisoner. Can he be
held liable under Article 179?
A: He is not liable of Illegal use of
insignia, uniform or dress under Article
179. Although he used the uniform of a
prisoner, it is not an office held by the
offender, it is not also a class of
persons. When you say a class of persons of
which he is a member, it refers to a
dignified class of persons. He is assuming
that he belongs to the said class of
persons. Here, he is even belittling
himself because he was wearing a uniform of
a prisoner. Hence, it cannot be said that
he violated Article 179.

FALSE TESTIMONY (ART 180, 181, 182)
False testimony can either be false
testimony in criminal cases (Articles
180 and 181), false testimony in
civil cases (Article 182) and false
testimony in other cases.
False testimony in criminal cases can
either be: (1) false testimony
against a defendant (Article 180) and
(2) false testimony favorable to
defendant (Article 181).

ARTICLE180 FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A
DEFENDANT
In a criminal proceeding, the
offender-witness testified falsely
against a defendant knowing that his
testimony is false and then the said
defendant is either acquitted or
convicted.

ELEMENTS:
1. That there be a criminal
proceeding
2. That the offender testifies
falsely under oath against the
defendant therein.
3. That the offender who gives false
testimony knows that it is false.
4. That the defendant against whom
the false testimony is given is
either acquitted or convicted in
a final judgment. (People v.
Maneja)

ARTICLE181 FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO
DEFENDANT
In a criminal proceeding, the
offender-witness testified falsely in
favor of the defendant and he knew
that his testimony is indeed false.

Whether it be a false testimony against
or false testimony in favor of a
defendant, it is immaterial whether the
court will consider or not the said
false testimony. The case may be filed.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if A is being prosecuted for the
crime of homicide, for having killed the
victim. So while he is being prosecuted,
the fiscal presented a witness. This
witness was also brought in by the heirs of
the victim. The heirs of the victim said
that the witness saw the said act of
killing. The fiscal believed and the fiscal
presented the said witness. The witness
however was not present at the scene of the
crime but in his testimony the witness said
that he was present at the scene of the
crime and that he actually saw the accused
stabbing the victim to death. The accused,
A knew that the witness was testifying
falsely because he knew that at the scene
of the crime, it was only he and the victim
who were present. After trial on the
CRIMINAL LAW 2


merits, the judge acquitted the said
accused A. In other words, the judge did
not give weight to the testimony of the
false witness. Can A still file a case
against the false witness?
A:Yes, A can still file a case of
false testimony against the false
witness. He can still file a case of
false testimony against the said
false witness even of the court did
not consider the said false
testimony. Even if the court did not
give any merit on the said false
testimony and acquitted him. The
crime will arise the moment the said
offender testified falsely in open
court whether in favor or against a
defendant.

Q: What if in the same case, A was being
prosecuted for homicide. Then the
prosecution presented the witness. The
witness testified falsely against the
defendant saying that he saw the actual act
of killing. After trial on the merits, the
judge convicted the accused, the judge
believed the false testimony and so the
judge convicted him. Upon conviction,
within 15 days from the promulgation of
judgment, the said accused, the said
convict, filed an appeal before the CA.
While the case was pending before the CA,
can the said accused, the convicted person,
already file a case of false testimony
against the false witness who testified
against him?
A:Not yet. Any case would still be a
premature case. In fact, you would
not know what court will have
jurisdiction. You would not know if
the court that will have jurisdiction
over the false testimony is the RTC
or the MTC because the penalty to be
imposed on the false witness is
always dependent on the penalty
imposed on the convict.
Under Article 180, if the defendant
has been convicted and the penalty
imposed is capital punishment or
death then the false witness shall be
imposed with a penalty of reclusion
temporal. If the defendant, upon
conviction is imposed with a penalty
of reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal, the penalty will be imposed
on the false witness is prision
mayor. If the said defendant is
convicted and the penalty imposed on
him is any other afflictive penalty,
the penalty to be imposed on the
false witness is prision correcional.
On the other hand, if the penalty
imposed on the said defendant is
prision correcional, arresto mayor,
fine or he was acquitted. If he was
acquitted, the penalty to be imposed
on the said person who testified
falsely is arresto mayor.
So in this case, the penalty on the
false witness is always dependent on
the penalty to be imposed by the
court on the defendant; therefore,
there must first be a final
conviction by final judgment.
NOTE: if it is an acquittal, the case
can be immediately filed because an
acquittal is immediately executory.
You cannot appeal an acquittal. It is
immediately executory.

Q: So the case was filed against A for
homicide, here comes a witness, the witness
testified falsely in favor of the accused.
Can the private complainant, the heirs of
the victim, immediately file a case of
false testimony against the witness right
after the giving thereof?
A: Yes, because in case of false
testimony in favor of the defendant,
the penalty of the false witness is
not dependent on the penalty to be
imposed on the said accused or
defendant.

ARTICLE182 FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES
Right after the giving of the false
testimony, the private complainant or
the aggrieved party, can immediately
file a case against the false witness
who testified in favor of the
defendant.
ELEMENTS:
1. The testimony must be given in a
civil case
2. The testimony must relate to the
issues presented in said case
(relative or pertinent)
3. The testimony must be false
CRIMINAL LAW 2


4. The false testimony must be given
by the defendant knowing the same
to be false.
5. The testimony must be malicious
and given with intent to affect
the issues presented in the said
case (U.S. v. Aragon)
In case of false testimony in a civil
case, right after the giving of the
false testimony, the false witness
can be immediately prosecuted in
court.
In order to amount in false testimony
in civil cases, there must be
litigation. Take for example a sum of
money, breach of contract. If the
false testimony is given in a special
proceeding, for example, petition for
nullity of marriage, petition for
separation, petition for habeas
corpus, these are special proceedings
and a false testimony of a person who
testified falsely during this special
proceeding, the case is under Article
183, false testimony in other
proceedings.

ARTICLE183 PERJURY
PERJURY is the willful and deliberate
assertion of falsehood on a material
matter made before an officer duly
authorized to receive and administer
oath.
ELEMENTS:
1. The accused made a statement
under oath or executed an
affidavit upon a material matter
There are two ways of
committing perjury:
The offender either:
1. Makes a statement
under oath (he makes a false
testimony); or
2. Executes an
affidavit on a
material matter (if
it is an affidavit,
it is also required
under oath)
2. The said statement under oath or
affidavit was made before a
competent officer duly authorized
to receive and administer oath
In order to amount to perjury,
it is necessary that the said
oath must be given before an
officer duly authorized to
receive and administer.
Otherwise, it cannot be
considered as perjury because
the essence of perjury is the
violation of the solemnity of
oath.
If the person who received the
oath is not duly authorized,
it cannot be said that there
is a violation of the
solemnity of the oath.

3. That in the said statement or
affidavit, the offender makes a
willful and deliberate assertion
of falsehood
It is necessary for perjury to
arise that the offender
deliberately, knowingly
ascertained a falsehood. There
was a deliberate intent on his
part; therefore, good faith is
a defense in perjury.
Perjury likewise cannot be
committed out of mere
negligence. It is necessary
that there must be a
deliberate intent on his part
to assert a falsity either in
the statement or affidavit.

4. The said statement or affidavit
containing falsity is required by
law.
If it is not required by law
then it cannot be considered
as a crime.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if X made a false statement in a
criminal proceeding, what crime is
committed?
A: The crime committed is FALSE
TESTIMONY.

Q: A makes a statement in a labor case
against B. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is PERJURY.
If the false statement under oath is
made in a judicial proceeding whether it
be a criminal or civil proceeding, the
crime committed is FALSE TESTIMONY. If
the said false statement, however, is
CRIMINAL LAW 2


made in a non-judicial proceeding,
administrative proceedings, or quasi-
judicial proceedings, then the crime
committed is PERJURY. So if the false
testimony or the false statement is made
in a labor case, in an administrative
case, in an application for search
warrant, during the preliminary
investigation, before the fiscals
office, the crime committed is perjury.

Q: What if the offender makes false
narration of facts in a cedula. The
offender makes a false narration of facts
in a drivers license. What crime is
committed?
A: FALSIFICATION.

Q: What if the offender makes a false
narration of facts in a statement of
assets, liabilities and net worth. So a
public officer filed a statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth. It contains
falsities, false narration of facts. What
is the liability?
A: The liability is PERJURY.

WHERE LIES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
FALSIFICATION AND PERJURY?
In falsification, the document is not
required to be under oath. In case of
perjury, the document is required to
be under oath.

HOW ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE OF FALSE STATEMENT
AND PERJURY?
If the false statement is made in a
judicial proceeding, it is false
testimony. If the false statement is
made in a non-judicial proceeding or
administrative proceeding or quasi-
judicial proceeding, it is perjury.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: An applicant for the bar filled out an
application form for the bar, there was a
statement therein, Have you ever been
fined or convicted of any crime? and the
answer was no, however, in truth and in
fact, he has already been fined for the
crime of jaywalking. He answered no and
then this application for the bar is
required to be under oath. He was looking
for a notary public since it was a Sunday,
there was no office opened so he went to
the legal office of his father, hoping that
there was a lawyer there. However, there
was only the janitor and he asked the
janitor to sign in the notary public part
and then submitted it to the office of the
bar confidante. Is the said applicant for
the bar liable for perjury or is he liable
for falsification?
A: He is liable of FALSIFICATION and
not of perjury because the person who
received and administered the oath is
not a confidante officer duly
authorized to receive and administer
the oath. He was a mere janitor and
not a notary public. As such, the
crime committed is falsification.
Again, the essence of perjury is the
violation of the solemnity of the
oath.

Q: A wrote a love letter to the girl that
he is pursuing. In the said love letter, he
stated falsities such as You are the only
one in my life. when in truth there were
three of them. He stated I love you and I
miss you and they were all falsities. He
even asked it to be notarized and sent it
to his third girlfriend. Is he liable for
perjury?
A: No, he is not liable for perjury.
He is not liable for perjury because
the said love letter is not required
by law. The fourth element requires,
to amount to perjury, the sworn
statement under oath or the said
affidavit must be required by law
because it is a crime against public
interest not a crime against personal
interest.

Q: What if in a case submitted in a
fiscals office, so there was a complaint
and attached thereto is a sworn statement.
In the said sworn statement, the witness
said that he saw the accident. He saw the
accused bumped the victim. According to
him, at the time, he was watching Saksi,
when suddenly a commotion occurred outside,
he ran out of the window, he saw at that
particular time the accused hitting the
said victim with his vehicle and so he saw
the accused that caused the death of the
victim. That was his statement in the
affidavit filed to the fiscals office.
During investigation, however, it was
discovered he was not watching Saksi, he
CRIMINAL LAW 2


was watching Bandila, the news program in
ABS-CBN and not the news program in GMA. Is
he liable of perjury?
A:No, he is not liable of perjury.
Although it was under oath,
administered by a fiscal, still it is
no perjury because it is not on a
material matter. Whatever it is that
he was watching at the time, even if
it is cartoon, it doesnt matter.
What matters is that he heard the
commotion, he ran to the window, and
he saw the accused bumping the
victim. He saw that it was the
accused who killed the victim and
that it was the car of the accused
that hit the victim. Only then, it
will be considered as perjury but
whatever he was watching, it was
immaterial. It was not on a material
matter; therefore it will not amount
to perjury.
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY is committed by a
person who knowingly and willfully procures
another to swear falsely and the witness
suborned does testify under the
circumstances rendering him guilty of
perjury.
NOTE: Subornation of perjury is not
expressly penalized in RPC; but the direct
induction of a person by another to commit
perjury may be punished under Article 183
in relation to Article 7, meaning, the
crime is plain perjury but the one inducing
another will be liable as principal by
inducement and the one who testified as
principal by direct participation.

ARTICLE184 OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN
EVIDENCE
Committed by any person who shall offer
in evidence any false testimony or any
false witness either in a judicial
proceeding or in any official
proceeding.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender offered in evidence a
false witness or false testimony.
2. The offender knew the witness or
the testimony was false.
3. The offer was made in a judicial
or official proceeding.
Is this the same as subornation of
perjury?
Subornation of perjury is
committed by any person who
procures a false witness in order
to perjures himself and testify
falsely in a case. There is no
such crime as subornation of
perjury under the present RPC
because we already have Article
184.
Article 184 is committed when any
person who procures a witness and
offers him as evidence in court
can be held liable under Article
184 or he can be held liable as a
principal by inducement in false
testimony or as a principal by
inducement in perjury; therefore
subornation of perjury is not
necessary and it is not a crime
under Philippine jurisdiction,
under the RPC.
ARTICLE185 MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC
AUCTIONS
There are two acts punishable under
Article 185
I. SOLICITING GIFT OR PROMISE
By soliciting any gift or
promise as a consideration for
refraining from taking part in
any public auction.
The mere act of soliciting any
gift or promise, so that he
will refrain from taking part
of the public auction, will
already give rise to the
crime. It is not necessary
that he actually received the
gift, it is not necessary that
he actually will not
participate in the said
auction.
ELEMENTS:
1. There be a public auction.
2. The accused solicited any
gift or a promise from any
of the bidders.
3. That such gift or promise
was the consideration for
his refraining from taking
part in that public
auction.
4. The accused had the intent
to cause the reduction of
the price of the thing
auctioned.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


II. ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE BIDDERS TO
STAY AWAY
By attempting to cause bidders
to stay away from an auction
by threats, gifts, promises or
any other artifice
The mere attempt to cause
bidders not to participate in
the said public auction by
threats, gifts or promise will
already give rise to the
crime. It is not necessary
that the bidders would not
actually participate.
ELEMENTS:
1. There be a public auction
2. The accused attempted to
cause the bidders to stay
away from that public
auction.
3. It was done by threats,
gifts, promises or any
other artifice.
4. The accused had the intent
to cause the reduction of
the price of the thing
auctioned.
In order to be liable for this crime,
whether it be the act of solicitation or
the act of attempting to cause bidders
to stay away from public auction, it is
necessary that the intention of the
offender is to cause the reduction of
the price of the thing which is the
subject of the public auction. The acts
complained of must be done for the
purpose of reducing the price of the
thing being auctioned.
In public auction, it is necessary that
the public must be able to get the best
price for the thing being auctioned. If
there will be less bidders, less
participants in the said public auction,
then the public will not be able to get
the best price for the thing subject of
the public auction. Here, if the non-
participation of the other bidders was
caused by a person, then he is liable
under Article 185. Again, the intention
of the offender is to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing
which is the subject of the public
auction.

ARTICLE186 MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Acts punished:
I. COMBINATION TO PREVENT FREE
COMPETITION IN THE MARKET
This is committed by any
person who shall enter into
any contract or agreement or
taking part in any combination
whether in the form of trust
or otherwise, in restraint of
trade or commerce or to
prevent by artificial means
free competition in the
market.
II. MONOPOLY TO RESTRAIN FREE
COMPETITION IN THE MARKET
This is committed by
monopolizing any merchandise
or object of trade or commerce
or by combining with any other
person or persons in order to
alter the prices thereof by
spreading false rumors or
making use of any other
artifice to restrain free
competition in the market.
III. MANUFACTURER, PRODUCER, OR
PROCESSOR OR IMPORTER COMBINING,
CONSPIRING OR AGREEING WITH ANY
PERSON TO MAKE TRANSACTIONS
PREJUDICIAL TO LAWFUL COMMERCE OR
TO INCREASE THE MARKET PRICE OF
MERCHANDISE

The FIRST TWO ACTS under Article 186 can
be committed by any person and not
necessarily by manufacturers, producer
or processors. The THIRD ACT however,
can be committed only by manufacturers,
processors, producers and importers who
combined with any other person or
persons in order to commit a transaction
prejudicial to lawful commerce or to
increase the market price of any
merchandise or object of commerce

Whether it be the first, second or third
act, the mere conspiracy in order to
restrain or to prevent free competition
will already give rise to the crime. It
is not necessary that there be actual
restraint in trade or commerce.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if Petron, Caltex and Shell
connived, combined and agreed with one
another to hoard fuel. They know that the
fuel prices will increase by March and so
they decided to hoard it. Can they be held
liable under Article 186?
Juridical corporations cannot be the
subject of criminal action. First, it
cannot be said that juridical persons
can act with intent. Second, you
cannot imprison a juridical person in
case of conviction. So if the
offender is a juridical entity, who
shall be held liable?
The president, the directors or
any of the members of the said
corporation, association or
partnership, who knowingly
permitted and allowed this
combination or monopoly in
restraint of trade or commerce.
Note that they must have
knowingly permitted the same
otherwise, they cannot be held
criminally liable.

If the objects, which are the subject of
this monopoly or combination in
restraint of trade or commerce are prime
commodities such as food, motor fuel,
lubricants, it is not even necessary
that there be conspiracy. A mere
proposal, a mere intial step to hoard,
to prevent free competition in the
market will already give rise to the
crime.

ARTICLE187 IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF
FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES
Committed by any person who shall
imports, sells or disposes any article
or merchandise made of gold, silver,
other precious materials, or their
alloys
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender IMPORTS, SELLS or
DISPOSES any article or
merchandise made of gold, silver,
other precious materials, or
their alloys
2. That the STAMPS, BRANDS, or MARKS
of those articles or merchandise
FAIL TO INDICATE the actual
fitness or quality of said metals
or alloys
3. The OFFENDER KNOWS that the
stamps, brands or marks fail to
indicate the actual fitness or
quality of the metals or alloys.

This is considered a criminal act
because the offender, despite knowing
that the articles or merchandise that he
imported are misbranded, he still
imports the same, sells the same or
disposes the same

Mere importation is a punishable act;
therefore it is not necessary for the
offender to become liable under Article
187 that he must have sold the
misbranded articles or that he must have
disposed the article because mere
importationwill already give rise to the
crime.

TITLE FIVE
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002 (RA 9165)

SECTION 4 IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS
AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS
Is committed by:
Any person, who, unless authorized
by law, shall import or bring into the
Philippines any dangerous drug, regardless of
the quantity and purity involved.

In one Supreme Court decision, it held that:
For one to be liable for importation of
dangerous drugs, it is necessary to be
proven that the dangerous drugs that were
taken in a vessel came from a foreign country
with the said dangerous drugs on board the
said vessel; therefore the prosecution must
prove that the vessel which came into the
Philippine ports had with it the dangerous
drugs. Only then can it be said that the
dangerous drugs have been imported from
another country.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


SECTION 5 SALE, TRADING, ADMINISTRATION,
DISPENSATION, DELIVERY, DISTRIBUTION AND
TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND
ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS

Selling Dangerous Drugs
Act of giving away any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical whether for money of any other
consideration.

ELEMENTS OF SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS:
1. The identity of the buyer and the seller
It is necessary that the identity
of the buyer and the seller are
clearly identified.
2. The object and the consideration
3. The delivery of the thing sold and the
payment thereof
Because if the dangerous drugs
had not been delivered, the third
element is lacking, the sale is
(aborted), there is only
ATTEMPTED ILLEGAL SALE of
dangerous drugs not
consummated illegal sale of
dangerous drugs because the
third element is lacking.

Q: What if a person has been prosecuted for Illegal
sale of Dangerous Drugs. The said operation was a
buy bust operation. It is an entrapment procedure
which is allowed by law. Here, the criminal/evil
intent originated mainly from the offender himself
thats why it is not considered as an absolutory
cause. Here, the Police Officers employed means and
methods to entrap and capture the criminal in
flagrante that is in the actual act of committing the
crime. So what if in the buy bust operation, the
accused drug seller was arrested. In the said
operation, the informant acted as the posuer buyer.
He was given marked money. The policemen ran into
the place of the drug seller. Only the poseur-buyer
knocked at the door of the drug seller. The drug seller
came out and the poseur-buyer said that he wanted
to buy dangerous drugs in the amount of P200. The
drug seller said okay and gave 2 plastic sachets of
dangerous drugs to the poseur buyer. However, the
poseur-buyer without having given the marked
money yet to the drug seller negligently removed his
eyeglasses so the Police officers thought that that was
the signal that the sale has been consummated. They
arrived at the said place and arrested the drug seller.
The marked money was not given to drug seller. Does
that constitute his acquittal?

A: No provided that all the elements are
present:

Note that the second element only requires
the crime must be established. The corpus
delicti and the price must be established. It
does not require that there must be giving
of the price/money. It suffices that the
crime was established.

When the poseur-buyer said that he wants to
buy illegal drugs for P200, the price has
already been established. Therefore, all the
elements will suffice even if the marked
money has not been given by the buyer to the
seller. In fact, even if the marked money is
not presented in court it will not be a hiatus
on the evidence of the prosecution provided
that the police officers and the witnesses
were able to prove the crime of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs.

Q: How about the poseur-buyer? Is it necessary for
the poseur buyer to testify in court? What if the
prosecutor failed to have the poseur-buyer testify in
court? Does it mean to an acquittal?

A: The testimony of the poseur-buyer is not
indispensable in a case of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. It is not indispensable
because the transaction can be proven by the
other police officers who have witnessed the
transaction. However if the seller denies the
existence of the said transaction; it is the
incumbent upon the prosecution to grove the
said transaction by the presentation the said
poseur-buyer.

General Rule: The testimony of the poseur-
buyer is not indispensable in a case of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs.
Exemption: When the accused denies the
existence of the said transaction. If the
prosecution failed to present the poseur-
buyer to testify in court, it will amount to the
dismissal of the case.

Q: Lets say there is this cigarette vendor on the side
walk and here comes a man who parked his car near
CRIMINAL LAW 2


the side walk. He called the cigarette vendor and told
the cigarette vendor to deliver a package to the man
inside the car which is parked on the other side of
the street. He told the cigarette vendor that he will
give him P1000 if the he agreed to deliver the package
to the man inside the car which is parked at the
other side of the street. The cigarette vendor asked
the man what is inside the package however the man
said its none of your business to know whats inside
that. I will give you P1000 if you deliver this to the
man inside that car parked at the other side of the
street. So the cigarette vendor with the P1000 got
the bag and delivered it to the man at the other side
of the street. He knocked at the window and the man
lowered his window. However at the time of the said
delivery the police officers arrived and arrested the
cigarette vendor. Can he be prosecuted for delivery of
dangerous drugs? Can he be convicted for delivery of
dangerous drugs?

A: He can be prosecuted for delivery of
dangerous drugs however it is a defense on
his part that he has no knowledge that the
thing he is delivering is dangerous drugs
because under RA 9165, delivering has been
defined as the act of knowingly passing a
dangerous drug to another, personally or
otherwise, and by any means, with or
without consideration. Therefore it is
necessary that the one delivering dangerous
drug must have the knowledge of the thing
that he is delivering is dangerous drug.

DELIVER an act of knowingly passing a dangerous
drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any
means, with or without consideration.

SECTION 6 MAINTENANCE OF A DEN, DIVE, OR
RESORT
Any person who maintains a den, dive, or
resort for the use of illegal drugs is liable
under this section.

Are the owners, persons maintaining the said
dangerous drug dens are only the ones who
are criminally liable?
Under Section 7 of the act, even the
employees who are aware of the nature of
the said den, dive or resort for the use
and sale of dangerous drugs are also
criminally liable. Likewise, even persons
who are not employees which knowingly
visit the same place despite the
knowledge of the nature of such den,
dive, or resort are also criminally liable.

Q: What if the said den, dive, or resort is owned by a
third person? Lets say A and B rented a house. After
giving the down payment, A and B went to the said
house. A and B used the house as a den for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs. The police officers were able
to secure a warrant and A and B were arrested. Can
the owner of the said house be criminally liable for
the maintenance of the said den? How about the
house? Can it be forfeited in favor of the government?

A: Under Sec. 6, the said den, dive, or resort
for the use of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
shall be escheated in favor of the government
provided that the following circumstances
concur:
1. The information must allege that the
said place is intentionally being used
in furtherance of illegal sale/use of
dangerous drugs.
2. Such intent must be proven by the
prosecutor.
3. The owner of the said house must be
included as an accused in the
information or complaint.
If these 3 elements are present; then the
said house shall be confiscated and
escheated in favor of the government.

SECTION 8 MANUFACTURE OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS
The presence if any controlled precursor and
essential chemical or laboratory equipment in
the clandestine laboratory is a prima facie
evidence of manufacture of any dangerous
drug.

SECTION 11 ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS

ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL
DRUGS:
1. The accused was in possession of
prohibited drug
In illegal possession of dangerous
drugs; the word possession does not
only mean actual possession of the
dangerous drug in his body. It
suffices that the said dangerous drug
is found in a place under the
CRIMINAL LAW 2


control and dominion of the said
offender.

Q: By virtue of a search warrant the police officers
conducted a search in the house of A to look for
cocaine. They looked inside the bedroom and
underneath the pillow on the bedroom of A, the found
several sachets of cocaine. Can it be held that A is in
possession of the said drugs?

A: Yes because it is under his control
and dominion. Possession does not
only mean physical or actual
possession. It also means as
constructive possession for as long
as the dangerous drugs is under his
control and dominion.

2. Such possession is not authorized by law
The offender is not authorized by law
to possess such drugs. Dangerous
drugs are per se contraband. They
are per se illegal items. The
presumption is that such possession
is without authority of law. Therefore
the burden of proof is on the accused
to prove that he has the authority to
possess unlike illegal possession of
firearms. Illegal possession of
firearms is not per se contraband
therefore in illegal possession of
firearms, it is the prosecution who
has the burden of proof that the said
person lacks license.

3. The accused freely and consciously
possessed the prohibited drug
There must be an animus posidendi
on the part of the said accused. This
animus posidendi on the part of the
accused is a prima facie presumed
by law. The moment a person was
found in possession of dangerous
drugs, the (law) presumes that the
person knows that the thing in his
possession is dangerous drugs.

SECTION 12 - ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUG
PARAPHERNALIA
e.g. A person was found in possession of
empty plastic sachets and other instruments
used for using dangerous drugs. He is
therefore liable for Illegal Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia.

Q: What if a person was found in possession of drug
paraphernalia can they avail the benefit of probation?

A: Yes he can avail for probation. The
penalty prescribed by law for illegal
possession of drug paraphernalias is an
imprisonment ranging from 6 months and 1
day to 4 years which is within the
probationable penalty. Under Sec. 24 of R.A.
9165, any person convicted for drug pushing
and drug trafficking, regardless of the penalty
imposed by the Court, cannot avail for
probation.

So under Sec. 24; only those who are
convicted of drug pushing and drug
trafficking which cannot avail for probation
therefore for any other violation of Dangerous
Drugs Act, for as long as the penalty imposed
by the court is 6 years and below, he can
avail for the benefit of probation. But if he is
a drug trafficker/ pusher, one who is
engaged in selling dangerous drugs, he
cannot avail of the benefit of probation even if
the penalty imposed by the court is within
the probationable penalty because it is
expressly prohibited by Sec. 24 of RA 9165.

SECTION 13 ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS DURING PARTIES, SOCIAL
GATHERINGS OR MEETINGS
in Sec. 13, if any person was found in
possession of dangerous drug in a party,
social gatherings or meetings, or in the
proximate company of at least two (2)
persons; the maximum penalty prescribed by
law shall be imposed.

SECTION 15 ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL USE OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS:
1. The offender was apprehended/ arrested
in the actual use of dangerous drugs.
The first element requires that
the offender must be actually
using, sniffing the dangerous
drugs.

2. After a confirmatory test; he was found to
be positive for use of any dangerous
drugs.
He was at the PNP Crime Lab
and after the confirmatory test,
CRIMINAL LAW 2


he was found to be positive for
use of dangerous drugs.

3. No other amount of dangerous drugs
must be found in his possession.
If any other amount of dangerous
drugs was found in his
possession, then the proper
charge would no longer be illegal
use but illegal possession of
dangerous drugs.

Q: The police officers saw a man snatched the cell
phone of a woman. Since the police officers saw the
man in committing the crime inflagrante delicto of
actual act of snatching and the man runaway, they
followed the man. The man entered the house. The
police officers upon entering the house saw 3 men on
a round table; they were in the actual act of sniffing
shabu. They were arrested and they were asked to
stand up and fold their arms up and they were
searched. Upon the search, they found out that these
3 men; each of them was found a sachet of illegal
drugs in their pockets aside from the dangerous drug
that they were using. What cases will you file against
the 3 men?

A: Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
No illegal use of dangerous drugs because
the third element is one thing. Lets say after
the confirmatory test they were found to be
positive however 3 elements must concur: 1
st

element: They were caught in the actual act
of sniffing shabu. 2
nd
element: After
confirmatory test they were found positive of
the use of dangerous drugs however the 3
rd

element is lacking because they found to
have in their possession a plastic sachet of
other dangerous drugs other than the one
they used. Therefore the proper crime
charged is illegal possession of dangerous
drugs.

SECTION 21 PROCEDURE IN THE SEIZURE AND
CONFISCATION OF DANGEROUS DRUG

The apprehending team which has the initial
possession of the seized/confiscated dangerous
drugs shall:
1. Inventory the dangerous drugs
2. Take photographs of the same in
the presence of the accused or
from the person whom the
dangerous drugs have been
confiscated or in the presence of
his counsel, a representative
from the media, a representative
from the Department of Justice,
and an elected public official who
shall be given a copy of the said
inventory and who shall be
required to sign the same.

Procedure:
1. Upon seizure/ confiscation of dangerous
drugs, the same must be stated in the
inventory list.
2. There must be a picture taking of the
dangerous drugs in the presence of the
accused or from the person whom the
dangerous drugs have been confiscated or in
the presence of his counsel, a representative
from the media, a representative from the
Department of Justice, and an elected public
official.
3. The elected public official must be required to
sign the inventory list and shall be given a
copy of the same.

Q: What if the police officers failed to comply with
this procedure? In People vs. Sta. Maria, the police
officers failed to comply with this procedure however
there was conviction. However, in the case of Dolera
vs. People; the police officers failed to comply with
Sec. 21 procedure and this time there was an
acquittal. Why is there an acquittal in the case of
Dolera and why is there a conviction in the case of
Sta. Maria?

A: The Supreme Court held that even if there
is failure to comply with the procedure
underlined in Sec 21 of RA 9165 by the
arresting officers, there will still be conviction
if the said non-compliance is due to
justifiable reasons and provided that the
police officers were able to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary bond of the
confiscated dangerous drugs this is in
consonance with the chain of custody rule.

If the police officers were not able to comply
with the procedure due to justifiable cause,
they must be able to preserve the integrity
and evidentiary bond of the confiscated
dangerous drug that is; right after
CRIMINAL LAW 2


confiscation, it must be marked to ensure
that it was the dangerous drugs taken from
the accused and must be turned over to the
forensic laboratory for testing.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
What is the Chain of Custody rule? (People v
Gutierrez)
It is defined as the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of
dangerous drugs from the time of
confiscation/seizure to the receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction.

What is the purpose Chain of Custody rule?
The purpose of Chain of Custody rule is
to ensure that the dangerous drug
seized/confiscated from the accused is
the very same dangerous drug which
has been tested by the forensic
chemist and it is the very same
dangerous drug presented in court
that is; there has been no substitution
of evidence.
Dangerous drugs are so small. There can
be a replacement of the effects therefore
this Chain of Custody rule will ensure
that there will be no substitution of the
very same dangerous drug
seized/confiscated from the accused at
the time that they were presented to the
court.

Q: What if a person is charged for illegal possession
of dangerous drugs and during his arraignment, he
pleaded not guilty and during the pre-trial, he said
that he will change his plea if he will be allowed to
plead guilty for a lesser offense of illegal possession of
drug paraphernalia. So he wanted to avail of the plea-
bargaining rule under the rules of court. Under the
plea-bargaining rule, you can plead guilty to a lesser
offense provided that the said lesser offense is
necessary included in the offense charged. Here, the
charge is illegal possession of dangerous drugs; can
he plead for a lesser offense of illegal possession of
drug paraphernalia?

A: He cannot because Sec. 28 of R.A. 9165
provides that any person charged in violation
of any of the crimes charged under this act
cannot avail of the plea-bargaining under the
rules of court. Therefore any person charged
in violation of any of the punishable acts
under R.A. 9165 cannot plead guilty to a
lower offense.

SECTION 25 A POSITIVE FINDING FOR THE USE
OF DANGEROUS DRUGS SHALL BE A QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Q: A killed B. The police officers arrested A and they
brought him to the crime lab to be tested for the use
of illegal use of dangerous drugs. After testing, he
was found positive for the use of dangerous drugs.
What is the effect of it in the criminal liability of A?
A: Sec 25 states the a positive finding for the
use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
aggravating circumstance.

What is the effect of a qualifying aggravating
circumstance?
It changes the nature of the crime or
even without changing the nature of the
crime it will bring about a higher
imposition of penalty.

SECTION 26 ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY
Express exception to the general rule that in
case of violation of a penal law, there are no
stages and there is no conspiracy.

As a rule, in case of violation of penal law, we
have no attempted stages. In violation of special
penal laws, conspiracy unless expressly provided
because these are only for violation of the RPC,
for felonies. One of those exceptions is under
Section 26 of RA 9165. Under Section 26 of RA
9165, any attempt or conspiracy of any of the
following acts shall be punished already by
penalty prescribed by law:

1. Importation of any dangerous drug;
2. Sale, trading, administration, delivery,
distribution, transportation of dangerous
drug;
3. Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort
where any dangerous drug is used in any
form;
4. Manufacture of any dangerous drug;
5. Cultivation or culture of plants which are
the sources of dangerous drugs.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


If any of these acts mentioned is committed
by the offender, a mere attempt; or
conspiracy will already give rise to the crime
as an exception to the rule that in case of
violation of penal law, there are no stages in
the commission of the crime and conspiracy
will not lie. So if any of the crime committed
is any of these five acts, mere attempt will lie
against the offender, conspiracy will lie
against the offender.

As held in the case of People v Rolando Laylo, the
charge was only attempted illegal sale of dangerous
drugs. The sale was aborted because even before the
said drug poseur was able to transfer the dangerous
drug to the police officer, the police officers already
introduced themselves as such and arrested him. As
such, we only have attempted illegal sale of
dangerous drugs.

SECTON 98 LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF THE
RPC
In Book I, under Article 10, the provisions of
the RPC shall apply suppletorily or
supplementarily to the provisions of the
special penal laws UNLESS the special penal
law provides otherwise.
One of the exceptions is provided for in Sec
98 of RA 9165, it is provided that the
provisions of RPC, as amended, shall not
apply to the provisions of RA 9165. The law
uses the word shall; therefore you cannot
apply the provision of RPC to the provisions
of RA 9165.
Exception to Section 98: If the offender is a
minor offender.
Where the offender is a minor, the
penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided shall
be reclusion perpetua to death.

TITLE SIX
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS (Articles 200
202)

ARTICLE200 GRAVE SCANDAL
Grave Scandal a highly scandalous
act offensive to good morals, good
customs and decency committed in a
public place or within public
knowledge or public view.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender performs an act or
acts

2. Such act or acts be HIGHLY
SCANDALOUS as offending against
decency or good customs
It is necessary that the act
must be highly scandalous
and offensive to morals,
offensive to decency and
offensive to good customs.
3. That the highly scandalous conduct
is not expressly falling within
any other article of this Code.
The third element requires
that it must not expressly
fall within any other
article of this code. It
must not constitute any
other violation in the RPC.
Grave scandal is a crime of
last resort because you only
file a complaint for grave
scandal when the said act is
not punishable under any
other article in the RPC.
4. The act or act complained of be
committed in a public place or
within the public knowledge or
view.
Then the fourth element
provides that the highly
scandalous act must be
committed either in a public
place or within public
knowledge or view. If the
highly scandalous act is
committed in a public place,
the crime of grave scandal
will immediately arise. The
place being public, the law
presumes that someone may
have witnessed the
commission of the highly
scandalous act. However, if
the crime is committed or if
the highly scandalous act is
committed in a private
place, for the crime of
grave scandal to arise, it
is necessary that it must be
witnessed by one or more
persons to be said that it
is within the public
knowledge or public view.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So let us say that A and B are boyfriend
and girlfriend and it is their anniversary.
They went to Luneta Park and at exactly 12
midnight, in the middle of Luneta Park,
they engaged in sexual intercourse. No one
witnessed their sexual intercourse. Are
they liable for grave scandal?
A: YES. They are liable for grave
scandal. They have the right to
CRIMINAL LAW 2


engage in sexual conduct but the fact
that they performed the sexual
conduct in Luneta Park, a public
place makes the act offensive to
public morals, decency and good
customs and the said act does not
constitute any other violation in the
RPC because they have the right to
engage in sexual intercourse.
Therefore, the crime committed is
grave scandal because they performed
the act in a public place even if no
one saw the commission of the said
act still, still because it is
performed in a public place , it is
presumed that someone may have seen
the commission of the highly
scandalous act.

Q: So what if a wife and a husband,
celebrating their anniversary, engaged in
sexual intercourse in their terrace. So the
act is committed in their premises, in the
terrace of their house. However, the gate
was open and so passersby would see them
performing the sexual intercourse. Are they
liable for grave scandal?
A: YES. They are liable for grave
scandal. The said act does not
constitute another offense in the RPC
because they have the right to engage
in sexual conduct. The sexual conduct
was performed in the privacy of their
home however; people witnessed the
commission of the said act. It now
becomes a highly scandalous act
because it is within the knowledge of
the public or within public view.

Q: What if A and B are boyfriend and
girlfriend. The girlfriend is 11 yrs old
and the boyfriend is 21 yrs old. And
because it is their monthsary the
girlfriend thought of giving herself as a
gift and engaged in sexual intercourse in a
public place Are they liable for grave
scandal?
A: NO. They are not liable for grave
scandal. The man is liable for
statutory rape. A man who had sexual
intercourse with a child under 12
years of age, regardless of the
consent, regardless of the
willingness of the said child, the
man is liable for statutory rape.
Because in so far as criminal law is
concerned, a child under 12 yrs old
has no intelligence of his/her own
and is not capable of giving a valid
consent. Therefore, even if the girl
voluntarily gave herself in so far as
the law is concerned, it is still
statutory rape. It is not grave
scandal because the third element is
wanting. The said act fall under the
violation of article of RPC that is
under article 266-A for rape. As I
said, grave scandal is a crime of
last resort. You only charge it when
the crime committed does not
constitute any other violation in the
RPC.

ARTICLE201 IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS, AND INDECENT
SHOWS
Punishes:
I. Public proclamations of doctrines
openly contrary to public morals
II. Publication of obscene literature. In
case of publication of obscene
literature, it is the author, the
editor, the owner or proprietor of
the establishment that sells the said
materials SHALL BE HELD CRIMINALLY
LIABLE.
III. The third act punished is the
exhibition of indecent shows, plays,
scenes or acts in fairs, theaters,
cinemas or any other places.
IV. Selling, giving away or exhibiting
films,, engravings, sculptures or
literature which are offensive to
public morals.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if there is this building, when
the person entered the said building, on
the floor of the said building were these
magazines. And the magazines contain men
and women engaging in sexual intercourse,
naked women and men, and other obscene
materials. Who shall be held liable when
the place was raided by the police?
A: The author of the said literature,
the editors publishing such
literature and the owner or
proprietor of the establishment where
the said magazines were being sold.
They will be held criminally liable
under Article 201.

VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES (ART 202)
Q: Let us say that there is this man, a
healthy man and he can look for work but he
does not want to work. So he was just
roaming around and he saw houses of
prostitutes or houses of ill-fames and he
is always in this places. Can he be held
liable for vagrancy?
A:NO, because vagrancy has been
decriminalized by R.A. No. 10158
which was approved on March 27, 2012.
We no longer have the crime of
vagrancy. No person can longer be
prosecuted for being a vagrant.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


How about prostitution? Is there
still a crime for prostitution?
YES.
Who is a prostitute?
A prostitute is any woman who,
for money or profit, indulges in
sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct. So it is the work or job
of a woman. Note that the law
defines it to be a woman
therefore; a man cannot be
considered a prostitute. Before,
if a man engages in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct
he can be punished under Article
202 but now since vagrancy has
been decriminalized by R.A. No.
10158, he can no longer be
prosecuted. Only prostitutes who
are woman.

TITLE SEVEN
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
(Articles 203 245)

ARTICLE203 PUBLIC OFFICERS
REQUISITES TO BE A PUBLIC OFFICER:
1. One must be taking part in the
performance of public functions in
the Government or one must be
performing in said Government or
in any of its branches public
duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank
or class; and
2. That his authority to take part in
the performance of public
functions or to perform public
duties must be
a. by direct provision of the
law; or
b. by popular election; or
c. by appointment by competent
authority

Whenever a person applies to a public
office, he has the so-called, OATH OF
OFFICE. If he is high-ranking official, the
oath is also before a high-ranking
official. If he is a cabinet secretary, the
oath is before the President or to the
Supreme Court Chief Justice. If he is only
an ordinary employee, still he has oath of
office. It is a document which is entitled,
OATH OF OFFICE, he merely signs it.

Felonies under TITLE SEVEN are felonies in
violation of this oath of office, they can
either be:

MISFEASANCE MALFEASANCE NON-FEASANCE
A public
officer
performs an
official acts
in a manner
not in
accordance
with what the
law provides

(GN: Improper
performance
of some act
which might
be lawfully
done)

ARTICLE
204 TO 207
A public
officer
performs in
his public
office an act
prohibited by
law.

(GN:
Performance
of some act
which ought
not to be
done

ARTICLE
210-211
A public
officer
knowingly,
willfully
refuses or
refrains
from doing
an act which
is his
official
duty to do.

(GN:
Omission of
some act
which ought
to be
performed)

ARTICLE
208
ARTICLE204 KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST
JUDGMENT
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a judge
2. That he renders a judgment in a
case submitted to him for decision
3. That the judgment is unjust
4. The judge knows that his judgment
is unjust

UNJUST JUDGMENT is one which is contrary
to law, or one that is not supported by
evidence or both.
The source of unjust judgment can either
be mere error or ill-will. If the source
of an unjust judgment is mere error on
the part of the judge, then the said
judge is not civilly, criminally, and
administratively liable.

ILLUSTRATION:
In a case submitted to him for decision,
the judge wrongfully interpreted a
provision of law. It is a new law, there is
no jurisprudence yet, the judge wrongfully
interpreted it. The judge cannot be held
civilly, administratively, and more so,
criminally liable. The said judgment is an
unjust judgment because it was based on
this error in the interpretation of the
law. However, there was no intent on the
part of the said judge. Considering the
CRIMINAL LAW 2


basis of the unjust judgment is mere error.
The said judge acted in good faith.
If however, the unjust judgment is
based on bad faith, that is, it is based on
ill-motive on the part of the said judge,
therefore, he can be held liable
criminally, civilly and administratively

- For him to be criminally liable,
knowing that he rendered an unjust
judgment, it is necessary that the
unjust judgment is rendered out of
ill-motive or bad faith, out of
greed, revenge, envy, or any other
ill-motive. Hence he is known to
have rendered an unjust judgment.

BASED ON MERE ERROR no criminal, no
civil, no administrative liability

ARTICLE205 JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE
This is again committed by a judge,
who in a case submitted to him for
decision, renders manifestly unjust
judgment.
ELEMENTS:
2. That he renders a judgment in a
case submitted to him for decision
3. That the judgment is manifestly
unjust
4. The it is due to his inexcusable
negligence or ignorance

MANIFESTLY UNJUST JUDGMENT means that it
is evident that a judgment is unjust. A
first year law student would know that it
is unjust, therefore it is manifestly
unjust judgment, because he acted in
inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

ARTICLE206 UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
ELEMENTS:
2. That 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

ARTICLE207 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,
delay is caused by the judge with
deliberate intent to inflict
damage on either party in the
case.

ARTICLE208 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES;
NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
I. By maliciously refraining from
instituting prosecution
against violators of the law
Note that the first crime, he
knows that a crime was
committed but he does not
prosecute the offender;
II. By maliciously tolerating the
commission of offenses
the second act, a crime was
about to be committed, he
tolerates its commission. It
must be done with MALICE.
Absent malice, Article 208
will not apply.

ELEMENTS OF DERELICTION OF DUTY IN
THE PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES:
1. That the offender is a public
officer or officer of the law who has
a duty to cause the prosecution of,
or to prosecute, offenses.
2. That there is a dereliction of the
duties of his office; that is knowing
the commission of the crime, he does
not cause the prosecution of the
criminal or knowing that a crime is
about to be committed, he tolerates
its commission.
3. That the offender acts with malice
and deliberate intent to favor the
violator of the law.

Otherwise known as DERELICTION.
Can only be committed by a public
officer or a officer of the law who has
the duty to cause the prosecution of or
to prosecute the offenders. The said
public officer commits dereliction of
duty in the prosecution of offenses
under any of the following
CRIMINAL LAW 2


circumstances:

a. knowing the commission of the
crime, he does not cause the
prosecution of the criminal, or

b. knowing that a crime is about
to be committed, he tolerates
its commission and the said
offender acts with malice and
deliberate intent to favor the
violator of the law
The dereliction of duty in the
prosecution of offenses cannot be
committed by just any public officer.
The public officer must be charged with
the prosecution of the cases or he is
the one who can cause the prosecution of
these offenders.
CHARGED WITH THE PROSECUTION OF THE
OFFENDERS:
- Fiscals
- Prosecutors
- State Prosecutors
THOSE WHO CAN CAUSE THE PROSECUTION OF THE
OFFENDERS:
- Judges
- Barangay Chairman
- Persons in authority

ARTICLE209 BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN
ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR REVELATION OF
SECRETS
ACTS PUNISHED AS BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY
ATTORNEY:
I. By causing damage to his
client, either
a. by any malicious breach
of professional duty
b. by inexcusable
THERE MUST BE DAMAGE TO HIS
CLIENT
II. By revealing any of the
secrets of his client learned
by him in his professional
capacity.
DAMAGE IS NOT NECESSARY

III. By 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.
IF THE CLIENT CONSENTS TO
THE ATTORNEYS TAKING THE
DEFENSE OF THE OTHER PARTY,
THERE IS NO CRIME

ELEMENTS:
1. Causing damage to his client, either:
a. by any malicious breach of
professional duty
b. by inexcusable negligence or
ignorance
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his
client learned by him in his
professional capacity
3. Undertaking the defense of the
opposing party in the same case,
without the consent of his first
client or after having received
confidential information from said
client

Under Article 209, this betrayal of
trust is IN ADDITION TO A PROPER
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE which may be filed
against an attorney or solicitor. So
aside from the criminal case in
violation of Article 209, he can also be
charged in a case also for disbarment,
for violation of lawyers oath of duty
may be filed against him, and these two
cases can be proceeded at the same time.
ILLUSTRATION:
A lawyer for 3 consecutive times,
without any justifiable reason, failed to
file his formal offer of exhibits. During
the first time he was given 15 days, he
failed to file, second time he was given 15
days, he failed to file. On the third time,
he was given 5 days still, he failed to
file, without giving any justifiable reason
for his non-compliance with the order of
the court. By reason thereof, there is no
evidence in behalf of the defense of his
client was admitted by the Court. Because
only evidences offered may be admitted by
the court. And so, the judge convicted the
accused, the client was prejudiced because
of the counsels malicious breach of his
professional duty. It is incumbent upon any
counsel to file a pleading within the
reglementary period provided by law or
required by the court.
- For failing to do so without any
justifiable reason, he caused damage
to his client by malicious breach of
his professional duty.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Q: What if Atty. A was the counsel of X, he
was behind bars for the crime of kidnapping
for ransom. Atty. A visited X to ask the
facts of the case in order for him to study
and to (put) up a good defense. During
their conversation, X informed his counsel,
Atty. A that there will be another
kidnapping tomorrow night at 9PM in Quezon
City, to be done by his other gang mates
who were at large. Atty. A, upon knowing
this information from his client X,
immediately went to the police officers of
Quezon City in order to pre-empt the
commission of the crime. Is Atty. A liable
for the second act because he divulged the
secrets of his client which he learned in
his professional capacity?
A: Atty. A is not liable under
Article 209. The secrets being
referred to under Article 209 refers
to the past crimes of the said
client and it refers to the facts
and circumstances related to the
crime which is being handed by the
said Attorney or counsel.

It does not refer to future crimes
that are still about to be
committed. When a lawyer takes his
oath of office, he says, or he
promise, he swears that he shall be
liable not only to the client, but
also to the STATE, to the
GOVERNMENT.

It is his duty to the Government, to
the State of any future crime that
is about to be committed more than
his duty to his client. Hence, in
this case, since it refers to a
future crime, for the protection of
the state and the citizenry, it is
incumbent upon him to divulge,
disclose or to reveal the said
secrets.

Q: What if A filed a case against B, Atty.
X was the counsel of A, A failed to give
Atty. X his appearance list for 5
consecutive hearings, no appearance list.
So Atty. X, filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel of A. The said motion to withdraw
was with the CONSENT OF A, because without
the consent of A, the said motion to
withdraw will not be granted by the court.
So the court granted and Atty. X is no
longer the counsel of A. When B learned
about this, went immediately to the office
of X and secured the services of X. Atty. X
signed a contract and he is now the counsel
of B. Is Atty. X liable for betrayal of
trust by an attorney?
A: Atty. X is liable for betrayal of
trust by an attorney. He takes the
case of B, the opposing party, even
after he has already taken the case
of A and after he has acquired
valuable information about his
client. How can he prevent himself
from being convicted of the betrayal
of trust?
He must first secure the
consent of the said first
client

- In the said problem, there was no
consent. The said consent was only
in the motion to withdraw. The said
consent in the motion to withdraw is
not the consent on the acceptance of
the case. For every motion to
withdraw, there must be a consent
written, otherwise the court will
not grant the motion to withdraw.
The consent here is to secure or to
accept the service s of the other
party.
- Since consent was not given, he is
liable for betrayal of trust by an
attorney.
Just remember aside from
betrayal of trust, an attorney
or solicitor can also be held
liable of administrative case.
So there may be disbarment.
He can be disbarred or he can
be suspended by reason of
committing any of these acts.

ARTICLE210 DIRECT BRIBERY
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
I. By agreeing to perform, or by
performing, in consideration
of any offer, promise, gift or
present an act constituting
a crime, in connection with
the performance of his
official duties.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender be a public
officer within the scope of
Article 203
2. The offender accepts an
offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present
CRIMINAL LAW 2


by himself or through
another.
3. That such offer or promise
be accepted, or received by
the public officer with a
view of committing some
crime.
4. That the act which the
offender agrees to perform
or which he executes be
connected with the
duties.

II. By accepting a gift in
consideration of the execution
of an act which does not
constitute a crime, in
connection with the
duty.
ELEMENTS:
Article 203
another.
the public officer in
consideration of the
execution of an act, which
does not constitute a
crime, but the act must be
unjust
connected with the
duties.

III. By agreeing to refrain, or by
refraining, from doing
something which it is his
official duty to do, in
consideration of gift or
promise.
ELEMENTS:
Article 203
another.
the public officer to
refrain from doing
something which it is his
official duty to do so.
connected with the
duties.
Under the First Act - By agreeing to
perform or performing, in consideration of
offer or promise, gift or present any act
constituting a crime in connection with the
performance of his official duties
- If the thing which the public
officer is required to do, is an act
which will constitute a crime, a
mere agreement to do so, will
already give rise to direct bribery.
It is not necessary that he actually
commits the crime, it is not
necessary that he actually receives
the gift or present.
A MERE AGREEMENT WILL SUFFICE.

Likewise in the Third Act - By
agreeing to refrain or by refraining from
doing an act which is his official duty to
do, in consideration of an offer, promise,
gift or present.
- If the thing that a public officer
is required to do, is to refrain
from doing an act which is his
official duty to do, a mere
agreement to refrain to do an act
will already give rise to direct
bribery. It is not necessary to
refrain from doing an act, it is not
necessary to receive the said gift.

However, if the thing that a public
officer is required to do, does not
constitute a crime, under the Second Act,
mere agreement will not suffice. There must
be actual acceptance of the thing. There
must be acceptance of the gift, in
consideration of the execution of an act
which does not constitute a crime in
connection with the performance of his
official duty. WHY?
- Because the thing that he is being
required to do is not a criminal
act. It is his official thing to do,
but he doesnt want to do it without
the bribe first to be given to him.
So it is only upon ACCEPTANCE OF THE
BRIBE that criminal liability for
direct bribery will arise.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Whatever may be the act constituting
direct bribery, in order to amount to
direct bribery, it must always be in
connection with the performance of his
official duty. If it is not in connection
with his official duty, it could other
crime like estafa or swindling, but NOT
DIRECT BRIBERY.
ACEJAS, III vs. PEOPLE
It is the second act of direct
bribery that has been violated. The second
act because it is the duty of the said BID
agent to return the passport. The duty to
return the passport is not a criminal act.
It is also not an act of refraining to do
so. But he does not want to perform the act
without the bribe, so he becomes liable
under the 2
nd
act.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a mother wanted her daughter to
work in another country. The daughter was
still a minor, 16 years old. So what the
mother did, was to ask the civil registrar
to alter the birth date or the date in the
certificate of live birth with a promise
that the first 2 months of the salary of
the daughter will be given to the civil
registrar. The civil registrar altered the
date in the birth certificate. What
crime/crimes is/are committed by the civil
registrar and by the mother?
A: The civil registrar is liable for
direct bribery because he agreed to
perform an act constituting a crime
in consideration of a promise that
the 2 months salary will be given to
him. The said act is in connection
with his performance of his official
duty. Therefore he is liable for
direct bribery. He actually performs
the act, he actually committed a
crime, therefore he is also liable
for the falsification of a public
document because he actually altered
the birth date which is a very
important date in the birth
certificate so he is also liable for
the falsification of a public
document.
Without the said bribe, the mother
would not have committed
falsification, so are you going to
complex them? because direct bribery
is a necessary means to commit
falsification.
Even if in reality, they
should be complex because
direct bribery is a necessary
means to commit falsification,
you cannot complex them
because ARTICLE 210 PROHIBITS
SUCH COMPLEXITY OF CRIMES.

Under Article 210, it is expressly
provided that the penalty for direct
bribery shall be IN ADDITION TO THE
LIABILITY FOR THE CRIME COMMITTED.
Here, he actually altered, actually
committed the crime, therefore his
liability for falsification is in
addition for his liability for
direct bribery. Therefore, 2
separate distinct charges have to be
filed against the civil registrar,
we have direct bribery and the other
one is falsification of the public
document.

The mother is liable for corruption
of public official (Art. 212).
Direct bribery is the crime of the
public officer who receives the
bribe. On the other hand, the
private individual or the public
officer who gives the bribe is
liable for corruption of public
official under Art. 212. (Refer to
Art. 212 elements)

The mother gives a promise under
circumstances in which the public
officer becomes liable for direct
bribery. She is liable for
corruption of public official. The
mother is also liable for
falsification of a public document
as a principal by inducement.
Without the bribe, without the said
inducement, the said public officer
will not have committed the said
falsification.

ARTICLE211 INDIRECT BRIBERY

ELEMENTS:
2. That he accepts gifts
3. That the gifts are offered to him
by reason of his office.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Indirect Bribery is committed if the
public officer accepts any gift or
present by reason of his office that he
owns. In case of indirect bribery, the
public officer is not deemed required to
do a thing. By the MERE ACCEPTANCE,
indirect bribery is consummated. NO
ACCEPTANCE, NO CRIME IS COMMITTED.

ILLUSTRATION:
A is the newly appointed secretary of
DENR. On his first day of office, Mr. X
visited him, paid a courtesy call. Mr. X is
the president of a big logging company.
They exchanged some pleasantries,
thereafter, when this president of the
logging company left, he placed a small box
on the table. When he left, the new DENR
secretary opened the box and it was a key
to a car parked in front of the building.
The new DENR secretary used it and drove
the car
- He is liable for Indirect Bribery.
The president of the logging company
does not require him to do anything,
it was merely given to him because
he was newly appointed as the DENR
secretary. His acceptance brings
about consummated indirect bribery;
therefore, indirect bribery has no
attempted or frustrated stage
because outside acceptance, no crime
is committed.

ARTICLE211-A QUALIFIED BRIBERY

ELEMENTS:
entrusted with law enforcement
2. The offender refrains from
arresting or prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death
3. The offender refrains from
arresting or prosecuting the
offender in consideration of any
promise, gift or present.

Qualified bribery is committed by any
public officer who is in charge with the
enforcement of the law. So, in order to
amount to qualified bribery, it is
necessary that the offender whom the
public officer does not want to
prosecute must have committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
death.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: A police officer was conducting a
patrol. He saw a man behind the tree,
looking at the other house adjacent to the
tree as if waiting for someone. So the
police officer parked his vehicle and
observed what this man would do. The moment
that a man came out of the gate of the
house, this man hiding behind the tree,
immediately went directly to him and shot
him 5 times, and killing him instantly.
Then, the said man rode a motorcycle and
left. The police officer chased him. The
Police officer arrested him, however, he
gave the police officer P500,000 and told
the police officer, Mr. Police officer,
you saw nothing, you heard nothing. And
the police officer allowed him to leave.
What crime/crimes is/are committed by the
said police officer?
A: The said police officer is liable
for qualified bribery. The crime
committed by the said man is murder,
because obviously, in his act of
killing, there was treachery, the
other party was defenseless and
obviously the said man deliberately
and consciously adopted the ways
means and methods employed by him in
killing the victim. Since there was
treachery, the crime committed is
murder, punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death. His failure to
arrest and prosecute this man
constitute qualified bribery because
he did so after accepting P500,000.

Q: What if a police officer was conducting
a patrol, he saw A and B fighting, boxing
each other, killing each other, until they
already on the ground. In the course
thereof, A pulls out his balisong and
stabbed B several times on the heart, a
vital organ. B died instantly. Thereafter,
A ran away, the police officer tried to
catch up with A and he was able to arrest
A. However A, gave the police officer
P100,000. The police officer allowed him to
leave. What crime/crimes is/are committed
by the said police officer?
A: The crime committed by A in
killing B is precedent by a fight,
therefore it is merely homicide.
Homicide is punishable only by
reclusion temporal. Since it is only
CRIMINAL LAW 2


punishable by reclusion temporal,
therefore, qualified bribery is not
applicable.

He committed direct bribery, because
he accepts a bribe, in consideration
of an act of refraining to arrest
the said criminal. He actually
refrain from arresting and
prosecuting the criminal, therefore
in addition to direct bribery, he
also committed dereliction of duty
in the prosecution of offenses
because he actually committed
dereliction of duty by refraining
from arresting the person who has
actually committed a crime. So this
time, there are 2 crimes committed:
DIRECT BRIBERY (ARTICLE 210)
AND
DERELICTION OF DUTY IN THE
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
(ARTICLE 208)

ARTICLE 212 CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender makes offers or
promises or gives or presents to a
public officer.
2. That the offers or promises are
made or the gifts or the gifts or
presents given to a public
officer, under circumstances that
will make the public officer
liable for direct bribery or
indirect bribery.

THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
(RA 3019)
PUBLIC OFFICER - a public officer is any
elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether
in the classified or unclassified or exemption
service receiving compensation, even
nominal, from the government. (Sec 2, RA
3019)

JAVIER v SANDIGANBAYAN
Although Javier has been appointed as a
representative of the private sector, in the
book publishing board attached to the office
of the president (NBDB), she is still
considered as a public officer; first, the said
board functions as a collegial body
performing public functions; second,
according to SC, she was receiving
allowance, a salary even though nominal,
from the government. Hence, she considered
as a public officer.

SECTION 3 CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3:
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party
including the government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.
ELEMENTS:
1. The said offender was in charge of his
official, administrative or judicial function
2. That he acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence
3. The said accused caused any undue injury
to any party, including the government, or
gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage, or preference in the discharge of
his official functions.

SANTOS v PEOPLE
The Supreme Court said that there are two
acts punished under Section 3 (e) of RA
3019:
1. Causing any undue injury; or
2. Giving any private party any unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference
The law uses the conjunctive or;
therefore, the fact that the offender
causes any undue injury to any
party or the fact that the offender
gave any party unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference, they can be
charged distinctly or separately from
each other.
The Supreme Court also stated that the
elements of Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019
UNDUE INJURY means there must be an
actual damage caused to the offended party.
Absent any actual damage caused to the offended
party, then section 3 (e) is not violated.

(g) Entering, on behalf of the government, into
any contract or transaction manifestly and
grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or
CRIMINAL LAW 2


not the public officer profited or will profit
thereby
The public officer entered into any
contract or transaction on behalf of the
government. The said contract is
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the government.

In NAVA v PALLATTAO, the violation was Section 3
(g). The DECS officials bought laboratory science
materials and after COA audited, it was discovered
that there was an overpricing. The same is true in
CAUNAN v PEOPLE where Joey Marquez and
company bought walis-tingting, and according to the
COA auditors, there was also overpricing of these
walis-tingting. But in the case of Nava, there was
conviction but in the case of Caunan, there was an
acquittal.
Where lies the difference?
In the case of Nava, the COA officials
proved the overpricing because they
bought the very same laboratory
materials from the same supplier where
the DECS officials bought and by reason
thereof, it was discovered that there was
indeed an overpricing.
However, in the case of Caunan, Joey
Marquez bought from a different supplier
than where the COA officials bought. The
COA officials bought from a Las Pinas
supplier which they compared with the
price of walis-tingting bought by Joey
Marquez. Not only did they buy the said
walis-tingting from a different supplier,
the walis-tingting bought by COA officials
was of different specifications from that
of the walis-tingting bought by Joey
Marquez and company. Hence, the
Supreme Court said that prosecution
was not able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that there was overpricing.
Because the walis-tingting bought by
Joey Marquez was very much different
from the walis-tingting bought by the
COA officials. They were not able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that there was
overpricing because of the difference in
specifications.

In both cases, there was NO PUBLIC
BIDDING.

Will the mere lack of public bidding bring
about a violation of Section 3 (g) of RA 3019?
The Supreme Court said that mere lack
of public bidding may mean that the
government was not able to get the best
price for the thing purchased. However, it
does not bring about a violation of
Section 3 (g) because what Section 3 (g)
requires is the transaction must be
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the government and mere lack of
public bidding will not show such gross
and manifest disadvantage.

SECTION 4 PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS
Under Section 4, it is unlawful for any
private individual who has a close
personal relation to any public officer to
request, ask or receive present from any
person in any case from which the said
public officer has to control.
Close personal relation does not only
include family members. It also includes
those who have social and fraternal
relations; therefore even a private
individual who is not in conspiracy of a
public officer can be held liable under RA
3019.
Not only public officers but also private
individuals can be held liable under RA
3019.
Enumerated corrupt practices of Public Officials
(a)Persuading,inducingorinfluencinganotherpublic
officertoperformanactconstitutingaviolationofrulesand
regulationsdulypromulgatedbycompetentauthorityoran
offenseinconnectionwiththeofficialdutiesofthelatter,or
allowinghimselftobepersuaded,induced,orinfluencedto
commitsuchviolationoroffense.
Personsliable:
1. Publicofficerwhopersuades,induces,or
influencesanotherpublicofficer;
2. Publicofficerwhoispersuadedinducedor
influenced
Note:requestingorreceivinganygift,present,orbenefitis
notrequiredinthisprovision.
(b)Directlyorindirectlyrequestingorreceivinganygift,
present,share,percentage,orbenefit,forhimselforforany
otherperson,inconnectionwithanycontractortransaction
betweentheGovernmentandanyotherpart,whereinthe
publicofficerinhisofficialcapacityhastointerveneunder
thelaw.
Note:
thelackofdemandisimmaterial,thelawusesthe
wordORbetweenrequestingandreceiving.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Theremustbeclearintentiononthepartofthepublic
officerandconsideritashisorherownpropertyfrom
thenon.Merephysicalreceiptunaccompaniedbyany
othersign,circumstanceoracttoshowacceptanceis
notsufficienttoleadthecourttoconcludethatthe
crimehasbeencommitted
Referstoapublicofficerwhoseofficialinterventionis
requiredbylawinacontractortransaction
(c)Directlyorindirectlyrequestingorreceivinganygift,
presentorotherpecuniaryormaterialbenefit,forhimselfor
foranother,fromanypersonforwhomthepublicofficer,in
anymannerorcapacity,hassecuredorobtained,orwill
secureorobtain,anyGovernmentpermitorlicense,in
considerationforthehelpgivenortobegiven,without
prejudicetoSectionthirteenofthisAct.
(d)Acceptingorhavinganymemberofhisfamilyaccept
employmentinaprivateenterprisewhichhaspending
officialbusinesswithhimduringthependencythereofor
withinoneyearafteritstermination.
(e)Causinganyundueinjurytoanyparty,includingthe
Government,orgivinganyprivatepartyanyunwarranted
benefits,advantageorpreferenceinthedischargeofhis
officialadministrativeorjudicialfunctionsthroughmanifest
partiality,evidentbadfaithorgrossinexcusable
negligence.Thisprovisionshallapplytoofficersand
employeesofofficesorgovernmentcorporationscharged
withthegrantoflicensesorpermitsorotherconcessions.
(f)Neglectingorrefusing,afterduedemandorrequest,
withoutsufficientjustification,toactwithinareasonable
timeonanymatterpendingbeforehimforthepurposeof
obtaining,directlyorindirectly,fromanypersoninterested
inthemattersomepecuniaryormaterialbenefitor
advantage,orforthepurposeoffavoringhisowninterestor
givingundueadvantageinfavorofordiscriminatingagainst
anyotherinterestedparty.
(g)Entering,onbehalfoftheGovernment,intoanycontract
ortransactionmanifestlyandgrosslydisadvantageousto
thesame,whetherornotthepublicofficerprofitedorwill
profitthereby.
(h)Directororindirectlyhavingfinancingorpecuniary
interestinanybusiness,contractortransactionin
connectionwithwhichheintervenesortakespartinhis
officialcapacity,orinwhichheisprohibitedbythe
Constitutionorbyanylawfromhavinganyinterest.
(i)Directlyorindirectlybecominginterested,forpersonal
gain,orhavingamaterialinterestinanytransactionoract
requiringtheapprovalofaboard,panelorgroupofwhich
heisamember,andwhichexercisesdiscretioninsuch
approval,evenifhevotesagainstthesameordoesnot
participateintheactionoftheboard,committee,panelor
group.
Interestforpersonalgainshallbepresumedagainstthose
publicofficersresponsiblefortheapprovalofmanifestly
unlawful,inequitable,orirregulartransactionoractsbythe
board,panelorgrouptowhichtheybelong.
(j)Knowinglyapprovingorgrantinganylicense,permit,
privilegeorbenefitinfavorofanypersonnotqualifiedforor
notlegallyentitledtosuchlicense,permit,privilegeor
advantage,orofamererepresentativeordummyofone
whoisnotsoqualifiedorentitled.
(k)Divulgingvaluableinformationofaconfidential
character,acquiredbyhisofficeorbyhimonaccountofhis
officialpositiontounauthorizedpersons,orreleasingsuch
informationinadvanceofitsauthorizedreleasedate.
Note: if damage was caused, Article 229 under the
RPC is committed.

SECTION 9 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
Under Section 9, both private individuals
and public officers have just the same
penalty. It is six years and one month to
fifteen years plus forfeiture of the ill-
gotten wealth.

SECTION 7 STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES & RA 6713
When do the officers file the statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth?
The said public officer can file his SALN
within 30 days from assumption into office.
And then it must be filed on or before the
30
th
day of April of the next years and within
30 days after separation from the service.
In RA 3019, it is stated on or before 15
th
of
April but there is another law which
provides also for the filing of SALN and that
is RA6713 which is the code of ethical
standards for public officers.
Under RA 6713, and this is what is being
followed, it must be on or before the 30
th
day
of April.
So you file first within 30 days upon
assumption to office and then the years
thereafter on or before the 30
th
day of April
and then if you got separated from office,
within 30 days from separation from office.

SECTION 8 PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AND
DISMISSAL DUE TO UNEXPLAINED WEALTH
When is there a prima facie presumption of graft
and corrupt practices?
There arises a prima facie presumption of
graft and corrupt practices if a public officer
CRIMINAL LAW 2


has been found to have in his possession
money or property, whether in his name or in
that name of another person, which is
manifestly out of proportion from his lawful
income. There arises a prima facie
presumption of graft and corrupt practices.

SECTION 10 COMPETENT COURT & RA 8429
Where do you file a case for violation of RA 3019?
You file a case of violation of Article 3019
before the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction unless
otherwise provided by law.
There is a law, RA 8429 which provides for
the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan. Under this
law, if a public officer is of salary grade 27
and above, it must be before the
Sandiganbayan. If the public officer is below
salary grade 27, it must be before the RPC.

SECTION 11 PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES
When is the prescriptive period?
Violation for RA 3019 shall prescribe after 15
years. However, the right of the government
to forfeit or to recover ill-gotten wealth does
not prescribe. So there are no latches and
estoppel insofar as the right of the
government to recover ill-gotten wealth is
concerned.

When do you start counting the running of the
prescriptive period of crime?
From the time the crime has been committed
or if it is not known, that is from the time of
the discovery of the said crime, then it is
from the time of the institution of the
criminal perseverance.

SECTION 13 SUSPENSION AND LOSS OF
BENEFITS
Q: What if a public officer has been charged for
violation of RA 3019, the Ombudsman found
probable cause. The case was now filed before the
Sandiganbayan. Is it incumbent upon the
Sandiganbayan to immediately place him under
preventive suspension? Is preventive suspension
automatic? Is preventive suspension mandatory?
A: Preventive suspension is mandatory
but it is not automatic. There must first be
a pre-suspension period to determine the
validity of the information. The moment the
Sandiganbayan discovers the said
information is valid, sufficient in substance
to bring about a conviction, it is now
mandatory upon the Sandiganbayan to place
the said accused public officer under
preventive suspension.
So it is not automatic because there must
first be a pre-suspension period. The only
issue in the pre-suspension period is the
information filed by the Ombudsman against
the said public officer valid, is it sufficient
enough to bring about a conviction in court? If
the answer is yes, immediately, mandatory
on the part of the Sandiganbayan, a
ministerial duty, the said public officer must
be placed under preventive suspension. It it
ministerial not discretionary, not either or.
For how long should the suspension be?
The suspension must not exceed the
maximum of ninety days, in consonance
with Section 52 of the Administrative
Code.

SECTION 14 - EXCEPTION
Q: What if a public officer saw an old man waiting
line. So the old man received a notice, the notice said
that his license is ready, it has already been
approved. So he was waiting in line for the release of
his license, it was already approved. The head of
office saw the old man. 85 years old, under the heat
of the sun and with his frail body. So the head of
office took the man and the head of office asked the
man to his office. The head of office asked the
secretary, Is the license of this man approved? The
secretary said yes. The head of office said, get it.
The secretary took it and gave to the head of office.
The head of office, upon seeing that it is approved,
and the man was only waiting for its release, gave it
to the man; therefore the man need not wait in the
long line. The man was so thankful that the following
day, the man went back to the office with two big
bilaos of bibingka to the said head of office to say
thank you. The said head of office received two big
bilaos of bibingka. Is the said head of office liable
under RA 3019?
A: No. It falls under the exception. Under
Section 14, unsolicited gifts or presents of small or
insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary
token of friendship or gratitude, according to local
customs or usage is excepted from the provisions of
RA 3019; therefore the said public officer will not be
held criminally liable.

RA7080:ANTI-PLUNDERACT
Ill-gottenwealth
CRIMINAL LAW 2


- means any asset, property, business enterprise or
material possession of any person within the purview of
Sectiontwo(2)hereof,acquiredbyhimdirectlyorindirectly
through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or series of the
followingmeansorsimilarschemes:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or

malversationofpublicfundsorraidsonthepublictreasury;
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift,

share,percentage,kickbacksorany/orentityinconnection
withanygovernmentcontractorprojectorbyreasonofthe
officeorpositionofthepublicofficerconcerned;
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of

assets belonging to the National government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-
ownedorcontrolledcorporationsandtheirsubsidiaries;
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly

any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or
participation including the promise of futureemployment in
anybusinessenterpriseorundertaking;
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial

monopoliesorothercombinationsand/orimplementationof
decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons
orspecialinterests;or
6. By takingundueadvantage of official position, authority,

relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich
himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage
andprejudiceoftheFilipinopeopleandtheRepublicofthe
Philippines
Sec. 2.Definition of the Crime of Plunder, Penalties. Any

public officer who, by himself or in connivance with
membersofhisfamily,relativesbyaffinityorconsanguinity,
business associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses,accumulatesoracquiresill-gottenwealththrough
a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as
describedinSection1(d)hereof,intheaggregateamount
or total value of at least Seventy-five million pesos
(P75,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the crime of plunder
and shall be punished by life imprisonment with perpetual
absolutedisqualificationfromholdinganypublicoffice.Any
person who participated with the said public officer in the
commission of plunder shall likewise be punished. In the
imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances
shallbeconsideredbythecourt.
Sec. 4.Rule of Evidence. For purposes of establishing the

crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each
and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance
of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or
acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish
beyondreasonabledoubtapatternofovertorcriminalacts
indicativeoftheoverallunlawfulschemeorconspiracy.
Sec. 6.Prescription of Crime. The crime punishable under

this Act shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the
right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired
by public officers from them or from their nominees or
transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or
estoppel.
RA9745Anti-TortureAct:
Torturerefersto:
1. an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person for such purposes as obtaining from
him/her or a third person information or a
confession;
2. punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third
person has committed or is suspected of having
committed;
3. or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third
person;
4. or for any reason based on discrimination of any
kind, when such pain orsuffering is inflictedby or
at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescenceofapersoninauthorityoragentofa
personinauthority.
It does not include pain or Buffering arising only from,
inherentinorincidentaltolawfulsanctions.
Actsoftorture:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority upon another in his/her custody that causes
severe pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or
morepartsofthebody,suchas:
(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching,
kicking,strikingwithtruncheonorriflebuttorother
similarobjects,andjumpingonthestomach;
(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with
spoiled food, animal or human excreta and other
stufforsubstancesnotnormallyeaten;
(3)Electricshock;
(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically
heatedrods,hotoil,acid;bytherubbingofpepper
or other chemical substances on mucous
membranes, or acids or spices directly on the
wound(s);
(5) The submersion of the head in water or water
pollutedwithexcrement,urine,vomitand/orblood
untilthebrinkofsuffocation;
(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and
stressfulbodilyposition;
(7)Rapeandsexualabuse,includingtheinsertion
of foreign objects into thesex organ or rectum,or
electricaltortureofthegenitals;
(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts
ofthebodysuchasthegenitalia,ear,tongue,etc.;
(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the
teeth;
(10)Pullingoutoffingernails;
CRIMINAL LAW 2


(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as
sunlightandextremecold;
(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials
placedovertheheadtothepointofasphyxiation;
(13)Theuseofpsychoactivedrugstochangethe
perception, memory. alertness or willof a person,
suchas:
(i) The administration or drugs to induce
confession and/or reduce mental
competency;or
(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme
painorcertainsymptomsofadisease;and
(14)Otheranalogousactsofphysicaltorture;and
(b)"Mental/PsychologicalTorture"refers toactscommitted
by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority
which are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or
undermineaperson'sdignityandmorale,suchas:
(1)Blindfolding;
(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher relative(s)
withbodilyharm,executionorotherwrongfulacts;
(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret
detentionplaces;
(4)Prolongedinterrogation;
(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public
display or public humiliation of a detainee or
prisoner;
(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person
deprived of liberty from one place to another,
creating the belief that he/she shall be summarily
executed;
(7)Maltreatingamember/sofaperson'sfamily;
(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed
bytheperson'sfamily,relativesoranythirdparty;
(9)Denialofsleep/rest;
(10) Shame infliction such asstripping the person
naked, parading him/her in public places, shaving
thevictim'sheadorputtingmarksonhis/herbody
againsthis/herwill;
(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to
communicate with any member of his/her family;
and
(12)Otheranalogousactsofmental/psychological
torture.
Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a
result of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any
proceedings, except if the same is used as evidence
againstapersonorpersonsaccusedofcommittingtorture.
RightsofTorturedVictims:
(a) To have a prompt and an impartial investigation by the
CHR and by agencies of government concerned such as
the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Public Attorney's
Office(PAO),thePNP,theNationalBureauofInvestigation
(NBI) and the AFP. A prompt investigation shall mean a
maximumperiodofsixty(60)workingdaysfromthetimea
complaint for torture is filed within which an investigation
report and/or resolution shall be completed and made
available. An appeal whenever available shall be resolved
withinthesameperiodprescribedherein,
(b) To have sufficient government protection against all
forms of harassment; threat and/or intimidation as a
consequence of the filing of said complaint or the
presentationofevidencetherefore.Inwhichcase,theState
through its appropriate agencies shall afford security in
order to ensure his/her safety and all other persons
involved in the investigation and prosecution such as, but
notlimitedto,his/herlawyer,witnessesandrelatives;and
(c) To be accorded sufficient protection in the manner by
whichhe/shetestifiesandpresentsevidenceinanyforain
ordertoavoidfurthertrauma.
Who are Criminally Liable.- Any person who actually
participated Or induced another in the commission of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment or who cooperated in the execution of the act
of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall be
liableasprincipal
Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or
seniorgovernmentofficialwhoissuedanordertoanylower
ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever purpose
shallbeheldequallyliableasprincipals.
Theimmediatecommandingofficeroftheunitconcernedof
the AFP or the immediate senior public official of the PNP
andotherlawenforcementagenciesshallbeheldliableas
aprincipaltothecrimeoftortureorothercruelorinhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment for any act or
omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall
have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or
indirectly, the commission thereof by his/her subordinates.
If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances
atthetime,shouldhaveknownthatactsoftortureorother
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
shall be committed, is being committed, or has been
committed by his/her subordinates or by others within
his/her area of responsibility and, despitesuch knowledge,
did not take preventive or corrective action either before,
during or immediately after its commission, when he/she
has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment but failed to prevent or investigate allegations
ofsuchact,whetherdeliberatelyorduetonegligenceshall
alsobeliableasprincipals.
Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an
accessory if he/she has knowledge that torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is
being committed and without having participated therein,
either as principalor accomplice, takespart subsequent to
itscommissioninanyofthefollowingmanner:
(a) By themselves profiting from or assisting the
offender to profit from the effects of the act of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatmentorpunishment;
CRIMINAL LAW 2


(b) By concealing the act of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
and/or destroying the effects or instruments
thereof in order to prevent its discovery; or(c) By
harboring,concealingorassistingmtheescapeof
the principal/s in the act of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment:
Provided, That the accessory acts are done with
theabuseoftheofficial'spublicfunctions.
AggravatingCircumstancesintorture:
(1)Tortureresultinginthedeathofanyperson;
(2)Tortureresultinginmutilation;
(3)Torturewithrape;
(4) Torture with other forms of sexual abuse and, in
consequence of torture, the victim shall have become
insane,imbecile,impotent,blindormaimedforlife;and
(5)Torturecommittedagainstchildren.
Note:
Tortureasacrimeshallnotabsorborshallnotbe
absorbed by any other crime or felony committed
as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct
orcommissionthereof.Inwhichcase,tortureshall
betreatedasaseparateandindependentcriminal
act whose penalties shall be imposable without
prejudicetoanyothercriminalliabilityprovidedfor
bydomesticandinternationallaws.(Sec15)
Persons who have committed any act of torture
shall not benefit from any special amnesty law or
similar measures that will have the effect of
exempting them from any criminal proceedings
andsanctions.(sec16)
Refouler- No person shall be expelled, returned or
extradited to another State where there are substantial
grounds to believe that such person shall be in danger of
beingsubjectedtotorture.
CHAPTER THREE FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL
EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS

ARTICLE 213 FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC
TREASURY AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
Article 213 punishes two (2) acts:
1. Fraud against public treasury (par.1)
2. Illegal exactions (par. 2)

ELEMENTS OF FRAUD AGAINST PUBLIC TREASURY
(ART. 213, PAR. 1):
2. that he should have taken advantage of
his office, that is he intervened in the
transaction of his official capacity
3. That he entered into an agreement with
any interested party or speculator or
made use of any other scheme with regard
to:
(1) furnishing supplies
(2) the making of contracts
(3) the adjustment or settlement of
accounts relating to public
property or funds
4. That the accused had intent to defraud
the Government

So here, the public officer took
advantage of his official position in
entering into contract which involves the
furnishing of supplies, or which involves
public funds or property and the intention
is to DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT. It is not
necessary that the Government, the treasury
be actually be defrauded, it suffices that
entering in the said contract, the
intention of the said offender, the public
officer, is to defraud the Government.

ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL EXACTION (ART. 213,
PAR. 2)
entrusted with the collection of taxes,
licenses, fees and other imposts.
2. He is guilty of any of the following
acts or omissions:
(1) Demanding, directly or indirectly,
the payment of sums different from or
larger than those authorized by law;
or
(2) Failing voluntarily to issue a
receipt, as provided by law, for any
sum of money collected by him
officially; or
(3) Collecting or receiving, directly or
indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise, things or objects of a
nature different from that provided
by law.

Here, the offender is a COLLECTING
PUBLIC OFFICER. A public officer who has
been entrusted with duty to collect taxes,
licenses, fees or other imposts. Only this
kind of public officer can commit this
crime because ILLEGAL EXACTION involves
violation of rules on collection.

1
st
Act - Demanding, directly or indirectly,
the payment of sums different from or
larger than those authorized by law; or
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: There was this cashier in the city
treasurers office. Here comes X, X said
that he is going to get a cedula (residence
certificate) and then X said, How much am
I going to pay? and then, the cashier or
the collecting officer said, you have to
pay Php200 but it is actually Php20. X
said, hmp, ang mahal pala, ayokona. and
so he left. Is the said collecting officer
liable of any crime?
A:YES, he is liable. For merely
demanding an amount larger than that
authorized by law, he is already
CRIMINAL LAW 2


liable for ILLEGAL EXACTION under
Article 213, Par. 2.

Q: He is already liable, he merely
demanded, but what if in the same problem,
X said he was going to get a cedula. The
collecting officer saw him and he appears
to be poor man and so X asked the
collecting officer, How much am I going to
pay? and the collecting officer took pity
of X and said, Only Php 10. So, the poor
man said, Oh, I have more money, Ill get
two. Is the collecting officer liable of
any crime?

A:YES, he is liable because he
demanded an amount different from
that authorized by law. Note that
what the law requires is the
demanding of an amount, directly or
indirectly, different from or larger
than those authorized by law.
Therefore, even if it is lower, so
long as it is different from that
provided by law, and so long as it is
demanded by the said collecting
officer, then it is considered as
ILLEGAL EXACTION.

It is not necessary for the said
collecting officer to have
misappropriate the funds, the moment
that he misappropriates the funds, in
addition to illegal exaction, he may
also be held liable for MALVERSATION,
because Illegal Exaction is only about
the rules on collection. It has
nothing to do with the appropriation
or misappropriation of funds or
property. Only a violation of the
rules on collection.

2
nd
Act - Failing voluntarily to issue a
receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of
money collected by him officially;
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if it was January 2, all kinds
of payment are being made at the start of
the year. So the collecting officer in the
treasurers office runs out of official
receipt (O.R.). And so he got a half sheet
of typewriting paper and he note there
about the said payment and a provisional
receipt and he gave it to the same person
who made the payment. Is the said
collecting officer liable of illegal
exaction?
A: He IS NOT. Because he did not
voluntarily fail to issue the said
O.R. He ran out of the said O.R.,
it was not voluntary on his part.
It was an emergency situation. It
is good that she even gave a
provisional receipt as a proof of
payment. In this case, he cannot be
held liable for illegal exaction.

3
rd
Act - Collecting or receiving, directly
or indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law.

Here, under the third act, it does not
refer to the amount of payment. It refers
to the KIND OR NATURE OF PAYMENT. So, when
the law says that it should be paid in
cash, ONLY CASH may be received by the said
collecting officer.

ILLUSTRATION:
So the collecting officer is known as a
sabungero. So here comes one of the persons
who was making payment. He has no money,
but said, he has a magandang tandang. And
so, that was the payment received. He
commits a violation of illegal exaction.

Q: What if the person who demanded an
amount or different from or larger than
that which is provided for by law is an
officer, a collecting officer from the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, or a collecting
officer form the Bureau of Customs. Is he
liable under Article 213?
A: He is not liable for illegal
exaction under Art. 213. He is
liable under the Tax Code or under
the Tariffs and Customs Code. Under
Art. 213, it is expressly provided
that if the collecting officer is a
collecting officer coming from the
Bureau of Internal Revenue or
Bureau of Customs is not liable
under this Article. The reason here
is that, this collecting officer
from the BIR and the BOC, have the
right to ask for penalties,
surcharges, and compromise.
Therefore, they can always demand
and amount different from or that
which is larger than that
authorized by law. If they exceeded
that authority, then they are
liable under the Tariffs and
Customs Code or under the Tax Code,
but NOT UNDER THE RPC.

ARTICLE 214 OTHER FRAUDS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
position
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits
enumerated in Articles 315-318

CRIMINAL LAW 2


If any of the public officer commits any
of the frauds or deceits constituting
ESTAFA or SWINDLING, under Art. 315-318,
and he does so by taking advantage of his
official position, his criminal liability
is Other Frauds under Art. 214.
- Not estafa, not swindling. The
reason is that in case of a public
officer, there is additional
penalty. If you look at Article 214,
the law says that the penalty is the
same penalty as the first offense
under Art. 315-318. But additional
to that, temporary disqualification
to perpetual disqualification for
having taken advantage of his
official position. Therefore, if it
is a public officer who commits
estafa or swindling, the crime is
under Art. 214 and there is an
additional penalty.

ARTICLE 215 PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is an appointive public officer
2. He becomes interested, directly or
indirectly in any transaction of
exchange or speculation
3. Transaction takes place within the
territory subject to his jurisdiction
4. He becomes interested in the transaction
during his incumbency

ARTICLE 216 POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED
INTEREST BY A PUBLIC OFFICER
ELEMENTS:
1. Public Officer who, directly or
indirectly, became interested in any
contract or business in which it was his
official duty to intervene.
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private
accountants who, in like manner, took
part in any contract or transaction
connected with the estate or property in
the appraisal, distribution or
adjudication of which they had acted
3. Guardians and executors with respect to
the property belonging to their wards or
the estate

CHAPTER FOUR MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
OR PROPERTY

ARTICLE 217 MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
OR PROPERTY (PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION)
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. He has the custody or control of funds
or property by reason of the duties of
his office
3. Those funds or property were public
funds or property for which he was
accountable
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated
or consented, or through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to
take them

- The offender is an accountable public
officer. An accountable of public
officer is an officer in the course
of the performance of his duties,
receives funds or property from the
government which he has the
obligation to account later. So he
has in his custody, public funds or
public property and he has the
obligation to account these to the
Government.

Punishable acts:
1. Appropriating public funds or property
2. Taking or misappropriating the same
3. Consenting, through abandonment or
negligence, permitting any other person
to take such public funds or property
4. Being otherwise guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of such
funds or property

Malversation of Public Funds and
Property can be committed either through a
positive act, that is, that the said public
officer is the one who misappropriates,
takes or appropriates the public funds and
property, OR, through a passive act, that
is, through his abandonment or negligence,
he permitted others to misappropriate the
same.

- Malversation can be committed either
through a positive act, which is
through deliberate intent or through
dolo. He is the one who appropriates
or misappropriates, who took the the
said public funds or property
- Passive Act which is through his
abandonment or negligence, or culpa.
he allowed others to appropriate or
misappropriate the said public funds
or property

When is there prima facie presumption of
malversation?
- Under Article 217, there arises prima
facie presumption of malversation of
public funds or property when demand
is made by a duly authorized officer
to an accountable public officer to
account for public funds or property,
and the same is not forthcoming

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ILLUSTRATION:
So the COA auditor, appeared and
conducted an audit He demanded for the said
amount, the said accountable public officer
cannot reduce the said amount. There arises
the prima facie presumption that he has
malverse the said public funds or property.
Although that is what is written under
Article 217, last paragraph. The Supreme
Court in the number of cases said:
Mere shortage in audit will not
suffice. For the Prima facie presumption
to arise the following requisites must
be present: - It is necessary that there
must be complete, thorough and reliable
audit.
- In the said complete, thorough and
reliable audit, the following were
discovered:
a. The public officer indeed receive
the public funds or property.
That is, he is an accountable
public officer
b. The said public funds and
property was missing, or there
was a shortage, or he cannot
produce it, and
c. The said public officer cannot
give a justifiable reason, a
legal excuse for the said
shortage or missing of public
funds or property.

If all of these are present, the
Supreme Court says that there arises the
prima facie presumption that there is
malversation of public funds or property.
Therefore, there may NOT be direct evidence
to convict one for malversation of public
funds or property. Obviously, there cannot
be any witness, because when you say direct
evidence, there is a witness. Of course, he
would not let anyone see him malversing the
funds. It suffices in the audit, these
three things were discovered. If these
three are discovered, then there arises the
prima facie presumption that there is a so-
called MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a man was walking, in the middle
of the night, a police officer who was
conducting a patrol saw something bulging
on his waist. The police officer stopped
him and frisked him and there, they saw a
firearm. They ask for the license, the said
man could not produce the license for the
said firearm. He was arrested for illegal
possession of unlicensed firearm, and the
firearm was confiscated. During the trials
of the case, the fiscal move for subpoena
for the custodian of the said firearm. The
custodian appeared but failed to bring the
firearm. He had already sold the said
firearm confiscated. What crime is
committed by the said custodian?
A: He is liable for Malversation under
Article 217.

Q: His contention was, it cannot be
malversation, because the firearm was owned
by a private person. It is not a public
property, therefore I cannot be held liable
for malversation. Is the contention
correct?
A: His contention is wrong. The
said firearm has already been
confiscated by public authority,
therefore it is now deemed,
CUSTODIA LEGIS. The moment it is in
custodialegis, it loses its
character as a private property and
it now assumes a character of a
public property. Hence the crime
committed is Malversation.

Q: What if, there was this collecting
officer, a cashier, and there were many
persons paying. And the long line persons
paying, one cashier said that he needed to
answer the call of nature, and so he asked
another fellow cashier to look after his
drawer, and so, he left and went to the
restroom. But he also left the key of his
drawing on the key holder. And so, the
moment he left, his fellow cashier went to
his drawer and opened it and took Php 2000
from the collection of A on the same day.
Then A arrived, and he then accepted
collections. In the afternoon, there was a
surprise audit coming from the COA. and it
was discovered that based on the receipts,
The php 2000 were missing from the
collection of A. Therefore, A was charged.
What crime if any, has been committed by A?
Is A liable for malversation?

A: Yes, he is liable for malversation
through negligence. That is the
passive act. That is through his
abandonment or negligence, he
permitted another person, Cashier B
to misappropriate a part of his
collection for the day. Hence A is
also liable for Malversation. Not B,
but A, the one who went to the
restroom, because he is the one
accountable for the said public
funds in his drawer.

That other person, B, who took the
said property is liable for qualified
theft. because he was entrusted with
the same funds, and he took the same
funds.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Q: What if, in the same problem, after the
COA auditor found out that Php 2000 was
missing, A was charged with Malversation of
public funds and property through dolo. So,
in the information, it was stated that he
is the one who misappropriate, appropriates
or has taken the said public funds, and so
he was charged with Malversation through
dolo, through deliberate intent. That was
the case filed against him because they did
not know that it was B who took the money.
So, the presumption is that, he is the one
who took the money, who appropriated it.
During the trial of the merits, during the
presentation of the defense evidence, when
it was already As term to testify, it was
divulged or disclosed to the court that it
was in fact another cashier, B who
misappropriated the said funds through the
negligence of A. And by reason of this
evidence presented in court, the said
judge, convicted A of Malversation through
culpa, in an information of malversation
through dolo. Is the judge correct? Can he
convict A?
A: Yes, the judge is correct. The
reason is that, according to the
Supreme Court, whether Malversation
is committed through deliberate
intent or culpa, DOLO and CULPA are
merely modalities of committing the
crime. Nevertheless, it is still
malversation, and if you look at
Article 217, whether malversation is
committed through deliberate intent
or through negligence, they just have
one and the same penalties. Further,
the Supreme Court said, Malversation
through negligence or culpa is
NECESSARILY INCLUDED in Malversation
through deliberate intent or dolo.
Hence, even if the information is
Malversation through dolo, one can be
convicted of Malversation through
Culpa or Negligence.

Q: What if, there was this rape in a
warehouse, in the course of the said rape,
dangerous drugs worth millions of pesos
were confiscated and they were placed in
the PDEA warehouse. The persons therein
were charged with illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. In the course of the
hearing in this possession of dangerous
drugs, the court sent a subpoena to the
PDEA custodian, to bring to the Court the
said dangerous drugs which were
confiscated. And so, on the designated day,
the said PDEA agent boarded all the
dangerous drugs confiscated in a PDEA van
and off he went to the Court. However,
before the PDEA agent could reach the
court, here comes two motorcycles who went
in and fired at him, and he fell on his
seat, lifeless. And then, a big vehicle
arrived at the back of the said PDEA van
and took all the said dangerous drugs. Now
the said PDEA agent was brought into the
hospital and despite the fatal wound,
because of the immediate medical
intervention, he survived. Is he liable of
any crime?

A: Yes, he is liable of Malversation
of public funds or property under
Article 217 through Negligence.
There was inexcusable negligence on
his part said the Supreme Court,
because all by himself, carried the
millions worth of dangerous drugs in
the PDEA van, considering the value
of the said dangerous drugs, he
should have asked for back up. Yes,
he survived, but he was charged with
Malversation of public funds or
property through CULPA.

Q: What if, there is a public officer whose
office is in pasay. He is going to have a
meeting in Caloocan. And so he went to
Caloocan in one afternoon and attended the
said meeting. He had to go to pasay in
order to make a report, However, the
traffic was heavy, so instead of using his
car on the way back, he rode the LRT. Upon
reaching the office, he realized that his
bag was opened, and the cellphone which was
__5:17___ by the Government was already
gone. By reason thereof, he was charged
with Malversation under Article 217 because
through his negligence, the cellphone which
was ____ to him by the Government and for
which he is accountable to the Government
was now missing. It was taken or stolen by
somebody. Is he liable? He was convicted by
the SandiganBayan but when it came to the
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court acquitted
him.

A: According to the Supreme Court,
there was no negligence on the part
of the said public officer. He cannot
be faulted for having taken the LRT
because of the said heavy traffic. It
cannot be said that there was
negligence on his part in placing the
cellphone inside his bag, because,
where else would you place a
cellphone but inside the bag for
safekeeping. It would have been
different while on board, he was
using the said cellphone. Hence, the
Supreme Court said, there was no
negligence and therefore, although
convicted by the SandiganBayan, he
was acquitted by the Supreme Court.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


ARTICLE 218 FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS
ELEMENTS:
1. 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 to
render 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

ARTICLE 219 FAILURE OF RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING
THE COUNTRY
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

ARTICLE 220 ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
OR PROPERTY (Technical Malversation)
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender s a public officer
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.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a public officer has under his
administration public funds which is for a
certain project. So let us say that X is
the city administrator. Under his
administration, there was Php500,000, the
said Php 500,000 was for the construction
of a bridge between one barangay to another
barangay. Then suddenly there was a
typhoon, a big typhoon and many of the
constituents were rendered homeless. And
so, they had to stay in the basketball
court, they need food, clothing, water and
other basic needs. And so, the city
administrator made use of the Php 500,000
under his administration to buy these basic
needs of his constituents. Is the said
public officer, the city administrator
liable of any crime?

A: Yes, he is liable for technical
Malversation under Article 220.
BEST EXAMPLE:
GMA and other head of Philhealth
before was charged by Frank Chavez because
of Technical Malversation because of
transfer of COA funds, which was used for
Philhealth purposes during the elections.
And so, because of that, according to Frank
Chavez, they are liable for Malversation.
They were charged with Technical
Malversation. But their contention was
there was a law that allowed it. If there
was a law that allowed it, then, there was
no violation. But, if there is no law,
there is an illegal transfer of funds,
therefore, technical Malversation will
resolve.
ARTICLE 217 ARTICLE 220
The public officer
misappropriates the
fund for his
personal use.

The public officer
did not
misappropriate the
funds for his
personal use, he
used it for another
public purpose other
than that which has
been appropriated by
law or ordinance
that is why it is
TECHNICAL
MALVERSATION the
offense is on the
technicality of the
use of funds.

The public officer
has in his
possession public
funds or property
for safekeeping. It
is under his custody
and control and
therefore it is for
his safekeeping and
he has the
obligation to
account it later on
to the Government

The public officer
has in his
possession public
funds or property is
only under his
administration. Not
for safekeeping, but
only for the purpose
of administrating it
that is, for
applying it for the
purpose which it has
been appropriated by
law or ordiance

ARTICLE 221 FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF
PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
ELEMENTS:
1. That the public officer has government
funds in his possession
2. That he is under obligation to make
payments from such funds
3. That he fails to make payment
maliciously

Punishable acts:
1. Failing to make payment by a public
officer who is under obligation to make
CRIMINAL LAW 2


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

ARTICLE 222 OFFICERS INCLUDED IN
PRECEDING PROVISIONS
Private Individual who may be liable under
Art. 217-221:
1. Private Individual who in any capacity
whatsoever, have charge of national,
provincial or municipal funds, revenue
or property
2. Administrator, depository of funds or
property attached, seized or deposited
by public authority even if such
property belongs to a private individual
3. Those who acted in conspiracy in
malversation
4. Accomplice and accessories to
malversation
Can private property be the subject of
Malversation?
- YES, under the 2
nd
act in Article
222, that is when the said funds or
property has been attached, seized or
deposited by public authority, it now
becomes in custodialegis and it now
assumes the character of being public
funds or property. If any are
misappropriated, then the crime committed
is Malversation and not theft.

INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS
(Articles 223, 224, 225)
ARTICLE 223 CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING
TO EVASION
ELEMENTS:
2. He has in his custody or charge a
prisoner, either detention prisoner or
prisoner by final judgment
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody
4. That he was in connivance with the
prisoner in the latters escape, or is
with his consent

ARTICLE 224 EVASTION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
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

ARTICLE 225 ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE
CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a private individual
2. Conveyance (or charge) of custody of
prisoner or person under arrest is
confided to him
3. Prisoner or person under arrest escapes
4. Offender consents to the escape of the
prisoner or person under arrest or that
the escape takes place through his
negligence
Whether it be under Art. 223, 224, 225,
the offender infidelity in the custody of
prisoners is one who has been entrusted
with the custody and charge of the
prisoner. Whether the prisoner is a
prisoner convicted by final judgment or a
detention prisoner. He must be charged, he
must be the custodian of the said prisoner
because the essence of the crime is the
violation of the trust reposed on him.
Because prisoners are accountabilities of
the Government.

Can a private individual commit
infidelity?
- Yes, under Art. 225. If he is
entrusted with the custody of this
prisoner and the prisoner escapes,
either in connivance with him or
through his negligence, then his
liability is infidelity in the custody
of prisoners

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: A has been charged with illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. She is behind bars, it is
a non-bailable offense, and therefore,
while the case is ongoing, she is behind
bars. So, it was the hearing date, she was
accompanied by the jail warden, the jail
guard to the court, and after trial, there
was this husband and two children of the
said woman who was in jail. The husband and
two children talked, and when the said
woman prisoner was about to be brought to
jail, the husband talked to the jail
warden. He invited the jail warden for a
merienda, in a canteen inside the hall of
justice. And so, the jail warden saw
nothing wrong and so, he had merienda with
the woman prisoner, the husband and the two
children. The handcuffs had to be removed
for the woman prisoner to eat. After
eating, the woman prisoner said that she
needed to answer the call of nature, and
so, she went to the restroom, also inside
or within the hall of justice. The jail
guard allowed her inside while the jail
guard was left outside, waiting. Hours
passed, no woman prisoner came out. It so
happens that the said husband put some
disguise for the woman to use so that she
could escape without being noticed by the
said jail guard, and woman prisoner was
able to escape without being noticed by the
CRIMINAL LAW 2


said jail guard. Is the said jail guard
liable for infidelity in the custody of
prisoner, or is it a mere laxity which
would not amount to infidelity in the
custody of prisoner?

A: People vs. Nava The Supreme
Court said that mere laxity would not
amount to negligence under Art. 224.
Because according to the Supreme
Court in that old case, the
negligence being required in order
that a public officer may be
entitled, must be a deliberate non-
performance of his duty. Here, it is
only a mere laxity on the part of the
said public officer for not having
accompanying the said woman in the
rest room.

Rodriguez vs. SandiganBayan (new
case) The Supreme Court said
otherwise. According to the Supreme
Court, the moment that a public
officer, a jail warden has
accompanied a prisoner outside jail,
he must not have lost sight of the
said prisoner. The only obligation of
the said jail warden after the trial
was to bring her back to the court.
The fact that the said jail guard
allowed himself to have a merienda,
and even allowed the woman prisoner
to go to the restroom alone, there
was laxity on the part of the said
jail guard. The Supreme Court said,
LAXITY is a deliberate non-
performance of his official duty as
the guard of the said prisoner,
thereby amounting to infidelity in
the custody of prisoner under Art.
224.

INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS
(ARTICLES 226, 227, 228)
ARTICLE 226 REMOVAL, CONEALMENT OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT
ELEMENTS:
2. He removes, destroys, or conceals
documents or papers
3. 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
should have been caused

Under Article 226, in order for
infidelity in the custody of documents to
arise, it is necessary that there be damage
caused to a third person or to the public
interest. If damage is serious, the penalty
is QUALIFIED, therefore, the damage may or
may not be serious provided that there is
damage, the crime will arise.
DAMAGE IS NECESSARY in order to give
rise to infidelity in the custody of
documents.

ARTICLE 227 OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
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

Under Article 227, officer breaking the
seal, infidelity in the custody of
prisoners to arise, even without damage
caused to a third party or to public
interest. Damage is NOT an element.
MERE BREAKING of the seal of the
document will already consummate the crime.

ARTICLE 228 OPENING A CLOSED DOCUMENT
ELEMENTS:
2. Any closed papers, documents, or objects
are entrusted to his custody
3. He opens or permits to be opened said
closed papers, documents or objects
4. He does not have proper authority

Infidelity in the custody of documents,
the public officer has been entrusted with
papers, documents or objects, which have
been closed by proper authority and the
said public officer opened the said closed
document or permitted others to open the
same. Again, Damage is NOT an element.

MERE ACT OF OPENING the said closed
document will give rise to the crime.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if A has been charged with illegal
sale of dangerous drugs. The case was on
trial, during the trial of the case, the
fiscal presented the first police officer
who acted as the poseur buyer in the course
of the testimony of the police officer, the
fiscal produced and showed to him for
identification the marked money. So the
marked money consists of 5, 100 peso bill.
The fiscal presented it to the police and
the police identified it as indeed the
marked money because of the serial numbers
and because of the markings, and thereafter
the marked money have been marked as
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Exhibit A, B, C, D, E for the prosecution.
After the trial, they were placed inside an
envelope and given to the clerk of court,
the custodian of the evidence which have
already been marked. So trial ended that
day, it was now lunch time. The clerk of
court was on her table and so the vendor
arrived. The clerk of court wanted to buy
lunch and she said, how much. The vendor
said it costs 50 peso. The clerk of court
pulled out her money; it was a 1000 peso
bill. The vendor said, anglakinamanniyan,
walaakongpanukli And so, by reason
thereof, he gave it back to the clerk of
court. The clerk of court said that she had
no smaller bills, and he remembered the
exhibits. And so, he took 100 peso bill,
marked as Exhibit E. And she paid it to the
vendor and the vendor gave him the change
of 50 peso. After eating, before 1:00, the
said clerk of court immediately went
outside to change her big 1000 peso bill
into smaller bills. When he now has these
smaller bills, he got one 100 peso bill and
marked it as Exhibit E and then he signed
it and placed it inside the envelope. Here
comes the next hearing date, on the next
hearing date, another police officer was
presented, the fiscal produced the said
documentary exhibits, the marked money and
asked it from the clerk of court. So the
fiscal showed it to the police officer, the
police officer identified Exhibits A, B, C,
D. However, when it comes to exhibit E, the
police officer said, Your Honor, it has a
different serial number from the one in our
sworn statement and so because of that, an
investigation happened and the court
learned that it was taken by said clerk of
court and used in buying food. What crime,
if any is committed by the said clerk of
court? Is it malversation or is it
infidelity in the custody of documents?
A: The crime committed is infidelity
in the custody of documents under
Art. 226 by the public officer in
destroying the said document. This
marked money becomes documentary
evidence, the moment they have been
marked as exhibits. Money here is not
used as a medium of exchange, but as
documents because they have been
marked as documentary evidence. The
moment they have been taken, removed,
concealed or destroyed, the crime
committed is infidelity in the
custody of documents because the
clerk of court is the custodian of
the documentary exhibits. If money is
used, not as a medium of exchange,
but like this, as documentary
exhibits or any other use other than
as a medium of exchange, the one who
malverse, or use it is the custodian
of the said documents, the crime is
infidelity in the custody of
documents and NOT malversation.
When the clerk of court took the 100
peso bill, he destroyed the exhibit,
the documentary exhibit of the said
prosecution and the prosecution was
seriously damaged interface.
REVELATION OF SECRETS (Article 229-230)

ARTICLE 229 REVELATION OF SECRETS BY AN
OFFICER
Punishable acts:
1. By revealing any secrets which affect
public interest learned by him in his
official capacity
ELEMENTS:
(1) Offender is a public officer
(2) He knows of a secret by reason
of his official capacity
(3) He reveals such secret without
authority or justifiable reasons
(4) Damage, great or small, is cause
to the public interest

It is necessary that there be Damage
caused, whether serious or not.

2. Wrongfully delivering papers or copies
of papers of which he may have charge
and which should not be published
thereby causing damage, whether serious
or not, to a third party or to public
interest.
ELEMENTS:
i. Offender is a public officer
ii. He has charge of papers
iii. Those papers should not be
published
iv. He delivers those papers or
copies thereof to a third person
v. The delivery is wrongful
vi. Damage is caused to public
interest

ARTICLE 230 PUBLIC OFFICER REVEALING
SECRETS OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
ELEMENTS:
2. He knows of the secrets of private
individual by reason of his office
3. He reveals such secrets without
authority or justifiable reason

Damage is NOT an element in Article 230.

ARTICLE 231 OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a judicial or executive
officer
2. There is judgment, decision, or order of
a superior authority
CRIMINAL LAW 2


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
Open Disobedience is committed by any
judicial or executive officer who shall
openly refuse without any legal motive to
execute a judgment or decision rendered by
a superior authority in the exercise of his
duty and in the legal infirmities of the
law.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if in the case of Duterte, the
sheriff wishes to execute a writ of
execution and cause the squatters to leave
the place because of the execution issued
by the court has to be implemented. Had not
the sheriff performed the said act, is he
liable of any crime? Had the sheriff
refused to execute the writ of execution
issued by the said judge? Is he liable of
any crime?

A: Yes, he is liable of Open
Disobedience under Article 231. He
openly refused to execute a writ of
execution issued by a judge.

ARTICLE 232 DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF
SUPERIOR OFFICER, WHEN SAID ORDER WAS
SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR OFFICER
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

The offender refuses to disobey the
suspension of the said order which was
disapproved by the said public officer.

ARTICLE 233 REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
ELEMENTS:
2. Competent authority demands from the
offender that he lend his cooperation
towards the administration of justice or
other public service
3. Offender fails to do so maliciously

Public officer who shall fail to lend
his cooperation towards the administration
of justice or any other public service
despite demand by competent authority.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: A raped B. B was treated by a medico
legal officer at the PNP. This medico legal
officer who has examined A, issued a
medical certificate, And so in the case
filed by B against A for this so-called
rape, the fiscal moved that the subpoena
(adjustificandum) be sent to this public
officer, the medico legal office who
examined the rape victim. However, despite
receipt of the said subpoena, the medico
legal officer failed to appear. He did not
appear without any justifiable reason at
all. The said prosecutor move again for the
issuance of another subpoena, a second
subpoena. Again, despite the receipt, the
medico legal officer failed to appear in
court and testified and failed to give the
copy of the medico legal certificate. What
crime if any has the said medico legal
officer has committed?

A: He is liable for Refusal of
Assistance under Article 233. It is
committed by a public offcer that despite
demands of the public authority shall fail
to lend his cooperation toward the
administration of justice or any other
public service. Thereby, causing damage
serious or not, to public interest.

NOTE: If the damage is serious, the penalty
is QUALIFIED.

ARTICLE 234 REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE
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 the said office
3. There is no legal motive for such
refusal to be sworn in or to discharge
the duties of said office

This is a crime which cannot be
committed in Philippine Jurisdiction.
Refusal to discharge public duties is
committed by any person entitled to a
public office by means of popular election,
refuses to assume to assume the powers and
duties of his office. He refuses to be
sworn in. This will not happen in our
lifetime. This will never happen in the
Philippine Jurisdiction because here, even
if he did not win in the election, he
wanted to hold office.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


ARTICLE 235 MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. He has under his charge a prisoner or
detention prisoner
3. He maltreats such prisoner 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 rules and regulations
ii. By inflicting such punishments
(those authorized) in a cruel
or humiliating manner
b. By maltreating such prisoner to
extort a confession or to obtain
some information from the prisoner

- Any public officer or employee

Who is the offended party?
- He must be a prisoner

In order to be considered a prisoner, it is
necessary that the said person has already
been arrested, brought to the PNP station
and he has been incarcerated. If he is not
a prisoner, then, the crime can be physical
injuries, whatever injuries that may have
been sustained by the prisoner, but NOT
maltreatment of prisoners

What if maltreatment does not only
include physical maltreatment. It shall
also include moral, emotional,
psychological maltreatment because the law
uses the phrase physical injuries or damage
caused.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if A has just withdrew his money
from her ATM account, she placed the money
inside her bag and she was already walking
towards home when suddenly here comes X. X
snatched the handbag with the money. A
police officer passing by saw the incident
and on boarded their mobile patrol. They
were able to arrest the man, took the bag
and returned it to the said victim.
Thereafter, they placed X inside the mobile
patrol. While inside, they kicked, mold the
man. And so, the man suffered less serious
physical injuries. What crime is committed
by the said police officers?

A: The crime committed is less
serious physical injuries. It is not
maltreatment of prisoners because the said
person, X, is not yet a prisoner. He is
only a person under arrest because he has
just been arrested for having committed a
crime, but he is not yet a prisoner. In
order to be considered as a prisoner, he
must be brought to the PNP station, taken a
picture, left view, side view, front view,
thumbmark and incarcerated. He is now an
accountability of the Government, he is now
a prisoner. But before that, he is not yet
a prisoner. He is only a person under
arrest. That is why in the problem, the
police officers are liable only for less
serious physical injuries and not of
maltreatment of prisoners.

Q: What if in the same problem, they chased
the man. They were able to catch the said
man and brought him to the PNP station.
Booked him and incarcerated him, and all
the things needed to be done to a prisoner.
Later, he was brought out of jail for
investigation to be brought in the
Investigation section. In the
investigation, he was being forced to admit
to the commission of the crime. And so, by
reason thereof, the police officer boxed
him and gave him a huge black eye. The left
eye suffered so much that he lost sight,
amounting to serious physical injuries.
What are the crimes committed by the police
officer?
A: Two crimes Maltreatment of
Prisoners and Serious Physical Injuries.
Maltreatment of Prisoners because he
is a prisoner who was maltreated in
order to extort a confession and
Serious physical injuries because by
reason of the injury inflicted, he
lost an eye.

Q: Are you going to complex them? because a
single act constitute a grave and less
grave felony, are you going to complex them
under Art. 48?
A: No. You cannot complex them. Because
under Article 235, it is expressly
provided that the liability for
maltreatment of prisoners shall be in
addition to the liability for any other
physical injuries or damage caused.
Therefore two crimes will be charged
against the police officer.

There is also a violation of R.A. 9745,
Anti-Torture Act, because under Section
14 of the Anti-Torture Act, Torture
shall not absorb and shall not be
absorbed by any other crime committed
as a consequence. Therefore, he can
also be held liable under the so-called
Anti-Torture Law.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ARTICLE 236 ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A
PUBLIC OFFICE
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is entitled to hold a
public office or employment either by
election or appointment
2. Shall assume the performance of the
duties and powers of a public official
or employee
3. Without being sworn into office or
having given the bond required by law

ARTICLE 237 PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF
DUTIES AND POWERS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is holding a public
office
2. That the period allowed by law for him
to exercise such function and duties has
already expired
3. That the offender continues to exercise
such function and duties

ARTICLE 238 ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR
POSITION
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is holding a public
office
2. That he formally resigns from his office
3. But before the acceptance of his
resignation, he abandons his office

Abandonment of office is committed by a
public officer who has already formally
resigns from his position, and having
formally resigned from his position, he
abandons to the detriment of public
service. Despite the fact that his
resignation has not yet been accepted by a
superior authority. Under Labor Law, when
you are an employee, when you file a
resignation, it does not mean you are
already resigned. There must be an
ACCEPTANCE from the superior officer before
it can be said that he have already
resigned.
So here, the public officer has already
formally resigned, his resignation has not
been accepted, yet he abandons to the
detriment of public service. What is the
penalty?
- In the abandonment of office, the
penalty is QUALIFIED if the purpose of
the said public officer is to evade
the prosecution punishment of the
crime involving violation of Title 1
Book 2 (Crimes against National
Security), or Chapter 1 Title 3 of
Book 2 (Rebellion, Coup detat,
Sedition, etc.)

ARTICLE 239 USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWERS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an executive or
judicial officer
2. That he:
a. Makes general rules and regulations
beyond the scope of his authority,
or
b. Attempts to repeal a law, or
c. Suspend the execution of thereof
NOTE: It can only be committed by an
executive or judicial officer
ARTICLE 240 USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE
FUNCTIONS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a judge
2. That the offender:
a. Assumes the power exclusively
vested to executive authorities of
the Government, or
b. Obstructs executive authorities
from the lawful performance of
their functions
NOTE: It can only be committed by a Judge

ARTICLE 241 USURPATION OF JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is holding office
under the Executive Branch of the
Government
2. That he:
a. Assumes the power exclusively
vested in the Judiciary, or
b. Obstructs the execution of any
order or decision given by a judge
within his jurisdiction
NOTE: It can only be committed by a public
officer of the Executive Branch of the
Government

Therefore, if the person who assumes
judicial power does not belong to the
Executive Branch, but belongs to the
legislative branch, the crime is not
Usurpation of Judicial Function, but
USURPATION OF PUBLIC FUNCTION AND OFFICIAL
AUTHORITY under Article 177, because
Article 239, 240 and 241 are specific as to
the offenders.
So, let us say, in the one who
encroached upon the powers of the Judge,
does not belong to the executive branch but
he is legislator, it cannot be considered
as usurpation of judicial functions, rather
it will be Usurpation Of Public Function
And Official Authority Under Article 177.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ARTICLE 242 DISOBEYING REQUEST OF
DISQUALIFICATION
ELEMENTS:
2. That a proceeding is pending before such
public officer
3. That there has been a question regarding
the jurisdiction brought before the
proper authority
4. There is a question brought before the
proper authority regarding his
jurisdiction, which is yet to be decided

ARTICLE 243 ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS TO ANY JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an executive
officer
2. That the offender addresses any order or
suggestion to any judicial authority
3. That the order or suggestion relates to
any case or business within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
justice

ARTICLE 244 UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
ELEMENTS:
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a
public office
3. Such person lacks the legal
qualification thereof
4. Offender knows that his nominee or
employee lacks the qualifications at the
time he made the nomination or
appointment

ARTICLE 245 ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
ELEMENTS:
2. That he solicits or makes any indecent
or immoral advances to a woman
3. That the offended party is a woman who
is:
a. Interested in matters pending
before the public officer for his
decision or where the public
officer is required to submit a
report or to consult with a
superior officer; or
b. Under the custody of the offender,
who is a warden or other public
officer directly charged with the
care and custody of prisoners or
persons under arrest; or
c. The wife, daughter, sister or any
relative falling within the same
degree of affinity of the person
under the custody and charge of the
offender

How are abuses against chastity is
committed?
- There are three acts. (Refer to the
elements)
1. Public officer solicits or
makes any indecent or immoral
advances to a woman who is
interested in matters pending
before his for his decision or
where the public officer is
required to submit a report or
to consult with a superior
officer
2. Warden or other public officer
directly charged with the care
and custody of prisoners or
persons under arrest, and he
solicits or makes any indecent
or immoral advances to a woman
3. Warden or other public officer
directly charged with the care
and custody of prisoners or
persons under arrest, and the
said officer makes any indecent
or immoral advances to the
wife, daughter, sister or any
relative falling within the
same degree of affinity of the
male prisoner.

- He must be a public officer because
there must be abuse of public office
in making immoral or indecent
advances.
Essence of the crime is taking advantage
of ones position in soliciting or making
immoral or indecent advances.

Mere act of soliciting or making immoral
and indecent advances will already give
rise to the crime. It is not necessary that
the woman will comply with the said
solicitation or immoral or indecent
advances.

The solicitation must not be the gospel
type of solicitation. It must be bad,
persistent, threatening such that if the
woman would not comply then it would
adverse on her part.

If a jail warden impregnated a female
detainee, even if they love one another,
still liable because detainees are
liabilities of the state.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


TITLE EIGHT
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
(ARTICLES 246 266-A)

ART 246 PARRICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person is killed
2. That the deceased is killed by the
accused
3. That the deceased is the father,
mother, or child, whether legitimate
or illegitimate, or a legitimate other
ascendant, or legitimate other
descendant, or legitimate spouse of
the accused
Parricide is committed when a person
kills his father, mother, child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, legitimate
other ascendant, legitimate other
descendant, or legitimate spouse.
Therefore the offended party or deceased
or the victim is specified, he must be
the father, mother, child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, legitimate
other ascendant, legitimate other
descendant, or legitimate spouse.
Parricide is a crime based on
relationship.
What kind of relationship?
First, it must be a legitimate
relationship except in the case
of parent and child.
Second, the said relationship
must be in the direct line
Third, the relationship must be
by blood (grandfather killed a
grandson, a mother killing a son,
a son killing a father)

Q: So a father killed an illegitimate son.
A: It is parricide. Although the
crime is based on legitimate
relationship, the exception is in
case of children, whether legitimate
or illegitimate.

Q: A brother killed another brother. Is the
crime committed parricide?
A: No, the crime committed is murder
or homicide, as the case may be and
not parricide because the
relationship between a brother and
another brother is in the collateral
line and not in the direct line.
Q: What if a stepfather killed his stepson?
A: The stepfather is not liable for
parricide. It can either be murder or
homicide, as the case may be, because
their relationship is not based on
blood.
Again, the relationship must
be legitimate, in the direct
line and by blood.

In Parricide, the circumstance which
will qualify is the relationship,
therefore relationship between the
offender and the offended party must be
stated in the information.
Q: Let us say that the husband killed the
wife. In the information filed by the
fiscal, the fiscal failed to state that the
husband is the legal husband of the said
victim. However, during trial, by virtue of
a certificate of marriage, it was proven
that the accused was the legal husband of
the said victim-wife. Can the husband be
convicted of parricide?
A: No, the husband cannot be
convicted of parricide. This is
because the relationship was not
alleged in the information although
proven during trial. Since the
relationship between the husband and
the wife is not alleged in the
information, although proven during
trial, he cannot be convicted of
parricide. It can only be murder or
homicide, as the case may be.

Q: What if a husband wanted to kill his
wife. So he has a mistress, the husband
wanted to dispose his wife. However, he
cannot do it on his own and so the husband
hired a high-profile killer, he paid the
man 100,000 pesos to kill the wife. And so
the man conducted surveillance on the wife,
checked the itinerary of the wife and so
when the wife was getting out of the
grocery, here comes the killer. The killer,
on board a motorcycle, went directly to the
wife, shot her and off he went. The wife
died. What crime/crimes is/are committed?
A: The husband is liable for
principal but said killer is liable
for murder. Conspiracy will not lie.
Although they conspired for the
killing of the wife, the husband,
being the principal by inducement and
the killer, being the principal by
direct participation, conspiracy will
not lie. This is because the
circumstance which qualifies
parricide, the relationship, is
personal to the husband and cannot be
transferred to a stranger. That is
why there will two informations
filed, one is parricide as against
the husband as a principal by
inducement and the other one is
murder as against the killer.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ART 247 DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES
INFLICTED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
ELEMENTS:
1. That a legally married person or a
parent surprises his spouse or his
daughter, the latter under 18 years
of age and living with him, in the
act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person.
2. That the said legally married
spouse he or she kills any or both
of them or inflicts upon any or
both of them any serious physical
injury in the act or immediately
thereafter
3. That he has not promoted or
facilitated the prostitution of his
wife or daughter, or that he or she
has not consented to the infidelity
of the other spouse.

FIRST REQUISITE/ELEMENT:
Under the first element, it is
required that the legally married
spouse surprises the other spouse
while in the actual act of sexual
intercourse with another person. So
note the surprising must be in the
actual act of sexual intercourse and
NOT before, NOT after.
If you will read the book of Reyes,
Justice Laurel, naghinanakitsya.
Sabinya, Why? Why should it be in
the actual act of sexual intercourse,
you already saw your spouse with
another man, why wait for the sexual
intercourse? You know it will happen,
why wait for it for Article 247? This
is what Justice Laurel said. But the
Supreme Court said no, the surprising
must be in the act of sexual
intercourse with another person. Not
before, not after, not during the
preliminaries.

SECOND REQUISITE/ELEMENT:
The second element requires that the
said legally married spouse kills
any or both of them or he inflicts
serious physical injuries upon any
or both of them. Again, while in the
act of sexual intercourse or
immediately thereafter. There is no
question as to the actual act of
sexual intercourse but what about
immediately thereafter?
What does the phrase immediately
thereafter mean?
The Supreme Court said,
immediately thereafter means
there must not be lapse of time
between the surprising and the
killing or infliction of serious
physical injuries. Therefore the
surprising and the killing or
infliction of serious physical
injuries must be a continuing
process.

Q: What if the husband arrived home and the
wife arrived home from the market. She was
about to go the kitchen when suddenly, she
heard voices in the masters bedroom and so
she opened the said masters bedroom and
saw her legal husband in actual sexual
intercourse with another person. Notice
that the law says, other person which
means it could be a man or a woman. Upon
seeing that, the wife who still has a knife
in the basket, immediately went towards the
husband and stabbed him. The woman fled.
The husband died. Of what crime would you
prosecute the said wife? The wife is liable
for parricide under Article 246 for having
killed her husband. If you are the counsel
of the said wife, what defense would you
put up in order to free your client from
criminal liability?
A: Article 247 or Death under
exceptional circumstances. The
Supreme Court said that Article 247
is not a felony. Article 247 is a
privilege, in fact is it a defense.
If Article 247 is invoked, the
accused is free from criminal
liability. It is an absolutory cause,
an exempting circumstance. The
Supreme Court said that the penalty
stated therein, destierro, is not
really a penalty on the legally
married spouse who killed the other
spouse. It is not a penalty but it is
more of a guard, a privilege for him
so that he may be free from any
retaliation of any of the family of
the victim. So destierro here is not
really a penalty. Again, Article 247
is not a felony. It is a defense, a
privilege; it is an exempting
circumstance or an absolutory cause.

PEOPLE v. ABARCA
In this case, there was this student
reviewing for the bar. There were already
rumors that his wife was having an affair.
So one time, he went home unannounced. Upon
his arrival, he saw his wife in sexual
intercourse with another man. The man
jumped out the window. The husband wanted
to kill the man but he had no weapon at the
time. The man went away. It took the
husband an hour before he was able to find
a weapon and upon finding a weapon, he went
directly to the whereabouts of the man, the
lover of the wife and killed the man. It
CRIMINAL LAW 2


took him one hour. The killing took place
an hour, not in the actual sexual
intercourse, but is it immediately
thereafter? Despite the fact that one hour
had lapsed, would it be within the meaning
of immediately thereafter?

The Supreme Court, in this special case,
said yes. According to Supreme Court, when
the law uses the phrase immediately
thereafter; that the killing or the
infliction of serious physical injuries
must take place immediately thereafter, the
law did not say that the killing must be
done instantly. According to the Supreme
Court, it suffices that the proximate cause
for the said killing is the said pain and
the look on the said husband upon chancing
his wife in the basest act of infidelity.
This is an exceptional case.

Why an exceptional case?
Because henceforth, after People
v Abarca, the Supreme Court has
already interpreted immediately
thereafter, as there must be no
lapse of time between the
surprising and the killing. The
surprising and the killing must
be continuous.
Legal luminaries say that this is
an exceptional case because the
husband was reviewing for the bar
which is why he was given this
special _. Because in all other
cases after this, the Supreme
Court is strict in implementing
immediately thereafter. The
Supreme Court is strict because
this is not a felony, it is a
privilege therefore it must be
strictly interpreted and not
liberally interpreted in favor of
the accused.
Look that if the injury inflicted
by the legally married spouse on
the lover or the other spouse, is
less serious physical injuries or
slight physical injuries, he is
totally free from criminal
liability. Liability will only
come in if the other spouse is
killed or inflicted with serious
physical injuries.
With regards to the liability of
the accused to the injuries
sustained by other people, liable
to physical injuries through
negligence, as the case maybe.
There is no intent to kill the
other victims.
Note that the SC ruled that
inflicting death under
exceptional circumstances is NOT
murder.

ART 248 MURDER

ELEMENTS:
1. That a person was killed
2. That the accused killed him
3. That the killing was attended by any
of the qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Article 248
4. That the killing is not parricide or
infanticide

Murder is committed by any person who
shall kill another person which will not
amount to parricide or infanticide and
the killing is attended by the following
qualifying circumstances:

1. 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 mutiny.
2. In consideration of 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 calamities
enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic, or
any other public calamities.
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 (RA 7659)
These are the qualifying
circumstances for murder (See Article
14-aggravating circumstances, Book I)
Know the elements in Article 14.
All of these are aggravating
circumstance under Article 14. Note,
in order to qualify a killing to
murder, only one is necessary.
If in the information, A killed B and it
was attended by treachery, in
consideration of a price, reward or
promise, by means of a motor vehicle, so
there are three qualifying
CRIMINAL LAW 2


circumstances. Only one will suffice to
qualify the murder to killing, all the
other aggravating circumstances will be
considered not as qualifying
circumstances but as mere generic
aggravating circumstances.

ART 249 HOMICIDE

ELEMENTS:
1. That a person was killed
2. That the accused killed him without
any justifying circumstance
3. That the accused had the intention to
kill, which is presumed
4. That the killing was not attended by
any of the qualifying circumstances of
murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide.
When a person kills another person, and
it is not attended by any qualifying
circumstance under Article 248, the
killing is considered as Homicide under
Article 249.

ART 250 PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED OR
ATTEMPTED PARRICIDE, MURDER OR HOMICIDE

ART 251 DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTOUS
AFFRAY
What is a tumultuous affray?
A tumultuous affray is a commotion,
wherein people fight in a tumultuous
or confused manner such that it
cannot be ascertained or determined
who has killed the victim or who has
inflicted physical injuries on the
victim.

ELEMENTS:
1. That there be several persons
2. That they did not compose groups
organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other
reciprocally
3. That these several persons quarreled
and assaulted one another in a
confused and tumultuous manner
4. That someone was killed in the course
of the affray
5. That it cannot be ascertained who
actually killed the deceased
6. That the person or persons who
inflicted serious physical injuries or
who used violence can be identified.

Article 251, death in a tumultuous
affray, is committed when there are
several persons who do not compose
groups which have been organized to
assault and quarrel with one another
reciprocally, assaulted and attacked
each other reciprocally and in the
course of the affray, someone is killed.
And it cannot be ascertained or
identified or determined who killed the
victim, then the person who inflicted
serious physical injuries or those who
used violence against the said victim
can be identified.

Someone is killed. Note that he can be
any person; he can be someone from the
affray, he can be a mere passerby, he
can be just someone watching the affray,
so long as he is killed in the affray
and it cannot be ascertained who killed
him, then the person who inflicted
serious physical injuries on him is
liable if he can be identified. If this
person cannot be identified, then the
person who used any kind of violence
against him shall be criminally liable.

ART 252 PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a tumultuous affray
2. That a participant or some
participants thereof suffer serious
physical injuries or physical injuries
of a less serious nature only.
3. That the person responsible thereof
cannot be identified
4. That all those who appear to have
used violence upon the person of the
offended party are known.

Note that the victim here must be a
participant. The law is specific. The
participants must be the one injured
with serious physical injuries or less
serious physical injuries. Not slight
physical injuries.

Article 252, we have physical injuries
inflicted in tumultuous affray, is
committed when in a tumultuous affray, a
participant has suffered serious
physical injuries or less serious
physical injuries and it cannot be
ascertained who inflicted these injuries
but the person who used violence on the
victim can be identified or determined.
If the injury caused to the victim is
only slight physical injuries, then no
one is liable because if a person
engaged in a tumultuous affray or
participated therein, the law presumes
that it is __ therefore no one is liable
if the injuries sustained is only slight
physical injury and it cannot be
determined who inflicted the said slight
physical injury on the victim.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Q: There was this tumultuous affray,
several people were attacking and fighting
each other. Suddenly, here comes a balot
vendor. He saw the affray. He was just
there, watching, suddenly he fell on the
ground. He died because of a stab wound.
Now, it cannot be ascertained who stabbed
him, so no one saw who stabbed him. Who
will be held criminally liable?
A: Any person who inflicted serious
physical injuries on him. No one has
seen also who had inflicted serious
physical injuries against him. The
any person who inflicted any violence
against him shall be criminally
liable.

Q: There was this tumultuous affray,
several people were attacking and fighting
each other. Suddenly, here comes a balot
vendor who saw the affray and he was just
there, watching. While he was watching the
affray, one of the participants of the
affray, X, saw him and went directly to the
balot vendor and stabbed him twice. The
balot vendor died. What crime is committed?
Is it under Article 251, Death in
tumultuous affray?
A: No. It is murder or homicide as
the case may be. This is because the
perpetrator of the crime is
identified, ascertained or
determined. Death in a tumultuous
affray under Article 251 can only be
charged if the actual perpetrator of
the crime who killed the victim
cannot be ascertained or identified.

ART 253 GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
TWO ACTS PUNISHABLE:
I.By assisting another to commit suicide,
whether the suicide is consummated or
not; or
II.By lending assistance to another to
commit suicide to the extent of doing
the killing himself.

Giving assistance to suicide binigyan
mong rope; binigyan mo ng poison.
A friend wanted to commit suicide, he
doesnt know the way, the means and you
agreed with him, you assisted and gave
the best poison in the world. So you
assisted the said friend in committing
suicide. Note that if a person assisted
in committing suicide by giving him
poison, the initiative must come from
him. The desire to kill himself must
come from the victim. He wanted to
commit suicide and you merely provide
assistance in the commission of suicide.
B wanted to commit suicide, here comes
A, A gave assistance to B but B
survived. B did not die. Only A is
criminally liable because suicide or
attempt to commit suicide is not a
felony within Philippine jurisdiction.
It is only the one who assisted to
commit suicide is criminally liable but
not the person who attempted to commit
suicide.

Q: What if a terminally sick person with
cancer, he was lying in bed, almost
lifeless and it was only a machine that was
giving life to his body. Now, the mother of
the patient and she took pity of her son
because the son was agonizing and was only
breathing through the said machine. The
mother wanted to finish the suffering of
the son and at the time she visited the
hospital, she turned off the machine and
the son died. He killed her son out of
mercy. So it is mercy-killing or
euthanasia. Is the mother liable for giving
assistance to suicide?
A: No because the initiative to kill
did not come from the sai person who
was ill. The crime committed by the
mother is parricide for killing her
son. If it were other person, it was
murder. Evidently, it was murder
because there was evident
premeditation; there was thinking
before doing the act of mercy-
killing.

ART 254 DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS/ ILLEGAL
DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender discharges a
firearm against or at another person
2. That the offender has no intention to
kill that person

Q: What if there was this park. The park
was full of people and then suddenly, here
comes X, X went to the park, put out his
firearm, and he fired shots in the air.
A: X committed Alarms and Scandals
under Article 155. When he fired
shots in the air, his intention was
to cause disturbance of public peace
and tranquility. The firearm was not
aimed towards any person.

Q: What if X went to a public place full of
people. X saw his enemy, Y, and so to
threaten Y, X pulled out his firearm, aimed
the firearm at Y in order to threaten him.
X discharges the firearm, however, with no
intention to kill Y. His only intention is
to threaten Y and Y was not killed. What
crime is committed?
CRIMINAL LAW 2


A: The crime committed is Article
254, Illegal Discharge of Firearms.
Illegal discharge of firearms is
committed by any person who aims and
discharges the firearm to any other
person absent the intent to kill the
said person. The purpose is merely to
threaten the said person.

Q: What if in the same public place, X went
there and pulled out his firearm because he
saw his enemy, Y. He aimed the gun at Y
with intent to kill, because he wanted to
kill his enemy. However, Y saw it and was
able to avoid. What crime is committed?
A: X committed attempted homicide or
murder, as the case may be. Although
Y was not hit, the fact that the said
firearm was discharged with intent to
kill, it is already attempted
homicide or murder, as the case may
be.

Q: What if in the said merry-making, there
were so many people. X went there. He saw
his enemy Y and went directly to Y, took
out his gun and he poked the gun without
discharging. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is other light
threats. So here, threatening another
with a gun, without discharging, only
poking. It is other light threats. It
is not grave threats, it is not light
threats. It is only other light
threats, arrestomenor.
So kapag discharge, pinutok it could
either be alarms and scandals, illegal
discharge of firearms or attempted or
frustrated murder or homicide, as the
case may be.
If no discharging, only poking, or
threatening with a firearm, it is only
other light threats

ARTICLE 255 INFANTICIDE
Infanticide is the killing of a child
less than three (3) days old or less than
seventy-two (72) hours. So in the case of
infanticide, it is the age of the victim
that is controlling. The victim, the child,
the infant, must be less than three (3)
days old. He must be less than seventy-two
hours. If it is only three (3) days old or
above it is any other crime but not
infanticide.
Who is the offender in Infanticide?
The offender can be the parents, the
mother, the father, the grandparents or it
can be any other person so long as the
child is less than three (3) days old, it
is infanticide. It is the age that is
controlling, not the relationship.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if there was this woman and this
woman gave birth to a child. After giving
birth to the child while the child was only
a day old, she already wanted to kill the
child in order to conceal her dishonor.
However, she could not kill the child by
herself and so she asked a favor from a
friend. And so the friend arrived and both
the mother and the said friend killed the
child, a day old, by suffocating the said
child with a big pillow. The child less
than three days old, died. What crime/s
is/are committed?
A: The mother is liable for
infanticide. The said stranger
friend is also liable for
infanticide. There was conspiracy on
them. This time conspiracy on life,
both of them are liable for
infanticide under only one
information. Isang information langsa
court and that is infanticide. Both
the mother and the friend are
conspirators of infanticide.

Now let us say that the mother is
convicted. If the mother is convicted, the
penalty imposed by the law as provided in
Article 255 is equivalent to parricide
which is reclusion perpetua to death. On
the other hand, if the stranger is
convicted under Article 255, the penalty to
be imposed is equivalent to murder
therefore, also reclusion perpetua to
death. But note the charge is that he is
guilty of infanticide.
The fact that the said mother killed
the child, less than three days old, in
order to conceal dishonorwill mitigate the
criminal liability of the mother. NOTE:The
penalty will be lowered not by one, but by
two degrees, from reclusion perpetua to
death, the penalty of the mother will only
now become prision mayor.

Q: What if let us say that the killer of
the less than three day old child is the
maternal grandparents. The grandparents
conspired in the killing in order to
conceal the dishonor of their daughter.
What is the effect of the concealment of
the dishonor?
A: The concealment of the dishonor
will also mitigate the criminal
liability of the maternal
grandparents that is one degree
lower. So sa mother, two degrees
lower, from reclusion perpetua to
death magigingprision mayor. Sa
maternal grandparents one degree
lower lang, from reclusion perpetua
to death it will now become reclusion
temporal. Whatever it is,
CRIMINAL LAW 2


concealment of dishonor is akin to a
privilege mitigating circumstance
because the lowering of the penalty
is not merely by periods but by
degrees. So it is akin to a privilege
mitigating circumstance.
Q: So what if in the same problem I gave,
the woman gave birth to the child and
wanted to kill the child but this time the
infant is already three days old and the
child was killed by the said mother and the
friend. What are the crimes committed?
A: The mother is liable for
parricidewhile the stranger/friend is
liable for murder. And this time no
amount of concealment of dishonor
will mitigate the criminal liability
of the mother. So there lies a
difference between parricide and
infanticide if the offender is the
parent or the mother of the child.
JUST REMEMBER: If the child is less than
three days old or less than 72 hours, IT IS
INFANTICIDE. It is the age that controls.
If the child is three days old and above,
PARRICIDE OR MURDER, as the case may be.
It is obvious murder because a three day
old child or infant is totally defenseless.

ARTICLE 256, 257, 258 AND 259 ARE ALL ABOUT
ABORTION
ARTICLE 256 INTENTIONAL ABORTION
ARTICLE 257 UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
ARTICLE 258 ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE
WOMAN HERSELF OR BY HER PARENTS
ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION PRACTICED BY A
PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF
ABORTIVES
Note that there are four (4) articles on
abortion but there are only two (2) type of
abortion:
1.) INTENTIONAL ABORTION
2.) UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
Because the abortion practiced by the woman
herself or the mother and the abortion
practiced by a physician or midwife are all
intentional abortion. So in effect, we
only have to kinds of abortion. We have
intentional abortion and unintentional
abortion.
ABORTION is the willful killing of a
fetus from the mothers womb or the violent
expulsion of a fetus from the maternal womb
which results in the death of the fetus.

INTENTION ABORTION is committed in three
(3) ways:
1.) By using violence upon the person of
the pregnant woman resulting to
abortion.
2.) Without violence, by acting without
violence, without the consent of the
woman by administering aborting drugs
or beverages without the consent of
the pregnant woman.
3.) By acting without violence, with the
consent of the pregnant woman that is
by administering aborting drugs or
beverages to a pregnant woman this
time with her consent.
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION can only be
committed in one (1) way and that is by
exerting physical violence on a pregnant
woman. And in result thereof, an
unintentional abortion was suffered.
In unintentional abortion the force
employed was physically exerted on a
pregnant woman. The intention of the
offender is not against the baby or the
fetus but against the mother. His
intention is against the mother but in so
doing, since the mother is pregnant, the
baby/fetus was also aborted. So abortion
was unintentionally caused.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if there were two college
students, a boyfriend and girlfriend. The
girlfriend became pregnant and the
boyfriend said, I am not yet ready. We are
still so young so I cannot marry you. And
so by reason thereof the girlfriend said,
how about my situation? I am already
pregnant. And so by reason thereof, they
both decided in order to conceal the
dishonor of the said female student, they
both decided to abort the fetus. So what
the boyfriend did was he went to the
sidewalks of Quiapo and bought there
aborting beverages and he administered the
same to the said woman. And the female
student drank the aborting beverage and the
fetus died. What crime/s is/are committed?
A: In so far as the boyfriend is
concerned, the crime committed is
intentional abortion under Article
256. In so far as the said female
student is concerned, the crime
committed is also intentional abortion
but it is under Article 258 Abortion
practiced by the woman herself or by
her parents. So, both of them are
liable for intentional abortion.

Q: But what if despite the fact that the
female student had already taken or drank
the abortive beverage still the fetus
survived? Malakasangkapitngbatasa maternal
womb. What crime is committed if any by the
boyfriend and the girlfriend? Is there a
crime such as frustrated intentional
abortion?
A: YES. There is a crime such as
frustrated intentional abortion.
Here, the said woman has already
taken the said abortive beverage. He
has already performed all the acts
CRIMINAL LAW 2


necessary to consume the crime of
abortion however, abortion did not
result because of causes independent
of their will. Malakas ang kapit ng
bata sa maternal womb and so the baby
survived. And so, they are both
liable for frustrated intentional
abortion.

IS THERE A CRIME SUCH AS FRUSTRATED
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION?
NO. This time there is no
crime such as frustrated
unintentional abortion. Because in
unintentional abortion, the intention
is against the woman and abortion
only happens unintentional.

ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So lets say a man exerted physical
violence against the woman who happens to
be his enemy. The said woman was severely
hurt however, the baby was not hurt. The
fetus inside the tummy did not die. What
is the crime committed by the said man?
A: Only serious physical Injuries
against the woman. No crimes against
the fetus because there was no intent
in so far as the fetus is concerned.

Q: But what if in the said problem, the man
inflicted violence on the pregnant woman
who happens to be his enemy. Lets say he
kicked and moved the said woman severely
and by reason thereof the pregnant woman
was 1:44:17. What crime/s is/are committed?
A: The crime committed against the
woman is serious physical injuries.
As against the fetus, the crime
committed is unintentional abortion.
Now, it resulted from one single act
therefore it will result to a complex
crime of SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
WITH UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION under
ARTICLE 48 OF BOOK 1. It is a complex
crime. It is a single act resulting
to two less grave felonies.

Q: What if a husband arrived home at 5
oclock in the morning. He saw his wife
looking at the children and is making
breakfast. Suddenly the cellphone of the
wife rang, the pregnant wife answered the
cellphone and she began giggling. When she
began giggling, the husband took the
cellphone from the said wife and listened
to the cellphone. He heard a voice of a
man on the other line of the cellphone.
Since he heard the voice of the man and he
just arrived from work, he became jealous
and with the use of a knife he stabbed the
wife. The wife died and the fetus died.
What crime/s is/are committed?
A: In so far as the wife is
parricide. In so far as the baby is
unintentional abortion. Again, it
resulted from one single act of
stabbing the wife therefore it will
give rise to a COMPLEX CRIME OF
PARRICIDE WITH UNINTENTIONAL
ABORTION. There is a crime against
the wife which is parricide and
against the fetus which is
unintentional abortion resulting from
a single act therefore, it is
parricide with unintentional
abortion.

ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION PRACTICED BY A
PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF
ABORTIVES

UNDER ARTICLE 259, there is another act
punished and that is dispensing of
abortives. Dispensing of abortives is
committed by a pharmacist who shall
dispense an abortive without a prescription
from a physician. The mere act of
dispensing the said abortives without
prescription from a physician will hold the
said pharmacist criminally liable.

ARTICLE 260 - DUEL
ARTICLE 261 CHALLENGING TO A DUEL
What is a duel?
A duel is a combat with deadly
weapons concerted between two or more
persons who have decided or agreed to
fight.

ELEMENTS OF A DUEL:
1.) It is necessary that the offenders
that there was an agreement to engage
in combat or in a fight.
2.) There must be two or more seconds for
each combatant.
3.) The firearms or the arms to be used
as well as the other terms of the
combat must be agreed upon by the
said seconds.

Under Article 260 - Duel, there are three
acts punished in a duel:
1.) By killing ones adversary in a duel.
2.) By inflicting physical injuries upon
ones adversary.
3.) By making a combat by merely entering
into a duel.

So under Article 260, the persons who are
liable are the combatants and adversaries,
those who engage in a duel and
yungkanilangalalay, yung seconds.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Under Article 261- Challenging to a duel,
there are also three acts punished:
1.) By challenging another to a duel.
2.) By inciting another to give or accept
a challenge to a duel.
3.) By scoffing at or decrying another
publicly for having refused to accept
a challenge to fight a duel.

Under Article 261, the persons criminally
liable are both the challenger and the
instigator.
NOTE that if it is not a duel or there is
no agreement to combat or to fight, lets
say there was no agreement between A and B
to fight and yet they fought and B died,
the crime committed is HOMICIDE because
Article 260 and 261 only applies if there
is an agreement to fight, to a duel or a
combat.

CRIMES OF PHYSICAL INJURIES:

ARTICLE 262 MUTILATION
Mutilation is the clipping off or
chopping off of a particular part of a body
which is not susceptible to grow again.
Two kinds of mutilation:
1.) By intentionally depriving another of
a part of his body which is an
essential part for reproduction.
2.) By intentionally committing other
mutilation that is, by depriving him
of any other part of his body with
intent to deprive him of such part of
his body.

Under the first kind, that is mutilating
an organ essential for reproduction, is
otherwise known as CASTRATION. You will
know that the penalty is even higher than
homicide. Killing a person is only
punishable by reclusion perpetua while
castrating a person is punishable by
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
Because if you are castrated it is as if
you are already killed. Thats why it has
a higher penalty.
Mutilation is a felony which cannot
be committed out of imprudence or
negligence. Because the law requires
that there must be the deliberate
intent to mutilate, the deliberate
intent to clip off, to severe a
particular part of the body of a
person. Absent that deliberate
intent, any person who loses a part
of his body, it can only be serious
physical injuries but not mutilation.
So in mutilation it is always
committed with deliberate intent or
dolo to mutilate. Absent that, it is
serious physical injury.
ILLUSTRATION
Q: Lets say A and B were engaged in a
fight, they were both fighting and A was
losing and so he took out his bolo. His
intention was to cut the body of B in order
to defeat him however, B tried to prevent
him and placed his hand and by reason
thereof, the right hand of B was severed
from his body. Is the crime committed
mutilation?
A: NO. It is not mutilation because
there was no deliberate intent to clip
off or to severe the right hand of B.
His intention was to attack or to stab
B and in so doing, it resulted to the
loss of an arm therefore, the CRIME
COMMITTED IS SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES. Physical injuries can either
be serious physical injuries, less
serious physical injuries or slight
physical injuries.
PHYSICAL INJURIES is the act of wounding,
beating or assaulting another with no
intent to kill. It also involves the act
of knowingly administering injurious
beverages or substances absent intent to
kill. So always there is no intent to kill
in order to amount to physical injuries
because even if the injury is only slight
or no injury at all but if there is intent
to kill, it is already in the stage of
homicide. So there must be no intent to
kill.
It also includes the act of knowing
administering injurious substances absent
intent to kill.

So always, there is no intent to kill in
order to amount to physical injuries.

Because even if the injury is only SLIGHT
or no injury at all, but there is intent7
to kill, it is already in the attempted
stage of Homicide. So there must be no
intent to kill.

ARTICLE 263 SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

Under Art. 263, the serious physical
injuries punished are:

1. When the injured person becomes
insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind
in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted.
2. When the injured person:
a. Loses the use of speech or
the power to heal or to
smell, or looses an eye, a
hand, a foot, an arm or a
leg; or
b. Loses the use of any such
member, or
CRIMINAL LAW 2


c. Becomes incapacitated for
the work in which he was
therefore habitually
engaged in the consequence
of the physical injuries
inflicted
3. When the injured:
a. Becomes deformed
b. Loses any other member of
his body; or
c. Becomes ill or
incapacitated for the
performance of the work in
which he was habitually
engaged for more than 90
days, in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted
4. When the injured person becomes ill
or incapacitated for labor for more
that 30 days (but must not be more
than 90 days), as a result of the
physical injuries inflicted.
Note: All of this, all of the enumeration
mentioned in Art. 263 are already
considered serious physical injury. If a
person becomes ill or incapacitated for
more than 30 days, it is already serious
physical injuries. It is already divided
into categories for purposes of penalty.
Because they differ in penalty. But the
moment the said person, by reason of the
said injury becomes ill or incapacitated
for labor for more than 30 days, it is
already, serious physical injury.

So the FIRST CATEGORYis, that the injured
person becomes INSANE.

INSANITY refers to a mental disease by
reason thereof a person can no longer
appreciate the consequences of his act.

IMBECILITY is when a person is already
advanced in age, yet he has only the mind
of a 2-7 year old child.

IMPOTENCY includes the inability to
copulate or sterility.

BLINDNESS requires loss of vision of both
eyes by reason of the injury inflicted.
Mere weakness in vision is not
contemplated.

Under the SECOND CATEGORY:

The offender loses the use of speech or the
power to heal or to smell, or looses an
eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg.
- So if it is only an eye which has
been lost, it is serious physical
injury but under the Second Category
already. The penalty is lesser than
that of the First Category.

Under the THIRD CIRCUMSTANCE/CATEGORY:

When the offender becomes DEFORMED.

So what is this so-called DEFORMITY which
will result in serious physical injury?

Q: A hacked B with the use of a bolo on
his stomach. So there was a big mark on his
stomach despite the fact that it was
already healed, there was a big scar on the
said stomach. The doctor said that the said
injury requires medical treatment for 2
weeks. What crime is committed? Is it
serious physical injury or is it less
serious physical injury?

A: The crime committed is only LESS
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY. There was no
deformity. Although there was a big
scar on the stomach, it would not
amount to deformity. An injury in
order to amount to deformity which
would bring about serious physical
injury must result to a physical
ugliness on a person. There are 3
requisites befor deformity may be
considered as a serious physical
injury:

1. There must be physical ugliness
produced on a body of a person
2. The said deformity should be
permanent and definite
abnormality and it would not heal
through the natural healing
process
3. The said deformity must be
located in a conspicuous and
visible place

EXAMPLE OF The said deformity should be
permanent and definite abnormality and it
would not heal through the natural healing
process:

A boxed B. He lost his 2 front teeth
permanently. What crime was committed?

A: The crime committed was SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURY. Because it is a
deformity even if the doctor says
that he can still replace it, the
fact still remains that it cannot be
healed through a natural healing
process.

A boxed B, A lost another tooth.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


A: The crime committed will LESS
SERIOUS OR SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
depending on the medical attendance.
Because it cannot be seen. It is not
located in a visible or conspicuous
place.

A poured muriatic acid on the face of
another person whom he hates and so because
of that, the face of that person becomes
deformed, it became ugly. Later, she went
on a plastic surgeon. When he got out of
the plastic surgery clinic, she now looks
like Vilma Santos. Is the accused person
liable for serious physical injuries?

A: Yes. Even if she became prettier
than before, it is still a fact that
by reason of the said injury it
cannot be healed through the natural
healing process. It will require the
attendance of medical surgeon.
Therefore, it is considered as a
deformity.

If the said physical ugliness is not
located on a visible or conspicuous place,
it would be depending on the deployment of
medical attendance.

Q: When is serious physical injuries
qualified?

A: Serious physical injuries is
qualified:
1. If it is committed against any of
the persons enumerated in
Parricide. That is when serious
physical injuries is committed
against the father, mother,
child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate; legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant and
legitimate spouse of the accused.
2. If in the infliction of serious
physical injuries, it is attended
by any of the qualifying
circumstances for murder. That
is, if it is done with treachery,
evident premeditation, the crime
committed is qualified serious
physical injuries.

ARTICLE 264 ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS
SUBSTANCE OR BEVERAGES

ELEMENTS:
1. The offender inflicted serious
physical injuries upon another
2. It was done by knowingly
administering to him any injurious
substances or beverages or by taking
advantage of his weakness of mind or
cruelty
3. He had no intent to kill

ARTICLE 265 LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES

LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES is
committed if by reason of the injury
inflicted, the offended party requires
medical attendance or he cannot perform the
work with which he is habitually engaged
for a period of 10-30 days. So the
requirement of medical attendance or his
incapacity to do his work for a period of
10-30 days, it will bring about less
serious physical injury.

Q: What circumstances will QUALIFY LESS
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES?

1. When there is manifest intent to
insult or offend the injured person
2. When there are circumstances adding
ignominy to the offense
3. When the victim is the offenders
parents, ascendants, guardians,
curators, or teachers
4. When the victim is a person of rank
or person in authority, provided the
crime is not direct assault

So the crime committed here, with the
attendance of these circumstances qualify
less serious physical injuries.

ARTICLE 266 SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
MALTREATMENT

3 KINDS OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
MALTREATMENT:
1. Physical injuries which incapacitated
the offended party for labor from 1
to 9 days, or required medical
attendance during the same period
2. Physical injuries which did not
prevent the offended party from
engaging in his habitual work or
which did not require medical
attendance
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed
without causing any injury

Maltreatment of another by deed without
causing any injury is the act of INFLICTING
PAIN ON ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT CAUSING ANY
WOUND OR INJURY.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


CASE: PEOPLE VS MAPALO (in Book I)
Let us say that A was walking. Here
comes B. B used a lead pipe, he went to A
and hit the head of A with a lead pipe.
Thereafter, he ran away. The medical
certificate showed that the head of A did
not sustain any injury. He was charged with
wttempted homicide. Supreme Court said, the
crime committed is ILL-TREATMENT OF ANOTHER
BY DEED, a form of slight physical injury
under Art. 266.

According to the Supreme Court, there
was pain inflicted on A, but there was no
injury and there was no intent to kill
because the said offender immediately ran
away after hitting him a single time. So
the crime committed is MALTREATMENT OF
ANOTHER PARTY.

ARTICLE 266-A RAPE

RAPE is now a crime against person;
it is no longer a crime against chastity.
Because of the amendment brought about by
RA 8353 THE ANTI-RAPE LAW.

2 TYPES OF RAPE/HOW RAPE IS COMMITTED:
1. By a man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman
2. Sexual Assault

There is RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE when a
man has carnal knowledge of a woman against
her will.

ELEMENTS OF A RAPE BY A MAN WHO SHALL HAVE
CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF A WOMAN :
1. Offender is a man
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of the
woman against her will
3. Such act is accomplished under any of
the following circumstance:
a. Through force, threat, or
intimidation
b. When the offended party is
deprived of reason or is
otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of
authority
d. When the offended party is under
12 years of age or is demented,
even though the circumstances
mentioned above be present

FIRST - OFFENDER IS A MAN
So in rape by carnal knowledge, who is the
offender? A MAN.
Who is the offendeaprty? A WOMAN.
The law is SPECIFIC.

SECOND - OFFENDER HAD CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF
THE WOMAN AGAINST HER WILL"
The offender has carnal knowledge of a
woman against her will and it is committed
by using force, threat, or intimidation.
When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious.

Q: What if the woman was sleeping when a
man had a carnal knowledge of the said
woman. Is it rape by carnal knowledge?

A: Yes. The Supreme Court said that
the woman who is sleeping is
unconscious.

Q: What if the woman is half asleep when
the carnal knowledge was done by the said
man? Is it still rape?

A: Yes, said by the Supreme Court.
The woman was unconscious.

THIRD:

A is 11 years old. He is cohabiting with a
man who is 20 years old. They are
luvingtgether as if they are husband and
wife. Of course, they had carnal knowledge.
The man is liable for STATUTORY RAPE. The
number of times that he had carnal
knowledge of the said woman, that is the
number of the counts of rape. So if he had
carnal knowledge of the woman 5 times
during the time that they were together 5
counts of statutory rape. That is because
the child, the victim, is below 12 years of
age. Insofar as criminal law is concerned,
she does not have a mind of her own, she
cannot give a valid consent.

Q: What if, so the law requires that the
said act of carnal knowledge must be with
the use of force, threat, or intimidation,
a father raped his daughter. The daughter
did not put up a fight, the father did not
use force, threat, or intimidation in the
said carnal knowledge of a daughter. Is the
crime committed rape?

A: Yes. The crime committed is rape.
It is INCESTUOUS RAPE. In case of
incestuous rape, it is the
overpowering and overbearing moral
influence or moral ascendency of an
ascendant over a descendant which
takes place of force, threat, or
intimidation. That is why in case of
inceuous rape, force, threat, or
intimidation is not indispensable; it
is not necessary. Because it is the
overpowering and overbearing moral
influence or moral ascendency which a
CRIMINAL LAW 2


father has over his daughter which
takes place of force, threat or
intimidation.

Q: What if A and B are lovers and then
suddenly B filed a case against A because
according to B, he was raped by her
boyfriend. In the course of the trial of
the case, the defense of the man was the
so-called, sweetheart defense theory.
According to him, We are sweet lovers.
Therefore according to him, it is
impossible for him to have raped her
because we are sweet lovers. Will said
sweetheart defense theory lie in his favor?

A: Supreme Court said, in case of
sweetheart defense theory, for it
to lie, mere oral testimonty will not
suffice. There must be documentary
evidence, memorabilia, picture, love
letters, etc. which would show that
indeed they are sweethearts
boyfriend & girlfriend or lovers. But
mind you, even the Supreme Court said
this, there was not a case wherein
the sweetheart defense theory has
acquitted a man.

Therefore, under any all circumstances
which involves the sweetheart defense
theory will not lie in favor of a man.
Because it does not mean that when you are
the sweetheart, you can no longer rape the
other person.

In Book I, there is no such thing as
FRUSTRATED RAPE. Rape admits only 2 stages:
ATTEMPTED RAPE and CONSUMMATED RAPE.

The reason is that a mere touch of an
erected penis on the labia or lips of a
womans genitalia will already consummate
rape.

It is not necessary that there be deep or
complete penetration. It is not necessary
that the vagina did lacerated. Mere touch
of the lips or the labia of a womans
genitalia already consummates rape.

Q: What if, what the erectile penis has
touched was the outer portion of genitalia,
that portion which became hairy during
puberty, you have to distinguish whether it
is acts of lasciviousness or attempted
rape.

A:
CASE: PEOPLE VS JALOSJOS

If when an erectile penis has touched
the outer portion of a womans
genitalia which becomes hairy during
puberty, if the intention of the said
offender is to lie, to have carnal
knowledge against the said woman, it
is attempted rape. But if in doing
so, the said man has no intention to
lie or to have carnal knowledge, that
is only ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS.

What about the other form of Rape RAPE BY
SEXUAL ASSAULT
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender commits an act of sexual
assault
2. The act of sexual assault is
committed by any of the following
means
a. By inserting his penis into
another persons mouth or anal
orifice, or
b. By inserting any instrument or
object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person
3. The act of sexual assault is
accomplished under any of the
following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation
b. When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious,
or
machination or grave abused of
authority
d. When the woman is under 12 years
of age or demented

*So what if what has been inserted is the
penis inside the mouth or the anal orifice,
before that would only amount to acts of
lasciviousness - before the passage of RA
8353.

*The law says that it must be an instrument
or object which was inserted in the
genitalia or in the anal orifice of another
person.

Q: What if it was the finger which was
inserted in the genitalia of a person? Is
it acts of lasciviousness or rape by sexual
assault?

A: Supreme Court said it is RAPE BY
SEXUAL ASSAULT. According to the
Supreme Court, it would be so weird
if what has been inserted is an
instrument or object, it would be
rape by sexual assault, but if it was
finger, it would be rape by acts of
lasciviousness. The finger is within
the mean of an instrument or object
insofar as rape by sexual assault is
concerned.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Q: In case of RAPE, what are the
circumstances which will qualify the
penalty?

A: In case of RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT,
the penalty is only PRISION MAYOR. It
is a bailable offense.
If it is a RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE,
note that the penalty is RECLUSION
PERPETUA. It is a non-bailable
offense

Q: In case of a RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE,
when is a penalty qualified?

A: Reclusion Perpetua to Death:
1. When rape is committed with the
use of a deadly weapon
2. When rape is committed by two or
more persons
3. When by reason or on occasion of
rape, the victim becomes insane
4. When rape is attempted and
homicide is committed

Q: What are the instances wherein the
penalty to be imposed is the capital
punishment of death, so the extreme penalty
of death?

1. When by reason or on the occasion of
rape, homicide is committed
2. When the victim is under 18 years of
age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the 3
rd
civil degree, or the
common law spouse of the victim
3. When the victim is under the custody
of the police or military authorities
or any penal institution
4. When the rape is committed in full
view of the spouse, the parent, any
of the children of the relative by
consanguinity within the 3
rd
civil
degree
5. When the victim is a religious and
gauged in legitimate religious
calling or vocation and he known to
be such by the offender before or
during the commission of the rape
6. When the victim of the rape is below
7 years of age
7. When the said offender knows that he
has been afflicted with HIV virus or
AIDS or any other sexually
transmissible disease and the virus
of the disease is transmitted to the
victim
8. When the said offender is a member of
the AFP or parliamentary units, the
PNP or any other member of the law
enforcement agency who took advantage
of his position in order to
facilitate the commission of the
crime
9. By reason or on the occasion of rape,
the said victim suffered permanent
physical mutilation or disability
10. When the offender knew that the
offended party or victim is pregnant
at the time of the commission of rape
11. 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

The presence of any of these circumstances
will bring about the imposition of the
maximum penalty of death. However, death is
lifted because of RA 9346 which prohibits
the imposition of death penalty.

In case of rape, PARDON will not extinguish
the criminal liability of the offender.
According to Art. 266, pardon will not
extinguish the criminal liability of the
offender. It is only through:
1. The offended woman may pardon the
offender through a subsequent valid
marriage, the effect of which would
be the extinction of the offenders
liability
2. The legal husband maybe pardoned by
forgiveness of the wife provided that
the marriage is not void ab initio

EXCEPTION: In case of MARITAL RAPE. If the
legal wife has forgiven or pardoned the
legal husband.

Q: When is there PRESUMPTION OF RESISTANCE?

A: If in the course of the commission
of rape, the said offended party has
performed any acts in any degree
amounting to resistance of rape or
when the said offended party cannot
give a valid consent.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN
ACT(VAWC)R.A.9262
Violenceagainstwomenandtheirchildren
-referstoanyactoraseriesofactscommittedby
any person against a woman who is his wife,
former wife, or against a woman with whom the
person has or had a sexual or dating relationship,
or with whom he has a common child, or against
herchildwhetherlegitimateorillegitimate,withinor
withoutthefamilyabode,whichresultinorislikely
toresultinphysical,sexual,psychologicalharmor
suffering, or economic abuse including threats of
CRIMINAL LAW 2


such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment
orarbitrarydeprivationofliberty.
Actsconsistingviolenceagainstwomenandchildren:
A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or
physicalharm;
B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in
nature,committedagainstawomanorherchild.Itincludes,
butisnotlimitedto:
a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of
lasciviousness,treatingawomanorherchildasa
sex object, making demeaning and sexually
suggestive remarks, physically attacking the
sexualpartsofthevictim'sbody,forcingher/himto
watch obscene publications and indecent shows
or forcing the woman or her child to do indecent
acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife
and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal home or
sleeptogetherinthesameroomwiththeabuser;
b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim
toengageinanysexualactivitybyforce,threatof
force, physical or other harm or threat of physical
orotherharmorcoercion;
c)Prostitutingthewomanorchild.
C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions
causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of
the victim such as but not limited to intimidation,
harassment,stalking,damagetoproperty,publicridiculeor
humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It
includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the
physical,sexualorpsychologicalabuseofamemberofthe
family to which the victim belongs, or to witness
pornographyinanyformortowitnessabusiveinjurytopets
or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to
custodyand/orvisitationofcommonchildren.
D."Economicabuse"referstoactsthatmakeorattemptto
makeawomanfinanciallydependentwhichincludes,butis
notlimitedtothefollowing:
1.withdrawaloffinancialsupportorpreventingthe
victim from engaging in any legitimate profession,
occupation, business or activity, except in cases
whereintheotherspouse/partnerobjectsonvalid,
seriousandmoralgroundsasdefinedinArticle73
oftheFamilyCode;
2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial
resources and the right to the use and enjoyment
of the conjugal, community or property owned in
common;
3.destroyinghouseholdproperty;
4.controllingthevictims'ownmoneyorproperties
or solely controlling the conjugal money or
properties.
Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children.- The
crime of violence against women and their children is
committedthroughanyofthefollowingacts:
(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her
child;
(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child
physicalharm;
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child
physicalharm;
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of
imminentphysicalharm;
(e)Attemptingtocompelorcompellingthewoman
or her child to engage in conduct which the
woman or her child has the right to desist from or
desistfromconductwhichthewomanorherchild
hastherighttoengagein,orattemptingtorestrict
orrestrictingthewoman'sorherchild'sfreedomof
movement or conduct by force or threat of force,
physical or other harm or threat of physical or
other harm, or intimidation directed against the
woman or child. This shall include, but not limited
to, the following acts committed with the purpose
oreffectofcontrollingorrestrictingthewoman'sor
herchild'smovementorconduct:
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually
depriving the woman or her child of
custodytoher/hisfamily;
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive
the woman or her children of financial
support legally due her or her family, or
deliberately providing the woman's
childreninsufficientfinancialsupport;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive
thewomanorherchildofalegalright;
(4) Preventing the woman inengaging in
any legitimate profession, occupation,
business or activity or controlling the
victim's own mon4ey or properties, or
solelycontrollingtheconjugalorcommon
money,orproperties;
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm
on oneself for the purpose of controlling her
actionsordecisions;
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or
her child to engage in any sexual activity which
does not constitute rape, by force or threat of
force, physical harm, or through intimidation
directedagainstthewomanorherchildorher/his
immediatefamily;
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless
conduct, personally or through another, that
alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to the woman or her child.
This shall include, but not be limited to, the
followingacts:
(1)Stalkingorfollowingthewomanorher
childinpublicorprivateplaces;
CRIMINAL LAW 2


(2) Peering in the window or lingering
outside the residence of the woman or
herchild;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling
or on the property of the woman or her
childagainsther/hiswill;
(4) Destroying the property and personal
belongings or inflicting harm to animals
orpetsofthewomanorherchild;and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment
orviolence;
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public
ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child,
including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and
emotionalabuse,anddenialoffinancialsupportor
custody of minor children of access to the
woman'schild/children.
DATINGRELATIONSHIP-referstoasituationwherein the
parties live as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a
continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A
casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two
individuals in a business or social context is not a dating
relationship.
Q: The neighbor was aware of the beatings that the
husband has been doing to his wife so the neighbor who
wasawitnesstoallthesebeatingsfiledacaseagainstthe
husband.Willthecaseprosper?
A: Yes because under sec. 25, Violation Against
WomenandChildren(VAWC)isapublicoffense.
Q:Whendoesthecrimeprescribe?
A: If it involves physical abuse; it shall prescribe
after20 years. If it involves psychological,sexual,
and economical abuse; it shall prescribe in 10
years.
Q: Lets say the wife filed a case against the husband for
violationofRA9262;duringthepresentationofevidenceby
the defense, the husband testified that he was always
drunk. He was alcoholic. Thats why he lost temper and
beats the wife. Will such defense mitigate the criminally
guiltyhusband?Canheusesuchdefense?
A:UnderSec.27itcannotbeusedbecauseunder
Sec. 27; the fact that the husband is under the
influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other
mind-alteringsubstance cannot be used as
defense in VAWC therefore; alcoholism and drug
addictioncannotbeadefenseinVAWC.
BatteredWomenSyndrome(Sec.26)
- Scientifically defined pattern of psychological
and behavioral symptoms found in the
batteringrelationshipasaresultofcumulative
abuse.
Under Sec. 26, it is provided that victim survivors

founded to be suffering from this battered women
syndrome shall be exempted from both criminal
and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of
anyoftheelementsofself-defense.
Thecourthowevershallbeheldbyatestimonyof
a psychologist or psychiatrist if the woman is
indeed suffering from the so called battered
womensyndrome.
ANTI-HAZING LAW R.A. 8049

Q: What is hazing?
A: Hazing is an initiation rite or practice
which is used as an admission into
membership in any fraternity or any other
organization wherein the said
recruit/neophyte/applicant is placed under
the an embarrassing or humiliating
situations such as forcing him to do menial,
silly, and foolish tasks or services or
subjecting him into psychological or physical
injury or crime.

Q: Is hazing totally prohibited in the Philippines?
A: No. Hazing is not totally prohibited in the
Philippines. Hazing is allowed provided that
the following requisites are present:

1. There must be a prior written notice sent
to the head of the school authorities or
the head of the organization 7 days
before the said initiation rites and this
prior written notice shall contain the
following:
a. It shall indicate the date of the said
initiation rites which shall not be
more than 3 days.
b. It shall indicate/state the names of
the neophytes or applicants who
will undergo the said hazing or
initiation rites.
c. It shall contain an undertaking
which states that there shall be no
physical violence employed in any
form on these neophyte recruits or
applicants.

2. Upon the receipt of such prior written
notice; the head of the school or
organization shall assign atleast 2
representatives from their school or
organization who must be present during
the time of the said initiation rite or
hazing and these 2 representatives shall
see to it that no amount of physical
violence shall be employed on any person
or any neophyte or recruit or applicant
during the said hazing or initiation rite.

Q: What if in the course of the said hazing or
initiation rite someone died or suffered physical
injuries; who shall be held criminally liable?

CRIMINAL LAW 2


A: If in the course of hazing or initiation rite,
someone died or some suffered any physical
injuries; all of the officers and members of
the said fraternity or organization who are
present and who participated in the said
initiation rite shall be liable as principal.

Q: What if the said initiation rite was conducted or
held in a house of an Aling Nene? Is Aling Nene
criminally liable?
A: Aling Nene is liable as an
accomplice if she has knowledge of the
conduct of the said initiation rites and she
did not do any act in order to prevent its
occurrence.

If the said initiation rite took place in the
house of a member or an officer of the
said fraternity or sorority; the parents of
the said members or officers shall be
held liable not as an accomplice but as a
principal if they have such knowledge of
the said conduct of the initiation rites
and they did not perform any act inorder
to prevent its occurrence.
Q: When is there a prima facie evidence of
participation?
A: Any person who is present in the said
hazing or initiation rite shall constitute a
prima facie evidence that there is a
participation and shall be held liable as
principal.

Q: What if in the said hazing an officer beat an
applicant and he hit the neck thereby causing the
death of the said neophyte/recruit/applicant and so
when prosecuted he said: I have no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Can
such defense be used so as to mitigate his criminal
liability?
A: No such defense is prohibited defense.
Under RA 8049; the defense that such
person has no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed cannot be used by
an accused under RA 8049.

Whenever a person hits an
applicant/neophyte, he is already
performing a felonious act therefore he
shall be held criminally liable for all the
consequences of his actions. (Art 4 book
1)
In the case of Lenny Villa Hazing; Sereno
et. al. considered Art. 4 wherein they
ruled Reckless Imprudence resulting to
homicide.
o (I disagree) In Reckless
imprudence, the said person must
be performing an act which is not
felonious but by reason of
negligence or imprudence, a felony
resulted. Therefore, in the case of
Lenny Villa, the ruling shall be
homicide, it shall not be reckless
imprudence.
ANTI-CHILDABUSEACTR.A.7610
InsofarasRA7610isconcerned;Childrenarethose:
Below18yearsofage
Above 18 years of age who does not have the
capacity to fully protect themselves against any
abuse, cruelty or maltreatment because of their
physicalormentaldisability.
Q: What if two children, A and B were fighting over a gun

toy.ThemotherofAsawBbeatingAsoAsmotherheldB
and gave him a tender slap. However, because B is still a
child, his face became reddish. Based in the medical
certificate, it showed that the said act of slapping was the
cause of the injury sustained by B that made his face
reddish.WhatcrimewascommittedbythemotherofA?Is
themotherliableforChildabuseoristhemotherliablefor
slightphysicalinjuries?
A: The mother of A is liable for slight physical
injuriesonlyandnotforviolationofRA7610.
Q:WhatdoyoumeanbyChildAbuse?
A:Childabusereferstothemaltreatment,whether
habitual or not, of the child which includes any of
thefollowing:
Physical or psychological abuse, neglect,

cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment;
Any act by deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demean the intrinsic worth and
dignityofachildasahumanbeing.
Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs
forsurvival,suchasfoodandshelter;or
Failuretoimmediatelygivemedicaltreatment
to an injured child resulting in serious
impairmentofhisgrowthanddevelopmentor
inhispermanentincapacityordeath.
Notallactscommittedagainstachildwillresultto
child abuse. It is necessary that in the said act,
there was this intention to debase, degrade or
demean the intrinsic worth of a child as a human
being.
ChildProstitutionandOtherSexualAbuse
Whatischildprostitution?
Children,whethermaleorfemale,whoformoney,profit,or
anyother consideration or due tothe coercion or influence
of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
childrenexploitedinprostitutionandothersexualabuse.
AggravatingCircumstances:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
inducechildprostitutionwhichinclude,butarenot
limitedto,thefollowing:
CRIMINAL LAW 2


(1) Acting as a procurer of a child
prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a
child prostitute by means of written or
oral advertisements or other similar
means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or
relationship to procure a child as
prostitute;
(4)Threateningorusingviolencetowards
achildtoengagehimasaprostitute;or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods
or other pecuniary benefit to a child with
intenttoengagesuchchildinprostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual
abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under
twelve(12)yearsofage,theperpetratorsshallbe
prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for
rapeandArticle336ofActNo.3815,asamended,
the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious
conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the
penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is
under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion
temporalinitsmediumperiod;and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage

therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the
establishment where the prostitution takes place,
or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of
entertainmentorestablishmentservingasacover
or which engages in prostitution in addition to the
activity for which the license has been issued to
saidestablishment.
Whenisthereattempttocommitchildprostitution?
1. when any person who, not being a relative of a
child, is found alone with the said child inside the
room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel,
pension house, apartelle or other similar
establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other
hidden or secluded area under circumstances
which would lead a reasonable person to believe
thatthechildisabouttobeexploitedinprostitution
andothersexualabuse.
2. whenanypersonisreceivingservicesfromachild
in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health
clubandothersimilarestablishments.
WhatisChildTrafficking
Any person who shall engage in trading and dealing with
children including, but not limited to, the act of buying and
selling of a child for money, or for any other consideration,
orbarter
AggravatingCircumstance:ifthevictimisunder12yearsof
age
Attempt to Commit Child Trafficking. There is an attempt
tocommitchildtraffickingunderSection7ofthisAct:
(a)Whenachildtravelsalonetoaforeigncountry
without valid reason therefor and without
clearance issued by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development or written permit or
justification from the child's parents or legal
guardian;
(b) when the pregnant mother executes an
affidavitofconsentforadoptionforconsideration;
(c) When a person, agency, establishment or
child-caring institution recruits women or couples
tobearchildrenforthepurposeofchildtrafficking;
or
(d) When a doctor, hospital or clinic official or
employee, nurse, midwife, local civil registrar or
anyotherpersonsimulatesbirthforthepurposeof
childtrafficking;or
(e) When a person engages in the act of finding
children among low-income families, hospitals,
clinics,nurseries,day-carecenters,orotherchild-
during institutions who can be offered for the
purposeofchildtrafficking.

TITLE NINE
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONSAL LIBERTY AND
SECURITY
(ARTICLES 267 292)

ART 267 KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION
It is committed when: a private
individual kidnaps or detains another or
in any other manner to deprive him of
his liberty when such detention is
illegal and it is committed in any of
the following circumstances:

1. If the kidnapping or detention
should have lasted for more than
3 days.
2. If it is committed simulating a
public authority.
3. If threats to kill had been made
upon the person kidnapped or any
serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon same.
4. If the person kidnapped or
detained is a minor, female, or a
public officer.

Any of the circumstances present, then
we have serious illegal detention.

Q: Who is the offender in Art 267?
A: He must be a private
individual because if he is a
public officer who has been
vested by law to make arrest and
he detains a person; it will be
arbitrary detention under Art
124.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Q: Can a public officer commit
kidnapping and serious illegal detention?
A: Yes if the said public officer
has not been vested by law with
the authority to effect arrest
and to detain a person then the
said public officer is acting in
his private capacity. Although a
public officer; since he is
acting in his private capacity,
the crime committed is kidnapping
and serious illegal detention
under Art 267 and not arbitrary
detention under Art 124.

The second element requires that the
offender kidnaps or detains another or
in any other manner depriving him of his
liberty.

Q: When is there detention?
A: There is detention if the
offender restrains a person or
the liberty of another person. He
must be detained, incarcerated.
There must be showing that there
is a restraint on his person or
liberty; otherwise, if there is
no restraint on the person or
liberty on the part of the
offended party, it could be any
other crime but not kidnapping
and serious illegal detention.

The law requires that the kidnapping and
detention must be illegal therefore there
must be no reasonable ground.

Circumstances which will make the crime
serious:
1. The kidnapping or detention should
have lasted for more than 3 days;
2. If it is committed by simulating
public authority.
By pretending to be police
officers, pretending to be NBI
agents
3. If any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped
or detained or threats to kill him
are made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained
is a minor (unless the offender is
his parents); a female, or a public
officer.

The presence of any of these
circumstances will meet the crime of
Serious Illegal Detention and the
absence of any of the circumstance will
make the crime Slight Illegal Detention
under Art 268.
Note that the penalty is reclusion perpetua
to death.

Circumstances which will qualify the
penalty:
1. If the purpose of the kidnapping is
to extort ransom from the victim or
from any other person.
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention for Ransom.

Q: What is ransom?
A: A ransom is the money,
price, or any other
consideration given or
demanded for the redemption of
the liberty of the person who
has been detained or
incarcerated.
PEOPLE VS. MAMANTAK
- While the mother and the daughter
where in a food chain in tondo; the
mother lost the said child.
- she had been looking for the said
child for a year.
- A year and six months thereafter, the
said mother received a call from a
woman who sounded to be a masculine
man from Lanaodel Norte according to
the said woman.
- The woman said that she has the child
with her and the woman was demanding
P 30,000 in exchange for the child.
- The said woman, Mamantak and company
asked the mother to go to a certain
restaurant.
- The mother went to the said
restaurant however the mother already
informed the authorities.
- Upon the exchange of the child and
the demand; Mamantak and co. were
arrested by the said authorities.
- The crime charged was: Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention for Ransom.
- RTC ruled that it is only kidnapping
and serious illegal detention for
ransom but not for ransom because
according to the trial court; the
amount given is measly a sum to be
considered as ransom because
according to the RTC; it is only in
payment for the board and logging of
the child during the time that she
was in the captivity of the said
woman.
- SC ruled that the crime committed is
kidnapping and serious illegal
detention for ransom. Even if it is
only 5 centavos; if it was given in
exchange for the liberty of a person
who has been detained, by whose
CRIMINAL LAW 2


liberty has been restricted; it is
already considered as ransom.
- There is no such thing as small
amount in so far as ransom is
concerned.

Q: Lets say A is indebted to B; B was
asking payment from A, A however said
that he has no money until B got fed up
so what B did is he kidnapped and
detained the minor child of A. He then
called A telling the same: I will only
release your minor child the moment you
give your indebtedness in the amount of
a million pesos. Is the crime committed
kidnapping and serious illegal detention
for ransom?
A: Yes it is already
detention for ransom even if
the amount being asked by the
kidnapper is the indebtedness
of the father of the said
child. Any amount demanded in
exchange for the liberty of
the person detained; that is
already considered as ransom.

2. When the victim is killed or dies as
a consequence of the kidnapping or
detention.
Detention with Homicide.
This is a special
complex crime.
Therefore, since it is
a special complex
crime; regardless of
the number of victims
killed; it is still
kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with
homicide.

PEOPLE VS. LARANAGA
- There were two kidnap victims and
these two sisters were both killed
and raped yet the SC held that the
crime committed was kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with
homicide and rape.
- Despite the fact that there were 2
victims who were killed and raped
because regardless of the numbers of
the victims killed, since it is a
special complex crime; in the eyes of
the law there is only one crime
committed so it is only: Kidnapping
and Serious illegal detention with
homicide.

Note however that it is required that
the victim himself is the one who has
been killed. If it is another person; it
will result to a separate and distinct
crime because the law is particular that
the person detained/ kidnapped must be
the one who is killed or died as a
consequence thereof.

Q: What if A kidnapped the child of B
who is his enemy. The said child is 10
years old and he was placed in a
hideout. The child tried to escape but A
saw him so A fired a shot towards the
child which resulted to the death of the
child. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is
kidnapping with serious
homicide.

Q: What if in the same problem; the
father learned about the said kidnapping
so the father informed the NBI agents.
The NBI agents were able to track down
the place where the said child was being
hidden so the NBI agents together with
the said father went to the hideout.
There was an exchange of gun fires
between A (the kidnapper) and the NBI
agents. While there was an exchange of
gun fires, the father saw his child so
the father rushed towards the son, carry
the son and they were able to leave the
said hideout. While they were leaving, A
the kidnapper saw them and A the
kidnapper shot the father. What crime/s
is/are committed?
A: In so far as the minor is
concerned; the crime committed
is Kidnapping and serious
illegal detention even if it
did not last for a period of
more than 3 days, the fact
that the offended party is a
minor, it is already
detention.
In so far as the father who
has been killed; since he is
not the victim of serious
illegal detention, it will
constitute a separate and
distinct crime of: homicide.
Therefore, there are 2 crimes
committed by the said
kidnapper. Kidnapping and
serious illegal detention in
so far as the child is
concerned and homicide in so
far as the father who has been
killed is concerned.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


3. When the victim is raped.
Detention with Rape.
It is necessary that the victim
is the one who has been raped.
Again; since this is a special
complex crime; regardless of the
times that the victim has been
raped. The crime committed is
only kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with rape.
There is no kidnapping and
multiple rape.

4. When the victim is subjected to
torture or any dehumanizing acts.
circumstances will bring about the
imposition of maximum penalty of death.

Q: A, a 6 yr old child is playing at a
playground at about 5 oclock in the
afternoon while the mother is hanging
clothes. A man (X) gave the child a
candy and the child was so happy. Later,
the man again approached the child and
gave the child money and then the said
man invited the child to go with him.
Since the child was so happy because the
man was so good to her; the child went
with the said man. At 6 oclock; the
mother came looking for the child but
the child was no longer in the
playground. Meanwhile, the man brought
the child to his place. That evening,
the mother kept on looking for the child
however they could not locate the child.
In the house of the man, the child was
molested and raped twice. The following
morning, when the mother opened the door
of the house, she saw her child at the
door with torn clothes and blood. So the
man was charged with serious illegal
detention with rape. Is the charge
correct?
A: The charge is wrong because
the obvious intention of the
man is to rape the child and
not to detain the child
therefore the SC said: the
crime committed would be 2
counts of statutory rape not
only a single indivisible
offense of kidnapping and
rape but 2 counts of statutory
rape because the said child is
under 12 years of age and she
was raped and molested twice.
Therefore, unless and until
there was an intent to detain
on the part of the offender;
it could be any other crime
but not kidnapping and serious
illegal detention.

Q: A saw his enemy walking. He abducted
his enemy and placed him inside the van.
The following morning, the said enemy
was found in a vacant lot with 10
gunshot wounds. What crime is committed?
Murder. Obviously, there was
no intent to detain the
offended party. The intent was
to kill him. Therefore the
crime committed is murder and
not kidnapping and serious
homicide or murder as the case
may be.

In order for kidnapping and serious
illegal detention to amount to with
rape, murder, with homicide with
physical injuries; it is necessary that
there is an intent to detain and in the
course of the said detention, the victim
dies, raped, subjected to torture or
other dehumanizing acts.
Again, as mentioned earlier; the absence
of any of the circumstances which will
make illegal detention serious will make
the crime Slight Illegal Detention under
Art 268.

ART 268 SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
Slight illegal detention is committed
by: any person who shall kidnap or
detains another or in any other
manner deprive him of his liberty
when the said detention is illegal
absent of any of the circumstances
under Art 267; it will only be slight
illegal detention.

Q: What if A was so envious of his
neighbor. To teach the neighbor a
lesson, he kidnapped and detained the
said neighbor and placed the said
neighbor in a secluded place in a vacant
area one morning. However, later on, A
felt sorry for his neighbor and he
released his neighbor that night. What
is the effect in the criminal liability
of the offender A?
A: Under Art 268 (Slight
Illegal Detention); if the
offended party has been
released. Such release will be
considered as a privileged
mitigating circumstance
because from the penalty of
reclusion temporal, the
penalty would be lowered by
CRIMINAL LAW 2


one degree that is prision
mayor.
Note however that this voluntary release
of the victim may only be considered as
a privileged mitigating circumstance the
ff requisites must concur:
1. It is necessary the release
has been made within 3 days
from the commencement of
the said kidnapping.
2. It must have been made
without the offender having
attained or accomplished
his purpose.
3. It must have been made
before the institution of
the criminal proceedings
against the said offender.

If all of these 3 are present
then such voluntary release of
the offender will mitigate the
criminal liability of the said
offender.

Q: What if the person kidnapped by A
is a public officer? He is mad with
the said public officer and so he
kidnapped the same and detained him
in the morning. In the evening, he
immediately released the public
officer because he told himself that
perhaps the NBI would look after him
so he immediately released the public
officer. Will such release mitigate
his criminal liability?
A: No. the fact that the
person kidnapped is a public
officer; the crime would
immediately be kidnapping and
serious illegal detention
under 267. And if the crime is
committed under Art 267, no
amount of voluntary release
will mitigate the criminal
liability of the offender.

So if the victim is a minor, a
female, or a public officer;
automatically, it will be kidnapping
and serious illegal detention and no
amount of voluntary release will
mitigate the offenders criminal
liability.

ART 269 UNLAWFUL ARREST
Unlawful arrest is committed by: any
person who shall arrest or detain
another without authority by law or
without reasonable ground therefore
and his main purpose is to deliver
him to the proper authorities.
The purpose is: to deliver him to the
proper authorities.

Q: A was walking when suddenly he was
arrested by B, a police officer. The
police officer said that a case has to
be filed against him. The arrest was
made without warrant of arrest. A was
not caught committing a crime
inflagrante delicto and not also an
escapee but he was incarcerated.
Thereafter a case has been filed against
him however since there was no
complainant, the fiscal dismissed the
case for lack of probable cause. What
crime is committed by the police
officer?
unlawful arrest.

Q: What about the fact that he has been
detained arbitrarily?
A: It is already absorbed
because the intention of the
said police officer is to file
a case against him that is; to
deliver him to the proper
authorities. Therefore the
arbitrary detention is merely
incidental in the said act of
unlawful arrest.

ART 270 KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN
A MINOR
Kidnapping and failure to return a
minor is committed by: any person who
had been entrusted with the custody
of a minor who shall deliberately
fail to restore the said minor to his
parents or guardians.

Q: Who is the offender?
A: The offender is the person
entrusted with the custody of a minor.

Q: When will the crime arise?
A: The crime will arise if the
offender shall deliberately
fail to restore the said minor
to his parents or guardians.

Q: What if A and B has a child and they
entrusted the child to X as they will be
going for a vacation for a week. They
told X to deliver the child to them
after 7 days. A week after, the husband
and wife arrived home but X failed to
deliver the said child. The reason of X
was he was so busy with his work that he
forgot that it was already the 7
th
day
from the time that he has been entrusted
with the child. Can he be held liable
under Art 270?
CRIMINAL LAW 2


A: No because he did not
deliberately fail to restore
the said minor to his parents
or guardians. The law requires
deliberate failure. Here, he
only failed because of
negligence or just because he
was so busy.

ART 271 INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS
HOME
It is committed by: any person who
induces a minor to leave the home of
his parents, guardians, or person
entrusted with the custody of the
said minor.
The crime will arise even if the
child hasnt left the house of the
parents or guardians. Mere inducement
with intent to cause damage will
suffice.

Q: A and B husband and wifes marriage
has been declared a nullity by the court
and the custody of their 5 yr old child
has been given definitely to the mother.
However the father has been given
visiting rights. One Sunday, the father
visited the 5 yr old son and the son was
brought out by the father. Usually,
whenever the father takes his son out;
he will return the child by night time.
However this time, the father did not
bring back the child to the house of the
mother and so the mother demanded the
return of her son but the father still
failed to return their child therefore
the mother filed a case of Kidnapping
and failure to return a minor under Art
270 against the father. Will the case
prosper?

A: Yes the case will prosper.
Under Art 271 it is provided
that Art 270 and 271 can also
be committed not only by
strangers but also by the
father or the mother. The only
difference is that under Art
270; if the offender is any
other person the penalty is
reclusion perpetua. But if the
offender is the father or the
mother, note that the penalty
is so low; only arresto mayor
or a fine of not more than
P300 or both fine and penalty
depending upon the discretion
of the court therefore, even
the father or the mother can
be held liable under Articles
270 and 271. The only
difference is their respective
penalties.

ART 272 SLAVERY
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender purchases,
sells, kidnaps or detains a
human being.
2. The purpose of the offender
is to enslave such human
being.

It is committed by: Any person who
shall buy, sells, kidnaps or detains
a person for the purpose of enslaving
the said person.
If the purpose is to engage in
immoral traffic; then the penalty
will be qualified.

ART 273 EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender retains a minor in
his service.
2. It is against the will of
the minor.
3. It is under the pretext of
reimbursing himself of a
debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or
person entrusted with the
custody of such minor.

It is committed by: Any person who
shall detain a child in his service
against the will of the child under
the pretext of reimbursing a debt
incurred by the parents, ascendants,
guardian or any person entrusted with
the custody of the child.

ART 274 SERVICES RENDERED UNDER
COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender compels a debtor to
work for him, either as
household servant or farm
laborer.
2. It is against the debtors
will.
3. The purpose is to require or
enforce the payment of a debt.

It is committed by: a creditor to
shall compel a debtor to work for him
as a household servant or a farm
laborer against the will of the said
debtor inorder to require or enforce
the payment of a debt.

ART 275 ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
AND ABANDONMENT OF ONES OWN VICTIM
ACTS PUNISHED:
CRIMINAL LAW 2


1. Failing to render
assistance to any person
whom the offender found 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. Failing to render help or
assistance to another whom
the offender has
accidentally wounded or
injured.

3. Failing to deliver a child
under 7 years of age whom
the offender has found
abandoned, to the
authorities or to his
family, or failing to take
him to a safe place.

Q: A saw B at Luneta Park. He was
wounded and bitten by a dog and he
was crying for help. However, A,
instead of helping B left. Is A
liable under Art 275?
A: No because the place is not
an uninhabited place. Luneta
Park is a public place. People
come and go there. Therefore,
A is not liable under Art 275
despite the fact that B is
wounded and dying.

Uninhabited place
- One wherein theres a remote
possibility for the victim to receive
some help.

Q: What if in the same problem, A
found B in a forest? So A went
hunting in a forest when he suddenly
saw B in the middle of the forest.
There was this big trunk of tree on
the neck of B and he cannot move. He
was begging for the help of A. A
however left. Later, B was rescued.
Can he file a case in violation of
Art 275 against A?
A: Yes because B was found by
A in an uninhabited place and
he was wounded and in danger
of dying because theres a big
trunk of tree on his neck and
theres no detriment on the
part of A to render assistance
but he failed to render
assistance therefore A may be
held liable for violation of
Art 275.

Q: But what if when A found B and he
was bitten by a snake and the snake
was still there. B was asking for
help however A did not give help
because theres a snake. Hes afraid
that he might get bitten by the snake
too. Can A be held liable under Art
275?
A: No because helping B will
be detrimental on his part.

Q: What if A was driving his vehicle
when suddenly his car tripped on a
stone so the stone flew and hit an
eye of a bystander. The left eye
bled. Is A liable?
A: No because it is purely
accidental; it is an exempting
circumstance. He was
performing an act with due
care and accident happened
without fault or negligence on
his part

Q: What if when the left eye of the
bystander bled; A saw him and he
knows that the bystander is his
victim. However, instead of bringing
the bystander to the hospital; he
increased his speed and left. Is A
criminally liable this time?
A: Yes.
For the first act he is not
liable because it is purely
accidental but when he failed
to render help or assistance
to his own victim. This time,
he is criminally liable under
Art 275.

ART 276 ABANDONING A MINOR
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender has the custody of
the child.
2. Child is under 7 years of
age.
3. He abandons such child.
4. He has no intent to kill
the child when the latter
is abandoned.
Abandoning a minor is committed by
any person who has been entrusted
with the custody of a child under 7
years of age and he abandons the said
child permanently, deliberately, and
consciously with no intent to kill
the said child.
The penalty will be qualified if
DEATH resulted from the said
CRIMINAL LAW 2


abandonment or WHEN THE SAFETY OF THE
CHILD HAS BEEN PLACED IN DANGER.

Q: A woman; an OFW worker who left
her newly born child inside a garbage
bin of an aircraft/airplane and later
she has been arrested. What crime is
committed by the said mother?
Abandoning a Minor under Art.
276. The mother is in custody
of the child and she
deliberately or and
consciously abandoned her
child without the intent to
kill. Obviously there was no
intent to kill because she
could have killed the said
child instead she placed her
child inside a garbage can in
the restroom of an aircraft so
there was no intent to kill
therefore the crime committed
is Abandoning a Minor under
Art. 276.

ART 277 ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY A PERSON
ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF
PARENTS
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. Abandonment of a child by a
person entrusted with his
custody.
It is committed by: any
person who, having
entrusted with the
living and education of
a minor shall deliver a
minor to a public
institution or other
persons without the
consent of the person
who entrusted such minor
to the care of the
offender or, in his
absence, without the
consent of the proper
authorities.
2. Indifference of parents
It is committed by: any
parent who neglects any
of his children by not
giving them the
education which their
station in life requires
and financial capability
permits.

ART 278 EXPLOITATION OF A CHILD
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. Causing any boy or girl under
16 to engage in any dangerous
feat of balancing, physical
strength or contortion, the
offender being any person.
2. Employing children under 16
years of age who are not the
children or descendants of the
offender in exhibitions of
acrobat, gymnast, rope walker,
diver, or wild animal tamer,
the offender being an acrobat,
etc., or circus manager or
person engaged in any of said
callings.
3. Employing any descendants under
12 years of age in dangerous
exhibitions enumerated on the
next preceding paragraph, the
offender being engaged in any
of the said callings.
4. Delivering a child under 16
years of age gratuitously to
any person if any of the
callings enumerated in
paragraph 2, or to any habitual
vagrant or beggar, the offender
being an ascendant, guardian,
teacher, or a person entrusted
in any capacity with the care
if such child.
5. Including any child under 16
years of age to abandon the
home of its ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers
to follow any person entrusted
in any of the callings
mentioned in paragraph 2 or to
accompany any habitual vagrant
or beggar, the offender being
any person.

These acts are considered as
exploitation of minors because these
acts endanger the life and safety, the
growth and development of the minors.
(usually these involves circus)

Note: If the delivery of the said child is
on the basis of a consideration,
compensation or money, the penalty will be
QUALIFIED.

Mere act of delivering the child
gratuitously under 16 years of age; the
crime is already committed.
The fact that it is with consideration;
the penalty will be qualified.

ART 280 QUALIFIED TRESSPASS TO DWELLING
It is committed by: a private
individual who shall enter the
dwelling of another against the will
of the latter.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


ELEMENTS:
It is committed by a private
individual because if it is a
public officer; then the crime
is under Art 128 which is:
Violation of Domicile.
2. He enters the dwelling of another
3. Such entrance is against the will
of the latter.
As discussed under Art.
128; when the law says
against the will, there
must be a prohibition or
opposition from entering
whether express or implied.

Mere entry without consent will not
bring about QUALIFIED TRESSPASS TO
DWELLING.
If the door is opened therefore it means
that anyone could enter even without the
consent of the owner and the moment he
enters he is not liable for qualified
trespass to dwelling because there is no
prohibition or opposition from entering.
It is necessary that there is an
opposition or prohibition from entering.
It can be expressed prohibition (e.g. A
note which states: Do Not Enter or the
door was closed and a person knocked so
the owner got up and opened the door but
upon seeing the person he immediately
closed the door) or implied prohibition
(e.g. Door is closed even if it is not
locked).

ART 281 OTHER FORMS OF TRESSPASS TO
DWELLING
(TRESSPASS TO PROPERTY)
ELEMENTS
1. Offender enters the closed
premises or the fenced
estate of another.
2. Entrance is made while
wither of them is
uninhabited.
3. Prohibition to enter is
manifest.
4. Trespasser has not secured
the permission of the owner
or the caretaker thereof.

Trespass to property is committed
by: any person who enters a closed
premises or fenced estate which at
that time is uninhabited and the
prohibition to enter is manifest and
the offender enters the said
uninhabited place without securing
the permission of the owner or the
care taker thereof.

TRESSPASS TO
DWELLING
TRESSPASS TO
PROPERTY
Place entered
into is a
dwelling and
uninhabited.
Place entered
into is a closed
premises or a
fenced estate
which is
uninhabited.
Prohibition to
enter can either
be expressed or
implied.
Prohibition to
enter must be
manifest.
Entry was made
against the will
of the owner or
the possessor of
the said
dwelling.
Entry was made
without securing
the permission
from the owner or
the care taker of
the said
property.
Q: Lets say there are these town
houses. In one of the town houses,
town house A; theres no person
living at the moment and there was
this sign: FOR RENT/ FOR LEASE. X
entered the said town house. What
crime is committed by X? Is it
qualified trespass to dwelling or is
it trespass to property?
A: It is trespass to property
because it is a closed
premises which is uninhabited
at the time of the entering
and he entered without first
securing the permission of the
owner/care taker.

Q: What if there is this house which
is occupied by husband A and B.
Husband A and B went for a vacation
for a month. So for a month, there is
no person in the said place. X
learned that there is no person in
the said place. He entered the said
place. What crime is committed? Is it
qualified trespass to dwelling or
trespass to property?
Qualified Trespass to
Dwelling. The said place is a
residential place and there is
someone who is occupying it
even if at the moment it is
not people because the said
husband A and B are on
vacations, it is still
considered as an inhabited
place. Therefore, the moment
anyone enters, the crime
committed is trespass to
dwelling and not trespass to
property.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


THREE KINDS OF THREATS:
1. Grave threats
2. Light threats
3. Other light threats

ARTICLE 282 GRAVE THREATS
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
1. Threatening another with the
infliction upon his person, honor or
property or that of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime and
demanding money or imposing any other
condition even though not unlawful,
and the offender attained his
purpose.
2. By making such threat with the
wrong amounting to a crime and
demanding money or imposing any other
condition even though not unlawful
and without the offender attaining
his purpose. (Elements for this act
are the same with the first except
that the purpose is not attained.)
3. By threatening another with the
wrong amounting to a crime, the
threat not being subject to any
demand of money or imposition of any
condition.

ARTICLE 283 LIGHT THREATS
Light threats is committed if a person
threatens another with the commission of
any wrong which does not amount to a crime.
But it always subject to a demanded money
or the imposition of any other condition
even though not unlawful.

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.

ARTICLE 285 OTHER LIGHT THREATS
There are 3 instances or punishable acts
under light threats:
1. Threatening another with a weapon or
by drawing such weapon in a quarrel,
unless it be in lawful self-defense.
Here, the weapon must not be
discharged.
2. Orally threatening another, in the
heat of anger, with some harm
constituting a crime, without
persisting in the idea involved in
his threat.
3. Any threat made in a jest or in the
heat of anger constitutes light
threat only.
4. Orally threatening to do another any
harm not constituting a felony.

So whether it be grave threats, light
threats or other light threats, the essence
of threats is INTIMIDATION. It is a promise
of a future wrong, a promise of a future
harm. Not now, but in the future.

So, since it is a promise of a future
wrong, threats may be committed either
personally or orally or it can also be
committed in writing or through an internet
chat. If threats are committed through
writing or through an internet chat, the
penalty is qualified.

Q: What is the difference between grave
threats, light threats or other light
threats?

A: In GRAVE THREATS, the threat will
always amount or constitute a crime.
It may or may not be subject to a
demand money or condition. The
offender may or may not attain his
purpose. But, in grave threats, the
threats will always amount or will
always constitute to a crime. On the
other hand, in case of LIGHT THREATS,
the threat will not constitute to a
crime but it is always and always
subject to a demand of money or the
imposition of any other condition.

So in LIGHT THREATS, the threat
threatened to be committed will not
amount to a crime, will not
constitute to a crime, however it is
always subject to a demand of money
or the imposition of any other
condition, even though not unlawful.

Lastly, in case of OTHER LIGHT
THREATS, other light threats can be
done by threatening another with a
weapon or by drawing such weapon in a
quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-
defense or it can be done by orally
threatening another with a harm
amounting to a crime in the heat of
anger. So it is necessary that the
offender is in the heat of anger or
he threatens another with a harm
amounting to a crime. But he did not
pursue with the idea involved in his
threat. And the last one is by orally
threatening another which does not
constitute a crime.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Q: So what if A went to the store and then
from the said store he learned that had
been spreading negative rumors against him.
And so A was so mad, he was so angry that
he went to the house of B and he called on
B: B get out of the house! I will kill
you! I will kill you! Get out of the house
B! But B did not get out of the house.
Instead, it was the son of B who came out
of the house and said: What do you want
with my father? A angrily said that, You
let your father come out or I will kill him
because he has been spreading negative
rumors about me. The son went inside the
house and did not come back. The father
also did not come out of the house. And so
later, A just left the house. What crime is
committed by A? Is it grave threats, light
threats or is it other light threats?
A: The crime committed is under
Article 285 OTHER LIGHT THREATS.
Orally, in the heat of anger, he
threatened another with a harm
constituting a crime, but he did not
pursue with the idea in his threat.
It is only other light threats.

Q: What if, let us say, A saw that B has a
new car. It was a luxury car. He knew that
it was smuggled and so he told B: B, if
you will not give me P500,000, I will call
the Bureau of Customs, I will tell
ComissionerBiazon right now that your car
is smuggled. What crime if any is
committed by A against B?
A: It is LIGHT THREATS. He threatened
to commit a wrong which does not
constitute a crime. It is not a crime
to inform the Bureau of Customs that
the car was smuggled and it is
subject to a demand of money and the
imposition of any other condition
even though not unlawful.

Q: What if A, who is the creditor of B, was
inside the house of B. He was asking B to
pay his indebtedness. B said: Get out of
my house. If I still see you in the
afternoon when I get back inside my house
and if you are still here, I will kill
you. What crime is committed?
A: In this instance where B told A :
Get out of my house. If I still see
you in the afternoon when I get back
inside my house and if you are still
here, I will kill you. The crime
committed is GRAVE THREATS. There is
a promise of a future wrong to be
committed in the afternoon if A is
still there in the house.

Q: What if in the same problem, A was
asking B to pay his indebtedness. B said:
Get out of my house! Otherwise, I will
kill you. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is GRAVE
COERCION. The threat is present,
direct, personal, immediate and
imminent. Not in the future, but now
direct, personal and immediate.

Note that in case of threats made while
committing physical injuries, threats are
absorbed.

ARTICLE 286 GRAVE COERCIONS
2 way of committing grave coercion:
1. Preventive Coercion
2. Compulsive Coercion

PREVENTIVE COERCION if a person prevents
another, by means of violence, threat or
intimidation, from doing something not
prohibited by law.

COMPULSIVE COERCION if a person compels
another, by means of violence, threat or
intimidation, to do something against his
will, whether it be right or wrong, whether
it be prohibited or not by law.
So, to amount to preventive coercion, the
offender by means of violence prevents
someone form doing something which is not
prohibited by law.

Q: Therefore, what if, the offender
prevents someone form doing something which
is prohibited by law? So let us say A,
wanted to enter the house of B, against the
will of B. X saw A wanting to enter the
house of B against the will of B. X
prevented A. A in his act of wanting to
enter the house of B, is an act prohibited
by law, so X prevented A from doing so.
However, A still pursued with the act of
entering and so what X did in order to
prevent him is that X boxed A resulting in
his injury of slight physical injuries.
What crime is committed by X?

A: It is not grave coercion. Because
X is preventing A by means of
violence and intimidation, not from
doing something which is prohibited
by law but from doing something which
is prohibited by law. Therefore, it
is not grave coercion.

So what crime is committed?
The crime committed is SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES.

Q: What if in case of grave coercion, it is
necessary that the offender compels another
to do something against his will,
CRIMINAL LAW 2


regardless of whether it be right or
wrong, regardless of whether it is allowed
or prohibited by law. The fact is a person
cannot put the law in his hands and prevent
someone from doing something so long as it
is against his will.
A: So in case of grave coercion, if
the essence of threats is
intimidation or a promise of a future
wrong, a promise of a future injury,
the injury or threat is present,
direct, personal, immediate and
imminent. It is NOW. That is why,
grave coercion cannot be committed in
writing or through an internet
chatting because it is always
personal. Hence, it is about to take
place imminent and immediate.

Q: So how would you distinguish threat vs.
coercion?
THREAT COERCION
The wrong threatened
to be committed is
in the future
The wrong threatened
to be committed is
direct, personal,
immediate and
imminent
May be committed in
writing or through
an internet chatting
Cannot be committed
in writing or
through internet
chatting because it
is always personal
and immediate
The essence of
threat is
intimidation
It is violence or
intimidation
amounting serious
enough to amount to
violence

ARTICLE 287 LIGHT COERCION
It is committed by a creditor who shall
seize anything belonging to his debtor by
means of violence or intimidation in order
to apply the same to the indebtedness.
There is one form of light coercion under
Article 287, that is UNJUST VEXATION. It
is a form of light coercion.
UNJUST VEXATION refers to any human
conduct, which although not capable of
producing any material harm or injury,
annoys, vexes or irritates an innocent
person.

Example in Book I: a person walking and hit
with a lead pipe on the head.
CASE OF BALEROS, JR.:
There was a UST medical student.
There was a cloth soaked with
chemical pressed on her face. So
there was this man, she was awakened
with a man on top of her placing a
cloth soaked with chemical pressed on
her face. The charge was attempted
rape. Supreme Court said it was just
UNJUST VEXATION nang-iinis lang daw
yung lalaking yun. So, Supreme Court
said it is a human conduct which
annoys or vexes the said female
medical student.

Art. 288 OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS;
(COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE AND
PAYMENT OF WAGES BY MEANS OF TOKENS)
Other light coercion is committed by
forcing or compelling directly or
indirectly or knowingly permitting the
forcing or compelling any employee or
laborer to buy merchandise or commodities
from the said employer. And lastly, by
paying the wages due to the laborer or
employees by any tokens or object other
than the legal tender currency of the
Philippines unless to be requested by the
said employee or laborer.

So it is more on LABOR other light
coercion.

Q: What if a person, A threatened to kill
B. and so B filed a case of grave threats
against A. The case was filed before the
court. Upon the filing of the court, what
bail, if any, should the court impose on A
in order to insure that A will not make
good the said threat?
A: Under Article 284, we have BOND
FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR. Bond for good
behavior is a bail which is required
by the court to be posted by any
accused only in the crimes of grave
threats and other light threats. In
the crimes of grave threats or other
light threats, the court would allow
or would require an accused to file
or to post a bond for good behavior
in order to ensure that he will not
make good the said threat. If the
said accused failed to pay or post
the said bond for good behavior, then
the penalty hat would be imposed is
destierro in order to ensure that he
will not make good the said threat.

REVELATION OF SECRETS:
ARTICLE 290 DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH
SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
We have seizure of correspondence in order
to discover the secrets of another.
This is committed by any person who shall
seize any correspondence of another in
order to discover the secret of any person.

NOTE: In case of seizure of correspondence
in order to discover the secrets of
another, DAMAGE is not element. Likewise,
REVELATION is not an element.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


The mere act of seizing the correspondence
of another with the intention to discover
the secrets, the crime is already
consummated. It is not necessary that the
secret be revealed, it is not necessary
that there be damage on the part of the
offended party.

ARTICLE 291 REVEALING SECRETS WITH THE
ABUSE OF OFFICE
This is committed by a manager or by an
employee or by a servant who reveals the
secrets of his principal or master learned
by him in such capacity.
It is the REVELATION OF SECRETS which will
consummate the crime, not merely discovery
but revelation of the said secrets. Again,
damage is not an element. It is not
necessary that the offended party be
prejudiced or damaged.

ARTICLE 292 REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL
SECRETS
This is committed by any person in charge,
employee or workman of a manufacturing or
industrial establishment who shall learn
and discover the secrets of the industry
and shall reveal the same to the prejudice
of the owner thereof.
In case of revelation of industrial
secrets, mere revelation of those secrets
will not suffice. There must be DAMAGE OR
PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE OFFENDED PARTY.
The law requires to the prejudice of the
owner thereof.

RA92400-ANTI-WARTAPPINGLAW
Thefollowingactsarepunishable:
1.) It shall be unlawful for any person, without
securing the consent of all the parties to any
privatecommunicationorspokenword,totap
any wire or cable, or by using any other
device or arrangement to secretly overhear,
intercept or record such private
communication or spoken word by using a
device commonly known as a Dictaphone or
dictagraph, walkie talkie, tape recorder, or
othersimilardevices.
2.) Knowingly possessing any tape record, wire
record, disc record, orany other such record,
or copies thereof, of these private
communicationorspokenword.
3.) Replayingtheseanytaperecord,wirerecord,
discrecordtoanotherperson.
4.) Communicating the contents of the said tape
record,wirerecordordiscrecord,inwritingor
verballytoanotherperson.
5.) Furnishingtranscriptionsofthesetaperecord,
wire record or disc record whether totally or
partiallytoanyotherperson.
Whatisforemostprohibitedistheactoftapping,recording
or intercepting any private communication or spoken word
without the consent of all the parties. Without being
authorized by all the parties to the said private
communicationorspokenword.
Q:SowhatifAtoldBtocomeinsidehisroomandwhenB
entered the room, A started scolding B. In scolding B, A
said scandalous remarks against B. Unknown to A, B was
taperecordingtheprivateconversationbetweenthem.Can
Blaterusethesaidtaperecordinginordertofileacaseof
defamationorslanderagainstA?
A: NO. Because the said act of tape recording
without being authorized by all the parties to a
private communication or spoken word is
inadmissible in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative proceedings or
investigation.
The ONLY EXCEPTION is when a police officer or peace

officerisauthorizedbywrittenorderofthecourttolistento,
intercept or record any communication in crimes involving
treason, espionage, inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals,piracy,mutiny,rebellion,conspiracyandproposal
tocommitrebellion,sedition,conspiracytocommitsedition
and kidnapping. Only in these instances and provided that
the said peace officer is authorized by a written order
comingfromthecourtmayhebeallowedtointercept,listen
toorrecordtheprivatecommunicationorspokenword.

TITLE TEN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Art. 293 Who are guilty of robbery?
Robbery is committed by any person,
who with intent to gain shall take any
personal property belonging to another by
means of violence against, or intimidation
of any person, or using force upon
anything.

Elements of Robbery:
1. That the offender unlawfully takes a
personal property
2. That the said personal property
belongs to another person
3. There must be intent to gain in the
taking of the said property
4. That the said taking is either by
means of violence against, or
intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything
5.
Unlawful taking is the deprivation of the
offended party of his personal property
with an element of permanency. So, it is
necessary that in taking the personal
property from another person, there is an
element of permanency.

The law requires that the property must be
personal property, not real property
because real property is under Article 312
Occupation of real property.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


The personal property must belong to
another person because if it do not belong
to another person it cannot be said that
there is intent to gain on the part of the
offender. The law requires that there must
be intent to gain.
Intent to gain is an internal state of
mind. So how can you prove intent to gain?
The law presumes there is intent to gain
the moment there is taking of the personal
property of another person. Intent to gain
is presumed by law.

Two ways of committing robbery:
1.) Robbery with violence against or
intimidation (Art.294)
2.) Robbery with the use of force upon
things (Art.299)
The value of the property taken in robbery
with violence against or intimidation
against people is immaterial because the
penalty is dependent on the violence used
by the offender against the offended party.
However, in Robbery with the use of force
upon things (Art.299), the value of the
property taken is material because the
penalty is dependent on the value of the
property taken.

Art.294 - Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
The following acts constitute robbery with
violence against or intimidation of
persons:
1.) When by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, the crime of homicide is
committed.
2.) When robbery is accompanied by rape
or intentional mutilation or arson.
3.) When by reason or on occasion of such
robbery, any of the physical injuries
resulting in insanity, imbecility,
impotency or blindness is inflicted.
4.) When by reason or on occasion of
robbery, any of the physical injuries
resulting in the loss of the use of
speech or the power to hear or to
smell, or the loss of an eye, a hand,
foot, an arm, or a leg or the loss of
the use of any such member or
incapacity to go to work in which the
injured person is thereto habitually
engaged is inflicted.
5.) If violence or intimidation employed
in the commission of the robbery is
carried to a degree clearly
unnecessary for the commission of the
crime
6.) When in the course of its execution,
the offender shall have inflicted
upon any person not responsible for
the commission of the robbery any of
the physical injuries in consequence
of which the person injured becomes
deformed or loses any other member of
his body or loses the use thereof or
becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he
is habitually engaged for more than
90 days or the person injured becomes
ill or incapacitated for labor for
more than 30 days
7.) If violence employed by the offender
does not cause any of the serious
physical injuries defined in Article
263, or if the offender employs
intimidation only.

In other words, we have robbery with
homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with
intentional mutilation, robbery with arson,
robbery with serious physical injuries,
robbery with unnecessary violence and
lastly, simple robbery.

Robbery with Homicide
Robbery with homicide is a special complex
crime or a composite crime or a single
indivisible offense. In reality two or
more crimes have been committed, the
robbery and the homicide yet, in the eyes
of the law only one crime, a single
indivisible offense of robbery with
homicide.
Q: When should the killing or the homicide
take place?

A: In case of robbery with homicide,
for as long as the original intent of the
offender, for as long original criminal
design is to commit robbery or to rob, the
killing may take place before, during or
after the said robbery provided, that the
original intent/ original criminal design
is to commit robbery or to rob.
Since it is a special complex
crime, regardless of the number of the
persons killed there is only a single
homicide. Even if the killing is an
unintentional killing or accidental killing
still, it is a single indivisible offense
of robbery with homicide. Even if the
victim of the said robbery is different
from the victim of the killing, it is still
robbery with homicide. There lies the
difference between Article 294 and Article
267. In kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide, the victim of the
kidnapping and serious illegal detention
must be the victim in the said killing to
amount to kidnapping and serious illegal
detention. But in case of robbery with
CRIMINAL LAW 2


homicide, regardless of who the offended
party may be, whether the offended party in
robbery is different from the offended
party in the killing it is still robbery
with homicide.

Q: So let us say, A entered the house of B
in order to commit robbery. He took the
valuables therein and after taking the
jewelries suddenly the box of jewelries
fell so X was awaken. When A saw that X
was awaken, A shot X. X died. What crime is
committed?
A: Robbery with homicide. Because by
reason or on occasion of robbery,
homicide was committed.

Q: What if in the same problem, when X was
awaken, the robber, A, shot X. The wife was
also awaken and so the wife started
shouting so A also shot the wife. The
wife also died. What crime/s is committed?
A: Two persons are killed still, the
crime committed is still a single
homicide. All the killings are
merged into a composite intergraded
whole that is a single indivisible
offense of robbery with homicide.

Q: What if let us say, in the same problem,
so A went to the house of X and took the
jewelries. He was on his way out when he
bumped the door and so the owner of the
house was awaken. So A went down and saw
the back of the robber. And so he chased
the robber. In the garden, A tried to shoot
the owner of the house and so A jumped on
him and they struggled for the possession
of the gun. In the course of struggle for
the possession of the gun, the gun fired
hitting a ballot vendor passing by. The
ballot vendor died. What crime/s is
committed?
A: The crime committed is still the
single indivisible offense of robber
with homicide. Since it is a special
complex crime, even if the victim of
the robbery is different from the
victim of the homicide, it is still
robbery with homicide. Even if it is
only accidental killing it is still
robbery with homicide so long as the
killing is by reason or on occasion
of the said robbery.

Q: So what if, A, B, and C entered the
house of X in order to commit robbery. They
have already taken the valuables when the
owner of the house was awaken. It was only
A who saw the owner of the house was awaken
and so A shot X and killed him. Are they
all liable for robbery with homicide or
only A who shot X?
A: All of them are criminally liable
for the crime of robbery with homicide.
Under Article 8, that in case of an express
or direct conspiracy, the conspirators are
liable only for the crime agreed upon. The
crime agreed is to commit robbery but how
come all of them are liable for homicide?
Because it falls under the exception that
when the resulting felony is a special
complex crime because you cannot separate
or divide a special complex crime.
Therefore, even if it was only A who killed
the victim, even if their agreement is only
to commit robbery, because homicide or the
killing was committed by reason or on
occasion of the said robbery, all of them
are criminally liable for the crime of
robbery with homicide.
The only exception to the exception
is when B and C performed acts in order to
prevent A from committing the homicide.

CASE OF PEOPLE vs CABBAB
Let us say, A and B versus X, Y and
Z. A and B committed robbery and upon
leaving the said place, X and Y saw A and B
and shot them and made gun fires. Z, a
police officer dove into the canal in order
to prevent himself from being killed. A and
B went directly to X and Y and killed them
both. And thereafter, A and B took the
winnings. Based on the circumstances or
facts the fiscal filed the following cases
before the RTC, robbery, double murder, and
attempted murder, robbery because of the
taking of the winnings, double murder for
the death of X and Y and attempted murder
as to the police officer who dove into the
canal. What is the ruling of the RTC? It
said wrong ka fiscal! The crime is robbery
with double homicide and attempted murder.
Then it went to appeal on the Court of
Appeals, sabiniya wrong fiscal! Wrong ka
din RTC! The crime committed is robbery
with homicide and attempted murder. Then it
went up to the Supreme Court. Sc said,
malika fiscal! Mali ka RTC! Mali kadn CA!
Mali kayo lahat! The only crime committed
is the single indivisible crime of robbery
with homicide. Because all the acts are
considered absorbed in the crime of robbery
with homicide despite the fact that two
persons were killed, despite the fact that
one person was greatly injured, all these
circumstances are merged into a composite
integrated whole that is single indivisible
offense of robbery with homicide.

Robbery with rape
Just like robbery with homicide, is
also a special complex crime or a single
CRIMINAL LAW 2


indivisible offense. So, for as long as the
intention of the offender is to commit
robbery, rape may be committed before,
during or after the commission of robbery.
Since it is a special complex crime,
regardless of the number of times the
victim was raped, the crime committed is
only robbery with rape. There is no such
crime as robbery with multiple rapes. There
is only robbery with rape.

Q: So a woman was walking on her way home
and because it was pay day here comes X. X
dragged the woman in a dark place and took
the bag and took the money inside it. And
then he found the woman attractive so he
raped the woman not once but twice. What
crime/s is committed?
A: X committed the crime of robbery
with rape regardless of the times the woman
was raped.

CASE OF PEOPLE vs SUYU
Two persons, boyfriend and
girlfriend, they were having snack and saw
the shadow of 3 men. And these 3 men were
pushing the truck trying to open the door.
They took their valuables and the boyfriend
hurriedly left the girlfriend allegedly to
ask help to the police. And so the
girlfriend was alone with the three men and
they dragged her into a nipa hut and there
she was raped by the mastermind, Suyu. Not
only she was raped by Suyu but also
Cainglet while, the other two was outside
serving as lookouts. So the said woman,
Clarissa, was raped by two persons and she
was raped three times. Suyu and Cainglet
raped her by carnal knowledge. Not only
that, Cainglet also inserted two fingers to
her genitals therefore, he also committed
rape by sexual assault. What crimes are
committed by the 4 persons? What crime/s
they should be criminally liable of?

Supreme Court said, they are all
liable for the single indivisible offense
of Robbery with Rape. Regardless of the
fact that two persons raped the victim,
regardless of the fact that the victim was
raped 3 times, regardless of the fact that
there is two nature of rape committed
against the victim (rape by carnal
knowledge and rape by sexual assault),
still the crime committed is the single
indivisible offense of robbery with rape.

There are four conspirators but not
all of them raped the victim. Yet they are
all liable for robbery with rape because
the two lookouts did not perform acts in
order to prevent the consummation of the
said rape. So since it is a special
complex crime and a single indivisible
offense all the other rapes are merged into
a composite integrated whole that is
robbery with rape.
The same theory applies in case of robbery
with intentional mutilation and robbery
with arson.

Robbery with intentional mutilation, arson
and serious physical injuries
For as long as the intent or the
criminal design of the offender is to
commit robbery, the intentional mutilation,
arson or serious physical injuries may be
committed before, during or after the
commission of the said robbery.

Q: So let say A and B saw X walking. It was
pay day and so A and B announced a holdup.
They were both armed with guns and so what
X did since they were both armed with guns,
he gave the bag. By reason thereof, A and
B already left the place. While A and B was
waiting for a ride in a waiting shed, A and
B divided the things they took from X. So
A told B, this is your share. B said, why
is my share smaller than your share?! And
so B got and he shot A. A died. What is the
crime committed?
A: The crime committed is robbery
with homicide because even if it was
also an offender who was killed, the
killing took place by reason of the
said robbery.

Q: So what if in the same problem, so A and
B were already dividing the things they
took and B said, wait why is my share so
small? B got mad shot A but A did not die.
A suffered serious physical injuries. What
crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is robbery
with serious physical injuries.

Q: What if in the same problem, A were
dividing the things and B said, why is my
share so small compared to your share? B
got mad and what he did was took an ice
pick from his pocket and stab A in his face
and placed the ice pick in As face. A
suffered serious physical injuries and
deformity in his face. It caused physical
ugliness to A therefore there is deformity.
What crime/s is committed?

A: This time the crime committed by B
is not the single indivisible crime
of robbery with serious physical
injuries but two crimes, Robbery and
Serious physical injuries under
paragraph 3 of Article 263 because of
the deformity. Why? Because under
paragraph 4 of Article 294, when the
CRIMINAL LAW 2


serious physical injury that resulted
is a deformity or the loss of any of
the member of his body, the law
requires that the said physical
injury or deformity must be inflicted
because of the execution of a robbery
and to a person not responsible to
the commission of the crime of
robbery. Here, the deformity was
inflicted after the robbery, not
before. Not only that. The deformity
was inflicted on A, the person
responsible for the commission of the
robbery.

If the serious physical injuries inflicted
resulted to a deformity or to a loss of any
of the member of his body or loss of the
use of any such member or incapacity to go
to work in which the injured person is
thereto habitually engaged for more than 90
days, under paragraph 3 of Article 263, it
is required that in order to amount to a
single indivisible offense the said
deformity or serious physical injury must
be inflicted in the course of the execution
of the robbery and to a person not
responsible to the commission of the
robbery. Otherwise, it will bring about a
separate and distinct crime.

Title Nine
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND
SECURITY

Chapter One
CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY

Section One Illegal Detention

Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention.
It is committed when any private
individual who kidnaps or detains
another, or in any other manner
deprive him of his liberty. When such
detention is illegal or committed in
any of the following circumstances:
a. If the kidnapping or detention
shall have lasted more than
three days;
b. If it shall have been
committed simulating public
authority;
c. 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;
d. If the person kidnapped or
detained shall be a minor,
female or a public officer.
- The crime committed is serious
illegal detention.
1
st
Element
- He must be a private individual
because if he is a public officer
vested with the power to effect
arrest and detain a person, he
will be liable for arbitrary
detention under Article 124.

Can a public officer also commit
detention?
- Yes. If said public officer has
not been vested by law with the
authority to effect arrest and
detain a person, then said person
is acting in his private
capacity. Since he is acting in
his private capacity then he is
liable for kidnapping and serious
illegal detention and not under
Article 124 which is arbitrary
detention.
2
nd
Element
When is there detention?
- There is detention if the
offender detains the person or
liberty of another person. He
must be detained or incarcerated,
there must be showing that there
was restraint in his person or
liberty. Otherwise, if there is
no restraint in his person or
liberty, it could be any other
crime but not kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.
- The law requires that detention
must be illegal. Therefore, there
should be no reasonable ground
thereof.

Circumstances that will make the
crime serious illegal detention:
a. The kidnapping or detention
shall have lasted more than
three days;
b. It shall have been committed
CRIMINAL LAW 2


simulating public authority;
- By pretending to be a
public officer, pretending
to be NBI agent.
c. Any serious physical injuries
shall have been inflicted upon
the person kidnapped or
detained; or if threats to
kill him shall have been made;
d. The person kidnapped or
detained shall be a minor,
female or public officer.

circumstances will make the crime
serious illegal detention and the
absence of any of these circumstances
will make the crime slight illegal
detention under Article 268.

Note that the penalty is reclusion
perpetua to death. What then are the
circumstances that will qualify the
penalty that will make the
institution of the maximum penalty of
death?

- The circumstances are the
following:
a. If the purpose of the
kidnapping or detention was to
extort ransom from the victim
or any other person.
Therefore, we have kidnapping
and serious illegal detention
with ransom.
b. If the person kidnapped or
detained died or is killed as
a consequence of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention,
we have kidnapping and serious
homicide.
c. If the person kidnapped or
detained is raped, we have
detention with rape.
d. If person kidnapped or
detained is subjected to
torture or other dehumanizing
acts.

Detention with Ransom
- Ransom
- Any money, price or
consideration given or demanded
as a redemption for the liberty
of the person detained. Any
money, price or consideration
which is given in exchange for
the liberty of the person
detained or incarcerated is
considered ransom.

- People vs. Mamantak
While the mother and her daughter
were in a food chain in Tondo,
the mother lost her daughter. She
searched for her daughter over a
year. A year and 6 months
thereafter, she received a phone
call from a Muslim woman claiming
that she has her daughter and she
was demanding P30,000 in exchange
of her child. The woman
instructed the mother to go to a
restaurant, where the exchange
will take place. However, the
mother already reported the call
to the police. When they were in
the restaurant and while the
exchange was taking place, the
police apprehended Mamantak. The
crime charged was kidnapping and
ransom. The RTC convicted the
accused, however for kidnapping
and serious illegal detention but
not for ransom. According to the
RTC, the amount given, 30
thousand pesos, is such a small
amount to be considered ransom.
According to the RTC it is merely
a payment for the board and
lodging of the child during the
child was held by Mamantak.
- SC: The crime committed is
detention with ransom. Kahit 5
pesos pa yan if it was given or
demanded as a redemption for the
liberty of the person detained it
is already considered as ransom.
There is no such thing as small
amount in so far as ransom is
concerned.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Example
A was indebted to B. B was asking for
the payment, however A failed to pay.
B got fed up therefore he kidnapped
the minor child of A. B called A
telling him that he would only
release his child if he pays his
indebtedness of half a million. Is
the crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with ransom
committed?
- Yes, it is already kidnapping and
ransom even if the amount being
asked by the kidnapper is the
indebtedness of the father of the
kidnapped child. So any amount
given or demanded for the release
of the person detained, that is
already considered ransom.

Detention with Homicide
- It is a special complex crime.
Therefore, since it is a special
complex crime, regardless of the
number of the victims, it is
still kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with murder or
homicide.

- People vs. Laranaga
- There were 2 kidnapped victims.
They were sisters kidnapped and
raped, thereafter killed. SC held
that even though there were 2
victims the crime committed is
detention with homicide.

- NOTE: It is the victim himself
or herself who died. If it is
another person, it is another
separate and distinct crime
because the law is particular
that the victim himself is the
one that is killed or dies as
consequence thereof.

Example:
A kidnapped the child of B who is his
enemy. Child is 10 years old. While
being held, the child tried to
escape. A caught the child trying to
escape. He shot the child. What was
the crime committed?
- The crime committed was
detention with homicide

But what if in the same problem, the
father told the NBI agents about the
kidnapping. The agents were ale to
track down than place where the child
was being kept. They went over the
hide out and exchange of gunfire took
place. The father saw that his child
and took him away. While they were
escaping the kidnapper saw them and
shot the father. What crime or crimes
was or were committed?
- In so far as the minor is
detention. Even if it has not
lasted for a period of more than
three day, the fact that the
victim is a minor, the crime
committed is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.
- In so far as the father is
concerned, since he is not the
victim of the crime of
kidnapping, a separate crime of
homicide should be filed.
- Therefore, there are 2 crimes
committed by said kidnapper:
detention, in so far as the minor
is concerned and homicide in so
far as the father is concerned.

NOTE: The same is true for kidnapping
and serious illegal detention with
rape. It is necessary that the victim
is the one raped and since it is
again a special complex crime
regardless of the number of times
that the victim was raped the crime
committed is only kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape.
There is no such crime as kidnapping
multiple rapes. Only kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape
and so with kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with physical
injuries which is also a special
CRIMINAL LAW 2


complex crime.
Example:
A, is a 6 year old child, while
playing in the playground was
approached by X and gave her candy.
Meanwhile, the mother was busy
hanging their clothes. After a while,
X came back and this time gave the
child money. The child was so happy
and easily persuaded to go with X.
The mother searched for her daughter
but she was nowhere to be found. X
brought the child in his house and
molested her twice. The following
day, the mother found her child in
their house with torn and blooded
clothes. The crime charged was
detention with rape. Is the crime
charged proper?
- No, the charge is wrong because
the obvious intention is to rape
the child and not to detain her.
SC held that the man is guilty of
2 counts of statutory rape
because the child is below 12
years of age and she was molested
twice. Therefore, unless and
until there was an intention to
detain the child on the part of
the offender, it could be any
other crime but not kidnapping
and serious illegal detention.

A saw his enemy walking. He abducted
his enemy and placed him in a vacant
lot. The following morning, his enemy
was found in a vacant lot dead with
10 gun shot wounds. The crime
committed is murder. Obviously there
was no intent to detain the said
offended party. The intent was to
kill him. Therefore, the proper
charge is murder and not kidnapping
murder or homicide as the case maybe.
In order to amount to kidnapping and
homicide or murder or physical
injuries, it is necessary that there
must be intent to detain and in the
course of such detention the victim
is killed or raped or subjected to
torture or other dehumanizing acts.

If any of the circumstances is absent
it will only be slight illegal
detention under article 268.

Art. 268. Slight illegal detention.
Elements:
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in
any other manner deprive him of his
liberty
3. The act of kidnapping or detention is
illegal
4. Committed absent any of the
circumstances under Art. 267
Example
A, was envious of his neighbor. He
kidnapped said neighbor in the
morning and placed him in a secluded
place. A realized that he might be
imprisoned, so he decided to release
his neighbor in the evening. What is
the effect if such release to the
criminal liability of A?
- Under Article 268, slight illegal
detention, it is provided that if
the victim is released, such
release shall be considered as a
because from the penalty of
reclusion temporal, the penalty
will be lowered by one degree
which is prision mayor. However,
in order that this voluntary
release may be considered a
these are the requisites:
a. The release must be
within three days from the
commencement of the
detention;
b. It must be made without
having attained the purpose
intended;
c. It must be made before
the institution of criminal
proceedings against him.

- If all these are present, then
such voluntary release of the
offender will mitigate the
criminal liability of said
offender.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


A kidnapped a public officer in the
morning. In the evening he released
the said public officer. Will such
release mitigate the criminal
liability of A?
- No. Because the fact that the
person kidnapped is a public
officer the crime committed is
already kidnapping and serious
illegal detention under Article
267. If the crime committed is
Article 267, no amount of
voluntary release will mitigate
the criminal liability of the
offender.

NOTE: If the victim is a minor,
female, public officer automatically
the crime committed is a kidnapping
and serious illegal detention under
Article 267 and no amount of
voluntary release will mitigate the
criminal liability of the offender.

Art. 269. Unlawful arrest.
Elements:
1. Offender arrests or detains another
person
2. The purpose of the offender is to
deliver him to the proper authorities
3. The arrest or detention is not
authorized by law or there is no
reasonable ground therefor.
Example:
A was walking when he was arrested by
B a police officer. The arrest was
without warrant but the same was not
executed under any of the
circumstances for a valid warrantless
arrest. Because there were no
complainants and evidence presented,
the fiscal dismissed the case. What
is the proper crime to be charged?
- The public officer is guilty of
unlawful arrest. The fact that he
has been detained is already
absorbed because the intention of
the said public officer is to
file a case against him, that is,
to deliver him to the proper
authorities. Therefore the
arbitrary detention is absorbed
in unlawful arrest.

Section Two Kidnapping of minors

Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return
a minor
Elements:
1. Offender is any person entrusted with
the custody of a minor
2. He deliberately fails to restore the
minor to his parents or guardians or
any person charged with the custody
of the minor
Example
A and B has a child who was entrusted
to X because they were going on
vacation for a week. They instructed
X to return the child after 7 days.
When they came back home X failed to
return the child. X was so busy and
she forgot to return the child. Can X
be charged with kidnapping under
Article 270?
- No because he did not
deliberately fail to restore the
child to his parents or guardian.
The law requires deliberately.
Here he failed to return the
child because of his negligence.
He was so busy.

Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his
home
Elements:
1. That a minor is living in the home of
his parents or guardian or the person
entrusted with his custody
2. The offender induces said minor to
abandon such home

It is committed by any person who
shall induce a minor to abandon the
home of his parent or guardians or
the persons entrusted with his
custody.

The crime will arise even if the
child has not left the house of his
parents or guardian. Mere inducement
with intent to cause damage will
suffice.
Example
A and B, husband and wife, whose
marriage has been declared a nullity
by the court. The custody of their
child who is 5 years of age is given
CRIMINAL LAW 2


to the mother as provided by law. The
father was granted visitation rights.
One Sunday the father visited the 5
years old son and he brought him out.
Usually, he would return the child by
nighttime. However, the father did
not bring back the child to his
mothers house. The mother demanded
the return of the child but the
father still failed to return the
child. Therefore the mother filed a
case of kidnapping under article 270
against the father. Will the case
prosper?
- Yes the case will prosper. Under
article 271 it is provided that the
father or the mother of the minor may
commit any of the crimes covered by
the two preceding articles. The only
difference is that in case kidnapping
and failure to return a minor under
Art. 270, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon any
other person but if it shall be the
father or the mother of the minor,
the penalty shall be arresto mayor
or a fine or both under the
discretion of the court. Therefore,
even the mother or the father can be
criminally liable under articles 270
and 271. The only difference is in
the penalty

Section Three Slavery and Servitude

Art. 272. Slavery
Elements:
1. Offender is any person who shall
purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a
human being
2. The purpose is to enslave the human
being

If the purpose is to engage in some
immoral traffic, the penalty shall be
qualified.

Art. 273. Exploitation of child labor
Elements:
1. Offender is any person who retains a
minor in his service
2. It is against the will of the minor
3. It is under the pretext of
reimbursing himself of a debt
incurred by an ascendant, guardian or
person entrusted with the custody of
a minor

Art. 274. Services rendered under
compulsion in payment of debt
Elements:
1. Offender is a creditor who compels a
debtor to work for him, either as
household or farm laborer
2. It is against the debtors will
3. The purpose is to require or enforce
the payment of a debt

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
3 acts punished:

1) Anyone who shall fail to render
assistance to any person whom he
shall find in an uninhabited
place wounded or in danger of
dying, when he can render such
assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission
shall constitute a more serious
offense;
Elements:
1. The place is not
inhabited
2. The accused found there
is a person wounded or in
danger of dying
3. The accused can render
assistance w/out detriment
to himself
4. The accused fails to
render assistance

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
CRIMINAL LAW 2


said child to the authorities or
to his family, or shall fail to
take him to a safe place.

Example
A saw B at Luneta Park. He was
wounded, he was bitten by a dog. He
was crying for help, instead of
helping B, A took off. Is he liable
under Article 275?
- No because Luneta park is not an
uninhabited place. Uninhabited
place is one where there is
remote possibility for the victim
to receive some help. Luneta Park
is a public place. Therefore, A
cannot be held liable under
Article 275.

1
st
Act
Example
A was hunting in the forest. He found
B in the middle of the forest. There
was a big trunk of a tree in his
neck; thus, B cannot move. He was
begging for help. A however just
left. B thereafter was rescued. Can A
be held liable under Article 275?
- Yes because A found B in an
uninhabited place, the forest. He
was wounded, he was in danger of
dying because there was a big
trunk in his neck. There was no
detriment on the part of A if he
renders assistance but he failed
to render the same. Therefore he
is liable under Article 275.

But what if A found B. B was bitten
by a snake and it was still there. B
was asking for help but A did not
help him because he was afraid that
the snake too might bite him. Can A
be held liable under Article 275?
- No, because helping B would be
detrimental on his part.

2
nd
Act
Example
A was driving his car when suddenly
it tripped over a stone. The stone
flew, hitting the left eye of a
bystander. Is A liable?
- No because it was purely
accidental. It is an exempting
circumstance. he was performing a
lawful act with due care. An
incident happened without fault
or accident on his part.

However, when the left eye of the
bystander bled, he saw it, instead of
bringing the person to the hospital,
he sped up. Is A criminally liable?
- Yes, A is criminally liable. When
he failed to render assistance to
his victim, he is criminally
liable under Article 275.

Art. 276. Abandoning a minor
Elements:
1. Offender is any person who has
custody of a child
2. The child is under 7 years of age
3. That he permanently, deliberately and
consciously abandons such child
4. That he has no intent to kill the
child when the latter is abandoned

Penalty will be qualified if
a. death of the minor shall result
by reason of such abandonment or
b. the safety of the child has been
placed in danger.

Art. 277. Abandonment of minor by person
entrusted with his custody; indifference of
parents
2 acts punished:

1) Abandonment of a child by a
person entrusted with the custody
Elements:
1. The offender is any
person who has charge of
the rearing or education of
a minor
2. The he deliver said
minor to a public
institution or other
persons
3. That it is 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
CRIMINAL LAW 2


2) Indifference of Parents
Elements:
1. The offender is a
parent
2. The he neglects his
children by not giving them
the education
3. That his station in
life requires such
education and financial
conditions permits it

Art. 278. Exploitation of minors.
The following are the acts punished:

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.

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.

These acts are considered
exploitation of minors because these
acts endanger the life and safety,
the growth and development of said
minors. This usually involves circus.

Art. 279. Additional penalties for other
offenses. The imposition of the penalties
prescribed in the preceding articles, shall
not prevent the imposition upon the same
person of the penalty provided for any
other felonies defined and punished by this
Code.

Section Two Trespass to dwelling

Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
Elements:
1. Offender is a private person
2. He enters the dwelling of another
3. That such entrance is against the
latters will

Trespass to Dwelling or Qualified
Trespass to Dwelling is committed by
any private person who shall enter
the dwelling of another against the
latter's will

It is committed by a private person
because if it is public officer the
crime committed is under Art. 128
which is Violation of Domicile. Under
Art. 128, when the law says against
CRIMINAL LAW 2


the will, it means that there is
some prohibition, there is opposition
of entering whether express or
implied. Mere entry without the
consent of the owner will not bring
about qualified trespass to dwelling.
If the door is open it means that
anybody can enter even without the
consent of the owner. The moment he
enters he cannot be held liable with
qualified trespass because there is
no prohibition or opposition to
enter. It is necessary that there
must be prohibition or opposition
from entering.
- It can be express an express
prohibition such as, when
there is a note stating DO
NOT ENTER or when the door is
closed after a person knocks
when the owner sees the person
knocking.
- It is implied if the door is
closed even if it is not
locked.

Art. 281. Other forms of trespass. The
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any person who shall enter
the closed premises or the fenced estate
of another, while either or them are
uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter
be manifest and the trespasser has not
secured the permission of the owner or
the caretaker thereof.
Trespass to Property
Elements:
1. Offender is any person who
shall enter the closed premises
or the fenced estate of another
person
2. The entrance is made while
either of them is uninhabited
3. That the prohibition to enter
be manifest
4. That the trespasser has not
secured the permission of the
owner or the caretaker thereof

Trespass to Dwelling vs. Trespass to
Property
Trespass to
Dwelling
Trespass to
Property
Place is a
dwelling and
inhabited
Place is a closed
premise or the
fenced estate of
another which is
unihabited
Prohibition to
enter can either
be express or
implied
Prohibition to
enter must be
manifest
Entry was made
against the will
of the
owner/possessor
of property
Entry was made
without seeking
the permission of
the
owner/caretaker
thereof
Example
Townhouse A was currently uninhabited.
There was a notice posted that it was for
rent. X entered the said townhouse. What
crime was committed by A?
- Trespass to Property because at
that time the premises was closed
and uninhabited and he enters
without securing the permission of
the owner or the caretaker.

A and B, husband and wife, went on
vacation for a month. Their house was
therefore uninhabited. X learned that
there was no one inside the house. he
entered the house. what crime was
committed? Is it Trespass to Property or
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling?
- Qualified Trespass to Dwelling. It
is a residential place and someone
is occupying it even if at the
moment it is uninhabited because
the owners went on vacation. It is
considered an inhabited place
therefore the moment someone
enters, it is considered trespass
to dwelling and not trespass to
property.

Section Three Threats and coercion
3 kinds of threats:
1. Grave threats
2. Light threats
3. Other light threats
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Art. 282. Grave threats
Acts punished:
1) 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 coupled
with a demand of money or imposition
of any other condition, even though
not unlawful, and said offender
attained his purpose
wrong amounting to a crime coupled
with the demand of money of money or
imposition any other condition, even
though not unlawful, and said
offender did not attain his purpose
wrong amounting to a crime without
the demand of money or imposition of
any other condition

Art. 283. Light threats
Light threats:
- Any threat to commit a wrong not
constituting a crime, but it is
always subject to a demand of money
or imposition of any other condition,
even though not unlawful

Art. 284. Bond for good behavior
Example:
A threatened to kill B. B filed a case of
grave threats against A. Upon filing of
the case, what bail if any should the
court impose upon A?
ANS: BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR - is a
bail required by the court to be
posted by any accused only in the
crimes of grave threats and other
light threats. This is to ensure that
the offender will not make good the
threat imposed by him. Failure to
post the bond, the offender shall be
sentenced to destierro.

Art. 285. Other light threats
Acts punished:
1) Threatening another with a weapon or
draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless
it be in lawful self-defense
2) Orally threatening, in the heat of
anger, 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
3) Orally threatening to do another any
harm not constituting a felony
Whether it be grave, light or other light
threats, the essence of the threats is
intimidation - the promise of a future
wrong or harm.

Threats can be committed personally,
orally, in writing or through an
intermediary. If committed in writing or
through an intermediary, the penalty is
qualified.

DISTINCTION: GRAVE, LIGHT, OTHER LIGHT
THREATS
GRAVE THREATS
LIGHT
THREATS
OTHER LIGHT
THREATS
The threat is
always &
always
amounting to
and
constituting
a crime. It
may or may
not be
subject to
demand of
money or
imposition of
other
conditions.
The offender
may or may
not attain
his purpose.

The threat
does not
amount to a
crime. It is
always and
always
subject to a
demand of
money or the
imposition
of any other
condition,
even though
not
unlawful.
Committed by
threatening
another with a
weapon or draw
such weapon in
a quarrel,
unless it be
in lawful
self-defense;
or orally
threatening,
in the heat of
anger, 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;
or orally
threatening to
do any harm
not
constituting a
felony.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Example:
A learned that B was spreading negative
rumors against him. A was so mad so he
went to the house of B and shouted, B get
out of your house. I will kill you! I will
kill you! But B did not go out of the
house. Instead, it was the son of B who
went out. A told the son to let his father
go out because A would kill him. Upon
hearing this, the son went inside the
house and did not go back. B as well did
not go out. Later, A left Bs house.
CRIME: A committed other light
threats. A, in the heat of anger,
orally threatened B with a wrong
constituting a crime but he did not
pursue the idea.
A saw that B has a new Lexus. A knew that
the car was smuggled. A told B. If you
will not give me 500,000php, I will tell
the Bureau of Customs that your car is
smuggled.
CRIME: Light threats. A threatened to
commit a wrong not constituting a
crime. It is not a crime to tell
Customs that the car was smuggled.
The threat is subject to a demand of
money or the imposition of any other
condition, even though not unlawful.
A, creditor of B, was inside the house of
the latter seeking for payment of debt. B
said, get out of my house. If I still see
you later afternoon in my house when I
come back, I will kill you!
CRIME: B committed Grave threats
because there is a promise of a
future wrong of killing to be
committed in the afternoon.
A, creditor of B, was inside the house of
the latter seeking for payment of debt. B
said, get out of my house right now or
else I will kill you!
CRIME: B committed Grave coercion.
The threat is present, direct,
personal, immediate and imminent. It
is not in the future.
Art. 286. Grave coercions
2 ways to commit grave coercion:
1. PREVENTIVE COERCION
- if a person prevents another
by means of violence or
intimidation from doing
something not prohibited by
law.

Example:
A wanted to enter the house of B against
the latters will. X saw A, so he
prevented A. Nevertheless, A continued to
enter. Because of this, X boxed A
resulting to slight physical injuries.
CRIME: Slight physical injuries
because X prevents a person from
doing something prohibited by law. In
grave coercion, the offender prevents
someone to do something not
prohibited by law.

2. COMPULSORY COERCION
- if a person compels another by
means of violence and
intimidation from doing
something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong,
prohibited or not.

- Unlike in threats where the
essence of the threats is the
promise to do a future wrong
or injury; in coercion, the
threat is present, direct,
personal and imminent. Hence,
grave coercion cannot be
committed through an
intermediary or in writing
because the threat is always
personal, present and
imminent. The threatened act
is about to be committed.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


DISTINCTION: THREAT AND COERCION
THREAT COERCION
the wrong threatened
to be committed is
in the future
the wrong threatened
to be committed is
direct, personal,
present and imminent
threats may be
committed in writing
or through an
intermediary
threats cannot be
committed in writing
or through an
intermediary because
they should always
be personal and
direct
threat means
intimidation
it is violence; or
intimidation
sufficient enough to
amount to violence

Art. 287. Light coercions
LIGHT COERCION - committed by a creditor
who shall seize anything belonging to his
debtor by means of violence or intimidation
for the purpose of applying the same to the
indebtedness

- related to light coercion is
UNJUST VEXATION which refers to
any human conduct, although not
capable of producing any harm or
material injury, annoys or vexes
an innocent person.

Art. 288. Other similar coercions
OTHER LIGHT COERCION - more on labor
Acts punished:

1) Committed by forcing or compelling
directly, indirectly, knowingly
permitting or forcing an employee or
laborer to buy merchandise or
commodities from the employer

2) By paying the wages due to the
employees or laborers by objects
other than the legal tender of the
Philippines, unless it is requested
by the employee or laborer

Chapter Three
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS

Art. 290. Discovering secrets through
seizure of correspondence

SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE to discover the
secrets of another
- committed by any person who shall
seize any correspondence of another
to discover the secrets of the
latter. DAMAGE is not a requirement.
The mere act of seizing the
correspondence to discover the
latters secrets will consummate the
crime. It is also NOT necessary that
the secret be REVEALED.

Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of
office
REVEALING SECRETS BY ABUSING OFFICE
- committed by a manager, employee or
servant who reveals the secrets of
his master learned by him in such
capacity. It is the revelation of
secrets which will consummate the
crime, not mere discovery. DAMAGE is
also not an element.

Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets
REVELATION OF INUSTRIAL SECRETS
- committed by any person in charge
or an employee in an industrial of
manufacturing establishment who shall
learn and discover the secrets of the
industry and shall reveal the same to
the prejudice of the owner thereof.
DAMAGE must be caused to the offended
party. Mere revelation of secrets
will not suffice.

In relation to
RA4200(ANTI-WIRETAPPINGLAW)
ACTS:
1) It shall be unlawful for any person, not obtaining
the consent of all the parties to any private
communicationorspokenword,totapanywireor
cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or
record such communication or spoken word by
using a device like dictaphone or dictagraph or
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
othersimilarmeans
Exapmle:
Atold Bto go inside his room. When inside the room,
A started scolding B saying slanderous remarks
against him. Unknown to A, B was recording the
CRIMINAL LAW 2


private communication between them. Can B use the
recordinfilingacaseforslanderagainstA?
ANS: No, because the act of tape recording
without being authorized by all the parties in a
privatecommunicationisinadmissibleinevidence
in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrativeproceedingorinvestigation.
The only exception is when a police officer is

authorized by a written order of the court to listen
to, intercept or record any communication in
crimes involving treason, espionage, provoking
waranddisloyaltyincaseofwar,piracy,mutinyin
the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal
to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition
andkidnapping.
2) Knowingly possessing any tape record, wire

record, disc record, or any other such record, or
copies thereof, of any private communication or
spokenword
3) By replaying the wire record, tape record, disc

record for any other person or persons; or
communicating the contents thereof, either
verballyorinwriting,toanotherperson
4) Furnishing transcriptions of the wire record, disc

record or tape record, whether totally or partially,
toanyotherperson

Title Ten
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Chapter One
ROBBERY IN GENERAL
Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery
ROBBERY- committed by 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

Elements:
1. Offender unlawfully takes the
personal property of another
UNLAWFUL TAKING - deprivation
of the offended party of his
personal property.
2. The personal property belongs to
another person
- If the property does not
belong to another person, it
cannot be said that there is
intent to gain on the part of
the offender
3. Intent to gain in taking the
property
- Intent to gain is an
internal state of mind. The
law presumes that there is
intent to gain the moment that
there is taking of personal
property of another
4. Taking is with violence and
intimidation or force upon things

Section One Robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons

Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons

2 Types of Robbery:
1. WITH VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION
- In this kind of robbery, the
value of the property taken is
immaterial because the penalty is
dependent on the violence
employed by the offender.
2. WITH FORCE UPON THINGS
- The value of the property taken
is material because the penalty
is dependent upon the value of
the property.

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AND
INTIMIDATION
ACTS:
1) When by reason or on the occasion
of robbery, homicide is committed
2) When robbery is accompanied by
rape, intentional mutilation, or
arson
of robbery, any of the serious
physical injuries resulting to
insanity, imbecility, impotency
or blindness was committed
or robbery, any of the of the
serious physical injuries
resulting to the loss of 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
CRIMINAL LAW 2


any such member, or shall have
become incapacitated for the work
in which he was therefor
habitually engaged
5) When the commission of the
robbery is carried to a degree
clearly unnecessary for the
commission of the crime
6) In the execution of the robbery,
and 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
7) If the violence employed in the
commission or robbery does not
constitute the physical injuries
covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4
of said Article 263 or that only
intimidation is employed.
Based on the foregoing, there exists crimes
such as robbery with homicide, robbery with
rape, robbery with serious physical
injuries and robbery with unnecessary
violence and simple robbery.

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
- is a special complex crime
because in reality there are two
crimes committed but in the eyes
of the law, there is only one
crime. For as long as the
original intent or original
criminal design of the offender
is to rob, the killing may take
place before, during or after the
robbery

- regardless of the number of
persons killed, there is only one
crime committed. Also, even if
the killing is unintentional or
accidental, there is still one
crime committed.

- even if the victim of the killing
is different from the victim of
the robbery, still it is robbery
with homicide. This constitutes
the difference between kidnapping
with serious illegal detention
because in this crime, the victim
of the kidnapping must also be
the victim of the killing
Example:
A went to the house of B and took the
valuables therein. During the taking,
one jewelry box suddenly fell on the
floor. This awakened the owner of the
house, X. When A saw this, he
immediately shot X
CRIME: Robbery with homicide because
by reason or on the occasion of
robbery, homicide was committed.

In same problem, wife of X was also
awakened and she started to shout.
Because of this, A also shot the wife
CRIME: Robbery with homicide even if
two persons were killed since the
crime is a special complex crime. All
the offenses are merged into a single
indivisible crime of robbery with
homicide.

A was about to go out bringing with him
the valuables he robbed. However, he
bumped the door. This awakened the
owner, X, who tried to chase A. They
reached the garden part of the house.
While therein, A positioned himself to
shoot X, so X jumped on A to struggle
possession of the gun. In the course of
the struggle, the gun fired and hit a
balot vendor who passed by the house of
X.
CRIME: Robbery with homicide. Since
it is a special complex crime, even
if the victim of robbery is different
from the victim of homicide or even
if the killing is accidental, there
is only a single indivisible crime
committed. So long as the killing is
by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery.

A, B and C entered the house of X to
commit robbery. After taking the
valuables and as they were about to
leave, X was awakened. Among the three,
it was only A who shot and killed X.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


CRIME: All are criminally liable even
if it is only A who shot X. While
there is a rule that in an express or
direct conspiracy the conspirators
are liable only for the crime agreed
upon by them, the situation however
falls under the exception. EXCEPTION:
That is, when the conspiracy results
to a special complex crime. The
crimes cannot be separated from each
other. Thus, even if its only A who
shot X or even if the agreement is
only to commit robbery, since
homicide was committed by reason or
on the occasion of robbery, all are
criminally liable for the crime of
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: is when B
and C performed acts to prevent A
from killing X.

People vs Cabbab
In a game played by A, B, X, Y and Z, it
was A who won the game. After the game,
while A, B and Z were about to leave, X and
Y were furiously looking at them. Suddenly,
X and Y fired several shots against A, B
and Z. Z, who was a police officer, dove
into the canal in order to prevent himself
from being killed. Z was injured.
Unfortunately, A and B were killed and
thereafter, the winnings of A were taken by
X and Y.
Fiscal filed the cases of - 1. Robbery
because of the taking of the winnings, 2.
Double murder because of the death of A and
B, and 3. Attempted murder insofar as Z is
concerned.
RTC ruled that the charges were wrong
because the crime committed is robbery with
double homicide and attempted murder
Upon appeal, CA ruled that the ruling of
RTC is incorrect because the crime
committed is robbery with homicide and
attempted murder
SC: The Fiscal, RTC and CA were all
wrong. The crime committed is only
the single indivisible offense of
robbery with homicide. All the acts
are considered absorbed by robbery
with homicide despite the fact that 2
persons were killed and 1 person was
injured. All these circumstances are
merged into an integrated whole; that
is, the single indivisible offense of
robbery with homicide

ROBBERY WITH RAPE
- is also a special complex crime.
So long as the intention of the
offender is to commit robbery,
the rape can be committed before,
during and after the robbery.
Regardless of the number of
rapes, there is only a single
indivisible crime. There is no
such crime as robbery with
multiple rapes.
Example:
A woman was walking on her way home. It
was payday and her salary was inside her
bag. X, the robber, took the bag of the
woman and got the money therein. X found
the woman attractive so he raped her
twice.
CRIME: Robbery with rape, regardless
of the number of times the woman was
raped.

People vs Suyu
A couple was having snack inside the car.
While eating, they saw shadows of four men
trying to push the car. One of them was
Suyu. The couple was forced to open the
door and get out of the car. The men took
the valuables of the couple. While the men
were taking the valuables, the boyfriend
ran and left the girlfriend. After taking
the valuables, the men dragged the
abandoned girlfriend to a nearby nipa hut.
Inside the nipa hut, the girlfriend was
raped by Suyu, the mastermind. After Suyu,
the girlfriend was again raped by the other
companion. The girlfriend was raped three
times. Rape with carnal knowledge and rape
with sexual assault were committed against
her. The other two men remained outside the
nipa hut to serve as lookouts.
CRIME: Robbery with rape. Regardless
of the fact that two persons raped
the victim, regardless of the fact
that the victim was raped three
times, and regardless of the fact
that two natures of rape (carnal
knowledge and sexual assault) were
committed against the victim, there
is only one indivisible crime.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Even if not all of the offenders
raped the victim, still all of them
are criminally liable for the crime
of robbery with rape because the two
lookouts did not perform acts to
prevent the rape.

ROBBERY WITH INTENTIONAL MUTILATION,
ROBBERY WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
ROBBERY WITH ARSON
- For as long as the original
intent is to commit robbery, the
intentional mutilation, serious
physical injury or arson may be
committed before, during or after
the robbery.
Example:
It was payday. A and B saw X with a bag. A
and B signaled X to give them his bag. X
gave the bag and left. A and B went to a
nearby waiting shed bringing with them the
bag of X. In the waiting shed, A and B
divided the money of X. In the course of
the partition, A gave B only a small share
of the money. B got mad. B shot A.
CRIME: Robbery with Homicide, even if
it was an offender killed. This is
because the killing took place by
reason of the robbery, while A and B
were dividing the loot.

In the same problem, while A and B were
dividing the loot, B got a small share.
Because of this, B without intent to kill
shot A who suffered serious physical
injuries.
CRIME: Robbery with serious physical
injuries

In the same problem, while A and B were
dividing the loot, B got a small share.
Because of this, B took his ice pick from
his pocket and used it to put an X mark on
the face of A. This serious physical
injury resulted to deformity.
CRIME: Robbery and Serious Physical
injury. Under Art. 294 par 4, when
the serious physical injury that
resulted is a deformity, or the loss
of any other member of his body, the
law requires that the said serious
physical injury or deformity is
inflicted in the course of the
execution of the robbery upon a
person not responsible for the
robbery. Otherwise, it will bring
about a separate and distinct crime.

Here, the deformity was inflicted
after the robbery and upon a person
responsible for the commission of the
robbery. Thus, there are two crimes
committed: Robbery and Serious
Physical Injury.

What if A went to the house of B, instead
of X which was his original plan. A, while
taking the valuables, made some noise and
awakened the owner of the house, and so A
shot the owner of the house. The owner of
the house died. Thereafter A hurriedly
went downstairs. Downstairs he saw the
wife, found the wife attractive, and he
raped the wife. After raping the wife, he
also saw the maid and found the maid
attractive, so he raped the maid. The
moment he got out of the door of the
house, the gardener saw him and tried to
prevent A from leaving the house. And so A
shot the gardener, and in shooting the
gardener, A shot the arms several times,
resulting in the severance of the arm, so
intentional mutilation. Not only that,
when he was going out of the gate, here
comes the driver, preventing A from
leaving the house. So what A did was that
he boxed the driver several times which
resulted to serious physical injuries.
What are the crimes committed?
So we have one death, two rapes,
intentional mutilation and serious
physical injuries.

A only committed the single
homicide. All the rape, intentional
mutilation and serious physical
injuries are merged into the
composite integrated offense and that
is, the single indivisible offense of

You have to observe the sequence
because the highest is robbery
with homicide.

If rape took place after A committed
robbery, A after taking the valuables of
CRIMINAL LAW 2


the house, raped the wife and while he was
raping the wife, the husband saw A, so A
killed the husband, and then later the
driver put up a fight and resulted to
serious physical injuries. What are the
crimes committed?
The crime committed is robbery with
homicide.

The first is homicide, rape,
intentional mutilation, arson,
serious physical injuries,
unnecessary violence and simple
robbery. All the others are
merged, and that is robbery with
homicide. The other offenses will
not be considered as aggravating
circumstances because there is
nothing in Art. 14 that will
consider the other offenses as
aggravating circumstances. That
is why you have to observe the
sequence. So if there was only
rape, intentional mutilation,
serious physical injuries, it
will be robbery with rape. It
will only be a single indivisible
offense. It will be a special
complex crime.

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.

Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty
incurred by the members thereof.

Art. 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances.

Art. 298. Execution of deeds by means of
violence or intimidation.

Section Two Robbery by the use of force
upon things

ROBBERY WITH USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS
Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or
public building or edifice devoted to
worship
Another form of robbery is robbery with
the use of force upon things in Art 299.

In case of violence against persons, the
value of the property is not important
because the penalty is the basis of the
violence.

In Art. 299, the basis of the penalty is
the value of the property taken.

3 ways of committing robbery with use of
force upon things:
1) When a person enters the dwelling,
house, public building or edifice
devoted to worship where personal
property is taken through:
a. An opening not intended for
entrance or egress
b. By breaking any wall, roof, or
floor or breaking any door or
window.
c. By using false keys,
picklocks or similar tools
d. By using any fictitious name
or pretending the exercise of
public authority
NOTE:
Under the first act, the essence of
the crime is in the unlawful entry;
it is the act of trespassing and also
the taking of the property of
another.

It is necessary that the entire body
must have enter, otherwise, even if
there is breaking, it would only
amount to theft and that breaking
would amount only to aggravating
circumstance. The Supreme Court ruled
that when the law used the word
enter, it means that the entire
body must have entered said place to
take the property of another.

Example
A, in order to rob the house made an
opening in the roof, sufficient for him to
enter. So he used a rope in going down and
thereafter he took the valuables and then
left. What crime is committed?
Robbery by use of force upon things.
A made an opening and he was able to
enter fully.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


What if he made an entry, let down a rope
with a hook and used it in taking the
valuable.
The crime committed only is theft
with aggravating circumstance of the
breaking of the roof. His body did
not enter the premises.

2) When the offender manages to enter
said inhabited place, dwelling,
public place or place dedicated to
religious worship without any
unlawful entry, or is an insider, and
once inside, he used force in opening
in order to:
a. Break doors, wardrobes,
chests, or any other kind
of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle
NOTE:
The second act is when the offender
was able to enter without unlawful
entry or was an insider and once
inside, breaks the doors, wardrobes,
chest, receptacles, and thereafter
took the personal properties inside
the house.
Example
A and B are brothers, living in the same
house and in the same room but have
different cabinets where each of the
cabinets have locks. One time brother A
was in need of money and wanted to borrow
money from brother B, but brother B was
out of the house. So what brother A did
was that he forcibly opened the cabinet of
brother B and took the expensive jewelries
of brother B and appropriated the jewelry?
What are the crimes committed? Is Brother
A only liable civilly?
A is guilty of robbery with use of
force upon things. He is an insider,
and he used force to break open the
cabinet of B. He did not commit
theft. Since the crime committed is
robbery, brother A is criminally
liable and civilly liable. Because
under Article 332, it is only on
cases of theft, swindling, estafa,
and malicious mischief, wherein
theres no criminal liability but
only civil liability in case of
relatives living together.

In the same problem, what if A was in need
of money, he saw the expensive watch of B
on top of the table and sold the watch.
What crime was committed?
A committed the crime of theft since
there is no breaking or forcibly
opening the receptacle. Under Art
332, he is only liable for civil
liability. They are free from
criminal liability.
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.

Since it refers to simple crimes, if the
crime committed is estafa through
falsification of public document, there
will be criminal liability. This exemption
from criminal liability will only lie in
the cases mentioned in Art. 332.

3) When the offender manages to enter
said inhabited place, dwelling,
public place, or place dedicated to
religious worship without any
unlawful entry, once inside he took
CRIMINAL LAW 2


the sealed receptacle outside to be
opened or forced open.

The offender was able to enter and
once inside, he did not use force to
open the close cabinet or receptacle.
Instead, he took the cabinet and
receptacle outside to open it.

Circumstances that will qualify robbery
with use of force upon things:
Art. 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place
and by a band.
Under Article 300, if robbery is
committed with in an uninhabited
place and by a band the law
used the conjunction AND, both
must concur in order to amount a
qualifying circumstance, to
increase the penalty. So it
should be in an uninhabited place
and by a band, therefore both
must be present.

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.
In case of robbery with serious physical
injuries, unnecessary violence or simple
violence, how will the crime be qualified?
The answer is under Art. 295, where
if the said robbery is:
1. Committed in an
uninhabited place OR by a band
2. By attacking any moving
train, street car, motor
vehicle or airship
3. By entering the
passengers compartments in a
train; or
4. Taking the passengers
by surprise in their
respective conveyances
5. On a street, road,
highway, or alley and the
Intimidation is made use of a
firearm

NOTE:
That in case of robbery with violence
or intimidation on persons, the
qualifying circumstances are present,
only one of these is sufficient to
qualify the penalty. The law here
uses the conjunction OR not AND.

Example:
A went to the house of B. A told B this
is a hold up and bring out the valuables.
Instead of bringing the valuables to A, B
panicked and shouted. A therefore shot B.
B died. A also panicked and left the place
without bringing his loot. What is/are the
crime/s committed?
The crime committed by A is attempted
robbery with homicide. This is also a
special complex crime. Here robbery
was attempted because he was unable
to take any of the property. The fact
that A was able to announce hold-up
and bring the valuables to him means
that the original design is to commit
robbery. It was attempted because he
was unable to take the property, and
in the course of thereof, he killed
the owner.

In order to amount to special complex
crime, it is necessary that both the
robbery and homicide must be
consummated.

What if in the course of robbery, the said
owner was shot but was able to survive.
The crime committed is robbery with
physical injuries depending on the
injuries sustained by the victim. In
order to amount to robbery with
homicide, it is necessary that both
crimes must be present and there is
no such thing as robbery with
frustrated homicide or attempted
homicide, for it is the law which
provides for the crime which must be
complexed, and the law does not
provide that frustrated homicide or
attempted homicide must be complexed
with robbery.

In the instant case, since the
killing took place at the spur of the
moment, then it is robbery with
homicide.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Chapter Two
BRIGANDAGE

What if robbery was committed by 4 armed
men?
Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty
incurred by the members thereof.
A was walking, suddenly there are 4 men
with knives and took As bag which is full
of money. A put up a fight. And so these
armed men killed A. What crime is
committed? Is the crime committed robbery
in band with homicide?
There is no such crime as robbery by
a band with homicide. The said use of
band is only an aggravating
circumstance. The proper designation
of the crime is robbery with
homicide. The fact that it is
committed by 4 armed men is only an
aggravating circumstance. Under Art.
296, if a band committed robbery, it
is only an aggravating circumstance.
Art. 306. Brigandage.
Under Article 306, it is committed by at
least 4 armed men for the purposes of -
1. committing robbery in the highway;
2. kidnapping persons for the purpose
of extortion or ransom
3. for any other purpose to be attained
by means of force and violence.

Art. 296 Art. 306
Both require at least 4 armed persons
It is required that
the 4 armed men must
actually take part
in the commission of
the robbery
The crime is already
consummated by the
mere fact that 4
armed men formed a
band of robbers.
It is not required
that they actually
commit the enumerated
purposes.

PD532 (THE ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF 1974)

In PD 532, brigandage is defined as the seizure of any person for
ransom, extortion, or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away
of property of another by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons of force upon things or other unlawful means,
committed by any person on any Philippine highway.

Art 306 vs. PD 532, or the Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974
Art. 306 PD 532
Requires that there must be at
least 4 armed men
No requisite as to the # of
perpetrators of the crime
Even a single person can
commit the crime of brigandage
The mere formation of the
band of robbers for any of the
purposes mentioned will bring
about the crime
There must be an actual
commission of the crime or no
crime will arise

There is a predetermined or
preconceived victim
There is no preconceived victim.
It is committed indiscriminately
on any person passing on the
highway as long as it is
committed in a Philippine
highway.

Chapter Three
THEFT

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.

The definition is almost the same as
robbery. The difference lies in the case of
robbery where there is violence or
intimidation of persons and use of force
upon things, while in theft, there is no
violence, intimidation against persons or
force upon things.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Example:
1. A person who found a lost personal
property of another but did not give
it to the police, there is theft.
2. A damaged the property of B, he make
use of that damage.
3. There is a vacant lot guarded by X. A
person entered the vacant lot and
took the fruits.

Valenzuela v. People
There is no frustrated theft. In this case,
the offender took boxes of tide from SM
North Edsa and placed it in the taxi.
Before they were able to left the premises
of SM, they were apprehended. The offenders
were charged of consummated theft. They did
not deny that they committed theft but
their defense is that they committed
frustrated theft.
The SC En Banc in 2007 ruled that there is
no crime as frustrated theft. In case of
theft, unlawful taking is deemed complete
the moment the offender gain possession of
the property of another, theft is
consummated.

Art. 309. Penalties
When is theft qualified?

Art. 310. Qualified Theft
Theft is qualified in the following
instances:

1. If theft is committed by a domestic
servant
2. If committed with grave abuse of
confidence
3. If the property stolen is a (a) motor
vehicle, (b) mail matter, or (c)
large cattle
4. If the property stolen consists of
coconuts taken from the premises of
the plantation
5. If the property stolen is taken from
a fishpond or fishery
6. If property taken on the occasion of
fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic
eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.

Example:
A is a domestic servant. When his master
was out of the house, A went to the
masters bedroom and took the jewelries.
In the information cited that he was a
domestic servant but the information did
not state that A took the jewelries with
grave abuse of confidence. Is A liable for
qualified theft?
Yes, according to the Supreme Court,
the law uses the conjunction OR. The
fact that the accused is a domestic
servant, it will suffice. The law
does not require that abuse of
confidence to be established. It will
suffice that the accused is a
domestic servant.

A was a security guard. The owner of the
house left his key to the security guard.
However, the security guard used the key
to open the house of the owner and took
the valuables. What crime is committed?
The Security Guard is liable for
qualified theft because of grave
abuse of confidence.

RA6539(ANTI-CARNAPPINGACT)
Carnapping- is the taking with intent to gain, of motor

vehicle belonging to another without the consent of the
latter, or by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons,orbyuseofforceuponthings.
Elements:
1. Actualtakingofmotorvehicle
2. Thevehiclebelongstoanother
3. There is intent to gain in the taking of the vehicle
ofanother
4. Said taking is taking without the consent of the
owner or by means of violence or intimidation or
bymeansofforceuponthings.
Example:
A was driving his car and suddenly felt the need to
answer the call of nature so he parked his vehicle.
Suddenly,therewasXandsawAwasoutofthecar,and
thedoorofthecarwasopenandthekeywasleftinside
the car. X drove away with the car. What is the crime
committed?
The crime committed is carnapping. Even if there
is no violence or intimidation against person or
forceuponthings,solongassaidtakingiswithout
the consent of the owner, it will amount to
carnapping.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Under Sec. 14, the penalty if there no violence or

intimidation against persons or use of force on
things,thepenaltyis14yearsand8monthsto17
yearsand4months.
In the given situation, what if A saw X and there was a

fight that ensued between them. X shot A, and X was
able to take the vehicle. A however survived due to
immediate medical treatment. What is/are the crimes
committedbyX?
ThecrimecommittedbyXisonlycarnapping.The
fact that X shot A, where there is frustrated
homicide, it falls under violence or intimidation
which was usedby the offender in committing the
crime. Since there is violence, the penalty is 17
yearsand4monthsto30years.
If again, in the same problem, A tried to stop X and X

shotA.Adied.Whatisthecrimecommitted?
The fact that the owner is killed or raped as a
consequence,thepenaltyis reclusionperpetuato
death. It will bring about a higher penalty, but not
asaspecialcomplexcrimebecauseitisaSpecial
PenalLaw.Thoughitisakintoaspecialcomplex
crime, the killing is absorbed. The crime is
carnapping.Itisalsonotabailableoffense.
PD 533 (ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW)

Cattle Rustling - defined as the taking away by any
means, method or scheme, without the consent of the
owner/raiser, of any large cattle whether or not for
profit or for gain, or whether committed with or
without violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things. It includes the killing of a large
cattle or taking it as a meat or hide without the
consent of the owner/raiser.

Large Cattle- shall include cow, carabao, horse,
mule, ass, or other domesticated member of the
bovine family. Goats are not large cattle. (sabi nung
isang justice sa SC na prof naming dati, si Lawyer
daw pag kinidnap cattle rustling daw tawag dun. Ang
evil nya!)

Example:
As carabao was tied on the mango tree. X saw the
carabao alone. So what X did was he untied the
carabao and took the carabao away. A saw X with
his carabao so A tried to catch up with X. As A was
able to catch up with X, a fight ensued. X took his
bolo and hacked A to death. What is the crime
committed by X?
The crime committed by X is only cattle
rustling. The fact that the owner was killed is
within the meaning of violence or
intimidation against persons. It will not bring
about a separate and distinct crime of
murder. The Anti-Cattle Rustling Law,
although a special law, is not malum
prohibitum but a malum in se. Under Sec. 10
of the law, it is expressly provided that this
law amends Art. 309 and 310 of the RPC.
Since it is an amendment, the SC it is a
malum in se and not a malum prohibitum.

Art. 311. Theft of the property of the
National Library and National Museum.
The value of the property is
immaterial because the law prescribed
the penalty of arresto mayor or fine
or both.

Chapter Four
USURPATION

Art. 312. Occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights in property.

2 acts punished under Art 312:
1) Occupation of real property which is
committed by any person who by means
of violence against or intimidation
shall occupy the real property of
another
2) Usurpation of real rights in property
committed by any person who by means
of violence against or intimidation
shall usurp any real rights in
property of another person
Example:
There was a vacant lot. Here comes A and B
and his family. The said land or property
was being guarded by X. A and B went
inside the vacant lot and tried to build a
nipa house because they do not have any
house. And so the guard told them that A
and B has no right to build a nipa house
because the lot is owned by Y. However, A
and B told the guard that they do not have
any house. In the course of the argument,
A and B killed the guard. What is/are the
crimes committed?
CRIMINAL LAW 2


The crime committed is only
occupation of real property. The
killing is only a means to occupy the
real property. It falls under
violence against or intimidation of
persons in occupying the real
property.

In the same problem A and B put up their
house in the vacant property. The owner
learned this and went to A and Bs house.
However, A and B killed the owner.
In this case, two crimes are
committed. The killing took place
after occupying the place. This time,
the crimes committed are occupation
and homicide or murder as the case
maybe.

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.

Chapter Six
SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person
who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned here in below 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
CRIMINAL LAW 2


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. (As amended by R.A. 4885,
approved June 17, 1967.)]
(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.

3 ways of committing estafa or swindling:
1) Estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse
of confidence Art 315 (1)

2) By means of false pretense or by
fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneous to the commission of the
offense Art 315 (2)

3) Through fraudulent means Art 315 (3)

Whatever be the crime of estafa, there are
always 2 general elements:
1. That the accused defrauded another by
means of abuse of confidence, or by
means of deceit; and
2. That damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third persons.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS or ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE (1
st
form)
Committed through:
(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.

NOTE: The law says that even if it
based on an immoral or illegal
consideration.

Example:
A is bound to deliver boxes of marijuana
to B. At the bottom of the box were
inferior qualities of marijuana while on
top are high grade marijuana. Is A liable
of estafa?
A is liable for estafa. B can file a
case of estafa against A. (for
purposes of example only because B
may be held liable for dangerous
drugs act)

(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.

The moment that the offended party
entrusted the money or goods or any
other personal property to the
offender, it is necessary that there
must be a transfer of juridical
possession. Juridical possession is a
legal right over the property;
possession in the concept of the
owner. During the time that the
possessor has legal possession of the
property, even the owner cannot file
estafa to the possessor because it is
the rightful possessor at that
moment.

If what has been transferred is
material or physical possession, and
the offender misappropriates the
same, he is only liable for qualified
theft.

Example:
A rented a bicycle from B for Php500 for 2
hours. A was in possession of the said
bicycle. 2 hours had lapsed, A was not
able to return the bicycle to B. B
demanded that A return the bicycle, but A
did not. What is the crime committed by A?

The crime committed by A is estafa
because it there is a lease
agreement. What has been transferred
to A is juridical possession of the
property by virtue of the lease
agreement.

A gave B a watch. A told B This is my
watch, use it as a collateral for my
debt. B however, instead of using it as
collateral for the loan of A, sold the
watch and appropriated the proceeds of the
watch. What is the crime committed?
The crime committed by B is qualified
theft and not estafa. There is no
transfer of juridical possession. A
remains to be the owner of the watch,
and said watch is only used as a
collateral.

A went to the bank and then A told the
teller, Here is 100k, kindly deposit this
to my account. Here is my passbook and
here is the money. Deposit it because I am
in a hurry and I will drop by later in the
afternoon. However, A was not able to
drop by in the afternoon. So A went the
following day. When A asked for the
passbook, he realized that the 100k was
not deposited by the teller to his
account. The teller misappropriated the
100k. What is the crime committed?
The crime committed is Qualified
Theft. The SC ruled that when the
depositor leaves to the bank his
money for deposit, what has been
transferred is only the material or
physical possession. The juridical
possession of the money remains with
CRIMINAL LAW 2


the owner of the money. Hence, when
it is misappropriated by the teller
of the bank, it is only qualified
theft and not estafa.

A works in the field and makes cash
advance to his company. One time he went
to a certain place and there is a cash
advance. When A returned, A failed to
liquidate the expenses in the cash advance
despite demands. What is the crime
committed by A?
According to the SC, a cash advance
is in the nature of a loan. When an
employee makes a cash advance to the
company, it is in effect obtaining a
loan from the company. Therefore
ownership is transferred to the
employee because there is no
obligation to return the very same
money. Hence there can be no estafa.
Since ownership was transferred and
that the employee cannot pay, we have
the relationship of creditor and
debtor, not that entrustor-
entrustee. There will be no criminal
case but only civil liability. Hence,
we have a civil case of collection
for sum of money.

(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.

Example:
The owner of the company has blank
documents with his signature and gave it
to his secretary. The said documents will
be used in case of emergency. One time the
secretary wrote a document above the blank
signature stating that the said owner will
be assuming the indebtedness of the
secretary.
The crime committed by the secretary
is estafa because there is abuse of
confidence. The owner entrusted the
blank document to the secretary.

What if the secretary placed the blank
document it on the table. Here comes a
visitor, and upon seeing the blank
document, he took one and then he went to
his house and wrote a document stating
that the said owner shall assume his
liability.
The crime committed is not estafa but
falsification of a private document
because he made it appear that the
owner participated in procuring the
document when in fact, the owner did
not.

ESTAFA BY MEANS OF FALSE PRETENSE or BY
FRAUDULENT ACTS PRIOR TO OR SIMULTANEOUS TO
THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE (2
ND
form)

(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.

Example:
A, Band C are newly graduates. They just
passed the nursing board exam. X learned
that A, B, and C passed the board so he
went to the house of A, B and C and told
them that X has a placement agency that
will help them find work abroad. AB and C
believed X, and X demanded that they give
X 100k for processing fees. A, B, and C
never saw X again. Later X was arrested.
What are the crimes committed by X?
X may be liable of estafa by falsely
pretending to possess power or
agency, where in fact, he is not
licensed by the POEA of Department of
Labor.

Can he also be held liable for illegal
recruitment?
He can also be liable for illegal
recruitment under the labor code.

Under PD 2018, which amended Article
38 and 39 of the Labor Code, where if
illegal recruitment is committed by a
syndicate (3 or more persons) or in
large scale (where the victims are 3
or more persons individually or as a
group), the crime committed is
economic sabotage.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


By reason thereof, the offender is
liable for 2 crimes, and that is
estafa and illegal recruitment.

Can the offender be prosecuted at the same
time?
Yes, because estafa requires illegal
deceit or false pretense, while in
illegal recruitment does not require
deceit or false pretense. The mere
fact of recruiting where he does not
have any license makes him liable for
illegal recruitment.

(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. (As amended by R.A.
4885, approved June 17, 1967.)

BP22(BOUNCINGCHECKSLAW)
2actspunishedinBP22:
1) Making or drawing and issuing a check knowing at
the time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds.
The offender knows that he does not have
sufficient funds in his account at the time of the
issuanceofthecheck.
2) Failing to keep sufficient funds to cover the full

amountofthecheck.
Thefunderknowsthathehassufficientamountat
the time of the issuance ofthe checkbut failed to
keepsufficientfundstocovertheamountafterthe
issuance of the check. Thecrime willarise for his
failure to keep sufficient funds or maintain his
credit to cover the full amount for a period of 90
daysfromthedateappearingonthecheck.
Example:
Aisbuildingahouse,sohewenttoB,whoistheowner
of the hardwarestore. AtoldBthathedoesnt haveany
money at the moment but he will be issuing a check
guaranteeing that it will be funded on the 15
th
, which is
the maturity date. B believed As representation that the
check will be funded so B placed the construction
materials to A. On the 15
th
day of the month, the check
bounced. B sent a notice of dishonor to A, but despite
such notice of dishonor, months had passed and yet A
stillfailedtopay.WhatcrimesmaybefiledagainstA?
Bmayfileacaseofestafabecausethesaidcheck
was issued in concomitance with the said fraud.
Where it not for the said check, B would not give
theconstructionmaterialstoA.
Aside from that, can Aalsobe held liable for violation of

BP22?
AmayalsobeheldliableforviolationofBP22.It
will apply in any cases the moment the check
bounce. The essence of BP22 is the issuance of
theworthlesscheck.
o However, said offense will not automatically

amount to estafa. In order to amount estafa, it is
necessary that the issuance of the check is the
reasonofthedefraudation.Thatis,whereitnotfor
thesaidcheck,whereitnotforthepromiseofthe
said check, the offended party would not have
partedwithhispropertyormoney.
o In order to amount estafa by postdating a check,
theissuanceofthecheckmustnotbeinpayment
ofapre-existingobligation.Itisnecessarythatthe
obligation is in concomitancewith the issuance of
thecheck.
o In case of BP 22, even if in payment of pre-
existing obligation, the moment the check
bounced,BP22willapply.
o Incaseofestafa,theoffendermustmakegoodof
thecheck withina periodof 3 days.In BP 22, the
offender must make good of the check within 5
bankingdays.
When is there prima facie evidence of knowledge of

insufficiencyoffundsinBP22?
Section2ofBP22,therearisestheprimafacieknowledge
ofinsufficiencyoffundswhentheoffendermakesordraws
and issues a check which bounced when deposited within
theperiodof90daysfromthemomentofitsissue.
Elementsofprimafacieknowledge:
1. Thecheckmustbedepositedwithin90daysfrom
dateappearingonthecheck;
2. There must be notice of dishonor received by the
drawerofthecheck;
3. The drawer of the check failed to make good of
thecheckwithin5bankingdaysfromreceiptofthe
noticeofdishonor.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


If the drawer was able to make good of the

check within 5 banking days, the prima facie
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
fundswillnotarise.
Example:
If the holder deposited the check on the 100
th
day. Can
thedrawerofthecheckbestillheldliableforviolationof
BP22?
Yes, the drawer is liable for violation of BP 22.
What is erased only is the prima facie knowledge
ofinsufficiencyoffunds.Butsolongasthecheck
is not a stale check (check beyond 6 months or
120days).Ifsaidcheckisdishonored,violationof
BP 22 can still arise, because the prima facie
knowledgeofinsufficiencyoffundscanbeproven
byotherevidence.
PenaltyforviolationofBP22:
Imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not
morethan1yearorafineofnotlessthanbutnot
more than double the amount of the check which
fineshallinnocaseexceedPHP200,000,orboth
suchfineandimprisonmentatthediscretionofthe
court.
NOTE:
In consonance with this penalty, the SC in the
cases of Rosalie v. CA and VACA v. CA, SC
issued AC 10-2000. In this Supreme Court AC,
becauseofitsdecisioninthesaidcases,inlieuof
penalty,inlieuofimprisonment,theproperpenalty
tobeimposedwouldbe fine,iftheoffenderacted
in good faith or clear mistake of fact without any
taintofnegligence.
TheSCagainissuedAC13-2001toclarifythefirst
circular. AC 13-2001 states that the tenor and
intentofAC10-2000doesnoteraseimprisonment
as an alternative penalty. What 10-2000
establishes is a rule of preference, and that is, if
theoffenderactedingoodfaith,andthereisclear
mistakeoffactwithoutanytaintofnegligence,fine
should be the appropriate penalty. Nevertheless,
stillwhether to impose penalty of imprisonment of
fineiswithinthesounddiscretionofthecourt.
In case the penalty imposed is only fine, there is

no hindrance in the court to impose subsidiary
imprisonmentincaseoffailuretopayfine.

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.

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.

Art. 318. Other deceits. The penalty of
arresto mayor and a fine of not less than
the amount of the damage caused and not
CRIMINAL LAW 2


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.
Chapter Seven
CHATTEL MORTGAGE

Art. 319. Removal, sale or pledge of
mortgaged property. The penalty or
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.

Chapter Eight
ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING
DESTRUCTIONS

Chapter Eight
ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING
DESTRUCTIONS

Art. 320. Destructive arson. The penalty
of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
any person who shall burn:

1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or
military powder or fireworks factory,
ordinance, storehouse, archives or general
museum of the Government.
2. Any passenger train or motor vehicle in
motion or vessel out of port.
3. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or
factory of inflammable or explosive
materials.

Art. 321. Other forms of arson. When the
arson consists in the burning of other
property and under the circumstances given
hereunder, the offender shall be
punishable:
1. By reclusion temporal or reclusion
perpetua:
(a) if the offender shall set fire to any
building, farmhouse, warehouse, hut,
shelter, or vessel in port, knowing it to
be occupied at the time by one or more
persons;
(b) If the building burned is a public
building and value of the damage caused
exceeds 6,000 pesos;
(c) If the building burned is a public
building and the purpose is to destroy
evidence kept therein to be used in
instituting prosecution for the punishment
of violators of the law, irrespective of
the amount of the damage;
(d) If the building burned is a public
building and the purpose is to destroy
evidence kept therein to be used in
legislative, judicial or administrative
proceedings, irrespective of the amount of
the damage; Provided, however, That if the
evidence destroyed is to be used against
the defendant for the prosecution of any
crime punishable under existing laws, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua;
(e) If the arson shall have been committed
with the intention of collecting under an
insurance policy against loss or damage by
fire.

2. By reclusion temporal:
(a) If an inhabited house or any other
building in which people are accustomed to
meet is set on fire, and the culprit did
not know that such house or building was
occupied at the time, or if he shall set
fire to a moving freight train or motor
vehicle, and the value of the damage caused
exceeds 6,000 pesos;
(b) If the value of the damage caused in
paragraph (b) of the preceding subdivision
does not exceed 6,000 pesos;
(c) If a farm, sugar mill, cane mill, mill
central, bamboo groves or any similar
plantation is set on fire and the damage
caused exceeds 6,000 pesos; and
(d) If grain fields, pasture lands, or
forests, or plantings are set on fire, and
the damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


3. By prision mayor:
(a) If the value of the damage caused in
the case mentioned in paragraphs (a), (c),
and (d) in the next preceding subdivision
does not exceed 6,000 pesos;
(b) If a building not used as a dwelling or
place of assembly, located in a populated
place, is set on fire, and the damage
caused exceeds 6,000 pesos;

4. By prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium
period:
(a) If a building used as dwelling located
in an uninhabited place is set on fire and
the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;
(b) If the value or the damage caused in
the case mentioned in paragraphs (c) and
(d) of subdivision 2 of this article does
not exceed 200 pesos.

5. By prision correccional in its medium
period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, when the damage caused is over 200
pesos but does not exceed 1,000 pesos, and
the property referred to in paragraph (a)
of the preceding subdivision is set on
fire; but when the value of such property
does not exceed 200 pesos, the penalty next
lower in degree than that prescribed in
this subdivision shall be imposed.

6. The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods, if the
damage caused in the case mentioned in
paragraph (b) of subdivision 3 of this
article does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is
over 200 pesos.
7. The penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods, if the
damage caused in the case mentioned
paragraph (b) subdivision 3 of this article
does not exceed 200 pesos.

8. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine
ranging from fifty to one hundred per
centum if the damage caused shall be
imposed, when the property burned consists
of grain fields, pasture lands, forests, or
plantations when the value of such property
does not exceed 200 pesos. (As amended by
R.A. 5467, approved May 12, 1969).

Art. 322. Cases of arson not included in
the preceding articles. Cases of arson
not included in the next preceding articles
shall be punished:

1. By arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods, when the damage caused
does not exceed 50 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its minimum
period, when the damage caused is over 50
pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos;
3. By prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods, if the damage caused is
over 200 pesos but does not exceed 1,000
pesos; and
4. By prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods, if it is over 1,000
pesos.

Art. 323. Arson of property of small value.
The arson of any uninhabited hut,
storehouse, barn, shed, or any other
property the value of which does not exceed
25 pesos, committed at a time or under
circumstances which clearly exclude all
danger of the fire spreading, shall not be
punished by the penalties respectively
prescribed in
this chapter, but in accordance with the
damage caused and under the provisions of
the following chapter.

Art. 324. Crimes involving destruction.
Any person who shall cause destruction by
means of explosion, discharge of electric
current, inundation, sinking or stranding
of a vessel, intentional damaging of the
engine of said vessel, taking up the rails
from a railway track, maliciously changing
railway signals for the safety of moving
trains, destroying telegraph wires and
telegraph posts, or those of any other
system, and, in general, by using any other
agency or means of destruction as effective
as those above enumerated, shall be
punished by reclusion temporal if the
commission has endangered the safety of any
person, otherwise, the penalty of prision
mayor shall be imposed.

Art. 325. Burning one's own property as
means to commit arson. Any person guilty
of arson or causing great destruction of
the property belonging to another shall
suffer the penalties prescribed in this
chapter, even though he shall have set fire
to or destroyed his own property for the
purposes of committing the crime.

Art. 326. Setting fire to property
exclusively owned by the offender. If the
property burned shall be the exclusive
property of the offender, he shall be
punished by arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, if the arson shall have
been committed for the purpose of
defrauding or causing damage to another, or
CRIMINAL LAW 2


prejudice shall actually have been caused,
or if the thing burned shall have
been a building in an inhabited place.

Art. 326-A. In cases where death resulted
as a consequence of arson. If death
resulted as a consequence of arson
committed on any of the properties and
under any of the circumstances mentioned in
the preceding articles, the court shall
impose the death penalty.

Art. 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arson.
Any of the following circumstances shall
constitute prima facie evidence of arson:
1. If after the fire, are found materials
or substances soaked in gasoline, kerosene,
petroleum, or other inflammables, or any
mechanical, electrical chemical or traces
or any of the foregoing.
2. That substantial amount of inflammable
substance or materials were stored within
the building not necessary in the course of
the defendant's business; and
3. That the fire started simultaneously in
more than one part of the building or
locale under circumstances that cannot
normally be due to accidental or
unintentional causes: Provided, however,
That at least one of the following is
present in any of the three above-mentioned
circumstances:
(a) That the total insurance carried on the
building and/or goods is more than 80 per
cent of the value of such building and/or
goods at the time of the fire;
(b) That the defendant after the fire has
presented a fraudulent claim for loss.

The penalty of prision correccional shall
be imposed on one who plants the articles
above-mentioned, in order to secure a
conviction, or as a means of extortion or
coercion. (As amended by R.A. 5467,
approved May 12, 1969).

ARSON- is the malicious destruction of
property set by fire. It can be either
destructive or simple arson. Destructive or
simple arson is not dependent on the value
of the property but rather on the

SAMPLE PROBLEM:
1. A is a maid and it was Christmas
time. A wanted to go to the province
so she asked the master of the house
if she can go to the province. The
master of the house said no. The
maid got mad, so while the master of
the house and his family are
sleeping, A burned the house and
left. The house of the master was not
the only one burned, but also the
neighbors houses. The master and his
children were killed. What is/are
the crimes committed by A? Is A
liable for destructive arson or
simple arson only?

Destructive Arson is found under Art 320 of
the RPC while Simple Arson and other arson
is repealed by PD 1613 repealing Article
320 to 326 B of the RPC. Even though there
are five deaths, the deaths will be
absorbed in the crime of arson and will
only qualify the penalty to death. The maid
is only liable for simple arson, because
what has been burned is an inhabited
dwelling. For as long as the thing burned
is an inhabited house or dwelling, the
crime committed is simple arson. If in the
course of burning the dwelling, homicide
results, the crime committed is still
arson.
If the intention is to kill the offended
party, and the means employed is through
burning the house, the crime committed is
MURDER. If however, the intention of the
offender is to destroy the property of the
offended party by fire, and the offender
did not know that someone is inside and
death results, the crime is still simple
arson. It will only qualify the penalty to
RP to death.
2. A killed B while sleeping. The crime
committed is murder. In order to
conceal the crime, A burned the
house. This time, the crime committed
is 2. Murder for killing B and Arson,
order to hide the crime committed.
The arson committed is destructive
arson, as it is defined by the law.

How is destructive arson committed?
1. One or more buildings or edifices,
consequent to one single act of
burning, or as a result of
simultaneous burnings or committed on
several or different occasions;
2. Any building of public or private
ownership, devoted to public in
general, or where people usually
gather or congregate for a definite
purpose such as but not limited to
official government function or
business, private transaction,
commerce, trade workshop, meetings,
conferences, or merely incidental to
or for a definite purpose such as but
not limited to 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 set
CRIMINAL LAW 2


on fire and regardless also of
whether the building is actually
inhabited or not.
3. Any train, locomotive, ship or
vessel, airship or airplane, devoted
to transportation or conveyance, or
for public use, entertainment and
leisure;
4. Any building, factory, warehouse
installation and any other
appurtenances 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 the evidence of another
violation of law, or for the purpose
of concealing bankruptcy or
defrauding creditors or to collect
from insurance.
There is also destructive arson in the
following instances:
1. When the arson is committed by 2 or
more 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 of another violation
of the law;
2. When any person shall burn:
a. Any arsenal, shipyard,
storehouse or military power
or fireworks factory,
ordinance, storehouse,
archives or general museum of
the Government; or
b. In an inhabited place, any
storehouse or factory of
inflammable or explosive
materials.

When is there simple arson otherwise known
as other cases of arson in PD 1613?
Burning of:
1. Any building used as offices of the
government or any of its agencies;
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
3. Any industrial establishment,
shipyard, oil well or mine shaft,
platform or tunnel;
4. Any plantation, farm, pasture land,
growing crop, grain field, orchard,
bamboo grove or forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugarmill, cane mill,
or mill central;
6. Any railway or bus station, airport,
wharf, or warehouse.

Penalty for destructive arson: Reclusion
Perpetua to Death
If as a result of the commission of
any acts of destructive arson, death
results, the penalty should be death.
In case of simple arson, reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua
Under Sec 5 of PD 1613, if by reason
or on the occasion of simple arson,
death results, the penalty is
reclusion perpetua to death.
Therefore, whatever may be the crime
may be, if by reason of said arson,
death results, it will aggravate the
crime of arson and the homicide will
be absorbed in the arson.
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
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.
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.

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.

Malicious Mischief- is the willful damaging
of anothers property for the sake of
causing damage due to hate, revenge or
other evil motive.

If the intention of the offender is to
cause damage in the property of another, by
CRIMINAL LAW 2


any means outside arson, is malicious
mischief.

It is a crime which can only be committed
by means of intent. There must be
deliberate intent to cause damage to the
property of another, because if there is no
intent to cause damage in the property, the
liability will be damages only; civil
liability and not criminal liability.

Sample problem:
A and B were fighting, and in the course of
their fight, A fell on the floor and the
floor was damaged. The liability will only
be a civil action for damages.

Special cases of Malicious Mischief:
1. Causing damage to obstruct the
performance of public functions;
2. Using poisonous or corrosive
substances
3. Spreading any infection or contagion
among cattle
4. Causing damage to the property of the
National Library or to any archive or
registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in
common by public

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.

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.

1
st
Act
Q:In the Case of Carungcong vs People, the
son in law a Japanese National , by means
of deceit made his mother in law sign a
SPA, said SPA was used to sell the property
of Tagaytay. The mother died without
receiving the proceeds of the sale. The
daughter of the mother wanted to file a
case against the son-in law. Note that the
wife of the Japanese national is already
deceased. Does article apply in this case
where the crime committed is estafa even if
the wife of the Japanese National is
already dead?
A: The relationship by affinity is still
existing. The purpose is to ensure harmony
within the family. Article 332 will still
apply. The Son in law may be prosecuted.
The crime is estafa through falsification
of public document. The crime committed is
the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document. Article
332 will not apply though there is a
relationship because the crime is already
complexed.
Article 332, paramours, mistresses, are
within the meaning of wives. Step fathers-
ascendants, step children- descendants.

Title Eleven
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
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.
CRIMINAL LAW 2


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
withoutjustification by the offended
spouse, the penalty next lower in degree
than thatprovided in the next preceding
paragraph shall be imposed.

Offender: legally married woman
Offended party: husband

To whom shall the case be filed: Wife and
Lover
Who shall file: only by the offended
husband.
Adultery is a private crime. It can only be
prosecuted by the offended spouse. Without
the complaint filed by the offended spouse,
no crime.
If the lover does not know that the
woman is married, still the husband
should file the case on both of them.
it is a matter of defense only on the
lover. So, there are cases where only
one is convicted and the other one is
acquitted. The wife is convicted and
the lover is acquitted
If adultery is abandoned by her
husband without justification,
mitigated
Adultery is a crime of consequence,
so there is no attempted or
frustrated stage. It is always in the
consummated stage.
Adultery may be proven by
circumstantial evidence.
o For example, the husband was
working in Saudi for 10 years,
and upon reaching home, he
sees his wife pregnant, there
is adultery except if the wife
is raped.

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 of concubinage:
1. The man must be married
2. That he committed any of the
following acts:
a. Keeping a mistress in the
conjugal dwelling;
b. Having sexual intercourse
under scandalous
circumstances;
c. Cohabiting with her in any
other place
3. The woman must know that the man must
be married

1
st
Act: the conjugal dwelling is the house
of the husband
2
nd
Act: the best witnesses are the
neighbors of the husband. It must be in
such a manner that the neighbors are
shocked.

Just like adultery, concubinage is a
private crime. It cannot be prosecuted if
the offended spouse will not file a
complaint against the offender spouse. The
wife must also prosecute both the husband
and the concubine. It is a matter of
defense on the concubine that she does not
know the husband is married.
The penalty for the concubine is destierro.

RAPE IS ALREADY REPEALED

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.

Acts of lasciviousness- acts committed with
unchaste design and done under
circumstances of rape.
As it is done under circumstances of rape,
so the offender may be any person, for
example a man touching the private parts of
another man.

Elements:
1. That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. That the act of lasciviousness is
committed against a person of either
sex;
3. That it is done under any of the
following circumstances:
a. Using force or intimidation
b. When the offended party is
deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious
machination or grave abuse of
authority
d. When the offended party is
under 12 years of age or
demented

Chapter Three
SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS
CRIMINAL LAW 2


AND WHITE SLAVE TRADE
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.

Two kinds of qualified seduction:
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years
of age and under 18 years of age by
persons who abuse their authority or
confidence reposed in them
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother
or descendant by her ascendant,
regardless of her age and reputation.

In the 1
st
kind is the seduction of a virgin
1. Committed by a public officer, a
domestic servant, a priest, teacher,
guardian or any person who has
custody over the person
2. In this case, the elements are:
a) The offended party must be a
virgin
b) She must be over 12 and under
18
c) The offender is a priest,
domestic servant, teacher,
guardian
d) The offender had sexual
intercourse with her
e) There is abuse of authority,
confidence or relationship on
the part of the offender

Virginity does not refer to physical
virginity. It would suffice that the woman
is not married, she is single and living a
chaste life. The law presumes that she is a
virgin.
The offender is any person, public
authority, priest, guardian

Note: sexual intercourse is an element of
any kind of seduction.

In the 2
nd
case:
Virginity does not matter, even if the said
sister or descendant is a married woman.
Likewise, age does not matter. There can
still be a seduction of a sister or
descendant. There must be an element of
sexual intercourse and committed in abuse
of authority.

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.

In case of simple seduction, the offended
party must be a WOMAN who is single or
widow.
Deceit- the offended party gave herself to
the man because of the latters promise.

Sample Problem:
In order to have sexual congress with the
woman, the man promised to marry the man.
Crime committed is seduction.

In one case, the woman committed sexual
congress with a married man because the man
promised that he will marry the woman. The
SC said that there is no seduction. The
fact that the woman knows that the man is
married, the man cannot marry her. There is
no deceit.

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 the same
circumstances as those provided in Articles
337 and 338.

This is under circumstances of seduction.
Offender: Man
Offended Party: woman

Under this circumstance, the acts of
lasciviousness are committed through:
a) Abuse of authority
b) Abuse of confidence
c) Abuse of relationship
d) Means of deceit

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 pubic officer or employee,
including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations, he shall also
suffer the penalty of temporary absolute
disqualification. (As amended by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 92).
CRIMINAL LAW 2


Art. 341. White slave trade. The penalty
of prision mayor in its medium and maximum
period 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 (As amended by Batas Pambansa
Blg. 186.)

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.

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.

Forcible abduction- taking away of a woman
against her will with lewd design.

Woman can be any person. Age, virginity,
civil status is not material. For as long
as the taking away is done with lewd design
and against her will.
note that sexual intercourse is not
an element. If by reason of the
forcible abduction, the man had
sexual intercourse with the woman, it
may result in a complex crime of rape
with forcible abduction.

SAMPLE PROBLEM:
1. X is a turned down suitor of A. X
forcibly took A, who was sitting in
the door step of her house. X
professed his love to A. However, A
did not accept him so X raped him 7
times within 7 days. How many crimes
are committed? What are the crimes
committed?

The crimes committed by X are 7 crimes: 1
crime forcible abduction with rape and 6
crimes of rape. Separate and distinct from
each other.
Note that only 1 forcible abduction
is necessary and only 1 rape is
necessary to bring about complex
crime of forcible abduction with
rape. The other rapes are separate
and distinct from the crime of rape

2. In the same case, the woman was
inside the house of the man. The man
attempted to rape the woman but the
woman was able to run away.

There is no crime of forcible abduction
with attempted rape. The attempt to rape
the woman is the manifestation of the lewd
design which is an element of forcible
abduction.

CONSENTED ABDUCTION:
Elements:
1. The woman must be a virgin
2. She must be over 12 years but under
18
3. The taking away must be with her
consent, after solicitation or
cajolery from the offender
4. The taking away must be with lewd
designs.

This time, the offended party consented to
the taking away. But take note of the age
(12-18). This is what makes the crime of
abduction.

Sample Problem
The girl was 15 and the boyfriend was 25.
The said boyfriend was able to take away
the girl with her consent. The parents of
the girl filed a case. Per Maam, she was
able to handle a similar case where the
girl was 16 and the man was above 18. The
parents of the girl do not like the man so
the lovers eloped and lived in the house of
the man. The mother filed a case of
consented abduction. During the P.I., the
said girl loved the man and even if the
mother will take her away from the man, she
will always return to the man. Also, the
woman has keys of the house of the man. Per
maam the man was not at fault because it
was always the woman who would go to the
mans house. So she dismissed the case.

In qualified seduction and consented
abduction, acts of lasciviousness in
circumstances of seduction: INSTANCES WHERE
VIRGINITY IS AN ELEMENT

Note: In consented abduction, sexual
intercourse is not an element, so if after
the woman ran away with the man, yet she
does not want to have sexual intercourse
but the man forced her and was able to
succeed in having sexual intercourse, the
crime committed is consented abduction with
rape.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


Chapter Five
PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE PRECEDING
CHAPTERS OF TITLE ELEVEN
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.

Art. 345. Civil liability of persons guilty
of crimes against chastity. Person
guiltyof 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.

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.

Title Twelve
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
notexceeding 1,000 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon
any person who shall conceal or abandonany
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
hisprofession 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.

Three acts punished under Art. 347:
1. Simulation of birth
2. Substitution of a child
3. Concealing or abandoning any
legitimate child with intent to cause
such child to lose its civil status

Simulation of birth- takes place when the
woman pretends to be pregnant when in fact
she is not and on the day of the delivery,
takes the child of another as her own.

Sample problem:
1. A was a pregnant. She told the
midwife that she does not want the
baby. The midwife said that she knew
a couple who wanted a child. This
couple took the baby and registered
CRIMINAL LAW 2


the child as their own. What are the
crimes committed and who are liable?

All of them are all liable for simulation
of birth. The said couple pretended that
the child is their own child. In that case,
said child lost its original status.

2. In substitution of a child, the
classic example is MARA and CLARA.

3. In the 3
rd
act, it is necessary that
the child is legitimate, not
illegitimate. The offender conceals
or abandons the legitimate child and
the intention of the offender is to
lose the childs civil status.

Sample problem:
1. The offender abandons the child in
the forest. The child is one month
old. Later however the child was
rescued. The crime committed was
attempted parricide, because it can
be seen that there was intent to
kill.

2. A couple gave birth to its 13
th

child. They are very poor. So the
couple placed the baby in the gate of
a well-known family. What crimes are
committed?
-Crime committed abandonment of the
legitimate child with the intent to
lose its civil status. There is no
other intent of the parents but to
lose its status as a poor child.

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 part or
his heirs; otherwise, the penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed.

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.

Sample problem:
A and B are married. B, the husband fell in
love with another woman, and married the
woman thereafter. It is now a bigamous
married. A bigamous marriage is an
otherwise valid marriage, except for the
fact that there is a subsisting marriage.

Bigamous marriage through reckless
imprudence- in the book, there is such
crime because a woman contracted a marriage
because she believed the statements of the
relatives of her former spouse that the
latter is already dead. However, such
ruling was erroneous. There must be a
declaration of presumptive death.

Art. 350. Marriage contracted against
provisions of laws. The penalty of
prisioncorreccional 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.

Illegal marriage- marriage contracted
without the requisites of the law.
If a person contracted marriage if
knowledge of the infirmities, liable under
350

The solemnizing officer is liable also
criminally.

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.

Person liable:
1. A woman who married within 301 days
from the death of her husband, or
before delivery of her baby
2. A woman whose marriage having been
annulled or dissolved, married before
delivery or before expiration of the
period of 301 days after the date of
legal separation.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


The requirement that the marriage must be
done within 301 days must only apply if the
woman is not pregnant. If the woman is
pregnant, it is only at the time of the
delivery of the baby. After the baby is
delivered, she can already marry.
Why is it that the law requires that the
baby must be first delivered, or it must be
301 days? This is to ensure that there is
no doubt as to the paternity of the child,
otherwise there would be confusion.

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.

Title Thirteen
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Chapter One
LIBEL
Section One. Definitions, forms, and
punishment of this crime.

Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is
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.

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.

Art. 355. Libel means by 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.

Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer
to present 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.

Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts
referred to in the course of official
proceedings. The penalty of arresto mayor
or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any reporter,
editor or manager or 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 it is necessary in
the narration of any judicial or
administrative proceedings wherein such
facts have been mentioned.

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.

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.

Forms of libel:
1. Written defamation
2. Oral defamation
3. Slander by deed
4. Defamatory acts

Elements of libel:
1. There must be an imputation or
allegation of a crime, or a vice of
CRIMINAL LAW 2


defect, real or imaginary, or any act
or omission, condition, status or
circumstance which tend to dishonor
or discredit a natural or juridical
person.
2. That there must be a publication of
these imputation;
3. The identity of the person defamed
must be established or identified;
4. The existence of malice.

Publication- satisfied the moment that a 3
rd

person has heard or read the libelous
statement, even if the person pertained has
not read it. So the basis is that a 3
rd

person has heard or read the libelous
statement.

Identity of the person- must be identified,
not necessary that the person must be
named. It suffices that the person is
described and identifiable by a third
person.

Malice- malice is presumed as a rule for
every statements made. However in
defamatory statements, if the offender
cannot state any good intention for stating
defamatory statements, the law presumes
malice.
Prosecution need not prove malice because
the law presumes malice. This is MALICE IN
LAW.

Instances:
Malice in fact- refers to privilege in
communication, refers to private
communication, reports, or any acts
performed by a public officer. In this case
the law does not presumes malice. Malice
must be proven by the prosecution otherwise
there would be acquittal

Libel can be committed through the
following:
1. Writing
2. Printing
3. Lithography
4. Engraving
5. Radio
6. Phonograph
7. Painting
8. Theatrical exhibition
9. Cinematographic exhibition
10. Or any similar means

If libel is committed, the liability
is prision correctional.
TV is within the phrase any similar
means.
If amplifier or microphone was used
for everyone to hear, the crime
committed is slander or oral
defamation, but not libel.

Venue: RPC provides that even if the crime
is prision correccional, it must be filed
before the RTC where the article was
printed or first published, or RTC where
any of the offended party is residing. Note
that this is a substantive law. It is not
found in the Rules of Court
If the offended party is a public officer
and is working in Manila, it must be filed
before RTC of Manila or where the article
was first published. If the public officer
is not working in Manila, it shall be filed
in the RTC where he is working at the time
of the commission of the offense or where
the libelous article was printed or was
first published.
If private individual is the offended
party, RTC of the place where the private
individual resides at the time of the
actual commission of the offense or where
the libelous material was published

ORAL DEFAMATION/SLANDER
1. Grave oral defamation- when serious
and insulting and nature.

Factors to consider: not only the grammar
and meaning, but also the:
a) Personal relations of the accused and
the offended party
b) Facts and Circumstances surrounding
the case
c) Social standing and position of the
offended party.

PUTANG INA MO is not a slanderous
remark; it is merely an expression of
the Filipino People. (Pader vs
People)
2. Simple slander

SLANDER BY DEED
Slander by deed- refers to acts not words,
with the intent to defame the person. It
can also be (a)serious, grave slander by
deed, or (b) simple slander by deed.
A priest was slapped by a person,
serious slander by deed

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
CRIMINAL LAW 2


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 defamations 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 or 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. (As amended by R.A. 1289, approved
June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June 19,
1965).

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 defendants 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
Government employees with respect to facts
related to the discharge of their official
duties.
In such cases if the defendant proves the
truth of the imputation made by him, he
shall be acquitted.

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

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
menor.

Act of directly incriminating or imputes to
an innocent person the commission of the
crime. It is necessary that it must not be
made on an affidavit, because if it is
through an affidavit, it will be perjury.
It will only arise if it will not amount to
(a) perjury or (b) sec 29 of RA 9165

Sample problem
As ballpen was lost. B took it and
placed it in the bag of C so that C
will be liable for theft. B committed
incriminating innocent person.
In the case of dangerous drugs, the
law that will govern is sec 29 of RA
9165, or planting of evidence. Person
found guilty of planting evidence,
regardless of quantity or purity of
the dangerous drugs shall suffer the
penalty of death.

CRIMINAL LAW 2


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.

Title Fourteen
QUASI-OFFENSES
Sole Chapter
CRIMINAL 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. (As
amended by R.A. 1790, approved June 21,
1957).

Take note of the case of Ivler vs Modesto.
Reckless imprudence or negligence is the
crime itself. Hence, once committed or
acquitted of a specific act of reckless
imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. For the
essence of the quasi offense of criminal
negligence under Art 365 of the RPC lies in
the execution of an imprudent or negligent
act that if intentionally done, would be
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes
thus the negligent or careless act, not the
result thereof. The gravity of the
consequence is only taken into account to
determine the penalty; it does not qualify
the substance of the offense. And, as the
careless act is single, whether the
injurious result should affect one person
or several persons, the offense (criminal
negligence) remains one and the same, and
cannot be split into different crimes and
prosecutions.
1
st
case: reckless imprudence resulting to
slight physical injuries
2
nd
case: reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide and damage to property
CRIMINAL LAW 2


One quasi-offense cannot give rise to
another quasi-offense.

Note simple negligence is not a means
to commit a crime. They are crimes by
themselves.

R.A9995Anti-VoyeurismLaw
ActsPunished:
a) Taking photo or video coverage of a person or a
group of persons performing sexual act or any
similar activity or tocapture an image of a private
area of a person such as the naked or
undergarmentcladgenitals,publicarea,buttocks,
or female breasts without the consent of the
persons involved and under circumstances in
which the person/s has/have a reasonable
expectationofprivacy
b) Tocopyorreproduce,ortocausetobecopiedor
reproduced such photo or video or recording of
sexual act or any similar activity with or without
consideration
c) To sell or distribute or to cause to be sold or
distributed , such photo or video or recording of
sexual act, whether the original copy or
reproductionthereof;
d) To publish or broadcast, or to cause to be
published or broadcast whether in print or
broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or
videocoverageorrecordingsofsuchsexualactor
any similar activity through VCD/DVDV, internet,
cellularphonesandothersimilarmeansordevice.
Sampleproblem:
A and B are having sex. B proposed to video their sexual
acttowhichAconsented.Thereisnocrime.However,ifB
lateronreproducedthevideo,Bisstillliable.
Penalty:imprisonmentofnotlessthan3yearsbutnotmore
than 7 years AND fine of not less than 100k but not more
than500k,orbothatthediscretionofthecourt.
RA7877Anti-SexualHarassmentAct
Definition of Work, Education, or Training Related Sexual

Harrassment
- Committed by an employer, employee, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a
work or training or education environment, demands,
requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the
other, regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the object of
saidAct.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual
harassmentiscommittedwhen:
(1)Thesexualfavorismadeasaconditioninthe
hiring or in the employment, re-employment or
continued employment of said individual, or in
granting said individual favorable compensation,
terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges; or
the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in
limiting, segregating or classifying the employee
which in any way would discriminate, deprive
ordiminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adverselyaffectsaidemployee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee's
rightsorprivilegesunderexistinglaborlaws;or
(3)Theaboveactswouldresultinanintimidating,
hostile,oroffensiveenvironmentfortheemployee.
(b) In an education or training environment, sexual

harassmentiscommitted:
(1) Against one who isunderthe care,custody or
supervisionoftheoffender;
(2) Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the
offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to
the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of
honors and scholarships, or the payment of a
stipend, allowance or otherbenefits, privileges, or
consideration;or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for
thestudent,traineeorapprentice.
Any person who directs or induces another to commit any
act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who
cooperates in the commission thereof by another without
whichitwouldnothavebeencommitted,shallalsobeheld
liableunderthisAct.

Crim Rev Book 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

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

Crim Rev Book 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CRIMINAL LAW 2

Dinty | Manalo | Navarez | Shyu | Tubio Page 1

1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or

2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift,

3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of

4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly

5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial

6. By takingundueadvantage of official position, authority,

Sec. 2.Definition of the Crime of Plunder, Penalties. Any

Sec. 4.Rule of Evidence. For purposes of establishing the

Sec. 6.Prescription of Crime. The crime punishable under

Under Sec. 26, it is provided that victim survivors

ANTI-HAZING LAW R.A. 8049

Q: What if two children, A and B were fighting over a gun

Physical or psychological abuse, neglect,

(c) Those who derive profit or advantage

The ONLY EXCEPTION is when a police officer or peace

The only exception is when a police officer is

2) Knowingly possessing any tape record, wire

3) By replaying the wire record, tape record, disc

4) Furnishing transcriptions of the wire record, disc

PD532 (THE ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF 1974)

Carnapping- is the taking with intent to gain, of motor

Under Sec. 14, the penalty if there no violence or

In the given situation, what if A saw X and there was a

If again, in the same problem, A tried to stop X and X

PD 533 (ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW)

2) Failing to keep sufficient funds to cover the full

Aside from that, can Aalsobe held liable for violation of

o However, said offense will not automatically

When is there prima facie evidence of knowledge of

If the drawer was able to make good of the

In case the penalty imposed is only fine, there is

Definition of Work, Education, or Training Related Sexual

(b) In an education or training environment, sexual

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi