TITLE ONE 4) Collaboration with foreign enemy or some
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
Crimes against national security
1. Treason (Art. 114);
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason (Art. 115);
3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and
4. Espionage (Art. 117).
Crimes against the law of nations
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals (Art. 118);
2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);
3. Corresponding with hostile country
(Art. 120);
4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121);
and
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the
high seas (Art. 122).
The crimes under this title can be prosecuted
even if the criminal act or acts were
committed outside the Philippine territorial
jurisdiction. However, prosecution can
proceed only if the offender is within
Philippine territory or brought to the
Philippines pursuant to an extradition treaty.
This is one of the instances where the
Revised Penal Code may be given extra-
territorial application under Article 2 (5)
thereof. In the case of crimes against the law
of nations, the offender can be prosecuted
whenever he may be found because the
crimes are regarded as committed against
humanity in general.
Article 114
TREASON
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender owes allegiance
to the Government of the
Philippines
b. That there is a war in which the
Philippines is involved
c. That the offender either
1) Levies war against the
government,
1. breech of allegiance
2. actual assembling of men
3. for the purpose of executing a
treasonable design
2) Adheres to the enemies, giving
them aid and comfort
1. breech of allegiance
2. adherence
3. giving aid or comfort to the enemy
Requirements of levying war
1) Actual assembling of men;
2) To execute a treasonable design by force;
3) Intent is to deliver the country in whole or
in part to the enemy; and
Page 1 of 119
foreign sovereign
Success is not important. What matters is the
actual assembly of men and the execution of
treasonable design by force.
Ways of proving treason:
a. 2 witnesses testifying to same
overt act
The testimonies must refer to the same act,
place and moment of time. Treason cannot be
proved by circumstantial evidence or by
extrajudicial confession.
Example: X saw arms landed in La
Union and loaded into a motor vehicle.
At this stage, not sufficient to convict
yet. Y later saw the arms unloaded in a
warehouse. Will X + Y be sufficient
witnesses to convict? Answer: NO.
Because the law requires that 2
witnesses see the SAME OVERT ACT.
b. Confession of the accused in open
court.
Arraignment, pre-trial, trial OK.
1. If he has pleaded NOT guilty
already during arraignment, he can
still confess in open court by stating
the particular acts constituting
treason.
2. During trial, simply saying Im
guilty is not enough.
3. Withdrawing plea of not guilty
during arraignment not necessary
4. If during arraignment he pleads
guilty, court will ask if the accused
understands is plea. Submission of
affidavit during trial, even if
assisted by counsel is not enough.
Treason: breach of allegiance to the
government, committed by a person who
owes allegiance to it. Allegiance:
obligation of fidelity and obedience. It is
permanent or temporary depending on
whether the person is a citizen or an alien.
Evident premeditation, superior strength
and treachery are circumstances inherent
in treason, and are, therefore, not
aggravating.
Treason cannot be committed in times of
peace, only in times of war actual
hostilities. But no need for declaration of
war
Not Treasonous:
a. Acceptance of public office and
discharge of official duties under
the enemy does not constitute per
se the felony of treason (exception:
when it is policy determining)
b. Serving in a puppet government
(ministerial functions) and in order
to serve the populace is NOT
treasonous. But it is treason if: a)
there is discretion involved; b)
 inflicts harm on Filipinos; c) it is
disadvantageous to them.
c. Purpose of offender: to deliver the
Philippines to enemy country; if
merely to change officials not
treason
On Citizenship
a. Filipino citizens can commit treason
outside the Philippines. But that of
an alien must be committed in the
Philippines.
b. Only Filipino citizens or permanent
resident aliens can be held liable
c. Alien: with permanent resident
status from the BID it is neither
the length of stay in the Philippines
nor the marriage with a Filipino that
matters.
Actual hostilities may determine the date
of the commencement of war
No such thing as attempted treason; mere
attempt consummates the crime
Giving aid or comfort material
element, enhances forces of the enemy
country.
Acts which strengthen or tend to strengthen
the enemy in the conduct of war against the
traitors country or that which weaken and
tend to weaken the power of the same.
Example: Financing arms procurement of
enemy country. But giving of shelter is not
necessarily giving aid and comfort.
Adherence and giving aid or comfort must
concur together.
Adherence: when a citizen intellectually
or emotionally favors the enemy and
harbors convictions disloyal to his
countrys policy. But membership in the
police force during the occupation is NOT
treason.
Example: Giving information to, or
commandeering foodstuffs for the enemy.
Adherence may be proved by: (1) one
witness; (2) from the nature of the act
itself; (3) from the circumstances
surrounding the act.
When this adherence or sympathies are
converted into aid and comfort, only then
they take material forM. This material form is
now what is made punishable. It is usually
manifested by the offender in giving
information, commandeering foodstuffs,
serving as spy and supplying the enemy with
war materials.
Treason is a CONTINUING CRIME. Even
after the war, offender can be prosecuted.
Page 2 of 119
Treason is a continuing offense. It can be
committed by a single act or by a series of
acts. It can be committed in one single time
or at different times and only one criminal
intent. In construing the provisions relating to
the commission of several acts, the same
must be done in pursuance or furtherance of
the act of treason.
No matter how many acts of treason are
committed by the offender, he will be liable
for only one crime of treason.
If you convict a person for treason by
reason of irresistible force or
uncontrollable fear, you may use Art.12.
No treason through negligence
In the imposition of the penalty for the crime
of treason, the court may disregard the
presence of mitigating and aggravating
circumstances. It may consider only the
number, nature and gravity of the acts
established during the trial. The imposition of
the penalty rests largely on the exercise of
judicial discretion.
Defenses that may be availed of by the
accused.
1. Duress or uncontrollable fear of immediate
death; and
2. Lawful obedience to a de facto
government.
When killings and other common crimes
are charged as overt act of treason, they
cannot be regarded as (1) separate
crimes or (2) as complex with treason.
In the act of levying war or giving aid or
comfort to the enemy, murder, robbery,
arson or falsification may be committed by
the offender. BUT the offender does not
commit the crime of treason complexed with
common crimes because such crimes are
inherent to treason, being an indispensable
element of the same.
Treason distinguished from Rebellion.
The manner in which both crimes are
committed in the same. In treason however,
the purpose of the offender is to deliver the
government to the enemy country or to a
foreign power. In rebellion, the purpose of
the rebels is to substitute the government
with their own form of government. No
foreign power is involved.
Treason distinguished from Sedition.
In treason, the offender repudiates his
allegiance to the government by means of
force or intimidation. He does not recognize
the supreme authority of the State. He
violates his allegiance by fighting the forces
of the duly constituted authorities.
In sedition, the offender disagrees with
certain policies of the State and seeks to
disturb public peace by raising a commotion
or public uprising.
Article 115
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON
ELEMENTS:
a. In time of war
b. 2 or more persons come to an
agreement to
1. levy war against the
government, or
2. adhere to the enemies and
to give them aid or comfort,
c. They decide to commit it
ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
TREASON
a. In time of war
b. A person who has decided to
levy war against the
government, or to adhere to
the enemies and to give them
aid or comfort, proposes its
execution to some other
person/s.
Mere agreement and decisions to commit
treason is punishable
Mere proposal even without acceptance is
punishable too. If the other accepts, it is
already conspiracy.
While Treason as a crime should be
established by the two-witness rule, the same
is not observed when the crime committed
conspiracy to commit treason or when it is
only a proposal to commit treason.
Article 116
MISPRISION OF TREASON
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender must be owing
allegiance to the government,
and not a foreigner
b. That he has knowledge of any
conspiracy (to commit treason)
against the government
c. That he conceals or does not
disclose and make known the
same as soon as possible to the
governor or fiscal of the province
or the mayor or fiscal of the city
in which he resides
While in treason, even aliens can commit
said crime because of the amendment to the
Page 3 of 119
article, no such amendment was made in
misprision of treason. Misprision of treason is
a crime that may be committed only by
citizens of the Philippines.
Offender is punished as an accessory to
the crime of treason
Take note that the offender is a principal to
the crime of misprision of treason, yet he is
penalized only as an accessory. In the
imposition of the penalty, the court is not
bound by the provisions of Article 63 and 64,
referring to indivisible penalties. In the
presence of mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, the offender is punished two
degrees lower than the penalty for the crime
of treason.
The criminal liability arises if the treasonous
activity was still at the conspiratorial
stage
This crime does not apply if the crime of
treason is already committed
Crime of omission
This is a felony by omission although
committed with dolo, not with culpa.
To report within a reasonable time
depends on time, place and circumstance
the RPC did not fix time.
RPC states 4 individuals, what if you
report to some other high-ranking
government official? Ex. PNP Director?
Judge Pimentel says any govt official of
the DILG is OK.
Whether the conspirators are parents or
children, and the ones who learn the
conspiracy is a parent or child, they are
required to report the same. The reason is
that although blood is thicker than water so
to speak, when it comes to security of the
state, blood relationship is always
subservient to national security. Article 20
does not apply here because the persons
found liable for this crime are not considered
accessories; they are treated as principals.
Article 117
Espionage by entering, without
authority therefor, warship, fort, or
naval or military establishments or
reservation to obtain any information,
plans, photographs or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the
defense of the Philippines.
ELEMENTS:
a. 1. That the offender enters any of
the places mentioned therein
2 2. That he has no authority
therefore;
 b. That his purpose is to obtain
information, plans, photographs
or other data of a confidential
nature relative to the defense of
the Philippines
Under the first mode of committing
espionage, the offender must have the
intention to obtain information relative to the
defense of the PHIL. It is sufficient that he
entered the prohibited premises. Here, the
offender is any private individual, whether an
alien or a citizen of the Philippines, or a
public officer.
Espionage by disclosing to the
representative of a foreign nation the
contents of the articles, data, or
information referred to in paragraph 1
of Article 117, which he had in his
possession by reason of the public office
holds
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer
b. That he has in his possession the
articles, data or information
referred to in par 1 of art 117, by
reason of the public office he
holds
c. That he discloses their contents to
a representative of a foreign
nation
Purpose: to gather data
Under the second mode, the offender must
be a public officer who has in possession the
articles, data or information by reason of the
office he holds. Taking advantage of his
official position, he reveals or discloses the
information which are confidential and are
relevant to the defense of the Philippines.
Espionage: the offense of gathering,
transmitting, or losing information
respecting the national defense with the
intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of
the Philippines or the advantage of any
foreign nation. It is not conditioned on
citizenship.
Not necessary that Philippines is at war
with the country to which the information
was revealed. What is important is that
the information related is connected with
the defense system of the Philippines.
Wiretapping is NOT espionage if the
purpose is not something connected with
the defense
Page 4 of 119
Commonwealth Act No. 616 An Act to
Punish Espionage and Other Offenses
against National Security
Acts punished
1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to
be obtained information affecting
national defense;
2. Unlawful disclosing of information
affecting national defense;
3. Disloyal acts or words in times of
peace;
4. Disloyal acts or words in times of war;
5. Conspiracy to violate preceding
sections;
6. Harboring or concealing violators of
law. and
7. Photographing vital military
information
CRIMES AGAINST LAWS OF NATIONS
In crimes against the law of nations, the
offenders can be prosecuted anywhere in the
world because these crimes are considered
as against humanity in general, like piracy
and mutiny. Crimes against national security
can be tried only in the Philippines, as there
is a need to bring the offender here before he
can be made to suffer the consequences of
the law. The acts against national security
may be committed abroad and still be
punishable under our law, but it can not be
tried under foreign law.
Article 118
INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES
FOR REPRISALS
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender performs
unlawful or unauthorized acts
b. That such acts provoke or give
occasion for a war involving or
liable to involve the Philippines or
expose Filipino citizens to
reprisals on their persons or
property
Crime is committed in time of peace,
intent is immaterial
Inciting to war offender is any person
Reprisals is not limited to military action,
it could be economic reprisals, or denial of
entry into their country.
Example. X burns Chinese flag. If China bans
the entry of Filipinos into China, that is
already reprisal.
Article 119
VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
ELEMENTS:
 a. That there is war in which the If ciphers were used, no need for
Philippines is not involved prohibition
If ciphers were not used, there is a need
b. That there is a regulation issued for prohibition
by competent authority for the In any case, it must be correspondence
purpose of enforcing neutrality with the enemy country
Doesnt matter if correspondence contains
c. That the offender violates such
innocent matters if prohibited,
regulation
punishable
Govt must have declared the neutrality of
the Phil in a war between 2 other
Article 121
countries
FLIGHT TO ENEMYS COUNTRY
The regulation must be issued by a
competent authority like the President of the ELEMENTS
Philippines or the Chief of Staff of the Armed a. That there is a war in which the
Forces of the Philippines, during a war Philippines is involved
between different countries in which the b. That the offender (Filipino or
Philippines is not taking sides. resident alien) must be owing
allegiance to the government
It is neutrality of the Phil that is violated c. That the offender attempts to flee
or go to enemy country
Congress has the right to declare d. That going to enemy country is
neutrality prohibited by competent authority

The violations can be done either by means Mere attempt consummates the crime
of dolo or by means of culpa. So violation of There must be a prohibition. If none, even
neutrality can be committed through reckless if went to enemy country no violation
imprudence. Alien resident may be guilty here.

Article 120 Article 122

CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE PIRACY
COUNTRY
2 Ways of Committing Piracy
ELEMENTS: a. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the
a. That it is in time of war in which high seas or in the Philippine waters
the Philippines is involved (PD 532)
b. That the offender makes b. By seizing the whole or part of the
correspondence with an enemy cargo of said vehicles, its equipment or
country or territory occupied by personal belongings of its complement
enemy troops or passengers
c. That the correspondence is either
Elements:
1. prohibited by the government, a. That a vessel is on the high
or seas/Philippine waters
2. carried on in ciphers or b. That the offenders are not
conventional signs, or members of its complement or
3. containing notice or passengers of the vessel
information which might be c. That the offenders
useful to the enemy 1. attack or seize that vessel or
(hence, if committed by crew or
Circumstances qualifying the offense: passengers, the crime is not piracy
1 a. notice or information might be useful to but robbery in the high seas)
the enemy 2. seize the whole or part of the
2 b. offender intended to aid the enemy cargo of said vessel, its
equipment or personal
Hostile country exist only during hostilities belongings of its complement
or after the declaration of war or passengers
Correspondence to enemy country
correspondence to officials of enemy High seas: any waters on the sea coast
country even if related to you. which are without the boundaries of the
It is not correspondence with private low water mark although such waters may
individual in enemy country be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign
govt
Page 5 of 119

Piracy in high seas jurisdiction is with
any court where offenders are found or
arrested
Piracy in internal waters jurisdiction
is only with Philippine courts
For purpose of Anti-Fencing Law, piracy is
part of robbery and theft
Piracy Mutiny
Robbery or forcible Unlawful resistance to
degradation on the a superior officer, or
high seas, without the raising
lawful authority and commotion and
done with animo disturbances on board
lucrandi and in the a ship against the
spirit and intention authority of
of universal hostility. commander
Intent to gain is an No criminal intent
element.
Attack from outside. Attack from the inside.
Offenders are
strangers to the
vessel.
under the amended article, piracy can
only be committed by a person who is not
a passenger nor member of the
complement of the vessel irrespective of
venue. So if a passenger or
complement of the vessel commits
acts of robbery in the high seas, the
crime is robbery, not piracy.
If in the Phil. waters still piracy
However, despite the amendment, P.D. No.
532 may still apply where the offender is not
stranger to the vessel since it provides: Any
attack upon or seize of any vessel, or the
taking away of the whole of part thereof or
its cargo, equipment or the personal
belongings of its complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value hereof, by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel, in Philippine
waters, shall be considered as piracy. The
offenders shall be considered as pirates and
punished as hereinafter provided. After all,
under the Revised Penal Code, for one to be
called a pirate, the offender must be a
stranger to the vessel.
While the Article 122 limits the offenders
to non-passengers or non-members of the
crew, P.D. 532 states that the attack upon
or seizure of any vessel, or taking away
the whole or part thereof or its cargo,
equipment or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers committed by
any person including a passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel
shall be considered Piracy.
Note, however, that in Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 532, the act of aiding
pirates or abetting piracy is penalized as a
crime distinct from piracy. Said section
penalizes any person who knowingly and in
any manner aids or protects pirates, such as
giving them information about the movement
of the police or other peace officers of the
government, or acquires or receives property
taken by such pirates, or in any manner
derives any benefit therefrom; or who
directly or indirectly abets the commission of
of
piracy. Also, it is expressly provided in the
same section that the offender shall be
considered as an accomplice of the principal
offenders and punished in accordance with
its
the Revised Penal Code. This provision of
Presidential Decree No. 532 with respect to
piracy in Philippine water has not been
incorporated in the Revised Penal Code.
Neither may it be considered repealed by
Republic Act No. 7659 since there is nothing
in the amendatory law is inconsistent with
said section. Apparently, there is still the
crime of abetting piracy in Philippine waters
under Presidential Decree No. 532.
Considering that the essence of piracy is one
of robbery, any taking in a vessel with force
upon things or with violence or intimidation
against person is employed will always be
piracy. It cannot co-exist with the crime of
robbery. Robbery, therefore, cannot be
committed on board a vessel. But if the
taking is without violence or intimidation on
persons or force upon things, the crime of
piracy cannot be committed, but only theft.
Elements of mutiny
1) The vessel is on the high seas or
Philippine waters;
2) Offenders are either members of its
complement, or passengers of the
vessel;
3) Offenders either
a. attack or seize the vessel; or
b. seize the whole or part of
the cargo, its equipment, or
personal belongings of the
crew or passengers.
Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a
superior officer, or the raising of commotions
and disturbances aboard a ship against the
authority of its commander.
Article 123
QUALIFIED PIRACY
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:
a. Whenever they have seized a
vessel by boarding or firing upon
the same
Page 6 of 119
 b. Whenever the pirates have
abandoned their victims without
means of saving themselves
c. Whenever the crime is
accompanied by murder, homicide,
physical injuries, or rape. (the
above may result to qualified
mutiny)
Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are
mere circumstances qualifying piracy and
cannot be punished as separate crimes, nor
can they be complexed with piracy.
Parricide/infanticide should be included
(Judge Pimentel)
Murder/rape/homicide/physical injuries
must have been committed on the
passengers or complement
In piracy, where rape, murder or homicide is
committed, the mandatory penalty of death
is imposable. This means that even if the
accused enters a plea of guilty, the penalty of
death will still be imposed because death is a
single and indispensable penalty. (People
vs. Rodriguez, 135 SCRA 485)
The penalty for qualified piracy is reclusion
perpetua to death. If any of the
circumstances enumerated under the law is
proven or established, the mandatory penalty
of death should be imposed. The presence of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances will
be ignored by the court.
Although in Article 123 merely refers to
qualified piracy, there is also the crime of
qualified mutiny. Mutiny is qualified under
the following circumstances:
(1) When the offenders abandoned the
victims without means of saving
themselves; or
(2) When the mutiny is accompanied by
rape, murder, homicide, or physical
injuries.
Note that the first circumstance which
qualifies piracy does not apply to mutiny.
Republic Act No. 6235 (The Anti Hi-
Jacking Law)
Anti hi-jacking is another kind of piracy which
is committed in an aircraft. In other countries,
this crime is known as aircraft piracy.
Four situations governed by anti hi-
jacking law:
(1) usurping or seizing control of an
aircraft of Philippine registry while it is
in flight, compelling the pilots thereof
to change the course or destination of
the aircraft;
Page 7 of 119
(2) usurping or seizing control of an
aircraft of foreign registry while within
Philippine territory, compelling the
pilots thereof to land in any part of
Philippine territory;
(3) carrying or loading on board an aircraft
operating as a public utility passenger
aircraft in the Philippines, any
flammable, corrosive, explosive, or
poisonous substance; and
(4) loading, shipping, or transporting on
board a cargo aircraft operating as a
public utility in the Philippines, any
flammable, corrosive, explosive, or
poisonous substance if this was done
not in accordance with the rules and
regulations set and promulgated by
the Air Transportation Office on this
matter.
Between numbers 1 and 2, the point of
distinction is whether the aircraft is of
Philippine registry or foreign registry. The
common bar question on this law usually
involves number 1. The important thing is
that before the anti hi-jacking law can apply,
the aircraft must be in flight. If not in flight,
whatever crimes committed shall be
governed by the Revised Penal Code. The
law makes a distinction between aircraft of a
foreign registry and of Philippine registry. If
the aircraft subject of the hi-jack is of
Philippine registry, it should be in flight at
the time of the hi-jacking. Otherwise, the anti
hi-jacking law will not apply and the crime is
still punished under the Revised Penal Code.
The correlative crime may be one of grave
coercion or grave threat. If somebody is
killed, the crime is homicide or murder, as
the case may be. If there are some explosives
carried there, the crime is destructive arson.
Explosives are by nature pyro-techniques.
Destruction of property with the use of pyro-
technique is destructive arson. If there is
illegally possessed or carried firearm, other
special laws will apply.
On the other hand, if the aircraft is of
foreign registry, the law does not require
that it be in flight before the anti hi-jacking
law can apply. This is because aircrafts of
foreign registry are considered in transit
while they are in foreign countries. Although
they may have been in a foreign country,
technically they are still in flight, because
they have to move out of that foreign
country. So even if any of the acts mentioned
were committed while the exterior doors of
the foreign aircraft were still open, the anti hi-
jacking law will already govern.
Note that under this law, an aircraft is
considered in flight from the moment all
exterior doors are closed following
embarkation until such time when the same
doors are again opened for disembarkation.
This means that there are passengers that
boarded. So if the doors are closed to bring
the aircraft to the hangar, the aircraft is not
considered as in flight. The aircraft shall be
deemed to be already in flight even if its
engine has not yet been started.
Questions & Answers
1. The pilots of the Pan Am aircraft
were accosted by some armed men and were
told to proceed to the aircraft to fly it to a
foreign destination. The armed men walked
with the pilots and went on board the aircraft.
But before they could do anything on the
aircraft, alert marshals arrested them. What
crime was committed?
The criminal intent definitely is to take
control of the aircraft, which is hi-jacking. It
is a question now of whether the anti-hi-
jacking law shall govern.
The anti hi-jacking law is applicable in
this case. Even if the aircraft is not yet about
to fly, the requirement that it be in flight does
not hold true when in comes to aircraft of
foreign registry. Even if the problem does
not say that all exterior doors are closed, the
crime is hi-jacking. Since the aircraft is of
foreign registry, under the law, simply
usurping or seizing control is enough as long
as the aircraft is within Philippine territory,
without the requirement that it be in flight.
Note, however, that there is no hi-
jacking in the attempted stage. This is a
special law where the attempted stage is not
punishable.
2. A Philippine Air Lines aircraft is
bound for Davao. While the pilot and co-pilot
are taking their snacks at the airport lounge,
some of the armed men were also there. The
pilots were followed by these men on their
way to the aircraft. As soon as the pilots
entered the cockpit, they pulled out their
firearms and gave instructions where to fly
the aircraft. Does the anti hi-jacking law
apply?
No. The passengers have yet to board
the aircraft. If at that time, the offenders are
apprehended, the law will not apply because
the aircraft is not yet in flight. Note that the
aircraft is of Philippine registry.
3. While the stewardess of a
Philippine Air Lines plane bound for Cebu was
waiting for the passenger manifest, two of its
passengers seated near the pilot
surreptitiously entered the pilot cockpit. At
gunpoint, they directed the pilot to fly the
aircraft to the Middle East. However, before
the pilot could fly the aircraft towards the
Middle East, the offenders were subdued and
Page 8 of 119
the aircraft landed. What crime was
committed?
The aircraft was not yet in flight.
Considering that the stewardess was still
waiting for the passenger manifest, the doors
were still open. Hence, the anti hi-jacking
law is not applicable. Instead, the Revised
Penal Code shall govern. The crime
committed was grave coercion or grave
threat, depending upon whether or not any
serious offense violence was inflicted upon
the pilot.
However, if the aircraft were of foreign
registry, the act would already be subject to
the anti hi-jacking law because there is no
requirement for foreign aircraft to be in flight
before such law would apply. The reason for
the distinction is that as long as such aircraft
has not returned to its home base,
technically, it is still considered in transit or in
flight.
As to numbers 3 and 4 of Republic Act No.
6235, the distinction is whether the aircraft is
a passenger aircraft or a cargo aircraft. In
both cases, however, the law applies only
to public utility aircraft in the
Philippines. Private aircrafts are not subject
to the anti hi-jacking law, in so far as
transporting prohibited substances are
concerned.
If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft, the
prohibition is absolute. Carrying of any
prohibited, flammable, corrosive, or explosive
substance is a crime under Republic Act No.
6235. But if the aircraft is only a cargo
aircraft, the law is violated only when the
transporting of the prohibited substance was
not done in accordance with the rules and
regulations prescribed by the Air
Transportation Office in the matter of
shipment of such things. The Board of
Transportation provides the manner of
packing of such kind of articles, the quantity
in which they may be loaded at any time, etc.
Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law does not
apply.
However, under Section 7, any physical injury
or damage to property which would result
from the carrying or loading of the
flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous
substance in an aircraft, the offender shall be
prosecuted not only for violation of Republic
Act No. 6235, but also for the crime of
physical injuries or damage to property, as
the case may be, under the Revised Penal
Code. There will be two prosecutions here.
Other than this situation, the crime of
physical injuries will be absorbed. If the
explosives were planted in the aircraft to
blow up the aircraft, the circumstance will
qualify the penalty and that is not punishable
as a separate crime for murder. The penalty officers who may be held liable are only
is increased under the anti hi-jacking law. those acting under supposed exercise of
official functions, albeit illegally. But private
All other acts outside of the four are merely persons may also be liable under this title as
qualifying circumstances and would bring when a private person conspires with a public
about higher penalty. Such acts would not officer. What is required is that the principal
constitute another crime. So the killing or offender must be a public officer. Thus, if a
explosion will only qualify the penalty to a private person conspires with a public officer,
higher one. or becomes an accessory or accomplice, the
private person also becomes liable for the
same crime. But a private person acting
Questions & Answers
alone cannot commit the crimes under Article
124 to 132 of this title.
1. In the course of the hi-jack, a
passenger or complement was shot and Classes of Arbitrary Detention:
killed. What crime or crimes were a. By detaining a person without legal
committed? ground
b. Delay in the delivery of detained
The crime remains to be a violation of persons to the proper judicial
the anti hi-jacking law, but the penalty authorities
thereof shall be higher because a passenger c. Delaying release
or complement of the aircraft had been
killed. The crime of homicide or
murder is not committed. Article 124
ARBITRARY DETENTION
2. The hi-jackers threatened to
detonate a bomb in the course of the hi-jack.
ELEMENTS:
What crime or crimes were committed?
a. That the offender is a public
Again, the crime is violation of the anti officer or employee (whose official
hi-jacking law. The separate crime of grave duties include the authority to make
threat is not committed. This is considered an arrest and detain persons;
as a qualifying circumstance that shall serve jurisdiction to maintain peace and
to increase the penalty. order).
b. That he detains a person (actual
restraint).
TITLE TWO c. That the detention was without
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL legal grounds (cannot be committed
LAWS if with warrant).
OF THE STATE
Detention: when a person is placed in
Crimes against the fundamental laws of confinement or there is a restraint on his
the State person.
1. Arbitrary detention (Art. 124);
2. Delay in the delivery of detained Only those public officers whose official
persons to the proper judicial duties carry with it the authority to make an
authorities (Art. 125); arrest and detain persons can be guilty of this
3. Delaying release (Art. 126); crime. So, if the offender does not possess
4. Expulsion (Art. 127); such authority, the crime committed by him
5. Violation of domicile (Art. 128); is illegal detention.
6. Search warrants maliciously obtained
and abuse in the service of those Though the elements specify that the
legally obtained (Art. 129); offender be a public officer or employee,
7. Searching domicile without witnesses private individuals who conspire with
(Art. 130); public officers can also be liable.
8. Prohibition, interruption, and
dissolution of peaceful meetings (Art. In a case decided by the Supreme Court a
131); Barangay Chairman who unlawfully detains
9. Interruption of religious worship (Art. another was held to be guilty of the crime of
132); and arbitrary detention. This is because he is a
10. Offending the religious feelings (Art. person in authority vested with the
133); jurisdiction to maintain peace and order
within his barangay. In the maintenance of
Under this title, the offenders are public such peace and order, he may cause the
officers, except as to the last crime arrest and detention of troublemakers or
offending the religious feelings under Article those who disturb the peace and order within
133, which refers to any person. The public his barangay. But if the legal basis for the
Page 9 of 119
apprehension and detention does not exist,
then the detention becomes arbitrary.
Legal grounds for the detention of
any person:
a. commission of a crime
b. violent insanity or other ailment
requiring compulsory confinement of
the patient in a hospital
c. escaped prisoner
When the peace officers acted in good
faith even if the three (3) grounds mentioned
above are not obtaining, there is no Arbitrary
Detention.
Without legal grounds:
a. he has not committed any crime or no
reasonable ground of suspicion that he
has committed a crime
b. not suffering from violent insanity or
any other ailment requiring
compulsory confinement in a hospital
Grounds for warrantless arrest:
a. Crime is about to be, is being, has
been committed in his presence
b. Officer must have probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge
of facts and circumstances that the
person probably committed the crime
For escaped prisoner no need for
warrant
Example: Y was killed by unknown
assailant. Officers got a tip and arrested X.
X voluntarily admitted to the officers that
he did it although he was not asked. X was
detained immediately. According to the
SC, there was NO arbitrary detention.
Why? Because once X made a confession,
the officers had a right to arrest him.
Arbitrary detention can be committed thru
simple imprudence or negligence. (People
vs. Misa)
Periods of Detention penalized:
1. Detention not exceeding three days;
2. Detention for more than three days but
not more than 15 days;
3. Detention for more than 15 days but not
more than 6 months; and
4. Detention for more than 6 months.
Continuing crime is different from
continuous crime
Ramos v. Enrile: Rebels later on retire.
According to the SC, once you have
committed rebellion and have not been
punished or amnestied, then the rebels
continue to engage in rebellion, unless the
rebels renounce his affiliation. Arrest can
be made without a warrant because this is
a continuing crime.
Distinction between arbitrary detention
and illegal detention
1. In arbitrary detention --
The principal offender must be a public
officer. Civilians cannot commit the
crime of arbitrary detention except
when they conspire with a public
officer committing this crime, or
become an accomplice or accessory to
the crime committed by the public
officer; and
The offender who is a public officer has
a duty which carries with it the
authority to detain a person.
2. In illegal detention --
The principal offender is a private
person. But a public officer can
commit the crime of illegal detention
when he is acting in a private capacity
or beyond the scope of his official duty,
or when he becomes an accomplice or
accessory to the crime committed by a
private person.
The offender, even if he is a public
officer, does not include as his function
the power to arrest and detain a
person, unless he conspires with a
public officer committing arbitrary
detention.
Whether the crime is arbitrary detention or
illegal detention, it is necessary that there
must be an actual restraint of liberty of the
offended party. If there is no actual restraint,
as the offended party may still go to the
place where he wants to go, even though
there have been warnings, the crime of
arbitrary detention or illegal detention is not
committed. There is either grave or light
threat.
However, if the victim is under guard in his
movement such that there is still restraint of
liberty, then the crime of either arbitrary or
illegal detention is still committed.
Distinction between arbitrary detention
and unlawful arrest
(1) As to offender
a In arbitrary detention, the offender is a
public officer possessed with authority
to make arrests.
In unlawful arrest, the offender may be
any person.
(2) As to criminal intent
Page 10 of 119
 In arbitrary detention, the main reason
for detaining the offended party is to
deny him of his liberty.
In unlawful arrest, the purpose is 1) to
accuse the offended party of a crime
he did not commit; 2) to deliver the
person to the proper authority; and 3)
to file the necessary charges in a way
trying to incriminate him.
When a person is unlawfully arrested, his
subsequent detention is without legal
grounds.
Article 125
DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED
PERSONS
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer or employee
b. That he has detained a person for
some legal grounds
c. That he fails to deliver such
person to the proper judicial
authority within:
1. 12 hours, if detained for
crimes/offenses punishable by
light penalties, or their equivalent
2. 18 hours, for crimes/offenses
punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent or
3. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses
punishable by capital
punishment or afflictive
penalties, or their equivalent
Article 125 covers situations wherein the
person detained has been arrested without a
warrant but his arrest is nonetheless lawful. It
is a felony committed by omission because of
the failure of the offender to deliver the
detained person to the proper judicial
authority within 12 hours, 18 hours and 36
hours as the case may be.
At the beginning, the detention is legal since
it is in the pursuance of a lawful arrest.
However, the detention becomes arbitrary
when the period thereof exceeds 12, 18 or 36
hours, as the case may be, depending on
whether the crime is punished by light,
correctional or afflictive penalty or their
equivalent.
Really means delay in filing necessary
information or charging of person
detained in court.
May be waived if a preliminary
investigation is asked for.
Under the Revised Rules of Court, when the
person arrested is arrested for a crime which
gives him the right to preliminary
investigation and he wants to avail his right
Page 11 of 119
to a preliminary investigation, he would have
to waive in writing his rights under Article
125 so that the arresting officer will not
immediately file the case with the court that
will exercise jurisdiction over the case. If he
does not want to waive this in writing, the
arresting officer will have to comply with
Article 125 and file the case immediately in
court without preliminary investigation. In
such case, the arrested person, within five
days after learning that the case has been
filed in court without preliminary
investigation, may ask for preliminary
investigation. In this case, the public officer
who made the arrest will no longer be liable
for violation of Article 125.
Does not contemplate actual physical
delivery but at least there must be a
complaint filed. Duty complied with upon
the filing of the complaint with the judicial
authority (courts, prosecutors though
technically not a judicial authority, for
purposes of this article, hes considered as
one.)
Delivery of detained person consists in
making charge of filing a compliant against
the prisoner with the proper judicial authority.
It does not involve the physical delivery of
the prisoner before the judge (Sayo vs.
Chief of Police).
The filing of the information in court does
not cure illegality of detention. Neither
does it affect the legality of the
confinement under process issued by the
court.
To escape from this, officers usually ask
accused to execute a waiver which should
be under oath and with assistance of
counsel. Such waiver is not violative of the
accused constitutional right.
What is length of waiver? Light offense
5 days. Serious and less serious offenses
7 to 10 days. (Judge Pimentel)
Article does not apply when arrest is via a
warrant of arrest
Q. Within what period should a police
officer who has arrested a person under a
warrant of arrest turn over the arrested
person to the judicial authority?
A. There is no time limit specified
except that the return must be made within a
reasonable time. The period fixed by law
under Article 125 does not apply because the
arrest was made by virtue of a warrant of
arrest.
If offender is a private person, crime is
illegal detention
Before Article 125 may be applied, it is
necessary that initially, the detention of
 the arrested person must be lawful
because the arrest is based on legal
grounds. If the arrest is made without a
warrant, this constitutes an unlawful
arrest. Article 269(unlawful arrest), not
Article 125, will apply. If the arrest is not
based on legal grounds, the arrest is pure
and simple arbitrary detention. Article
125 contemplates a situation where the
arrest was made without warrant but
based on legal grounds. This is known as
citizens arrest.
A police officer has no authority to arrest
and detain a person on the basis merely
of the complaint of the offended party,
even if after investigation he becomes
convinced that the accused is guilty of the
offense charged. What the complainant
may do is to file a complaint with the
court and ask for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest.
Arbitrary Detention Delay in Delivery of
(124) Detained (125)
Detention is illegal Detention is legal in
from the beginning. the beginning, but
illegality starts from
the expiration of the
specified periods
without the persons
detained having been
delivered to the
proper judicial
authority.
Article 126
DELAYING RELEASE
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer or employee
b. That there is a judicial or
executive order for the release of
a prisoner or detention prisoner,
or that there is a proceeding upon
a petition for the liberation of
such person
c. That the offender without good
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 proceedings upon a petition
for the release of such person
Three acts are punishable:
a. delaying the performance of a judicial
or executive order for the release of a
prisoner
b. delaying the service of notice of such
order to said prisoner
c. delaying the proceedings upon any
petition for the liberation of such
person
Wardens and jailers are the persons most
likely to violate this provision
Provision does not include legislation
Article 127
EXPULSION
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer or employee
b. That he expels any person from
the Philippines, or compels a
person to change his residence
c. That the offender is not
authorized to do so by law
2 acts punishable:
a. by expelling a person from the
Philippines
b. by compelling a person to change his
residence
The essence of this crime is coercion but the
specific crime is expulsion when committed
by a public officer. If committed by a private
person, the crime is grave coercion.
In the Philippines, only the President of the
Republic has the power to deport aliens
whose continued stay in the country
constitutes a menace to the peace and safety
of the community.
In the case of Filipino citizens, only the court,
by final judgment, can order a person to
change his residence.
In Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778,
the mayor of the City of Manila wanted to
make the city free from prostitution. He
ordered certain prostitutes to be transferred
to Davao, without observing due processes
since they have not been charged with any
crime at all. It was held that the crime
committed was expulsion.
Does not include undesirable aliens;
destierro; or when sent to prison
Questions & Answers
1. Certain aliens were arrested and
they were just put on the first aircraft which
brought them to the country so that they
may be out without due process of law. Was
there a crime committed?
Yes. Expulsion.

Page 12 of 119
 2. If a Filipino citizen is sent out of
the country, what crime is committed?
Grave coercion, not expulsion,
because a Filipino cannot be deported. This
crime refers only to aliens.
If X (Filipino) after he voluntarily left, is
refused re-entry is considered forcing
him to change his address here
Threat to national security is not a ground
to expel or change his address.
Article 128
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer or employee
b. That he is not authorized by
judicial order to enter the dwelling
and/or to make a search therein
for papers or other effects
c. That he commits any of the
following acts:
1. entering any dwelling against
the will of the owner thereof
2. searching papers or other
effects found therein without
the previous consent of such
owner
3. refusing to leave the premises,
after having surreptitiously
entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave
the same
Aggravating Circumstance (medium
and maximum of penalty imposed):
a. Offense committed at nighttime
b. Papers or effects not constituting
evidence of a crime be not returned
immediately
In order to commit this crime, the entry must
be against the will of the owner. If the entry is
only without the consent of the owner, the
crime of violation of domicile is not
committed.
The prohibition may be expressed or implied.
If the signs Do not enter and Strangers
keep out are posted in front of the house or
dwelling, then the prohibition is express. If
the door is locked, or even if it is open but
these are barriers to indicate the manifest
intention of the owner to bar strangers from
entering, there is implied prohibition.
The primary object of the law is to preserve
the privacy of abode of the offended party.
Hence, if the privacy is already lost, as when
the offender has been allowed by the owner
to enter the dwelling together with other
Page 13 of 119
persons, any subsequent change of attitude
will not restore the privacy which was already
lost. When privacy is waived, trespass to
dwelling or violation of domicile cannot be
committed.
If the offender who enters the dwelling
against the will of the owner thereof is a
private individual, the crime committed is
trespass to dwelling (Art 280)
When a public officer searched a person
outside his dwelling without a search
warrant and such person is not legally
arrested for an offense, the crime
committed by the public officer is grave
coercion, if violence or intimidation is
used (Art 286), or unjust vexation, if there
is no violence or intimidation (Art 287)
A public officer without a search warrant
cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against
the will of the owner, even if he knew that
someone in that dwelling is having
unlawful possession of opium
Under Rule 113(sec. 11) of the Revised
Rules of Court, when a person to be
arrested enters a premise and closes it
thereafter, the public officer, after giving
notice of an arrest, can break into the
premise. He shall not be liable for
violation of domicile.
3 acts punishable:
a. person enters dwelling w/o
consent or against the will
In the plain view doctrine, public
officer should be legally entitled to be
in the place where the effects were
found. If he entered the place illegally
and he saw the effects, doctrine
inapplicable; thus, he is liable for
violation of domicile.
b. person enters and searches for
papers and effects
Public officer who enters with
consent searches for paper and effects
without the consent of the owner.
Even if he is welcome in the dwelling,
it does not mean he has permission to
search.
c. person entered secretly and
refuses to leave after being asked
to
The act punished is not the entry but
the refusal to leave. If the offender
upon being directed to leave, followed
and left, there is no crime of violation
of domicile. Entry must be done
surreptitiously; without this, crime may
be unjust vexation. But if entering was
done against the will of the occupant
 of the house, meaning there was
express or implied prohibition from
entering the same, even if the
occupant does not direct him to leave,
the crime of violation of domicile is
already committed because it would
fall in number 1.
Being authorized by law means
with search warrant, to save himself or do
some things good for humanity
There are only three recognized instances
when search without a warrant is considered
valid, and, therefore, the seizure of any
evidence done is also valid. Outside of these,
search would be invalid and the objects
seized would not be admissible in evidence.
(1) Search made incidental to a valid arrest;
(2) Where the search was made on a
moving vehicle or vessel such that the
exigency of the situation prevents the
searching officer from securing a search
warrant;
(3) When the article seized is within plain
view of the officer making the seizure
without making a search therefore.
Papers and effects need not be part of a
crime.
Article 129
SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY
OBTAINED
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer or employee
b. That he procures a search warrant
c. That there is no just cause
In order that a search warrant may be
issued, it must be based on probable
cause in connection with one offense, to
be determined by a judge after
examination under oath of the
complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.
This means there was no probable cause
determined in obtaining the search warrant.
Although void, the search warrant is
entitled to respect because of
presumption of regularity. One remedy is
a motion to quash the search warrant, not
refusal to abide by it. The public officer
may also be prosecuted for perjury,
because for him to succeed in obtaining a
search warrant without a probable cause,
he must have perjured himself or induced
someone to commit perjury to convince
the court.
Page 14 of 119
The true test of lack of just cause is whether
the sworn statement filed in support of the
application for search warrant has been done
in such a manner that perjury could be
charged and the affiant can be held liable for
making such false statement. The oath
required refers to the truth of the facts within
the personal knowledge of the applicant and
his witnesses.
ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF WARRANT OR
EXCEEDING AUTHORITY OR USING
UNNECESSARY SEVERITY IN EXECUTING
A SEARCH WARRANT LEGALLY
PROCURED
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer or employee
b. That he has legally procured a
search warrant
c. That he exceeds his authority or
uses unnecessary severity in
executing the same
Search warrant is valid for 10 days from
its date
Search warrant is an order in writing
issued in the name of the People, signed
by the judge and directed to a public
officer, commanding him to search for
personal property described therein and
bring it before the court
No just cause warrant is unjustified
Search limited to what is described in
the warrant, all details must be with
particularity
The officer exceeded his authority under the
warrant To illustrate, let us say that there
was a pusher in a condo unit. The PNP
Narcotics Group obtained a search warrant
but the name of person in the search warrant
did not tally with the address stated.
Eventually, the person with the same name
was found but in a different address. The
occupant resisted but the public officer
insisted on the search. Drugs were found and
seized and occupant was prosecuted and
convicted by the trial court. The Supreme
Court acquitted him because the public
officers are required to follow the search
warrant to the letter. They have no discretion
on the matter. Plain view doctrine is
inapplicable since it presupposes that the
officer was legally entitled to be in the place
where the effects where found. Since the
entry was illegal, plain view doctrine does not
apply.
Malicious warrant. Example. X was a
respondent of a search warrant for illegal
possession of firearms. A return was
made. The gun did not belong to X and
 the witness had no personal knowledge
that there is a gun in that place.
Abuse examples:
a. X owner was handcuffed while search
was going-on.
b. Tank was used to ram gate prior to
announcement that a search will be
made
The search warrant is not a license
to commit destruction.
c. Persons who were not respondents
were searched
Article 130
SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT
WITNESSES
ELEMENTS :
a. That the offender is a public
officer or employee
b. That he is armed with a search
warrant legally procured
c. That he searches the domicile,
papers or other belongings of any
person
d. That the owner, or any member of
his family, or two witnesses
residing in the same locality are
not present
Order of those who must witness the
search:
a. Homeowner
b. Members of the family of sufficient age
and discretion
c. Responsible members of the
community (cant be influenced by the
searching party)
Validity of the search warrant can be
questioned only in 2 courts: 1) where
issued or 2) where the case is pending.
Latter is preferred for objective
determination.
Article 130 has no application to search and
seizure made on moving vehicles because
the application of this law is limited to
dwelling and personal properties such as
papers and effects found therein.
There are searches and seizures which are
authorized by law and which can be done
without the attendance of witnesses. For
instance, the Tariff and Customs Code
authorizes persons with police authority
under Sec. 2203, to enter; pass through or
search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store
or building, not being used as a dwelling
house; and to inspect, search and examine
any vessel or aircraft, and any trunk,
package, box or envelope, or any person on
board, or to stop and search and examine
Page 15 of 119
any vehicle, beast or person suspected of
holding or conveying any dutiable or
prohibited article introduced into the
Philippines contrary to law.
Article 131
PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
ELEMENTS:
a. Offender is a public officer or
employee
b. He performs any of the ff. acts:
1. prohibiting or interrupting,
without legal ground the
holding of a peaceful meeting,
or dissolving the same (e.g.
denial of permit in arbitrary
manner).
2. hindering any person from
joining any lawful association
or from attending any of its
meetings.
prohibiting or hindering any person from
addressing, either alone or together with
others, any petition to the authorities for
the correction of abuses or redress of
grievances
Two criteria to determine whether
Article 131 would be violated:
(1) Dangerous tendency rule applicable
in times of national unrest such as to
prevent coup detat.
(2) Clear and present danger rule
applied in times of peace. Stricter rule.
If the offender is a private individual, the
crime is disturbance of public order (Art
153)
Meeting must be peaceful and there is no
legal ground for prohibiting, dissolving or
interrupting that meeting
If in the course of the assembly the
participants commit illegal acts like oral
defamation or inciting to sedition, a public
officer or law enforcer can stop or dissolve
the meeting. The permit given is not a
license to commit a crime.
Meeting is subject to regulation
If the permit is denied arbitrarily, Article 131
is violated. If the officer would not give the
permit unless the meeting is held in a
particular place which he dictates defeats the
exercise of the right to peaceably assemble,
Article 131 is violated.
Offender must be a stranger, not a
participant, in the peaceful meeting;
otherwise, its unjust vexation

Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of
the municipal council by a public officer is
a crime against the legislative body, not
punishable under this article
The person talking on a prohibited subject
at a public meeting contrary to agreement
that no speaker should touch on politics
may be stopped
But stopping the speaker who was
attacking certain churches in public
meeting is a violation of this article
Prohibition must be without lawful cause
or without lawful authority
Those holding peaceful meetings must
comply with local ordinances. Example:
Ordinance requires permits for meetings
in public places. But if police stops a
meeting in a private place because
theres no permit, officer is liable for
stopping the meeting.
Distinctions between prohibition,
interruption, or dissolution of peaceful
meetings under Article 131, and tumults and
other disturbances, under Article 153
(1) As to the participation of the
public officer
In Article 131, the public officer is not a
participant. As far as the gathering is
concerned, the public officer is a third
party.
If the public officer is a participant of
the assembly and he prohibits,
interrupts, or dissolves the same,
Article 153 is violated if the same is
conducted in a public place.
(2) As to the essence of the crime
In Article 131, the offender must be a
public officer and, without any legal
ground, he prohibits, interrupts, or
dissolves a peaceful meeting or
assembly to prevent the offended
party from exercising his freedom of
speech and that of the assembly to
petition a grievance against the
government.
In Article 153, the offender need not be
a public officer. The essence of the
crime is that of creating a serious
disturbance of any sort in a public
office, public building or even a private
place where a public function is being
held.
Page 16 of 119
Article 132
INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
ELEMENTS:
a. That the officer is a public officer
or employee
b. That religious ceremonies or
manifestations of any religion are
about to take place or are going
on
c. That the offender prevents or
disturbs the same
Circumstance qualifying the offense:
if committed with violence or threats
Reading of Bible and then attacking
certain churches in a public plaza is not a
ceremony or manifestation of religion, but
only a meeting of a religious sect. But if
done in a private home, its a religious
service
Religious Worship: people in the act of
performing religious rites for a religious
ceremony; a manifestation of religion. Ex.
Mass, baptism, marriage
X, a private person, boxed a priest while
the priest was giving homily and while the
latter was maligning a relative of X. Is X
liable? X may be liable under Art 133
because X is a private person.
When priest is solemnizing marriage, he is
a person in authority, although in other
cases, hes not.
Article 133
OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
ELEMENTS:
a. That the acts complained of were
performed
1. in a place devoted to religious
worship, or (for this element, no
need of religious ceremony, only
the place is material)
2. during the celebration of any
religious ceremony
b. That the acts must be notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the
faithful (deliberate intent to hurt the
feelings)
c. The offender is any person
d. There is a deliberate intent to hurt
the feelings of the faithful,
directed against religious tenet
If in a place devoted to religious purpose,
there is no need for an ongoing religious
ceremony
Example of religious ceremony (acts
performed outside the church).
Processions and special prayers for
 burying dead persons but NOT prayer 4. Disloyalty to public officers or
rallies employees (Art. 137);
Acts must be directed against religious 5. Inciting to rebellion (Art. 138);
practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose 6. Sedition (Art. 139);
of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing or 7. Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art.
attempting to damage an object of 141);
religious veneration 8. Inciting to sedition (Art. 142);
There must be deliberate intent to hurt 9. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of
the feelings of the faithful, mere Congress and similar bodies (Art. 143);
arrogance or rudeness is not enough 10. Disturbance of proceedings of Congress
or similar bodies (Art. 144);
In determining whether an act is offensive to 11. Violation of parliamentary immunity
the feelings of the faithful, the same must be (Art. 145);
viewed or judged from the standpoint of the 12. Illegal assemblies (Art. 146);
offended religion and not from the point of 13. Illegal associations (Art. 147);
view of the offender (People vs. Baes, 68 14. Direct assaults (Art. 148);
Phil. 203). 15. Indirect assaults (Art. 149);
16. Disobedience to summons issued by
CRIME Nature Who If Element Congress, its committees, etc., by the
of Crime are Missing constitutional commissions, its
Liable committees, etc. (Art. 150);
Prohibit Crime Public If not by 17. Resistance and disobedience to a person
ion, against officers public in authority or the agents of such person
Interrup the , officer = (Art. 151);
tion and fundamen Outsid tumults 18. Tumults and other disturbances of public
Dissolut tal law of ers order (Art. 153);
ion of the state 19. Unlawful use of means of publication
Peacefu and unlawful utterances (Art. 154);
l 20. Alarms and scandals (Art. 155);
Meeting 21. Delivering prisoners from jails (Art. 156);
(131) 22. Evasion of service of sentence (Art.
Interrup Crime Public If by insider 157);
tion of against officers = unjust 23. Evasion on occasion of disorders (Art.
Religiou the , vexation 158);
s fundamen Outsid If not 24. Violation of conditional pardon (Art.
Worship tal law of ers religious = 159); and
(132) the state tumult or 25. Commission of another crime during
alarms service of penalty imposed for another
If not previous offense (Art. 160).
notoriously
offensive = Article 134
unjust REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
vexation
Offendi Crime Public If not ELEMENTS:
ng the against officers tumults = a. That there be
Religiou public , alarms and 1. public uprising and
s order private scandal 2. taking arms against the
Feeling person If meeting government (force/violence)
(133) s, illegal at
outside onset = b. That the purpose of the uprising
rs inciting to or movement is either
sedition or 1. to remove from the allegiance
rebellion to said government or its laws
3 i. the territory of the
Philippines or any part thereof,
or
4 ii. any body of land, naval or
other armed forces, or
TITLE THREE
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER 2 To deprive the chief executive
or congress, wholly or partially,
Crimes against public order of any of their powers or
1. Rebellion or insurrection (Art. 134); prerogatives
2. Coup d etat (Art. 134-A)
3. Conspiracy and proposal to commit Persons liable for rebellion
rebellion (Art. 136); a. Any person who: 1. promotes

Page 17 of 119
 2. maintains, or
3. heads
rebellion or insurrection; or
b. Any person who, while holding any
public office or employment, takes
part therein by:
1. engaging in war against the forces
of the government
2. destroying property or committing
serious violence
3. exacting contributions or diverting
public funds from the lawful
purpose for which they have been
appropriated (Note: diverting
public funds is malversation
absorbed in rebellion);
4. Any person merely participating or
executing the command of others in
rebellion
The essence of this crime is a public uprising
with the taking up of arms. It requires a
multitude of people. It aims to overthrow the
duly constituted government. It does not
require the participation of any member of
the military or national police organization or
public officers and generally carried out by
civilians. Lastly, the crime can only be
committed through force and violence.
The crime of rebellion cannot be committed
by a single individual. Invariably, it is
committed by several persons for the
purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted
or organized government. In the Philippines,
what is known to the ordinary citizen as a
symbol of Government would be the
barangay, represented by its officials; the
local government represented by the
provincial and municipal officials; and the
national government represented by the
President, the Chief Justice and the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
Success is immaterial, purpose is always
political
The crime of rebellion is essentially a political
crime. The intention of the rebel is to
substitute himself in place of those who are
in power. His method of placing himself in
authority with the use of violence, duress or
intimidation, assassination or the commission
of common crimes like murder, kidnapping,
arson, robbery and other heinous crimes in
what we call rebellion.
Rebellion used where the object of the
movement is completely to overthrow and
supersede the existing government
Insurrection refers to a movement which
seeks merely to effect some change of
minor importance to prevent the exercise
Page 18 of 119
of govt authority w/ respect to particular
a matters or subjects
The phrase to remove allegiance from
the government is used to emphasize
that the object of the uprising could be
limited to certain areas, like isolating a
barangay or municipality or a province in
its loyalty to the duly constituted
government or the national government.
Allegiance is a generic term which includes
loyalty, civil obedience and civil service.
The law on rebellion however, does not speak
only of allegiance or loss of territory. It also
includes the efforts of the rebel to deprive the
President of the Philippines of the exercise of
his power to enforce the law, to exact
obedience of laws and regulations duly
enacted and promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities.
Actual clash of arms w/ the forces of the
govt, not necessary to convict the
accused who is in conspiracy w/ others
actually taking arms against the govt
Purpose of the uprising must be shown
but it is not necessary that it be
accomplished
A change of government w/o external
participation
RISING PUBLICLY and TAKING ARMS
AGAINST GOVERNMENT actual
participation. If there is no public
uprising, the crime is of direct assault.
When any of the objectives of rebellion is
pursued but there is no public uprising in the
legal sense, the crime is direct assault of the
first form. But if there is rebellion, with public
uprising, direct assault cannot be committed.
Mere giving of aid or comfort is not
criminal in the case of rebellion. Merely
sympathizing is not participation, there
must be ACTUAL participation
There must be a public apprising and
taking up of arms for the specified purpose or
purposes mentioned in Article 134. The acts
of the accused who is not a member of the
Hukbalahap organization of sending
cigarettes and food supplies to a Huk leader;
the changing of dollars into pesos for a top
level communist; and the helping of Huks in
opening accounts with the bank of which he
was an official, do not constitute Rebellion.
(Carino vs. People, et al., 7 SCRA 900).
Not necessary that there is killing, mere
threat of removing Phil is sufficient
Rebellion may be committed even without a
single shot being fired. No encounter
needed. Mere public uprising with arms
enough.
Rebellion cannot be complexed with
any other crime.
Common crimes perpetrated in furtherance
of a political offense are divested of their
character as common offenses and assume
the political complexion of the main crime
which they are mere ingredients, and
consequently, cannot be punished separately
from the principal offense, or complexed with
the same.
ORTEGA OPINION:
Rebellion can now be complexed with
common crimes. Not long ago, the
Supreme Court, in Enrile v. Salazar,
186 SCRA 217, reiterated and affirmed
the rule laid down in People v.
Hernandez, 99 Phil 515, that rebellion
may not be complexed with common
crimes which are committed in
furtherance thereof because they are
absorbed in rebellion. In view of said
reaffirmation, some believe that it has
been a settled doctrine that rebellion
cannot be complexed with common
crimes, such as killing and destruction
of property, committed on the occasion
and in furtherance thereof.
This thinking is no longer correct; there is no
legal basis for such rule now.
The statement in People v. Hernandez that
common crimes committed in furtherance of
rebellion are absorbed by the crime of
rebellion, was dictated by the provision of
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code prior to
its amendment by the Republic Act No. 6968
(An Act Punishing the Crime of Coup Detat),
which became effective on October 1990.
Prior to its amendment by Republic Act No.
6968, Article 135 punished those who while
holding any public office or employment, take
part therein by any of these acts: engaging
in war against the forces of Government;
destroying property; committing serious
violence; exacting contributions, diverting
funds for the lawful purpose for which they
have been appropriated.
Since a higher penalty is prescribed for the
crime of rebellion when any of the specified
acts are committed in furtherance thereof,
said acts are punished as components of
rebellion and, therefore, are not to be treated
as distinct crimes. The same acts constitute
distinct crimes when committed on a
different occasion and not in furtherance of
rebellion. In short, it was because Article 135
then punished said acts as components of the
Page 19 of 119
crime of rebellion that precludes the
application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code thereto. In the eyes of the law then,
said acts constitute only one crime and that
is rebellion. The Hernandez doctrine was
reaffirmed in Enrile v. Salazar because the
text of Article 135 has remained the same as
it was when the Supreme Court resolved the
same issue in the People v. Hernandez. So
the Supreme Court invited attention to this
fact and thus stated:
There is a an apparent need to restructure
the law on rebellion, either to raise the
penalty therefore or to clearly define and
delimit the other offenses to be considered
absorbed thereby, so that it cannot be
conveniently utilized as the umbrella for
every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its
name. The court has no power to effect such
change, for it can only interpret the law as it
stands at any given time, and what is needed
lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully,
Congress will perceive the need for promptly
seizing the initiative in this matter, which is
purely within its province.
Obviously, Congress took notice of this
pronouncement and, thus, in enacting
Republic Act No. 6968, it did not only provide
for the crime of coup detat in the Revised
Penal Code but moreover, deleted from the
provision of Article 135 that portion referring
to those
who, while holding any public office or
employment takes part therein [rebellion or
insurrection], engaging in war against the
forces of government, destroying property or
committing serious violence, exacting
contributions or diverting public funds from
the lawful purpose for which they have been
appropriated
Hence, overt acts which used to be punished
as components of the crime of rebellion have
been severed therefrom by Republic Act No.
6968. The legal impediment to the
application of Article 48 to rebellion has been
removed. After the amendment, common
crimes involving killings, and/or destructions
of property, even though committed by
rebels in furtherance of rebellion, shall bring
about complex crimes of rebellion with
murder/homicide, or rebellion with robbery,
or rebellion with arson as the case may be.
To reiterate, before Article 135 was amended,
a higher penalty is imposed when the
offender engages in war against the
government. "War" connotes anything which
may be carried out in pursuance of war. This
implies that all acts of war or hostilities like
serious violence and destruction of property
committed on occasion and in pursuance of
rebellion are component crimes of rebellion
which is why Article 48 on complex crimes is
inapplicable. In amending Article135, the purpose in sedition is to go against
acts which used to be component crimes of established government, not to overthrow it.
rebellion, like serious acts of violence, have
been deleted. These are now distinct crimes.
The legal obstacle for the application of Article 134-A
Article 48, therefore, has been removed. COUP D ETAT
Ortega says legislators want to punish these
common crimes independently of rebellion. ELEMENTS:
Ortega cites no case overturning Enrile
a. Swift attack
v. Salazar.
b. Accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or
However, illegal possession of firearms in stealth
furtherance of rebellion is distinct from c. Directed against:
the crime of rebellion. 1. duly constituted authorities
2. any military camp or
The offense of illegal possession of firearm is installation
a malum prohibitum, in which case, 3. communication networks or
good faith and absence of criminal public utilities
intent are not valid defenses. 4. other facilities needed for
the exercise and continued
Furthermore, it is a continuing crime such possession of power
along with the crime of conspiracy or d. Singly or simultaneously carried
proposal to commit such out anywhere in the Philippines
A private crime may be committed during d. Committed by any person or
rebellion. Examples: killing, possessions of persons belonging to the
firearms, illegal association are absorbed. military or police or holding
Rape, even if not in furtherance of any public office or
rebellion cannot be complexed employment; with or without
civilian support or
If killing, robbing were done for private participation
purposes or for profit, without any political e. With or without civilian
motivation, the crime would be separately support or participation
be punished and would not be embraced f. Purpose of seizing or
by rebellion (People v. Fernando) diminishing state power

Person deemed leader of rebellion in case The essence of the crime is a swift attack
he is unknown: upon the facilities of the Philippine
Any person who in fact: government, military camps and installations,
a. directed the others communication networks, public utilities and
b. spoke for them facilities essential to the continued
c. signed receipts and other possession of governmental powers. It may
documents issued in their be committed singly or collectively and does
name not require a multitude of people.
d. performed similar acts on
behalf of the rebels The objective may not be to overthrow
the government but only to destabilize or
Distinctions between rebellion and paralyze the government through the
sedition seizure of facilities and utilities essential
to the continued possession and exercise
(1) As to nature of governmental powers. It requires as
principal offender a member of the AFP or
In rebellion, there must be taking up or of the PNP organization or a public officer
arms against the government. with or without civilian support. Finally, it
may be carried out not only by force or
In sedition, it is sufficient that the violence but also through stealth, threat
public uprising be tumultuous. or strategy.

(2) As to purpose How do you distinguish between coup

In rebellion, the purpose is always
political.
In sedition, the purpose may be
political or social. Example: the uprising of
squatters against Forbes park residents. The
detat and rebellion?
Rebellion is committed by any person
whether a private individual or a public
officer whereas in coup detat, the offender is
a member of the military or police force or
holding a public office or employment.

Page 20 of 119
In rebellion, the object is to alienate the
allegiance of a people in a territory, whether In both instances, the offenders intend to
wholly or partially, from the duly constituted substitute themselves in place of those who
government; in coup detat, the object or are in power.
purpose is to seize or diminish state power.
Treason Rebellion (134) Coup detat (134-A) Sedition
(114) (139)
Nature of Crime against Crime against Crime against Public Crime against
Crime National Public Order Order Public Order
Security
Overt Acts levying war Public uprising See article. Rising publicly or
against the AND tumultuously
govt; Taking up arms (caused by more
OR against the govt than 3 armed
adherence and men or provided
giving aid or with means of
comfort to violence)
enemies
Purpose of Deliver the alienate the Seizing or diminishing See enumeration
objective govt to enemy allegiance of a state power. in article.
during war people in a
territory, whether
wholly or partially,
from the duly
constituted
government
coup. finances, abets, aids
Article 135 in a coup.
PENALTIES
Serious violence is that inflicted upon
Who are liable? civilians, which may result in homicide. It is
a. Any person who: not limited to hostilities against the armed
1. Promotes force.
2. Maintains
3. heads a rebellion or insurrection Diverting public funds is malversation
absorbed in rebellion
b. Any person who, while holding any
public office or employment, takes part NOTES:
therein a. Public officer must take active part
1. engaging in war against the forces of because mere silence or omission not
the govt punishable in rebellion
b. It is not a defense in rebellion that the
2. destroying property or committing accused never took the oath of
serious violence allegiance to, or that they never
recognized the government
3. exacting contributions or diverting c. Rebellion cannot be complexed with
public funds from the lawful purpose murder and other common crimes
for which they have been committed in pursuance of the
appropriated movement to overthrow the government

c. Any person merely participating or
executing the command of other in a
rebellion
When conspiracy is present in the commission
of the crime, the act of one is the act of all. In
committing rebellion and coup detat, even if
conspiracy as a means to commit the crime is
established, the principal of criminal liability
under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code is
not followed.
In Government Not in Government
Service Service
Anyone who leads, Anyone who
directs, commands participates or in an
others to undertake a manner, supports,
Page 21 of 119
Subversion, just like the crimes of rebellion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit the crimes of
rebellion or subversion and crimes or offenses
committed in furtherance thereof constitute
direct assaults against the State and are in the
nature of continuing crimes ( Umil vs.
Ramos).
d. Killing, robbing etc for private persons
or for profit, without any political
motivation, would be separately
punished and would not be absorbed in
the rebellion.
Article 136
 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COUP D ETAT, The collaborator must not have tried to
REBELLION impose the wishes of the rebels on the
OR INSURRECTION people.

ELEMENTS: Disloyalty as a crime is not limited to rebellion

a. 2 more persons come to an
agreement to rise publicly and take
arms against the government
b. For any of the purposes of rebellion
c. They decide to commit it
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D ETAT,
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION (136)
ELEMENTS:
a. A person who has decided to rise
publicly and take arms the
government
b. For any of the purposes of rebellion
c. Proposes its execution to some
other person/s
alone but should now include the crime of
coup detat. Rebellion is essentially a crime
committed by private individuals while coup
detat is a crime that should be classified as a
crime committed by public officers like
malversation, bribery, dereliction of duty and
violations of the anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
If the public officer or employee, aside from
being disloyal, does or commits acts
constituting the crime of rebellion or coup
detat, he will no longer be charged for the
simple crime of disloyalty but he shall be
proceeded against for the grave offense of
rebellion or coup detat.

Organizing a group of soldiers, soliciting Article 138

INCITING TO REBELLION OR
membership in, and soliciting funds for the
INSURRECTION
organization show conspiracy to overthrow
the govt
The mere fact of giving and rendering ELEMENTS:
speeches favoring Communism would not a. That the offender does not take
make the accused guilty of conspiracy if arms or is not in open hostility
theres no evidence that the hearers then against the government
and there agreed to rise up in arms against
the govt b. That he incites others to the
Conspiracy must be immediately prior to execution of any of the acts of
rebellion
rebellion
If it is during the rebellion, then it is already
c. That the inciting is done by means
taking part in it. of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, banners or
other representations tending to
Article 137 the same end
DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES Intentionally calculated to seduce others to
rebellion
ACTS PUNISHED:
a. Failing to resist rebellion by all the There must be uprising to take up arms and
means in their power rise publicly for the purposes indicated in
b. Continuing to discharge the duties Art 134
of their offices under the control of
rebels One who promotes, maintains or heads a
c. Accepting appointment to office rebellion and who act at the same time incites
under rebels or influences others to join him in his war
efforts against the duly constituted
Presupposes existence of rebellion government cannot be held criminally liable
for the crime of inciting to rebellion because,
Must not be in conspiracy with rebels or as the principal to the crime of rebellion, the
coup plotters act of inciting to commit a rebellion is inherent
to the graver crime of rebellion.
If there are means to prevent the rebellion
but did not resist it, then theres disloyalty. Proposal to Commit Inciting to Rebellion
If there are no means, no fault Rebellion (136) (138)
The person who Not required that the
If position is accepted in order to protect proposes has decided offender has decided
the people, not covered by this to commit rebellion. to commit rebellion.
The person who The inciting is done
proposes the publicly.
Page 22 of 119
execution of the crime
uses secret means.
Article 139
SEDITION
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offenders rise
1. Publicly (if no public uprising =
tumult and other disturbance of
public order)
2. Tumultuously (vis--vis rebellion
where there must be a taking of
arms)
b. That they employ force,
intimidation, or other means
outside of legal methods
c. That the offenders employ any of
those means to attain any of the
following objects:
1. to prevent the promulgation or
execution of any law or the
holding of any popular election
2. to prevent the national
government, or any provincial or
municipal government, or any
public thereof from freely
exercising its or his functions, or
prevent the execution of any
administrative order
3. to inflict any act or 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 (hence, even
private persons may be offended
parties)
5. 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
Sedition: raising of commotion or
disturbances in the State. Its ultimate
object is a violation of the public peace or
at least such measures that evidently
engenders it.
The crime of sedition is committed by rising
publicly and tumultuously. The two
elements must concur.
The crime of sedition does not contemplate
the taking up of arms against the
government because the purpose of this
crime is not the overthrow of the
government. Notice from the purpose of
the crime of sedition that the offenders rise
Page 23 of 119
publicly and create commotion and
disturbance by way of protest to express
their dissent and obedience to the
government or to the authorities
concerned. This is like the so-called civil
disobedience except that the means
employed, which is violence, is illegal.
Difference from rebellion object or
purpose of the uprising.
For sedition sufficient that uprising is
tumultuous. In rebellion there must be
taking up of arms against the government.
Sedition purpose may be either political
or social. In rebellion always political
Tumultuous is a situation wherein the
disturbance or confusion is caused by at least
four persons. There is no requirement that the
offenders should be armed.
Preventing public officers from freely
exercising their functions
In sedition offender may be a private or
public person (Ex. Soldier)
Public uprising and the object of sedition
must concur
Q: Are common crimes absorbed in
sedition?
In P v. Umali, SC held that NO. Crimes
committed in that case were independent of
each other.
Preventing election through legal means
NOT sedition
But when sugar farmers demonstrated and
destroyed the properties of sugar barons
sedition
Persons liable for sedition:
a. leader of the sedition, and
b. other persons participating in the
sedition
The objective of the law in criminalizing
sedition is to put a limit to the freedom of
expression or the right of the people to
assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievance.
The demonstrations conducted or held by
the citizenry to protest certain policies of
the government is not a crime. But when
the protest in manifested in the form of
rallies where the participants, in order to
attain their objective of overcoming the will
of the government, resort to force or
violence, the mantle of protection
guaranteed under the Constitution to
express their dissent peacefully, shall cease
to exist, as in the meantime, the
participants have encroached or stayed in
the domain or realm of criminal law.
 Article 141.
Conspiracy to Commit Sedition
In this crime, there must be an agreement and
a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to
attain any of the objects of sedition.
There is no proposal to commit sedition.
The conspiracy must be to prevent the
promulgation or execution of any law or the
holding of any popular election. It may also be
a conspiracy to prevent national and local
public officials from freely exercising their
duties and functions, or to prevent the
execution of an administrative order.
Article 142
INCITING TO SEDITION
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender does not take a
direct part in the crime of sedition
b. That he incites others to the
accomplishment of any of the acts
which constitute sedition (134)
c. That the inciting is done by means
of speeches, proclamations,
writing, emblems, cartoons,
banners, or other representations
tending to the same end (purpose:
cause commotion not exactly against
the government; actual disturbance not
necessary)
Different acts of inciting to sedition:
a. Inciting others to the accomplishment of
any of the acts which constitute sedition
by means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems etc.
b. Uttering seditious words or speeches
which tend to disturb the public peace
or writing, publishing, or circulating
scurrilous [vulgar, mean, libelous] libels
against the government or any of the
duly constituted authorities thereof,
which tend to disturb the public peace
c. Knowingly concealing such evil practices
When punishable:
a. when they tend to disturb or obstruct
any lawful officer in executing the
functions of his office; or
b. when they tend to instigate others to
cabal and meet together for unlawful
purposes; or
c. when they suggest or incite rebellious
conspiracies or riots; or
Page 24 of 119
d. when they lead or tend to stir up the
people against the lawful authorities or
to disturb the peace of the community,
the safety and order of the government
Only non-participant in sedition may be liable.
Inciting to sedition is an element of sedition. It
cannot be treated as a separate offense
against one who is a part of a group that rose
up publicly and tumultuously and fought the
forces of government.
Considering that the objective of sedition is to
express protest against the government and in
the process creating hate against public
officers, any act that will generate hatred
against the government or a public officer
concerned or a social class may amount to
Inciting to sedition. Article 142 is, therefore,
quite broad.
The mere meeting for the purpose of
discussing hatred against the government is
inciting to sedition. Lambasting government
officials to discredit the government is Inciting
to sedition. But if the objective of such
preparatory actions is the overthrow of the
government, the crime is inciting to rebellion.
CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR
REPRESENTATION
Article 143
ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING
OF CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES
ELEMENTS:
a. That there be a projected or actual
meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or
committees or division thereof, or
of any provincial board or city or
municipal council or board
b. That the offender who may be any
persons prevents such meeting by
force or fraud
The crime is against popular representation
because it is directed against officers whose
primary function is to meet and enact laws.
When these legislative bodies are prevented
from meeting and performing their duties, the
system of government is disturbed. The three
branches of government must continue to
exist and perform their duties.
Chief of Police and mayor who prevented
the meeting of the municipal council are
liable under Art 143, when the defect of the
meeting is not manifest and requires an
investigation before its existence can be
determined.

Article 144
DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
ELEMENTS:
a. That there be a meeting of
Congress or any of its committees,
constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof, or
of any provincial board or city or
municipal council or board
b. That the offender does any of the
following acts
1. He disturbs any of such
meetings
2. He behaves while in the
presence of any such bodies in
such a manner as to interrupt its
proceedings or to impair the
respect due it
The disturbance can be in the form of
utterances, speeches or any form of
expressing dissent which is not done
peacefully but implemented in such a way that
it substantially interrupts the meeting of the
assembly or adversely affects the respect due
to the assembly of its members.
Complaint must be filed by member of the
Legislative body. Accused may also be
punished for contempt.
Article 145
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Acts punishable:
a. By using force, intimidation,
threats, or frauds to prevent any
member of Congress from
1. attending the meeting of the
assembly or any of its
committees, constitutional
commissions or committees or
divisions thereof, or from
2. expressing his opinions or
3. casting his vote
b. By arresting or searching any
member thereof while Congress is
in a regular or special session,
except in case such member has
committed a crime punishable
under the code by a penalty higher
than prision mayor ( 6 years up )
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public
officer or employee
2. That he arrests or searches any
member of Congress
3. That Congress, at the time of
arrest or search, is in a regular
or special session
Page 25 of 119
4. That the member searched has
not committed a crime
punishable under the code by a
penalty higher than prision
mayor (1987 constitution: privilege
from arrest while congress in session
in all offenses punishable by not
more than 6 years imprisonment).
Under Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution,
a public officer who arrests a member of
Congress who has committed a crime
punishable by prision mayor (six years and one
day, to 12 years) is not liable Article 145.
According to Reyes, to be consistent with the
Constitution, the phrase "by a penalty higher
than prision mayor" in Article 145 should be
amended to read: "by the penalty of prision
mayor or higher."
The offender is any person and the offended
party who is a member of Congress, has not
committed any crime to justify the use of
force, threat, intimidation or fraud to prevent
him from attending the meeting of Congress.
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
Article 146
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES
Two (2) Types of illegal assemblies:
a. Meeting of the first form
1. Meeting, gathering or group of
persons whether in a fixed place or
moving
2. purpose : to commit any of crimes
punishable under the code
3. meeting attended by armed persons
b. Meeting of the second form
1. Meeting, gathering or group of
persons whether in a fixed place or
moving
2. Audience whether armed or not, is
incited to the commission of the
crime of treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition or direct
assault.
Not all the persons present at the meeting
of the first form of illegal assembly must be
armed
Persons liable for illegal assembly
a. the organizers or leaders of the meeting
b. persons merely present at the meeting
(except when presence is out of
curiosity not liable)
 Responsibility of persons merely
present at the meeting
a. if they are not armed, penalty is arresto
mayor
b. if they carry arms, like bolos or knives,
or licensed firearms, penalty is prision
correccional
Presumptions if person present at the
meeting carries an unlicensed firearm:
a. purpose of the meeting is to commit
acts punishable under the RPC
In illegal assembly, the basis of liability is the
gathering for an illegal purpose which
constitutes a crime under the Revised Penal
Code.
In illegal association, the basis is the formation
of or organization of an association to engage
in an unlawful purpose which is not limited to a
violation of the Revised Penal Code. It
includes a violation of a special law or those
against public morals. Meaning of public
morals: inimical to public welfare; it has
nothing to do with decency., not acts of
obscenity.

b. considered as leader or organizer of the Article 147

meeting ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS

Those who incite the audience, by means of ELEMENTS:

speeches, printed matters, and other a. Organized totally or partially for
representation, to commit treason, rebellion or the purpose of committing any of
insurrection, sedition or assault a person in the crimes in RPC
authority, shall be deemed leaders or Or
organizers of said meeting. b. For some purpose contrary to
public morals
The gravamen of the offense is mere
assembly of or gathering of people for Persons liable:
illegal purpose punishable by the Revised a. founders, directors and president of the
Penal Code. Without gathering, there is no association
illegal assembly. If unlawful purpose is a b. mere members of the association
crime under a special law, there is no illegal
assembly. For example, the gathering of Illegal Assembly Illegal Association
drug pushers to facilitate drug trafficking is (146) (147)
not illegal assembly because the purpose is Must be an actual No need for such
not violative of the Revised Penal Code but meeting of armed
of The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as persons to commit any
amended, which is a special law. of the crimes
punishable under the
Two forms of illegal assembly RPC, or of individuals
(1) No attendance of armed men, but who, although not
persons in the meeting are incited to armed, are incited to
commit treason, rebellion or the commission of
insurrection, sedition or assault upon a treason, rebellion,
person in authority. When the illegal sedition or assault
purpose of the gathering is to incite upon a person in
people to commit the crimes mentioned authority of his agent.
above, the presence of armed men is It is the meeting and Act of forming or
unnecessary. The mere gathering for the attendance at such organizing and
the purpose is sufficient to bring about that are punished membership in the
the crime already. association
(2) Armed men attending the gathering If Persons liable: leaders Founders, directors,
the illegal purpose is other than those and those present president and
mentioned above, the presence of members
armed men during the gathering brings
about the crime of illegal assembly. Public morals refers to crimes punished
under Title Six of the Revised Penal Code,
Example: Persons conspiring to rob a namely, gambling, grave scandal, prostitution
bank were arrested. Some were with and vagrancy.
firearms. Liable for illegal assembly, not
for conspiracy, but for gathering with
armed men. ASSAULT, RESISTANCE AND
DISOBEDIENCE
Distinction between illegal assembly and
illegal association
Article 148

Page 26 of 119
 DIRECT ASSAULT
ELEMENTS OF THE 1ST FORM OF
DIRECT ASSAULT
a. That the offender employs force or
intimidation.
b. That the aim of the offender is to
attain any of the purposes of the
crime of rebellion or any of the
objects of the crimes of sedition.
(victim need not be person in authority)
c. That there is no public uprising.
Example of the first form of direct assault:
Three men broke into a National Food
Authority warehouse and lamented sufferings
of the people. They called on people to help
themselves to all the rice. They did not even
help themselves to a single grain.
The crime committed was direct assault.
There was no robbery for there was no intent
to gain. The crime is direct assault by
committing acts of sedition under Article 139
(5), that is, spoiling of the property, for any
political or social end, of any person
municipality or province or the national
government of all or any its property, but
there is no public uprising.
ELEMENTS OF THE 2ND FORM OF
DIRECT ASSAULT:
a. That the offender (a) makes an
attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes
a serious intimidation, or (d) makes
a serious resistance.
b. That the person assaulted is a
person in authority or his agent.
c. That at the time of the assault the
person in authority or his agent (a)
is engaged in the actual
performance of official duties
(motive is not essential), or that he is
assaulted (b) by reason of the past
performance of official duties
(motive is essential).
d. That the offender knows that the
one he is assaulting is a person in
authority or his agent in the
exercise of his duties (with intention
to offend, injure or assault).
e. That there is no public uprising.
Crime of direct assault can only be committed
by means of dolo. It cannot be committed by
culpa.
Always complexed with the material
consequence of the act (e.g. direct assault
with murder) except if resulting in a light
felony, in which case, the consequence is
absorbed
The crime is not based on the material
consequence of the unlawful act. The crime of
Page 27 of 119
direct assault punishes the spirit of
lawlessness and the contempt or hatred for
the authority or the rule of law.
To be specific, if a judge was killed while he
was holding a session, the killing is not the
direct assault, but murder. There could be
direct assault if the offender killed the judge
simply because the judge is so strict in the
fulfillment of his duty. It is the spirit of hate
which is the essence of direct assault.
So, where the spirit is present, it is always
complexed with the material consequence of
the unlawful act. If the unlawful act was
murder or homicide committed under
circumstance of lawlessness or contempt of
authority, the crime would be direct assault
with murder or homicide, as the case may be.
In the example of the judge who was killed, the
crime is direct assault with murder or
homicide.
The only time when it is not complexed is
when material consequence is a light felony,
that is, slight physical injury. Direct assault
absorbs the lighter felony; the crime of direct
assault can not be separated from the material
result of the act. So, if an offender who is
charged with direct assault and in another
court for the slight physical Injury which is part
of the act, acquittal or conviction in one is a
bar to the prosecution in the other.
Hitting the policeman on the chest with fist
is not direct assault because if done against
an agent of a person in authority, the force
employed must be of serious character
The force employed need not be serious
when the offended party is a person in
authority (ex. Laying of hands)
The intimidation or resistance must be
serious whether the offended party is an
agent only or a person in authority (ex.
Pointing a gun)
Force Intimidation/Res
Employed istance
Person Need not be Serious
in serious
Authori
ty
Agent Must be of Serious
serious
character
Person in authority: any person directly
vested with jurisdiction (power or authority
to govern and execute the laws) whether as
an individual or as a member of some court
or governmental corporation, board or
commission
A barangay captain is a person in authority,
so is a Division Superintendent of schools,
President of Sanitary Division and a teacher
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and
151, teachers, professors, and persons
charged with the supervision of public or duly
recognized private schools, colleges and
universities and lawyers in the actual
performance of their duties or on the occasion
of such performance, shall be deemed a
person in authority.
Agent: is one who, by direct provision of
law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority, is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property.
(Example. Barrio councilman and any
person who comes to the aid of the person
in authority, policeman, municipal
treasurer, postmaster, sheriff, agents of the
BIR, Malacaang confidential agent)
Even when the person in authority or the
agent agrees to fight, still direct assault.
When the person in authority or the agent
provoked/attacked first, innocent party is
entitled to defend himself and cannot be
held liable for assault or resistance nor for
physical injuries, because he acts in
legitimate self-defense
The offended party in assault must not be the
aggressor. If there is unlawful aggression
employed by the public officer, any form of
resistance which may be in the nature of force
against him will be considered as an act of
legitimate defense. (People vs. Hernandez,
59 Phil. 343)
There can be no assault upon or
disobedience to one authority by another
when they both contend that they were in
the exercise of their respective duties.
The offender and the offended party are both
public officers. The Supreme Court said that
assault may still be committed, as in fact the
offender is even subjected to a greater penalty
(U.S. vs. Vallejo, 11 Phil. 193).
When assault is made by reason of the
performance of his duty there is no need
for actual performance of his official duty
when attacked
In direct assault of the first form, the stature of
the offended person is immaterial. The crime
is manifested by the spirit of lawlessness.
In the second form, you have to distinguish a
situation where a person in authority or his
agent was attacked while performing official
functions, from a situation when he is not
performing such functions.
If attack was done during the exercise of
official functions, the crime is always direct
assault. It is enough that the offender
knew that the person in authority was
Page 28 of 119
performing an official function whatever
may be the reason for the attack, although
what may have happened was a purely
private affair.
On the other hand, if the person in authority or
the agent was killed when no longer
performing official functions, the crime may
simply be the material consequence of he
unlawful act: murder or homicide. For the
crime to be direct assault, the attack must be
by reason of his official function in the past.
Motive becomes important in this respect.
Example, if a judge was killed while resisting
the taking of his watch, there is no direct
assault.
In the second form of direct assault, it is also
important that the offended knew that the
person he is attacking is a person in authority
or an agent of a person in authority,
performing his official functions. No
knowledge, no lawlessness or contempt.
For example, if two persons were quarreling
and a policeman in civilian clothes comes and
stops them, but one of the protagonists stabs
the policeman, there would be no direct
assault unless the offender knew that he is a
policeman.
In this respect it is enough that the offender
should know that the offended party was
exercising some form of authority. It is not
necessary that the offender knows what is
meant by person in authority or an agent of
one because ignorantia legis non excusat.
Circumstances qualifying the offense
(Qualified Assault):
a. when the assault is committed with a
weapon
b. when the offender is a public officer or
employee
c. when the offender lays hand upon a
person in authority
Complex crime of direct assault with
homicide or murder, or with serious
physical injuries.
If the crime of direct assault is committed with
the use of force and it resulted in the infliction
of slight physical injuries, the latter shall not
be considered as a separate offense. It shall be
absorbed by the greater crime of direct
assault. (People vs. Acierto, 57 Phil. 614)
Direct assault cannot be committed during
rebellion.
May direct assault be committed upon a
private individual? Yes. When a private
person comes to the aid of a person in
authority, and he is likewise assaulted. Under
Republic Act No. 1978,
 a private person who comes to the aid of a
person in authority is by fiction of law
deemed or is considered an agent of a
person in authority.
Article 149
INDIRECT ASSAULT
ELEMENTS:
a. That a person in authority or his agent
is the victim of any of the forms of
direct assault defined in ART. 148.
b. That a person comes to the aid of
such authority or his agent.
c. That the offender makes use of
force or intimidation upon such
person coming to the aid of the
authority or his agent.
Indirect assault can be committed only
when a direct assault is also
committed
To be indirect assault, the person who
should be aided is the agent (not the
person in authority because it is already
direct assault, the person coming to the aid
of the person in authority being considered
as an agent and an attack on the latter is
already direct assault). Example. Aiding a
policeman under attack.
The victim in indirect assault should be a
private person who comes in aid of an agent of
a person in authority. The assault is upon a
person who comes in aid of the agent of a
person in authority. The victim cannot be the
person in authority or his agent.
Take note that under Article 152, as amended,
when any person comes in aid of a person in
authority, said person at that moment is no
longer a civilian he is constituted as an agent
of the person in authority. If such person were
the one attacked, the crime would be direct
assault
Article 150
DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS
Acts punishable:
a. refusing without legal excuse to
obey summons
b. refusing to be sworn or placed
under affirmation
c. refusing to answer any legal
inquiry to produce books, records etc.
d. restraining another from attending
as witness in such body
e. inducing disobedience to a directly issued by the authorities in the
summons or refusal to be sworn
The act punished is refusal, without legal
excuse, to obey summons issued by the House
of Representatives or the Senate. If a
Page 29 of 119
Constitutional Commission is created, it shall
enjoy the same privilege.
The exercise by the legislature of its contempt
power is a matter of self-preservation,
independent of the judicial branch. The
contempt power of the legislature is inherent
and sui generis.
The power to punish is not extended to the
local executive bodies. The reason given is
that local legislative bodies are but a creation
of law and therefore, for them to exercise the
power of contempt, there must be an express
grant of the same.
Article 151
RESISTANCE/DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON
IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENT OF SUCH
PERSON (par. 1)
ELEMENTS:
a. That a person in authority or his
agent is engaged in the
performance of official duty or
gives a lawful order to the
offender.
b. That the offender resists or
seriously disobeys such person in
authority or his agent.
c. That the act of the offender is not
included in the provisions of arts.
148, 149 and 150.
SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (par. 2)
ELEMENTS:
a. That an agent of a person in
authority is engaged in the
performance of official duty gives a
lawful order to the offender.
b. That the offender disobeys such
agent of a person in authority.
c. That such disobedience is not of a
serious nature.
US vs. Ramayrat, 22 Phil. 183
The Supreme Court held that: the
violation does not refer to resistance or
disobedience to the legal provisions of the
law, nor to judicial decisions defining or
declaring the rights and obligations of the
parties for the same give reliefs only in the
form of civil actions. Rather, the
disobedience or resistance is to the orders
exercise of their official duties.
Direct Assault Resistant and
(148) Disobedience to a
 Person in Authority g. Teachers
or Agents of such h. Professors
Person (151) i. Persons charged with the supervision of
PIA or his agent must PIA or his agent must public or duly recognized private
be engaged in the be in the actual schools, colleges and universities
performance of performance of his j. Lawyers in the actual performance of
official duties or that duties. their professional duties or on the
he is assaulted occasion of such performance
Direct assault is Committed by resisting
committed in 4 ways or seriously disobeying Agent of Person in Authority any
by attacking, a PIA or his agent. person who, by direct provision of law or by
employing force, and election or by appointment by competent
seriously resisting a authority, is charged with the maintenance
PIA or his agent. of public order and the protection and
Use of force against Use of force against an security of life and property.
an agent of PIA must agent of a PIA is not so
be serious and serious; no manifest Examples of agents of PIA :
deliberate. intention to defy the a. Barrio councilman
law and the officers b. Barrio policeman
enforcing it. c. Barangay leader
d. Any person who comes to the aid of
In both resistance against an agent of a persons in authority
person in authority and direct assault by
resisting an agent of a person in authority, Section 388 of the Local Govt Code
there is force employed, but the use of force in provides that for purposes of the RPC, the
resistance is not so serious, as there is no punong barangay, sangguniang barangay
manifest intention to defy the law and the members and members of the lupong
officers enforcing it. tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be
deemed as persons in authority in their
The attack or employment of force which gives jurisdictions, while other barangay officials
rise to the crime of direct assault must be and members who may be designated by
serious and deliberate; otherwise, even a case law or ordinance and charged with the
of simple resistance to an arrest, which always maintenance of public order, protection and
requires the use of force of some kind, would the security of life, property, or the
constitute direct assault and the lesser offense maintenance of a desirable and balanced
of resistance or disobedience in Article 151 environment, and any barangay member
would entirely disappear. who comes to the aid of persons in
authority shall be deemed AGENT of
But when the one resisted is a person in persons in authority.
authority, the use of any kind or degree of
force will give rise to direct assault. When the offended party is a person in
authority and while being assaulted, a
If no force is employed by the offender in private individual comes to his rescue, such
resisting or disobeying a person in authority, private individual, by operation of law,
the crime committed is resistance or serious mutates mutandis becomes an agent of a
disobedience under the first paragraph of person in authority. Any assault committed
Article 151. against such person is direct assault, and
not indirect assault. But if the person
assaulted is an agent of a person in
Article 152 authority, and a private individual comes to
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY/AGENTS OF his rescue and is himself assaulted while
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY: giving the assistance, as earlier discussed,
the crime committed is indirect assault.
Persons in Authority any person
directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as
an individual or as a member of some court CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DISORDERS
or governmental corporation, board or
commission. Article 153
TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF
Examples of Persons in Authority : PUBLIC ORDER
a. Barangay captain
b. Barangay chairman TYPES:
c. Municipal mayor a. Causing any serious disturbance in
d. Provincial fiscal a public place, office or
e. Justice of the peace establishment
f. Municipal councilor
Page 30 of 119
 b. Interrupting or disturbing public
performances, functions,
gatherings or peaceful meetings, if
the act is not included in Art 131
and 132 (Public Officers interrupting
peaceful meetings or religious worship).
c. Making any outcry tending to incite
rebellion or sedition in any
meeting, association or public place
d. Displaying placards or emblems
which provoke a disturbance of
public order in such place
e. Burying with pomp the body of a
person who has been legally
executed.
If the act of disturbing or interrupting a
meeting or religious ceremony is NOT
committed by public officers, or if
committed by public officers who are not
participants therein, this article applies. Art
131 and 132 punishes the same acts if
committed by public officers who are NOT
participants in the meeting
The outcry is merely a public disorder if it is
an unconscious outburst which, although
rebellious or seditious in nature, is not
intentionally calculated to induce others to
commit rebellion or sedition, otherwise, its
inciting to rebellion or sedition.
This article should be distinguished from
inciting to rebellion or sedition as discussed
under Article 138 and 142. In the former,
the meeting is legal and peaceful. It
becomes unlawful only because of the
outcry made, which tends to incite rebellion
or sedition in the meeting. In the latter
case, the meeting is unlawful from the
beginning and the utterances made are
deliberately articulated to incite others to
rise publicly and rebel against the
government. What makes it inciting to
rebellion or sedition is the act of inciting
the audience to commit rebellion or
sedition.
Tumultuous if caused by more than 3
persons who are armed or provided with
means of violence (circumstance qualifying
the disturbance/interruption) tumultuous
in character
The essence is creating public disorder. This
crime is brought about by creating serious
disturbances in public places, public buildings,
and even in private places where public
functions or performances are being held.
For a crime to be under this article, it must
not fall under Articles 131 (prohibition,
interruption, and dissolution of peaceful
Page 31 of 119
meetings) and 132 (interruption of religious
worship).
In the act of making outcry during speech
tending to incite rebellion or sedition,
the situation must be distinguished
from inciting to sedition or rebellion.
If the speaker, even before he delivered his
speech, already had the criminal intent to
incite the listeners to rise to sedition, the
crime would be inciting to sedition.
However, if the offender had no such
criminal intent, but in the course of his
speech, tempers went high and so the
speaker started inciting the audience to
rise in sedition against the government, the
crime is disturbance of the public order.
The disturbance of the pubic order is
tumultuous and the penalty is increased if it is
brought about by armed men. The term
armed does not refer to firearms but
includes even big stones capable of causing
grave injury.
It is also disturbance of the public order if a
convict legally put to death is buried with
pomp. He should not be made out as a
martyr; it might incite others to hatred.
The crime of disturbance of public order
may be committed in a public or private
place. If committed in a private place, the
law is violated only where the disturbance
is made while a public function or
performance is going on. Without a public
gathering in a private place, the crime
cannot be committed.
Article 154
UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL
UTTERANCES
TYPES:
a. 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.
b. Encouraging disobedience to the
law or to the constituted
authorities or by praising,
justifying or extolling any act
punished by law, by the same
means or by words, utterances or
speeches
c. Maliciously publishing or causing
to be published any official
resolution or document without
proper authority, or before they
have been published officially
 d. 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.
The purpose of the law is to punish the
spreading of false information which tends to
cause panic, confusion, distrust and divide
people in their loyalty to the duly constituted
authorities.
Actual public disorder or actual damage to the
credit of the State is not necessary.
Republic Act No. 248 prohibits the
reprinting, reproduction or republication of
government publications and official
documents without previous authority
The article also punishes any person who
knowingly publishes official acts or documents
which are not officially promulgated.
Article 155
ALARMS AND SCANDALS
TYPES:
a. Discharging any firearm, rocket,
firecracker, or other explosive
within any town or public place,
calculated to cause alarm or danger
b. Instigating or taking active part in
any charivari or other disorderly
meeting offensive to another or
prejudicial to public tranquility
c. Disturbing the public peace while
wandering about at night or while
engaged in any other nocturnal
amusement
d. Causing any disturbance or scandal
in public places while intoxicated or
otherwise, provided the act is not
covered by Art 153 (tumult).
Understand the nature of the crime of
alarms and scandals as one that disturbs
public tranquility or public peace. If the
annoyance is intended for a particular
person, the crime is unjust vexation.
Charivari mock serenade or discordant
noises made with kettles, tin horns etc,
designed to deride, insult or annoy
When a person discharges a firearm in
public, the act may constitute any of the
possible crimes under the Revised Penal Code:
(1) Alarms and scandals if the firearm
when discharged was not directed to
any particular person;
(2) Illegal discharge of firearm under Article
254 if the firearm is directed or pointed
to a particular person when discharged
but intent to kill is absent;
Page 32 of 119
(3) Attempted homicide, murder, or
parricide if the firearm when discharged
is directed against a person and intent
to kill is present.
In this connection, understand that it is not
necessary that the offended party be wounded
or hit. Mere discharge of firearm towards
another with intent to kill already amounts to
attempted homicide or attempted murder or
attempted parricide. It can not be frustrated
because the offended party is not mortally
wounded.
In Araneta v. Court of Appeals, it was held
that if a person is shot at and is
wounded, the crime is automatically
attempted homicide. Intent to kill is
inherent in the use of the deadly
weapon.
(4) Grave Threats If the
weapon is not discharged but
merely pointed to another
(5) Other Light Threats If drawn in a
quarrel but not in self defense
What governs is the result, not the intent
CRIME Nature of Who are
Crime Liable
Tumults and Crime against Private
other Public Order persons,
Disturbances outsider
(153)
Alarms and Crime against Private
Scandals (155) Public Order persons,
outsider
Article 156
DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAILS
ELEMENTS :
a. That there is a person confined in a
jail or penal establishment.
b. That the offender removes therefor
such person, or helps the escape of
such person (if the escapee is serving
final judgement, he is guilty of evasion
of sentence).
c. Offender is a private individual
Prisoner may be detention prisoner or one
sentenced by virtue of a final judgment
Even if the prisoner is in the hospital or asylum
or any place for detention of prisoner, as long
as he is classified as a prisoner, that is, a
formal complaint or information has been filed
in court, and he has been officially categorized
as a prisoner, this article applies, as such place
is considered extension of the penal
institution.

A policeman assigned to the city jail as
guard who while off-duty released a
prisoner is liable here
Even if the prisoner returned to the jail after
several hours, the one who removed him from
jail is liable.
It may be committed through negligence
Circumstances qualifying the offense
is committed by means of violence,
intimidation or bribery.
Mitigating circumstance if it takes
place outside the penal establishment by
taking the guards by surprise
correlate the crime of delivering person from
jail with infidelity in the custody of
prisoners punished under Articles
223, 224 and 225 of the Revised
Penal Code. In both acts, the
offender may be a public officer or a
private citizen.
Do not think that infidelity in the custody of
prisoners can only be committed by a
public officer and delivering persons from
jail can only be committed by private
person. Both crimes may be committed by
public officers as well as private persons.
In both crimes, the person involved may be a
convict or a mere detention prisoner.
The only point of distinction between the two
crimes lies on whether the offender is the
custodian of the prisoner or not at the time the
prisoner was made to escape.
If the offender is the custodian at that time,
the crime is infidelity in the custody of
prisoners. But if the offender is not the
custodian of the prisoner at that time, even
though he is a public officer, the crime he
committed is delivering prisoners from jail.
Liability of the prisoner or detainee who
escaped When these crimes are
committed, whether infidelity in the
custody of prisoners or delivering
prisoners from jail, the prisoner so
escaping may also have criminal
liability and this is so if the prisoner is
a convict serving sentence by final
judgment. The crime of evasion of
service of sentence is committed by
the prisoner who escapes if such
prisoner is a convict serving sentence
by final judgment.
If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention
prisoner, he does not incur liability from
escaping if he does not know of the plan to
remove him from jail. But if such prisoner
knows of the plot to remove him from jail and
Page 33 of 119
cooperates therein by escaping, he himself
becomes liable for delivering prisoners from
jail as a principal by indispensable
cooperation.
If three persons are involved a stranger, the
custodian and the prisoner three crimes are
committed:
(1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
(2) Delivery of the prisoner from jail; and
(3) Evasion of service of sentence.
It is possible that several crimes may be
committed in one set of facts. For instance,
assuming that Pedro, the jail warden, agreed
with Juan to allow Maria to escape by not
locking the gate of the city jail. Provided that
Juan comes across with P5,000.00 pesos as
bribe money. The arrangement was not known
to Maria but when she noticed the unlocked
gate of the city jail she took advantage of the
situation and escaped. From the facts given,
there is no question that Pedro, as the jail
warden, is liable for the crime of infidelity in
the custody of the prisoner. He will also be
able for the crime of bribery. Juan will be liable
for the crime of delivering a prisoner from jail
and for corruption of public official under Art.
212. If Maria is a sentenced prisoner, she will
be liable for evasion of service of sentence
under Article 157. if she is a detention
prisoner, she commits no crime.
EVASION OF SENTENCE OR SERVICE
Evasion of service of sentence has three
forms:
(1) By simply leaving or escaping from the
penal establishment under Article 157;
(2) Failure to return within 48 hours after
having left the penal establishment
because of a calamity, conflagration or
mutiny and such calamity, conflagration
or mutiny has been announced as
already passed under Article 158;
(3) Violating the condition of conditional
pardon under Article 159.
Article 157
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
ELEMENTS :
a. That the offender is a convict by
final judgment.
b. That he is serving his sentence
which consists in deprivation of
liberty (destierro included)
c. That he evades the service of his
sentence by escaping during the
term if his sentence. (fact of
return immaterial).
 By the very nature of the crime, it cannot
be committed when the prisoner involved is
merely a detention prisoner. But it applies
to persons convicted by final judgment with
a penalty of destierro.
A detention prisoner even if he escapes from
confinement has no criminal liability. Thus,
escaping from his prison cell when his case is
still on appeal does not make said prisoner
liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence.
In leaving or escaping from jail or prison,
that the prisoner immediately returned is
immaterial. It is enough that he left the
penal establishment by escaping
therefrom. His voluntary return may only
be mitigating, being analogous to voluntary
surrender. But the same will not absolve
his criminal liability.
A continuing offense.
Offenders not minor delinquents nor
detention prisoners
If escaped within the 15 day appeal period
no evasion
No applicable to deportation as the
sentence
The crime of evasion of service of sentence
may be committed even if the sentence is
destierro, and this is committed if the
convict sentenced to destierro will enter the
prohibited places or come within the
prohibited radius of 25 kilometers to such
places as stated in the judgment.
If the sentence violated is destierro, the
penalty upon the convict is to be served by
way of destierro also, not imprisonment. This
is so because the penalty for the evasion can
not be more severe than the penalty evaded.
Circumstances qualifying the offense
(done thru):
a. unlawful entry (by scaling)
b. breaking doors, windows, gates, walls,
roofs or floors
c. using picklocks, false keys, disguise,
deceit, violence or intimidation
d. connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution
A, a foreigner, was found guilty of violation of
the law, and was ordered by the court to be
deported. Later on, he returned to the
Philippines in violation of the sentence. Held:
He is not guilty of Evasion of Service of
Sentence as the law is not applicable to
offenses executed by deportation. (U.S. vs.
Loo Hoe, 36 Phil. 867).
Article 158
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON
THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS,
CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES OR
OTHER CALAMITIES
Page 34 of 119
ELEMENTS :
a. That the offender is a convict by
final judgement who is confined
in a penal institution.
b. That there is disorder, resulting
from-
1. conflagration,
2. earthquake, or
3. explosion, or
4. similar catastrophe, or
5. mutiny , not participated.
c. 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.
d. 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.
The leaving from the penal establishment is
not the basis of criminal liability. It is the
failure to return within 48 hours after the
passing of the calamity, conflagration or
mutiny had been announced. Under Article
158, those who return within 48 hours are
given credit or deduction from the
remaining period of their sentence
equivalent to 1/5 of the original term of the
sentence. But if the prisoner fails to return
within said 48 hours, an added penalty,
also 1/5, shall be imposed but the 1/5
penalty is based on the remaining period of
the sentence, not on the original sentence.
In no case shall that penalty exceed six
months.
Offender must escape to be entitled to
allowance
Those who did not leave the penal
establishment are not entitled to the 1/5
credit. Only those who left and returned
within the 48-hour period.
For such event to be considered as a
calamity, the President must declared it to
be so. He must issue a proclamation to the
effect that the calamity is over. Even if the
events herein mentioned may be
considered as calamity, there is a need for
the Chief Executive to make such
announcement. Absent such declaration.
Even if the prisoner will return to the penal
institution where he was confined, the
same is of no moment as in the meantime
he has committed a violation of the law,
not under the present article but for pure
evasion of service of sentence under Article
157.
 Mutiny organized unlawful resistance to
a superior officer, a sedition, a revolt
The mutiny referred to in the second
form of evasion of service of sentence
does not include riot. The mutiny
referred to here involves subordinate
personnel rising against the
supervisor within the penal
establishment. One who escapes
during a riot will be subject to Article
157, that is, simply leaving or
escaping the penal establishment.
Disarming the guards is not mutiny
Violation attributed to the accused is no longer
referred to the court for judicial inquiry or
resolution. The law has provided sufficient
guidelines for the jail warden to follow.
This disquisition will not apply if the offender
who escapes taking advantage of the
calamities enumerated herein is apprehended
by the authorities after 48 hours from the
declaration that the calamity is over. It is only
extended to one who returns but made inside
the 48 hours delimited by the proclamation. At
this stage, the violation is not substantive but
administrative in nature.
Article 159
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender was a convict.
b. That he was granted a VIOLATION
conditional pardon by the chief
executive.
c. That he violated any of the
conditions of such pardon.
Condition extends to special laws
violation of illegal voting
The condition imposed upon the prisoner not
to be guilty of another crime is not limited to
those punishable under the Revised Penal
Code. It includes those punished under
Special Law. (People vs. Corral, 74 Phil.
357).
In violation of conditional pardon, as a rule,
the violation will amount to this crime only if
the condition is violated during the remaining
period of the sentence.
If the condition of the pardon is violated, the
remedy against the accused may be in the
form of prosecution under Article 159. it may
also be an administrative action by referring
the violation to the court of origin and praying
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest justified
under Section 64 of the Revised Administrative
Code.
Page 35 of 119
The administrative liability of the convict
under the conditional pardon is different
and has nothing to do with his criminal
liability for the evasion of service of
sentence in the event that the condition of
the pardon has been violated. Exception:
where the violation of the condition of the
pardon will constitute evasion of service of
sentence, even though committed beyond
the remaining period of the sentence. This
is when the conditional pardon expressly so
provides or the language of the conditional
pardon clearly shows the intention to make
the condition perpetual even beyond the
unserved portion of the sentence. In such
case, the convict may be required to serve
the unserved portion of the sentence even
though the violation has taken place when
the sentence has already lapsed.
Offender must have been found guilty of
the subsequent offense before he can be
prosecuted under this Article. But if under
Revised Admin Code, no conviction
necessary. President has power to arrest,
reincarnate offender without trial
Article 159 is a distinct felony. It is a
substantive crime. For one to suffer the
consequence of its violation, the prisoner must
be formally charged in court. He will be
entitled to a full blown hearing, in full
enjoyment of his right to due process. Only
after a final judgment has been rendered
against him may he suffer the penalty
prescribed under Article 159 (Torres vs.
Gonzales, et al., 152 SCRA 292)
OF ORDINARY EVASION
PARDON
Infringement of To evade the penalty
conditions/terms of given by the courts
President disturbs the public
order
Two penalties provided:
a. prision correccional in its minimum
period if the penalty remitted does not
exceed 6 years
b. the unexpired portion of his original
sentence if the penalty remitted is
higher than 6 years
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME
Article 160
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING
SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR
ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE-PENALTY:
(quasi-recidivism)
ELEMENTS
a. That the offender was already
convicted by final judgement of
one offense.
 b. That he committed a new felony 6. Forging treasury or bank notes or other
before beginning to serve such documents payable to bearer, importing
sentence or while serving the and uttering of such false or forged
same. notes and documents (Art. 166);
7. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering
Quasi-recidivism : a person after having instruments not payable to bearer (Art.
been convicted by final judgement shall 167);
commit a new felony before beginning to 8. Illegal possession and use of forged
serve such sentence, or while serving the treasury or bank notes and other
same. instruments of credit (Art. 168);
9. Falsification of legislative documents
Second crimes must belong to the RPC, not (Art. 170);
special laws. First crime may be either from 10. Falsification by public officer, employee
the RPC or special laws or notary (Art. 171);
Reiteracion: offender shall have served 11. Falsification by private individuals and
out his sentence for the prior offense use of falsified documents (Art. 172);
12. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph
A quasi-recidivist may be pardoned at age
and telephone messages and use of said
70. Except: Unworthy or Habitual
falsified messages (Art. 173);
Delinquent
13. False medical certificates, false
If new felony is evasion of sentence
certificates of merit or service (Art.
offender is not a quasi-recidivist 174);
Penalty: maximum period of the penalty 14. Using false certificates (Art. 175);
for the new felony should be imposed 15. Manufacturing and possession of
instruments or implements for
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating falsification (Art. 176);
circumstance which directs the court to 16. Usurpation of authority or official
impose the maximum period of the penalty functions (Art. 177);
prescribed by law for the new felony. The court 17. Using fictitious name and concealing
will do away or will ignore mitigating and true name (Art. 178);
aggravating circumstances in considering the 18. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia (Art.
penalty to be imposed. There will be no 179);
occasion for the court to consider imposing the 19. False testimony against a defendant
minimum, medium or maximum period of the (Art. 180);
penalty. The mandate is absolute and is 20. False testimony favorable to the
justified by the finding that the accused is defendant (Art. 181);
suffering from some degree of moral 21. False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182);
perversity if not total incorrigibility. (People 22. False testimony in other cases and
vs. Alicia, et al., 95 SCRA 227) perjury (Art. 183);
23. Offering false testimony in evidence
Quasi-recidivism is an aggravating (Art. 184);
circumstance which cannot be offset by any 24. Machinations in public auction (Art.
mitigating circumstance. To be appreciated as 185);
a special aggravating circumstance, it must be 25. Monopolies and combinations in
alleged in the information. (People vs. restraint of trade (Art. 186);
Bautista, 65 SCRA 460) 26. Importation and disposition of falsely
marked articles or merchandise made of
Quasi-Recidivism may be offset by a special gold, silver, or other precious metals or
privileged mitigating circumstance (ex. their alloys (Art. 187);
Minority) 27. Substituting and altering trade marks
and trade names or service marks (Art.
TITLE FOUR 188);
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST 28. Unfair competition and fraudulent
registration of trade mark or trade
Crimes against public interest name, or service mark; fraudulent
1. Counterfeiting the great seal of the designation of origin, and false
Government of the Philippines (Art. description (Art. 189).
161);
2. Using forged signature or counterfeiting The crimes in this title are in the nature of
seal or stamp (Art. 162); fraud or falsity to the public. The essence of
3. Making and importing and uttering false the crime under this title is that which defraud
coins (Art. 163); the public in general. There is deceit
4. Mutilation of coins, importation and perpetrated upon the public. This is the act
uttering of mutilated coins (Art. 164); that is being punished under this title.
5. Selling of false or mutilated coins,
without connivance (Art. 165);

Page 36 of 119
 Article 161 2. Coins of the minor coinage of the
COUNTERFEITING GREAT SEAL OF Philippines or of the Central Bank of the
GOVERNMENT Philippines;
3. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
TYPES:
a. Forging the great seal of the Counterfeiting imitation of legal or
Government genuine coin (may contain more silver,
b. Forging the signature of the different design) such as to deceive an
President ordinary person in believing it to be
c. Forging the stamp of the genuine
President Utter to pass counterfeited coins, deliver
or give away
When the signature of the President is Import to bring to port the same
forged, it is not falsification but forging of Both Philippine and foreign state coins
signature under this article Applies also to coins withdrawn from
Signature must be forged, others signed it circulation
not the President. Essence of article: making of coins
without authority

Article 162 Acts punished

USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
ELEMENTS:
a. That the great seal of the
republic was counterfeited or
the signature or stamp of the
chief executive was forged by
another person.
b. That the offender knew of the
counterfeiting or forgery.
c. That he used the counterfeit
seal or forged signature or
stamp.
Offender is NOT the forger/not the cause of
the counterfeiting
Article 163
MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING
FALSE COINS
ELEMENTS :
a. That there be false or
counterfeited coins (need not be
legal tender).
b. That the offender either made,
imported or uttered such coins.
c. That in case of uttering such
false or counterfeited coins, he
connives with counterfeiters or
importers.
Coin is counterfeit if it is forged, or if it
is not an article of the government as legal
tender, regardless if it is of no value
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which
is punished
1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of
the Central Bank of the Philippines;
1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency,
with the further requirements that there
be intent to damage or to defraud
another;
2. Importing or uttering such mutilated
coins, with the further requirement that
there must be connivances with the
mutilator or importer in case of uttering.
The first acts of falsification or falsity are
(1) Counterfeiting refers to money or
currency;
(2) Forgery refers to instruments of credit
and obligations and securities issued by
the Philippine government or any
banking institution authorized by the
Philippine government to issue the
same;
(3) Falsification can only be committed in
respect of documents.
In so far as coins in circulation are concerned,
there are two crimes that may be committed:
(1) Counterfeiting coins -- This is the
crime of remaking or manufacturing
without any authority to do so.
In the crime of counterfeiting, the law is not
concerned with the fraud upon the public such
that even though the coin is no longer legal
tender, the act of imitating or manufacturing
the coin of the government is penalized. In
punishing the crime of counterfeiting, the law
wants to prevent people from trying their
ingenuity in their imitation of the manufacture
of money.
(2) Mutilation of coins -- This refers to
the deliberate act of diminishing the
proper metal contents of the coin either
by scraping, scratching or filling the
edges of the coin and the offender

Page 37 of 119
 gathers the metal dust that has been
scraped from the coin. Must be intention to mutilate.

Requisites of mutilation under the Mutilation under the Revised Penal Code is
Revised Penal Code true only to coins. It cannot be a crime under
the Revised Penal Code to mutilate paper bills
(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender; because the idea of mutilation under the code
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal is collecting the precious metal dust.
dust abstracted from the coin; and However, under Presidential Decree No. 247,
(3) It has to be a coin. mutilation is not limited to coins.

There is no expertise involved here. In

mutilation of coins under the Revised Penal
Code, the offender does nothing but to
scrape, pile or cut the coin and collect the
dust and, thus, diminishing the intrinsic
value of the coin.
Mutilation of coins is a crime only if the coin
mutilated is legal tender. If it is not legal
tender anymore, no one will accept it, so
nobody will be defrauded. But if the coin is of
legal tender, and the offender minimizes or
decreases the precious metal dust content of
the coin, the crime of mutilation is committed.
The offender must deliberately reduce the
precious metal in the coin. Deliberate intent
arises only when the offender collects the
precious metal dust from the mutilated coin. If
the offender does not collect such dust, intent
to mutilate is absent, but Presidential Decree
No. 247 will apply.
Questions & Answers
1. The people playing cara y cruz,
before they throw the coin in the air would rub
the money to the sidewalk thereby diminishing
the intrinsic value of the coin. Is the crime of
mutilation committed?
Mutilation, under the Revised Penal
Code, is not committed because they do not
collect the precious metal content that is
being scraped from the coin. However, this
will amount to violation of Presidential Decree
No. 247.
2. When the image of Jose Rizal on a
five-peso bill is transformed into that of Randy
Santiago, is there a violation of Presidential
Decree No. 247?
Yes. Presidential Decree No. 247 is
violated by such act.

Article 164 4. An old woman who was a

MULTILATION OF COINS IMPORTATION cigarette vendor in Quiapo refused to accept
AND UTTERANCE: one-centavo coins for payment of the vendee
of cigarettes he purchased. Then came the
police who advised her that she has no right to
This has been repealed by PD 247.
refuse since the coins are of legal tender. On
(Defacement, Mutilation, Tearing,
this, the old woman accepted in her hands the
Burning or Destroying Central Bank Notes
one-centavo coins and then threw it to the
and Coins)
face of the vendee and the police. Was the old
woman guilty of violating Presidential Decree
Under this PD, the acts punishable
No. 247?
are:
a. willf
She was guilty of violating Presidential
ul defacement
Decree No. 247 because if no one ever picks
b. muti
up the coins, her act would result in the
lation
diminution of the coin in circulation.
c. teari
ng
5. A certain customer in a restaurant
d. burn
wanted to show off and used a P 20.00 bill to
ing
light his cigarette. Was he guilty of violating
e. dest
Presidential Decree No. 247?
ruction of Central Bank notes and
coins
He was guilty of arrested for violating of
Presidential Decree No. 247. Anyone who is in
Mutilation to take off part of the metal
possession of defaced money is the one who is
either by filling it or substituting it for the violator of Presidential Decree No. 247.
another metal of inferior quality, to The intention of Presidential Decree No. 247 is
diminish by inferior means (to diminish not to punish the act of defrauding the public
metal contents). but what is being punished is the act of
destruction of money issued by the Central
Foreign notes and coins not included. Must Bank of the Philippines.
be legal tender.
Page 38 of 119
Note that persons making bracelets out of
some coins violate Presidential Decree No.
247.
The primary purpose of Presidential Decree
No. 247 at the time it was ordained was to
stop the practice of people writing at the back
or on the edges of the paper bills, such as
"wanted: pen pal".
So, if the act of mutilating coins does not
involve gathering dust like playing cara y cruz,
that is not mutilation under the Revised Penal
Code because the offender does not collect
the metal dust. But by rubbing the coins on
the sidewalk, he also defaces and destroys the
coin and that is punishable under Presidential
Decree No. 247.
Article 165
SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN,
WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
2 Types
a. 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
b. Actually uttering such false or
mutilated coin, knowing the
same to be false or mutilated.
ELEMENTS:
1. actually uttering, and
2. knowledge.
Possession does not require legal tender in
foreign coins
Includes constructive possession
On counterfeiting coins, it is immaterial
whether the coin is legal tender or not because
the intention of the law is to put an end to the
practice of imitating money and to discourage
anyone who might entertain the idea of
imitating money (People vs. Kong Leon).
Article 166
FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES
IMPORTING AND UTTERING
Acts punishable:
a. Forging or falsity of
treasury/bank notes or
documents payable to bearer
b. Importing of such notes
c. Uttering of such false or forged
obligations and notes in
Page 39 of 119
connivance with forgers and
importers
Forging by giving a treasury or bank
note or document payable to bearer/order
an appearance of a true and genuine
document
Falsification by erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting or altering by any means the
figures and letters, words, signs contained
therein
E.g. falsifying lotto or sweepstakes ticket.
Attempted estafa through falsification of an
obligation or security of the Phil
PNB checks not included here its
falsification of commercial document under
Article 172
Obligation or security includes: bonds,
certificate of indebtedness, bills, national
bank notes, coupons, treasury notes,
certificate of deposits, checks, drafts for
money, sweepstakes money
If the falsification is done on a document that
is classified as a government security, then the
crime is punished under Article 166. On the
other hand, if it is not a government security,
then the offender may either have violated
Article 171 or 172.
Article 167
COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND
UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE
TO BEARER
ELEMENTS :
a. That there be an instrument
payable to order or other
document of credit not payable
to bearer.
b. That the offender either forged,
imported or uttered such
instruments.
c. That in case of uttering, he
connived with the forger or
importer.
Article 168
ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE
TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER
INSTRUMENT OF CREDIT
ELEMENTS:
a. 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.
 b. That the offender knows that
any of those instruments is
forged or falsified.
c. That he performs any of these
acts
1. using any of such forged or
falsified instrument, or
2. possessing with intent to use
any of such forged or falsified
instrument.
Act sought to be punished: Knowingly
possessing with intent to use any of such
forged treasury or bank notes
Article 169
FORGERY
How forgery is committed:
a. by giving to a treasury or bank note
or any instrument payable to
bearer or to order, the appearance
of a true and genuine document
b. by erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting, altering by any
means the figures, letters or words,
or signs contained therein.
if all acts done but genuine appearance is
not given, the crime is frustrated
Forgery under the Revised Penal Code applies
to papers, which are in the form of obligations
and securities issued by the Philippine
government as its own obligations, which is
given the same status as legal tender.
Generally, the word counterfeiting is not
used when it comes to notes; what is used is
forgery. Counterfeiting refers to money,
whether coins or bills.
Notice that mere change on a document does
not amount to this crime. The essence of
forgery is giving a document the appearance
of a true and genuine document. Not any
alteration of a letter, number, figure or design
would amount to forgery. At most, it would
only be frustrated forgery.
When what is being counterfeited is obligation
or securities, which under the Revised Penal
Code is given a status of money or legal
tender, the crime committed is forgery.
Questions & Answers
1. Instead of the peso sign (P),
somebody replaced it with a dollar sign ($).
Was the crime of forgery committed?
No. Forgery was not committed. The
forged instrument and currency note must be
given the appearance of a true and genuine
Page 40 of 119
document. The crime committed is a violation
of Presidential Decree No. 247. Where the
currency note, obligation or security has been
changed to make it appear as one which it
purports to be as genuine, the crime is forgery.
In checks or commercial documents, this
crime is committed when the figures or words
are changed which materially alters the
document.
2. An old man, in his desire to earn
something, scraped a digit in a losing
sweepstakes ticket, cut out a digit from
another ticket and pasted it there to match the
series of digits corresponding to the winning
sweepstakes ticket. He presented this ticket to
the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. But
the alteration is so crude that even a child can
notice that the supposed digit is merely
superimposed on the digit that was scraped.
Was the old man guilty of forgery?
NO Because of the impossibility of
deceiving whoever would be the person to
whom that ticket is presented, the Supreme
Court ruled that what was committed was an
impossible crime. Note, however, that the
decision has been criticized. In a case like
this, the Supreme Court of Spain ruled that the
crime is frustrated. Where the alteration is
such that nobody would be deceived, one
could easily see that it is a forgery, the crime
is frustrated because he has done all the acts
of execution which would bring about the
felonious consequence but nevertheless did
not result in a consummation for reasons
independent of his will.
3. A person has a twenty-peso bill.
He applied toothache drops on one side of the
bill. He has a mimeograph paper similar in
texture to that of the currency note and placed
it on top of the twenty-peso bill and put some
weight on top of the paper. After sometime,
he removed it and the printing on the twenty-
peso bill was reproduced on the mimeo paper.
He took the reverse side of the P20 bill,
applied toothache drops and reversed the
mimeo paper and pressed it to the paper.
After sometime, he removed it and it was
reproduced. He cut it out, scraped it a little
and went to a sari-sari store trying to buy a
cigarette with that bill. What he overlooked
was that, when he placed the bill, the printing
was inverted. He was apprehended and was
prosecuted and convicted of forgery. Was the
crime of forgery committed?
The Supreme Court ruled that it was
only frustrated forgery because although the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution, it is not possible because by simply
looking at the forged document, it could be
seen that it is not genuine. It can only be a
consummated forgery if the document which
purports to be genuine is given the
appearance of a true and genuine document. Accused must not be a public official
Otherwise, it is at most frustrated. entrusted with the custody or possession of
such document otherwise Art 171 applies .
Five classes of falsification:
(1) Falsification of legislative documents; The falsification must be committed on a
(2) Falsification of a document by a public genuine, true and authentic legislative
officer, employee or notary public; document. If committed on a simulated,
(3) Falsification of a public or official, or spurious or fabricated legislative document,
commercial documents by a private the crime is not punished under this article but
individual; under Article 171 or 172.
(4) Falsification of a private document by
any person;
(5) Falsification of wireless, telegraph and Article 171
telephone messages. FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS BY
PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR NOTARY
The crime of falsification must involve a OR ECCLESTASTICAL MINISTER
writing that is a document in the legal sense.
The writing must be complete in itself and ELEMENTS:
capable of extinguishing an obligation or
a. That the offender is a public
creating rights or capable of becoming
officer, employee, or notary public.
evidence of the facts stated therein. Until and
b. That he takes advantage of his
unless the writing has attained this quality, it
official position.
will not be considered as document in the legal
c. That he falsifies a document by
sense and, therefore, the crime of falsification
committing any of the following
cannot be committed in respect thereto.
acts:
Distinction between falsification and
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any
forgery:
handwriting, signature or rubric.
Falsification is the commission of any of the
Requisites:
eight acts mentioned in Article 171 on
i. That there be an intent to
legislative (only the act of making alteration),
imitate, or an attempt to
public or official, commercial, or private
imitate
documents, or wireless, or telegraph
ii. That the two signatures or
messages.
handwritings, the genuine and
the forged, bear some
The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers
resemblance, to each other
to the falsification and counterfeiting of
treasury or bank notes or any instruments
(lack of similitude/imitation of
payable to bearer or to order.
a genuine signature will not be
a ground for conviction under
Note that forging and falsification are crimes
par. 1 but such is not an
under Forgeries.
impediment to conviction
under par. 2)
Article 170 2. Causing it to appear that
FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE persons have participated in any
DOCUMENTS act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate.
ELEMENTS : 3. Attributing to persons who have
a. That these be a bill, resolution or participated in an act or
ordinance enacted or approved or proceeding statements other
pending approval by the national than those in fact made by
assembly or any provincial board or them.
municipal council.
b. That the offender (any person) Requisites:
alters the same. i. That the offender caused it
c. That he has no proper authority to appear in a document that
therefor. a person/s participated in an
d. That the alteration has changed the act or a proceeding; and
meaning of the document. ii. That such person/s did not
in fact so participate in the act
The words "municipal council" should include or proceeding
the city council or municipal board Reyes.
4. Making untruthful statements in
a narration of facts;

Page 41 of 119

Requisites:
i. That the offender makes in
a document statements in a
narration of facts
ii. That he has a legal obligation
to disclose the truth of the
facts narrated by him;
(required by law to be done)
and
iii. That the facts narrated by the
offender are absolutely false;
and
iv. That the perversion or truth in
the narration of facts was
made with the wrongful intent
of injuring a third person
There must be a narration of
facts, not a conclusion of law.
Must be on a material matter
For one to be held criminally liable for
falsification under paragraph 4, the untruthful
statement must be such as to effect the
integrity of the document or to change the
effects which it would otherwise produce.
Legal obligation means that there
is a law requiring the disclosure of
the truth of the facts narrated. Ex.
Residence certificates
The person making the narration
of facts must be aware of the
falsity of the facts narrated by
him. This kind of falsification may
be committed by omission
5. Altering true dates.
date must be essential
For falsification to take place under this
paragraph, the date of the document must be
material to the right created or to the
obligation that is extinguished.
6. Making any alteration or
intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its
meaning.
Requisites:
i. That there be an alteration
(change) or intercalation
(insertion) on a document
ii. That it was made on a
genuine document
iii. That the
alteration/intercalation has
changed the meaning of the
document
iv. That the change made the
document speak something
false.
7. Issuing in an authenticated form
a document purporting to be a
Page 42 of 119
copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or
including in such copy a
statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the
genuine original; (if no knowledge,
falsification through negligence) or
The acts of falsification mentioned in this
paragraph are committed by a public officer or
by a notary public who takes advantage of his
official position as custodian of the document.
It can also refer to a public officer or notary
who prepared and retained a copy of the
document. The falsification can be done in two
ways. It can be a certification purporting to
show that the document issued is a copy of the
original on record when no such original exists.
It can also be in the form of a certification to
the effect that the document on file contains
statements or including in the copy issued,
entries which are not found on contrary to, or
different from the original genuine document
on file.
8. Intercalating any instrument or
note relative to the issuance
thereof in a protocol, registry, or
official book. (genuine
document)
d. 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 its falsification may affect
the civil status of persons.
There is no crime of attempted or
frustrated falsification of public document
Alteration or changes to make the document
speak the truth do not constitute falsification.
(US vs. Mateo, 25 Phil. 324)
Persons liable public officer, employee
or notary public or ecclesiastical minister
Either he has duty to intervene in the
preparation of the document or it may be a
situation wherein the public officer has official
custody of the document.
So even if the offender is a public officer, if
her causes the falsification of a document
which is not in his official custody or if the
falsification committed by him is not
related whatsoever to the performance of
his duties, he will still be liable for
falsification but definitely not under this
Article but under Article 172. (falsification
of documents by a private person)
Document: Any written instrument which
establishes a right or by which an obligation is
extinguished. A deed or agreement executed
by a person setting forth any disposition or
condition wherein rights and obligations may
arise.
Writing may be on anything as long as it
is a product of the handwriting, it is considered
a document.
the crime, the Sandiganbayan shall maintain
jurisdiction over the person of the co-accused,
notwithstanding the fact that said co-accused
is a private individual. If the public officer is
found guilty, the same liability and penalty
shall be imposed on the private individual.
(U.S. vs. Ponce, 20 Phil. 379)

Not necessary that what is falsified is a

genuine or real document, enough that it Article 172
gives an appearance of a genuine article FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC, OFFICIAL, OR
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT BY A PRIVATE
As long as any of the acts of falsification INDIVIDUAL (par 1)
is committed, whether the document is
genuine or not, the crime of falsification may ELEMENTS
be committed. Even totally false documents a. That the offender is a private
may be falsified. individual or a public officer or
employee who did not take
Counterfeiting imitating any advantage of his official position.
handwriting, signature or rubric b. That he committed any of the
acts of falsification enumerated in
Feigning simulating a signature, ART. 171.
handwriting, or rubric out of one of which 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any
does not in fact exist handwriting, signature or rubric.
2. Causing it to appear that
It does not require that the writing be genuine. persons have participated in any
Even if the writing was through and through act or proceeding when they did
false, if it appears to be genuine, the crime of not in fact so participated.
falsification is nevertheless committed. 3. Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or
There are four kinds of documents: proceeding statements other
(1) Public document in the execution of than those in fact made by
which, a person in authority or notary them.
public has taken part; 4. Making untruthful statements in
(2) Official document in the execution of a narration of facts;
which a public official takes part; 5. Altering true dates.
(3) Commercial document or any document 6. Making any alteration or
recognized by the Code of Commerce or intercalation in a genuine
any commercial law; and document which changes its
(4) Private document in the execution of meaning.
which only private individuals take part. c. That the falsification was
committed in any public or official
Public document is broader than the term or commercial document.
official document. Before a document may be
considered official, it must first be a public Under this paragraph, damage is not
document. But not all public documents are essential, it is presumed
official documents. To become an official
document, there must be a law which requires If the falsification of public, official or
a public officer to issue or to render such commercial documents, whether they be
document. Example: A cashier is required to public official or by private individuals, it is not
issue an official receipt for the amount he necessary that there be present the idea of
receives. The official receipt is a public gain or the intent to injure a third person.
document which is an official document. What is punished under the law is the violation
of public faith and the perversion of the truth
Liability of a private individual in as solemnly proclaimed by the nature of the
falsification by a public officer when document. (Sarep vs. Sandiganbayan)
there is conspiracy.
Defense: lack of malice or criminal intent
Under Republic Act 7975, when a public officer
who holds a position classified as Grade 27 or The following writings are public:
higher, commits a crime in relation to the a. the written acts or records of acts of the
performance of his official functions, the case sovereign authority of official bodies and
against him will fall under the jurisdiction of tribunals, and of the public officers,
the Sandiganbayan. If a private person is legislative, judicial and executive,
included in the accusation because of the whether of the Philippines or of a foreign
existence of conspiracy in the commission of country.
Page 43 of 119
 b. Public records kept in the Philippines.
Examples of commercial documents
warehouse receipts, airway bills, bank
checks, cash files, deposit slips and bank
statements, journals, books, ledgers, drafts,
letters of credit and other negotiable
instruments
There is a complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public, official or
commercial document. In the crime of
estafa, damage or intent to cause damage is
not an element. It is sufficient that the
offender committed or performed the acts of
falsification as defined and punished under
Article 171. The two offenses can co-exist as
they have distinct elements peculiar to their
nature as a crime. When the falsification is
committed because it is necessary to commit
estafa, what we have is a complex crime
defined and punished under Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code.
There is a complex crime of falsification of
pubic documents through reckless
imprudence.
Cash disbursement vouchers or receipts
evidencing payments are not commercial
documents
A mere blank form of an official document
is not in itself a document
The possessor of falsified document is
presumed to be the author of the
falsification
FALSIFICATION UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF
ART. 172. OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT
ELEMENTS :
a. That the offender committed any of
the acts of falsification, except
those in paragraph 7 and 8,
enumerated in art. 171.
b. That the falsification was
committed in any private document
(must affect the truth or integrity of the
document)
c. That the falsification caused
damage (essential element; hence, no
crime of estafa thru falsification of
private document) to a third party or
at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause
such damage.
Not necessary that the offender profited or
hoped to profit from the falsification
Falsification of a private document is
consummated when such document is actually
falsified with the intent to prejudice a third
Page 44 of 119
person whether such falsified document is or is
not thereafter put to illegal use for which it is
intended. (Lopez vs. Paras, 36 Phil. 146)
What is emphasized at this point is the
element of falsification of private document.
There must be intent to cause damage or
damage is actually caused. The intention is
therefore must be malicious or there is
deliberate intent to commit a wrong. Reckless
imprudence is incompatible with malicious
intent.
Falsification is not a continuing offense
There is no falsification through reckless
imprudence if the document is a private
document.
Falsification by omission
Mere falsification of a private document is not
enough to commit crime under paragraph 2 of
Article 172. Two acts must be done by the
offender. 1) He must have performed in the
private document the falsification
contemplated under Article 171. 2) He must
have performed an independent act which
operates to cause damage or prejudice to a
third person. The third person mentioned
herein may include the government. Damage
is not limited to money or pecuniary prejudice.
Damage to ones honor, reputation or good
name is included.
A document falsified as a necessary means
to commit another crime must be public,
official or commercial
There is no complex crime of estafa
through falsification of a private document
because the immediate effect of the latter
is the same as that of estafa
If a private document is falsified to cause
damage to the offended party, the crime
committed is falsification of a private
document. Remember that in estafa, damage
or intent to cause damage is an indispensable
element of the crime. The same element is
necessary to commit the crime of falsification
of private document. Since they have a
common element, such element cannot be
divided into the two parts and considered as
two separate offenses.
There is no complex crime of estafa with
falsification because deceit is a common
element of both. One and the same deceit or
damage cannot give rise to more than one
crime. It is either estafa or falsification.
Criteria to determine whether the crime
is estafa only or falsification only :
IF the falsification of the private document was
essential in the commission of estafa because
the falsification, estafa cannot be committed,
the crime is falsification; estafa becomes the
consequence of the crime.
IF the estafa can be committed even without
resorting to falsification, the latter being
resorted only to facilitate estafa, the main
crime is estafa; falsification is merely
incidental, since even without falsification,
estafa can be committed.
If the estafa was already consummated at
the time of the falsification of a private
document was committed for the purpose
of concealing the estafa, the falsification is
not punishable, because as regards the
falsification of the private document there
was no damage or intent to cause damage.
A private document which is falsified to obtain
money from offended party is a falsification of
private document only.
A private document may acquire the
character of a public document when it
becomes part of an official record and is
certified by a public officer duly authorized
by law
The crime is falsification of public
documents even if falsification took place
before the private document becomes part
of the public records
Examples:
An employee of a private company who
punches the bundy clock on behalf on a co-
employee is guilty of falsification of a private
document.
One who will take the civil service examination
for another and makes it appear that he is the
examinee is guilty of falsification of a public
document.
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT (par. 3, art.
172)
ELEMENTS:
a. Introducing in a judicial
proceeding:
1. That the offender knew that a
document was falsified by
another person.
2. That the false document is
embraced in art. 171 or in any
subdivisions nos. 1 and 2 of art.
172.
3. That he introduced said
document in evidence in any
judicial proceeding. (intent to
cause damage not necessary)
Page 45 of 119
b. Use in any other transaction:
1. That the offender knew that a
document was falsified by
another person.
2. That the false document is
embraced in art. 171 or in any of
subdivisions nos. 1 and 2 of art.
172.
3. That he used such documents
(not in judicial proceedings).
4. That the use of the documents
caused damage to another or at
least was used with intent to
cause such damage.
The user of the falsified document is
deemed the author of falsification, if:
a. the use is so closely connected in
time with the falsification
b. the user had the capacity of
falsifying the document
Falsification of Falsification of
Private Public/Official
Documents Documents
Prejudice to third Prejudice to third persons
party is an element is immaterial, what is
of the offense. punished is the violation
of public faith and
perversion of truth which
the document proclaims.
Rules to observe in the use of a falsified
document.
1. It is a crime when knowingly introduced in a
judicial proceeding even if there is not
intent to cause damage to another.
Knowingly introducing a falsified document
in a judicial proceeding, the use alone is not
a crime. The mere introduction of the
forged document is the crime itself. But
when the falsified document is knowingly
introduced in an administrative proceeding,
the use alone is not a crime. There must be
intent to cause damage or damage is
actually inflicted.
2. Falsification of document is a separate and
distinct offense from that of the use of
falsified documents. So if the falsification of
document was done or performed because
it was necessary to the use of the same
and in the commission of the crime, then
we may have a complex crime defined and
punished under Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code.
3. Good faith is a defense in falsification of
public document.
Article 173
FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE,
TELEGRAPH, AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES,
AND USE OF SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES
 Acts punishable: Persons liable:
1. Uttering fictitious, wireless, a. Physician or surgeon who, in connection
telegraph or telephone message with the practice of his profession,
Requisites: issued a false certificate (note: such
a. That the offender is an officer or certificate must refer to the illness or
employee of the government or injury of a person)
an officer or employee of a
private corporation, engaged in b. Public officer who issued a false
the service of sending or certificate of merit of service, good
receiving wireless, cable or conduct or similar circumstances
telephone message.
c. Private individual who falsified a
b. That the accused commits any of certificate under (1) and (2)
the following acts:
- uttering fictitious wireless, Article 175
cable, telegraph, or telephone USING FALSE CERTIFICATES
message, or
- falsifying wireless, cable, ELEMENTS:
telegraph, or telephone a. That a physician or surgeon has
message issued a false medical
certificate, or a public officer has
2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or issued a false certificate of merit
telephone message or service, good conduct, or
Requisites: similar circumstances, or a
a. That the offender is an officer or private person had falsified any
employee of the government or of said certificates.
an officer or employee of a b. That the offender knew that the
private corporation, engaged in certificate was false.
the service of sending or c. That he used the same.
receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message.
Article 176
b. That the accused commits any of
MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF
the following acts:
INTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR
- uttering fictitious wireless,
FALSIFICATION:
cable, telegraph, or telephone
message, or
- falsifying wireless, cable, Acts punishable:
telegraph, or telephone a. Making or introducing into the
message Philippines any stamps, dies or
marks or other instruments or
3. Using such falsified message implements for counterfeiting or
Requisites: falsification
a. That the accused knew that
wireless, cable, telegraph, or b. Possessing with intent to use
telephone message was falsified the instruments or implements
by any of the person specified in for counterfeiting or falsification
the first paragraph of art. 173. made in or introduced into the
b. That the accused used such Philippines by another person
falsified dispatch.
c. That the use of the falsified The implement confiscated need not form a
dispatch resulted in the prejudice complete set
of a third party, or that the use
thereof was with intent to cause Constructive possession is also punished
such prejudice.

The public officer, to be liable must be OTHER FALSITIES

engaged in the service of sending or
receiving wireless, cable and telegraph or Article 177
telephone message USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS:
Article 174
FALSIFICATION OF MEDICAL 2 ways of committing the crime:
CERTIFICATES, CERTIFCATES OF MERIT OR a. By knowingly and falsely
SERVICE AND THE LIKE: representing oneself to be an

Page 46 of 119
 officer, agent or representative he will not be liable under this article because
of any department or agency of what is attributed against him as a crime of
the Philippine govt or any usurpation is in fact one of the elements of
foreign govt. committing rebellion.
b. By performing an act pertaining
to any person in authority or The elements of false pretense is necessary to
public officer of the Phil govt or commit the crime of usurpation of official
foreign govt under the pretense function.
of such official position, and
without being lawfully entitled
to do so. Article 178
USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND
In usurpation of authority: The mere act CONCEALING TRUE NAME
of knowingly and falsely representing
oneself is sufficient. Not necessary that he ELEMENTS (using fictitious name) :
performs an act pertaining to a public a. That the offender uses a name
officer. other than his real name.
b. That he uses that fictitious name
Elements publicly.
1. Offender knowingly and c. That the purpose of the offender
falsely represents himself; is
2. As an officer, agent or 1. To conceal a crime,
representative of any 2. To evade the execution of a
department or agency of the judgment, or
Philippine government or of 3. To cause damage to public
any foreign government. interest. (ex. Signing
fictitious name for a
In usurpation of official functions: It is passport)
essential that the offender should have
performed an act pertaining to a person in The name of a person is what appears in his
authority birth certificate. The name of a person refers
to his first name, surname, and maternal
Elements name. Any other name which a person publicly
1. Offender performs any act; applies to himself without authority of law is a
2. Pertaining to any person in fictitious name.
authority or public officer of
the Philippine government or
any foreign government, or ELEMENTS (concealing true name):
any agency thereof; a. that the offender conceals
1. his true name, and
3. Under pretense of official 2. all other personal
position; circumstances.
b. that the purpose is only to
4. Without being lawfully conceal his identity.
entitled to do so.
What the offender does to violate or commit
A public officer may also be an offender this act is for him to conceal his true name and
The act performed without being other personal circumstances. His only motive
lawfully entitled to do so must in doing so is to conceal his identity. In
pertain: concealment of true name, the deception is
a. to the govt done momentarily, just enough to conceal the
b. to any person in authority name of the offender. In the use of fictitious
c. to any public office name, the offender presents himself before the
public with another name.
Foreign government adverted to in this article
refers to public officers duly authorized to A person under investigation by the police who
perform governmental duties in the gives a false name and false personal
Philippines. The law cannot refer to other circumstances, upon being interrogated, is
foreign governments as its application may guilty of this crime.
bring us to legal problems which may infringe
on constitutional boundaries. Use of Fictitious Concealing True
Name (178) Name (178)
If the offender commits the acts of usurpation Element of publicity Publicity not
as contemplated herein, and he does it must be present necessary
because he is a rebel and pursuant to the Purpose is to conceal a Purpose is to
crime of rebellion or insurrection or sedition, crime, to evade the conceal identity

Page 47 of 119
execution of a
judgement, or to cause
damage
Commonwealth Act No. 142 (Regulating
the Use of Aliases)
No person shall use any name different from
the one with which he was registered at birth
in the office of the local civil registry, or with
which he was registered in the bureau of
immigration upon entry; or such substitute
name as may have been authorized by a
competent court.
False testimony, defined
It is the declaration under oath of a
witness in a judicial proceeding which is
contrary to what is true, or to deny the same,
or to alter essentially the truth.
Nature of the crime of false testimony.
1. It cannot be committed through reckless
imprudence because false testimony
requires criminal intent or intent to violate
the law is an essential element of the
crime.

Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, 2. If the false testimony is due to honest
cinema, television, radio, or other mistake or error or there was good faith in
entertainment and in athletic events where the making the false testimony, no crime is
use of pseudonym is a normally accepted committed.
practice.
Article 180
Article 179 FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A
ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORM OR INSIGNIA DEFENDANT
ELEMENTS:
ELEMENTS: a. That there be a criminal
a. That the offender makes use of proceeding.
insignia, uniform or dress. b. That the offender testifies
falsely under oath against the
b. That the insignia, uniform or defendant therein.
dress pertains to an office not c. That the offender who gives
held by the offender or to a class false testimony knows that it is
of persons of which he is not a false.
member. d. That the defendant against
whom the false testimony is given
c. That said insignia, uniform or is either acquitted or convicted in a
dress is used publicly and final judgment (prescriptive period
improperly. starts at this point)
Requires criminal intent, cant be
The wearing of a uniform, or insignia of a non- committed through negligence. Need not
existing office or establishment is not a crime. impute guilt upon the accused
It is necessary that the uniform or insignia
represents an office which carries authority, The defendant must at least be sentenced
respect, dignity, or influence which the public to a correctional penalty or a fine or must
looks up to. have been acquitted

So also, an exact imitation of a uniform or
dress is unnecessary; a colorable resemblance
calculated to deceive the common run of
people is sufficient.
The wearing of insignia, badge or emblem of
rank of the members of the armed forced of
the Philippines or constabulary (now PNP) is
punished by Republic Act No. 493.
When the uniform or insignia is used to
emphasize the pageantry of a play or drama or
in moving picture films, the crime is not
committed.
Three forms of false testimony
1. False testimony in criminal cases under
Article 180 and 181;
2. False testimony in civil case under
Article 182;
3. False testimony in other cases under
Article 183.
The witness who gave false testimony is
liable even if the court did not consider his
testimony
The probative value of the testimonial
evidence is subject to the rules of evidence. It
may not be considered at all by the judge. But
whether the testimony is credible or not or
whether it is appreciated or not in the context
that the false witness wanted it to be, the
crime of false testimony is still committed,
since it is punished not because of the effect it
produces, but because of its tendency to favor
the accused. (People vs. Reyes)
Penalty is dependent upon sentence
imposed on the defendant

Page 48 of 119
 Article 181
FALSE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF
DEFENDANT in a criminal case:
Elements:
1. A person gives false testimony;
2. In favor of the defendant;
3. In a criminal case.
False testimony by negative statement is in
favor of the defendant
False testimony need not in fact benefit the
defendant
A statement of a mere opinion is not
punishable
Conviction or acquittal is not necessary
(final judgement is not necessary). The
false testimony need not influence the
acquittal
A defendant who voluntarily goes up on the
witness stand and falsely imputes the
offense to another person the commission
of the offense is liable under this article. If
he merely denies the commission of the
offense, he is not liable.
Basis of penalty: gravity of the felony
charged against the defendant
Article 182
FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES
ELEMENTS:
a. That the testimony must be given
in a civil case.
b. That the testimony must relate to
the issues presented in said
case.
c. That the testimony must be false.
d. That the false testimony must be
given by the defendant knowing
the same to be false.
e. That the testimony must be
malicious and given with an intent
to affect the issues presented in
the said case
4. immaterial whether 4. It is always material
statement or in criminal cases.
testimony is favorable
or not to the accused.
Article183
FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND
PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
ELEMENTS:
a. That an accused made a
statement under oath or made
an affidavit upon a material
matter.
b. That the statement or affidavit
was made before a competent
officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath.
c. That in that statement or
affidavit, the accused made a
willful and deliberate assertion
of a falsehood, and
d. That the sworn statement or
affidavit containing the falsity is
required by law.
2 ways of committing perjury:
a. by falsely testifying under oath
b. by making a false statement
Subornation of perjury: procures another
to swear falsely.
Solemn affirmation: refers to non-judicial
proceedings and affidavits
A false affidavit to a criminal complaint
may give rise to perjury
Two contradictory sworn statements are not
sufficient to convict the affiant for the crime of
perjury. There must be evidence to show which
is false. The same must be established or
proved from sources other than the two
contradictory statements. (People vs.
Capistrano, 40 Phil. 902)
A matter is material when it is directed to
prove a fact in issue

Not applicable when testimony given in a The test of materiality is whether a false
statement can influence the court (People vs.
special proceeding (in this case, the crime
Bnazil).
is perjury)
A competent person authorized to
Basis of penalty: amount involved in the
administer an oath means a person who
civil case
has a right to inquire into the questions
presented to him upon matters under his
Distinctions between perjury and false
jurisdiction
testimony:
PERJURY FALSE TESTIMONY There is no perjury if the accused signed and
1. Non-judicial 1. Given in a judicial swore the statement before a person not
proceedings. proceeding. authorized to administer oath (People vs.
2. Statement or 2. Testimony need not Bella David).
testimony is required be required by law.
by law.
3. Amount involved is 3. Amount involved in
not material. civil cases is material.
Page 49 of 119
 There is no perjury through negligence or
imprudence since the assertion of
falsehood must be willful and deliberate
Because of the nature of perjury, which is the
willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood,
there is no perjury committed through reckless
imprudence or simple negligence under Article
365. Since admittedly perjury can only be
committed by means of dolo, then good faith
or lack of malice is a good defense when one
is indicted for the crime of perjury.
Even if there is no law requiring the
statement to be made under oath, as long
as it is made for a legal purpose, it is
sufficient
If there is no requirement of law to place
the statement or testimony under oath, there
is no Perjury considering the phrases oath in
cases in which the law so requires in Article
183.
The affidavit or sworn statement must be
required by law like affidavit of adverse claim
to protect ones interest on real property; or an
affidavit of good moral character to take the
bar examination. So if the affidavit was made
but the same is not required by law, even if
the allegations are false, the crime of perjury
is not committed. (Diaz vs. People, 191
SCRA 86)
Perjury is an offense which covers false
oaths other than those taken in the course
of judicial proceedings
False testimony before the justice of the
peace during the P.I. may give rise to the
crime of perjury because false testimony in
judicial proceedings contemplates an actual
trial where a judgment of conviction or
acquittal is rendered
A person who knowingly and willfully
procures another to swear falsely commits
subornation of perjury and the witness
suborned does testify under circumstances
rendering him guilty of perjury.
The false testimony is not in a judicial
proceeding
False testimony vs. Perjury
When one testifies falsely before the court, the
crime committed is false testimony. If one
testifies falsely in a non-judicial proceeding,
the crime committed is perjury. In false
testimony, it is not required that the offender
asserts a falsehood on a material matter. It is
enough that he testifies falsely with deliberate
intent. In perjury, the witness must testify or
assert a fact on a material matter with a full
knowledge that the information given is
essentially contrary to the truth. Material
Page 50 of 119
matter means the main fact which is the
subject or object of the inquiry.
Article 184
OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN
EVIDENCE
ELEMENTS:
a That the offender offered in
evidence a false witness or false
testimony.
b That he knew the witness or the
testimony was false.
c That the offer was made in a
judicial or official proceeding.
The false witness need not be convicted of
false testimony. The mere offer is
sufficient.
The offender in this article knows that the
witness to be presented is a false witness or
that the witness will lie while testifying. The
proceedings is either judicial or official. There
is a formal offer of testimonial evidence in the
proceedings. The witness is able to testify and
the offender, knowing the testimony is given
by the witness to be false, nevertheless offers
the same in evidence. In this case, the person
offering the false testimony must have nothing
to do in the making of the false testimony. He
knows that the witness is false and yet he asks
him to testify and thereafter offers the
testimony in evidence. So if the offeror, aside
from being such, is also the person responsible
in inducing or convincing the false witness to
lie, Article 184 will not apply. The applicable
article will be Article 180, 181, 182, or 183 as
the case may be. The offenders in this case
will be charged with perjury; the inducer as
principal by inducement and the induced party
as the principal by direct participation.
It is for this reason that subornation of
perjury is no longer treated as a specific
felony with a separate article of its own.
Nevertheless, it is a crime defined and
punished under the Revised Penal Code. The
crime committed by one who induces another
to testify falsely and the person who agrees
and in conspiracy with the inducer, testifies
falsely, is perjury. (People vs. Padol, 66
Phil. 365)
FRAUDS
Article 185
MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTION
ELEMENTS:
a That there be a public auction.
b That the accused solicited any gift
or a promise from any of the
bidders.
 c That such gifts or promise was the 3. To restrain free competition
consideration for his refraining in the market
from taking part in that public
auction. d. Manufacturer, producer or
d That the accused had the intent to processor or importer combining,
cause the reduction of the price of conspiring or agreeing with any
the thing auctioned. person to make transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce or
to increase the market price of the
ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE merchandise.
BIDDERS TO STAY AWAY:
a That there be a public auction. Elements
b That the accused attempted to 1. Manufacturer, producer,
cause the bidders to stay away processor or importer of any
from that public auction merchandise or object of
c That it was done by threats, gifts, commerce;
promises, or any other artifice. 2. Combines, conspires or agrees
d That the accused had the intent to with any person;
cause the reduction of the price of 3. Purpose is to make transactions
the thing auctioned. prejudicial to lawful commerce
or to increase the market price
of any merchandise or object of
Article 186 commerce manufactured,
MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN produced, processed,
RESTRAINT OF TRADE: assembled or imported into the
Philippines.
Acts punished:
Person/s liable:
a. Combination to prevent free a. manufacturer
competition in the market b. producer
c. processor
Elements d. importer
1. Entering into any contract or
agreement or taking part in Crime is committed by:
any conspiracy or a. combining
combination in the form of a b. conspiring
trust or otherwise; c. agreeing with another person
2. In restraint of trade or
commerce or to prevent by The purpose is:
artificial means free a. to make transactions prejudicial to
competition in the market. lawful commerce
b. By entering into a contract or b. to increase the market price of any
agreement or taking part in any merchandise or object of commerce
conspiracy or combination in the manufactured, produced, processed,
form of a trust or otherwise, in assembled or imported into the Phil
restraint of trade or commerce or
prevent by artificial means free Also liable as principals:
competition in the market (It is a. corporation/association
enough that initial steps are taken. It is b. agent/representative
not necessary that there be actual c. director/manager who willingly
restraint of trade) permitted or failed to prevent
c. Monopoly to restrain free commission of above offense
competition in the market
Aggravated if items are:
Elements a. food substance
1. By monopolizing any b. motor fuel or lubricants
merchandise or object of c. goods of prime necessity
trade or commerce, or by
combining with any other Article 187
person or persons to IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF
monopolize said merchandise FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR
or object; MERCHANDISE MADE OF GOLD, SILVER,
2. In order to alter the prices OR OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR
thereof by spreading false ALLOYS
rumors or making use of any
other artifice; ELEMENTS:
Page 51 of 119
 a That the offender imports, sells or
disposes of any of those articles or
merchandise.
b That the stamps, brands, or marks
or those articles or merchandise
fails to indicate the actual fineness
or quality of said metals or alloys.
c That the offender knows that the
said stamp, brand, or mark fails to
indicate the actual fineness or
quality of the metals or alloys.
To be criminally liable, it is important to
establish that the offender knows the fact that
the imported merchandise fails to indicate the
actual fineness or quality of the precious
metal. If the importer has no expertise on the
matter such that he has no way of knowing
how the fraud was committed, the existence of
such fact may be seriously considered as a
defense.
What the law punishes herein is the selling of
misbranded goods made of gold, silver and
other precious metals. Therefore, it must be
shown that the seller knows that the
merchandise is misbranded. Hence,
dishonesty is an essential element of the
crime.
Article 188
SUBSTITUTING ALTERING TRADE-MARK,
TRADENAME, OR SERVICE
MARK
Acts punishable:
a By (a) substituting the trade name
(t/n) or trademark (t/m) of some
other manufacturer or dealer or a
colorable imitation thereof, for the
t/n or t/m of the real manufacturer
or dealer upon any article of
commerce and (b) selling the same.
b By selling or by offering for sale
such article of commerce, knowing
that the t/n or t/m has been
fraudulently used
c By using or substituting the service
mark of some other person, or a
colorable imitation of such marks,
in the sale or advertising of
services
d By printing, lithographing or
reproducing t/n, t/m or service
mark of one person, or a colorable
limitation thereof, to enable
another person to fraudulently use
the same, knowing the fraudulent
purpose for which it is to be used.
Page 52 of 119
If a particular person is defrauded by the
offender; as in the case of locally
manufactured goods, which the offender,
by altering the label, are made to appear as
imported articles and sold to a particular
person, the crime committed is
undoubtedly estafa as far as the particular
person is concerned. But if the falsely
mislabeled goods are displayed in a store
and offered for sale to the public in general,
the crime committed is punished under
Article 188. So, if the deception is isolated
and is confined to a particular person or
group of persons, estafa is committed. If
the fraud is employed against the public,
Article 188 is violated.
Must not be another manufacturer
otherwise unfair competition
Take note that after making the substitution
the goods are displayed in the store or market
for sale, Article 188 is already committed even
if no customer comes to buy any of the goods
on display. The mere offer for sale to the
public consummates the crime.
The pendency of the administrative aspect of
the case is not a prejudicial question in the
resolution of the criminal case.
Article 189
UNFAIR COMPETITION, FRAUDULENT
REGISTRATION OF TRADENAME,
TRADEMARK SERVICE MARK,
FRAUDULENT DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN,
AND FALSE DESCRIPTION
Acts punished:
a Unfair competition by selling his
goods, giving them the general
appearance of the goods of another
manufacturer or dealer
b Fraudulent designation of origin;
false description by (a) affixing to his
goods or using in connection with his
services a false designation of origin; or
any false description or representation,
and (b) selling such goods or services
c Fraudulent registration by procuring
fraudulently from the patent office the
registration of t/m, t/m or service mark.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender gives his goods
the general appearance of the goods
of another manufacturer or dealer
2. That the general appearance is
shown in the (a) goods themselves,
or in the (b) wrapping of their
packages, or in the (c) device or
words therein, or in (d) any other
feature of their appearance
3. That the offender offers to sell or
sells those goods or gives other
 persons a chance or opportunity to
do the same with a like purpose.
4. That there is actual intent to deceive TITLE FIVE
the public or defraud a competitor. CRIMES RELATED TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS (190-194)
Under Republic Act No. 166, Section 29,
paragraph 2, unfair competition is defined COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
as follows: It consists in employing deception ACT OF 2002
or any other means contrary to good faith by (RA No. 9165)
which any person shall pass off the goods
manufactured by him or in which he deals, or I. Acts Punishable:
his business, or services for those of the one a. importation of prohibited drugs
having established goodwill, or committing any b. sale, administration, delivery,
acts calculated to produce such result. distribution and transportation of
prohibited drugs
The true test of unfair competition is c. maintenance of a den, dive or resort
whether certain goods have been clothed with for prohibited drug users
an appearance which is likely to deceive the d. being employees or visitors of drug
ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care. den
(U.S. vs. Manuel, 7 Phil. 221) e. manufacture of prohibited drugs
f. possession or use
For unfair competition to take place, it must be g. cultivation of plants
the manufacturer of the goods who will cloth h. failure to comply with provisions
or label his goods with the trade name or relative to keeping of records of
trademark of another manufacturer, who has prescription
established a good name or good will in the i. unnecessary prescription
mind of the public because of the quality of j. possession of opium pipe and other
the merchandise manufactured by him. The paraphernalia
imitator is also a manufacturer of the same k. Importation, sale, etc. of regulated
kind of product but of inferior quality. By drugs
labeling his product with the trademark or
trade name of said manufacturer, he profits DRUG SYNDICATE any organized group of
from the goodwill of another. two(2) or more persons forming or joining
together with the intention of committing
If the labeling or clothing of the goods is not any offense prescribed under the act.
done by another manufacturer, the crime
committed is not unfair competition but PLANTING OF EVIDENCE the willful act by
substitution of trademark or trade name under any person of maliciously and
Article 188. surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or
attaching directly or indirectly, through any
When the honorable Supreme Court declared overt or covert act, whatever quantity of
that unfair competition is broader and more any dangerous drug and/or controlled
inclusive than infringement of trade name or precursor and essential chemical in the
trademark. In infringement of trade name or person, house, effects, or in the immediate
trademark, the offended party has a peculiar vicinity of an innocent individual for the
symbol or mark on his goods which is purpose of implicating, incriminating or
considered a property right which must imputing the commission of any violation of
therefore be protected. In unfair competition, this Act.
the offended party has identified in the mind of
the public the goods he manufactures to P D E A Philippine Drug Enforcement Unit
distinguish it from the goods of the other
manufacturers. In infringement of trade name Importation of prohibited/regulated
or trademark, the offender uses the trade drugs.
name or trademark of another in selling his
goods, while in unfair competition, the PENALTY : Life to death & fine of 500,000
offender gives his goods the general to 10 million regardless of the Quantity
appearance of the goods of another and purity involved
manufacturer and sells the same to the public. MAXIMUM PENALTY :
(E. Spinner & Co. vs. New Hesslein Corp., 1) Use of diplomatic Passport
54 Phil. 224) 2) Financier

Sale, administration, delivery,

distribution and transaction of
prohibited/regulated drugs.

- NOT BAILABLE

Page 53 of 119

PENALTY : Life to death & fine of 500,000
to 10 million regardless of the Quantity
and purity involved ( includes BROKER )
Qualifying Circumstances
1) if the victim of the offense is a minor or
should a prohibited/regulated drug involve
in any offense under this section be the
proximate cause of the death of a victim
thereof, the maximum penalty herein shall
be imposed.
2) Financier
3) Sale made within 100m from school
Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort
for prohibited/regulated drug users.
** Property escheated in favor of the
government
Qualifying Circumstance where a
prohibited/regulated drug is administered,
delivered, or sold to a minor who is allowed
to use the same in such place, or should a
prohibited drug be the proximate cause of
the death of the person using the same in
such den, dive or resort, the maximum of
the penalty shall be imposed.
Manufacture of prohibited/regulated
drugs.
Possession of prohibited/regulated
drugs.
PENALTY :
a. Life to death & fine of 500,000 to 10 million
10 gms. Opium, morphine, heroine, cocaine,
marijuana resin and Ecstasy.
50 gms. Shabu
500 gms. Marijuana
b. Life Imprisonment and a fine of
P400,000.00-P500,000.00
10-50 gms. Shabu
c. 20 years to Life and a fine of 400,000.00-
500,000.00
5-10 gms. Shabu
d. 12 20 years and a fine of 300,000.00-
400,000.00
Less than 5 gms. Of any dangerous drugs
Possession of paraphernalia
6 mos. 4 yrs. & fine of 10,000 50,000
Use of Dangerous Drugs A person
apprehended or arrested, who is found to
be positive for use of any dangerous drug,
after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed
a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for
the first offense, subject to the provisions of
Article VIII of this Act.
If apprehended using any dangerous drug
act for the second time, he/she shall suffer
Page 54 of 119
the penalty of imprisonment ranging from
six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve(12)
years and a fine ranging from Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);
Provided, That this section shall not be
applicable where the person tested is also
found to have in his/her possession such
quantity of any dangerous drug provided
for under Section 11 of this Act, in which
case the provisions stated therein shall
apply.
Cultivation of plants which are sources
of prohibited drugs.
Penalty - Life to death and a fine of
P500,000.00 to P10 Million
a Note: The land/portions thereof and/or
greenhouses in which any of the said
plants is cultivated or cultured shall be
confiscated and escheated to the State,
unless the owner thereof can prove that
he did not know of such cultivation or
culture despite the exercise of due
diligence on his part.
b Qualifying Circumstance
1. If the land involved is part of the public
domain, the maximum of the penalty herein
provided shall be imposed.
2. Maximum penalty imposed on financier
Failure to keep records of prescription,
sales, purchases, acquisitions and/or
deliveries of prohibited/regulated
drugs
Persons liable:
Pharmacist, Physician, Dentist,
Veterinarian, Manufacturer, Wholesaler,
Importer, Distributor, Dealer, Retailer
Unlawful prescription of
prohibited/regulated drugs
Penalty life to death and a fine of
P500,000 to P10 Million
Unnecessary prescription of
prohibited/regulated drugs
Penalty 12 to 20 years and fine of
P100,000 to P500,000 plus revocation of
license
Persons Liable: Physician or dentist who
shall prescribe any prohibited/regulated
drug for any person whose
physical/physiological condition does not
require the use of thereof.
Confiscation and forfeiture of the
proceeds or instruments of the unlawful
act, including the properties of the
proceeds derived from the illegal
trafficking of
dangerous drugs.
Forfeited infavor of the government
After the conviction in the Regional Trial Court
in the appropriate criminal case filed, the
Court shall immediately schedule a hearing for
the confiscation and forfeiture of all the
proceeds of the offense and all the assets and
properties of the accused either owned or held
by him or in the name of some other persons if
the same shall be found to be manifestly out of
proportion of his/her income; Provided,
however, That if the forfeited property is a
vehicle, the same shall be auctioned off not
later than five (5) days upon order of
confiscation or forfeiture.
During the pendency of the case in the
Regional Trial Court, no property, or income
derived therefrom, which may be confiscated
and forfeited, shall be disposed, alienated or
transferred and the same shall be in custodia
legis and no bond shall be admitted for the
release of the same.
Custody and disposition of confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs
PDEA in charge and custody for proper
disposition
Procedure in Disposal
1. Apprehending team immediately after
seizure shall make physical inventory and
photograph the seized drugs in the
presence of the accused or his counsel, a
representative of the media and DOJ and
any elected public official who shall sign
the copies of the inventory.
2. Within 24 hours upon confiscation/seizure
of dangerous drugs, such drug shall be
submitted to the PDEA forensic laboratory
for a qualitative and quantitative
examination.
3. Certification of the forensic examination
results shall be issued within 24 hours.
4. After the filing of the criminal case, the
proper court shall conduct and ocular
inspection within 72 hours of the
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs.
5. After ocular inspection by the court, PDEA
shall destroy or burn the confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs within 24 hours in the presence of
the accused or his counsel, representative
of the media and the DOJ, civil society
groups and any elected public officer.
6. PDEA shall issue a certification of such
destruction and samples of the dangerous
drugs shall be submitted to the court.
Plea-Bargaining
Any person charged under any commission of
this act regardless of the imposable penalty
Page 55 of 119
shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on
plea-bargaining.
Probation Law
Any person convicted for drug trafficking
regardless of the penalty imposed cannot avail
of the privilege granted by the probation law.
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
A positive finding for the use of dangerous
drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating
circumstance in the commission of a crime by
an offender and the application of the penalty
provided for in the RPC.
Possession of opium pipe, equipment,
apparatus or any paraphernalia fit or
intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or
otherwise using opium or any other
prohibited drug, shall be prima facie
evidence that the possessor has smoked,
consumed, administered to himself,
injected or used a prohibited drug.
Attempt and conspiracy to commit the
following offenses:
a Importation of dangerous drugs
b Sale, administration, delivery,
distribution and transportation of
dangerous drugs
c Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for
prohibited drugs
d Manufacture of dangerous drugs
e Cultivation or culture of plants which are
sources of prohibited drugs
Other persons liable:
a If the violation of the Act is committed
by a partnership, corporation,
association or any judicial person, the
partner, president, director, or manager
who consents to or knowingly tolerates
such violation shall be held criminally
liable as co-principal.
b Partner, president, director, manager,
officer or stockholder, who knowingly
authorizes, tolerates, or consents to the
use of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft as an
instrument in the importation, sale,
delivery, distribution or transportation of
dangerous drugs, or to the use of their
equipment, machines or other
instruments in the manufacture of any
dangerous drugs, if such vehicle, vessel,
aircraft, equipment, or other instrument,
is owned or under the control and
supervision of the partnership,
corporation, association or judicial entity
to which they are affiliated.
Criminal liability of a public officer or
employee for misappropriation,
misapplication or failure to account for
the confiscated, seized and/or who shall violate any of the said
surrendered dangerous drugs provision.

Penalty - life to death and a fine of a. NOTE: They shall be considered as

P500,000.00 to P10 Million in addition to
absolute perpetual disqualification from any
public office.
Any elective local or national official found to
have benefited from the proceeds of the
trafficking of dangerous drugs or have
received any financial or material contributions
from persons found guilty of drug trafficking
dangerous drugs, shall be removed from office
and perpetually disqualified from holding any
elective or appointive positions in the
government.
Planting of Evidence
Any person who is found guilty of planting any
dangerous drug regardless of the quantity and
purity, shall suffer the penalty of death.
persons in authority if they are in the
school or within its immediate
vicinity, or beyond such immediate
vicinity if they are in attendance in
any school or class function in their
official capacity as school heads,
supervisors or teachers.
b. Any teacher or school employee who
discovers or finds that any person in
the school or within its immediate
vicinity is violating this Act shall have
the duty to report the violation to the
school head or supervisor who shall,
in turn, report the matter to the
proper authorities. Failure to report in
either case shall, after hearing,
constitute sufficient cause for
disciplinary action.

Drug Testing III. Rules regarding rehabilitation of

1. Applicants for drivers license - mandatory drug dependents
2. Applicants for firearms license and for
permit to carry - mandatory Voluntary submission
3. Students of secondary and tertiary schools a. Voluntary submission of a drug
random (school shall shoulder expenses) dependent to confinement, treatment
4. Officers and employees of private and public and rehabilitation by the drug
offices random (employer shall shoulder dependent himself or through his
expenses) parent, guardian or relative within the
Any officer or employee found positive for use 4th civil degree of consanguinity or
of dangerous drug shall be dealt with affinity, in a center and compliance with
administratively which shall be a ground for such conditions therefor as the
suspension or termination subject to Art. 282 Dangerous Drugs Board may prescribe
of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of shall exempt from criminal liability for
the Civil Service Law. possession or use of the
5. Officers and members of the military, police prohibited/regulated drug. (Applicable
and other law enforcement agencies annual only to those liable for use of
mandatory dangerous drugs and not to
6. All persons charged before the prosecutors possession and sale)
office with a criminal offense having an
impossible penalty of imprisonment of not less b. Should the drug dependent escape from
than six (6) years and one (1) day shall have the center, he may submit himself for
to undergo a mandatory drug test confinement within 1 week from the
7. All candidates for public office whether date of his escape, of his parent
appointed or elected both in the national or guardian or relative may, within the
local government shall undergo a mandatory same period surrender him for
drug test. confinement.

Issuance of False or fraudulent drug test
results (whether willfully or through
gross negligence)
Penalty 6 to 12 years and fine P100,000.00
to P500,000.00
Additional penalty revocation of license to
practice and closure of the drug testing center
II. For the purpose of enforcing the
provisions of this Act, all school heads,
supervisors and teachers shall be
deemed to be persons in authority and,
as such, are vested with the power to
apprehend, arrest, or cause the
apprehension or arrest of any person
Page 56 of 119
c. Upon application of the Board, the Court
shall issue an order for recommitment if
the drug dependent does not resubmit
himself for confinement or if he is not
surrendered for recommitment.
d. If, subsequent to such recommitment,
he should escape again, he shall no
longer be exempt from criminal liability
for the use or possession of any
dangerous drug.
e. If a person charged with an offense is
found by the fiscal or by the Court at
any stage of the proceedings, to be a
drug dependent, the fiscal or court as
 the case may be, shall suspend all
further proceedings and transmit
records of the case to the Board.
f. After his rehabilitation, he shall be
prosecuted for such violation. In case of
conviction, the judgement shall, if the
accused is certified by the treatment
and rehabilitation center to have
maintained good behavior, indicate that
he shall be given full credit for the
period he was confined in the center.
NOTE: When the offense is use of
dangerous drugs and the accused is not
a recidivist, the penalty thereof shall be
deemed to have been served in the
center upon his release therefrom.
g. The period of prescription of the offense
charged shall not run during the time
that the respondent/accused is under
detention or confinement in a center.
h. Requisites of suspension of
sentence for first offense in a
minor:
1. If accused is a minor (under 18 years
of age at the time of the commission
of the offense but not more than 21
years of age when the judgement
should have been promulgated.
2. He has not been previously convicted
of violating any provision of this Act
or of the RPC or placed on probation.
Sentence shall be deferred and
the accused shall be placed on
probation under the supervision
of the Board.
In case of violation of conditions
of pardon, court shall pronounce
judgment of conviction and he
shall serve sentence.
If accused did not violate
conditions of probation, case shall
be dismissed upon expiration of
the designated period.
Compulsory submission
If a person charged with an offense where the
imposable penalty is imprisonment of not
more than six (6) years and one (1) day, and is
found by the prosecutor or by the court, at any
stage of the proceedings, to be a drug
dependent, the prosecutor of the court as the
case may be, shall suspend all further
proceedings and transmit copies of the record
of the case to the Board.
Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drug Cases
Page 57 of 119
Section 90. Jurisdiction The Supreme
Court shall designate special courts from
among the existing Regional Trial Court in each
judicial region to exclusively try and hear
cases involving violations of this Act. The
number of court designated in each judicial
region shall be based on population and the
number of cases pending in their respective
jurisdiction.
The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to
exclusively handle cases involving violations of
this Act.
The preliminary investigation of cases filed
under this Act shall be terminated within a
period of thirty (30) days from the date of their
filing.
When the preliminary investigation is
conducted by a public prosecutor and a
probable cause is established, the
corresponding information shall be filed in
court within 24 hours from the termination of
the investigation. If the preliminary
investigation is conducted by a judge and a
probable cause is found to exist, the
corresponding information shall be filed by the
proper prosecutor within 48 hours from the
receipt of the records of the case.
Section 91. Responsibility and Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies and Other
Government Officials and Employees
Testifying as Prosecution Witnesses in
Dangerous Drugs Cases Any member of
law enforcement agencies or any other
government official and employees who, after
due notice, fails or refuses intentionally or
negligently, to appear as a witness for the
prosecution in any proceedings, involving
violations of this Act, without any valid reason,
shall be punished with imprisonment of not
less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
20 years and a fine of not less than
P500,000.00, in addition to the administrative
liability he/she may be meted out by his/her
immediate superior and/or appropriate body.
The immediate superior of a member of the
law enforcement agency or any other
government employee mentioned in the
preceding paragraph shall be penalized with
imprisonment of not less than two (2) months
and one (1) day but not more than six (6)
years and a fine of not less than P10,000.00
but not more than P50,000 and in addition,
perpetual absolute disqualification from public
office if despite due notice to them and to the
witness concerned, the former does not exert
reasonable effort to present the latter to the
court.
The member of the law enforcement agency or
any other government employee mentioned in
the preceding paragraphs shall not be
transferred or re-assigned to any other
territorial jurisdiction during the pendency of
the case in court. However, the concerned
member of the law enforcement agency or
government employee may be transferred or
re-assigned for compelling reasons; Provided,
That his/her immediate superior shall notify
the court where the case is pending of the
order of transfer or re-assign, within 24 hours
from its approval; Provided further, That
his/her immediate superior shall be penalized
with imprisonment of not less than two (2)
months and one (1) day but not less than six
(6) years and a fine of not less than
P10,000.00 but not more than P50,000.00 and
in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification
from public office, should he/she fail to notify
the court of such order to transfer or re-assign.
Prosecution and punishment under this Section
shall be without prejudice to any liability for
violation of any existing law.
Section 92. Delay and Bungling in the
Prosecution of Drug Cases. - Any
government officer or employee tasked with
the prosecution of drug-related cases under
this Act, who, through patent laxity,
inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay or
deliberately causes the unsuccessful
prosecution and/or dismissal ranging from 12
years and 1 day to 20 years without prejudice
to his/her prosecution under the pertinent
provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
a Buy Bust Operation no law or rule to
require policemen to adopt a uniform
way of identifying BUY MONEY (P v.
Abedes)
b Absence of ultraviolet powder is not
fatal in the prosecution
c Transportation/importation of MJ
immaterial whether there may or may
not be a distinction for the MJ
d Distinguish Entrapment and
Instigation:
1. If prosecution can prove the crime
without presenting the informer or
asset not necessary because their
testimonies are merely
corroborative. Poseur buyer it
depends on whether the prosecution
can prove the crime without their
testimonies (P v. Rosalinda
Ramos)
2. Under the RA, special aggravating
circumstance if a crime has been
committed while the accused was
high on drugs (P v. Anthony
Belgar)
3. Delivery or Sale of Prohibited Drugs
the accused must be aware that
Page 58 of 119
what he is selling or delivering was
prohibited drug. But the moment the
fact of sale or delivery is proved by
prosecution, the burden to prove that
the accused is not aware that drugs
are prohibited falls on the defense (P
v. Aranda)
4. P v. Angelito Manalo burden of
proving the authority to possess
shabu is a matter of defense
5. P v. Hilario Moscaling court may
take judicial notice of the word
shabu
6. Criminal liabilities of a policeman
who sold the drugs confiscated from
a pusher: violation of RA 9165 and
malversation under RPC.
e Planting evidence to implicate
another
f Buy Bust Operation form of
entrapment (P v. Alberto) not
necessary to have prior police
surveillance (P v. Carlos Franca)
g Possession constructive or actual
not necessary to adduce the marked
money as evidence (P v. Romeo
Macara)
h Separate crimes sale/possession of
MJ found in his possession after he was
frisked but he cant be convicted for
possession of MJ that he sold
i If victim is minor or drug is proximate
cause of death max penalty is
imposed
1. First offense of a minor suspension
of sentence
CONDITIONS:
under 18 at time of
commission but not more than 21
at time when judgment was
promulgated
found guilty of possession or
use of prohibited or regulated
drugs
not been previously convicted
of violating any provision of this
Act or the RPC
not been placed on probation
defer sentence, place on
probation for 6 months to 1 year
violation of probation
pronounce sentence convict and
serve sentence
no violation discharge him
and dismiss the proceeding
 if minor is drug dependent
commit to a center for treatment
and rehabilitation
a. any game of monte, jueteng, or
any other form of lottery, policy,
banking, or percentage game,
dog races, or any other game or
scheme the results of which
depend wholly or chiefly upon
chance or hazard; or wherein
wagers consisting of money,
articles of value, or
representative of value are made;
or

b. the exploitation or use of any

other mechanical invention or
contrivance to determine by
chance the loser or winner of
money or any object or
representative of value;

2. Knowingly permitting any form of

gambling to be carried on in any place
owned or controlled by the offender;

3. Being maintainer, conductor, or banker

in a game of jueteng or similar game;

4. Knowingly and without lawful purpose

possessing lottery list, paper, or other
matter containing letters, figures, signs
or symbol which pertain to or are in any
manner used in the game of jueteng or
any similar game.

TITLE SIX
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Crimes against public morals
Gambling (Art. 195);
Importation, sale and possession of lottery
tickets or advertisements (Art. 196);
Betting in sport contests (Art. 197);
Illegal betting on horse races (Art. 198);
Illegal cockfighting (Art. 199);
Grave scandal (Art. 200);
Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions (Art. 201); and
Vagrancy and prostitution (Art. 202).
Article 195. What Acts Are Punishable in
Gambling
Acts punished
1. Taking part directly or indirectly in
What is gambling?
It is a game or device or method, the
result of which depends wholly or chiefly upon
chance or hazard. So, if the game depends
wholly upon skill or ability of the players, there
is no gambling.
The manner of determining whether the game
played is prohibited or not is whether the
result will depend wholly or chiefly upon
chance or hazard.
Significantly, if the game has been identified
and declared as a form of gambling by express
provision of law, there will be no need or
requirement to go into the methods upon how
the game is played.
What is lottery?
It is a scheme for the distribution of
prizes by chance among persons who have
paid, or agreed to pay, a valuable
consideration for a chance to obtain a prize.
(US vs. Filart, et al., 30 Phil. 80)
Pinball machines or slot machines are
considered gambling devices because the
result depends upon chance or hazard.
If the prizes do not come out of the funds or
contributions of the participants, there is no
lottery. (Uy vs. Palomar, 27 SCRA 287)

Page 59 of 119
Article 196.
IMPORTATION, SALE AND POSSESSION OF
LOTTERY TICKETS OR ADVERTISEMENTS
Acts punished
1. Importing into the Philippines from
any foreign place or port any
lottery ticket or advertisement; or
2. Selling or distributing the same in
connivance with the importer;
3. Possessing, knowingly and with
intent to use them, lottery tickets
or advertisements; or
4. Selling or distributing the same
without connivance with the
importer of the same.
Note that possession of any lottery ticket or
advertisement is prima facie evidence of an
intent to sell, distribute or use the same in the
Philippines.
Article 197.
BETTING IN SPORT CONTESTS
This article has been repealed by Presidential
Decree No. 483 (Betting, Game-fixing or
Point-shaving and Machinations in Sport
Contests):
PENALIZING BETTING, GAME-FIXING OR
POINT-SHAVING AND
MACHINATIONS IN SPORTS CONTESTS
PD 483
Acts Punishable:
a. Betting: Betting money or any
object or article of value of
representative value upon the result of
any game, races and other sports
contests.
b. Game-fixing: any arrangement,
combination, scheme or agreement by
which the result of any game, races, or
sports contests shall be predicated
and/or known other than on the basis of
the honest playing skill or ability of the
players or participants.
c. Point-shaving: any such
arrangement combination, scheme or
agreement by which the skill or ability of
any player or participant in a fame,
races, or sports contests to make points
of scores shall be limited deliberately in
order to influence the result thereof in
favor of one or other team, player or
participant.
Page 60 of 119
d. Game Machination: any other
fraudulent, deceitful, unfair or dishonest
means, method, manner or practice
employed for the purpose of influencing
the result of any game, races or sports
contest.
Article 198.
ILLEGAL BETTING ON HORSE RACE
Acts punished
Betting on horse races during periods not
allowed by law;
Maintaining or employing a totalizer or other
device or scheme for betting on races or
realizing profit therefrom during the
periods not allowed by law.
When horse races not allowed:
July 4 (Republic Act No. 137);
December 30 (Republic Act No. 229);
Any registration or voting days (Republic Act
No. 180, Revised Election Code); and
Holy Thursday and Good Friday (Republic Act
No. 946).
Article 199.
ILLEGAL COCKFIGHTING
This article has been modified or repealed by
Presidential Decree No. 449 (The
Cockfighting Law of 1974):
COCKFIGHTING LAW OF 1974
PD 449
I. Scope This law shall govern the
establishment, operation, maintenance
and ownership of cockpits.
II. Rules:
A. Only Filipino citizens not otherwise
inhibited by existing laws shall be
allowed to own, manage and
operated cockpits.
B. Only one cockpit shall be allowed in
each city or municipality with a
population of 100,000 or less.
C. Cockpits shall be constructed and
operated within the appropriate
areas as prescribed in the Zoning
Law or ordinance.
D. When allowed:
 1. Cockfighting shall be allowed only
in licensed cockpits during Section 1. Violations and Penalties. --
Sundays and legal holidays and The penalty of prision mayor in its medium
during local fiestas for not more degree or a fine ranging from Five Hundred
than 3 days; or Pesos to Two Thousand Pesos and in case of
recidivism the penalty of prision correccional in
2. During provincial, city or its medium degree or a fine of ranging from
municipal, agricultural, One Thousand Pesos to Six Thousand Pesos
commercial or industrial fair, shall be imposed upon:
carnival or exposition for a similar
period of 3 days upon resolution (a) Any person other than those
of the province, city or referred to in the succeeding subsection who
municipality where such fair, in any manner, shall directly or indirectly take
carnival or exposition is to be part in any game of cockfighting, jueteng,
held, subject to the approval of bookies (jai- alai or horse racing to include
the Chief of Constabulary or his game fixing) and other lotteries, cara y cruz or
authorized representative. pompiang and the like, black jack, lucky nine,
pusoy or Russian Poker, monte, baccarat and
other card games, palk que, domino, mahjong,
Limitations: high and low, slot machines, roulette, pinball
a) No cockfighting on the occasion and other mechanical inventories or devices,
of such fair, carnival or exposition dog racing, boat racing, car raising and other
shall be allowed within the month races, basketball, volleyball, boxing, seven-
of the local fiesta or for more than eleven dice games and the like and other
2 occasions a year in the same contests to include game fixing, point shaving
city of municipality. and other machinations banking or percentage
game, or any other game or scheme, whether
b) No cockfighting shall be held on upon chance or skill, which do not have a
December 30, June 12,November franchise from the national government,
30, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, wherein wagers consisting of money, articles
Election Day and during of value of representative of value are made;
registration days for such
election/referendum. (b) Any person who shall knowingly
permit any form of gambling referred to in the
3. If the purpose is for the preceding subdivision to be carried on in
entertainment of foreign inhabited or uninhabited places or any
dignitaries or for tourists, or for building, vessel or other means of
returning balikbayans, or for the transportation owned or controlled by him. If
support of national fund-raising the place where gambling is carried on has a
campaigns for charitable reputation of a gambling place or that
purposes as may be authorized prohibited gambling is frequently carried on
by the Office of the President therein or the place is a public or government
upon resolution of a provincial building or barangay hall, the culprit shall be
board, city or municipal council, punished by the penalty provided for in its
in licensed cockpits or in maximum period and a fine of Six Thousand
playgrounds or parks. Pesos.

Limitations: This privilege shall The penalty of prision correccional in its

be extended for only one time, for
a period not exceeding 3 days,
within a year to a province, city or
municipality.
E. No gambling of any kind shall be
permitted on the premises of the
cockpit or place of cockfighting
during cockfights.
F. City or municipal mayors are
authorized to issue licenses for the
operation and maintenance of
cockpits.
Presidential Decree No. 1602 (Simplifying
and Providing Stiffer Penalties for
Violations of Philippine Gambling Laws)
Page 61 of 119
maximum degree and a fine of Six Thousand
Pesos shall be imposed upon the maintainer,
conductor of the above gambling schemes.
The penalty of prision mayor in its
medium degree and temporary absolute
disqualification and a fine of Six Thousand
Pesos shall be imposed if the maintainer,
conductor or banker is a government official,
or if a player, promoter, referee, umpire, judge
or coach in cases of game-fixing, point-shaving
and other game machination.
The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium degree and a fine ranging from Five
Hundred pesos to Two Thousand Pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who shall knowingly
and without lawful purpose in any hour of any
day shall have in his possession any lottery
list, paper, or other matter containing letter,
figures, signs or symbols which pertain to or in
any manner used in the game of jueteng, jai-
alai or horse racing bookies and similar game
or lottery which has taken place or about to
take place.
Section 2. Barangay Official. Any
barangay official in whose jurisdiction such
gambling house is found and which house has
the reputation of a gambling place shall suffer
the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium period and a fine ranging from Five
Hundred to Two Thousand Pesos and
temporary absolute disqualifications.
While the acts under the Revised Penal Code
are still punished under the new law, yet the
concept of gambling under it has been
changed by the new gambling law.
Before, the Revised Penal Code considered the
skill of the player in classifying whether a
game is gambling or not. But under the new
gambling law, the skill of the players is
immaterial.
Any game is considered gambling where there
are bets or wagers placed with the hope to win
a prize therefrom.
Under this law, even sports contents like
boxing, would be gambling insofar as those
who are betting therein are concerned.
Under the old penal code, if the skill of the
player outweighs the chance or hazard
involved in winning the game, the game is
not considered gambling but a sport. It
was because of this that betting in boxing
and basketball games proliferated.
Unless authorized by a franchise, any form of
gambling is illegal. So said the court in the
recent resolution of the case against the
operation of jai-alai.
There are so-called parlor games which have
been exempted from the operation of the
decree like when the games are played during
a wake to keep the mourners awake at night.
Pursuant to a memorandum circular issued by
the Executive Branch, the offshoot of the
exemption is the intentional prolonging of the
wake of the dead by gambling lords.
As a general rule, betting or wagering
determines whether a game is gambling or
not. Exceptions: These are games which are
expressly prohibited even without bets.
Monte, jueteng or any form of lottery; dog
races; slot machines; these are habit-forming
and addictive to players, bringing about the
pernicious effects to the family and economic
life of the players.
Page 62 of 119
Mere possession of lottery tickets or lottery
lists is a crime punished also as part of
gambling. However, it is necessary to make a
distinction whether a ticket or list refers to a
past date or to a future date.
Illustration:
X was accused one night and found in his
possession was a list of jueteng. If the date
therein refers to the past, X cannot be
convicted of gambling or illegal possession of
lottery list without proving that such game was
indeed played on the date stated. Mere
possession is not enough. If the date refers to
the future, X can be convicted by the mere
possession with intent to use. This will already
bring about criminal liability and there is no
need to prove that the game was played on
the date stated. If the possessor was caught,
chances are he will not go on with it anymore.
There are two criteria as to when the lottery is
in fact becomes a gambling game:
1. If the public is made to pay not only for
the merchandise that he is buying, but
also for the chance to win a prize out of
the lottery, lottery becomes a gambling
game. Public is made to pay a higher
price.
2. If the merchandise is not saleable
because of its inferior quality, so that
the public actually does not buy them,
but with the lottery the public starts
patronizing such merchandise. In effect,
the public is paying for the lottery and
not for the merchandise, and therefore
the lottery is a gambling game. Public is
not made to pay a higher price.
Illustrations:
(1) A certain supermarket wanted to
increase its sales and sponsored a
lottery where valuable prices are offered
at stake. To defray the cost of the prices
offered in the lottery, the management
increased their prices of the
merchandise by 10 cents each.
Whenever someone buys from that
supermarket, he pays 10 cents more for
each merchandise and for his purchase,
he gets a coupon which is to be dropped
at designated drop boxes to be raffled
on a certain period.
The increase of the price is to answer for
the cost of the valuable prices that will
be covered at stake. The increase in the
price is the consideration for the chance
to win in the lottery and that makes the
lottery a gambling game.
But if the increase in prices of the
articles or commodities was not general,
 but only on certain items and the
increase in prices is not the same, the
fact that a lottery is sponsored does not
appear to be tied up with the increase in
prices, therefore not illegal.
Also, in case of manufacturers, you have
to determine whether the increase in
the price was due to the lottery or
brought about by the normal price
increase. If the increase in price is
brought about by the normal price
increase [economic factor] that even
without the lottery the price would be
like that, there is no consideration in
favor of the lottery and the lottery would
not amount to a gambling game.
If the increase in the price is due
particularly to the lottery, then the
lottery is a gambling game. And the
sponsors thereof may be prosecuted for
illegal gambling under Presidential
Decree No. 1602.
(2) The merchandise is not really saleable
because of its inferior quality. A certain
manufacturer, Bhey Company,
manufacture cigarettes which is not
saleable because the same is irritating
to the throat, sponsored a lottery and a
coupon is inserted in every pack of
cigarette so that one who buys it shall
have a chance to participate. Due to
the coupons, the public started buying
the cigarette. Although there was no
price increase in the cigarettes, the
lottery can be considered a gambling
game because the buyers were really
after the coupons not the low quality
cigarettes.
If without the lottery or raffle, the public
does not patronize the product and
starts to patronize them only after the
lottery or raffle, in effect the public is
paying for the price not the product.
Under this decree, a barangay captain who is
responsible for the existence of gambling dens
in their own locality will be held liable and
disqualified from office if he fails to prosecute
these gamblers. But this is not being
implemented.
Gambling, of course, is legal when authorized
by law.
Fund-raising campaigns are not gambling.
They are for charitable purposes but they have
to obtain a permit from Department of Social
Welfare and Development. This includes
concerts for causes, Christmas caroling, and
the like.
Page 63 of 119
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD
CUSTOMS
Article 200
GRAVE SCANDAL
ELEMENTS:
a. Offender performs an act
b. Act is highly scandalous as
offending against decency or
good customs
c. Highly scandalous conduct does
not expressly fall within any
other article of the RPC
d. Committed in a public place or
within the public knowledge or
view. (The public view is not
required, it is sufficient if in public
place. For public knowledge, it may
occur even in a private place; the
number of people who sees it is not
material).
Grave scandal: consists of acts which are
offensive to decency and good customs.
They are committed publicly and thus, give
rise to public scandal to persons who have
accidentally witnessed the acts
The crime of grave scandal is a crime against
public morals. Necessarily, the offender must
commit the crime in a public place or within
the view of the public.
In grave scandal, the scandal involved refers
to moral scandal offensive to decency,
although it does not disturb public peace. But
such conduct or act must be open to the public
view.
In alarms and scandals, the scandal
involved refers to disturbances of the public
tranquility and not to acts offensive to
decency.
Decency: means properly observing the
requirements of modesty, good taste etc
Customs: refers to established usage,
social conventions carried on by tradition
and enforced by social disapproval in case
of violation
If the acts complained of are punishable
under another provision of the RPC, Art 200
is not applicable
Any act which is notoriously offensive to
decency may bring about criminal liability for
the crime of grave scandal provided such act
does not constitute some other crime under
the Revised Penal Code. Grave scandal is a
crime of last resort.

The essence of grave scandal is publicity
and that the acts committed are not only
contrary to morals and good customs but
must likewise be of such character as to
cause public scandal to those witnessing it.
Distinction should be made as to the place
where the offensive act was
committed, whether in the public place
or in a private place:
(1) In public place, the criminal liability
arises irrespective of whether the
immoral act is open to the public view.
In short public view is not required.
(2) When act offensive to decency is done
in a private place, public view or public
knowledge is required.
Public view does not require numerous
persons. Even if there was only one person
who witnessed the offensive act for as long as
the third person was not an intruder, grave
scandal is committed provided the act does
not fall under any other crime in the Revised
Penal Code.
Illustrations:
(1) A man and a woman enters a movie
house which is a public place and then
goes to the darkest part of the balcony
and while there the man started
performing acts of lasciviousness on the
woman.
If it is against the will of the woman, the
crime would be acts of lasciviousness.
But if there is mutuality, this constitutes
grave scandal. Public view is not
necessary so long as it is performed in a
public place.
(2) A man and a woman went to Luneta and
slept there. They covered themselves
their blanket and made the grass their
conjugal bed.
This is grave scandal.
(3) In a certain apartment, a lady tenant
had the habit of undressing in her room
without shutting the blinds. She does
this every night at about eight in the
evening. So that at this hour of the
night, you can expect people outside
gathered in front of her window looking
at her silhouette. She was charged of
grave scandal. Her defense was that
she was doing it in her own house.
It is no defense that she is doing it in
her private home. It is still open to the
public view.
Page 64 of 119
(4) In a particular building in Makati which
stands right next to the house of a
young lady who goes sunbathing in her
poolside. Every morning several men in
the upper floors would stick their heads
out to get a full view of said lady while
in her two-piece swimsuit. The lady was
then charged with grave scandal. Her
defense was that it is her own private
pool and it is those men looking down at
her who are malicious.
This is an act which even though done
in a private place is nonetheless open to
public view.
Article 201
IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS:
Persons liable:
a. Those who publicly expound or
proclaim doctrines that are
contrary to public morals
b. Authors of obscene literature,
published with their knowledge
in any form
c. Editors publishing such obscene
literature
d. Owners or operators of
establishments selling obscene
literature
e. Those who exhibit indecent or
immoral plays, scenes, acts or
shows ion theaters, fairs,
cinemas or any other place
f. Those who sell, distribute, or
exhibit prints, engraving,
sculptures or literature which
are offensive to morals
Morals: implies conformity to generally
accepted standards of goodness or
rightness in conduct or character
Test of obscenity: whether the matter
has a tendency to deprave or corrupt the
minds of those who are open to immoral
influences. A matter can also be considered
obscene if it shocks the ordinary and
common sense of men as indecency.
The test is objective. It is more on the effect
upon the viewer and not alone on the conduct
of the performer.
If the material has the tendency to deprave
and corrupt the mind of the viewer then the
same is obscene and where such obscenity is
made publicly, criminal liability arises.
 c. Persons tramping or wandering
The law is not concerned with the moral of one around the country or the
person. As long as the pornographic matter or streets with no visible means of
exhibition is made privately, there is no crime support
committed under the Revised Penal Code
because what is protected is the morality of d. Idle or dissolute persons lodging
the public in general. in houses of ill-fame

In committing this crime, there must be e. Ruffians or pimps and those who
publicity. It means the act or acts done must habitually associate with
come to the knowledge of third persons. prostitutes (may include even
the rich)
However, Art 201 enumerates what are
considered as obscene literature or f. Persons found loitering in
immoral or indecent plays, scenes or inhabited or uninhabited places
acts: belonging to others, without any
a. those w/c glorify criminals or condone lawful or justifiable reason
crimes provided the act does not fall
within any other article of the
b. those w/c serve no other purpose but to RPC
satisfy the market for violence, lust or
pornography
If fenced and with prohibition of Trespass to
c. those w/c offend against any race or entry
religion
If fenced and entered to hunt/fish Attempted
d. those w/c tend to abet the traffic in and
the use of prohibited drugs If not fenced and with no Vagrancy
prohibition of entry
e. those that are contrary to law, public
order, morals, good customs,
Who are considered prostitutes - refer
established policies, lawful orders,
to women who habitually indulge in sexual
decrees and edicts
intercourse or lascivious conduct for money
or profit (if a man indulges in the same
Mere nudity in paintings and pictures is not
conduct: vagrancy)
obscene
In law the mere indulging in lascivious conduct
Pictures w/ a slight degree of obscenity habitually because of money or gain would
having no artistic value and intended for amount to prostitution, even if there is no
commercial purposes fall within this article sexual intercourse. Virginity is not a defense.
Habituality is the controlling factor; it has to be
Publicity is an essential element more than one time.

Sexual indulgence is not in itself immoral if There cannot be prostitution by conspiracy.

done within the bounds of privacy and
performed normally. The moment the parties
carry their private rights and privileges to
public view, they expose themselves to public
scrutiny.
One who conspires with a woman in the
prostitution business like pimps, taxi drivers or
solicitors of clients are guilty of the crime
under Article 341 for white slavery.
TITLE SEVEN
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Article 202 Crimes committed by public officers

VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES:
1. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
Who are considered vagrants: (Art. 204);

a. Those who have no apparent 2. Judgment rendered through negligence

means of subsistence and who
have the physical ability to work
yet neglect to apply themselves 3.
to some useful calling
4.
b. Persons found loitering around
public and semi-public places
without visible means of support 5.
Page 65 of 119
(Art. 205);
Unjust interlocutory order (Art. 206);
Malicious delay in the administration of
justice (Art. 207);
Prosecution of offenses; negligence and
tolerance (Art. 208);
6. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or 31. Refusal to discharge elective office (Art.
solicitor Revelation of secrets (Art. 234);
209);
32. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235);
7. Direct bribery (Art. 210);
33. Anticipation of duties of a public office
8. Indirect bribery (Art. 211); (Art. 236);

9. Qualified bribery (Art. 211-A); 34. Prolonging performance of duties and

powers (Art. 237);
10. Corruption of public officials (Art. 212);
35. Abandonment of office or position (Art.
11. Frauds against the public treasury and 238);
similar offenses (Art. 213);
36. Usurpation of legislative powers (Art.
12. Other frauds (Art. 214); 239);

13. Prohibited transactions (Art. 215); 37. Usurpation of executive functions (Art.
240);
14. Possession of prohibited interest by a
public officer (Art. 216); 38. Usurpation of judicial functions (Art.
241);
15. Malversation of public funds or property
Presumption of malversation (Art. 217) 39. Disobeying request for disqualification
(Art. 242);
16. Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts (Art. 218); 40. Orders or requests by executive officers
to any judicial authority (Art. 243);
17. Failure of a responsible public officer to
render accounts before leaving the 41. Unlawful appointments (Art. 244); and
country (Art. 219);
42. Abuses against chastity (Art. 245).
18. Illegal use of public funds or property
(Art. 220);
The designation of the title is misleading.
19. Failure to make delivery of public funds Crimes under this title can be committed by
or property (Art. 221); public officers or a non-public officer, when the
latter become a conspirator with a public
20. Conniving with or consenting to evasion officer, or an accomplice, or accessory to the
(Art. 223); crime. The public officer has to be the
principal.
21. Evasion through negligence (Art. 224);
In some cases, it can even be committed by a
22. Escape of prisoner under the custody of private citizen alone such as in Article 275
a person not a public officer (Art. 225); (infidelity in the custody of a prisoner where
the offender is not a public officer) or in Article
23. Removal, concealment or destruction of 222 (malversation).
documents (Art. 226);

24. Officer breaking seal (Art. 227); Article 203

WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS:
25. Opening of closed documents (Art. 228); a. Takes part in the performance of
public functions in the
26. Revelation of secrets by an officer (Art. Government, or
229);
b. Performs public duties as an
27. Public officer revealing secrets of private employee, agent or subordinate
individual (Art. 230); official in the govt or any of its
branches
28. Open disobedience (Art. 231);
Notes:
29. Disobedience to order of superior officer a. Public officer must derive his
when said order was suspended by authority from:
inferior officer (Art. 232); 1. direct provision of law
2. popular election
30. Refusal of assistance (Art. 233);
Page 66 of 119
 3.appointment by competent
authority
In defining the term public officers, the law
makes the reference to the manner by which
he is appointed to public office. He thus
becomes a public officer because of his
appointment by competent authority or
because he is elected to public office.
b. Public officers: embraces every
public servant from the lowest to the
highest rank
Under Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act), the term public
officer is broader and more comprehensive
because it includes all persons whether an
official or an employee, temporary or not,
classified or not, contractual or otherwise. Any
person who receives compensation for
services rendered is a public officer.
c. A government laborer is not a public
officer. However, temporary
performance by a laborer of public
functions makes him a public officer
Crimes committed by public officers are
nothing but corruption in public
service.
Breach of oath of office partakes of three
forms:
d. Misfeasance: means improper
performance of an act which might
be properly be performed
e. Malfeasance: means performance
of an act which ought not to be done
f. Nonfeasance: means omission of
an act which ought to be done
Malfeasance Doing of an act which a public officer should not have
Misfeasance Improper doing of an act which a person might lawfully do
Nonfeasance Failure of an agent to perform hisArticle 205 for the principal
Article 204:
KNOWINGLY RENDERING AN UNJUST
JUDGMENT
ELEMENTS:
a. Offender is a judge
b. Renders a judgment in the case
submitted to him for judgment
c. Judgment is unjust
Page 67 of 119
d. Knowledge that the decision is
unjust
Notes:
a. Judgment: is a final consideration
and determination by a court of
competent jurisdiction of the issues
submitted to it in an action or
proceeding
The law requires that the judgment must be
written in the official language, personally and
directly prepared by the judge, and signed by
him. It must contain a clear and distinct
statement of facts proved or admitted by the
defendant and upon which the judgment is
based.
b. Unjust judgment: one which is
contrary to law, or not supported by
the evidence, or both
c. An unjust judgment may result
from:
1. error (with bad faith)
2. ill-will or revenge
3. bribery
d. There must be evidence that the
decision rendered is unjust. It is not
presumed
To be liable for the above crime, not only must
the judgment be proved to be unjust .it must
likewise be established to have been
knowingly rendered. There must be a
conscious and deliberate intent to do an
injustice. This usually occurs when the judge
entertains hatred, envy, revenge, or greed
against one of the parties.
e. Abuse of discretion or mere error of
judgment cannot likewise serve as
basis for rendering an unjust
judgment in the absence of proof or
even done
an allegation of bad faith
(motive or improper consideration).
undertaking
JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE
ELEMENTS:
a. Offender is a judge
b. Renders a judgment in a case
submitted to him for decision
c. Judgment is manifestly unjust
d. Due to inexcusable negligence
or ignorance
 Manifestly unjust judgment: one that is
so contrary to law that even a person
having meager knowledge of the law
cannot doubt the injustice
The unjust judgment is merely the result of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance of the
law. The ignorance may refer to substantive or
procedural law. There must be an apparent
and notorious manifestation of lack of logic
and false interpretation of the law. (Cortes
vs. Catral, 279 SCRA 1)
Article 206
UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a judge.
b. That he performs any of the
following acts:
1. knowingly renders unjust
interlocutory order or decree,
or
2. renders a manifestly unjust
interlocutory order or decree
through inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
Interlocutory order: one issued by the
court deciding a collateral or incidental
matter. It is not a final determination of the
issues of the action or proceeding
The crime of knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment, or knowingly issuing an unjust
interlocutory order, may be committed only by
a judge of a trial court and never of an
appellate court. The reason for this is that in
appellate court, not only one magistrate
renders or issues the interlocutory order. An
appellate court functions as a division and the
resolutions thereof are handed down only after
deliberations among the members of a division
so that it cannot be said that there is malice or
inexcusable negligence or ignorance in the
rendering of a judgment or order that is
supposedly unjust as held by the Supreme
Court in one administrative case.
Article 207
MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OR JUSTICE
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a judge.
b. That there is a proceeding in his
court.
c. That he delays the
administration of justice.
Page 68 of 119
d. That the delay is malicious, that
is, the delay is caused by the
judge with deliberate intent to
inflict damage on either party in
the case.
Mere delay without malice is not punishable
Malice must be proven. Malice is present
where the delay is sought to favor one party to
the prejudice of the other.
These have been interpreted by the Supreme
Court to refer only to judges of the trial court.
The Constitution provides that cases submitted
for decision before the Supreme Court must be
resolved within two years. Before the Court of
Appeals, such cases must be resolved within 1
year; and before the Regional Trial Court and
Metropolitan Trial Court, such cases must be
decided within a period of three months or
ninety days.
Article 208
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES;
NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
Acts Punished
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting
prosecution against violators of the law;
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of
offenses.
ELEMENTS OF DERELICTION OF DUTY
IN THE PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES:
a. 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.
b. That there is dereliction of the
duties of his office, that is,
knowing the commission of the
crime, he does not cause (a) the
prosecution of the criminal
(People vs. Rosales, G.R. no. 42648)
or (b) knowing that a crime is
about to be committed he
tolerates its commission (if
gift/promise is a consideration for his
conduct: direct bribery)
c. That the offender acts with
malice and deliberate intent to
favor the violator of the law.
PREVARICACION: negligence and
tolerance in the prosecution of an offense
A public officer engaged in the prosecution of
offenders shall maliciously tolerate the
commission of crimes or refrain from
prosecuting offenders or violators of the law.
This crime can only be committed by a public
officer whose official duty is to prosecute
offenders, that is, state prosecutors. Hence,
those officers who are not duty bound to
perform these obligations cannot commit this
crime in the strict sense.
There must be a duty on the part of the
public officer to prosecute or move for the
prosecution of the offender. Note however,
that a fiscal is under no compulsion to file
an information based upon a complaint if
he is not convinced that the evidence
before him does not warrant filing an
action in court
When a policeman tolerates the commission
of a crime or otherwise refrains from
apprehending the offender, such peace officer
cannot be prosecuted for this crime but they
can be prosecuted as:
(1) An accessory to the crime committed by
the principal in accordance with Article
19, paragraph 3; or
(2) He may become a fence if the crime
committed is robbery or theft, in which
case he violates the Anti-Fencing Law;
or
(3) He may be held liable for violating the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Illustration:
The offender was caught for white slavery.
The policeman allowed the offender to go free
for some consideration. The policeman does
not violate Article 208 but he becomes an
accessory to the crime of white slavery.
But in the crime of theft or robbery, where the
policeman shared in the loot and allowed the
offender to go free, he becomes a fence.
Therefore, he is considered an offender under
the Anti-Fencing Law.
However, in distant provinces or municipalities
where there are no municipal attorneys, the
local chief of police is the prosecuting officer.
If he is the one who tolerates the violations of
laws or otherwise allows offenders to escape,
he can be prosecuted under this article.
This is also true in the case of a barangay
chairman. They are supposed to prosecute
violators of laws within their jurisdiction. If
they do not do so, they can be prosecuted for
this crime.
Page 69 of 119
The crime must be proved first before an
officer can be convicted of dereliction of
duty
A public officer who harbors, conceals, or
assists in the escape of an offender, when it
is his duty to prosecute him is liable as
principal in the crime of dereliction of duty
in the prosecution of offenses. He is not an
accessory
Article not applicable to revenue officers
Relative to this crime under Article 208,
consider the crime of qualified bribery.
Among the amendments made by Republic Act
No. 7659 on the Revised Penal Code is a new
provision which reads as follows:
Article. 211-A. Qualified
Bribery If any public officer is
entrusted with law enforcement
and he refrains from arresting or
prosecuting an offender who has
committed a crime punishable by
Reclusion Perpetua and/or death
in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift, or present, he shall
suffer the penalty for the offense
which was not prosecuted.
If it is the public officer
who asks or demands such gift or
present, he shall suffer the
penalty of death.
Actually the crime is a kind of direct bribery
where the bribe, offer, promise, gift or present
has a consideration on the part of the public
officer, that is refraining from arresting or
prosecuting the offender in consideration for
such offer, promise, gift or present. In a way,
this new provision modifies Article 210 of the
Revised Penal Code on direct bribery.
However, the crime of qualified bribery may
be committed only by public officers
entrusted with enforcement whose official
duties authorize then to arrest or prosecute
offenders. Apparently, they are peace officers
and public prosecutors since the nonfeasance
refers to arresting or prosecuting. But this
crime arises only when the offender whom
such public officer refrains from arresting or
prosecuting, has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
death. If the crime were punishable by a
lower penalty, then such nonfeasance by the
public officer would amount to direct bribery,
not qualified bribery.
If the crime was qualified bribery, the
dereliction of the duty punished under Article
208 of the Revised Penal Code should be
absorbed because said article punishes the
public officer who maliciously refrains from
instituting prosecution for the punishment of
violators of the law or shall tolerate the
commission of offenses. The dereliction of
duty referred to is necessarily included in the
crime of qualified bribery.
On the other hand, if the crime was direct
bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code, the public officer involved should be
prosecuted also for the dereliction of duty,
which is a crime under Article 208 of the
Revised Penal Code, because the latter is not
absorbed by the crime of direct bribery. This is
because in direct bribery, where the public
officer agreed to perform an act constituting a
crime in connection with the performance of
his official duties, Article 210 expressly
provides that the liabilty thereunder shall be
in addition to the penalty corresponding to
the crime agreed upon, if the crime shall have
been committed.
Illustration:
A fiscal, for a sum of money, refrains from
prosecuting a person charged before him. If
the penalty for the crime involved is reclusion
perpetua, the fiscal commits qualified bribery.
If the crime is punishable by a penalty lower
than reclusion perpetua, the crime is direct
bribery.
In the latter situation, three crimes are
committed: direct bribery and dereliction of
duty on the part of the fiscal; and corruption of
a public officer by the giver.
Article 209
BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR
SOLICITOR
(NOT NECESSARILY A PUBLIC OFFICER
ALTHOUGH ALL LAWYERS ARE OFFICERS OF
THE COURT)
ACTS PUNISHED:
a. Causing damage to client
(prejudice is essential) either
1. by any malicious breach of
professional duty, or
2. by inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
b. Revealing any of the secrets of
his client learned by him in his
professional capacity (damage
not necessary)
c. Undertaking the defense of the
opposing party of the 1st client
and/or having received
confidential information from
the latter and without the
latters consent (damage not
necessary)
Page 70 of 119
Note: When the attorney acts with malicious
abuse of his employment or inexcusable
negligence or ignorance, there must be
damage to his client.
Under the rules on evidence, communications
made with prospective clients to a lawyer with
a view to engaging his professional services
are already privileged even though the client-
lawyer relationship did not eventually
materialize because the client cannot afford
the fee being asked by the lawyer. The lawyer
and his secretary or clerk cannot be examined
thereon.
That this communication with a prospective
client is considered privileged, implies that the
same is confidential. Therefore, if the lawyer
would reveal the same or otherwise accept a
case from the adverse party, he would already
be violating Article 209. Mere malicious
breach without damage is not violative of
Article 209; at most he will be liable
administratively as a lawyer, e.g., suspension
or disbarment under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Illustration:
B, who is involved in the crime of seduction
wanted A, an attorney at law, to handle his
case. A received confidential information from
B. However, B cannot pay the professional fee
of A. C, the offended party, came to A also
and the same was accepted.
A did not commit the crime under Article 209,
although the lawyers act may be considered
unethical. The client-lawyer relationship
between A and B was not yet established.
Therefore, there is no trust to violate because
B has not yet actually engaged the services of
the lawyer A. A is not bound to B. However, if
A would reveal the confidential matter learned
by him from B, then Article 209 is violated
because it is enough that such confidential
matters were communicated to him in his
professional capacity, or it was made to him
with a view to engaging his professional
services.
Here, matters that are considered confidential
must have been said to the lawyer with the
view of engaging his services. Otherwise, the
communication shall not be considered
privileged and no trust is violated.
Illustration:
A went to B, a lawyer/notary public, to have a
document notarized. A narrated to B the
detail of the criminal case. If B will disclose
what was narrated to him there is no betrayal
of trust since B is acting as a notary public and
not as a counsel. The lawyer must have
learned the confidential matter in his
professional capacity.
Several acts which would make a lawyer
criminally liable:
(1) Maliciously causing damage to his client
through a breach of his professional
duty. The breach of professional duty
must be malicious. If it is just
incidental, it would not give rise to
criminal liability, although it may be the
subject of administrative discipline;
(2) Through gross ignorance, causing
damage to the client;
(3) Inexcusable negligence;
(4) Revelation of secrets learned in his
professional capacity;
(5) Undertaking the defense of the opposite
party in a case without the consent of
the first client whose defense has
already been undertaken.
Note that only numbers 1, 2 and 3 must
approximate malice.
A lawyer who had already undertaken the case
of a client cannot later on shift to the opposing
party. This cannot be done.
Under the circumstances, it is necessary that
the confidential matters or information was
confided to the lawyer in the latters
professional capacity.
It is not the duty of the lawyer to give advice
on the commission of a future crime. It is,
therefore, not privileged in character. The
lawyer is not bound by the mandate of
privilege communication if he reports such
commission of a future crime. It is only
confidential information relating to crimes
already committed that are covered by the
crime of betrayal of trust if the lawyer should
undertake the case of opposing party or
otherwise divulge confidential information of a
client.
Under the law on evidence on privileged
communication, it is not only the lawyer who is
protected by the matter of privilege but also
the office staff like the secretary.
The nominal liability under this article may be
constituted either from breach of professional
duties in the handling of the case or it may
arise out of the confidential relation between
the lawyer and the client.
Breach of professional duty
Tardiness in the prosecution of the case for
which reason the case was dismissed for being
Page 71 of 119
non-prosecuted; or tardiness on the part of the
defense counsel leading to declaration of
default and adverse judgment.
Professional duties Lawyer must appear on
time. But the client must have suffered
damage due to the breach of professional duty.
Otherwise, the lawyer cannot be held liable.
If the prosecutor was tardy and the case was
dismissed as non-prosecuted, but he filed a
motion for reconsideration which was granted,
and the case was continued, the lawyer is not
liable, because the client did not suffer
damage.
If lawyer was neglectful in filing an answer,
and his client declared in default, and there
was an adverse judgment, the client suffered
damages. The lawyer is liable.
Breach of confidential relation
Revealing information obtained or taking
advantage thereof by accepting the
engagement with the adverse party. There is
no need to prove that the client suffered
damages. The mere breach of confidential
relation is punishable.
In a conjugal case, if the lawyer disclosed the
confidential information to other people, he
would be criminally liable even though the
client did not suffer any damage.
The client who was suing his wife disclosed
that he also committed acts of unfaithfulness.
The lawyer talked about this to a friend. He is,
thus, liable.
Article 210
DIRECT BRIBERY
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender be a public
officer within the scope of Art
203
b. That the offender accepts an
offer or promise or receives a
gift or present by himself or
through another
c. That such offer or promise be
accepted or gift/present
received by the public officer
(mere agreement consummates the
crime)
1. with a view to committing
some crime (delivery of
consideration is not necessary)
or
2. in consideration of an
execution of an act which
 does not constitute a crime,
but the act must be unjust
(delivery of consideration is
necessary), or
3. to refrain from doing
something which is his official
duty to do
d. That the act which the offender
agrees to perform or which he
executes be connected with the
performance of his official duties
Bribery refers to the act of the receiver and
the act of the giver is corruption of public
official.
For purposes of this article, temporary
performance of public functions is sufficient
to constitute a person a public officer.
A private person may commit this crime
only in the case in which custody of
prisoners is entrusted to him
Applicable also to assessors, arbitrators,
appraisal and claim commissioners, experts
or any other person performing public
duties
Cannot be frustrated, only attempted or
consummated.
Direct bribery may be committed only in the
attempted and consummated stages because,
in frustrated felony, the offender must have
performed all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence.
In direct bribery, it is possible only if the
corruptor concurs with the offender. Once
there is concurrence, the direct bribery is
already consummated. In short, the offender
could not have performed all the acts of
execution to produce the felony without
consummating the same.
Actually, you cannot have a giver unless there
is one who is willing to receive and there
cannot be a receiver unless there is one willing
to give. So this crime requires two to commit.
It cannot be said, therefore, that one has
performed all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence
but for reasons independent of the will, the
crime was not committed.
It is now settled, therefore, that the crime of
bribery and corruption of public officials
cannot be committed in the frustrated stage
because this requires two to commit and that
means a meeting of the minds.
Illustrations:
Page 72 of 119
(1) If the public official accepted the
corrupt consideration and turned it over
to his superior as evidence of the
corruption, the offense is attempted
corruption only and not frustrated. The
official did not agree to be corrupted.
If the public officer did not report the
same to his superior and actually
accepted it, he allowed himself to be
corrupted. The corruptor becomes
liable for consummated corruption of
public official. The public officer also
becomes equally liable for
consummated bribery.
(2) If a public official demanded something
from a taxpayer who pretended to
agree and use marked money with the
knowledge of the police, the crime of
the public official is attempted bribery.
The reason is that because the giver has
no intention to corrupt her and
therefore, he could not perform all the
acts of execution.
Be sure that what is involved is a crime
of bribery, not extortion. If it were
extortion, the crime is not bribery, but
robbery. The one who yielded to the
demand does not commit corruption of
a public officer because it was
involuntary.
Bribery exists when the gift is:
a. voluntarily offered by a private person
b. solicited by the public officer and
voluntarily delivered by the private
person
c. solicited by the public officer but the
private person delivers it out of fear of
the consequences should the public
officer perform his functions (here the
crime by giver is not corruption of public
officials due to involuntariness)
Actual receipt of the gift is not only if acts
constitutes a crime necessary. An accepted
offer or promise of a gift is sufficient.
However, if the offer is not accepted, only
the person offering the gift is liable for
attempted corruption of a public officer
The gift must have a value or capable of
pecuniary estimation. It could be in the
form of money, property or services
If the act required of the public officer
amounts to a crime and he commits it, he
shall be liable for the penalty corresponding
to the crime in addition to the penalty for
bribery

In direct bribery, consider whether the official
act, which the public officer agreed to
do, is a crime or not.
If it will amount to a crime, it is not
necessary that the corruptor should deliver
the consideration or the doing of the act. The
moment there is a meeting of the minds, even
without the delivery of the consideration, even
without the public officer performing the act
amounting to a crime, bribery is already
committed on the part of the public officer.
Corruption is already committed on the part of
the supposed giver. The reason is that the
agreement is a conspiracy involving the duty
of a public officer. The mere agreement is a
felony already.
If the public officer commits the act which
constitutes the crime, he, as well as the
corruptor shall be liable also for that other
crime.
Illustrations:
(1) If the corruptor offers a consideration to
a custodian of a public record to remove
certain files, the mere agreement,
without delivery of the consideration,
brings about the crime of direct bribery
and corruption of public official.
If the records were actually removed,
both the public officer and the corruptor
will in addition to the two felonies
above, will also be liable for the crime
committed, which is infidelity in the
custody of the public records for which
they shall be liable as principals; one as
principal by inducement, the other as
principal by direct participation.
(2) A party litigant approached the courts
stenographer and proposed the idea of
altering the transcript of stenographic
notes. The court stenographer agreed
and he demanded P 2,000.00.
Unknown to them, there were law
enforcers who already had a tip that the
court stenographer had been doing this
before. So they were waiting for the
chance to entrap him. They were
apprehended and they said they have
not done anything yet.
Under Article 210, the mere agreement
to commit the act, which amounts to a
crime, is already bribery. That
stenographer becomes liable already for
consummated crime of bribery and the
party who agreed to give that money is
already liable for consummated
corruption, even though not a single
centavo is delivered yet and even
Page 73 of 119
though the stenographer had not yet
made the alterations.
If he changed the transcript, another
crime is committed: falsification.
The same criterion will apply with respect to a
public officer who agrees to refrain from
performing his official duties. If the refraining
would give rise to a crime, such as refraining
to prosecute an offender, the mere agreement
to do so will consummate the bribery and the
corruption, even if no money was delivered to
him. If the refraining is not a crime, it would
only amount to bribery if the consideration be
delivered to him.
If it is not a crime, the consideration must
be delivered by the corruptor before a public
officer can be prosecuted for bribery. Mere
agreement, is not enough to constitute the
crime because the act to be done in the first
place is legitimate or in the performance of the
official duties of the public official.
Unless the public officer receives the
consideration for doing his official duty, there
is no bribery. It is necessary that there must
be delivery of monetary consideration. This is
so because in the second situation, the public
officer actually performed what he is supposed
to perform. It is just that he would not perform
what he is required by law to perform without
an added consideration from the public which
gives rise to the crime.
The idea of the law is that he is being paid
salary for being there. He is not supposed to
demand additional compensation from the
public before performing his public service.
The prohibition will apply only when the money
is delivered to him, or if he performs what he is
supposed to perform in anticipation of being
paid the money.
Here, the bribery will only arise when there is
already the acceptance of the consideration
because the act to be done is not a crime. So,
without the acceptance, the crime is not
committed.
The third type of bribery and prevaricacion
(art 208) are similar offenses, both
consisting of omissions to do an act
required to be performed. In direct bribery
however, a gift or promise is given in
consideration of the omission. This is not
necessary in prevaricacion
Distinction between direct bribery and
indirect bribery
Bribery is direct when a public officer is called
upon to perform or refrain from performing an
official act in exchange for the gift, present or
consideration given to him.
If he simply accepts a gift or present given to
him by reason of his public position, the crime
is indirect bribery. Bear in mind that the gift is
given "by reason of his office", not "in
consideration" thereof. So never use the term
consideration. The public officer in Indirect
bribery is not to perform any official act.
Note however that what may begin as an
indirect bribery may actually ripen into direct
bribery.
Illustration:
Without any understanding with the public
officer, a taxi operator gave an expensive
suiting material to a BLT registrar. Upon
receipt by the BLT registrar of his valuable
suiting material, he asked who the giver was.
He found out that he is a taxi operator. As far
as the giver is concerned, he is giving this by
reason of the office or position of the public
officer involved. It is just indirect bribery
If the BLT registrar calls up his subordinates
and said to take care of the taxis of the taxi
operator so much so that the registration of
the taxis is facilitated ahead of the others,
what originally would have been indirect
bribery becomes direct bribery.
Bribery (210) Robbery (294) bribery
When the victim has committed a When the victim did not commit a crime
crime and gives money/gift to and he is intimidated
avoid arrest or prosecution. prosecution to and deprive
personal property.the officer agrees to perform or refrain from
Victim parts with his money or Victim is deprived
property voluntarily. property by force promise.
Robbery should be distinguished from
Bribery where a law enforcer, say a policeman,
extorts money from a person, employing
intimidation and threatening to arrest the
latter if he will not come across with money
may be guilty of Robbery (Article 294, par. 5)
or Bribery (Article 210). If the victim actually
committed a crime, and the policeman
demanded money so he will not be arrested,
the crime is Bribery. But if no crime has been
committed and the policeman is falsely
charging him of having committed one,
threatening to arrest him if he will not come
across with some consideration, the crime is
Robbery.
Article 211
INDIRECT BRIBERY
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer.
b. That he accepts gifts.
c. That the said gifts are offered to
him by reason of his office.
Page 74 of 119
The gift is given in anticipation of future
favor from the public officer
Indirect bribery, the public officer receives or
accepts gifts, money or anything of value by
reason of his office. If there is only a promise
of a gift or money, no crime is committed
because of the language of the law which uses
the phrase shall accept gifts.
There must be clear intention on the part of
the public officer to take the gift offered
and consider the property as his own for
that moment. Mere physical receipt
unaccompanied by any other sign,
circumstance or act to show such
acceptance is not sufficient to convict the
officer
The Supreme Court has laid down the rule that
for indirect bribery to be committed, the public
officer must have performed an act of
appropriating of the gift for himself, his family
or employees. It is the act of appropriating
that signifies acceptance. Merely delivering
the gift to the public officer does not bring
about the crime. Otherwise it would be very
easy to remove a public officer: just deliver a
gift to him.
There is no attempted or frustrated indirect
with arrest
The principal and/or
distinction between direct
indirect bribery his
him of is that in the former,
doingofanhis
act money or
in consideration of the gift or
or intimidation.
In the latter case, it is not
necessary that the officer do any act. It is
sufficient that he accepts the gift offered by
reason of his office
Public officers receiving gifts and private
persons giving gifts on any occasion,
including Christmas are liable under PD 46.
The criminal penalty or imprisonment is
distinct from the administrative penalty of
suspension from the service
Article 211-A
QUALIFIED BRIBERY
ELEMENTS:
a. Public officer entrusted with law
enforcement
b. Refrains from
arresting/prosecuting offender
for crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua and/or death
(if lower penalty than stated above,
the crime is direct bribery)
 c. In consideration of any offer,
promise or gift
Note that the penalty is DEATH if the public
officer is the one who asks or demands such
present.
He need not receive the gift or present
because a mere offer or promise is sufficient.
Article 212
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender makes offers
or promises or gives gifts or
present to a public officer.
b. That the offers or promises are
made 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 offender is the giver of the gift or the
offeror of the promise. The act may or may
not be accomplished
Presidential Decree No. 46
Presidential Decree No. 46 prohibits giving and
acceptance of gifts by a public officer or to a
public officer, even during anniversary, or
when there is an occasion like Christmas, New
Year, or any gift-giving anniversary. The
Presidential Decree punishes both receiver and
giver.
The prohibition giving and receiving gifts given
by reason of official position, regardless of
whether or not the same is for past or future
favors.
The giving of parties by reason of the
promotion of a public official is considered a
crime even though it may call for a
celebration. The giving of a party is not
limited to the public officer only but also to any
member of his family.
Presidential Decree No. 749
The decree grants immunity from prosecution
to a private person or public officer who shall
voluntarily give information and testify in a
case of bribery or in a case involving a
violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
It provides immunity to the bribe-giver
provided he does two things:
Page 75 of 119
(1) He voluntarily discloses the transaction
he had with the public officer
constituting direct or indirect bribery, or
any other corrupt transaction;
(2) He must willingly testify against the
public officer involved in the case to be
filed against the latter.
Before the bribe-giver may be dropped from
the information, he has to be charged first
with the receiver. Before trial, prosecutor may
move for dropping bribe-giver from
information and be granted immunity. But
first, five conditions have to be met:
(1) Information must refer to consummated
bribery;
(2) Information is necessary for the proper
conviction of the public officer involved;
(3) That the information or testimony to be
given is not yet in the possession of the
government or known to the
government;
(4) That the information can be
corroborated in its material points;
(5) That the informant has not been
convicted previously for any crime
involving moral turpitude.
These conditions are analogous to the
conditions under the State Witness Rule under
Criminal Procedure.
The immunity granted the bribe-giver is
limited only to the illegal transaction where
the informant gave voluntarily the testimony.
If there were other transactions where the
informant also participated, he is not immune
from prosecution. The immunity in one
transaction does not extend to other
transactions.
The immunity attaches only if the information
given turns out to be true and correct. If the
same is false, the public officer may even file
criminal and civil actions against the informant
for perjury and the immunity under the decree
will not protect him.
Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder)
Plunder is a crime defined and penalized under
Republic Act No. 7080, which became effective
in 1991. This crime somehow modified certain
crimes in the Revised Penal Code insofar as
the overt acts by which a public officer
amasses, acquires, or accumulates ill-gotten
wealth are felonies under the Revised Penal
Code like bribery (Articles 210, 211, 211-A),
fraud against the public treasury [Article 213],
other frauds (Article 214), malversation (Article
217), when the ill-gotten wealth amounts to a
total value of P50,000,000.00. The amount
was reduced from P75,000,000.00 by Republic
Act No. 7659 and the penalty was changed
from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua
to death.
Short of the amount, plunder does not arise.
Any amount less than P50,000,000.00 is a
violation of the Revised Penal Code or the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Under the law on plunder, the prescriptive
period is 20 years commencing from the time
of the last overt act.
Plunder is committed through a combination
or series of overt acts:
(1) Through misappropriation, conversion,
misuse, or malversation of public funds
or raids on the public treasury;
(2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share, percentage,
kickbacks or any other form of
pecuniary benefit from any person
and/or entity in connection with any
government contract or project by
reason of the office or position of the
public officer;
(3) By illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of asset belonging to the
national government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or government-owned
or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries;
(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
future employment in any business or
undertaking;
(5) By establishing agricultural, industrial,
or commercial monopolies or other
combinations and/or implementations of
decrees and orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special interests;
or
(6) By taking undue advantage of official
position, authority, relationship,
connection or influence to unjustly
enrich himself or themselves at the
expense and to the damage and
prejudice of the Filipino people, and the
Republic of the Philippines.
While the crime appears to be malum
prohibitum, Republic Act No. 7080 provides
that in the imposition of penalties, the degree
of participation and the attendance of
Page 76 of 119
mitigating and aggravating circumstances
shall be considered by the court.
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT
RA 3019
Persons Liable:
a. Any public officer who shall perform any of
the following acts:
1. Persuading, inducing or influencing
another public officer to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by
competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duties of the
latter, or allowing himself to be
persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commit such violation or offense.
2. Directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit for himself or for
any other person in connection with any
contract or transaction between the
government and any other party
wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law.
3. Directly, or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present, or other
pecuniary or material benefit, for
himself or for another, from any person
for whom the public officer, in any
manner of capacity, has secured or
obtained, or will secure or obtain, any
Government permit or license, in
consideration for the held given or to be
given.
4. Accepting or having any member of his
family accept employment in a private
enterprise which has pending official
business with him during the pendency
thereof or within one year after its
termination.
5. 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 function through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of
offices or government corporations
 charged with the grant of licenses or
permits or other concessions.
6. Neglecting or refusing, after due
demand or request, without sufficient
justification, to act within a reasonable
time on any matter pending before him
for the purpose of obtaining directly or
indirectly, from any person interested in
the matter some pecuniary or material
benefit or advantage, or for the purpose
of favoring his own interest of giving
undue advantage in favor of or
discriminating against any other
interested party.
7. Entering, on behalf of the Government,
into any contract or transaction
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the same, whether or not the public
officer profited or will profit thereby.
8. Directly or indirectly having financial or
pecuniary interest in any business,
contract or transaction in connection
with which he intervenes or take part in
his official capacity, or in which he is
prohibited by the constitution or by any
law from having any interest.
9. Directly or indirectly becoming
interested, for personal gain, or having a
material interest in any transaction or
act requiring the approval of a board,
panel, or group of which he is a
member, and which exercises discretion
in such approval, even if he votes
against the same or does not participate
in the action of the board, committee,
panel or group.
10.Knowingly approving or granting any
license, permit, privilege, or benefit in
favor of any person not qualified for or
not legally entitled to such license,
permit, privilege, or advantage, or of a
mere representative or dummy of one
who is not so qualified or entitled.
11.Divulging valuable information of a
confidential character, acquired by his
office or by him on account of his official
position to unauthorized persons, or
releasing such information in advance of
its authorized release date.
b. Any person having family or close personal
relation with any public official who shall
capitalize or exploit or take advantage of
such family or close personal relation by
directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any present, gift, or material, or pecuniary
advantage from any person having some
business, transaction, application, request,
or contact with the government in which
such public official has to intervene (Sec. 4)
Page 77 of 119
c. Any person who shall knowingly induce or
cause any public official to commit any of
the offenses under (A). (Sec. 4)
d. Spouse or any relative, by consanguinity or
affinity, within the 3rd civil degree, of the
president of the Philippines, the vice-
president, the president of the Senate, or
speaker of the house of Representatives,
who shall intervene, directly or indirectly, in
any business transaction, contract or
application with the govt (Sec. 5).
This prohibition shall not apply to:
1. Any person who, prior to the
assumption of office of any of the
above officials to whom he is related,
has been already dealing with the
govt along the same line of
business;
2. Any transaction, contract or
application already existing or
pending at the time of such
assumption of public office;
3. Any application filed by him, the
approval of which is not discretionary
on the part of the official(s)
concerned but depends upon
compliance with requisites provided
by law, or rules or regulations issued
pursuant to law;
4. Any act lawfully performed an official
capacity or in the exercise of a
profession.
e. Any member of congress, during the
term for which he has been elected,
who shall acquire or receive any
personal pecuniary interest in any
specific business enterprise which
shall be directly and particularly
favored or benefited by any law or
resolution authored by him
previously approved or adopted by
Congress during his term.
f. Any public officer who shall fail to file
a true, detailed and sworn statement
of assets and liabilities within 30
days after assuming office and
thereafter on or before the 15th day
of April following the close of every
calendar year, as well as upon the
expiration of his term of office, or
upon his resignation or separation
from office (Sec. 7).
III. Prima Facie Evidence of and
Dismissal due to unexplained
Wealth (Sec. 8)
If a public official has been found to have
acquired during his incumbency, whether in
his name or in the name of other persons,
 an amount of property and/or money
manifestly out of proportion to his salary
and to his other lawful income.
Properties in the name of the spouse and
dependents of such public official may be
taken into consideration, when their
acquisition through legitimate means
cannot be satisfactorily shown.
Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly
excessive expenditures incurred by the
public official, his spouse or any of their
dependents including but not limited to
activities in any club or association or any
ostentatious display of wealth including
frequent travel abroad of a non-official
character by any public official when such
activities entail expenses evidently out of
proportion to legitimate income.
III. Competent court: All prosecutions under
this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction
of the
Sandiganbayan (Sec. 10).
In case none of the principal accused are
occupying positions corresponding to salary
grade 27 or higher; PNP officers occupying the
rank of superintendent or higher of their
equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction over the case
shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial
Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Municipal
Circuit Trial Court as the case may be. The
decision of the court in these cases shall be
appealable to the Sandiganbayan which
exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
them.
IV. Prescription of offenses: all offenses
punishable under this Act shall prescribe in 15
years (Sec. 11).
V. Exceptions: Unsolicited gifts or presents of
small or insignificant value offered or given as
a mere ordinary token of gratitude of
friendship according to local customs or usage,
shall be excepted from the provisions of this
act (Sec. 14).
Once the case is filed with the Sandiganbayan,
by express provision of the law, it becomes
incumbent upon the court to place under
preventive suspension the public officer who
stands accused before it. However, before the
order of suspension is issued, it is necessary
that a pre-suspension hearing be held by the
court wherein the accused is afforded the
opportunity to challenge the validity of the
information filed against him. Such right of the
accused to challenge the validity of the
information covers (a) the right to challenge
the sufficiency of the recitals of the
information vis--vis the essential elements of
the offense as defined by substantive law; (b)
the right to challenge the validity of the
Page 78 of 119
criminal proceedings leading to the filing of the
information, i.e., that he has not been afforded
the right of due preliminary investigation, or
that the acts for which he stands charged do
not constitute a violation of the provisions of
R.A. No. 3019, which would warrant his
mandatory suspension from office under
Section 13 of this Act; and (c) the right to raise
the issue that the information can be quashed
under any of the grounds provided in Section
2, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (People vs.
Albano, 163 SCRA 511).
Once the information is found to be sufficient
in form and substance, the court must issue
the suspension order as a matter of course
and there are no ifs and buts about it (Bayot
vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., 128 SCRA
383).
Preventive suspension is resorted to in order to
prevent the accused from using his office to
intimidate witnesses or frustrate his
prosecution or continue committing
malfeasance in office because the presumption
is that unless the accused is suspended, he
may frustrate his prosecution to commit
further acts of malfeasance or both (Bayot
vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., supra).
When the administrative case against the
officer or employee under preventive
suspension is not finally disposed of by the
disciplining authority within the period of
ninety (90) days after the date of suspension
of the respondent who is not a presidential
appointee, the respondent shall be
automatically reinstated in the service:
Provided, That when the delay in the
disposition of the case is due to the fault,
negligence or petition of the respondent, the
period of delay shall not be counted in
computing the period of suspension herein
provided.(Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan)
ORTEGA NOTES:
The mere act of a public officer demanding an
amount from a taxpayer to whom he is to
render public service does not amount to
bribery, but will amount to a violation of the
Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Illustration:
A court secretary received P500 .00 from a
litigant to set a motion for an early hearing.
This is direct bribery even if the act to be
performed is within his official duty so long as
he received a consideration therefor.
If the secretary persuaded the judge to make a
favorable resolution, even if the judge did not
do so, this constitutes a violation of Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Sub-Section A.
Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
particularly Section 3, there are several acts
defined as corrupt practices. Some of them
are mere repetitions of the act already
penalized under the Revised Penal Code, like
prohibited transactions under Article 215 and
216. In such a case, the act or omission
remains to be mala in se.
But there are acts penalized under the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which are not
penalized under the Revised Penal Code.
Those acts may be considered as mala
prohibita. Therefore, good faith is not a
defense.
Illustration:
CATCH ALL PROVISION
Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act causing undue injury to the
government or a private party by giving
unwarranted benefit to the party whom does
not deserve the same.
In this case, good faith is not a defense
because it is in the nature of a malum
prohibitum. Criminal intent on the part of the
offender is not required. It is enough that he
performed the prohibited act voluntarily. Even
though the prohibited act may have benefited
the government. The crime is still committed
because the law is not after the effect of the
act as long as the act is prohibited.
Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act where a public officer entered
into a contract for the government which is
manifestly disadvantageous to the
government even if he did not profit from the
transaction, a violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act is committed.
If a public officer, with his office and a private
enterprise had a transaction and he allows a
relative or member of his family to accept
employment in that enterprise, good faith is
not a defense because it is a malum
prohibitum. It is enough that that the act was
performed.
Where the public officer is a member of the
board, panel or group who is to act on an
application of a contract and the act involved
one of discretion, any public officer who is a
member of that board, panel or group, even
though he voted against the approval of the
application, as long as he has an interest in
that business enterprise whose application is
pending before that board, panel or group, the
public officer concerned shall be liable for
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. His only course of action to avoid
prosecution under the Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act is to sell his interest in the
enterprise which has filed an application
before that board, panel or group where he is a
Page 79 of 119
member. Or otherwise, he should resign from
his public position.
Illustration:
Sen. Dominador Aytono had an interest in the
Iligan Steel Mills, which at that time was being
subject of an investigation by the Senate
Committee of which he was a chairman. He
was threatened with prosecution under
Republic Act No. 3019 so he was compelled to
sell all his interest in that steel mill; there is no
defense. Because the law says so, even if he
voted against it, he commits a violation
thereof.
These cases are filed with the Ombudsman
and not with the regular prosecutors office.
Jurisdiction is exclusively with the
Sandiganbayan. The accused public officer
must be suspended when the case is already
filed with the Sandiganbayan.
Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
the public officer who is accused should not be
automatically suspended upon the filing of the
information in court. It is the court which will
order the suspension of the public officer and
not the superior of that public officer. As long
as the court has not ordered the suspension of
the public officer involved, the superior of that
public officer is not authorized to order the
suspension simply because of the violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
court will not order the suspension of the
public officer without first passing upon the
validity of the information filed in court.
Without a hearing, the suspension would be
null and void for being violative of due
process.
Illustration:
A public officer was assigned to direct traffic in
a very busy corner. While there, he caught a
thief in the act of lifting the wallet of a
pedestrian. As he could not leave his post, he
summoned a civilian to deliver the thief to the
precinct. The civilian agreed so he left with the
thief. When they were beyond the view of the
policeman, the civilian allowed the thief to go
home. What would be the liability of the public
officer?
The liability of the traffic policeman would be
merely administrative. The civilian has no
liability at all.
Firstly, the offender is not yet a prisoner so
there is no accountability yet. The term
prisoner refers to one who is already booked
and incarcerated no matter how short the time
may be.
The policeman could not be said as having
assisted the escape of the offender because as
the problem says, he is assigned to direct
traffic in a busy corner street. So he cannot be
considered as falling under the third 3rd
paragraph of Article 19 that would constitute
his as an accessory.
The same is true with the civilian because the
crime committed by the offender, which is
snatching or a kind of robbery or theft as the
case may be, is not one of those crimes
mentioned under the third paragraph of Article
19 of the Revised Penal Code.
Where the public officer is still incumbent, the
prosecution shall be with the Ombudsman.
Where the respondent is separated from
service and the period has not yet prescribed,
the information shall be filed in any
prosecutions office in the city where the
respondent resides. The prosecution shall file
the case in the Regional Trial Court unless the
violation carries a penalty higher than prision
correccional, in which case the Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction.
The fact that the government benefited out of
the prohibited act is no defense at all, the
violation being mala prohibita.
Section 3 (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act where the public officer
neglects or refuses to act on a matter pending
before him for the purpose of obtaining any
pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in
favor of or discriminating against another
interested party.
The law itself additionally requires that the
accuseds dereliction, besides being without
justification, must be for the purpose of
obtaining from any person interested in the
matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
for the purpose of favoring any interested
party, or discriminating against another
interested party. This element is
indispensable.
In other words, the neglect or refusal to act
must motivated by gain or benefit, or
purposely to favor the other interested party
as held in Coronado v. SB, decided on August
18, 1993.
Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of Ill-
gotten Wealth)
Correlate with RA 1379 -- properly under
Remedial Law. This provides the procedure for
forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth in violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
proceedings are civil and not criminal in
nature.
Any taxpayer having knowledge that a public
officer has amassed wealth out of proportion
to this legitimate income may file a complaint
with the prosecutors office of the place where
the public officer resides or holds office. The
Page 80 of 119
prosecutor conducts a preliminary
investigation just like in a criminal case and he
will forward his findings to the office of the
Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will
determine whether there is reasonable ground
to believe that the respondent has
accumulated an unexplained wealth.
If the Solicitor General finds probable cause,
he would file a petition requesting the court to
issue a writ commanding the respondent to
show cause why the ill-gotten wealth
described in the petition should not be
forfeited in favor of the government. This is
covered by the Rules on Civil Procedure. The
respondent is given 15 days to answer the
petition. Thereafter trial would proceed.
Judgment is rendered and appeal is just like in
a civil case. Remember that this is not a
criminal proceeding. The basic difference is
that the preliminary investigation is conducted
by the prosecutor.
FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND
TRANSACTIONS
Article 213
FRAUDS AGAINST PUBLIC TREASURY
ELEMENTS: (par. 1)
a. That the offender be a public
officer.
b. That he should have taken
advantage of his office, that is,
he intervened in the transaction
in his official capacity.
c. That he entered into an
agreement with any interested
party or speculator or made use
of any other scheme with regard
to (a) furnishing supplies (b) the
making of contracts, or (c) the
adjustment or settlement of
account relating to a public
property or funds.
d. That the accused had intent to
defraud the government.
Notes:
a. The public officer must act in his
official capacity
b. The felony is consummated by
merely entering into an agreement
with any interested party or
speculator or by merely making use
of any scheme to defraud the
Government
The essence of this crime is making the
government pay for something not received or
making it pay more than what is due. It is also
committed by refunding more than the
amount which should properly be refunded.
This occurs usually in cases where a public
officer whose official duty is to procure
supplies for the government or enter into
contract for government transactions,
connives with the said supplier with the
intention to defraud the government. Also
when certain supplies for the government are
purchased for the high price but its quantity or
quality is low.
Not all frauds will constitute this crime. There
must be no fixed allocation or amount on the
matter acted upon by the public officer.
The allocation or outlay was made the basis of
fraudulent quotations made by the public
officer involved.
For example, there was a need to put some
additional lighting along a street and no one
knows how much it will cost. An officer was
asked to canvass the cost but he connived
with the seller of light bulbs, pricing each light
bulb at P550.00 instead of the actual price of
P500.00. This is a case of fraud against public
treasury.
If there is a fixed outlay of P20,000.00 for the
lighting apparatus needed and the public
officer connived with the seller so that
although allocation was made a lesser number
was asked to be delivered, or of an inferior
quality, or secondhand. In this case there is
no fraud against the public treasury because
there is a fixed allocation. The fraud is in the
implementation of procurement. That would
constitute the crime of other fraud in Article
214, which is in the nature of swindling or
estafa.
Be sure to determine whether fraud is against
public treasury or one under Article 214.
ILLEGAL EXACTIONS (par 2)
ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is a public officer
entrusted with the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees and other
imposts.
b. 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
Page 81 of 119
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.
Notes:
This can only be committed principally by a
public officer whose official duty is to collect
taxes, license fees, import duties and other
dues payable to the government.
Not any public officer can commit this crime.
Otherwise, it is estafa. Fixers cannot commit
this crime unless he conspires with the public
officer authorized to make the collection.
The essence of the crime is not
misappropriation of any of the amounts but
the improper making of the collection which
would prejudice the accounting of collected
amounts by the government.
a. Mere demand of a larger or different
amount is sufficient to consummate
the crime. The essence is the
improper collection (damage to govt
is not required)
On the first form of illegal exaction
In this form, mere demand will consummate
the crime, even if the taxpayer shall refuse to
come across with the amount being
demanded. That will not affect the
consummation of the crime.
In the demand, it is not necessary that the
amount being demanded is bigger than what is
payable to the government. The amount being
demanded maybe less than the amount due
the government.
b. If sums are received without
demanding the same, a felony under
this article is not committed.
However, if the sum is given as a
sort of gift or gratification, the crime
is indirect bribery
c. When there is deceit in demanding
larger fees, the crime committed is
estafa
d. May be complexed with malversation
Note that this is often committed with
malversation or estafa because when a public
officer shall demand an amount different from
what the law provides, it can be expected that
such public officer will not turn over his
collection to the government.
Illustrations:
(1) A taxpayer goes to the local municipal
treasurer to pay real estate taxes on his
land. Actually, what is due the
government is P400.00 only but the
municipal treasurer demanded P500.00.
By that demand alone, the crime of
illegal exaction is already committed
even though the taxpayer does not pay
the P500.00.
(2) Suppose the taxpayer came across with
P500.00. But the municipal treasurer,
thinking that he would abstract the
P100.00, issued a receipt for only
P400.00. The taxpayer would naturally
ask the municipal treasurer why the
receipt was only for P400.00. The
treasurer answered that the P100.00 is
supposed to be for documentary
stamps. The taxpayer left.
He has a receipt for P400.00. The
municipal treasurer turned over to the
government coffers P400.00 because
that is due the government and
pocketed the P100.00.
The mere fact that there was a demand
for an amount different from what is due
the government, the public officer
already committed the crime of illegal
exaction.
On the P100.00 which the public officer
pocketed, will it be malversation or
estafa?
In the example given, the public officer
did not include in the official receipt the
P100.00 and, therefore, it did not
become part of the public funds. It
remained to be private. It is the
taxpayer who has been defrauded of his
P100.00 because he can never claim a
refund from the government for excess
payment since the receipt issued to him
was only P400.00 which is due the
government. As far as the P100.00 is
concerned, the crime committed is
estafa.
(3) A taxpayer pays his taxes. What is due
the government is P400.00 and the
public officer issues a receipt for
P500.00 upon payment of the taxpayer
of said amount demanded by the public
officer involved. But he altered the
duplicate to reflect only P400.00 and he
extracted the difference of P100.00.
In this case, the entire P500.00 was
covered by an official receipt. That act
Page 82 of 119
of covering the whole amount received
from the taxpayer in an official receipt
will have the characteristics of
becoming a part of the public funds.
The crimes committed, therefore, are
the following:
(a) Illegal exaction for collecting
more than he is authorized to
collect. The mere act of
demanding is enough to
constitute this crime.
(b) Falsification because there was
an alteration of official document
which is the duplicate of the
official receipt to show an amount
less than the actual amount
collected.
(c) Malversation because of his act
of misappropriating the P100.00
excess which was covered by an
official receipt already, even
though not payable to the
government. The entire P500.00
was covered by the receipt,
therefore, the whole amount
became public funds. So when he
appropriated the P100 for his own
benefit, he was not extracting
private funds anymore but public
funds.
Should the falsification be complexed
with the malversation?
As far as the crime of illegal exaction is
concerned, it will be the subject of
separate accusation because there, the
mere demand regardless of whether the
taxpayer will pay or not, will already
consummate the crime of illegal
exaction. It is the breach of trust by a
public officer entrusted to make the
collection which is penalized under such
article. The falsification or alteration
made on the duplicate can not be said
as a means to commit malversation. At
most, the duplicate was altered in order
to conceal the malversation. So it
cannot be complexed with the
malversation.
It cannot also be said that the
falsification is a necessary means to
commit the malversation because the
public officer can misappropriate the
P100.00 without any falsification. All
that he has to do is to get the excess of
P100.00 and misappropriate it. So the
falsification is a separate accusation.
However, illegal exaction may be
complexed with malversation because
illegal exaction is a necessary means to
 be able to collect the P100.00 excess
which was malversed.
In this crime, pay attention to whether
the offender is the one charged with the
collection of the tax, license or impost
subject of the misappropriation. If he is
not the one authorized by disposition to
do the collection, the crime of illegal
exaction is not committed.
If it did not give rise to the crime of
illegal exaction, the funds collected may
not have become part of the public
funds. If it had not become part of the
public funds, or had not become
impressed with being part of the public
funds, it cannot be the subject of
malversation. It will give rise to estafa
or theft as the case may be.
(3) The Municipal Treasurer demanded
P500.00 when only P400.00 was due.
He issued the receipt at P400.00 and
explained to taxpayer that the P100 was
for documentary stamps. The Municipal
Treasurer placed the entire P500.00 in
the vault of the office. When he needed
money, he took the P100.00 and spent
it.
The following crimes were committed:
(a) Illegal exaction for demanding a
different amount;
(b) Estafa for deceiving the
taxpayer; and
(c) Malversation for getting the
P100.00 from the vault.
Although the excess P100.00 was not
covered by the Official Receipt, it was
commingled with the other public funds
in the vault; hence, it became part of
public funds and subsequent extraction
thereof constitutes malversation.
Note that numbers 1 and 2 are complexed as
illegal exaction with estafa, while in number 3,
malversation is a distinct offense.
The issuance of the Official Receipt is the
operative fact to convert the payment into
public funds. The payor may demand a refund
by virtue of the Official Receipt.
In cases where the payor decides to let the
official to keep the change, if the latter
should pocket the excess, he shall be liable for
malversation. The official has no right but the
government, under the principle of accretion,
as the owner of the bigger amount becomes
the owner of the whole.
Page 83 of 119
On the second form of illegal exaction
The act of receiving payment due the
government without issuing a receipt will give
rise to illegal exaction even though a
provisional receipt has been issued. What the
law requires is a receipt in the form prescribed
by law, which means official receipt.
Illustration:
If a government cashier or officer to whom
payment is made issued a receipt in his own
private form, which he calls provisional, even
though he has no intention of misappropriating
the amount received by him, the mere fact
that he issued a receipt not in the form
prescribed by law, the crime of illegal exaction
is committed. There must be voluntary failure
to issue the Official Receipt.
On the third form of illegal exaction
Under the rules and regulations of the
government, payment of checks not belonging
to the taxpayer, but that of checks of other
persons, should not be accepted to settle the
obligation of that person.
Illustration:
A taxpayer pays his obligation with a check not
his own but pertaining to another. Because of
that, the check bounced later on.
The crime committed is illegal exaction
because the payment by check is not allowed
if the check does not pertain to the taxpayer
himself, unless the check is a managers check
or a certified check, amended already as of
1990. (See the case of Roman Catholic.)
Under Article 213, if any of these acts
penalized as illegal exaction is committed by
those employed in the Bureau of Customs or
Bureau of Internal Revenue, the law that will
apply to them will be the Revised
Administrative Code or the Tariff and Customs
Code or National Revenue Code.
This crime does not require damage to the
government.
Officers and employees of the BIR or
Customs are not covered by the article.
The NIRC or Administrative Code is
the applicable law
These officers are authorized to make
impositions and to enter into compromises.
Because of this discretion, their demanding or
collecting different from what is necessary is
legal
Article 214
OTHER FRAUDS
 distribution or adjudication of which
ELEMENTS: they had acted.
a. That the offender is a public
officer. c. Guardians and executors with
respect to property belonging to
b. That he takes advantage of his their wards or the estate.
official position. Notes:
a. Actual fraud is not necessary.
c. That he commits any of the
frauds or deceits enumerated in b. Act is punished because of the
art. 315 to 318. (estafa; swindling) possibility that fraud may be
committed or that the officer may
Note: RTC has jurisdiction over the offense place his own interest above that of
because the principal penalty is the Government or party which he
disqualification represents

The mere violation of the prohibition is already

Article 215 punished even if no actual fraud occurs
PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS because of the possibility that fraud may be
committed or that the officer may place his
ELEMENTS: own interest above that of the government or
a. That the offender is an party he represents. (U. S. vs. Udarbe, 28
appointive public officer. Phil. 383)

b. That he becomes interested,

directly or indirectly, in any
transaction of exchange or
speculation. Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution

c. That the transaction takes place No Senator or Member of the House of

within the territory subject to Representatives may personally appear as
his jurisdiction. counsel before any court of justice or before
the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and
d. That he becomes interested in other administrative bodies. Neither shall he,
the transaction during his directly or indirectly, be interested financially
incumbency. in any contract with, or in any franchise or
special privilege granted by the Government
Notes: or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including any government-owned or
a. Examples of transactions of
controlled corporation or its subsidiary, during
exchange or speculation are:
his term of office. He shall not intervene in
buying and selling stocks,
any matter before any office of the
commodities, land etc wherein one
government for his pecuniary benefit or where
hopes to take advantage of an
he may be called upon to act on account of his
expected rise or fall in price
office.
b. Purchasing of stocks or shares in a
company is simple investment and
Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution
not a violation of the article.
However, regularly buying securities
The President, Vice-President, the
for resale is speculation
Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or
assistant shall not, unless otherwise provided
in this Constitution, hold any other office or
Article 216
employment during their tenure. They shall
POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTERESTS
not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,
BY A PUBLIC OFFICER
practice any other profession, participate in
any business, or be financially interested in
Who are liable:
any contract with, or in any franchise, or
a. Public officer in any contract or
special privilege granted by the Government
business in which it is his official duty
or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
to intervene.
thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
b. Experts, arbitrators and private
They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in
accountants in any contract or
the conduct of their office.
transaction connected with the
estate or property in the approval,
Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution
Page 84 of 119

No member of a Constitutional
Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any
office or employment. Neither shall he engage
in the practice of any profession or in the
active management or control of any business
which in any way may be affected by the
functions of his office, nor shall he be
financially interested, directly or indirectly, in
any contract with, or in any franchise or
privilege granted by the government, or any of
its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY
Article 217
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY
ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTS
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY :
a. That the offender be a public
officer (or private person if
entrusted with public funds or
connived with public officers)
b. That he had the custody or
control of funds or property (if
not accountable for the funds, theft
or qualified theft)
c. That those funds or property
were public funds or property
(even if private funds if attached,
seized, deposited or commingled
with public funds)
d. That he:
1. Appropriated the funds or
property
2. Took or misappropriated them
3. Consented or, through
abandonment or negligence,
permitted any other person
to take such public funds or
property. (it is not necessary
that the offender profited
thereby. His being remiss in the
duty of safekeeping public funds
violates the trust reposed)
Concept of Malversation
It consists in the misappropriation or
conversion of public funds or property to ones
personal use or knowingly, or through
abandonment or negligence allowing other to
use or appropriate the same. The offender is
made liable because of the nature of his duties
to take care of the funds or property entrusted
Page 85 of 119
to him with the diligence of a good father of a
family. He is accountable by virtue of the
nature of his office to account for funds or
properties that come to his possession. If he is
not accountable for the funds or properties
and he misappropriates the same, the crime
will not be malversation but estafa under
Article 315.
Malversation is otherwise called
embezzlement
This crime is predicated on the relationship of
the offender to the property or funds involved.
The offender must be accountable for the
property misappropriated. If the fund or
property, though public in character is the
responsibility of another officer, malversation
is not committed unless there is conspiracy.
In determining whether the offender is liable
for malversation, it is the nature of the duties
of the public officer that controls. While the
name of the office is important, what is
controlling is whether in performing his duties
as a public officer, he has to account or is
required by the nature of the performance of a
duty, to render an account on the money or
property that came into his possession.
It is not necessary that the offender profited
because somebody else may have
misappropriated the funds in question for as
long as the accountable officer was remiss in
his duty of safekeeping public funds or
property. He is liable for malversation if such
funds were lost or otherwise misappropriated
by another.
It can be committed either with malice or
through negligence or imprudence
There is no crime of malversation
through negligence. The crime is
malversation, plain and simple, whether
committed through dolo or culpa. There is no
crime of malversation under Article 365 on
criminal negligence because in malversation
under Article 217, the same penalty is
imposed whether the malversation results
from negligence or was the product of
deliberate act.
In determining whether the offender is a
public officer, what is controlling is the
nature of his office and not the designation
The offender, to commit malversation, must be
accountable for the funds or property
misappropriated by him. If he is not the one
accountable but somebody else, the crime
committed is theft. It will be qualified theft if
there is abuse of confidence.
Accountable officer does not refer only to
cashier, disbursing officers or property
custodian. Any public officer having custody
of public funds or property for which he is
accountable can commit the crime of
malversation if he would misappropriate such
fund or property or allow others to do so.
The funds or property must be received in
an official capacity. Otherwise, the crime
committed is estafa
In malversation thru negligence, the
negligence of the accountable public officer
must be positively and clearly shown to be
inexcusable, approximating fraud or malice
Under jurisprudence, when the public officer
leaves his post without locking his drawer,
there is negligence. Thus, he is liable for the
loss.

When private property is attached or seized by The measure of negligence to be observed

public authority and the public officer is the standard of care commensurate with
accountable therefor misappropriates the the occasion
same, malversation is committed also.
When malversation is not committed
Illustration: through negligence, lack of criminal intent
or good faith is a defense
If a sheriff levied the property of the
defendants and absconded with it, he is not The failure of a public officer to have any
liable of qualified theft but of malversation duly forthcoming public funds or property
even though the property belonged to a upon demand, by any authorized officer,
private person. The seizure of the property or shall be prima facie evidence that he has
fund impressed it with the character of being put such missing funds or property to
part of the public funds it being in custodia personal use. However, if at the very
legis. For as long as the public officer is the moment when the shortage is discovered,
one accountable for the fund or property that the accountable officer is notified, and he
was misappropriated, he can be liable for the immediately pays the amount from his
crime of malversation. Absent such relation, pocket, the presumption does not arise
the crime could be theft, simple or qualified.
An accountable public officer may be
convicted even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation and the only evidence is the
shortage in his account which he has not been
able to explain satisfactorily. (Palma Gil vs.
People)
Estafa Malversation
It is usually Committed by If a public officer reports the loss of money
committed by a accountable public before a cash examination is conducted and
private individual officers the cause of the loss as reported has a distinct
Funds or property of The object is public ring of truth to it, the legal presumption of
misappropriation are fund or property. prima facie evidence of guilt will not apply. In
privately owned. order to support conviction, the prosecution
The offender Personal appropriation must prove the actual misappropriation of the
appropriates is not indispensable missing funds.(Salvacion vs. The
personally the funds because allowing Honorable Sandiganbayan, G. R. No.
or property. others to commit the 68233, July 11, 1986)
misappropriation is
also malversation. To rebut the presumption of guilt prima facie
under Article 217, the accused must raise the
When a public officer has official custody or issue of accuracy, correctness and regularity in
the duty to collect or receive funds due the the conduct of audit. If asked for a second
government, or the obligation to account audit before the filing of the information
for them, his misappropriation of the same against him and the same was denied, and
constitutes malversation during the trial, some disbursement vouchers
were introduced which were not considered in
Note that the moment any money is the first audit, the denial of the request for a
commingled with the public fund even if not second audit is fatal to the cause of the
due the government, it becomes impressed prosecution because in the meantime, the
with the characteristic of being part of public evidence introduced does not establish a fact
funds. Once they are commingled, you do not beyond reasonable doubt. Had the re-audit
know anymore which belong to the requested by the accused been accorded due
government and which belong to the private course, the remaining balance could have
persons. So that a public vault or safe should been satisfactorily accounted for. (Mahinay
not be used to hold any fund other that what is vs. The Sandiganbayan. G. R. No. 61442,
due to the government. May 9, 1989)

Page 86 of 119
 Returning the embezzled funds is not
exempting, it is only mitigating
Payment of the amount misappropriated
or restitution of property misappropriated does
not erase criminal liability but only civil
liability.
There is also no malversation when the
accountable officer is obliged to go out of
his office and borrow the amount
corresponding to the shortage and later,
the missing amount is found in an
unaccustomed place
A person whose negligence made possible
the commission of malversation by another
can be held liable as a principal by
indispensable cooperation
It is not necessary that the accountable public
officer should actually misappropriate the fund
or property involved. It is enough that he has
violated the trust reposed on him in
connection with the property.
Demand as well as damage to the
government are not necessary elements
Note that damage on the part of the
government is not considered an essential
element. It is enough that the proprietary
rights of the government over the funds have
been disturbed through breach of trust.
The grant of loans through the vale system is a
clear case of an accountable officer consenting
to the improper or unauthorized use of public
funds by other persons, which is punishable by
law. To tolerate such a practice is to give a
license to every disbursing officer to conduct a
lending operation with the use of public funds.
There is no law or regulation allowing
accountable officers to extend loans to anyone
against the vales or chits given in exchange
by the borrowers. (Meneses vs.
Sandiganbayan)
A private person may also commit
malversation under the following
situations:
(1) Conspiracy with a public officer in
committing malversation;
(2) When he has become an accomplice or
accessory to a public officer who
commits malversation;
(3) When the private person is made the
custodian in whatever capacity of public
funds or property, whether belonging to
national or local government, and he
misappropriates the same;
Page 87 of 119
(4) When he is constituted as the
depositary or administrator of funds or
property seized or attached by public
authority even though said funds or
property belong to a private individual.
Technical malversation is not included in the
crime of malversation. In malversation, the
offender misappropriates public funds or
property for his own personal use, or allows
any other person to take such funds or
property for the latters own personal use. In
technical malversation, the public officer
applies the public funds or property under his
administration to another public use different
from that for which the public fund was
appropriated by law or ordinance. Recourse:
File the proper information.
Article 218
FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO
RENDER ACCOUNTS
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer, whether in the service or
separated therefrom.
b. That he must be an accountable
officer for public funds property.
c. That he is required by law or
regulation to render accounts to
the commission on audit, or to a
provincial auditor.
d. That he fails to do so for a
period of two months after such
accounts should be rendered.
The public officers who are bound to
render accounts are the following:
1. cashiers
2. storekeepers
3. warehousemen and
4. those who by the nature of their position
become custodian or public funds or
property.
Note: Demand and misappropriation are
not necessary
It is sufficient that there is a law or regulation
requiring him to render an account. It is the
failure to follow the requirement of the law
that is made punishable. It is not necessary
that the offender prevent the situation of the
crime being committed because of the failure
of the accountable officer to render an
account.
Article 219
FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE
LEAVING THE COUNTRY

ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer.
b. That he must be an accountable
officer for public funds or
property.
c. That 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.
Who can commit this crime?
A responsible public officer, not necessarily an
accountable one, who leaves the country
without first securing clearance from the
Commission on Audit.
Note: The act of leaving the Philippines
must be unauthorized or not permitted by
law
Mere leaving without securing clearance
constitutes violation of the Revised Penal
Code. It is not necessary that they really
misappropriated public funds.
Article 220
ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
PROPERTY (technical malversation)
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer.
b. That there is public fund
property under
administration.
c. That such public fund or
property has been appropriated
by law or ordinance (without this,
it is simple malversation even if
applied to other public purpose).
d. That he applies the same to a
public use other than for which
such fund or property has been
appropriated by law or
ordinance.
The term technical malversation is used
because in this crime, the fund or property
involved is already appropriated or earmarked
for a certain public purpose.
The offender is entrusted with such fund or
property only to administer or apply the same
to the public purpose for which it was
appropriated by law or ordinance. Instead of
Page 88 of 119
applying it to the public purpose to which the
fund or property was already appropriated by
law, the public officer applied it to another
purpose.
To distinguish this article with Art 217, just
remember that in illegal use of public funds
or property, the offender does not derive
any personal gain, the funds are merely
devoted to some other public use
Absence of damage is only a mitigating
circumstance
Since damage is not an element of
malversation, even though the application
made proved to be more beneficial to public
interest than the original purpose for which the
amount or property was appropriated by law,
the public officer involved is still liable for
technical malversation.
If public funds were not yet appropriated by
law or ordinance, and this was applied to a
public purpose by the custodian thereof, the
crime is plain and simple malversation, not
technical malversation. If the funds had been
appropriated for a particular public purpose,
but the same was applied to private purpose,
the crime committed is simple malversation
only.
Illustration:
OR The office lacked bond papers. What the
government cashier did was to send the
janitor, get some money from his collection,
told the janitor to buy bond paper so that the
office will have something to use. The amount
involved maybe immaterial but the cashier
commits malversation pure and simple.
or
his This crime can also be committed by a private
person.
Illustration:
A certain road is to be cemented. Bags of
cement were already being unloaded at the
side. But then, rain began to fall so the
supervisor of the road building went to a
certain house with a garage, asked the owner
if he could possibly deposit the bags of cement
in his garage to prevent the same from being
wet. The owner of the house, Olive, agreed.
So the bags of cement were transferred to the
garage of the private person. After the public
officer had left, and the workers had left
because it is not possible to do the cementing,
the owner of the garage started using some of
the cement in paving his own garage. The
crime of technical malversation is also
committed.
Note that when a private person is constituted
as the custodian in whatever capacity, of
public funds or property, and he
misappropriates the same, the crime of
malversation is also committed. See Article
222.
Illustration:
The payroll money for a government
infrastructure project on the way to the site of
the project, the officers bringing the money
were ambushed. They were all wounded. One
of them, however, was able to get away from
the scene of the ambush until he reached a
certain house. He told the occupant of the
house to safeguard the amount because it is
the payroll money of the government laborers
of a particular project. The occupant of the
house accepted the money for his own use.
The crime is not theft but malversation as long
as he knew that what was entrusted in his
custody is public fund or property.
Article 221
FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY
ELEMENTS:
a. Offender has govt funds or
property in his possession
b. He is under obligation to either:
1. make payment from such
funds
2. to deliver property in his
custody or administration
when ordered by competent
authority
c. He maliciously fails or refuses to
do so
Note: Penalty is based on value of
funds/property to be delivered
Article 222
PERSONS WHO MAY BE HELD LIABLE
UNDER ARTS 217 TO 221
a. Private individual who, in any
capacity, have charge of any
national, provincial or municipal
funds, revenue, or property
b. Administrator or depositary of
funds or property that has been
attached, seized or deposited by
public authority, even if owned
by a private individual
Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term
administrator
Page 89 of 119
A judicial administrator in charge of settling
the estate of the deceased is not covered
by the article
Here, the funds or property belong to private
individuals, but they are considered public
funds or property if they come to the
possession of the public officer because of 1) a
writ of attachment; or 2) if they are seized by
virtue of a search warrant. Or 3) if they are
ordered deposited pending determination of
ownership in the administrative or judicial
proceedings.
Private individuals may also be liable for
malversation if they act as conspirators in the
commission of the crime.
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Article 223
CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO
EVASION
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer (on duty).
b. That he is charged with the
conveyance or custody of a
prisoner, either detention
prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment.
c. That such prisoner escaped from
his custody
d. That he was in connivance with
the prisoner in the latters
escape
Detention prisoner: refers to a person in
legal custody, arrested for and charged
with some crime or public offense
The release of a detention prisoner who
could not be delivered to judicial authorities
within the time fixed by law is not infidelity
in the custody of a prisoner. Neither is mere
leniency or laxity in the performance of
duty constitutive of infidelity
There is real and actual evasion of service
of sentence when the custodian permits the
prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his
imprisonment
A municipal mayor who utilized the prisoners
services for domestic chores in his house,
including using him as a cook is liable for
faithlessness in the custody of prisoner (Art.
223) even though the convict may not have
fled, in as much as the prisoners leaving the
prison was effected through him. (People vs.
Evangelista, C.A. 38 O.G. 158).
Article 224
EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer.
b. That he is charged with the
conveyance or custody of a
prisoner, either detention
prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment.
c. That such prisoner escapes
through his negligence.
d. Penalty based on nature of
imprisonment
The article punishes a definite laxity which
amounts to deliberate non-performance of
a duty
Not every error is negligence under this article.
To be liable, the negligence must be notorious
and apparent. The laxity must be definite and
must seriously suggest a deliberate non-
performance of a duty.
The negligence which is punishable however is
not such definite laxity at all but that which
amounts to deliberate non-performance of the
jailer or the guard. So that if a policemen on
guard duty unlocked the door of the jail to let a
detention prisoner go out so he can clean the
premises, but on the latters third trip to a
nearby faucet, he walked behind the police
headquarters climbed over the wall and
escape, the crime is not committed. (People
vs. Solis, C.A. 43 O.G. 580).
The fact that the public officer recaptured
the prisoner who had escaped from his
custody does not afford complete
exculpation
The liability of an escaping prisoner:
a. if he is a prisoner by final judgment,
he is liable for evasion of service (art
157)
b. if he is a detention prisoner, he does
not incur criminal liability (unless
cooperating with the offender).
Article 225
ESCAPE OF PRISONERS UNDER THE
CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC
OFFICER
ELEMENTS:
Page 90 of 119
a. That the offender is a private
person (note: must be on duty)
b. That the conveyance or custody
of a prisoner or person under
arrest is confined to him.
c. That the prisoner or person
under arrest escapes.
d. That the offender consents to
the escape of the prisoner or
person under arrest, or that the
escape takes place through his
negligence
Note: This article is not applicable if a
private person made the arrest and he
consented to the escape of the person he
arrested
The offender under this article is not the
one who arrested the escaping prisoner but
one who agreed to have the custody or charge
of the prisoner or person under arrest.
ORTEGA NOTES:
The crime is infidelity in the custody of
prisoners if the offender involved is the
custodian of the prisoner.
If the offender who aided or consented to the
prisoners escaping from confinement, whether
the prisoner is a convict or a detention
prisoner, is not the custodian, the crime is
delivering prisoners from jail under Article156.
The crime of infidelity in the custody of
prisoners can be committed only by the
custodian of the prisoner.
If the jail guard who allowed the prisoner to
escape is already off-duty at that time and he
is no longer the custodian of the prisoner, the
crime committed by him is delivering prisoners
from jail.
Note that you do not apply here the principle
of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of
all. The party who is not the custodian who
conspired with the custodian in allowing the
prisoner to escape does not commit infidelity
in the custody of the prisoner. He commits the
crime of delivering prisoners from jail.
Question & Answer
If a private person approached the
custodian of the prisoner and for a certain
consideration, told the custodian to leave the
door of the cell unlocked for the prisoner to
escape. What crime had been committed?
It is not infidelity in the custody of
prisoners because as far as the private person
is concerned, this crime is delivering prisoners
from jail. The infidelity is only committed by
the custodian.
This crime can be committed also by a private
person if the custody of the prisoner has been
confided to a private person.
Illustration:
A policeman escorted a prisoner to court.
After the court hearing, this policeman was
shot at with a view to liberate the prisoner
from his custody. The policeman fought the
attacker but he was fatally wounded. When
he could no longer control the prisoner, he
went to a nearby house, talked to the head of
the family of that house and asked him if he
could give the custody of the prisoner to him.
He said yes. After the prisoner was
handcuffed in his hands, the policeman
expired. Thereafter, the head of the family of
that private house asked the prisoner if he
could afford to give something so that he
would allow him to go. The prisoner said,
Yes, if you would allow me to leave, you can
come with me and I will give the money to
you. This private persons went with the
prisoner and when the money was given, he
allowed him to go. What crime/s had been
committed?
Under Article 225, the crime can be committed
by a private person to whom the custody of a
prisoner has been confided.
Where such private person, while performing a
private function by virtue of a provision of law,
shall accept any consideration or gift for the
non-performance of a duty confided to him,
Bribery is also committed. So the crime
committed by him is infidelity in the custody of
prisoners and bribery.
If the crime is delivering prisoners from jail,
bribery is just a means, under Article 156, that
would call for the imposition of a heavier
penalty, but not a separate charge of bribery
under Article 156.
But under Article 225 in infidelity, what is
basically punished is the breach of trust
because the offender is the custodian. For
that, the crime is infidelity. If he violates the
trust because of some consideration, bribery is
also committed.
A higher degree of vigilance is required.
Failure to do so will render the custodian liable.
The prevailing ruling is against laxity in the
handling of prisoners.
Illustration:
A prison guard accompanied the prisoner in
the toilet. While answering the call of nature,
police officer waiting there, until the prisoner
Page 91 of 119
escaped. Police officer was accused of
infidelity.
There is no criminal liability because it does
not constitute negligence. Negligence
contemplated here refers to deliberate
abandonment of duty.
Note, however, that according to a recent
Supreme Court ruling, failure to accompany
lady prisoner in the comfort room is a case of
negligence and therefore the custodian is
liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner.
Prison guard should not go to any other place
not officially called for. This is a case of
infidelity in the custody of prisoner through
negligence under Article 224.
INFIDELITY IN CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS
Article 226
REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT, OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender be a public
officer.
b. That he abstracts, destroys or
conceals a document or papers.
c. That the said document or paper
should have been entrusted to
such public officer by reason of
his office.
d. That damage, whether serious or
not, to a third party or to the
public interest should have been
caused.
The act of obstruction, destruction or
concealment must cause damage to a third
party or to the public interest. Damage to a
third party is usually pecuniary; but damage to
public interest may consist in mere alarm to
the public or the alienation of its confidence on
any branch of the government service.
The document must be complete and one
by which a right could be established or an
obligation could be extinguished
Books, periodicals, pamphlets etc are not
documents
Papers would include checks,
promissory notes and paper money
Removal of a document presupposes
unlawful appropriation of the official
document. Destruction means to render the
document useless. Its nature to prove the
existence of a fact is lost such that it cannot
anymore prove the probability or improbability
of a fact in issue. Concealment on the other
hand means to make it appear that the
document is not available.
A post office official who retained the mail
without forwarding the letters to their
destination is guilty of infidelity in the
custody of papers
Removal of a document or paper must be
for an illicit purpose.
If the removal of the document is for a lawful
purpose and that is, to secure the same from
imminent danger or loss, there is no crime
committed under the law, (Kataniag vs.
People, 74 Phil. 45).
There is illicit purpose when the
intention of the offender is to:
a. tamper with it
b. to profit by it
c. to commit any act constituting a
breech of trust in the official thereof
The act of removal, destruction or
concealment should be coupled with criminal
intent or malice (Manzanaris vs.
Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 64750,
Jan. 30, 1984).
Removal is consummated upon removal or
secreting away of the document from its
usual place. It is immaterial whether or not
the illicit purpose of the offender has been
accomplished
Removal of public records by the custodian
does not require that the record be brought
out of the premises where it is kept. It is
enough that the record be removed from the
place where it should be and transferred to
another place where it is not supposed to be
kept. If damage is caused to the public
service, the public officer is criminally liable for
infidelity in the custody of official documents.
Infidelity in the custody of documents
through destruction or concealment does
not require proof of an illicit purpose
Where in case for bribery or corruption, the
monetary considerations was marked as
exhibits, such considerations acquires the
nature of a document such that if the same
would be spent by the custodian the crime is
not malversation but Infidelity in the custody
of public records, because the money adduced
as exhibits partake the nature of a document
and not as money. Although such monetary
consideration acquires the nature of a
document, the best evidence rule does not
apply here. Example, photocopies may be
presented in evidence.
Page 92 of 119
Delivering the document to the wrong party
is infidelity in the custody thereof
The damage may either be great or small
Damage to public interest is necessary.
However, material damage is not necessary.
Although there is no material damage caused,
mere delay in rendering public service is
considered damage.
The offender must be in custody of such
documents
Distinction between infidelity in the
custody of public document, estafa and
malicious mischief
In infidelity in the custody of public document,
the offender is the custodian of the official
document removed or concealed.
In estafa, the offender is not the custodian of
the document removed or concealed.
In malicious mischief, the offender purposely
destroyed and damaged the
property/document.
Article 227
OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
ELEMENTS :
a. That the offender is a public
officer.
b. That he is charged with the
custody of papers or property.
c. That these papers or property
are sealed by proper authority.
d. That he breaks the seals or
permits them to be broken.
It is the breaking of the seals and not the
opening of a closed envelope which is
punished
Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed
If the official document is sealed or otherwise
placed in an official envelope, the element of
damage is not required. The mere breaking of
the seal or the mere opening of the document
would already bring about infidelity even
though no damage has been suffered by
anyone or by the public at large. The offender
does not have to misappropriate the same.
Just trying to discover or look what is inside is
infidelity already.
A crime is already committed regardless of
whether the contents of the document are
secret or private. It is enough that it is
entrusted to him in a sealed form or in a
closed envelope and he broke the seal or
opened the envelop. Public trust is already
violated if he managed to look into the
contents of the document.
Distinction between infidelity and theft
There is infidelity if the offender opened the
letter but did not take the same.
There is theft if there is intent to gain when the
offender took the money.
Note that the document must be complete in
legal sense. If the writings are mere form,
there is no crime.
Illustration:
As regard the payroll, which has not been
signed by the Mayor, no infidelity is committed
because the document is not yet a payroll in
the legal sense since the document has not
been signed yet.
In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking"
should not be given a literal meaning. Even if
actually, the seal was not broken, because the
custodian managed to open the parcel without
breaking the seal.
Article 228
OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer.
b. That any closed papers,
documents, or objects are
entrusted to his custody.
c. That he opens or permits to be
opened said closed papers,
documents or objects.
d. That he does not have proper
authority.
Note: Damage also not necessary
In Article 227, the mere breaking of the seal
is what is made punishable while in Article
228, the mere opening of closed documents is
enough to hold the offender criminally liable.
The breaking of the seal or the opening of the
closed document must be done without lawful
authority or order from competent authority. In
both offenses, damage to the public interest is
not required.
Page 93 of 119
REVELATION OF SECRETS
Article 229
REVELATION OF SECRET BY AN OFFICER
ELEMENTS OF PAR.1: BY REASON OF
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
a. That the offender is a public
officer.
b. That he knows of a secret by
reason of his official capacity.
c. That he reveals such secret
without authority or justifiable
reasons.
d. That damage, great or small, be
caused to the public interest.
(damage is essential)
Notes:
a. Secret must affect public interest
The secrets referred to in this article are those
which have an official or public character. It
does not include secret information regarding
private individuals. Nor does it include military
or State secrets in as much as the revelation of
the same is classified as espionage, a crime in
violation of the national security of the State.
b. Secrets of a private individual is not
included
c. Espionage for the benefit of another
State is not contemplated by the
article. If regarding military secrets
or secrets affecting state security,
the crime may be espionage.
ELEMENTS OF PAR 2 DELIVERING
WRONGFULLY PAPERS OR COPIES OF
PAPERS OF WHICH HE MAY HAVE
CHARGE AND WHICH SHOULD NOT BE
PUBLISHED:
a. That the offender is a public
officer.
b. That he has charge of papers.
c. That those papers should not be
published.
d. That he delivers those papers or
copies thereof to a third person.
e. That the delivery is wrongful.
f. That damage be caused to public
interest.
Notes:
 a. Charge: means custody or superior authority and issued
control. If he is merely entrusted with with all the legal formalities.
the papers and not with the custody
thereof, he is not liable under this d. that the offender without any
article legal justification openly refuses
to execute the said judgment,
b. If the papers contain secrets which decision or order which he is
should not be published, and the duty bound to obey.
public officer having charge thereof
removes and delivers them The gravamen of the offense is the open
wrongfully to a third person, the refusal of the offender to execute the order
crime is revelation of secrets. On the without justifiable reason.
other hand, if the papers do not
contain secrets, their removal for an Note: Judgment should have been
illicit purpose is infidelity in the rendered in a hearing and issued within
custody of documents proper jurisdiction with all legal solemnities
required
c. Damage is essential to the act
committed The term execute as found in the law does
not only means performance of an act since
the judgment, decision or order may also
Article 230 direct the non-performance of an act.
PUBLIC OFFICER REVEALING SECRETS OF
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL The article does not apply to the members of
Congress.
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer
Article 232
b. That he knows of the secret of a DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF SUPERIOR
private individual by reason of OFFICER WHEN SAID ORDER WAS
his office. SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR OFFICER

c. That he reveals such secrets ELEMENTS:

without authority or justification a. That the offender is a public
reason. officer.

Revelation to one person is sufficient b. That an order is issued by his

superior for execution.
If the offender is an attorney, he is properly
liable under Art 209 (betrayal of trust by an c. That he has for any reason
attorney) suspended the execution of such
order.
Damage to private individual is not
necessary d. That his superior disapproves
the suspension of the execution
of the order.
OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY
PUBLIC OFFICERS e. That the offender disobeys his
superior despite the disapproval
of the suspension.
Article 231
OPEN DISOBEDIENCE Note: A public officer is not liable if the
order of the superior is illegal
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a judicial or What is contemplated here is a situation where
executive officer. the subordinate has some doubts regarding
the legality of the order. Hence, he is afforded
b. That there is a judgment, an opportunity to suspend the execution of the
decision or order of superior order, so as to give him time to further study
authority. the same. He commits no crime for doing this
act. However, if he continues to suspend the
c. That such judgment, decision or execution of the order notwithstanding the
order was made within the scope disapproval by his superior of the stay of the
of the jurisdiction of the execution, such refusal on his part already

Page 94 of 119
constitutes a crime punishable under this a. That the offender is elected by
article. popular election to a public
office.

b. That he refuses to be sworn in or

Article 233
REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public
officer.
b. That a competent authority
demands from the offender that
he lend his cooperation towards
the administration of justice or
other public service.
c. That the offender fails to do so
maliciously.
discharge the duties of said
office.
c. That there is no legal motive for
such refusal to be sworn in or to
discharge the duties of said
office.
After proclamation of a candidate to a public
office, it becomes his duty to render public
service. Since it is his duty, then his refusal to
perform such duty is punishable under the law.
Note: Even if the person did not run for the
office on his own will as the Constitution
provides that every citizen may be required
to render service

Involves a request from one public officer to

another

Damage to the public interest or third party

is essential

Damage is essential whether great or small.

But the penalty is affected by the seriousness Article 235
of the damage. Note that the refusal must be MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
done with malice.
ELEMENTS:
Demand is necessary a. That the offender is a public
officer or employee.
The situation contemplated herein may refer
to the administration of justice before the case b. That he has under charge a
is filed in court. Competent authority may refer prisoner or detention prisoner
to persons in authority who are charged by the (otherwise the crime is physical
law to help in the administration of justice. The injuries)
term may refer to police authorities. However,
when a case under investigation reaches the c. That he maltreats such prisoner
court, the remedy may not be limited to in either of the following
incurring criminal liability under this article manners:
because the refusal may already be punished
as direct or indirect contempt of court. 1. By overdoing himself in the
correction or handling of a
This is a crime, which a policeman may prisoner or detention prisoner
commit when, being subpoenaed to appear in under his charge either
court in connection with a crime investigated
by him but because of some arrangement with by the imposition of
the offenders, the policeman does not appear punishments not
in court anymore to testify against the authorized by the
offenders. He tried to assail the subpoena so regulations, or
that ultimately the case would be dismissed. It by inflicting such
was already held that the policeman could be punishments (those
prosecuted under this crime of refusal of authorized) in a cruel and
assistance and not that of dereliction of duty. humiliating manner, or

2. by maltreating such prisoner

Article 234 to extort a confession or to
REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE obtain some information from
OFFICE the prisoner.

ELEMENTS:

Page 95 of 119
The maltreatment does not really require
physical injuries. Any kind of punishment not
authorized or though authorized if executed in
excess of the prescribed degree.
But if as a result of the maltreatment, physical
injuries were caused to the prisoner, a
separate crime for the physical injuries shall
be filed. You do not complex the crime of
physical injuries with the maltreatment
because the way Article 235 is worded, it
prohibits the complexing of the crime.
If the maltreatment was done in order to
extort confession, therefore, the constitutional
right of the prisoner is further violated. The
penalty is qualified to the next higher degree.
The public officer must have actual charge
of the prisoner in order to be held liable
If the public officer is not the custodian of the
prisoner, and he manhandles the latter, the
crime is physical injuries.
If a Barangay Captain maltreats a person after
the latters arrest but before confinement, the
offense is not maltreatment but physical
injuries. The victim must actually be confined
either as a convict or a detention prisoner for
Art. 235 to apply. (People vs. Baring, et al.,
37 O.G. 1366).
To be considered a detention prisoner, the
person arrested must be placed in jail even
for just a short while
The offended party here must be a prisoner in
the legal sense. The mere fact that a private
citizen had been apprehended or arrested by a
law enforcer does not constitute him a
prisoner. To be a prisoner, he must have been
booked and incarcerated no matter how short
it is.
Illustration:
A certain snatcher was arrested by a law
enforcer, brought to the police precinct, turned
over to the custodian of that police precinct.
Every time a policeman entered the police
precinct, he would ask, What is this fellow
doing here? What crime has he committed?.
The other policeman would then tell, This
fellow is a snatcher. So every time a
policeman would come in, he would inflict
injury to him. This is not maltreatment of
prisoner because the offender is not the
custodian. The crime is only physical injuries.
But if the custodian is present there and he
allowed it, then he will be liable also for the
physical injuries inflicted, but not for
maltreatment because it was not the custodian
who inflicted the injury.
Page 96 of 119
But if it is the custodian who effected the
maltreatment, the crime will be maltreatment
of prisoners plus a separate charge for
physical injuries.
Offender may also be held liable for
physical injuries or damage caused
Article 236
ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC
OFFICE
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is entitled to
hold a public office or
employment, either by election or
appointment.
b. That the law requires that he
should first be sworn in and/or
should first give a bond.
c. That he assumes the performance
of the duties and powers of such
office.
d. That he has not taken his oath of
office and /or given the bond
required by law.
Article 237
PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES
AND POWERS
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is holding a
public office.
b. That the period provided by law,
regulations or special provisions
for holding such office has
already expired.
c. That he continues to exercise
the duties and powers of such
office.
Note: The article contemplates officers
who have been suspended, separated or
declared over-aged or dismissed
The crime is committed only if the public
officer has lost every right to the office
because there are offices which require the
officer to continue serving as such properly
relieved. The law is intended to put an end to
the principle of hold over.
Article 238
ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he formally resigns from his
position.
 3. That his resignation has not yet a. That the offender is a judge.
been accepted. b. That he (a.) assumes a power
4. That he abandons his office to the pertaining to the executive
detriment of the public service. authorities, or (b.) obstructs
executive authorities in the lawful
There must be formal or written resignation exercise of their powers.
Oral resignation is not allowed. The resignation Note: Legislative officers are not liable for
must be in writing and directed to the usurpation of executive functions
appointing power who has the authority to
accept or disapprove the same. This
requirement is indispensable because the Article 241
letter of resignation goes into a process. USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS

The offense is qualified if the purpose behind ELEMENTS:

the abandonment is to evade the discharge of a. That the offender is an officer of the
duties consisting of preventing, prosecuting or executive branch of the government.
punishing any of the crimes against national b. That he (a.) assumes judicial powers,
security. The penalty is higher ( one degree ). or (b.) obstruct the execution of any
This involves the following crimes: order decision rendered by any judge
a. treason within his jurisdiction.
b. conspiracy and proposal to commit
conspiracy Note: A mayor is guilty under this article when
c. misprision of treason he investigates a case while a justice of the
d. espionage peace is in the municipality
e. inciting to war or giving motives to
reprisals
f. violation of neutrality Article 242
g. correspondence with hostile country DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR
h. flight to enemy country DISQUALIFICATION
i. piracy and mutiny on the high seas
j. rebellion
ELEMENTS:
k. conspiracy and proposal to commit
a. That the offender is a public officer.
rebellion
b. That a proceeding is pending before
l. disloyalty to public officers
such public officer.
m. inciting to rebellion
c. That there is a question brought
n. sedition
before the proper authority regarding
o. conspiracy to commit sedition
his jurisdiction, which is not yet
p. inciting to sedition
decided.
d. That he has been lawfully required to
Abandonment of Dereliction of Duty refrain from continuing the
Office (208) proceeding.
or Position (238) e. That he continues the proceeding.
There is actual Public officer does not
abandonment through abandon his office but Even if the jurisdiction of the offender is later
resignation to evade merely fails to upheld or sustained, he is still liable because
the discharge of prosecute a violation what is in issue is not the legality of his
duties. of the law. jurisdiction, but whether he obeyed or
disobeyed the temporary restraining order
issued by the higher authority.
Article 239
USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS Article 243
ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY EXECUTIVE
ELEMENTS: OFFICER TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
a. That the offender is an executive or
judicial officer. ELEMENTS:
b. That he (a.) makes general rules or a. That the offender is an executive
regulations beyond the scope of his officer.
authority or (b.) attempts to repeal a b. That he addresses any order or
law or (c.) suspends the execution suggestion to any judicial authority.
thereof. c. That the order or suggestion relates
to any case or business coming within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts
Article 240 of justice.
USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
Note: Legislative or judicial officers are not
ELEMENTS: liable under this article
Page 97 of 119

Article 244
UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer.
b. That he nominates or appoints a
person to a public office.
c. That such person lacks the legal
qualification therefor.
d. That the offender knows that his
nominee or appointee lacks the
qualification at the time he made the
nomination or appointment.
Recommending, knowing that the person
recommended is not qualified is not a crime
The word nominate is not the same as
recommend. To nominate is to guarantee to
the appointing power that the person
nominated has all the qualifications to the
office. Recommendation on the other hand
does not make any guarantee as to the legal
fitness of the candidate to public office.
There must be a law providing for the
qualifications of a person to be nominated or
appointed to a public office
Article 245
ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer.
b. That he solicits or makes immoral or
indecent advances to a woman.
c. That such woman must be
1. interested in matters pending
before the offender for decision,
or with respect to which he is
required to submit a report to or
consult with a superior officer, or
2. under the custody of the offender
who is a warden or other public
officer directly charged with care
and custody of prisoners or person
under arrest, or
3. the wife, daughter, sister or
relative within the same degree by
affinity of the person in the
custody of the offender
Only a lady can be a complainant here so that
a gay guard or warden who makes immoral
proposals or indecent advances to a male
prisoner is not liable under this law.
Mere indecent solicitation or advances of a
woman over whom the public officer exercises
a certain influence because the woman is
involved in a case where the offender is to
make a report of result with superiors or
otherwise a case which the offender was
investigating.
Page 98 of 119
This crime is also committed if the woman is a
prisoner and the offender is her jail warden or
custodian, or even if the prisoner may be a
man if the jail warden would make the immoral
solicitations upon the wife, sister, daughter, or
relative by affinity within the same degree of
the prisoner involved.
The mother of the person in the custody of the
public officer is not included
This crime cannot be committed if the warden
is a woman and the prisoner is a man. Men
have no chastity.
If the warden is also a woman but is a lesbian,
it is submitted that this crime could be
committed, as the law does not require that
the custodian be a man but requires that the
offended be a woman.
Solicit: means to propose earnestly and
persistently something unchaste and immoral
to a woman
The word solicit means to demand earnestly.
In this case, the demand is for sexual favor. It
must be immoral or indecent and done by the
public officer taking advantage of his position
as one who can help by rendering a favorable
decision or unwarranted benefits, advantage
or preference to a person under his custody.
The crime is consummated by mere proposal
It is not necessarily for the offended party to
surrender her virtue to consummate the crime.
Mere proposal is sufficient to consummate the
crime.
Even if the woman may have lied with the
hearing officer or to the public officer and
acceded to him, that does not change the
crime because the crime seeks to penalize the
taking advantage of official duties.
It is immaterial whether the woman did not
agree or agreed to the solicitation. If the
woman did not agree and the public officer
involved pushed through with the advances,
attempted rape may have been committed.
Legally, a prisoner is an accountability of the
government. So the custodian is not supposed
to interfere. Even if the prisoner may like it,
he is not supposed to do that. Otherwise,
abuse against chastity is committed.
If he forced himself against the will of the
woman, another crime is committed, that is,
rape aside from abuse against chastity.
You cannot consider the abuse against chastity
as absorbed in the rape because the basis of
penalizing the acts is different from each
other.
 Proof of solicitation is not necessary when
there is sexual intercourse
Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act)
Committed by any person having authority,
influence or moral ascendancy over another in
a work, training or education environment
when he or she 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 the said act (for a
passing grade, or granting of scholarship or
honors, or payment of a stipend, allowances,
benefits, considerations; favorable
compensation terms, conditions, promotions or
when the refusal to do so results in a
detrimental consequence for the victim).
Also holds liable any person who directs or
induces another to commit any act of sexual
harassment, or who cooperates in the
commission, the head of the office,
educational or training institution solidarily.
Complaints to be handled by a committee on
decorum, which shall be determined by rules
and regulations on such.
Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to
prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful
acts of sexual harassment.
TITLE EIGHT
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
1. Parricide (Art. 246);
2. Murder (Art. 248);
3. Homicide (Art. 249);
Page 99 of 119
4. Death caused in a tumultuous affray
(Art. 251);
5. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous
affray (Art. 252);
6. Giving assistance to suicide (Art. 253);
7. Discharge of firearms (Art. 254);
8. Infanticide (Art. 255);
9. Intentional abortion (Art. 256);
10.Unintentional abortion (Art. 257);
11.Abortion practiced by the woman herself
or by her parents (Art. 258);
12.Abortion practiced by a physician or
midwife and dispensing of abortives
(Art. 259);
13.Duel (Art. 260);
14.Challenging to a duel (Art. 261);
15.Mutilation (Art. 262);
16.Serious physical injuries (Art. 263);
17.Administering injurious substances or
beverages (Art. 264);
18.Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265);
19.Slight physical injuries and
maltreatment (Art. 266); and
20.Rape (Art. 266-A).
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
Article 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 other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of the accused.
Notes:
1. The relationship of the offender with the
victim is the essential element of the
felony
The relationship must be in the direct line and
not in the collateral line.
The relationship between the offender and the
offended party must be legitimate, except
when the offender and the offended party are
related as parent and child.
Except between husband and wife, the
offender must be related to the offended party
by blood.
2. Parents and children are not included in the
term ascendants or descendants
3. The other ascendant or descendant must
be legitimate. On the other hand, the
father, mother or child may be legitimate
or illegitimate
If the offender and the offended party,
although related by blood and in the direct
line, are separated by an intervening
illegitimate relationship, parricide can no
longer be committed. The illegitimate
relationship between the child and the parent
renders all relatives after the child in the direct
line to be illegitimate too.
The only illegitimate relationship that can
bring about parricide is that between parents
and illegitimate children as the offender and
the offended parties.
Illustration:
A is the parent of B, the illegitimate daughter.
B married C and they begot a legitimate child
D. If D, daughter of B and C, would kill A, the
grandmother, the crime cannot be parricide
anymore because of the intervening
illegitimacy. The relationship between A and D
is no longer legitimate. Hence, the crime
committed is homicide or murder.
A, an illegitimate son of B, who killed the
legitimate father of the latter, is not guilty of
Parricide because in case of other ascendants
(grandparents, great grandparents, etc.), the
relationship with the killer must be legitimate.
The same is true with other descendants that
is, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc.
4. The child should not be less than 3 days
old. Otherwise, the offense is infanticide
That the mother killed her child in order to
conceal her dishonor is not mitigating. This is
immaterial to the crime of parricide, unlike in
the case of infanticide. If the child is less than
three days old when killed, the crime is
infanticide and intent to conceal her dishonor
is considered mitigating.
5. Relationship must be alleged
In killing a spouse, there must be a valid
subsisting marriage at the time of the killing.
Also, the information should allege the fact of
such valid marriage between the accused and
the victim.
In a ruling by the Supreme Court, it was held
that if the information did not allege that the
accused was legally married to the victim, he
could not be convicted of parricide even if the
marriage was established during the trial. In
such cases, relationship shall be appreciated
as generic aggravating circumstance.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that Muslim
husbands with several wives can be convicted
of parricide only in case the first wife is killed.
There is no parricide if the other wives are
killed although their marriage is recognized as
valid. This is so because a Catholic man can
commit the crime only once. If a Muslim
husband could commit this crime more than
once, in effect, he is being punished for the
marriage which the law itself authorized him to
contract.
Page 100 of 119
6. A stranger who cooperates in committing
parricide is liable for murder or homicide
Since parricide is a crime of relationship, if a
stranger conspired in the commission of the
crime, he cannot be held liable for parricide.
His participation would make him liable for
murder or for homicide, as the case may be.
The rule of conspiracy that the act of one is
the act of all does not apply here because of
the personal relationship of the offender to the
offended party.
Illustration:
A spouse of B conspires with C to kill B. C is
the stranger in the relationship. C killed B with
treachery. The means employed is made
known to A and A agreed that the killing will be
done by poisoning.
As far as A is concerned, the crime is based on
his relationship with B. It is therefore parricide.
The treachery that was employed in killing
Bong will only be generic aggravating
circumstance in the crime of parricide because
this is not one crime that requires a qualifying
circumstance.
But that same treachery, insofar as C is
concerned, as a stranger who cooperated in
the killing, makes the crime murder; treachery
becomes a qualifying circumstance.
7. Even if the offender did not know that the
person he had killed is his son, he is still
liable for parricide because the law does not
require knowledge of the relationship
Article 365 expressly provides that parricide
can be committed through reckless
imprudence. The penalty will not be under
Article 246 but under Article 365.
Similarly, parricide can be committed by
mistake. This is demonstrated in a situation
where a person wanting to kill a stranger, kills
his own father by mistake. Although the crime
committed is parricide, the offender will not be
punished under Article 246 but under Article
49, which prescribes a penalty much lower
than that provided under Article 246.
Article 247
DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES
UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Requisites:
1. A legally married person or parent
surprises his spouse or daughter (the
latter must be under 18 and living with
them) in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person
2. He/she kills any or both of them or
inflicts upon any or both of them any
 serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or
that he has not consented to the
infidelity of the other spouse.
Notes:
Article does not define or penalize a felony
Article 247, far from defining a felony merely
grants a privilege or benefit, more of an
exempting circumstance as the penalty is
intended more for the protection of the
accused than a punishment. Death under
exceptional character cannot be qualified by
either aggravating or mitigating
circumstances.
If the accused fails to establish the
circumstances called for in Article 247, he/she
will be guilty of Parricide and Murder or
Homicide if the victims were killed.
1. Not necessary that the parent be
legitimate
2. Article applies only when the daughter
is single
3. Surprise: means to come upon
suddenly or unexpectedly
4. Art 247 is applicable when the accused
did not see his spouse in the act sexual
intercourse with another person.
However, it is enough that
circumstances reasonably show that the
carnal act is being committed or has
been committed
It is not necessary that the spouse actually
saw the sexual intercourse being committed.
It is enough that he/she surprised them under
such circumstances that no other reasonable
conclusion can be inferred but that a carnal act
was being performed or has just been
committed.
The article does not apply where the wife was
not surprised in flagrant adultery but was
being abused by a man as in this case there
will be defense of relation.
If the offender surprised a couple in sexual
intercourse, and believing the woman to be his
wife, killed them, this article may be applied if
the mistake of facts is proved.
The benefits of this article do not apply to the
person who consented to the infidelity of his
spouse or who facilitated the prostitution of his
wife.
Sexual intercourse does not include
preparatory acts
So if the surprising took place before any
actual sexual intercourse could be done
because the parties are only in their
Page 101 of 119
preliminaries, the article cannot be invoked
anymore.
Immediately thereafter
the discovery, escape, pursuit and the killing
must all form parts of one continuous act
The phrase immediately thereafter has been
interpreted to mean that between the
surprising and the killing of the
inflicting of the physical injury, there
should be no break of time. In other
words, it must be a continuous
process.
If there was already a break of time between
the sexual act and the killing or inflicting of the
injury, the law presupposes that the offender
regained his reason and therefore, the article
will not apply anymore.
The killing must be the direct by-product of the
rage of the accused
Article 247 does not provide that the victim is
to be killed instantly by the accused after
surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse.
What is required is that the killing is the
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming
the accused upon the discovery of the
infidelity of his spouse. The killing should have
been actually motivated by the same blind
impulse.
No criminal liability is incurred when less
serious or slight physical injuries are inflicted.
Moreover, in case third persons caught in the
crossfire suffer physical injuries, the accused is
not liable. The principle that one is liable for
the consequences of his felonious act is not
applicable because he is not committing a
felony
In the case of People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA
735, two persons suffered physical injuries as
they were caught in the crossfire when the
accused shot the victim. A complex crime of
double frustrated murder was not committed
as the accused did not have the intent to kill
the two victims. Here, the accused did not
commit murder when he fired at the paramour
of his wife. Inflicting death under exceptional
circumstances is not murder. The accused was
held liable for negligence under the first part,
second paragraph of Article 365, that is, less
serious physical injuries through simple
negligence. No aberratio ictus because he was
acting lawfully.
A person who acts under Article 247 is not
committing a crime. Since this is merely an
exempting circumstance, the accused must
first be charged with:
(1) Parricide if the spouse is killed;
(2) Murder or homicide depending on how
the killing was done insofar as the
paramour or the mistress is concerned;
 (3) Homicide through simple negligence, if
a third party is killed;
(4) Physical injuries through reckless
imprudence, if a third party is injured.
If death results or the physical injuries are
serious, there is criminal liability although the
penalty is only destierro. The banishment is
intended more for the protection of the
offender rather than a penalty.
If the crime committed is less serious physical
injuries or slight physical injuries, there is no
criminal liability.
Article 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 following qualifying
circumstances
a. with treachery, taking advantage
of superior strength, with the aid
or armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defense or
of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity
b. in consideration of price, reward
or promise
c. by means of inundation, fire,
poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of vessel, derailment or
assault upon a street car or
locomotive, fall of airship, by
means of motor vehicles or with
the use of any other means
involving great waste or ruin
d. on occasion of any of the
calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an
earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic or
any other public calamity
e. with evident premeditation
f. with cruelty, by deliberately and
inhumanely augmenting the
suffering of the victim or
outraging or scoffing at his person
or corpse
4. The killing is not parricide or
infanticide.
Notes:
While the circumstance of by a band is not
among those enumerated that could qualify
killing to murder, it would seem that if the
killers constituted a band, the crime is murder
because the circumstance of with the aid of
armed men is included in the qualifying
circumstances.
Page 102 of 119
The victim must be killed in order to
consummate the offense. Otherwise, it would
be attempted or frustrated murder
Killing a person with treachery is murder even
if there is no intent to kill. (People vs.
Cagoco, 58 Phil. 530)
Any of the qualifying circumstances must be
alleged in the information. Otherwise, they will
only be considered as generic aggravating
circumstances
When the other circumstances are absorbed or
included in one qualifying circumstance, they
cannot be treated or separated as generic
aggravating circumstances. (People vs.
Remalante, 92 Phil. 48)
Treachery and premeditation are inherent in
murder with the use of poison
Ortega Notes:
In murder, any of the following qualifying
circumstances is present:
Treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, aid or armed men, or employing
means to waken the defense, or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity;
There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against the person
employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof that tend directly and
especially to insure its execution without risk
to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
This circumstance involves means, methods,
form in the execution of the killing which may
actually be an aggravating circumstance also,
in which case, the treachery absorbs the same.
Illustration:
A person who is determined to kill resorted to
the cover of darkness at nighttime to insure
the killing. Nocturnity becomes a means that
constitutes treachery and the killing would be
murder. But if the aggravating circumstance
of nocturnity is considered by itself, it is not
one of those which qualify a homicide to
murder. One might think the killing is
homicide unless nocturnity is considered as
constituting treachery, in which case the crime
is murder.
The essence of treachery is that the offended
party was denied the chance to
defend himself because of the means,
methods, form in executing the crime
deliberately adopted by the offender.
It is a matter of whether or not the
offended party was denied the
chance of defending himself.
If the offended was denied the chance to
defend himself, treachery qualifies the killing
to murder. If despite the means resorted to by
the offender, the offended was able to put up a
defense, although unsuccessful, treachery is
not available. Instead, some other
circumstance may be present. Consider now
whether such other circumstance qualifies the
killing or not.
Illustration:
If the offender used superior strength and the
victim was denied the chance to defend
himself, there is treachery. The treachery
must be alleged in the information. But if the
victim was able to put up an unsuccessful
resistance, there is no more treachery but the
use of superior strength can be alleged and it
also qualifies the killing to murder.
One attendant qualifying circumstance is
enough. If there are more than one qualifying
circumstance alleged in the information for
murder, only one circumstance will qualify the
killing to murder and the other circumstances
will be taken as generic.
To be considered qualifying, the particular
circumstance must be alleged in the
information. If what was alleged was not
proven and instead another circumstance, not
alleged, was established during the trial, even
if the latter constitutes a qualifying
circumstance under Article 248, the same can
not qualify the killing to murder. The accused
can only be convicted of homicide.
Generally, murder cannot be committed if at
the beginning, the offended had no intent to
kill because the qualifying circumstances must
be resorted to with a view of killing the
offended party. So if the killing were at the
spur of the moment, even though the victim
was denied the chance to defend himself
because of the suddenness of the attack, the
crime would only be homicide. Treachery
contemplates that the means, methods and
form in the execution were consciously
adopted and deliberately resorted to by the
offender, and were not merely incidental to the
killing.
If the offender may have not intended to kill
the victim but he only wanted to commit a
crime against him in the beginning, he will still
be liable for murder if in the manner of
committing the felony there was treachery and
Page 103 of 119
as a consequence thereof the victim died. This
is based on the rule that a person committing
a felony shall be liable for the consequences
thereof although different from that which he
intended.
Illustration:
The accused, three young men, resented the
fact that the victim continued to visit a girl in
their neighborhood despite the warning they
gave him. So one evening, after the victim
had visited the girl, they seized and tied him
to a tree, with both arms and legs around the
tree. They thought they would give him a
lesson by whipping him with branches of
gumamela until the victim fell unconscious.
The accused left not knowing that the victim
died.
The crime committed was murder. The
accused deprived the victim of the chance to
defend himself when the latter was tied to a
tree. Treachery is a circumstance referring to
the manner of committing the crime. There
was no risk to the accused arising from the
defense by the victim.
Although what was initially intended was
physical injury, the manner adopted by the
accused was treacherous and since the victim
died as a consequence thereof, the crime is
murder -- although originally, there was no
intent to kill.
When the victim is already dead, intent to kill
becomes irrelevant. It is important only if the
victim did not die to determine if the felony is
physical injury or attempted or frustrated
homicide.
So long as the means, methods and form in
the execution is deliberately adopted, even if
there was no intent to kill, there is treachery.
In consideration of price, reward or promises;
Inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an
airship, by means of a motor vehicle, or with
the use of other means involving great waste
and ruin;
The only problem insofar as the killing by fire
is concerned is whether it would be arson with
homicide, or murder.
When a person is killed by fire, the primordial
criminal intent of the offender is considered. If
the primordial criminal intent of the offender is
to kill and fire was only used as a means to do
so, the crime is only murder. If the primordial
criminal intent of the offender is to destroy
property with the use of pyrotechnics and
incidentally, somebody within the premises is
killed, the crime is arson with homicide. But
this is not a complex crime under Article 48.
This is single indivisible crime penalized under
Article 326, which is death as a consequence
of arson. That somebody died during such fire
would not bring about murder because there is
no intent to kill in the mind of the offender. He
intended only to destroy property. However, a
higher penalty will be applied.
When killing was accomplished by means of
fire alleged in the information, it does not
qualify killing to Murder unless the use of fire
was employed to kill the victim.
In People v. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA
439, there was a town fiesta and the two
accused were at the town plaza with their
companions. All were uproariously happy,
apparently drenched with drink. Then, the
group saw the victim, a 25 year old retard
walking nearby and they made him dance by
tickling his sides with a piece of wood. The
victim and the accused Pugay were friends
and, at times, slept in the same place
together. Having gotten bored with their form
of entertainment, accused Pugay went and got
a can of gasoline and poured it all over the
retard. Then, the accused Samson lit him up,
making him a frenzied, shrieking human torch.
The retard died.
It was held that Pugay was guilty of homicide
through reckless imprudence. Samson only
guilty of homicide, with the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so
grave a wrong. There was no animosity
between the two accused and the victim such
that it cannot be said that they resort to fire to
kill him. It was merely a part of their fun
making but because their acts were felonious,
they are criminally liable.
On occasion of any of the calamities
enumerated in the preceding paragraph c, or
an earthquake, eruption of volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic or any other
public calamity;
Evident premeditation; and
When the actual victim turns out to be
different from the intended victim,
premeditation is not aggravating. (People vs.
Guillen, 85 Phil. 307)
Cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
Cruelty includes the situation where the victim
is already dead and yet, acts were committed
which would decry or scoff the corpse of the
victim. The crime becomes murder.
Hence, this is not actually limited to cruelty. It
goes beyond that because even if the victim is
already a corpse when the acts deliberately
augmenting the wrong done to him were
Page 104 of 119
committed, the killing is still qualified to
murder although the acts done no longer
amount to cruelty.
Under Article 14, the generic aggravating
circumstance of cruelty requires that the
victim be alive, when the cruel wounds were
inflicted and, therefore, must be evidence to
that effect. Yet, in murder, aside from cruelty,
any act that would amount to scoffing or
decrying the corpse of the victim will qualify
the killing to murder.
Illustration:
Two people engaged in a quarrel and they
hacked each other, one killing the other. Up to
that point, the crime is homicide. However, if
the killer tried to dismember the different parts
of the body of the victim, indicative of an
intention to scoff at or decry or humiliate the
corpse of the victim, then what would have
murder because this circumstance is
recognized under Article 248, even though it
was inflicted or was committed when the
victim was already dead.
The following are holdings of the
Supreme Court with respect to the crime
of murder:
(1) Killing of a child of tender age is murder
qualified by treachery because the
weakness of the child due to his tender
age results in the absence of any danger to
the aggressor.
(2) Evident premeditation is absorbed in price,
reward or promise, if without the
premeditation the inductor would not have
induced the other to commit the act but
not as regards the one induced.
(3) Abuse of superior strength is inherent in
and comprehended by the circumstance of
treachery or forms part of treachery.
(4) Treachery is inherent in poison.
(5) Where one of the accused, who were
charged with murder, was the wife of the
deceased but here relationship to the
deceased was not alleged in the
information, she also should be convicted
of murder but the relationship should be
appreciated as aggravating.
(6) Killing of the victims hit by hand grenade
thrown at them is murder qualified by
explosion not by treachery.
(7) Where the accused housemaid gagged a
three year old boy, son of her master, with
stockings, placed him in a box with head
down and legs upward and covered the
box with some sacks and other boxes, and
the child instantly died because of
suffocation, and then the accused
demanded ransom from the parents, such
did not convert the offense into kidnapping
with murder. The accused was well aware
that the child could be suffocated to death
in a few minutes after she left. Ransom
 was only a part of the diabolical scheme to
murder the child, to conceal his body and
then demand money before discovery of
the body.
The essence of kidnapping or serious illegal
detention is the actual confinement or
restraint of the victim or deprivation of his
liberty. If there is no showing that the accused
intended to deprive their victims of their
liberty for some time and there being no
appreciable interval between their being taken
and their being shot, murder and not
kidnapping with murder is committed.
Article 249
HOMICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person was killed.
2. That the accused killed him without
any justifying circumstances.
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.
Notes:
Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person not
constituting murder, parricide or infanticide.
1. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when
death resulted. Hence, evidence of intent
to kill is required only in attempted or
frustrated homicide
2. In all crimes against persons in which the
death of the victim is an element, there
must be satisfactory evidence of (1) the
fact of death and (2) the identity of the
victim
Distinction between homicide and physical
injuries:
In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is
intent to kill.
In physical injuries, there is none. However, if
as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the
victim died, the crime will be homicide
because the law punishes the result, and not
the intent of the act.
The following are holdings of the
Supreme Court with respect to the crime
of homicide:
(1) Physical injuries are included as one of
the essential elements of frustrated
homicide.
(2) If the deceased received two wounds
from two persons acting independently of
each other and the wound inflicted by
either could have caused death, both of
them are liable for the death of the victim
and each of them is guilty of homicide.
Page 105 of 119
(3) If the injuries were mortal but were only
due to negligence, the crime committed
will be serious physical injuries through
reckless imprudence as the element of
intent to kill in frustrated homicide is
incompatible with negligence or
imprudence.
(4) Where the intent to kill is not manifest,
the crime committed has been generally
considered as physical injuries and not
attempted or frustrated murder or
homicide.
(5) When several assailants not acting in
conspiracy inflicted wounds on a victim
but it cannot be determined who inflicted
which would which caused the death of
the victim, all are liable for the victims
death.
Note that while it is possible to have a crime of
homicide through reckless imprudence, it is
not possible to have a crime of frustrated
homicide through reckless imprudence.
If a boxer killed his opponent in a boxing bout
duly licensed by the Government without any
violation of the governing rules and
regulations, there is no Homicide to speak of.
If he hit his opponent below the belt without
any intention to do so, it is Homicide Through
Reckless Imprudence if the latter died as a
result. If he intentionally hit his opponent on
that part of his body causing the death, the
crime is Homicide.
The shooting of a peace officer who was fully
aware of the risks in pursuing the malefactors
when done in a spur of the moment is only
Homicide. (People vs. Porras, 255 SCRA
514).
Common misconception on the meaning
of corpus delicti.
Corpus delicti means body of the crime. It does
not refer to the body of the murdered person.
In all crimes against persons in which the
death of the victim is an element of the crime,
there must be proof of the fact of death and
identity of the victim. (Cortez vs. Court of
Appeals, 162 SCRA 139)
Article 250
PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE,
MURDER OR HOMICIDE
Article 251
DEATH IN A TUMULTOUS AFFRAY
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.
Notes:
1. Tumultuous affray exists when at least
4 persons take part in it
2. When there are 2 identified groups of
men who assaulted each other, there is
no tumultuous affray
3. Persons liable are:
a. person/s who inflicted serious
physical injuries
b. if it is not known who inflicted
serious physical injuries on the
deceased, all persons who used
violence upon the person of the
victim
If those who actually killed the victim can be
determined, they will be the ones to be held
liable, and those who inflicted serious or less
serious or slight physical injuries shall be
punished for said corresponding offenses
provided no conspiracy is established with the
killers.
Tumultuous affray simply means a used violence upon the person of the
commotion in a tumultuous and
confused manner, to such an extent
that it would not be possible to identify
who the killer is if death results, or who
inflicted the serious physical injury, but
the person or persons who used
violence are known.
It is not a tumultuous affray which brings
about the crime; it is the inability to ascertain
actual perpetrator. It is necessary that the
very person who caused the death cannot be
known, not that he cannot be identified.
Because if he is known but only his identity is
not known, then he will be charged for the
crime of homicide or murder under a fictitious
name and not death in a tumultuous affray. If
there is a conspiracy, this crime is not
committed.
To be considered death in a tumultuous
affray, there must be:
(1) a quarrel, a free-for-all, which should
not involve organized group; and
(2) someone who is injured or killed
because of the fight.
The person killed in the affray need not be one
of the participants.
As long as it cannot be determined who killed
the victim, all of those persons who inflicted
Page 106 of 119
serious physical injuries will be collectively
answerable for the death of that fellow.
The Revised Penal Code sets priorities as
to who may be liable for the death or
physical injury in tumultuous affray:
(1) The persons who inflicted serious physical
injury upon the victim;
(2) If they could not be known, then anyone
who may have employed violence on that
person will answer for his death.
(3) If nobody could still be traced to have
employed violence upon the victim,
nobody will answer. The crimes committed
might be disturbance of public order, or if
participants are armed, it could be
tumultuous disturbance, or if property was
destroyed, it could be malicious mischief.
Article 252
PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN A
TUMULTOUS AFFRAY
ELEMENTS:
1. that there is a tumultuous affray as
referred to in the preceding article.
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 therefor
cannot be identified.
4. That all those who appear to have
offended party are known.
Unlike in Article 251, where the victim need
not be one of the participants, the injured
party in the crime of physical injuries inflicted
in tumultuous affray must be one or some of
those involved in the quarrel.
In physical injuries caused in a tumultuous
affray, the conditions are also the same. But
you do not have a crime of physical injuries
resulting from a tumultuous affray if the
physical injury is only slight. The physical
injury should be serious or less serious and
resulting from a tumultuous affray. So anyone
who may have employed violence will answer
for such serious or less serious physical injury.
If the physical injury sustained is only slight,
this is considered as inherent in a tumultuous
affray. The offended party cannot complain if
he cannot identify who inflicted the slight
physical injuries on him.
Note that in slight physical injuries is inflicted
in the tumultuous affray and the identity of the
offender is established, the provisions of this
article will not be observed. Instead, the
offender shall be prosecuted in the ordinary
course of law.

Article 253
GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
Acts punishable:
1. Assisting another to commit
suicide, whether the suicide is
consummated or not
2. Lending his assistance to another
to commit suicide to the extent of
doing the killing himself
Notes:
Giving assistance to suicide means giving
means (arms, poison, etc.) or whatever
manner of positive and direct cooperation
(intellectual aid, suggestions regarding the
mode of committing suicide, etc.).
A person who attempts to commit suicide is
not criminally liable
In this crime, the intention must be for the
person who is asking the assistance of another
to commit suicide.
If the intention is not to commit suicide, as
when he just wanted to have a picture taken of
him to impress upon the world that he is
committing suicide because he is not satisfied
with the government, the crime is held to be
inciting to sedition.
He becomes a co-conspirator in the crime of
inciting to sedition, but not of giving assistance
to suicide because the assistance must be
given to one who is really determined to
commit suicide.
A pregnant woman who tried to commit
suicide by means of poison but instead of
dying, the fetus in her womb was expelled, is
not liable for abortion
Assistance to suicide is different from mercy-
killing. Euthanasia/mercy-killing is the
practice of painlessly putting to death a person
suffering from some incurable disease. In this
case, the person does not want to die. A
doctor who resorts to euthanasia may be held
liable for murder
If the person does the killing himself, the
penalty is similar to that of homicide, which is
reclusion temporal. There can be no qualifying
circumstance because the determination to die
must come from the victim. This does not
contemplate euthanasia or mercy killing where
the crime is murder, if without consent; if with
consent, covered by Article 253.
In mercy killing, the victim is not in a position
to commit suicide. Whoever would heed his
advice is not really giving assistance to suicide
but doing the killing himself. In giving
Page 107 of 119
assistance to suicide, the principal actor is the
person committing the suicide.
Both in euthanasia and suicide, the intention
to the end life comes from the victim himself;
otherwise the article does not apply. The
victim must persistently induce the offender to
end his life.
Penalty is mitigated if suicide is not successful
Even if the suicide did not materialize, the
person giving assistance to suicide is also
liable but the penalty shall be one or two
degrees lower depending on whether it is
frustrated or attempted suicide.
The following are holdings of the
Supreme Court with respect to this
crime:
(1) The crime is frustrated if the offender
gives the assistance by doing the killing
himself as firing upon the head of the
victim but who did not die due to medical
assistance.
(2) The person attempting to commit suicide
is not liable if he survives. The accused is
liable if he kills the victim, his sweetheart,
because of a suicide pact.
Article 254
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.
Notes:
This crime cannot be committed through
imprudence because it requires that the
discharge must be directed at another.
The offender must shoot at another with any
firearm without intention of killing him. If the
firearm is not discharged at a person , the act
is not punished under this article
If the firearm is directed at a person and the
trigger was pressed but did not fire, the crime
is frustrated discharge of firearm.
If the discharge is not directed at a person, the
crime may constitute alarm and scandal.
A discharge towards the house of the victim is
not discharge of firearm. On the other hand,
firing a gun against the house of the offended
party at random, not knowing in what part of
the house the people were, it is only alarm
under art 155.
Usually, the purpose of the offender is only to
intimidate or frighten the offended party

Intent to kill is negated by the fact that the
distance between the victim and the offender
is 200 yards
A person can be held liable for discharge even
if the gun was not pointed at the offended
party when it fired for as long as it was initially
aimed at or against the offended party
The following are holdings of the
Supreme Court with respect to this
crime:
(1) If serious physical injuries resulted from
discharge, the crime committed is the
complex crime of serious physical injury
with illegal discharge of firearm, or if less
serious physical injury, the complex crime
of less serious physical injury with illegal
discharge of firearm will apply.
(2) Firing a gun at a person even if merely to
frighten him constitutes illegal discharge of
firearm.
The gun used in the crime must be licensed, or
the person using the firearm must be
authorized to carry the same, otherwise, in
addition to the crime punished under this
article, accused may also be held liable for
illegal possession of firearm under Republic Act
No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No.
8294.
Article 255
INFANTICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1. That a child was killed.
2. That the deceased child was less than
three days (72 hours) of age.
3. That the accused killed the said child.
Notes:
When the offender is the father, mother or
legitimate ascendant, he shall suffer the
penalty prescribed for parricide. If the offender
is any other person, the penalty is that for
murder. In either case, the proper qualification
for the offense is infanticide.
Even if the killer is the mother or the father or
the legitimate grandparents, the crime is still
Infanticide and not Parricide. The penalty
however, is that for Parricide.
Illustration:
An unmarried woman, A, gave birth to a child,
B. To conceal her dishonor, A conspired with C
to dispose of the child. C agreed and killed
the child B by burying the child somewhere.
If the child was killed when the age of the child
was three days old and above already, the
crime of A is parricide. The fact that the killing
Page 108 of 119
was done to conceal her dishonor will not
mitigate the criminal liability anymore because
concealment of dishonor in killing the child is
not mitigating in parricide.
If the crime committed by A is parricide
because the age of the child is three days old
or above, the crime of the co-conspirator C is
murder. It is not parricide because he is not
related to the victim.
If the child is less than three days old when
killed, both the mother and the stranger
commits infanticide because infanticide is not
predicated on the relation of the offender to
the offended party but on the age of the child.
In such a case, concealment of dishonor as a
motive for the mother to have the child killed
is mitigating.
When infanticide is committed by the mother
or maternal grandmother in order to conceal
the dishonor, such fact is only mitigating
The delinquent mother who claims that she
committed the offense to conceal the dishonor
must be of good reputation. Hence, if she is a
prostitute, she is not entitled to a lesser
penalty because she has no honor to conceal
Concealment of dishonor is not an element of
infanticide. It merely lowers the penalty. If the
child is abandoned without any intent to kill
and death results as a consequence, the crime
committed is not infanticide but abandonment
under Article 276.
If the purpose of the mother is to conceal her
dishonor, infanticide through imprudence is
not committed because the purpose of
concealing the dishonor is incompatible with
the absence of malice in culpable felonies.
There is no infanticide when the child was born
dead, or although born alive it could not
sustain an independent life when it was killed
In our study of persons and family relations,
we have learned that birth determines
personality. So fetus becomes a person by the
legal fact of birth. The Civil Code provides that,
if the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than
seven (7) months, it will be considered born
only if it survives 24 hours after the umbilical
cord is cut. If such fetus is killed within the 24-
hour period, we have to determine if it would
have survived or it would have died
nonetheless, had it not been killed.
A legal problem occurs when a fetus having an
intra-uterine life of less than 7 months, born
alive, is killed within 24 hours from the time
the umbilical cord is cut. This is so because
there is difficulty of determining whether the
crime committed is infanticide or abortion. In
such a situation, the court may avail of expert
testimony in order to help it arrive at a
conclusion. So, if it is shown that the infant
cannot survive within 24 hours, the crime
committed is abortion; otherwise if it can
survive, the crime would be infanticide.
Article 256
INTENTIONAL ABORTION
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman.
2. That violence is exerted, or drugs or
beverages administered, or that the
accused otherwise acts upon such
pregnant woman.
3. That as a result of the use of violence
or drugs or beverages upon her, or any
other act of the accused, the fetus
dies, either in the womb or after
having been expelled therefrom.
4. That the abortion is intended.
Ortega Notes:
Acts punished
1. Using any violence upon the person of
the pregnant woman;
2. Acting, but without using violence,
without the consent of the woman. (By
administering drugs or beverages upon
such pregnant woman without her
consent.)
3. Acting (by administering drugs or
beverages), with the consent of the
pregnant woman.
Abortion is the violent expulsion of a fetus
from the maternal womb. If the fetus has
been delivered but it could not subsist by
itself, it is still a fetus and not a person. Thus,
if it is killed, the crime committed is abortion
not infanticide.
Distinction between infanticide and abortion
It is infanticide if the victim is already a person
less that three days old or 72 hours and is
viable or capable of living separately from the
mothers womb.
It is abortion if the victim is not viable but
remains to be a fetus.
Abortion is not a crime against the woman but
against the fetus. If mother as a consequence
of abortion suffers death or physical injuries,
you have a complex crime of murder or
physical injuries and abortion.
In intentional abortion, the offender must know
of the pregnancy because the particular
criminal intention is to cause an abortion.
Therefore, the offender must have known of
the pregnancy for otherwise, he would not try
an abortion.
Page 109 of 119
If the woman turns out not to be pregnant and
someone performs an abortion upon her, he is
liable for an impossible crime if the woman
suffers no physical injury. If she does, the
crime will be homicide, serious physical
injuries, etc.
Under the Article 40 of the Civil Code, birth
determines personality. A person is
considered born at the time when the umbilical
cord is cut. He then acquires a personality
separate from the mother.
But even though the umbilical cord has been
cut, Article 41 of the Civil Code provides that if
the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than
seven months, it must survive at least 24
hours after the umbilical cord is cut for it to be
considered born.
Illustration:
A mother delivered an offspring which had an
intra-uterine life of seven months. Before the
umbilical cord is cut, the child was killed.
If it could be shown that had the umbilical cord
been cut, that child, if not killed, would have
survived beyond 24 hours, the crime is
infanticide because that conceived child is
already considered born.
If it could be shown that the child, if not killed,
would not have survived beyond 24 hours, the
crime is abortion because what was killed was
a fetus only.
In abortion, the concealment of dishonor as a
motive of the mother to commit the abortion
upon herself is mitigating. It will also mitigate
the liability of the maternal grandparent of the
victim the mother of the pregnant woman if
the abortion was done with the consent of the
pregnant woman.
If the abortion was done by the mother of the
pregnant woman without the consent of the
woman herself, even if it was done to conceal
dishonor, that circumstance will not mitigate
her criminal liability.
But if those who performed the abortion are
the parents of the pregnant woman, or either
of them, and the pregnant woman consented
for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, the
penalty is the same as that imposed upon the
woman who practiced the abortion upon
herself .
Frustrated abortion is committed if the fetus
that is expelled is viable and, therefore, not
dead as abortion did not result despite the
employment of adequate and sufficient means
to make the pregnant woman abort. If the
means are not sufficient or adequate, the
crime would be an impossible crime of
abortion. In consummated abortion, the fetus
must be dead.
One who persuades her sister to abort is a co-
principal, and one who looks for a physician to
make his sweetheart abort is an accomplice.
The physician will be punished under Article
259 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 257
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman.
2. That violence is used upon such
pregnant woman without intending an
abortion.
3. That the violence is intentionally
exerted.
4. That as a result of the violence that
fetus dies, either in the womb or after
having been expelled therefrom.
Notes:
Unintentional abortion requires physical
violence inflicted deliberately and voluntarily
by a third person upon the person of the
pregnant woman. Mere intimidation is not
enough unless the degree of intimidation
already approximates violence.
If the pregnant woman aborted because of
intimidation, the crime committed is not
unintentional abortion because there is no
violence; the crime committed is light threats.
If the pregnant woman was killed by violence
by her husband, the crime committed is the
complex crime of parricide with unlawful
abortion.
While there is no intention on the part of the
accused to cause an abortion, nonetheless, the
violence that he employs on the pregnant
woman must be intentional. In other words,
only the abortion is unintended.
Unintentional abortion can also be committed
through negligence
Unintentional abortion may be committed
through negligence as it is enough that the use
of violence be voluntary.
Illustration:
A quarrel ensued between A, husband, and B,
wife. A became so angry that he struck B, who
was then pregnant, with a soft drink bottle on
the hip. Abortion resulted and B died.
Take note that while unintentional abortion
appears to be a crime that should be
committed with deliberate intent because of
the requirement that the violence employed on
the victim must be intentional, nevertheless, if
the circumstances of the case justifies the
Page 110 of 119
application of the other means of committing a
felony (like culpa), then the same should be
applied but the penalty will not be the penalty
provided under Article 257. Instead, the
offender shall be subject to the penalty
prescribed for simple or reckless imprudence
under Article 365.
The accused can only be held liable if he knew
that the woman was pregnant
- DEBATABLE
In US v. Jeffry, 15 Phil. 391, the Supreme
Court said that knowledge of pregnancy of the
offended party is not necessary. In People v.
Carnaso, decided on April 7, 1964,
however, the Supreme Court held that
knowledge of pregnancy is required in
unintentional abortion.
Criticism:
Under Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, any person committing a felony is
criminally liable for all the direct, natural, and
logical consequences of his felonious acts
although it may be different from that which is
intended. The act of employing violence or
physical force upon the woman is already a
felony. It is not material if offender knew
about the woman being pregnant or not.
If the act of violence is not felonious, that is,
act of self-defense, and there is no knowledge
of the womans pregnancy, there is no liability.
If the act of violence is not felonious, but there
is knowledge of the womans pregnancy, the
offender is liable for unintentional abortion.
Illustration:
The act of pushing another causing her to fall
is a felonious act and could result in physical
injuries. Correspondingly, if not only physical
injuries were sustained but abortion also
resulted, the felonious act of pushing is the
proximate cause of the unintentional abortion.
If there is no intention to cause abortion and
neither was violence exerted, arts 256 and 257
does not apply
Questions & Answers
1. A pregnant woman decided to commit
suicide. She jumped out of a window of a
building but she landed on a passerby. She
did not die but an abortion followed. Is she
liable for unintentional abortion?
No. What is contemplated in unintentional
abortion is that the force or violence must
come from another. If it was the woman doing
the violence upon herself, it must be to bring
about an abortion, and therefore, the crime
will be intentional abortion. In this case, where
the woman tried to commit suicide, the act of
trying to commit suicide is not a felony under
the Revised Penal Code. The one penalized in
suicide is the one giving assistance and not
the person trying to commit suicide.
2. If the abortive drug used in abortion is a
prohibited drug or regulated drug under
Presidential Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, what are the
crimes committed?
The crimes committed are (1) intentional
abortion; and (2) violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972.
Article 258
ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN
HERSELF
OR BY HER PARENTS
ELEMENTS :
1. That there is a pregnant woman who
has suffered an abortion.
2. That the abortion is intended.
3. That the abortion is caused by
a. the pregnant woman herself
b. any other person, with her
consent, or
c. any of her parents, with her
consent for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor.
Notes:
1. Liability of the pregnant woman is
mitigated if the purpose is to conceal her
dishonor. However, there is no Mitigation
for the parents of the pregnant women
even if their purpose is to conceal their
daughters dishonor
2. In infanticide, parents can avail of the
mitigating circumstance of concealing the
dishonor of their daughter. This is not so
for art 258
Article 259
ABORTION PRACTICED BY A PHYSICIAN
OR MIDWIFE
AND DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who
has suffered an abortion.
2. That the abortion is intended.
3. That the offender, who must be a
physician or midwife, causes or assists
in causing the abortion.
4. That said physician or midwife takes
advantage of his or her scientific
knowledge or skill.
Notes:
1. It is not necessary that the pharmacist
knew that the abortive would be used to
cause abortion. What is punished is the act
of dispensing an abortive without the
Page 111 of 119
proper prescription. It is not necessary that
the abortive be actually used
2. If the pharmacist knew that the abortive
would be used to cause abortion and
abortion results, he is liable as an
accomplice
If the abortion is produced by a physician to
save the life of the mother, there is no liability.
This is known as a therapeutic abortion.
But abortion without medical necessity to
warrant it is punishable even with the consent
of the woman or her husband.
Illustration:
A woman who is pregnant got sick. The doctor
administered a medicine which resulted in
Abortion. The crime committed was
unintentional abortion through negligence or
imprudence.
Question & Answer
What is the liability of a physician who aborts
the fetus to save the life of the mother?
None. This is a case of therapeutic abortion
which is done out of a state of necessity.
Therefore, the requisites under Article 11,
paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code must
be present. There must be no other practical
or less harmful means of saving the life of the
mother to make the killing justified.
Article 260
RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN A
DUEL
Acts punished:
1. Killing ones adversary in a duel
2. Inflicting upon the adversary
serious physical injuries
3. Making a combat although no
physical injuries have been inflicted
Persons liable:
1. Principals person who killed or
inflicted physical injuries upon his
adversary, or both combatants in any other
cases
2. Accomplices as seconds
The person who killed or injured his adversary.
If both survive, both will be liable for the crime
of duel as principals by direct participation.
The seconds will be held liable as accomplices.
Notes:
1. Duel: a formal or regular combat
previously concerted between 2 parties in
the presence of 2 or more seconds of lawful
age on each side, who make the selection
of arms and fix all the other conditions of
the fight
 2. If death results, the penalty is the same
as that for homicide
While the agreement is to fight to the death,
the law will disregard the intent to kill, if
only physical injuries is inflicted. The crime
will not be classified as attempted or
frustrated homicide.
If the accused and the deceased, after a verbal
heated argument in a bar, left the place at the
same time and pursuant to their agreement,
went to the plaza to fight each other to death
with knives which they bought on the way, the
facts do not constitute the crime of dueling
since there were no seconds who fixed the
conditions of the fight in a more or less formal
manner. If one was killed, the crime
committed would be Homicide.
There is no such crime nowadays because
people hit each other even without entering
into any pre-conceived agreement. This is an
obsolete provision.
Article 261
CHALLENGING TO A DUEL
Acts punishable:
1. Challenging another to a duel
2. Inciting another to give or accept a
challenge to a duel
3. Scoffing at or decrying another
publicly for having refused to accept
a challenge to fight a duel
Persons liable:
1. Challenger
2. Instigators
If the challenge is only to fight, without the
challenger having in mind a formal combat to
be agreed upon with the assistance of seconds
as contemplated under the law, the crime
committed will only be grave or light threat as
the case may be.
Illustration:
If one challenges another to a duel by shouting
Come down, Olympia, let us measure your
prowess. We will see whose intestines will
come out. You are a coward if you do not come
down, the crime of challenging to a duel is
not committed. What is committed is the
crime of light threats under Article 285,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
PHYSICAL INJURIES
Article 262
MUTILATION
Kinds of Mutilation
Page 112 of 119
1. Intentionally mutilating another by
depriving him, totally or partially, of some
essential organ for reproduction
2. Intentionally making another mutilation,
i.e. lopping, clipping off any part of the
body of the offended party, other than
the essential organ for reproduction, to
deprive him of that part of the body
Elements:
1. There be a castration i.e. mutilation
of organs necessary for generation
2. Mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately
Notes:
Mutilation is the lopping or clipping off of
some part of the body.
The intent to deliberately cut off the particular
part of the body that was removed from the
offended party must be established. If there is
no intent to deprive victim of particular part of
body, the crime is only serious physical injury.
The common mistake is to associate this with
the reproductive organs only. Mutilation
includes any part of the human body that is
not susceptible to grow again.
If what was cut off was a reproductive organ,
the penalty is much higher than that for
homicide.
This cannot be committed through criminal
negligence.
In the first kind of mutilation, the castration
must be made purposely. Otherwise, it will be
considered as mutilation of the second kind
Mayhem: refers to any other intentional
mutilation
Article 263
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
How Committed
1. Wounding
2. Beating
3. Assaulting
4. Administering injurious substances
In one case, the accused, while conversing
with the offended party, drew the latters bolo
from its scabbard. The offended party caught
hold of the edge of the blade of his bolo and
wounded himself. It was held that since the
accused did not wound, beat or assault the
offended party, he can not be guilty of serious
physical injuries.
What are serious physical injuries:
1. Injured person becomes insane,
imbecile, impotent or blind
 2. Injured person
a. loses the use of speech or the
power to hear or to smell, loses
an eye, a hand, foot, arm or leg
b. loses the use of any such
member
c. becomes incapacitated for the
work in which he had been
habitually engaged
3. Injured person
a. becomes deformed
b. loses any other member of his
body
c. loses the use thereof
d. becomes ill or incapacitated for
the performance of the work in
which he had been habitually
engaged in for more than 90
days
4. Injured person becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more
than 30 days (but not more than 90
days)
Notes:
The crime of physical injuries is a crime of
result because under our laws the crime of
physical injuries is based on the gravity of the
injury sustained. So this crime is always
consummated.
The reason why there is no attempted or
frustrated physical injuries is because the
crime of physical injuries is determined on the
gravity of the injury. As long as the injury is
not there, there can be no attempted or
frustrated stage thereof.
1. Serious physical injuries may be
committed through reckless imprudence
or simple imprudence
2. There must be no intent to kill
3. Impotent should include inability to
copulate and sterility
4. Blindness requires lost of vision in both
eyes. Mere weakness in vision is not
contemplated
5. Loss of power to hear must involve
both ears. Otherwise, it will be
considered as serious physical injuries
under par 3
6. Loss of use of hand or incapacity of
usual work in par 2 must be
permanent
7. Par 2 refers to principal members of the
body. Par 3 on the other hand, covers
any other member which is not a
principal part of the body. In this
respect, a front tooth is considered as a
member of the body, other than a
principal member
8. Deformity: means physical ugliness,
permanent and definite abnormality. Not
curable by natural means or by nature.
It must be conspicuous and visible.
Thus, if the scar is usually covered by a
dress, it would not be conspicuous and
visible
Page 113 of 119
9. The loss of 3 incisors is a visible
deformity. Loss of one incisor is not.
However, loss of one tooth which
impaired appearance is a deformity
10.Deformity by loss of teeth refers to
injury which cannot be impaired by the
action of the nature
11.Loss of both outer ears constitutes
deformity and also loss of the power to
hear. Meanwhile, loss of the lobule of
the ear is only a deformity
12.Loss of the index and middle fingers is
either a deformity or loss of a member,
not a principal one of his body or use of
the same
13.Loss of the power to hear in the right
ear is considered as merely loss of use
of some other part of the body
14.If the injury would require medical
attendance for more than 30 days, the
illness of the offended party may be
considered as lasting more than 30
days. The fact that there was medical
attendance for that period of time
shows that the injuries were not cured
for that length of time
15.Under par 4, all that is required is illness
or incapacity, not medical attendance
16.In determining incapacity, the
injured party must have an avocation at
the time of the injury. Work: includes
studies or preparation for a profession
17.When the category of the offense of
serious physical injuries depends on the
period of the illness or incapacity for
labor, there must be evidence of the
length of that period. Otherwise, the
offense will only be considered as slight
physical injuries
18.There is no incapacity if the injured
party could still engage in his work
although less effectively than before
19.Serious physical injuries is qualified
when the crime is committed against
the same persons enumerated in the
article on parricide or when it is
attended by any of the circumstances
defining the crime of murder. However,
serious physical injuries resulting from
excessive chastisement by parents is
not qualified serious physical injuries
Ortega Notes:
Classification of physical injuries:
(1) Between slight physical injuries and less
serious physical injuries, you have a
duration of one to nine days if slight
physical injuries; or 10 days to 20 days if
less serious physical injuries. Consider the
duration of healing and treatment.
The significant part here is between slight
physical injuries and less serious physical
injuries. You will consider not only the
healing duration of the injury but also the
medical attendance required to treat the
 injury. So the healing duration may be one
to nine days, but if the medical treatment
continues beyond nine days, the physical
injuries would already qualify as less serious
physical injuries. The medical treatment
may have lasted for nine days, but if the
offended party is still incapacitated for labor
beyond nine days, the physical injuries are
already considered less serious physical
injuries.
(2) Between less serious physical injuries
and serious physical injuries, you do not
consider the period of medical treatment.
You only consider the period when the
offended party is rendered incapacitated for
labor.
If the offended party is incapacitated to
work for less than 30 days, even though the
treatment continued beyond 30 days, the
physical injuries are only considered less
serious because for purposes of classifying
the physical injuries as serious, you do not
consider the period of medical treatment.
You only consider the period of incapacity
from work.
(3) When the injury created a deformity
upon the offended party, you disregard the
healing duration or the period of medical
treatment involved. At once, it is
considered serious physical injuries.
So even though the deformity may not have
incapacitated the offended party from work,
or even though the medical treatment did
not go beyond nine days, that deformity will
bring about the crime of serious physical
injuries.
Deformity requires the concurrence of the
following conditions:
(1) The injury must produce ugliness;
(2) It must be visible;
(3) The ugliness will not disappear
through natural healing process.
Illustration:
o Loss of molar tooth This is not
deformity as it is not visible.
o Loss of permanent front tooth This
is deformity as it is visible and
permanent.
o Loss of milk front tooth This is not
deformity as it is visible but will be
naturally replaced.
Question & Answer
The offender threw acid on the face of the
offended party. Were it not for timely medical
attention, a deformity would have been
produced on the face of the victim. After the
plastic surgery, the offended party was more
Page 114 of 119
handsome than before the injury. What crime
was committed? In what stage was it
committed?
The crime is serious physical injuries
because the problem itself states that the
injury would have produced a deformity.
The fact that the plastic surgery removed
the deformity is immaterial because in law
what is considered is not the artificial
treatment but the natural healing process.
In a case decided by the Supreme Court,
accused was charged with serious physical
injuries because the injuries produced a
scar. He was convicted under Article 263
(4). He appealed because, in the course of
the trial, the scar disappeared. It was held
that accused cannot be convicted of
serious physical injuries. He is liable only
for slight physical injuries because the
victim was not incapacitated, and there
was no evidence that the medical
treatment lasted for more than nine days.
Serious physical injuries is punished with
higher penalties in the following
cases:
(1) If it is committed against any of the
persons referred to in the crime of
parricide under Article 246;
(2) If any of the circumstances qualifying
murder attended its commission.
Thus, a father who inflicts serious physical
injuries upon his son will be liable for qualified
serious physical injuries.
Republic Act No. 8049
(The Anti-Hazing Law)
Hazing -- This is any initiation rite or practice
which is a prerequisite for admission into
membership in a fraternity or sorority or any
organization which places the neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating
situations or otherwise subjecting him to
physical or psychological suffering of injury.
These do not include any physical, mental,
psychological testing and training procedure
and practice to determine and enhance the
physical and psychological fitness of the
prospective regular members of the below.
Organizations include any club or AFP, PNP,
PMA or officer or cadet corps of the CMT or
CAT.
Section 2 requires a written notice to school
authorities from the head of the organization
seven days prior to the rites and should not
exceed three days in duration.
Section 3 requires supervision by head of the
school or the organization of the rites.
Section 4 qualifies the crime if rape, sodomy or
mutilation results therefrom, if the person
becomes insane, an imbecile, or impotent or
blind because of such, if the person loses the
use of speech or the power to hear or smell or
an eye, a foot, an arm or a leg, or the use of
any such member or any of the serious
physical injuries or the less serious physical
injuries. Also if the victim is below 12, or
becomes incapacitated for the work he
habitually engages in for 30, 10, 1-9 days.
It holds the parents, school authorities who
consented or who had actual knowledge if they
did nothing to prevent it, officers and members
who planned, knowingly cooperated or were
present, present alumni of the organization,
owner of the place where such occurred liable.
Makes presence a prima facie presumption of
guilt for such.
Article 264
ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES
OR BEVERAGES
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender inflicted upon
another person any serious physical
injury
2. That it was done knowingly
administering to him any injurious
substances or beverages or by
taking advantage of his weakness
of mind of credulity
3. He had no intent to kill
Notes:
The article under consideration does not deal
with a crime. It refers to means of committing
serious physical injuries.
1. It is frustrated murder when there is
intent to kill
2. Administering means introducing into
the body the substance, thus throwing
of the acid in the face is not
contemplated
Article 265
LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offended party is
incapacitated for labor for 10 days
or more (but not more than 30
days), or needs medical attendance
for the same period of time
2. That the physical injuries must not
be those described in the
preceding articles
Notes:
1. Circumstances qualifying the
offense:
Page 115 of 119
a. when there is manifest intent to
insult or offend the injured person
b. when there are circumstances
adding ignominy to the offense
c. when the victim is either the
offenders parents, ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers
d. when the victim is a person of rank
or person in authority, provided the
crime is not direct assault
2. It falls under this article even if there
was no incapacity but the medical
treatment was for 13 days
In this article, the offended party is
incapacitated from work for ten (10) days or
more but not more than thirty (30) days. If the
injury causes the illness of the victim, the
healing duration must be more than nine (9)
days but not more than thirty (30) days.
Article 265 is an exception to Article 48 in
relation to complex crimes as the latter only
takes place in cases where the Revised Penal
Code has no specific provision penalizing the
same with a definite, specific penalty. Hence,
there is no complex crime of slander by deed
with less serious physical injuries but only less
serious physical injuries if the act which was
committed produced the less serious physical
injuries with the manifest intent to insult or
offend the offended party, or under
circumstances adding ignominy to the offense.
Article 266
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
3 Kinds:
1. That which incapacitated the
offended party for labor from 1-9
days or required medical
attendance during the same period
2. That which did not prevent the
offended party from engaging in his
habitual work or which did not
require medical attendance (ex.
Black-eye)
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed
without causing any injury (ex.
slapping but without causing
dishonor)
This involves even ill-treatment where there is
no sign of injury requiring medical treatment.
Slapping the offended party is a form of ill-
treatment which is a form of slight physical
injuries.
But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor
upon the person slapped, the crime is slander
by deed. If the slapping was done without the
intention of casting dishonor, or to humiliate or
embarrass the offended party out of a quarrel
or anger, the crime is still ill-treatment or ELEMENTS:
slight physical injuries. Rape is committed
1. By a man who have carnal
The crime is slight physical injury if there is no knowledge of a woman under any
proof as to the period of the offended partys of the following circumstances:
incapacity for labor or of the required medical a. through force, threat or
attendance. intimidation
b. when the offended party is
Republic Act No. 7610 deprived of reason or otherwise
(Special Protection of Children against unconscious
Child Abuse, Exploitation and c. by means of fraudulent
Discrimination Act), in relation to murder, machination or grave abuse of
mutilation or injuries to a child authority
d. when the offended party is
The last paragraph of Article VI of Republic Act under 12 years of age or is
No. 7610, provides: demented, even though none of
the circumstances mentioned
For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the above be present
commission of acts punishable under Articles
248, 249, 262 (2) and 263 (1) of Act No 3815, 2. By any person who, under any of
as amended of the Revised Penal Code for the the circumstances mentioned in par
crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional 1 hereof, shall commit an act of
mutilation, and serious physical injuries, sexual assault by inserting
respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when a. his penis into another persons
the victim is under twelve years of age. mouth or anal orifice, or
b. any instrument or object, into
The provisions of Republic Act No. 7160 the genital or anal orifice of
modified the provisions of the Revised Penal another person
Code in so far as the victim of the felonies
referred to is under 12 years of age. The clear Rape committed under par 1 is
intention is to punish the said crimes with a punishable by:
higher penalty when the victim is a child of 1. reclusion perpetua
tender age. Incidentally, the reference to 2. reclusion perpetua to DEATH when
Article 249 of the Code which defines and a. victim became insane by reason or on
penalizes the crime of homicide were the the occasion of rape
victim is under 12 years old is an error. Killing b. the rape is attempted and a homicide is
a child under 12 is murder, not homicide, committed by reason or on the occasion
because the victim is under no position to thereof
defend himself as held in the case of People
v. Ganohon, 196 SCRA 431. 3. DEATH when
a. homicide is committed
For murder, the penalty provided by the Code, b. victim under 18 years and offender is:
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is i. parent
reclusion perpetua to death higher than what ii. ascendant
Republic Act no. 7610 provides. Accordingly, iii. step-parent
insofar as the crime is murder, Article 248 of iv. guardian
the Code, as amended, shall govern even if the v. relative by consanguinity or
victim was under 12 years of age. It is only in affinity with the 3rd civil degree or
respect of the crimes of intentional mutilation vi. common law spouse of parent of
in paragraph 2 of Article 262 and of serious victim
physical injuries in paragraph 1 of Article 263
of the Code that the quoted provision of c. under the custody of the police or
Republic Act No. 7160 may be applied for the military authorities or any law
higher penalty when the victim is under 12 enforcement or penal institution
years old. d. committed in full view of the spouse,
parent or any of the children or other
relatives within the 3rd degree of
RAPE consanguinity
e. victim is a religious engaged in
ART 266-A legitimate religious vocation or calling
RAPE and is personally known to be such by
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353) the offender before or at the time of the
now classified the crime of rape as Crime commission of the crime
Against Persons incorporated into Title 8 f. a child below 7 years old
of the RPC to be known as Chapter 3 g. offender knows he is afflicted with HIV
or AIDS or any other sexually
Page 116 of 119
 transmissible disease and the virus is
transmitted to the victim
h. offender; member of the AFP, or para-
military units thereof, or the PNP, or any
law enforcement agency or penal
institution, when the offender took
advantage of his position to facilitate
the commission of the crime
i. victim suffered permanent physical
mutilation or disability
j. the offender knew of the pregnancy of
the offended party at the time of the
commission of the crime; and
k. when the offender knew of the mental
disability, emotional disorder and/or
physical handicap or the offended party
at the time of the commission of the
crime
Rape committed under par 2 is
punishable by:
1. prision mayor
2. prision mayor to reclusion temporal
a. use of deadly weapon or
b. by two or more persons
3. reclusion temporal when the victim has
become insane
4. reclusion temporal to reclusion
pepetua rape is attempted and homicide
is committed
5. reclusion perpetua homicide is
committed by reason or on occasion of rape
6. reclusion temporal committed with any
of the 10 aggravating circumstances
mentioned above
Notes:
1. Dividing age in rape:
a. less than 7 yrs old, mandatory death
b. less than 12 yrs old, statutory rape
c. less than 18 yrs old and there is
relationship (e.g. parent etc); mandatory
death
Because of this amendment which reclassified
rape as a crime against persons, an impossible
crime may now be committed in case of rape;
that is, if there is inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
The case of People vs. Orita (G.R. No. 88724,
April 3, 1990), laid a new doctrine in Philippine
penal law insofar as the crime of rape is
concerned, as it finally did away with
frustrated rape and allowed only attempted
rape and consummated rape to remain in our
statute books.
The act of touching should be understood as
inherently part of the entry of the penis into
the labia of the female organ and not the mere
touching alone of the mons pubis or the
pudendum. Jurisprudence dictates that the
labia majora (or he outer lips of the female
Page 117 of 119
organ) must be entered for rape to be
consummated, and not merely for the penis to
stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus,
grazing of the surface of the female organ or
touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is
not sufficient to constitute rape. ( Pp vs.
Campuhan)
Classification of rape
(1) Traditional concept under Article
335 carnal knowledge with a woman
against her will. The offended party is
always a woman and the offender is
always a man.
(2) Sexual assault - committed with an
instrument or an object or use of the
penis with penetration of mouth or anal
orifice. The offended party or the
offender can either be man or woman,
that is, if a woman or a man uses an
instrument on anal orifice of male, she
or he can be liable for rape.
Since rape is not a private crime anymore, it
can be prosecuted even if the woman does not
file a complaint.
If carnal knowledge was made possible
because of fraudulent machinations and grave
abuse of authority, the crime is rape. This
absorbs the crime of qualified and simple
seduction when no force or violence was used,
but the offender abused his authority to rape
the victim.
Under Article 266-C, the offended woman may
pardon the offender through a subsequent
valid marriage, the effect of which would be
the extinction of the offenders liability.
Similarly, the legal husband may be pardoned
by forgiveness of the wife provided that the
marriage is not void ab initio. Obviously,
under the new law, the husband may be liable
for rape if his wife does not want to have sex
with him. It is enough that there is indication
of any amount of resistance as to make it rape.
Incestuous rape was coined in Supreme
Court decisions. It refers to rape committed
by an ascendant of the offended woman. In
such cases, the force and intimidation need
not be of such nature as would be required in
rape cases had the accused been a stranger.
Conversely, the Supreme Court expected that
if the offender is not known to the woman, it is
necessary that there be evidence of
affirmative resistance put up by the offended
woman. Mere no, no is not enough if the
offender is a stranger, although if the rape is
incestuous, this is enough.
The new rape law also requires that there be a
physical overt act manifesting resistance, if
the offended party was in a situation where he
or she is incapable of giving valid consent, this
is admissible in evidence to show that carnal
knowledge was against his or her will.

When the victim is below 12 years old, mere
sexual intercourse with her is already rape.
Even if it was she who wanted the sexual
intercourse, the crime will be rape. This is
referred to as statutory rape.
If the victim however is exactly twelve (12)
years old (she was raped on her birthday) or
more, and there is consent, there is no rape.
However, Republic Act No. 7610, Sec. 5 (b)
provides that: Even if the victim is over twelve
(12) year old and the carnal act was with her
consent as long as she falls under the
classification of a child exploited in prostitution
and other sexual abuse, the crime is rape.
In other cases, there must be force,
intimidation, or violence proven to have been
exerted to bring about carnal knowledge or
the woman must have been deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious.
It is not necessary that the force or
intimidation employed be so great or of such
character as could not be resisted it is only
necessary that it be sufficient to consummate
the purpose which the accused had in mind.
(People vs. Canada, 253 SCRA 277).
Carnal knowledge with a woman who is asleep
constitutes Rape since she was either deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious at that
time. (People vs. Caballero, 61 Phil. 900).
Sexual intercourse with an insane, deranged or
mentally deficient, feeble-minded or idiotic
woman is Rape pure and simple. The
deprivation of reason contemplated by law
need not be complete; mental abnormality or
deficiency is sufficient.
Where the victim is over 12 years old, it must
be shown that the carnal knowledge with her
was obtained against her will. It is necessary
that there be evidence of some resistance put
up by the offended woman. It is not, however,
necessary that the offended party should exert
all her efforts to prevent the carnal
intercourse. It is enough that from her
resistance, it would appear that the carnal
intercourse is against her will.
Mere initial resistance, which does not indicate
refusal on the part of the offended party to the
sexual intercourse, will not be enough to bring
about the crime of rape.
Note that it has been held that in the crime of
rape, conviction does not require medico-legal
finding of any penetration on the part of the
woman. A medico-legal certificate is not
necessary or indispensable to convict the
accused of the crime of rape.
It has also been held that although the
offended woman who is the victim of the rape
Page 118 of 119
failed to adduce evidence regarding the
damages to her by reason of the rape, the
court may take judicial notice that there is
such damage in crimes against chastity. The
standard amount given now is P 50,000.00,
with or without evidence of any moral
damage.
An accused may be convicted of rape on the
sole testimony of the offended woman. It does
not require that testimony be corroborated
before a conviction may stand. This is
particularly true if the commission of the rape
is such that the narration of the offended
woman would lead to no other conclusion
except that the rape was committed.
Illustration:
Daughter accuses her own father of having
raped her.
Allegation of several accused that the woman
consented to their sexual intercourse with her
is a proposition which is revolting to reason
that a woman would allow more than one man
to have sexual intercourse with her in the
presence of the others.
It has also been ruled that rape can be
committed in a standing position because
complete penetration is not necessary. The
slightest penetration contact with the labia
will consummate the rape.
On the other hand, as long as there is an
intent to effect sexual cohesion, although
unsuccessful, the crime becomes attempted
rape. However, if that intention is not proven,
the offender can only be convicted of acts of
lasciviousness.
The main distinction between the crime of
attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is
the intent to lie with the offended woman.
In a case where the accused jumped upon a
woman and threw her to the ground, although
the accused raised her skirts, the accused did
not make any effort to remove her underwear.
Instead, he removed his own underwear and
placed himself on top of the woman and
started performing sexual movements.
Thereafter, when he was finished, he stood up
and left. The crime committed is only acts of
lasciviousness and not attempted rape. The
fact that he did not remove the underwear of
the victim indicates that he does not have a
real intention to effect a penetration. It was
only to satisfy a lewd design.
The new law, R.A. 8353, added new
circumstance that is, when carnal knowledge
was had by means of fraudulent machinations
or grave abuse of authority. It would seem
that if a woman of majority age had sexual
intercourse with a man through the latters
scheme of pretending to marry her which is
the condition upon which the woman agreed to
have sex with him, manipulating a sham
marriage, the man would be guilty of Rape
under this Section. So also, a prostitute who
willingly had sexual congress with a man upon
the latters assurance that she would be paid
handsomely, may be guilty of Rape if later on
he refuses to pay the said amount.

A person in authority who maneuvered a

scheme where a woman landed in jail, and
who upon promise of being released after
having sex with the officer, willingly consented
to the sexual act, may also be found guilty of
Rape under this new section.

In Rape cases, court must always be

guided by the following principles:
1. An accusation of rape can be made with
facility; it is difficult to prove, but more
difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove;
2. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime
where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme caution;
and
3. The evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot
be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
(People vs. Ricafort)

Page 119 of 119