Ticman Crim Part 1

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
CENTER FOR LEGAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Taft Avenue Corner Menlo Street, Pasay City
CRIMINAL LAW
Prof Modesto Ticman, Jr.
Part. 1
Good morning! Umpisahan na ba natin. Sige, Okay so, Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code so
somehow nakita ko no nabigay na sa inyo ang mga materials. So kapag nabasa mo yan pwede ka ng
umuwi, you will get atleast 85 on criminal law. Promise yan Andiyan na lahat yan.
Lets start with Death Caused or Inflicted Under Exceptional Circumstances mag-uumpisa ako
dito because Art 247 does not define a felony. Although it is provided that the offending spouse under
Art 247 may be sentenced to suffer the penalty of Destierro nakalagay don but it doesnt make Art 247
or that doesnt mean that what is defined under art 247 is a felony kasi alam naman natin na ang
Destierro is not a penalty. Now the offended spouse rather Art 247 may be sentenced to Destierro to
protect him from the retaliation that would come from the relatives of the offending spouse and the
paramour. By the way for purposes of the Revised Penal Code, yung querida, ang tawag diyan ay
concubine, yung querido, yung lalaki, ang tawag don ay paramour.
What is okay so yung sabi ko, it is not a felony. If it is not a felony then what is it? It is an
absolutory cause why is it a absolutory cause look under Article 247, a person may have been killed, a
person may have suffered serious physical injures yet the person responsible for the killing or the
infliction of serious physical injuries, di ba he could have been charged of parricide murder or homicide
or serious physical injuries and yet hindi siya pwedeng masintensyahan ng Reclusion Perpetua or
Reclusion Temporal as the case maybe kundi Destierro lang which I have said is not even a felony. So
ano ba yung 247 na yan? Now basically, eto yan, that the offending spouse may have killed or inflicted
serious physical injuries upon the offended spouse and the paramour or concubine. Under what
circumstance? Ibig sabihin after the offending spouse have caught them in the act committing sexual
intercourse or have killed or committed physical injuries immediately thereafter.
Although this may also be applicable to the parents or the parent of the minor daughter whom
they would catch committing sexual intercourse with another person. Yan ang situation although you
have to take note of the exceptions. At isa pa, under Art. 247, sinasabi daw sabi ko daw that the
offending spouse must have surprised the offended spouse or concubine committing sexual intercourse.
Sino bang hindi massurprise? Both parties in this case would have been surprised actually yung surprise
na ito should relate to the offended spouse siya dapat yung masusurprise hindi yung nahuli niya. And
now may nakikita akong nakikita sa bar ulit. Hindi na ito yung magkapareho ah- na babae lalaki. Gasgas
na yan pero paglumabas na yan alam niyo na rin kung papaano niyo sssagutin yan. 1. Are preparatory
acts included? Ano ba yung acts preparatory to sexual intercourse? Halimbawa kissing. Kasama ba ng
kissing? Sabi ko nga, depende yan sa klase ng kiss. Kung flying kiss yan at pinatay mo yung asawa mo,
walang absolutory cause yan. What about the offending spouse had caught offended spouse kissing
another man or woman such as French do it. French kiss, pinatay mo. May the offender in this case be
entitled to absolutory cause? Personally I would not consider him to be entitled thereto kasi sa tingin ko
ha French kissing may not be preparatory to sexual intercourse.
Pero pag Australian na kissing na yan that is an act preparatory to sexual intercourse pag
pinatay mo while they were in that act or immediately thereafter, sa tingin ko entitled ka. What about if
1

the offended spouse had not actually caught them in the act pero anong nakita ng offended spouse
nakita niya the offended spouse and yung babae or lalaki, as the case may be, sleeping side by side with
each other tapos naked sila, pinatay would he still be entitled to this absolutory cause? I would like to
think that he should still be entitled to it. For as long as he reasonably believes and that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that they had sex.
Under the circumstances, anong ginawa nila? Bakit sila natulog ng nakahubad? Dinisesect lang
nila ang isat-isa? So, hindi naman siguro. So, pwede pa rin yun. Yung isang ruling, nakita niya alas-6 tapos
pumunta sa bahay ng kapit bahay humiram ng baril, pagbalik dun, wala na si paramour, tapos 7-o clock
nakita yung lalaki yung paramour, pinatay. Sabi ng Supreme Court diyan, entitled pa rin. Sabi ng
Supreme Court, even if 1 hour had passed from the time the offended spouse had discovered the act
kahit na lumagpas pa riyan, okay pa rin yan. But the rule is that according to People vs Abarca the
offended spouse may be still entitled to absolutory cause under the circumstance if the discovery, the
escape, the pursuit or the killing would form part of 1 continuous act but importantly, sabi ng SC, the
offended spouse, may be entitled to this absolutory cause if the killing or the infliction of the serious
physical injuries is the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused. When he chanced
upon the offending spouse committing this baseless act of infidelity.
Pero tingin ko ito ang lalabas sa bar: A and B are husband and wife the husband in this case had
thought that his wife was faithful to him but unknown to be, his wife was having an affair with Mr. C.
Meron silang sexual relationship. And that B the wife and the paramour were always in a motel every
Friday from 6-9. Yet unknown to the wife itong si paramour everytime they are in a motel, would set up
a video cam, nasa loob sila ng kwarto. All that have transpired in that room were recorded and
kinocompile ni Mr. C. as days went by the wife decided to call it quits and come to realize the
consequences of her actions. Nakipagbreak siya kay Mr C. But si Mr C ayaw. Sabi niya gaganti ako so he
uploaded one of the videos in the net. The activity na yan that was uploaded a month after. A month
later si A and B nagdadate na ulit. Dahil mahilig mag internet si husband dala dala niya ang kanyang ipad.
Nung nasa resto na sila binuksan ni husband ang kanyang ipad at binuksan ang kanyang favorite porn
site. Pagbukas niya, wait lang honey, kamukha mo yung babae. Sabi ni honey, hindi ako yan kamukha
ko lang. Iniscren shot niya at tinignan ang sex organs ng babae pagtingin niya, Honey ikaw ito! Inamin
ni wife. Pinalo sa ulo ni husband yung ipad at basag yung ipad tapos he forcefully fed his wife of the
splinters. Pinakain yung mga basag basag na parte. Eh buhay pa kinuha niya yung charger sa bag and
chinoke ni husband si wife. So namatay si wife.
He was prosecuted with parricide. Could he successfully invoke this absolutory cause under Art
247? Siguro off hand and sagot mo dito would be NO, kasi nga sasabihin mo under Art 247, the
offfended spouse must have surprised the offending spouse and the paramour committing sexual
intercourse and while in that act or immediately thereafter, dapat patayin niya. Hindi ka maz-zero diyan,
kung 4 points yung question baka bigyan ka ng 1 point diyan kasi alam mo yung batas eh. But this would
be my preferred answer. Kung ako yung examiner ganito yung gusto kong sagot: that Mr A and the
husband should be entitled to this absolutory cause, why? In the case decided by the supreme court, it
was decided that, ccite ko na rin yung abarca ruling, this may be availed of if the killing of the offending
spouse is the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused when he chanced upon the
offending spouse committing this baseless act of infidelity, in this case there appears could be no other
external factors that could have impelled the offended spouse in killing his wife other than the same
2

feeling had he chanced upon the offending spouse and the paramour committing sexual intercourse.
Magkapareho ba yung feeling o mararamdaman nung lalaki kung makita niya in the act at kung makita
niya in the net? Personally mas offending sa akin yung makikita ko sa net. Kasi kung nakita na niya na
nagssex sila siya lang nakakakita, e kung nasa net, buong mundo makakakita na. Punta naman tayo sa
medyo madadaling provisions: Crimes against persons.
Parricide. When you talk of parricide the offender must have killed his father or mother, or
must have killed his child and the relationship of the offender and his child may either be legitimate or
illegitimate. He may have killed an ascendant or descendant provided that the relationship between the
offender and this descendant or ascendant is legitimate or may he have killed his spouse. So yan ang
parricide. Eh ano naman ang infanticide? Pag sinabi mong infanticide, the offender must have killed the
child who is less than 3 days old or less than 72 hours old. Now, baka tanungin halimbawa, Ms. A, had
given birth to a baby, yung batang ito ay illegitimate, 2 days after having given birth the mother had
choked the child to death. Question of what the mother crime would be: Parricide or Infanticide?
Infanticide yan. because under this instance di mo kinoconsideer ang relationship to make the mother
liable but ang kinoconsider mo ditto ay ang edad nung bata.
Infanticide yan. Sabi ko nga pag may namatay ordinarily homicide lang yan unless the offended
party or the victim is of those under Art 246 sa parricide or unless the victim is below 3 days old,
infanticide naman yan or unless, any of the qualifying circumstances attend or attends the killing of the
victim, in that case the offender may be held liable for murder. But if the death of the victim resulted
from the negligence on the part of the offender then that would be negligence resulting in homicide.
Homicide has 3 stages. Attempted, frustrated and consummated. So, may a person be convicted of
homicide even the prosecution was not able to prove the intent to kill, the answer is YES. Pwede yan
pumasok sa preter intencionem. If the offender is committing an intentional felony, and that the
resultant death of the victim, is he direct natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by
him though the death by the killing of the victim is not intended by the offender, liable siya for homicide
although, sabi ko nga, he may be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of no intent to commit so grave
a wrong as that of committed.
Another question, may a person be held liable for attempted or frustrated homicide if the
prosecution would not be able to prove intent to kill the answer is NO. Bonggang bonggang NO yan.
Bastat walang intent to kill, sa attempted and frustrated lang. Most or all the qualifying circumstances
under Art 248 except for one are included in the enumeration of aggravating circumstance under Art 14.
Lahat yan! Pwera lang yung isa- yung outraging or scoffing at the person of the victim or his corpse, yun
lang ang exception is attended by two or more. But what if the killing of a person is attended by 2 or
more circumstances that qualify the killing of the person to murder under article 248. Ilan ang pwede
mong i-appreciate to operate as a qualifying circumstance, isa lang. Eh papaano naman yung iba, should
we disregard the others? The answer is NO. The other circumstances would be treated as generic
aggravating circumstances unless na-absorb na just like treachery absorbing the use of superior
strength. But do not forget that insofar as aggravating is concerned, the prosecution has the burden of
proving the same. But the qualifying and aggravating circumstance may not be aggravated if it is not
alleged in the information. Kaya nga dalawa ang requisites diyan ano, before an aggravating
circumstance may be appreciated 1. It must be alleged in the information; the reason is because the
3

right to be informed on the nature of accusation against the accused. 2. The same must be proven by
the prosecution. Kailangan mapatunayan.
Quantum of proof. Same as that inproving the guilt of the accused. ANong proof yun proof of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Yung mga Qualifying circumstances which is alleged in the info to have
attended the killing of a person are the ff: 1. Treachery 2. Inconsideration of a price, reward or promise
3. Outraging or scouffing to the victim or its corpse. If the prsecution was able to prove these 3
circumstance which of the 3 should operate as a qualifying circumstance? Yung outraging. Yung
treachery shld be relegated as a generic agg circ; yung inconsideration of a price, reward or promise,
ganun dn, relegated rin as a generic agg circ. Bakit? Kasi yung Outraging or scouffing the victim or its
corpse could not be considered as a gen agg circ.
Ganito kasimple ang paliwanag, kasi ang outraging or scouffing the victim or its corpse, is not
included in the enumeration of Aggravating circumstance under art 14. Isa pa na babantayan niyo in
crimes against persons, eh yung death caused in a tumultuous affairs yung physical inj caused in a
tumultuous affray. That would be art 251 and 252. Ang affray ibig sabihin niyan quarrel/ fight. If the
affair preceded of the adjective tumultuous, it will be considered a confused quarrel. In street language,
rambol. Tumutuous affray. In order that a person may be held liable under Art 252 or art 252 aperson
must have been killed or suffered serious or less serious physical injuries in the course or during the
tumultuous affray. There is a tumultuous affray only if there are seeral persons not composing groups
mutually organized for the purpose of attacking or assaulting one another. ABCDE had gone to a videoke
bar. Kumain, uminom at kumanta. Moments later another grp of men arrived, TUVWXYZ. Yung groupo
ni A and T are strangers with one another.
Sabi ni A waited peram nga ng microphone tumugtog na ang intro ng My Way then Mr A
started singing that song. But one of the members of 2nd group, Mr. U, was angered by the manner by
which Mr A sings the song. It was apparently the favorite of mr u. Gali because Mr A is singing the song
to the tune of Versace on the floor. Niaapitan si Mr A. kinonfront. Then there was a heated argument
betweent he A and U and escalated a fist fight between the two groups and it happened that mr T laid
dead. Patay si Mr T. Question: who may be held liable to Mr T's death? Eto ang rules: 1. If the person
who caused fatal wound had caused Mr T could be identified then he would only be the one liable, for
what? for homicide under Art 249. And as such he may be made to suffer the penalty prescribed by law
for homicide which is reclusion temporal without prejudice to the app of the islaw. Example: nobody
among the mem of the 1st and the 2nd group were identified to have caused the fatal wounds that
resulted to Mr T who may be liable? That person who cold be iden to have inflic serious physical injuries
upon mr t. For what crime ay that person be liable? death caused in a tumultuous affray under art 251
of RPC and as scuh may be sentenced to suffer prision mayor 1 degree lower ng Rec temp. Bakit? Kasi di
naman siya talaga ang pumatay actually what he did was he merely inflicted injuries upon the victim
which may or may not have caused the death of the victim. SO di natin naidentify wh inflicted the
mortal wound that caused death of the victim, we could not also identify the person inflicted the per
inflicted physical injuries the who should be held liable. Then that person who may be identified to have
employed violence upon the victim. So 1 degree ng homicide din ng penalty so he may be liable for
death caused in a tumultuous affray.
4

Halimbawa etong si Mr t he was not killed yet he sustained serious or less s physical injuries
then the person who have inflicted the injuries could not be identified. If then it happened the person
inflicted serious or less s physical injuries could be identified then siya lang ang liable. For what? For
serious or less serious physical injuries. Pero if the person who inflicted serious or less physical injuries
could not be identified then who should be held liable for the injuries Mr T could have sustained that
person could have been identified to have employed violence upon him.
In such case, that person may be held liable for physical injuries caused in a tumultuous affray.
So if serious physical injuries lang under art 252 1 degree lower ng serious physical injuries kung under
Art 252, less serious ang nainflict, 1 degree lower ng less s physical inj. Perhaps only the offender would
be liable of physical injuries in a tumutuos affray wherein the victim would sustain less serious physical
injuries may be sentenced to suffer, Arresto Menor. Pero kung si Mr C had incurred slight physical
injuries in a tumultuous affray who should be held liable therefore? Nobody kung slight physical injuries
lang. Kasi ang penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, wala ng 1 dgree lower yan. Next is
suicide. Attempting to commit suicide is not a felony an dyou know that but assisting another to commit
suicide is. Okay so halimbawa nakatanggap ka ng text sa isang kaibigan, sabi niya sis/bro, punta kayo
ditto sa condo pagpunta mo don nakita mo yung kaibigan mo nakatali yung leeg tapos ung dulo sa
istaas nakatali tapos tumungtong siya sa stool sabi niya pakisipa mo nga itong bangkong ito ikaw
naman sinipa mo, ayun nabigti yung kaibigan mo. Liable k aba for homicide, no you are liable in assisting
to commit suicide. For the first time lumabas sa bar yan. I think in 2012. Yung boyfriend/ girlfriend di ba,
their respective parents resented their relationship punta sila sa motel, they decded to kill themselves di
ba, una binaril nung boyfriend si girlfriend namatay si girlfriend pagkatapos, the girlfriend has shot
himself in the temple kaya lang nabuhay. Does the boyfriend has criminal liability under the Revised
Penal Code? Yes he is liable of assisting another to commit suicide under Art 253. Discharge of firearms
under art 254 is a crime against persons. 2 beses niyong makikita yan sa RPC. Una, Alarms and scandals
when discharging a firearm.
Under Art 155 and discharge of firearms under Art 254 of PRC. Eto, nagpaputok ng baril. Pero
ano yung mga distinctings nila as to their nature? Yung alrams and scandals nila by discharging a firearm,
the same is a crime against public order while discharge of firearms against 254 is a crime against
persons kaya hindi siya pwede maging recidivist. Kung naconvict siya dati ng alarms and scandals, by
discharging a firearm tapos naconvict naman siya ng discharge of firearms under 254 he is not a
recidivistinsofar as subsequent conviction of discharge of firearms is concerned kasi alarams and
scandals by discharging a firearm and discharging of firearms under 254 are not embraced under the
same title of the code, so magkaiba sila.
As to the purpose of the offender. SO by the way papano baa ng alrams and scandals from
discharging afirearm? That the offender may have discharge a firarm in a public place calculated to
cause alarm and danger and that alarms and scandals by discharging a firearm is a light felony, 1 day -30
days imprisonment lang yan or a fine of not ore that 200 pesos or both. As to the intention of the
offender, under art 155, ang intention of the foffender is to cause alam or danger, to cause public
disturbance na hindi naman masyadong seryoso ang disturbance.
The offender discharge a firearms in a public place and that the discturbance he have caused in
public is serious, ah hindi nay an alarm and scandal, ano yan? Tumults and other disturbances under
5

153. Yung tipong nagpaputok ka ng baril in apublic place tapos nagkaroon na ng Magnitude 7 na lindol,
ayan tumutls and other serious disturbance. Exaggerated yan, hindi naman lalabas sa bar ng ganyan.
Dun naman sa discharge of firearms, under Art 254, ano baa ng intensyon of the offender? The intention
of the offender in discharge of firearms under Art or to intimidate the 254 is to scare to frighthen or to
intimidate the victim. In alarms and scandals in dischargeing a firearm, kasi ang purpose is for public
disturbance, the gun must not aimed to another person.
DI ba kung tinutok mo yung baril mo sa isang tao, ang purpose mob a pag pinutok mo yung baril
mo eh to cause public disturbance? Hindi di ba? Okay while discharge of firearms under 254 the
defendant must have discharged the firearm at another, ibig sabihin ibinaril niya sa isang tao but there
must not be intention to kill. Ang purspose lang ng offender in discharge to firearm is to scare, to
frighten and to intimidate. Pero if mr A aimed the gun to mr b and fired the shot, nakailag itong si mr B.
Of what crime the offender guilty? The offender is guilty of attempted homicide or murder. Kasi ang
purpose niyan kung babarilin mo sa ulo is to scare to frighten or to intimidate? No. Your intention is to
kill him. So IF A person is discharge to another with intent to kill, walang discharge of firearm uneder
254, if meron ng intent to kill, that will now fall under attempted or frustrated homice or murder as the
case may be. A saw mr B. Kaaway niya si B. while they are 5 meters away.
Mr A drew a gun, aimed the same on the concrete pavement of the road where mr B was
standing. Nagpaputok. The bullet hit the concrete pavement same bullet hit the fence and then the
bullet fall to mr B. the bullet had greased his right leg that resulted to the hospitalization of mr b for 2
days. So question what are the crimes that should mr a be held liable? 2. Eto obviously may discharegde
of firearms under 254 kasi obviously, mr A aimed the firearm to mr B without intent to kill but to scare,
threathen, or intimidate him, pasok na siya sa discharge of firearms eh kaso that single act of firing that
gun had resultd to another crime as well. What other crimes resulted therefro? Slight physical injuries.
Okay question, as to what crime or crimes may he be held liable? Sasabihin niyo sir, discharge of firearm
lang yan and absorbed ang slight physical injuries cause slight physical injuries is inherent in discharge of
firearms. Mali yan. Hindi inherent ang slight physical injuries in discharge of firearms because the crime
of discharge of firearms can be committed without necessarily inflicting ny physical injury upon the
victim. Sabihin mo sir, icomplex na lang natin- discharge of firearms with slight physical injuries! Mali ka
diyan! Kasi you cannot complex discharge of firearms with slight physical injury because slight physical
injury is a light felony. Ang tamang sagot diyan, dalawang kaso discharge of firearms and slight physical
injuries. DI mo sila pwedeng icomplex. True or false, discharge of firearms may be complexed with less
serious physical injuries? The answernis true.
Halimbawa, as the result of the bullet, Mr B in this case was hospitalized for 15 days. Di ba less
serious yan pwede mo silang icomplex. Kais nga yung discharge of firearms is a less grave felongy and
that less seious hy injury is a les sgrave felony as well. True or false? May discharge of firearms be
complexed withserious physical injuries? The answer is trules. Pwedng icomplex pwedeng hindi.
Example Mr A disch a firearm to Mr B to intimidate. Mr B in this case was not directly fired. SUmagi lang
sa gilid ng ulo. Tapos nagging imbecile si Mr B. Question of what crime is mr a guilty? Serious phy injur
only. Bakit? Makikita niyo sagot sa last par ng art 254.
Ang sabi dun if the crime may have resulted from discharge of firearm and that penalty intended
is a degree higher than that of discharge of firearms, the criminal complaint shld be charged against the
6

accused and that the accused should be convicted. SO insofar as the last par of 254 is concerned,
absorbed na and discharge of firearms nung serious physical injuries under the first paragraph the same
rule applies if the same rules of serious physical injuries which may have resulted to the discharge of
firearms are those mentioned are those mentioned under 2nd par.
Pero halimbawa yung serious phy injuries yung nagresulta, then discharge of firearms may have
been resulted to serious physical injuries of par 3 and 4. Balkit ganito ang result? Cos serious phy injuries
resulted under par 2 and 3 carry a penalty higher than discharge of firearms. Yan ang rule! If mas mataas
ang penalty na nagresulta diyan, yung crime na nagresulta ang icocosider. Pero bakit paragraph 3 and
par 4 pwedeng icomplex? Kasi nga, yung paragraph 3, for discharge of firearms under art 254 and that of
serious physical injuries under par 3 are that of the same. E papano kung A with the intent to intimidate
fired a shot to B with no intnent to kill but for 1 reason or another he has killed B and what crime should
B will be charged? with homiced. You may site as legal basis yung plus paragrapg of Art 4 4. And as you
may inlide as legal basis ur article 4 par 1. Cause when Mr A fired at Mr B, with the intention of scarig
him, he is already creating an intentional felony which is the discharge of firearms and it is the direct
natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by him which is the discharge of firearms. In all
froms of phys injuries there must not be intent to kill. Yung offending religious feelings, interruption of
religious worship is crimes against the fundamental laws of the State. Pag may intent to kill nay an,
attempted homicide nay an kapag walang injury.
Halimbawa walang intnetn to kill but the vitim has suffered a mortal injury that did not cause its
death, physical injuries pa rin yan. What distinguishes physical inj from attenmpted or frustrated
homicide is the presence of the intent to kill. Pag walang intent to kill, physical injuries pag with intent to
kill, attemptd or friestrated homicide yan or murder. ANg pwede niyong inconsider ditto ay is to
distinguishing forms of phy form the other is yung period of incapacity for labor, period of
hospitalization, period of healing. Kpag sinabi mong slight phy injuries 1-9 days ang period of
hospitalization, period of healing. Pag sinabi mong less serious physical injuries, 10-29 days pag sinabi
mong serious physical injuries, more than 30 days. A person may be indicted of derious physical injuries
eventhough the person is not hospitalized nor incapacitated for labor.
So kelan ito? if the oofended party after having been beaten or mauled become impotent,
imbecile, insane or blind. Kahit na nabulag lang di naman nahospital, so serius physical injuries yan. SO
sabi don di ba, kahit he lost his capacity to smell, to hear, to use one of his eyes, an arm, a hand or a leg
so serious physical injuries yang mga yan. Okay so, deformity, ayan serious physical injuries yan. Pag
ginulpi kat natanggal lahat ng ngipin mo, deformity yan, except na lang kapg milk teeth. Kung yung
buhok mo nawala, di deformity yan magreregenerate naman yan. WHetehr or not the deformity shld be
conspicuous, e bahala na kayo dyan. Mga permanent scars nay an, deformity yan! So serious physical
injuries. Slight phy injuries by maltreatment. So kahit di na di nahospitalize yan, liable pa rin for slight
physical injuries. Cause in slight phy injuries or maltreatment, a person must have done an act against
another for the purpose of inflicting phyiscla pain to the offended party.
You pinch another may you be held liable for slight phys injuries, kahit na anmula lang ang balat,
wich would be distinguished from slunder by deed. SInampal mo isang tao what crime did you commit?
It depends. It depends on your intention. Kunyare sinampal moa ng isnag tao nasa elevator, slight
physical injuries or maltreatment yan. Evidently, the purpose will not be to inflict moral suffering or pain
7

to the person but to inflict physical pain upon him. But if sinampal mo sa maraming nakakita, kunyare sa
palengke although you are inflicting physical pain pero sinampal mo naman sa harap ng maraming tao,
your action, kasi maraming nakakita, has caused emotional and moral suufering upon the victim. Kahit
anong bagay na makakasakit that will induce slight physical pain to another may constitute slight
physical injuies and maltreatment. Intentional mutilation. Iba yun sa physical injuries. How is the crime
of intentional mutilaton be committed. Committed by cutting off a part of the body that is essential fro
reproduction or which may or may not be essential for reproduction.
Anong pagkakaiba nito sa serious physical injuries under the second paragraph? Yung serious
physical injuries under the second paragraph, the cutting of a part of a body is merely unintentional. But
yung intentional mutilation, deliberate yan. SI Mr A and si Mr B nagaway, Mr A gotten a Bolo had widely
swang the same, walang intention to kill, basta inikot ikot tas naputol. ANong kaso diya, illegal logging?
Hindi. ANg kaso is Serious physical Injuries. Eh si Mr A nakita niya si Mr B nagssun bathing, nainggit siya,
kumuha siya ng gunting na pamputol ng damo, at pinutol niya ang ari, the that would be intentional
mutilation. But intentional mutilation pa rin if you will cut off the part of the body not necessary for
reproduction, halimbawa tenga.
Read Aguirre vs Sec of Justice. Insofar as intentional mutilation is concerned, the part of the bidy
to be cut off is essential for reproduction. Sa lalaki okay ito, eh sa babae okay ba ito? What if you will cut
the breast of a woman will it be considered intentional mutilation? Yes! But is the breast of the woman
essential for reproduction? Hindi ko alam no. Tingin ko hindi. Pero liable parin. Sa lalaki obvious. Okay
example, si Mr A surgeon, he was performing appendectomy tapos nakita niya mga tubo tubo don mga
essential for reproduction. Qestion, is the surgeon liable of intentional mutilation whereby the part of
the victim that was cut is essential to reproduction. Akala ko nung araw pwede pero sabi ni Aguire, that
will not constitute intentional mutilation.
SO ano ba itong Aguire vs Sec of Justice? The victim here was a retardate. Tapos his parents
were abroad and been taken care of by his aun and uncle. E etong retardate nanliligaw na. Sabi ng tiyot
tiya kung dadami ang lahi nito e. SO inexxageratee ko na lang ng onti but ganon yun. SO anong ginawa
nila? They decided to have this retardate to undergo vasectomy. SO the uncle and aunt falsified the
letter of consent that was supposed to be from the parents of this guy.
Para di na dumami ang lahi. Nagfile ngayon ang mga magulang for falsification against the uncle
and the unt and the intentional mutilation to the surgeon. SO may probable ause daw sabi ng
prosecutor. Na-affirm ang resolution. Ang sabi naman ng supreme court, the offender should only be
liable of the crime of falsification but not intentional mutilation. When you talk about intentional
mutilation, it must be the external part of the victims body di pwede yung nasa loo bang puputulin mo.
Administering an injurious substance, 264, that wuld result any of the physical injuries under Art 263 or
by taking advantage of the ones weakness of mind.
SO sabi ko nga yung panggayuma, pagagayuma mo ang it will result to physical injuries then he
may be held liable of Administering an injurious substance pero dapat walang intent to kill. Kasi dapat if
you are Administering an injurious substance upon another with intent to kill, murder yan! Qualifying
circumstance: b means of poison. Pero if physical injuries because of Administering an injurious
substance results to less serious physical injuries lang, naospital lang ng 10-29 days as the case may be
8

then what crime does the offender be held guilty? he may not be held guilty of Administering an
injurious substance but he may held guilty for less serious or slight physical injuries as the case may be.
Yan yung crime against Persons. Let us go to another set of crimes. Crimes against personal liberty and
security 267-287. 267- Kidnapping and Serious Illegal detention.
It is committed by a private individual who kidnaps, detains or otherwise deprives the victim of
his liberty under any of the ff circumstances: (OR: kasi alternative yang mga yan) 1. That the detention
had lasted for more than 3 days or if the offender has simulated public authority or if the offender has
threatened the victim being killed or has inflicted serious phy upon him or a victim is a female, or a
public officer or a minor except in the case of a minor, the offender must be one of his parents.
Alternative yan, Kahit ano don. What if the private individual kidnaps and the detention had not lasted
more than 3 days, offender has not simulated public authority or if the offender has not threatened the
victim being killed or has not inflicted serious physical injuries upon him or a victim is a male, or a
private individual or a person of age, then of what crime is the offenderguilty, he is guilty of slight illegal
det. In both kidnapping and slight illegal detention, magkapareho sila ng essence.
Ano ang essence nila, under Art 267 and 268. Yun yung Deprivatuon of liberty. The primary
intention of the offender is to deprive the victim of his liberty. I said primary, kasi somehow, deprivation
of liberty may be incidental. Mr A is a poloce officer who was to erve an allege warrant to Mr B. Sabi
niya, Mr B I am arresting you by virtue of this warrant So Mr B in this case staring running. When Mr B
reached the dead end, nakakita siya ng bata 7y/o boy, he grapbbed the boa ng placed a knife on his
neck saying that if the police will arrest him, he will kill the boy.
Of what crime could Mr A be guilty? Grave coercion. Bakit di pwedeng kidnapping and serious
illegal detention but deprivation was not to deprive the liberty of Mr A. Eh ang gusto lang naman niya is
makatakas. Okay now, pag sinabi mong slight illeg det the offender must be private individual as
distinguished from an offender who was a public officer or employee, pag sinabi mong private individual
di an ba pwedeng maging ang offender pblic officer or employee who may have the authority to cause
the arrest of another kasi ang alam ng iba, if the offender or this person, who has kidnapped detained or
dprived another rperson of his liberty is a bpublic fficer, ang liability niyan is arbitray detaention under
Art. 124 butthat is not always the case kasi even an offenderor a person who is a supposedly an offender
in arbitraty detention, may be held liable for kidnapping kahit walang kidnapping.
In the case of People vs Froilan Trestiza and People v Santillano, sabi daw dun eh public officers
or employees who may be offenders in arbitrary detention may be held liable of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention if they would arrest or detained and such arrest or detention is neither in furtherance
of their official functions and it may be seen that they acted a private capacity. Halos magkapareho yung
situation ni Santillano and Trestiza. Both are members of PNP and both have arrested anothr and suhch
arrest are not premised in a lawful cause.
So meron deprivation of liberty. Kinasuhan sila kidnapping and serious illeg detention sabi nila
Arbitrary detention lang. Bakit nila gusto arbitrary detention lang kasi non bailable. Arbi det is a bailable
offense kasi Rec temporal lang ang max penalty ng Arbitrary Detention. Pero sabi ng SC hindi eh, kahit
Public officer or employee ka liable pa rin siya ng kidnapping. SO Ransom. Question, Ransom is an
essential requisite of Kidnapping? Trules yan.May or may not. If false sagot mo, ang justification mo is
9

that, the offender may be helfd liable for kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art 267 even if
the purpose in detaining or kidnapping one another is not to the intention of the victim for as long as
any of the circumstance is present. Convicted ka pa rin if the detention would have lasted for 3 days or
simulated public authority etc. What if the offender had deprived the victim of his liberty and the
detention had last for more than 3 days or any of the previous circumstances mentioned are present, for
the purpose of extorting ransom, anong manyayare sa demand for ransom na ito? That should be
considered as a qualifying circumstance, such under the law the person guilty is ckidnapping and
purpose the ransom must be punished withdeath. Kaso wala ng death penalty. Yung qualifying
circumstance na ransom, pacute na lang yan. Kaya kayo kung mangingidnap siguraduhin mong may
ransom para kumite ka naman para sa abogado mo. Pagsinabi mong True, Ransom may be considered
as an essential requisite in kidnapping.
If the offender dep another of his liberty, the detention did not last for more than 3 days, no
simulation, the offender has not threatened the victim being killed or has not inflicted serious phy upon
him or a victim is man, and of age. Slight Illegal detention, right? Pero kahit wala ito, kapag meron ang
demand for ransom, Kidnapping and illegal detention na yan! Kasi ditto na magiging essential element
yung ransom. Kasi yung demand for ransom magiging essential requisite nay an. Kunyare the victim in
kidnapping is for example a minor, unless the offender is one of his parents, walang crim liablitiy yan
kung tutuusin, ang magulang. Part of what? Parental authority yan. Walng deprivation of liberty if ang
victim mo ay magulang. Pero kung kayo ladies, di minors ah.
Sabi ng tatay mo pwede kang umimik pero dapat 1 am nakauwi ka na. Kaso dumating ka alas 3.
Kinaumagahan binubuksan mo ang pinto di mon a mabuksan, yun pala binaliktad ng tatay mo yung door
knob, nakulong ka ngayon! PWede mo bang kasuahan ang tatay mo ng kidnapping or serious illegal
detention? The answer is yes. Bakit minor ka pa ba? DI k aba female? Female ka. SO pwede mong
kasuhan wag mong sasabihin na ako nagsabi niyan. Sabihin mo yan ang interpretation ng batas eh.
Theoretically pwede talaga. SO demand for ransom, any money. Any consideration for the release of a
person in captivity. Kahit nga di pera yan eh, kahit pasa load lang. Sabihin andito aank mo, kapag di mo
ako pinasahan ng 300 peso load, kidnapping yan! Kasi anything that could be dangled by the offender in
exchange of the release of the person in captivity. Yan ang ransom. Pero sabi ko parents ah. Generally
kasi parental authority na tinaawag. Kunyare, A and B magasawa, may anak 2 years old.
They had a quarrel which eventually led to their separation. Umalis na si huband, lumipat sa
isbang bahay. A week later he learned that his wife B had hit the jackpot in the lotto, 100M. Eh yung
custody ng bata nasa nanay di ba. Pumunta si husband sa bahay nakita niya yung yaya, wala yung nanay.
He got his son and brought it to another house, nagpadal ngayon ng text si huband kay wife. Sabi niya,
mahal wala seenzone mahal na mahal ayun sumagot sabi niya kung gusto mng Makita pa ang anak
natin, bigay mo sakin yung 90m ng 100m mo. Pwede bang makasuhan ng kidnapping si father? Yes even
if he is the parent of the victim. Under this circumstance he was no longer exercising parental authority
over the child. Pera pera na ang labanan ditto kaya niya kinuha yan.Ganun din ang public officer or
employee. So pagusapan natin yung Arbitrary detention.
Arbitrary detention is a crime against the fundamental laws of the state. 124-133. So what do
those crimes under that title have in common. Una, in these crimes the offenders are public off and
employee, although private individual may be held liable under crimes against against the fundamental
10

laws of the state when a private individual will conspire to with the public officer or employees in
committing any of the crimes under than title, OR if theres no conspiracy, if the private individual
commit a crime of offending religious feelings (133) yung celdran case. In Crimes against the
fundamental laws of the state, there is a provision in the Constitution which you may have violated. SO
just like in arbitrary detention, ano ba yung Constitution that is relevant? Bill of Rights! No person shall
be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
Arbitrary detention, kidnapping halos pareho yan eh. Yung AD, the offender must be a public
officer or employee pero hindi lahat ng officers liable ah. Only those who has the authority to arrest, to
cause the arrest, to order the arrest of the person. And pangalawa, the offender must have been
arrested or detained another person and the detention should not be for any lawful order, a person.
Tinanong na ito sa bar eh. What are those causes under Art 124 of the revised penal code whereby a
pub officer or employee may validly arrest another. O di ba, commission of a crime, violent insanity, if
the person is suffering a contagious ailment. Sabi pa what are those circumstances wherein any person
may arrest another even without a warrant? Tanong yun sa rem law di ba, that was asked in the Bar
2009 when Justice Bersamin was the exam in rem law and Justice Lopez the examiner in Crim law.
Tinanong yan sa Crim. Kaya memorizing niyo yan ah Sec 5 Rule 113 RCP.
If public officer or employee has arrested a person under the circumstances of Rule 113 Sec 5,
hindi siya pwedeng kasuhan ng arbitrary detention. Ganun lang kasimple. Pag tatanungin sa bar, if the
offender guilty of arbitrary detention, not necessary because of the fact that he is not a public officer
buth because the arrest is premised by some lawful ground, icite mo nalang yung sa tingin mo
applicable. Delay in the delivery of persons to proper judicial auhtoirtes (Art 125) Under 125, the
offender must be a public officer or employee. Pero hindi lahat. Eh sino lang? Only those who has the
authority to arrest, to cause the arrest, to order the arrest of the person. Necxt, that the offender must
have arrested another for some lawful cause, valid ang pagkakaaresto. Oh bakit? Valid pala eh papano
magiging criminal? Hit becomes a criminal if he delays the delivery of a person to proper judicial
authorities. Gano katagal ang delay? For offenses punishable by light penalties, 12 hours or after 12
hours, correctional penalties, after 18 hours may delay na, afflictive penalties after 36 hours may delay
na, for Acts punishable under RA 9372 Human securities or the commonly known: Anti Terrorism Law 72
hours. SO delivery, pag sinabi mong delivery, that should not be construed of a physical delivery. ANo
bang ibigsabihin ng delivery? It is the filing of the info in court. SO ibig sabihin pag isang tao naaresto mo
validly, an information must be filed in court within 12, 18, 36, or 72 hours as tha case may be. SO san
ammo iffile ang information within the apporopite period. To the proper judicial authoirties.
Sino yun. MTC, RTC, Snadiganbayan. Court of Appeals and Supreme Court hindi kasama. What
do MTCs, RTCs and Sandiganbayan have in common? All these have Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction
in Criminal cases. Eh yung Court of Appeals, SC, appellate lang yan. Kaya ito yung tinatawag na delivery.
But all of us know that before magkaroon ng information to be filed in court, magkakaroon muna ng
inquest. Persons validly arrested before charged in court must undergo Inquest.
SInong magcoconduct ng Inquest? Inquest Prosecutor. ANong purpose ng inquest? To

determine whetehr or not there is probable cause to charge the accuse of a crime, to charge to the filing
of the information in court. WHithin how many hours shld this inquest be terminated? This should be
inconjunction to the periods under Art 125, Light felonyvalid yung pagkakaaresto sayo, you have to be
11

inquested and the inquest must be terminatedin 12 hours para maisampa ang info within 12 hours. Sa
18, 36, 72 ganon din. Kung murder, tapos 36 hours na wala pang inquest, wala pang information that
should be fied in court, if u r the arresting officer anong ggwin mo? Pakawalan mo yung accued, lest you
will be charged with the Delay in the delivery of persons to proper judicial auhtoirtes. Inqust
proceedings are super summary in nature kasi dapat tapusin mo yan yung 18, 36 etc. Necessarily the
arrested person may not have an ample tim to prepare and submit an intelligent counter affidavit.
He may not have the aopportunity to present countervailing evidence, as in wala. Would that
consitue a deprivation of rights of a person? Hindi. Kasi meron siyang remedy. Ano? Ask for a regular
preliminary investigation. If u during the inquest would ask for a reular preliminary investigation, aba
hindi lang naman oras ang ibibigay sa iyo, araw. To prepare your counter affidavit. Peor may kapalit yan.
Waiver. Waiver on Art 125. For the waiver must be valid, the person waiving must be assisted by is
lawyer of his choice. SO what is the implication of waiver under 125? The person arrested may be
detained even beyond the period prescribed nder Art 125 kung nakalagay diyan dapat 36 hours, waived
yan, even if you will be detained even beyond 36 hours di mon a pwedeng habuin arresting officer. But
persons u may hav asked for a regular prelim investigation may be entitled to bail. Saan? Edi dun sa
korte in case the case will be filed.
So, lets go to Art 269. Unlawful arrest. How is that crime committed? Unlawful arrest may be
committed by any person who arrest or detains another without lawful grounds ofr the purpose of
delivering the persons to proper authorities walng judicial ah. Sino ba yung usual in conlflic ditto? Mga
security guard, sila ang usual culprit. Mr A security guard ng isang mall then he observed Mr B acting
suspiciously, isnag oras 2 oras walang ngyare sabi niya, Mr B punta aka nga sa security office, shoplifter
ka eh. SO later on dinala din si Mr B sa police station. The security guard may be guilty of unlawful arrest
because he though a private individual without any lawful cause, and that the purpose of this individual
is not to deprive his security but to deliver him to the proper authorities.
Eto halimbawa lang ito ah. Yung kaso ni Denice Cornejo, Cedric Lee at ni Vhong. So ito yung
version nung side nila Cedric, SI cedric nakatanggap ng textmessage kay denice sabi niya punt aka ditto
sa condo kasi malapit ko ng kasuhan si Vhong eh, binababoy ako eh. SO pumunta sila ngayon don. SO
they saw Vhong. Minasahe muna ng onti tapos ginulpi. Afterwhich they went to the police station and a
complaint for Acts of Lasciousness were filed against him. Okay tapos kinasuhan sila ng Kidnapping and
Seruous Illegal Detention initially, bakit? Kasi sabi ng prosecution, there was deprivation of liberty
coupled with the fact that the accused inflicted serious physical injuries against them. SO nagfile ng
petitotion for bail, naggrant kasi according to the judge, the crime that was proven by the prosecution
during the time they were presenting evidence is unlawful arrest. Now, pwede ba sila maconvict for
unlawful arrest? The answer is yes but not of kidnapping and serious illegal detetion.
Kasi nga these persons had arrested Mr Navarro wthout an lawful cause, they merely relied on
what Deniece told htem. Wala silang personal knowledge, and probable cause to believe that he had
committed the crime. Bakit ba hinuli? To deliver him to the proper judicial authorities. So anong
makikita niyo sa CCTV? Evidently, makikita niyo, diba ilang minute lang ang nakalipas, pagpasok
minasahe, after 3 or 4 minutes, dinala na nila sa pulis, okay so, yung purpose talaga when arresting him
is to deliver him to the proper authorites.
12

Kaya ng hindi sila macoconvict ng Kidnapping based on my opinion, kaya lang macoconvict sila
ng Unlawfl Arresrt. Kaya lang macoconvict sila, makakalaya rin sila kasi they dont need to serve the
sentence kasi naserve na nila. Why? Kais they have already been preventively detained for 8 months and
the maximum penalty for unlawful arrest is 6 months imprisonment only. May utang pa Gobyerno sa
kanila. Now, Kidnapping and failure to return a minor.
Yang Kidnapping and failure to return a minor, is a non bailable offense as well. Peor kung
titignan mo, the offender in Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is not ass serious as kidnapping and
serius illegal detention. Kasi in Kidnapping and failure to return a minor, the offender here must have
been entrusted with the custody of the minor and what makes him a violator is if he gfails and refuses to
restore the custdy of the child to his parents. Kaya yan Reclusion Perpetua, yun ang sabi ng batas. ANg
leadung case ditto ay People vs Ty. SO in this case, 2 accused, physicians, mag-asawa, they operated a
clinic in Kalookan, nagkaroon sila ng pasyente. 7 month old child suffering from diarrhea. Sbi g doctor
iconfine. 3 days later the accused had informed the mother that the child can be dischargd. Sabi ng
nanay doc magkano po yung bill sabi ng doctor 300 pesos sabi ni nanay ill be back in 2 days maghahanap
ako ng peroa. Iniwan yung bata pero bumalik si nanay after 2 years.
Doc andito na yung bayad ko nasan na ang bata? O edi wala. Wala na ang bata. Cause tha
accused had given the child to a childless couple. ANg tagal na eh, so inassume na nila na hindi na
babalikan yung bata. SO anong ginawa ng nanay? AYun nagfile muna siya ng petition for Habeas Corpus,
dimissed! Nagfile na ng criminal complaint si nanay ng kidnapping and failure to return a minor. SO the
prosecutor had found probable cause to charge them of Kidnapping and failure to return a minor.
Warrant was issued and Meanwhile thearrested.
Suprisingly they were sentenced to suffer Reclusion Perpetua. Nakulong sila di sila nakapagbail,
sabi Recluson Perpetua. SO after 5 years nireverse ng SC ang decision. ANo bang sabi ng SC? The doctors
in this case may have been entrusted with the custody of a minor but yet they may not be held liable for
the hed Kidnapping and failure to return a minor because their failure and refusal to return the minor
was not malicious. In fact the SC had considered goodfaith on the part of the physicians. Good faith in a
sense that after the mother leave the child to them, they extended efforts to locate the mother of the
child. Hindi maliciously wrong. Yan lang naman ang nagiisnag kaso ng Kidnapping and failure to return a
minor. Dun sa crimes against the fundamental laws of the state violation of homicide. Dn sa Art 280,
mero don, qualified tesspass or trespass to dwelling.
Magkaparehas ba sila? Halos. Binago lang yng designation ng offense. Although synonymous
naman yung violation with trespass. Parehas yun because in both the offender may have entered the
dweilling of another against the will of the occupant. San lang sila nagkaiba? Don lang sa personal
circumstance ng offender. In violation of domicile which incidentally acrime against the laws of the
state, the offender is a public officer or employee. Pero hindi lahat ng public officer or employees ha!
Sino lang? Public officer or employees who may have the authority to implement a search warrant.
While the offenders in qualified trespass and trespass to dwelling under Article 280 must be aprivate
individual or a public officer or employee who has no authority to implement a search warrant.
13

Public officer may have entered the dwelling of another not against the will of the occupant,
yet, after having entered but refused the same after having asked to do so. SO ito yung mga acts in
violation of domicile. Pag sinabi mong against the will of the occupant, owner of the dwelling that was
entered into by the offender need not be inhabited. Ibig sabihin kahit walang tao yang bahay nay an, for
as long asther eis orohibition to enter the same which may be expressed or implied.
If nilock mo pintuan mo, express yan if sinara mo lang di mo nilock, implied nay an pero walng
prohibition meaninga a person who enterd the will of the occupant if it has o prohibition of the same.
Halimbawa pumunta ka ng abroad iniwan mo yung pinto ng bahay at bintana mong nakabukas at may
pumasok against the will of the occupant bay an? Hindi! You make take into consideration dun sa
trespass unArt 280 pareho lang yan ah. In trespass, the offender may have enterd th dwelling of another
against the will of the will of another kaya lang private individual siya.
Pero take note of the exceptions. Lumalabas sa bar ang exceptions! Sabi dun, the private
individual may not be held liable for qualified resspass or trespass to dwelling or even if he entered the
dwelling aginst the will of the occupant if he had done so for any of the ff purposes: 1. To prevent some
harm upon himself, upon the occupant of the house or any other 3rd person, Halimbawa si Mr A
naglalakad siya, eh may dumating na asong ul*l na humabol sa kanya, takbo siya, eh wala na siyang
mapuntahan, napunta siya dun s abahay ng kaaway niya.
SO sinampahan siya ng trespass to dwelling. Will the complaint proper? No. While Mr A may
have entered the dwelling against his will he has done that so to prevernt some harm upon himself. Or if
if he had done so for purpose of rendering some service into humanity orjustice. Di ba yung kunyare
kaaway mo kapitbahay mo nakita mong nasusunog bahay niya, so pumasok ka, sinabihan mo siya. The
following day kinasuhan ka ng Tresspass. Absolved kaba ng criminal liability? Yes. Kais you have
rendered some seervce to humanity. Meron pa ngang dinagdag eh. If you would enter a caf or inn, or
tavern, if they ar eopen di ba punt aka ng starbucks sarado, trespass yan. In 1958 there was a bar
question. Distinguish Qualified Tresspass of Tresspass to dwelling under Art 280 from other forms of
Tresspass under Art 281. SO expect the unexpected sa Bar ah. Yung other forms of trespass may be
committed by any other persons as distinguished from qualified trespass.
And other forms of trespass, hindi bahay ang pinapasok mo kundi closed premises or a fenced
estate. AN example of which is a warehouse, mga bodega. In other formsoff trespass, the prohibitions to
enter the closed premises must be manifested. It must always be expressed. Yung ither forms of
trespass dapat uninhabited ang qualified uninhabited or inhabited.
Okay let me just clarify this. There is this observation, sabi sa matrix the period for incapacity for labor is
10-29 days yes thats correct. If 10-29 yean that is less serious physical injuries. If 30 or more, that would
be interpreted as 30 or more and not more than 30 in serious physical injuries.
Okay so grave threats. 3 threats yan under the RPC. Una Grave pangalawa Light tapos yung 3 Other light
threats. So when you talk of grave threats, this may be committed by any person who would threaten
another of an infliction of a wrong upon his person, property or honor or that of his family or which
threat constitutes a crime. S yan yung unang form ng Grave threats. Halimbawa Mr A tells B, Mr B I will
kill ou sowith that fact alone, Mr A can beheld guilty of Grave threats. He have already tnhreaten Mr B
14

of an infliction upon his peron and which threat constitutes a crime. So I will Kill you Anong crime yan?
Himicide of Murder. SO what if, I will kill your dog Killing the dog of Mr B is a crime. Malicious
Mischief. Mr B I will upload your sex video in the internet. That is grave threat because the wrong
threatened constitutes a crime. What is the crime? Unjust vexation or intruiging agains honor or
violation of RA9995 yung Anti photo voyeurism act which is unfortunatey not covered in the coverage of
the bar exams. So maglevel up tayo ng konti, sabi ni Mr A kay Mr B, Mr B I will kill you if you will not
deposit 1 million pesos in my account tomorrow or Mr B, I will kill you if you will not marry my
neighbors daughter. Are you liable for Grave Threats? Yes. Having threatened the victim of the
infliction a wrong that constitutes a crime that is coupled with the demand for money or a conditioning
post. So I will kill you if you will not deposit 1 million pesos in my account tomorrow or Mr B, I will kill
you if you will not marry my neighbors daughter So pangalawang form yun, walang kondisyon pero
may demand fo money, and yung isa mnaman may kondisyon pero walang demand for money.
So yun ang highest form of grave threats. The threats involve a demand for money and that the
offender has attained its purpose. What if sinabi Mr. B, if you will not give me your cellphone no, I will
kill you right now So is it considered Grave Threats? Kung titgnan niyo lahat ng element present di ba?
Because Mr A has threatened Mr. B of an infliction of a wrong to Mr B which constitutes a crime. Is it
coupled with a condition? Yes, di ba the delivery of the cellphone. Is Mr A attained his purpose, yes
rin.To threaten the victim. But why is Mr A not liable with Grave Threats? It is because threat in this case
forms part of a crime that is actually committed by Mr A. What crime? RObberry with intimidation. It
may be important for you to know RObberry with intimidation and Grave Threat coupled with the
demands of money in this regard. Grave Threat with regards to the demand for money, the treat to
inflict some harm is not immediate. Pero dun sa Robbery with Intimidation, it is immediate.
Papatayin na kita eh Another distinction, in grave threats, the gain is not immediate, so bukas
pa eh. Bukas pa siya kiikita ng 1 million but in case of RObberry with intimidation, the gain is immediate.
SO yan ang pagkakaiba nung 2. Another example. Mr B, I will kidnap your daughter if you will not
deposit 1 million to my account tomorrow. If you will not deposite, I will kidnap and demand from you 5
million pesos in exchange for her release Is Mr A guilty of grave threats? Sabi sa definition, meron dun:
Threatening of another for the infliction a wrong upon his person, property or honor. SO is that phrase
mea, crimes against person? Against property? Or honor? The answer is No.
The threat In this case must be directed against the person, his property or honor of another.
Kasi kung crimes against person, Against property, Or honor, the offender who may have texted in the
threat may have not be liable to Grave Threats, kasi nga the crime or the wrong threatened is a crime
against liberty and security which is Kidnapping. Pero baka ito lang, ganito kasimple ang lalabas sa bar.
Halimbawa Mr A had thought of kidnapping Mrs B, a 70 year old woman to deprive liberty and extort
ransom from Mrs Bs family. SO anong ginawa ni Mr A? Mr A had gone to the house of Mrs B. Pagdating
niya dun, patay nap ala si Mrs B, sabihin natin inatake. So what did he do? He brought the corpse of Mrs
be to his house and from there he send a text message to Mr C, yung anak ni Mr B. Sabi niya, Mrs C,
your mother is with me now and if you want to see her alive, deposit 1 million to my account now SO,
natakot, nagdeposit.
15

Question of what crime or crimes is Mr A guilty? Hindi yan kidnapping. Mrs B not deprived of
her liberty, patay na eh. That could neither be an impossible crime, cause Mr A has violated another
rprovision of the RPC which is Grave Threats. SO Mr A has threatened Ms. C of the infliction of a wrong
upon the person of her mother, which threat constitutes a crime that is coupled with the demand of his
money, and has attained its purpose. Pag ganyan, grave threats na yan.
Itong si A and B are suitors of Ms C. Itong si Ms C feeling niya sasagutin na ni Mr B. SO what did
Mr A do? Mr sent Mr B a note nakalagay sa sulat Mr b, back off !!! signed Mr. A nilagay niya yung
note sealed kaya lang may kasamang bala sa loob. Natanggap ni Mr B. Of what crime has Mr A guilty?
Unjust Vexation. The threat in this case is vague. PInadalan ka ng bala anong ibig sabihin non? Papatayin
ka na ba agad? Pwede pero the threat is vague, it is ambiguous. Pag sinabi mong Unjust Vexation, there
must be performed a physical act which is not productive of any physical harm but which could annoy,
torment, vex, destroys the mind of an innocent person.
SIyempre naman no makakatanggap ka ng sulat may back off may bala pa makakatulg ka pa ba
niyan? Okay punta tayo sa Light threats under Art 283. It is one of the 2 froms of black mailing under
RPC. Yung isa eh, under Art 356, preventing the publication of libel for a consideration.
Grave threats under Art 282 and Light threats under Art 283 are identical insofar as this is
concerened. IN both, the offender ma have threatened another of the infliction of a wrong upon his
person, property or honor of the victim. ANong pagkakaiba, the threat in grave threats must constitute a
crime. The threat in light threat must not constitute a crime.
In Grave threats, the threat may or may not be coupled with a money imposed but in Light
threat, it must be accompanied with a demand of money or a condition imposed. Okay A and B are
neighbors. Itong si B, negosyante, businessman. Sabi ni Mr A kay Mr B, Mr B, I have documents with me
thatll reveal that you have not been paying your taxes lately and that I will go to the BIR tomorrow and
inform the BIR of such Is Mr B can be held liable for Grave threats? The answer is No. Did Mr B have
threatened Mr a of an infliction of a wrong upon his honor, the answer is yes, but that threat constitute
a crime? No. Yng pagsusumbong ng krimen, it does nt constitute a crime. Eh ano yan? Yan yung ating
civic duty, di ba? Ireport o ang krimen na ito. Next question that, Is Mr A be guilty of light threats? The
answer is No. While he may have threatened the infliction of a wrong upon his honor and the threat
would have constitute a crime that threat is not coupled with the demand for money or a condition
imposed. Pero pag sinabi ni Mr. A kay Mr. B Mr B, irereport kita sa BIR unless you would give me 5
million. Ayan liable na si Mr A of light threats na. Dapat pag light threats e, the wrong threatened must
not constitute a crime. Now lets go to Grave coercion. Pamimilit. Dalawang kalse yan.
Now the offender in Grave coercion through violence and intimidation without the authority of
law shall prevent another form doing something not prohibited by law. Yung isa naman na form, that
the offender, through violence and intimidation and without authority of law shall compel another to do
something against his will whether it be right or wrong. So prohibiting or preventing. Preventing
another without authority of law by use of force or violence against another, to prevent him by doing
something that is not prohibited by law. Example, yung mga babae ditto ayaw ng aking sytle ng akong
lecture, so nagdesisyon sila na di na sila aattend bukas. So the ff morning, the girls position themselves
at the lobby of the hotel carrying a gun. ANong purpose nila? To prevent the guys to attending my class.
16

Are they guilty of Grave Coercion? Yes! Because through violence or intimidation and without authority
of law, you hae prevented the guys from attending my lecture which is not prohibited by law. Pero may
basis kayo for example bukas pinanood ko kayo ng porno para manood kayo tapos di kayo umattend
may dala kayo sa hotel ng mga baril. Are the girls guilty of grave coercion?
No. Because they have prevented the guys from attending tomorrows section because I sahall
be doing an illegal or immoral act. Sa bar baka ganito lumabas. Halimbawa 100 employees, itong mga
empleyado nito want a longer language, tipong 12-4pm tapos uwian na ng 5pm eh ayaw shempre ng
kumpaniya, 51 of the 100 employees of the company has position themselves to the lobby of the
company armed with baseball bats, armed with bolos and prevented the other employees of the
company from entering the premises to report for work. Yan Grave coercion yan. You are preventing
another from doing something that is not prohibited by law.
Pag by compelling another to do something against his will that is something could be right or
wrong pero hindi mo pwedeng icompell ang isang tao na gawin ang isang bagay which could be right or
wrong. So meron din tayong tinatawag na light coercion. 2 klase yan.
This may be committed by any person who by violence or intimidation take the property of the
debtor. For what purpose? For the purpose of applying this property for the payment of indebtedness.
ANg pakakaiba lang nila is yung light coercion is a crime against personal liberty and security yung
robbery with intimidation is aa crime against the property. Pangalawa, ano yung element ng robbery
with intimidation ang hindi present dito? Yung intent to gain. Pangatlo, yung light coercion under Art
287 there must be a credito-debtor relationship between the offender and offended party. Dun sa
robbery and intimidation, walang debtor-creditor relationship. Now unjust vexation.
Sabi ko nga ito yung krimen ng pangaasar, yan. Pagsinabi mong unjust vexation, there must
have a physical act or conduct that may not be productive of any physical harm or amterial harm which
would annoy, vex, irritate, torment, distress or disturb the mind of an innocent person. Classic example:
VOyerism. Pamboboso. Unless of course the person to be watch liked to be watch. R halimbawa, A and
B magkaaway sila. So when Mr A have seen Mr b, talking to his girlfriend or crush, eto na si A naglakad
na parang gay. So Mr A could be held liable of unjust vexation.
Or if Mr B is a polio victim who is with his friends at that time, So Mr A mimicked how a polio
victim walked. So pangasar yan eh which would constitutes unjust vexation. Kasama ditto alin, stalking
di ba? Kasi if the woman is stalking the man, ayaw naman ng woman, so the woman in this case could be
eld liable of unjust vexation but if the man and woman in here has a previous dating relationship, and in
this case it is the man who have continued stalking the woman after they have ended the realionship,
this man is not guilty of unjust vexation.
Ano ang kaso niya? VAOC. Because stalking is punishable under RA 9262. Andito nay un hindi
makatarungan. Kasi kapag ang lalaki ang sumusunod sa babae, meron silang previous sexual
relationship, 6 months and 1 day to 12 years ang penalty, baliktarin natin, pag si babae ang sumunod,
wih or without previous relationship, unjust vexation lang si babae at yung babae amnin na lang niya.
Bkit niya aaminin? Para not more than Php 200 fine ang i-impose sa kaniya. Well discuss the case of
17

Valleros, yung medical student. This is a 2007 case and napakagandang kaso, I have been predicting that
the case of Valleros ay lalabas sa Bar exams.
Okay sino ba itong si Renato Valleros? Medical Student of UST. ANg victim, si Malou Albano,
anak ng mga pulitiko sa Isabela. Both of them are Medical Student. Nanliligaw itong si Renato Valeros,
and Malou is said to be renting a room in one of the buildings, andun siya sa 3 rd floor. 1 evening when
she was sleeping, Renato Valleros had entered the room of Malou.
Pumasok sa bintana. What is he wearing? A white shirt and a short pants. Mr Valleros was
holding a piece of cloth that was soaked in chloroform, pag nasinghot mo tulog ka. Nilapitan niya si
Malou and pressed a piece of cloth to Malou while pinning her down. SO nakapatong na si Mr Valeros,
he did not remove his cloth. Nagising si Malou and she felt that a person was on top of her and that her
hand was being held by Mr Valleros. She struggled and able to free.ANong timamaan ng right hand niya?
Ms Albano grab and squeezed Mr Valleros sex organ. Did Mr Valleros feel pain or pleasure? Pain. Kaya
ng tumayo at tumakbo si Valleros. Mr Valleros was charged in court of attempted rape. Saan, RPC ng
Manila. He was convicted. He appealed to the CA, the CA affirmed the decision.
When it reached the SC, it acquitted Mr Valeros of the charge of Attempted Rape. Bakit? IN
discussing this issue of whether or not Mr Valleros is guilty of attempted rape, the SC considered the
first requisite of whether or not the erson committed an attempted felony. Sabi don, That the offender
must have commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Did Mr Valleros commenced
the commission of a felony? SIge sabihin na natin Rape. But will the facts that I have mentioned have
any connection or relation to the crime that was supposed to be committed by Mr Valleros,sabi ng SC
none. Nung pumasok ba si Mr Valleros sa bintana, could it be inferred that Mr Valleros dutring that time
has intent to rape Mr Albano? No. E yung pagpasok ba niya with piece of cloth will chloroform, would
this signify his intention to Rape? Hindi. Yung act ba niya of pressing the clothe to her face and pinning
Ms Albano down shows intention of Mr Vallero to Rape? Sabi ng SC. Hindi.
Whatever the reason of Mr Vallerosin putting Albano in deeper sleep if that is his intention Is
anybodys guess. Meanig what if Mr Valleros has succeed in placing Mr Albano in deeper sleeo? Are we
so sure na gagahasahin niya si Ms Albano. Sabi ng SC wag tayo maging assuming. DI tayo sure eh. What
could have been the purpose of Mr Albano? For all we know ang purpose niyapala is to determine for
himself if Ms Albano has the habit of sleeping without panty.
DI ba? Or if sh is wearing a Versace underwear. We do not know. The SC did not free Mr Valleros
from Criminal Liability. Sabi ng SC dito, Mr Valeros, Guilty ka. Ng alin? Unjust vexation. Yun ang criminal
liability. The SC has considered the testimony of the witnesses. They said, That duruning that evening,
while Ms Albano was recounting her ordeal, she was sobbing, she was shedding, she was crying. Okay,
the SChas taken notice of the demeanor of Ms Albano while testifying in court. Sabi ng SC, this is a
manifestation of a disturbed mind. Perhaps kaya siya umiiyak was because, what if Mr Valleros has
succeeded in placing her in deeper sleep, what would have happened next? Di ba. Kung kayo yung nasa
situation ni Ms Albano, anong iisipin niyo baka nagahasa ako, baka napatay pa ako. On the otherhand
baka umiiyak si Ms Albano kasi baka walang nangyare. I am so sorry Ia am being so insensitive right now
but what I am saying is, kesyo may nangyari or wala, unjust vexation pa rin yan. Irritation, vexation,
disturbance yan upon the mind.
18

Another case where there is unjust vexation is yung Yong Chu Kwan, negosyante yan Chinese.
Meron siyang establishment na pinarent infavor of the private complainant, kaso itong private
complainant, hindi na nagbabayad ng renta so what did the lessor do? Pinutulan niya ng electricity,
telepono, wifi. ANong kaso niyan? Unjust vexation yun sabi ng SC. Yan yung crimes against personal
liberty at security. But let me take this opportunity to discuss the special complex crimes in kidnapping
and serious illegal detention. in kidnapping and serious illegal detention, there are atleast 2 complex
crimes. Yung una, kidnapping with homicide and yung kidnapping with rape.
Before Dec 1993 (RA 7659 took effect) What is RA7659? The Law that reimpose the death
penalty & the law that introduced a number of amendment to the RPC. SO, Before Dec 1993, if the
accused had kidnapped another for the purpose of killing of the victim, he may be held liable for
Kidnapping with murder as a complex crime under Art 48 dati. If before Dec 1993, the offender had
kidnapped another, only for that purpose, and had killed the victim while the victim is in his custody.
The offender will be held guilty of 2 crimes at that time. One is kidnapping, and Homicide or murder.
Dati yun.
Dati rin, halimbawa, the offender had kidnapped another, yun lang ang purpose niya and that
the offended party while in custody of another had bitten by an ant and suffered allergic reaction,
question, at that time what would be the crime? Kidnapping lang. Who may be held liable for the death
of the victim? Yung langgam lang walang criminal liability si Mr X. Pero ngayon hindi na, special complex
crime ito, lahat ng ganitong situation ang kaso is Kidnapping with Homicide. Why? Cause under the law
yujng last paragraph, sabi dun, if the victim dies and the victim is killed so kidnapping with homicide
yan. Yung mga bumili ng libro ko, walang kidnapping with murder, alisin mo yung OR MURDER
kidnapping with Homicide OR murder kasi walang kidnapping with homicide, homicide should be
interpreted in a generic form so as to include all forms of killings. In kidnapping with homide the
additional killings, regardless of the number of deaths or killings, the offender should be only liable for
special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide and that the additional killings may not be treated as
an aggravating circumstance. Dun naman sa Kidnapping with rape. It is also a special complex crime, the
additional rapes or acts similar to rape like acts of lasciviousness are deemed absorbed in Kidnapping
with ape, kahit ilang beses pa gahasain ang biktima.
Okay so, Special Complex Crime, isnag penalty lang yan. Yung Forcible Abduction with rape under Art
48, it was said that the additional rapses should be treated separately. 1 count of abduction of rape and
5 counts of rape. Wag mo kalimutan ilagay yung rason bakit separate.
This must be so, since according to the decision of the SC, forcible abduction or forcible
abduction with rape is the necessary means in committing the first rape and not the subsequent rapes.
Let me go to crimes against property. ANg very familiar is yung robbery and theft. These are almost
similar. There must be an unlawful taking with intent to gain of a personal prop which belongs to
another, in theft without the consent of its owner, in robbery with employment of violence against or
intimidation of the person. Dun lang nagkakaiba.
19

Pag sinabi mong intent to gain, that is a mental state. Who should prove intent to gain? Actually
it is always presumed if there is unlawful taking. Although that presumption is disputable. Pag sinabing
personal property, you may use the reference yung enumeration under Art 415 of the Civil Code. Pwede
rin. Kaya nga lands, buildings etc, hindi mo pwedeng sabihin na robbery. SO Real properties may not be
a subject of robbery or theft. Meron diyan sa Art 415, par 5.
Yun yung mga personal properties that are immobilized by destination. Those personal
properties found on Real properties and that are necessary to the business of the owner. ANo ba yung
belonging to another Eto kunyare si Mr A naglalakad hawak niya ang kanyang cellphone, then Mr B
tried to snatched the phone and tried to run away with it. Hinabol ni Mr C. Nung naabutan, Mr C has
snatched the cellphone that was stolen by Mr B, takbo ulit si Mr C. Eto si Mr B. Ganon ang damng
snatcher mga 26. Eton a si police officer Z, nakita si Y hinabol, hinuli at kinuha. Mr A was charged a crime
of theft. According to the SC, theft is snatching unless the snatching with viplence and intimidation.
Robbery nay an. Could Mr A successfully invoke that the cellphone that was caught was taken by him
not by the owner but another robber himself. No, cause the phrase, personal property belonging to
another means that the personal property not belong to the thief nor the robber.
Now, violence against or intimidation of persons for purpuses o the Bar, importante ang Art
294. Lahat sila Special Complex Crimes. Dun sa Par1, robbery with homide, rbbery with rape, robbery
with intentional mutilation, rbbery with arson. Pangalawa sa 2 nd par, special complex crime with robbery
and serious physical injuries. Pero yung robbery ang physical injuries na ito ay defined under Art 263.
Ibig sabihin nabulag, naging insane, impotent or imbecile. Yung sa par 3, robbery with serious physical
injuries as defined under par 2 of Art 263, tapos yung paragraph 4, ito na yung robbery wth intimidation,
meron pa ring serious physical injuries as defined under par 2 of Art 263. SO now, Robbery with
Homicide. This is a special compex crime again.
A person/s is or ar killed by reason or on the occasion of robbery. A B C D E agreed to rob the

house of Mr X. What crime? Robbery with use of force. So A B C D E went to the house and started
looting the house. Nadulas si Mr A, tumama yung gun sa concrete, pumutok, then she saw the blood
dripping from the ceiling. Pagtingin niya si X pala don, deads na. What crime or crimes did Mr A commit?
He committed Robbery with homicide because the person is killed on the occasion of Robbery. Same set
of facts, kaso ang pagkakaiba lang wala na si X. After which they had decided to divide. B ut there was an
argument bet Mr A and Mr B. Mr A stabbed Mr B. A isguilty of Robbery with homicide. Sasabihin niyo,
sir, kahit magnanakaw pa yung sinaksak?? Yes. What is specifically exluded Insofar as co-robbers are
concerned, are those who may have sustain serious physical injuries under 3rd and 4th par of Art 294.
Excempted ka lang in Robbery with Physical Injuries if the victim is a co-robber, if the co-robber
sustained serious physical injuries only pero kapag namatay si robber at ikaw ang pumatay you are
guikty with robbery with homicide. In robbery with homicide the primary intention is to rob and not to
kill. The offender may have 2 purposes, to rob and to kill and in that instance, robbery with homicide pa
rin. Basta wag lang mauuna ang intent to kill. In robbery with homicide, homicide must be construed in
its generic sense. Walang robbery with murder, walang robbery with homicide, walang robbery with
infanticide. Teka kain muna tayo
May nagtanong sa akin, Papaano Sir kapag Rape ng Transgender? Now for example itong sa A eh lalaki
talaga, nagpapalit, nagpaputol, nagpalagay ng butas. SO si B akala niya babae. He had a sexual
20

intercourse with Him, her, or it, kasi hindi natin alam ang gender ano. Under a circumstance under Art
266-A so what crime did Mr B commit? He is gulty of Acts of Lasciviousness only. Hindi yan pwedeng
traditional rape kasi in the first place, lalaki pa rin si Mr A. Hindi rin yan pwedeng sexual assault. But the
crime of rape though sexual assault can be also be committed to a man if he would insert his sex organ
in the anal orifice of any person or any mouth of a person.
SO yung re-assignment or re-alignment, anal orifice bay an? Can you consider it as a mouth,
mas lalong hindi. Okay tapusin na natin ang Roberry. Sabi ko kanina Robbery with Homicide is to be
construed in its generic sense. What if the robbery was attended with all the qualifying circumstance of
murder. Hindi parin pwede ang robbery of murder. But this qualifying circumstances that may have
attendd the cmiission or killing n the occasion of robbery may be treated as generic aggravating
circumstances. Most of the qualifying circumstances under Art 248 are aggravating circumstances.
These aggravating circumstances may be appreciated only in crimes against person. Pero bakit
sa robbery with homicide, why should you appreciate any of the specific agg circumstance when robber
with homicide is a crime against property. So remember the Ancheta case. Treachery, generic lang yan.
Halimbawa, tatay or nanay of the offender on robbery with homicide, ang kaso pa rin is robbery with
homicide and that relationship may be appreciated as mitigating circumstance. Bakit mitigating kasi it is
a rule that relationship is always mitigating in crimes against property.
If ang nagging biktima isa a child below 3 years old, robbery wih homicide pa rin hidi infanticide
pero may pwede kang iconsider na generic aggravating circumstance- treachery. Sabi nga according to
jurisprudence, treachery is presumed if the victim is a child of tender age, to 2 days old. Yung additional
killings should not be considered as aggravating circumstance. Not even in the purview of the last
paragraph or Art 14. Sabi ng SC Art 14 of the RPC unlike Art 13 has no similar and analogous clause.
Additional killing in RObbery wih homicide gain is absorbed. Now rbbery with rape. The primary
ointention must be to rob his/her personal belongings.
Kasi kung babalktarin niya yan, 2 kaso nay an. Una yung rape, just like yung Robbery with
Homicide. Robbery with rape is a special complex crime yung rape doon should inclide rape through
sexual assault. Robbery with rape, the additional raes should be considered as absorbed in a complex
crime of robbery with rape. Similar acts to the crime of rape like Acts of Lasciviousness are absorbed.
Papaano kung di naman nirape and acts of lasciviousness lang could it be Robbery with 1 count of acts of
lasciviousness? Hindi. Kasi ang kaso diyan is Robbery under par 4 of Art 294. This is when the offender
had committed Acts of Lasciviousness on the occasion of Robbery.
1997 nagtuturo ako, crim. I am talking with RObbery with Homicide tapos may rape pang
kasama. Yung rape ba absorbed with rbbery in Homicide? No that should be treated as an aggravating
circumstance. SO 1997 ganyan tinuturo ko, nung 2000 may bagong kaso.
People vs Fabon March 2000. In this case SC held that if a rape accompanies, robbery with
homicide and rape should be treated as an aggravating circumstance, yan ang sabi but only about 2
months ago, studyante ko pa nagsabi. Sbai niya, sir may nabasa akong kaso sabi na ang rape should not
be considered as an aggravating circumstance kasi nga di ba sabi ng SC in ateast 2 cases, absorbed yan
sabi ko binobola niya ako kasi 2 decades na ako nagtuturo, wala pa akong nababasa na ganyang kaso.
21

But I became curious baka tama naman siya. Naggoogle ako. Meron ngang case. I came across 2 cases.
People vs Albert De Leon parang 591 SCRA yan. Wherein the SC cited an earlier ruling, a 2004 ruling
People vs De Jesus 429 SCRA. See for yourself. It may be implied in those decisions that the crime of
rape in robbery with homicide is deemed absorbed. Babasahin ko na lang.
Part of the decision reads In robbery with homicide, it is immaterial that the death supervened
by mere acts etc, tapos nakalagay ditto, or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of
robbery, or that two or persons ar killed or that aside from homicide, rape or intentional mutilation or
usurpation of authority is committed likewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of the homicide is
one of the robbers, the felony would still be robbery with homicide, once homicide is committed on the
occasion of robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies committed on the
occasion of robbery are integrated into one indivisible penalty of robbery with homicide before that
binangit ang mga felonies na pwedeng maabsorb in the crime of robbery of homicide and one of which
is rape. SO what now, pag lumabas yan sa bar examination paano mo sasagutin? I need to be candid.
Hindi ko alam. Kasi for all we know what the examiner knows in the ruling in Fabon. Alam mo iniisip ko
sana wag na lang ito lumabas sa bar. Hindi ko alam kung ano ang isasagot e. Pano kung di nabasa ito ni
examiner, edi tapos na. ako 20years na, tapos ngayon ko lang nabasa. So chances are baka hindi rin
nabasa ng examiner. Kung ako tatanungin, SIguro isagot niyo yung hindi siya aggravating circumstance
at ilagay niyo don yung decision SC kasama nag GR number. Imemorize niyo. Pati date. People vs Albert
De Leon, People vs De Jesus.
So special complex crime rin ang robbery with intentional mutilation, ganoon din ang robbery with
Arson. Robbery with Intentional mutilation habang nirorob mo, lumabasn tapos sinapak mo, pinutulan
mo. Robbery with Arson for example the offender after having robbed the house of Mr B, then sinunog
niya yung bahay, robbery with arson yan. Bakit niya sinunog, baka kasi to conceal the crime. Okay eto
halimbawa MR A wants to rob the house of Mr B kaso di makapasok sa pinto kasi sarado. Naamaze si A
sabi niya ang ganda naman ng kahoy ng bahay so umuwi siya after awhile sinuog niya ang bahay tapos
ginather niya yung uling, binenta niya, anong crime yan? Arson with theft. Bakit theft? Did Mr A
personally get the personal poperty of Mr B without his consent pwede but yung applicable provision
diyan e yung the 2nd form of theft yung if a person has maliciously cause damaged the property of
another and abused the fruits and profts thereof may be liable for theft Complex crime ah, Arson with
theft. Pareho ang rule doon sa par 2, 3, 4 sa At 294 paerhong complex crime sila.
Question: Can Art 294 be commited in its attempted state? Meorn bang attempted robbery with
homicide actually meron but attempted robbery with homicide os covered by Article 297, andon ang
penalty. Papaano kung special complex crime of attempted robbery with rape? What law will govern?
Article 294 in relation of Art 6 of the RPC. Meron pa rin attempeted stage yung robbery under Art
294.Except yung attempted robbery with homicide kasi andon siya sa Art 297. Okay kapag nakita niyo sa
problem, the robbers fled empty handed, edi attempted pero for example balak niyong pagnakawan
yung banko imbis na 5 million 5 pesos ang nakuha niyo, consummated robbery na yan. Art 295 eto yung
mga qualifying circumstances with cviolence or intimdation of persons. Kung meorn man qualifung
circumstance na icoconsider, yjung band lang. Robbery committed by a band. A band is composed of
atleast 4 armed malefactors acting together in the commission of robbery. Band is not a qualifying
circumstance not robbery with homicide. Eh san lang qualifying circumstance yun? Par 3 and par 4 of Art
294. Does band have an effect on the crim liability of a person who was guilty of robbery with homicide,
22

robbery with rape or intentional mutilation but not as a qualifying circumstance but only as a generic
aggravating circumstance. Shempre pag generic aggravating circumstance yan that would be susceptibe
by any offset by any mitigating circumstance. Art 296. Importante ito, laging tinatanong. The crime of
robbery must have been commited by a bond. Dapat atleast 4 are armed. A B C D E have agreed Ms Xs
house. Lahat sila armed with firearms. While robbing the house, Mr A had forcibly had carnal knolede of
Ms X. What are the respective criminal liabilities of A B C D E? Inasfar criminal liability is concerned, A is
guilty of robbery with rape.
Pagkatapos umalis na sila dala-dala yung mga ninakaw nila. Kitang-kita si Mr A robbery with rape. What
about Misters B and C? Under 296, B and C are also liable for robbery with rape. O ayan ha, B and C are
liable for robbery with rape unless either or both B and/or C had attempted to prevent or endeavored to
prevent Mr A from raping Ms X. Halimbawa nirerape na ni Mr A etong si, when he was about to rape Ms
X, sabi ni Mr B, huy Mr A wag na ako na lang pero di naman natuloy. Liable si Mr B ng robbery with
rape. But if Mr C under circumstances had at least attempted to prevent Mr A from raping Ms X then Mr
C is liable only for robbery with use of force upon things. Yun lang ang kanyang criminal liability. Papano
naman yung lookouts? Of what crime are they guilty? Are they also liable for robbery with rape, yung
krimen na ginawa ni Mr A? The answer is no. they are liable for the crime that they had conspired to
commit which is robbery with use of force upon things. Bakit kaya? Because of the circumstance that
they were outside the house, they were lookouts and that they could not have prevented Mr A from
raping Ms X. Yun lang ang paliwanag dyan. Pero kung sinabi kong look-ins, hindi lookouts, look-ins
nakatingin nakikita they had this chance of preventing Mr A from raping Ms X pero they did not do, they
may be held liable for robbery with rape as well.
Alam nyo, ganyan lang kasimple ang provision na yan under 296 pero
paborito yan. Titignan nyo na lang. Meron bang opportunity to prevent? Pag meron at hindi mo ginawa,
liable ka rin for the assault, liable ka for robbery with homicide, liable ka for robbery with rape. Pero pag
wala naman, kasi may lumabas na bulk question e.. ganyan.. dalawa yung floors ng bahay tapos ang
plano ng lima to rob the house, yung sa baba lang. umakyat yung isa, nakita nya may magandang babae
dun habang nagnanakaw yung iba sa baba, ni-rape nya yun tas bumaba nat umalis na rin sila, sya lang
ang liable for robbery with rape.. pero yung iba na nasa baba, robbery lang yan.. with use of force upon
things because at that point, wala silang opportunity to prevent the person who ascended the second
floor and rape the woman. O gets nyo yan ha, so madaling-madali yan. To be safe, mas maganda na
kabisaduhin nyo yung Article 296.
Yung 297, binanggit ko na yan. Attempted robbery with homicide. Kung

homicide yan, consummated. What about if the offenders have merely attempted to commit robbery
attempted lang and in the course thereof, had attempted to kill a person? Then of what crime or
crimes may he be held liable? He may be held liable for attempted robbery only. Kasi wala namang
namatay. Could he be separately charged of attempted or frustrated homicide? The answer is no.
Unang-una, walang special complex crime na attempted robbery with attempted or frustrated homicide.
Wala yan. Ngayon, e merong attempt to kill someone. Pwede ba syang kasuhan ng dalawa? Attempted
robbery and attempted or frustrated homicide or murder? Hindi sya pwedeng kasuhan because the act
of attempting to kill a victim in attempted robbery should be deemed as part and parcel of an element
of attempted robbery, which is violence. Nandun na yung attempt to kill sa violence, and that therefore,
ang kaso lang would be attempted robbery only.
23

Crimes against chastity muna tayo. The crime of rape is no longer a private crime. It is now a public
crime. So, kelan naging public crime ito? October 22 of 1997. Ano bang significance ng date? It was on
that date that RA 8353 had taken effect. Yung New Rape Law. So from then on, reclassified na ang rape.
It is no longer a crime against chastity, it is now a crime against persons. Kaya nandun sya sa 266-A, B, C,
D. nandun na. sasabihin nyo, sir so what? E ano kung public crime, private crime yan, crimes against
persons, crimes against property? Eto yung mga legal implications of the reclassification. Since it is now
a public crime, it can now be prosecuted de officio. Unlike before when it was still a private crime, only
the offended party or his/her parents, grandparents or guardian in that order who may institute a
criminal action for rape. Dati. Ngayon hindi na. Kahit sino pwedeng mag-epal. Kahit hindi kamag-anak,
pwede.
Next, isa pa sa mga legal implications ng reclassification: The crime of rape now transcends genders. Ibig
sabihin, traditionally, the crime of rape may be committed only by a man who would have carnal
knowledge of a woman. Ngayon, hindi na. Pwede nang man versus man, woman versus woman, pwede
ring woman against a man. Pero yung man versus man, woman against a man, or woman against a
woman, hindi yan yung traditional form of rape. Pumapasok na sya dun sa rape through sexual assault,
yung binanggit ko na pang-apat na beses na insertion committed by any person who would insert any
object or instrument in the genitals of a woman or in the anal orifice of any person. Or by a man who
would insert his penis in the mouth of any person, or in the anal orifice of any person. Yun yung bagong
form ng rape.
Ano pa yung inintroduce ng RA 8353 dyan sa bagong rape na yan? Traditionally, ito lang yung mga
circumstances in rape. Una, yung if force or violence is employed. If the victim is deprived of reason or is
otherwise unconscious, or if the victim is a statue statutory rape below 12. Or if the victim is
demented. So, anong inintroduce dun sa traditional form of rape noong RA 8353? Yung by means of
fraudulent machination or abuse of authority. Isa pa sa mga legal implications of the reclassification is
that pardon or forgiveness extended by the offended party to the offender as a rape would no longer
result to the extinction of the criminal action. Kahit na pinatawad na ng biktima yung rapist, pwede pa
ring isampa yung kaso. Pero, as we have discussed last week, in the crime of rape, yung subsequent valid
marriage between the offender and the offended party extinguishes not only the criminal action but
remits the penalty as well. Yung subsequent valid marriage lang, except in marital rape cases wherein
the mere pardon of forgiveness extended by the victim, the wife to the husband who is the offender,
would extinguish not only the criminal action but the liability as well. So, yun yung mga innovations sa
rape.
Yung sinasabi dun, insertion of an object, di ba binanggit ko na sa inyo yung insertion of a finger
constitutes rape through sexual assault. Only to satisfy your curiosity, yung finger ba ang pinakamaliit na
dapat i-insert mo dyan for you to be held liable for rape through sexual assault? Actually, sinasabi ko
nga, sabi ko, the size of the object that may be inserted may range between the size of a toothpick up to
the size of a lamp post. Kasi hindi natin alam, although sabi ko nga, it pays to ask a naughty question
because you will pass the Bar exams. Alam nyo yung mga nagtanong sa akin ng mga naughty questions,
sila yung mga pumapasa sa Bar, ewan ko pero wag kayong mananadya ha.. mamayat lalapitan nyo ko
dyan magtatanong ka ng naughty question.. di ba?
24

Ok tanong, sir what if you would insert a hair strand in the genitals of a human? isip ko, ano bang hair
strand? Hair strand ng higante, pwede. Di ba? So yun lang, yun at yun ang pwede mong i-insert. Pero
may mga qualifying circumstances in rape, ha? If the crime of rape be committed by 2 or more persons,
if the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon. Qualifying yan, tumataas ang
penalty. Although wala nang itataas kasi, no? kaya nga sabi nga, kung magre-rape ka, sampu na kayo,
gumamit ka ng tangke, di ba ganun din penalty, reclusion perpetua. Pero yung titignan nyo may mga
qualifying circumstances, merong sampu. Pag sinabi ng examiner, enumerate the 10 qualifying
circumstances in rape? anong gagawin nyo? Mag-walk out kayong lahat. Kasi hindi yan itatanong,
sigurado. Di ba? Baka siguro, at least five. Di ba, siguro makakapagbanggit na kayo ng lima, di ba? One of
which is that if the victim is under 7 years old.
Or if the victim is the contest custody of the PNP or the AFP tapos ang
offender is a member of any of those organizations. Or if the victim is a member of a religious, di ba?
Mga madre. Di ba? Or if the victim is pregnant. Di ba? So yan, mga qualifying yan. Or if the offender is
suffering from AIDS, HIV, and SGV tas nagta-transmit dun sa victim. Alam nyo yung SGV? Syphilis,
gonorrhea, and other venereal diseases. Kala nyo accounting firm ha? Hinde, yan yon. Syphilis,
gonorrhea, and other venereal diseases. So yon ang mga qualifying circumstances yang mga yan. Ok, so
nakapagbigay na ko ng lima, tama na. kasi magbibigay yan lima lang. ok. So meron nang special
aggravating circumstance in rape Im sorry special complex crime in rape. Eto yung rape with
homicide. Rape with homicide may be committed by a person who may have carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of these circumstances.
Tapos because or in the course thereof, napatay yung victim. That would be
rape with homicide. Halimbawa, dalawa yung victim, pinatay nya pareho. How many counts of rape with
homicide? Dalawa din. Di ba? Kung sampu at lahat pinatay nya, ten counts of rape with homicide. Now,
yung special complex crime of rape with homicide, yung homicide na yan, again, should be construed in
its generic sense. So kahit na merong qualifying circumstance yung killing in rape with homicide, rape
with homicide pa rin. Although the qualifying circumstance may be treated as a generic aggravating
circumstance. So ganun din, pag ang ni-rape e less than three days old, namatay, rape with homicide din
yan. May treachery naman. Di ba? Presumed ang treachery in rape with homicide. Presumed yan if the
victim is less than three days old. So hindi pwedeng rape with infanticide. Ganun din pag ang ni-rape mo
e nanay mo, di ba, o legitimate grandmother mo. Di ba? So that would be rape with homicide. Pag ini-
rape mo yung asawa, yan, marital rape, tapos pinatay mo pa yung asawa mo, ang kaso dyan is rape with
homicide pa rin. And your relationship with your wife whom you would kill would be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance.
So kung may ilalabas man na special complex crime, sigurado homicide yung
isang krimen dun. Tatlo lang naman dyan magtatanong e. sa kidnapping with homicide, robbery with
homicide, at saka rape with homicide. Dun lang yan magtatanong. So mga special complex crime, so
ganyan yung rule in rape. Siguro hindi na rin magtatanong eto, hindi rin siguro magtatanong, ewan ko
lang, baka sa evidence ninyo, yung article 266-D. di ba, rule of evidence yan e. yung any manifestation of
resistance di ba may be considered as an evidence in rape? Di ba kasi sometimes rape victims, so kung
magiging gender-insensitive ako, sorry ha, walang malice to, promise, di ba, mamatay man yung
kapitbahay namin, promise, walang malice.. so, yung any form of resistance because normally, women
who are victims of rape would usually resist. Di ba, physically, di ba, or sometimes, vine-verbalize nila
25

yung resistance nila, di ba? Pero yung iba naman kasi, some of them are cowed, especially if the
offender is an ascendant. Yung father-daughter na rape, yan, yung bata minsan hindi na yan nagre-
resist, di ba? Pero sometimes, yung resistance nga, sabi ko, vine-verbalize yan. So what if the woman
who is being raped would continuously be uttering, sabi nya, OMG! OMG! teka, blasphemous yan..
uhmm.. halimbawa, oh no! oh no! no? mali dyan, hindi dyan.. oh no! oh no! ganyan.. siguro
resistance yan.. di ba? Pero pag oh yes! Oh yes! na yan, na-consensual yan. So depende rin sa, eto,
rule of evidence kasi yung article 266-D. yung ano lang, rape by means of fraudulent machination, rape
with abuse of authority, bago kasi yan e. di ba ang halimbawa ko dyan sa rape by means of fraudulent
machination is this, di ba, etong si Mr A had talked to a prostitute, a high-profile one.
Sabi nya, ate magkano ba serbisyo mo? sabi nitong prostitute, 500,000
sabi nya, o sige ate, I will engage your services, pero I have to be frank maam because I have to pay
you via or through a post-dated check. Pero if it is a consolation maam, sabi nya, hindi lang 500,000.
Gagawin kong 2 milion. E di syempre nagtanong yung prostitute, sigurado bang maggu-good yan?
yes. Magkakaroon ito ng pondo. Two things lang, sabi nya, number one, tumama ako ng 50 million sa
lotto, hindi ko pa nakukubra. Dun ko kukunin yung pondo, tignan mo, eto yung ticket o! bumili ka
dyaryo, tignan mo, tumama ito. Tumama nga, 50 milion. ah okay, o bukod dyan, ano pa? etong
cheke ok from whose account is this check drawn? ah account ko yan but I have a co-depositor in
the name of Mr Lucio Tan e asan ang pangalan ni Mr Lucio Tan wala, wala dyan pero sigurado yan,
co-depositor o eto na, to cut the long story short, Mr A was able to sweet talk Ms B, etong prostitute.
So, nag-sex sila, and the prostitute had relied to the promise that the check in the amount of 2 million
pesos would be good upon its presented for payment. O, tapos na, pumunta ngayon sa bangko etong si
prostitute on the due date of the check. She presented the check for payment, what happened? It
bounced in the same way that they bounced 3 days earlier, no? Talbog! Ok, anong nadiskubre ngayon ni
Ms Prostitute? O nadiskubre nya na yung lotto pala na ticket ni Mr A eh binili pala sa pekeng-peke.
Pangalawa, hindi pala totoo. Meron ngang co-depositor etong si Mr A dun sa kanyang account. Pero
hindi si Lucio Tan kundi si Lucio Fer. Ok so kung sabi, patay, di, dinemanda ngayon eto ni Prostitute si Mr
A. anong mga kaso? Una, estafa by post-dating a check under Article 3152-D. pwede ba yon? Pwede
yon. Pangalawa, violation of BP22. Pangatlo, rape by means of fraudulent machination. So, rape yan.
Because the prosecutor of this case would not have given in to the desires of A were it not for his
assurance that the check that he issued in payment for her services would be good upon presented for
payment. Kaya yan ha, rape by means of fraudulent machination. Hindi porket prostitute yung victim,
ano na ha, consensual na agad porket may bayad wala nang rape.
May rape pa rin dyan. Kaya kung mag-iissue kayo ng cheke, siguraduhin nyong maayos. So yon, rape by
means of fraudulent machination. So, hanggat maaari, ayokong i-discuss yang grave abuse of authority.
Pero mamaya ko idi-discuss. Kukunin ko muna yung ibang mga provisions under that title Crimes against
Chastity.
Yung Acts of Lasciviousness, it is a crime against chastity. It is a private crime, meaning that the criminal
action, therefore, may be instituted only by the offended party, or by his/her parents/guardian in that
order. Considering that it is a private crime, pardon or forgiveness extended by the offended party to
the offender extinguishes the criminal action. So, considering further that it is a private crime, the
subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party would not only extinguish the
26

criminal liability of the offender but those of his co-principals accomplices or accessories, if there are. Sa
rape, hindi ah. Di ba nabanggit ko sa inyo, under Article 344, wala na yung rape. Ibig sabihin etong si Ms
N, halimbawa, was gang-raped by A to Z, 26 in all. Nakulong etong si A to Z. while they were serving the
respective sentences, etong si Mr A and Ms B have become textmates. And eventually, they were calling
each other Bae and eventually, they got married. Ano yung consequence nung marriage between A
and N, extinguished ang criminal liability ni Mr A. e papano si B up to Z, extinguished ba yung criminal
liability nila? Dati, oo. Ngayon, hindi. Pero kung acts of lasciviousness yung ginawa ni A to Z against Ms
N, yung pagpapakasal ni Mr A with Ms N would likewise result to the extinction of B to Zs criminal
liability for acts of lasciviousness kasi acts of lasciviousness is a private crime and the prosecution for
private crimes is governed by Article 344 of the RTC. So yon ang rule dyan sa Acts of Lasciviousness na
yan.
Now, qualified and simple seduction. Pag sinabi mong seduction, anong ibig sabihin non? Sexual
intercourse agad. Agad-agad. So dalawang klaseng seduction: qualified and simple. May pagkakapareho
yang dalawa 337, 338. Both are private crimes, both are crimes against chastity. In both, the offender is
a man. In both, the offended party is a woman. In both, the offended party is a woman between 12 to
18. In both, the offender had seduced the offended party or the woman. In other words, that the
offender had carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse with the victim. So magkakapareho sila. Ano ang
pagkakaiba nila? The reason why the offender had succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the
woman. Yung rason.
In qualified seduction, ano ang rason? Abuse of authority, abuse of confidence, or abuse of relationship.
In simple seduction, the offender had sexual intercourse with the woman by means of deceit. At isa
pang pagkakaiba nila, the woman who is 12 to 18 in qualified seduction must be a virgin. Pag sinabi
mong virgin, are we talking of physical virginity? No. kahit na hindi na physically virgin yung 12 to 18
years old na babae, the offender may still be held liable for qualified seduction if this woman is of good
reputation. Doon sa simple seduction, must the woman or the girl between 12 to 18 be a virgin? The law
is silent as to that. So, ibig sabihin, ke virgin yan or not, ke of good reputation yan or not, the offender
may still be liable for simple seduction if he had seduced the woman by means of deceit.
Yun yung qualified seduction, qualified by means of deceit. Pangalawa, paki-alis nyo na si widow. Di ba,
nakalagay doon widow? Bakit mo aalisin? May widow ba between 12 to 18? Marrying age is 18. Alisin
nyo na si widow. So, dun sa qualified seduction, makikita nyo, abuse of confidence, abuse of
relationship, abuse of authority. For which reason, pina-specify yung mga offenders. Sino ba yung mga
offenders dito who may abuse their authority, confidence, or relationship? Public authorities, priests,
domestics, persons in charge with the custody of the victim. Sila yan. Meron pa ba akong hindi
nabanggit? Teachers. Pero hindi kasama ang Law professors. Yes, hindi talaga kasama. Wala namang
Law student na under 18 di ba? Hinde, pero kasama yon. Halimbawa, pag ginawa kong halimbawa ang
sarili ko, hindi totoo ha, ok, now, halimbawa I teach in La Salle Law School sa gitna, o ayan. Dun sa
College of Law, dun ako nagtuturo, di ba? What if I had sex with a La Salle student 16 years old, college.
Liable ba ako for qualified seduction? The answer is yes. Kahit hindi ko siya estudyante, for as long as the
professor and this student, and the professor is teaching in the same school where this student is
enrolled. Hindi mo kailangang estudyante yan.
27

Kaya ako dumadayo sa ibang eskuwelahan para.. hindi, joke yon.. kaya.. hindi ako dumadayo, sila yung
pumupunta.. joke again.. now, kasi baka sineseryoso nyo ko e, at least hindi yon totoo, kaya lahat ng
sinasabi ko sa inyo rito joke lahat yan.. ok.. so yan ang qualified and simple seduction. Now, yung by
means of deceit, this usually takes the form of yung breach of promise to marry. Di ba yung 30-year-old
bachelor sabihan nya si ate 17 years old, ate pag pumayag ka makipag-sex sa akin mamayang gabi,
bukas na bukas bibiyahe tayo ng Vatican, papakasal tayo dun. Si Pope Francis ang magkakasal sa atin. O
ayun, pumayag naman, ayan, thats simple seduction by means of deceit. O kaya nabalitaan nitong si
lalaki etong si 16-year-old girl e adik sa text. ate gusto mo bang maging perpetual recipient ng
pasaload? ok yun ah, ano? Anong catch nyan? sabi nya, eto loloadan kita mamayang gabi at gabi-
gabi at perpetual recipient ka ng pasaload yan, simple seduction by means of deceit. Ok, so kaya lang sa
akin, eto personal opinion, yung rape by means of fraudulent machination at yung rape by abuse of
authority had decriminalized simple seduction and a part of qualified seduction.
Bakit ganyan ang opinion ko insofar as simple seduction is concerned? Bakit sa tingin ko wala nang
simple seduction? Kasi tignan nyo, napansin nyo yung prostitute? May deceit ba dun? May fraudulent
machination? Meron. Di ba? Take note ha, prostitute, tapos yung offender may be convicted of rape and
may be sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua. E bakit naman sa simple seduction may panloloko din?
Sinong niloko mo rito, bata? Tapos ang penalty mo lang presume correctional? Di ba? Kaya if you would
become practitioners someday, at may lumapit sa inyong bata niloko kaya nakipagsex sa isang lalaki, di
ba, anong ikakaso mo? Wag mong kasuhan ng simple seduction. Tatawanan ka nung lalaki.
Kasuhan mo ng rape by means of fraudulent machination para no bail. Kaya sabi ko wala na e,
inconsistent kasi yung rape by means of fraudulent machination dun sa simple seduction. Yan ang aking
observation lang. pero pag nakita mo sa problem nakita mo yung bata 12 to 18, di ba, yung sexual
intercourse by means of deceit, wag mong susundin yung opinyon ko na by means of fraudulent
machination lang. just parrot the elements of simple seduction. Ayun ang nakalagay sa batas, di ba, wag
mong sasabihin yung aking opinion. Na yung opinion kong yan pag kumuha ka na ng Bar at pumasa ka
na, saka mo na ipagyabang sa mga ibang tao na ito ang, eto, ito ang opinyon ko dyan. Akuin mo nang
opinyon mo yan. Oo. Pupwede na yan, pero sa ngayon hindi.
Ganun din sa abuse of authority. Bakit mo kakasuhan ng qualified seduction? E pwede mo namang
kasuhan ng rape. Pero, opinyon ko lang yan dyan ha. Now, meron din yung acts of lasciviousness with
the consent of the offended party. Tataka kayo, sir, tagpayo po, may kaso? ok meron ha. Actually,
yung qualified and simple seduction at saka yung acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended
party, parehong-pareho sila. Private crime, crime against chastity, offender lalaki, offended party babae,
offended party 12 to 18, virgin in qualified seduction, virgin or not in simple seduction.. pareho. Merong
abuse of authority, abuse of relationship, abuse of confidence, meron by means of deceit. Ano lang ang
pagkakaiba? Dun sa acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party, nabitin si lalaki kasi
acts of lasciviousness lang. walang sexual intercourse. Kumbaga, sa instance ng sexual intercourse,
hinipuan lang nya yung babae, dahil niloko nya o pahipo naman dyan bigyan kita ng pasaload ayan o
sige na asan ung pasaload? Ayan acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party yan.
So, forcible abduction. Forcible abduction, it is a private crime. But once it is complexed with a public
crime, then forcible abduction becomes a public crime. Now, how is this crime of forcible abduction
committed? This may be committed by any person who abducts a woman against her will with lewd
28

designs. Pero yung consented abduction, meron abduction pero not against the will of the woman. Pero
kailangan may lewd designs din. Kaya lang the woman had given her consent to the supposed abduction
because ilang taon sya, di ba? Just like the circumstance of the victim/s in qualified and simple
seduction. Again, this is a misconception that has to be corrected. So, pag sinabi mong crimes against
chastity, isip agad natin, private crime yan. But the truth is, merong dalawang krimen under that title
crimes against chastity that are public crimes. Public crimes meaning that they can be prosecuted de
officio, meaning that any person may institute a criminal action against the offender. And I am looking at
the crimes of white slave trade and corruption of minors. So yan, ano, kung ikaw ay magne-negosyo at
ang mga empleyado mo e mga kamag-anak ni Charlie Puth, mga Puths, thats white slave trade. Ayan,
public crime yan.
Balikan natin si crimes against property. Yung robbery, dalawang klase ha? Yung diniscuss ko kanina, ang
tawag dun e robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Merong isa pang robbery, yung
robbery with use of force upon things. Pag sinabi mong robbery with use of force upon things,
essentially, the offender must enter a dwelling. He must enter a building. He must enter a structure for
the purpose of what? Para magnakaw. Basically, yan. Now, ano ang pagkakaiba ng robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons? The crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
may be committed anywhere. Kahit saan. So much so that dwelling unlawful entry, breaking wall, roof,
floor, door, etc., there are aggravating circumstances under Article 14 may be appreciated in robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons. While this is not so, insofar as robbery with use of force
upon things, the aggravating circumstances that I have mentioned are inherent in robbery with use of
force upon things so much so that they may not be appreciated.
Ganyan kasimple pero tinanong yan sa Bar exams in 2009 again. Bakit kaya? Siguro hindi na itatanong
ngayon kung siya man ang examiner. Para at least alam nyo, kasi tinanong yan e. tapos, pangalawang
distinction as regards to imposition of penalties. Doon sa robbery with use of force upon things, ang
penalty nyan would depend on the amount or value of the property stolen.
Pero dun sa robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, hindi natin pinag-uusapan yung
halaga kung magkano ang nanakaw. The penalty for robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons is dependent on what? On the degree or the nature of the violent in the degree of violence that
was exerted by the offender against the victim/s at saka yung injury which the offender may have,
offended party may have sustained, yun ang pinagbabasehan ng penalty. Hindi yung amount. Dun sa
robbery with use of force upon things, kelangang pumasok ka, di ba sa bahay, para magnakaw at inilabas
mo. So ganon yon. Pero kung halimbawa e ikaw naman gifted ka yung kamay mo e 10 feet ang haba,
nakita mo bukas yung pintuan or bintana, pinasok mo meron kang kinuha at inilabas mo, theft lang yan.
Kung lalabas man yan sa Bar exams, hindi yung 10 feet ang haba. Di ba, nakita lang nung tao, 2 feet lang
yung haba ng kamay nya, maikli lang pero nakita nya bukas yung bintana, may nakita syang
halimbawang celfone na ganun, inabot nya kinuha nya di ba so ang liability nun would be robbery with
use of force upon things.
Pero kahit na kaya nyang kunin halimbawa pumasok muna sya dun sa bintana at kinuha nya at lumabas
sya ulet, that would now be considered as robbery with use of force upon things kasi meron nang
unlawful entry. Alam nyo ba yung unlawful entry? Article 14 paragraph 18 I think that the crime be
committed by entering the dwelling of another through a way not intended for the purpose di ba kung
29

pumasok ka dun sa bintana kahit hindi mo sinira yung bintanang yan meron nang unlawful entry kaya
nga inherent yan in robbery with use of force upon things. Di ba tinanong nga ako, is unlawful entry
inherent in retrosexual assault if the man would insert his penis in the anal orifice of a woman? sabi ko,
oo nga ano? Unlawful entry. Di ba, through a way not intended for the purpose.. but it is not inherent
ha, hinde. So, yun yung robbery with use of force upon things. Madali lang yang robbery with, bastat
walang violence against or intimidation of persons may pagpasok ng bahay, siguraduhin mo na, robbery
with use of force upon things yan.
So punta tayo dun sa theft. Bukod dun sa traditional form yung ordinaryong definition nyang unlawful
taking with intent to get of a personal property that belongs to another without the consent of its
owner. Meron pang ibang forms of theft. One of which is that if a person finds a lost or a missing item
and fails and refuses to return the same to its owner or give the same to the authorities. Pag nakahanap
ka ng nawawala, di ba, tinago mo, ah, theft ang kaso mo.
If you would steal coconuts from a plantation, punt aka sa department store magnakaw ka ng Kellogs,
theft daw yan. ANong pagkakapareho ng theft sa robbery with use of force upon things as regards to the
penalty? Pareho sila. The penalty sa theft sa robbery with use of force upon things would depend on the
amount of the value of the property stolen. Except that in theft the stealing may not be committed
under the circumstances wherein the crime of robbery with use of force upon things is committed. Yung
pagpasok sa bahay o sa building o sa establishment. Alam niy yung mga salisi gang pumunta siya sa
building nakita niya walang tao kinuha niya yung gamit, theft lang yan pero pag sarado ang pinto, pinilit
buksan at kinuha, robbery with use of force upon things na yan.
If the crime of theft is qualified, halimbawa may mga qualifying circumstance yan, ano ang magiging
consequence, so the imposable penalty would be, 2 degrees higher. Kung halimabawa ang ninakaw o
meg limang piso lamang, at ang penalty for stealing an item that is worth 5 pesos sabihin na nating
arresto menor, papano kung ang nagnakaw is a domestic servant? Anong penalty imposed sa kanya sa
pagnakaw ng limang piso? He may be convicted of qualified theft and may be sentenced to suffer the
maximum penalty of prision correctional kasi 2 degrees higher.
If wala namang qualified circumstance, nagnakaw ka ng bagay less than 5 pesos, arresto menor lang
siya. Now in qualified theft ang max is prision mayor. SO kung qualified ang theft that ang imposable
penalty for theft ay prision mayor, then technically, ang penalty would be reclusion perpetua. Pero sabi
ng SC diyan, ang penalty of Reclusion Perpetua is merely descriptive, hindi ko maintindihan anong ibig
sabihain niya ng descriptive. ANo pa yung mga qualified circumstances? If the offender is a domestic
servant, If there is grave abuse of confidence, if the subj of theft is amotor vehicle, a large cattle or male
matter, or if you would steal a coconut from a plantation.
Nakita mo si kuya may dalang buko, nagnakaw ka, simple theft lang yan pero pag nasa plantation,
qualified siya. Or ou would commit theft in an earthquake or other catastrophe or calamity, qualified
theft yan. DI lang yan generic. Pag sinabi mong large cattles dapat member of the bovine family.
Halimbawa kamibing, they are member of the bovine. Motor vehicle.
Meorn anti carnapping law. Has the anti caarnapping law has removed from the coverage of aArt 310
yung stealing a vehicle? Qualified theft pa rin bay an or Anti carnapping? SO depende yan sa ninakaw
30

mo. If you had stolen a tricycle, a motorcycle, a sedan, a truck, or a bus ang kasomo, violation of the anti
carnapping law. Pero kung ibang sasakyan, qualified theft. Kung ang service mo ay mortorized lawn
mower, nanakaw mo yan, qualified theft ang kaso. Eh kung ang service mo ay pison, bulldozers, mga
heavy equipment, pag ninakaw mo yan theft lang yan. Domestic Servant. Itong domestic servant na ito,
he may be held liable of qualified theft even if shes a new domestic servant.
Halimbawa hinire mo ngayon, the following day kinuha na mga alahas mo. Qualified ba yan? Yes
because of the mere fact that she is a domestic servant. Iniisip kasi natin dapat you must have reposed
some trust and confidence as a domestic servant bago maging qualified yung theft, No. Iba yung abuse
of confidence as a qualifying circumstance in theft. As a qualifying circumstance, the offended party
must have reposed some trust and confidence upon the offender.
The confidence reposed upon him by the offended part facilitated its commission. Art 312, may
improtanteng aspect. Pag sinabi mong occupation of property or sinabi mong occupation of real rights
and property, paramg ano ito eh, squatting. PD772 nung araw, pag ikaw ay squatter noon, pwede kang
ikulong. Kaya nga ngayon ang aquatter, informal settlers na ang tawag diyan. Ngayon, di na kriment ang
squatting. But if the person occupied the real property of another through the use of violence and
intimidation, then he is a criminal under Art 312. Or if he usurps the real rights of an owner, that would
constitute real rights on property under Art 312. What if the offender had occupied the real property of
another through violence and intimidation, and as a result, had killed the owner, the what crime or
crimes may the offender may be validly charged? He may become liable and prosecuted for and
convicted for occupation of real property only.
Dun lang siya macoconvict, if may namatay iba naman yun. Sabi, if the the offender, in addition to the
penalty, for occupation of real property, must be sentenced to suffer the penalty corresponding to the
violence it has committed. Kung may napatay siya, Occupation of real property. He cannot be charged
separately of murder or homicide kasi pwede maging element na yan of occupation of real property. SO
convicted lang siya ng occupation of real property, yet, he must only be sentenced to suffer the penalty
corresponding to the violence it has committed. Yung occupation of real property or usurpation of real
rights and property, is one of the 3 crimes under the RPC that has a 2 tiered, bakit 2 tiered penalties
yan? Isnag krimen lang ang iccharge sayo pero 2 penalties ang dapat iimpose. iSa pa diyan yung direct
bribery (Art 210) Public Officer or employee, in consideration of a gift, promise, present or offer would
perform an act which constitutes an act by reason of his office.
Pero pag may krimen siyang ginawa, in consideration of a gift, promise, present or offer, he may also be
punished to suffer a penalty corresponding to the crime to which he/she had performed in
consideration of that gift or present. DI na siya kailangan kasuhan pa for that. Pwede na yung direct
bribery lang di ba sabi ko, in addition to the penalty.
Maltreatment of prisoners ganun din. Pag sinabing mong Maltreatment of Prisoners di ba the offender,
public officers or employee di ba will be charged with the custody of the prisoner who would overdo the
handling and correction of the prisoner by imposing inhumane or cruel punishment. Halimbawa yung
inhumane treatment nay an would reseulty to serous physical injuries, in so far of that situation is
concerned, 2 krimen ang pwedeng icharge dun yung sa public officer- maltreatment under Art 235 and
another serious physical Injuries under Art 263. Art 315, ART 316, Art 317, Art 318 So Estafa or
31

Swindling. Halimbawa ikaw ay manankay ng jeep pero di ka nagabayad, taga abot ka lang kunyari ng
bayad. Eh kaso namukhaan ka na ng driver, pag baba mo pinahuli ka ng driver. Estafa baa ng kaso mo?
The answer is yes but not under Art 315 but under Art 318, yung other deceits. Halimbawa kumain ka sa
Jollibee di ka nagbayad, may kaso k aba na estafa? Wala kasi una bayad dun eh. Pero sa mga restaurants
na una ang kain bago bayad tapos tumakbo ka at tumakas, estafa yan.
There was the chief of staff of the sSpeaker of the House then, People vs Villoso. Itong SI villoso,
kaibigan niya si Mr Raon SY, may ari ng Shangrila Restaurant. In 2003 sabi ni Mr Villoso kay Mr Ramon
Sy, Mr Sy, pustahan tayo. If Bong Bong Marcos runs for senator in 2004 elections, he will surely win.
Sabi ni Mr Sy, hindi yan! LIpas na si Bong Bong Marcos so anong ginawa ni Mr Villoso, nagpustahan. Pag
nanalo si Mr, Sy kakain siya at 10 sa kaniyang kaibigan sa restaurant ni Mr Sy ng libre pero ang sabi ni Mr
SY, papaano kung talo? Edi kakain pa rin kami ng 10 kong kaibigan pero magbabayad kami So deal.
AYos. ANong ngyari, talo si Bong Bong. SO kumain sila.
Nataon naman si Mr Sy wala ditto s apilipinas. Kumain sila, bill nila is 11 or 12 thousand tapos nung
sinisingil na sila, Sabi ng manager kay Mr Villoso, Okay na ito sir, may usapan na kami ni Mr Sy, wag na
kayong magbayad Nung umuwi si Mr Sy, nakita niya na nalugi ng 11 or 12 thousand. SO
nagcommunicate sila ni Mr Villoso, nangako ng nangako yung isa and eventually, hindi nga nagbayad.
ANong ginawa ni Mr Sy nagfile siya ng complaint for estafa. Convicted yan citing Art 315 par B. Yung the
fact that you have gone to the restaurants and paid his bills constitutes to the crime of estafa Nag
appeal ang SC. Grabe di ba for the sum of 11-12 thousand pesos. Hindi na lang nagpaareglo. 8 years
imprisonment pa ang sintensya. Yung mga ganyan kaso if you become law practitioners someday, kung
pwede mo ng isettle sa baba, eh isettle mo na.
Eto amyroon nagtanong sakin, in case a person has taken as a hostage another and has asked for the
release of the person what would be the crime? Pwede itong maging kidnapping, and serious illegal
detention, kasi sabi hinostage mo lang so in effect you are depriving the person of his liberty tapos
qualifying yung ransom.
ANg tinatanong diyan, how regular. Alam niyo yung rave scandal, iba yun sa alarms and scandal. SO , this
may be committed by any persons who performs a highly scandalous act that s offensive to decency and
good person and such may be performed in a public place, within public view or knowledge, and that
the offender must not be violating another provision of the RPC. Now yung halimbawa, A and B sweet
hearts, itong si Mr A yung boyfriend meron siyang van, heavily tinted in a parking area a public place.
Inside the van, he was having sexual intercourse with his girlfriend.
Dumana yung police, nakita gumagalaw ang van, bigla niyang binuksan, nakita silang dalawa, may they
be held libale for grvae scandal, the answer is NO. Where they performing a highly scandalous act? Yes.
Public place? Yes. But in this instance, the car is an extension of their home. Kaya nagulat nga ako sa anti
smoking, kapag nagsmoke ka daw sa kotse, may kaso ka pa rin. Kaya lang dont get me wrong ha, yung
sinasabi kong extension of ones abode ha, yung kotse, pwede yan except the violation of firearms.
Pero yung van nay an if not heavily tinted, grave scandal yan kasi sabi don In a public place or within
public view or knowledge If sa bahay mo nakaiakipagsex ka sa ibang babae, grave scandal bay un?
32

Depende no, kapag nagssex kayo tapos bukas bintana pati pintuan mo, grave scandal yun. Eto naman
sinasabi nangyayari lagi sa sinehan. May magboyfriend, napagisipan nilang manood ng sine. BUmili sila
ng ticket and pagpasok sa sinehan napansin nila wala masyadong tao. SO pumunta sila sa pinakataas ng
aprt ng sine, the darkest portion of the theater. Later on, eventually, they were having sex.
An usher came and nakita niya. Are A and B guilty of grave scandal? Yes. It was performed in a highly
scandalous act, and was performed in a public place. Kahit walang tao dun, its a public place. So for
example, A and B pumasok 9pm, last full show, pag pasok nila last full show. After the movie, the movie
gowers gone out of the theater, wala ng tao.
After an hour fireworks started may security guard na nahuli sila. DInala sa police station. Question is
hould they be committed or acquitted? They should be acquitted. They performed a highly scandalous
act that is offensive to decency or good customs, yes, but was it committed in apublic place? No as of
that time, hindi nay an public place, bawal na ang publiko diyan. Was it committed in a public view or
knowledge? Siguro hindi kasi security lang ang nakakita sa kanila.
Eto baka this question may be asked in the bar, pakinggan niyo ito. A and B are husband and wife
respectively, as well as C and D. Unknown to the husband A, B is having an affair with C. SI C knows that
B is a married woman. One day, D the wife, had decided to watch a movie, while inside the movie
house, D was already sitting heard the moans of a man that was familiar to her. SO she tilted her head
towards that person of a theaer, pag tingin niya, she saw a sillhouete which appears to be those of 2
persons, one of which was sitting on top of the lap of another.
Dala niyakanyang flash light, kinuha niya sa bag, tinapat niya yung flashlight sa feet nung 2 persons nay
un pag tingin niya, nakahubad. Pagtingin sa taas, a woman is sitting on top of the lap of the man, pag
tingin niya si husband niya pala yun. Is B and C be held guilty of grave scandal? No becase they are
violating another provision of the RPC which is Art 333 and 334. She is commiting adultery because she
is a married woman who had sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, she is also guilty of
concubinage as a concubine cause she is also having sexual intercourse with a married man other than
her husband under scandalous circumstances. SI C naman, what crimes under the RPC was he
committing? He was commiting adultery as well cause he is man who had sexual intercourse with a
woman whom he knows is already married. He is guilty also of concubinage. He being a married man
who had sexual intercourse with a woman other than his wife under scandalous circumstances. ANg
tanong ditto e ilan criminal information ang information ang iffile mo? 1 lang kasi complex crime ito.
Bakit complex crime? Because there was a single act of sexual intercourse that resulted to atleast 4
crimes- adultery or concubinage. If Mr B and Mr C was convicted, they may be sentenced to suffer 1
penalty. What penalty, the penalty that corresponds to the most serious offense o be applied in its
maximum period. as between adultery and concubinage which has the greater penalty?
It is the crime of Adultery. And that therefore, both may be convicted of a complex crime and may be
sentenced to suffer only 1 penalty. Max of which is within the range of the max penalty to be applied in
its max period kasi nga complex crime and the minimum to be applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law
should be within the range of the penalty next lower to the prescribed penalty. Single act lang yan e
which resulted to 2 or more less grave felony. Adultery and concubinage is a private crime na pwedeng
maginstitute only is yung offended spouse.
33

A and D oft or decide not to file any criminal actions to their spouses, may they be held liable for grave
scandal, the answer is Yes. Kasi wala ng violation eh. DI ba magkakaroon na ng violation kapag meron ng
criminal action that would be instituted. Kung di sila magdemanda, the State will run after them cause
grave scandal is not private crime but a public crime. Balikan na natin si Estafa (Art 315) Sabi, fraud or
deceite is an essential element of estafa. Pero di yan totoo, persons may be convicting of swindling or
estafa even in the absence of fraud and deceit.
Those 3 classifications of Estafa under the 1st parargraph yung estafa by abuse of confidence, yung fraud
or deeit is not essential but the element common ot all forms of estaf aunder 315 is damage which is
capable of pecuniary estimation cause the penalty of estafa would depand on the amount of the
damage caused by the offender to the offended party. Kailangan quantifiable kung di walang estafa.
What about the intent to cause damage, pwede.
As long as the damage caused be quantified. Example A, a kasambahay of Mr and Mrs B and C, one
morning when he was in the house of doing her chores, the phone rang. SInagot ni ate. Hello! Ikaw ba
si A? Ikaw ba yung kasambahay ni B and C? Nandito sa hospital yung mga amo mo kailangan nila ng
pambayad bago maoperahan. SInabi niya na nasa vault ang pera, nakabukas daw yun. Kumuha ka ng
Php 100,000 at magkita tayo sa MOA, iabot mo sakin yung pera. SI A kinuha niya yung pera but before
going to MOA< pumunta muna siya sa NBI SInumbong niya. Entrapment. Inshort, hinuli. ENtraped. Of
what crime should this member of dugo dugo gang be held guilty? Guilty yan ng estafa. Attempted
Estafa. IN attempted estafa, element niyan, no amage is caused.
But the offender has the intention of causeing damage to another and which damage is capable of
pecuniary estimation under par 2 of Art 315. Pagsinabi mo ng par 2 of Art 315. Dito mo na kinakailangan
ang estafa as an element. ANo naman yung estafa by misappropriation or conversion? Under Are 315
par B, the offender must have received money or property on commission, for administration or in trust
and that the offender in this case must have the obligation to return the property to its owner or atleast
to remit to the owner of the property its value. Or having denies having received this property under
such conditions, estafa nay an under Art 314 par 1 sub par B. If the possession of the offender of the
property is physical, juridical or both, chances are the offender may be held liable for misappropriation
or conversion. Example, si Mr A operates a warehouse, pinapatago gamit sa kanya for a fee. 1 days si Mr
B may shipment 200 sack of rice and to be stored for a period of 7 days.
Mr A charged it 5000 pesos a day. Mr B agreed but it had to be paid on the 7 th day. On the 3rd day, he
sold the 200 sacks of rice. What crime does the owner of the warehouse be liable? Qualified theft by
abuse of confidence or estafa by misappropriation or conversion? misappropriation or conversion. SO
how will you qualify the nature or possession of the owner of the warehouse over the 200 sacks of rice?
DI lang physical, juridical as well.
Ano ba yung juridical possession? Possession over a thing whereby the possessor may defend his
possession over the thing even against the claim of the owner. Meron bang right si owner ng warehouse
to retain in the possession of the sack on the 3rd day? Yes, hindi pa bayad di ba. Kung ang sitwasyon
naman, on the first day pa lang bayad na and if the owner of the sack of rice have decide to retrieve
them on the third day pa lang, wla na siyng magagawa kasi bayad na siya. Kunyari until the 7th day,
34

bayad and on the 8th day hindi pa kinuha, ibinenta ngayon the following day ni Mr A, anong liability niya,
Estafa na yan. Kasi on the day Mr A disposed the 200 sacks of rice, he had not only acquire physical
possession but also juridical possession. Kasi yung sa 8th day wala pang bayad so Mr A has the right to
retain the sacks. Yan nilabas yan noon sa bar exams, baka itanong ulit. Tatandaan niyo ditto that the
offender must have received on commission for administration or In trust.
Sino bang nakabasa ng Milan Bank? Sa Commercial law niyo ata yan eh. Kung naalala ko yan,ito yung
may nagpadala ng $10,000, nadagdagan ng zero, tapos hindi sinoli. Yan applicable yan, estafa. Possible
itanong din diyan yung paragraph 2 sa paragraph A yung using a fictitious name for pretending to
possess power, influence, property agency etc, yan estafa by means of false prtetnses. Uually connected
ito sa illegal recruitment.
By the way yun PONSIS SCHEME. Medyo pag-aral niyo yan. What crime under the RPC may the offender
be held liable if he engages in this scheme? That would be estafa by means of false pretenses under
paragragph 2 subparagraph A of Art 315. Nasa material niyo yung PONSIS SCHEME, basahin niyo na
lang. SO illegal recruitment. This is punished under Magnacarta for OFWs. There are 2 requisites, yung
una is that the offender must have engaged in recruitment activities for employment abroad,
pangalawa, that the offender has no license or accreditation to engage in that activity from the POEA, so
illegal recruiter ka na niyan. SO RA8042 are crimes mala prohibita.
Karamihan ng kinakasuhan ng illegal recruitment, may kasamang estafa yanby means of illegal
pretenses, and there was this person wherein he questioned the constitutionality of RA 8042 kasi
sinasabi nila, if you would be convicted of two (2) crimes punishable by different laws and which crime
resulted frm single transaction, then the right of the accused against double jeopardy could have been
violated. Sabi nga kapag naconvict mo sa estafa, coconvict mo pa sa illegal recruitment. Double jeopardy
yan. Sabi ng SC, theres nothing wrong in convicting the accused estafa by means of false pretenses and
illegal recruitment under RA 9042, sabi ng SC magkaiba silang dalawa (2) as regards to their elements
and nature because estafa by means of false pretenses is a crime malum in se while illegal recruitment is
a crime malum prohibitum. Estafa, good faith is a defense while in illegal recruitment, goodfaith is not a
defense. Since magkaiba silang dalawa, walang double jeopardy.
Example, si Mr. A nagbabasa siya ng diyaryo, nakakkita siya ng add aba sabi niya for employment
abroad nabasa niya nakalgay sa advertisement, Php 100,000/ month. He was enticed to go. Pagpunta
niya aba recruitment agency without knowing na walang lisensya POEA. Usapan, sa Alaska sila
magttrabaho. Sabi, bawat salmon na mahihili nila kikita nila ng $5-$10. Nagbayad siya ng placement, in
short, natanggap na. Pagdating sa Alaska naglinis sila ng isda, pero ang isa hindi naman Salmon, dilis
pala, idedebone nila. 2 buwan palang nabulag na siya.
Anong kaso ng illegal recruiter? Estafa by means of false pretenses, under Art 315, paragraph 2 sub
paragraph A and illegal recruitment. 2 ang pwede nilang maging convictions that. Meron dun yung by
pretending to have bribe a government official estafa rin yan. Yung mga fixer sasabihin niya yung ah
kakilala ko itong judge na ito ayan estafa yan tumatanggap yuan Php 100,000 pesos, panalo ka! Ayan
kapag nagbigay ka sa kaniya, di ba liable yan estafa by means of false pretenses. Ang importante diyan
yung remedy nung government official na siniraan ng offender. DI ba without prejudice to any action
for calumny against the offender. Alam niyo ba yung calumny? Libel yan. Yung slunder, defamantion,
35

magkakaparehas yang mga yan. Kaya kapag tinanong, anong ikakaso mo sa akin kasi siniraan kita?
Calumny. O di ba hindi niya naintindihan, libel yan. Art 315 2(d) by post dating a check. BP 22 tayo
ngayon. Bouncing check law. Kug sasagot kayo sa bar if you have to include in your answer yung
tumalbog yung checke nung prinesinta, it bounced ANo kayo highschool? Sabihin mo naman, when
the check is presented for payment, it was dischonored on the ground that it was drawn against a close
account or drawn against insufficient funds.
Wag lang bounced. So in both, estafa by post dating a check 2(d) of Art 315, and violation of BP22, the
offender may have issued, made, drawn or check, pareho sila. But the check was issued, made, drawn or
check, pareho sila saan sila magkakaiba? 1. Estafa by post dating a check 2(d) of Art 315 is a crime mala
in se while violation BP 22 isa c crime Mala prohibita.
Eh ano naman? Aba siyampre since mala in se mala prohibita, pasok ditto yung good faith, lack of
criminal intent, or malice as adefense. While in violation of BP 22, yung good faith, lack of criminal
intent, or absnce of malice are not valid adefense. Cause what is punished is the mere issuance of a
check na walang pondo, e liable ka na for BP22. Sir, may depensa ba in violation of BP 22? Meron
naman, kapag forged ang signature, or if nagissue ka talaga ng cheke? Yes may defense ka diyan if the
check is not issued on account or for value Example., si Mr A nagaaral sa isang eskwelahan sa katipunan
Ave, sabi niya, tay, may assignment po kami sa economics, pinagdadala po kami ng cheke, yung duly
accomplished check pero hindi crossed check ah, payable to the order of cash, kayo nap o bahala kung
magkano halaga pero dated ha. SI tatay mayabang nilagay Php 10 million pesos, dated hindi crossed.
Ito na si anak, naaglag ang checke, may nakapulot, dineposito nung nakapulot sa account niya, eh
tumalbog. DInemanda na ngayon nung tatay nung nakapulot, ano ang defense? Good faith ba? Hindi.
Good faith is not a defense in violation of BP22. Ang defense niya ditto ay that the check is not issued on
account or for value, wala namang value yung checke bakit inissue yung 10 million na yan eh 1000 lang
yung laman ng account, eh gagawin na ngang halimbawa anak niya na sa eskwela eh.
In other words, he did not freely and conscoulsy performed the act. He has no intention for
perpetrating that act. Kaya nilagay niya 10 million, ayan pwede pa rin namang depensa. Pero in estafa by
post dating a check, fraud, or decit is essential. Kelan ba magkakaroon ng fraud and decit? If a person
issued a check to be dishonored later on, pwede siyang makasuhan ng estafa by post dating a check or
violation of BP22 or pwede ring walang estafa pero BP22 lang pero di pwede mangyare yung estafa lang
and walang BP22, malabong mangayri yon. SO pwedeng 2 estafa and BP 22 pwedeng BP22 lang pero di
pwedeng estafa lang kasi in estafa, fraud and decit is essential.
Kelan magkakaroon ng fraud, kelan magkakaroon ng deceit? This is when the offended party, meaning
the person to whom the check is issued would not have parted with his money or property, where it not
for the assurance that the check that was issued to him would be good upon its presentment for
payment. Fraud or deceit wold usually come in if the check was issued at the time the action as
contracted. Example Mr A nadiskubre niya na si Mr nagpurchase ng BWM worth Php 50,000. Nilapitan ni
A si B sabi niya A, bibilhin ko yang koche mo ng 100,000. Eto check post dated, next week may pondo na
yan. Niloko no, sabi niya may hidden treasure, wala naman.
36

SO inissue ang checke, post dated, next week. Binigay ang koche, etc, tumalbog ang cheke. Eto yung
Estafa by post dating a check. If the check was issued in payment of a preexisting obligation, walang
estafa by post dating a check, BP22 lang yan. Kasi violation of BP 22, the offender may be held liable
whether or not the check is issued in payment of a pre existing obligation, pero kung estafa by post
dating a check, the offender may not have any criminal liability if a check was issued in a payment of
pre-existing obligation.
It is because, there can be no fraud or decit in the issuancane of that check if the same was made in
payment of the preexisting obligation. Halimbawa si Mr A lumapit kay B nanghihiram ng 100,000
babayaran daw next month. Edi pinhiram. Here comes the due date, wala pang bayad. B sought A. Sabi
ni A, extension for 1 month daw. Sabi ni B, okay sige 1 month extension pero magissue ka sakin ng cheke
worth 100,000 by the end of the month, di na kita pupuntahan, idedeposit ko na alng yung checke.
Nagissue si A ng checke. On the due date, B presented the check for payment and later on dishonored.
What crime did Mr A violated? BP22. Hindi yan pwedeng estafa because the check that A issued, it was
issued in payment of a pre existing obligation.
At mosy, ang liability ni A would be for violation of BP22. Meorn pa silang pagkakaiba, yung tungkol sa
demand. Is demand prior to the institution of action for violation of BP22 essential and mandatory? Yes.
If the criminal action of BP22 is instituted without any demand or notice of dischonor, issued prior to the
filing of the case, ididismiss lang ng prosecutor yung complaint. ANo ba yung significance nung demand
sa violation of BP22? 1 of the elements of the crime in violation of BP22 is that the offender who had
issued, made or drawn the check has knowledge of the insufficiency of funds at the time of the issue.
Hindi ka pwedeng makasuhan kung di mo alam na walang funds yan but knowledge whether or not from
the checks were drawn is a state of mind.
How would we know that the maker of the check knew that at the time it issued the same, the same
was not funded. Papasok ditto yung presumption. Yung presumption, if the issue of the check has been
served with a demand letter or notice of dishonor before the institution of the criminal action and that
the issue of the check has not paid the amount due there on to the payee within the period, ditto na
magkakaroon ng presumption it may now be presumed that the issurer of the chck knew at the time of
its issuance was not funded. DI napatutunayan ng prosecution na alam na ng issuerer. So magkakaroon
na ng presumption but the said presumption is disputable. Pero kailangan talaga ng demand, di
magkakaroon ng presumption, kung walang second element in violation of BP22 at kung walang
violation ng 2nd element, dismissed ang kaso kasi walang isang element. Pero pag estafa by post dating a
check, is demand essential? Dati hindi kailangan. Ngayon sbai ng Sc, it is essential.
Pag walang demand, dismissed ang kaso. Pero merong pagkakaiba ang demand sa BP22 sa demand ng
estafa by post dating a check dahil ang demand or notice of dishconor in violation of BP22, those must
be in writing Yung lang ang pagkakaiba. Pero the SC insofar as demand in estafa by post dating is
concerned, is silent in their decision basta sabi lang may demand. SO it may be safe to assume that
demand may be in any form may be an writing or not. Yung in writing lang yung BP22. BP22 the subject
check must have been presented for payment within 90 dys from its issue. But what if it was presented
after 90 days but before 6 months, wala na bang criminal liability yung nagissue ng check? Meron pa
rin. Ano lang yung implication? If the subject check would be issued after 90 days, mawawala na yung
presumption of knowledge on the part of the offender on the insufficiency of funds, yun lang ang
37

amwaawala. The prosecution may still present evidence to establish that element but it must be
presented within 6 months. What would happen to a check if not presented within 6 months? Magiing
stale. Pag naging stale yan, wala ka ng P22, wala ka ng estafa by post dating a check, magiging civil
nalang yan at ebidensya ng pagkakautang, nothing more. You can no longer run after the accused under
RPC or BP22. Prosecution must prof that the same was been sent or kung nareceive nila.
Pag walang proof, wala pa rin dapat patunayan yan. Pero meron itong kaso. March 15, 2004. Nalimot ko
yung name eh. SO si A and B are betfriends, sabi ni A bes, pautang 100,000 Sabi ni B, wala siyang
100,000 pero may pupuntahan, si C baka pautangin ka. But A and C, hindi sila magkakilala. Punta si A nd
B sa bahay ni C. SO B introduced A to C. Pumayag si C magpautang pero sabi niya, Ms A, just issue me a
check, ilagay mo lang yung date when would you be paying the same so that when its due date,
deposito ko nalang yung check 1 month later, due na ang utang, C deposited the check for payment
and later on dischoneroed on the ground that it was drawn against a disclosed account.
Anong ginawa ni C, hindi naman kakilala si A kinontact niya si B. Kinausap ni C si B, tinanong yung
address ni A to know where to send the demand letter. Sabi ni B, icoconvince niya si A to pay C but
lumipas na ang 2 weeksm walang ngayari. C institute a criminal action for BP 22 to Mr A. Eh panao ang
subpoena? Ayun nakacare of ngayon kay B. SO kay B bumabagsak ang notices. Nagkaroon ng
preliminary investigation. Look, walang demand letter. Walang notice of dishonor wala pero finile ang
kaso. Surprisingly the prosecutor probable cause in violation of BP22.
Bakit ko sinabing surprisingly? Eh wala yung 2 nd element of the defense eh. KNowldege of the
insufficiency of funds is not proven. Could it be presumed A was knowledgeable at the time she issued
the check? DI pwedeng ipresume kasi als nga siyang sulat na tinanggap. Pagdating sa MTC, the judge
after submission of the parties evidence, surprisingly, convicted A. Walang demand. Nagappeal si A sa
RTC, RTC affirmed. CA affirmed. SC affirmed. How did the SC ruled in this case? Exception ba ito? Parang
exception. Sabi ditto ng SC we cannot blame C for not sending A any demand letter before he instituted
a criminal action for violation of BP22 because she does not know where to send the same in the first
case. In view of this peculiar circumstances of this case, notice requirement can be dispensed in this kind
of scenario lang.
Yan yung estafa by post dating a check. For purposes of the Bar exam, just read the codal provisions on
ART 316, Art 318, ito fall back niyo ito kung gusto niyo talagang maconvict and wala dun sa estafa,
ipasok niyo ditto, other deceits Kasali ditto yung if you, for profit would interpret dreams,make
forecast, Art 318 yan. For profit lang pero pag donation, di yan for profit. For purpses of the Bar, Art 332
is important, yung exemptions ng criminal liability. Sabi dun, no criminal but only civil liability shall result
form the commission of theft swindling of malicious mischief caused by any of the ff: spuses,
ascendants, descendants or relative by affinity of the same line; widowed spouse with respect to the
properties of of the deceased spouse before the same is transferred to another; brothers and sisters,
brothers in law and sisters in law IF LIVING TOGETHER.
Nawiwierduhan ako sa sposes, kapag magnanakawan daw ang spouses, walng criminal liability for theft.
Example. Meron akong kabit, natulog kami sa isnag lugar pag gising ko sa umaga ubos ang pera sa wallet
ko, dinemanda ko siya for theft. Will the criminal complaint prosper? NO. Bakit? Ito ang opinon ng isa sa
mga authors ng RPC. Ewan ko, sa libro ni Justice Rees, kasama dun ang concubines, paramours, apti
38

common law relationship. Walang liability pala ang querida. Pag sinabi moa ng theft kasama ang
qualified theft but not ang robbery. ANg robbery, mitigated kapag magkamaganak. Dun sa estafa or
swindling Art 315-318, exempted ang criminal liability nitong mga taong ito.
Sir papaano if A and B siblings living in 1 roof. A issued a check to B, pautangin mo ako, bibigyan kita
checke. SO pinautang nagbigay ng cheke.Eh tmalbog. DO Mr A the one who issued a check has criminal
liability for estafa? None kahit may fraud or deceit yan kasi it is against is sibling whom he was living
under one roof. Exepmted ba siya for violation in BP22? Yes because estafa by post dating acheck would
appear to be more serious tha BP22 ang estafa by post dating a check 6- 12 years ang penalty mo pero
yung BP22, 1 month and 1 day to 1 year ata and a fine of not more that 200,000.
SO, Arson, ito yung panununog ah. Basta by means of fire. PD 1613 has repealed Art 320-326 inclusive.
Totoo bay an? Partly. Hindi nirepeal ang Art 324. Meron tayong tinatawag na crime of distraction under
Art 324. DI ba mga terorista kunyare pinasabog nila ang building na wala nmang tao. ANong kaso mo?
Distraction under Art 324. But if your intention is pasabugin kasi may tao sa loob, anong kaso mo?
Murder kung namatay may namatay by means of explosion, frustrated or attempted murder if may
nabuhay if may intention.
Pero pag wala ka naman intention na pasabugin ang building, akala mo walang tao, pinasabog mo,
merong namatay, are you held liable for murder? No wala ka namang intention to kill but you may be
held liable for distraction under Art 324 at mas mataas ang penalty kapag may namatay. Tatandana niyo
sa arson ito lang. Kung sinunog moa ng property mo, meron ka bang liability? Depende kung nasaan ang
property mo. Kung property mo nasa tuktok ng Mt Apo pwede ka bang makasuhan? Depende pa rin kasi
kung marami ring T*anga na nagpatayo ng bahay sa Mt Apo, liable ka.
Ano ang bottomline ditto? You may not be held liable for Arson by burning your property unless in doing
you will endanger the other structures within the vicinity. Pangalawa, yung conspiracy. Conspiracy to
commit arson is punishable. SO much so, I two or more person has decided to commit arson and decide
to commit the same, liable na sila agad. Kahit di sila nanunog, liable na. Halimbawa sinunog mo ballpen
ng kaklase mo? PWede mo bang kasuhan ng arson? Oo kapag yung kaklase mo nakatira diyan sa ballpen
na yan. Pero ballpen lang, that is malicious mischief. Pag sinunog mo motorcycle, or any mode of
conveyance that will carry atleast 2 or 3 persons, arson.
Establishments, houses buildings, orchards forest, grasslands, pag sinunog, arson. Bu of course the
means that you should use is fire. DIyan sa arson kapag may namatay? O halimabaa A intended to kill B.
Alam ni A na si B nasa bahay niya so pumunta siya sa bahay sand set the house on fire. Namatay si B. A is
guilty of murder by means of fire. If B suffered only physical njuries, A is guilty of attempted murder.
Bakit attempted lang instead of physical injuries? Kasi A upon setting the house on fire had the intention
of killing him. If purpose of A is not to kill anyone but just to burn it, arson yan. If may naatay, walang
intention, arson pa rin. Walang arson with homicide. Sabihin mo nalang the person may be held liable
of the crime arson and considering that he had intentions to kill, he may be held to suffer the maximum
penalty for arson Kasi arson pa rin naman yan e kahit ilan pa ang namatay for aslong as the accused had
not intended to kill the victim. Sa arson kung may lalabas, dun lang kayo magfocus.
39

Ticman Crim Part 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ticman Crim Part 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

CENTER FOR LEGAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

SInong magcoconduct ng Inquest? Inquest Prosecutor. ANong purpose ng inquest? To

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

A person/s is or ar killed by reason or on the occasion of robbery. A B C D E agreed to rob the

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Yung 297, binanggit ko na yan. Attempted robbery with homicide. Kung

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi