Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

Title VII - Crimes Committed by Public Officers


Monday, 4 December 2017
6:14 PM
There is another special penal law which deals with crimes committed by public officers. In
view of this law, you will notice maybe that most of the newer jurisprudence pertains to
violations of the anti-graft and corrupt practices aw rather than violations of Title VII. There's
a thing. You have two laws. RPC which carries with it very low penalties, and then you have
SPLs which provides more or less the same crimes and the elements are easier to complete.
Plus, the penalty is higher. Between two violations, complainants would opt to file under SPL
than the RPC because of the lower penalties and more stringent elements.

Under Anti-Graft, one act can give rise to two kinds of liabilities. One being criminal in
nature, and other being administrative (?).

When there is an administrative case filed, you don't have to wait for conviction. On the
onset, there can be suspension called preventive suspension. At the start of the trial, the
accused can be made to suffer na because of the preventive suspension.

Apart from that, after the decision of the administrative case, there can not only be
suspension but also dismissal from public service. That is apart from the criminal aspect.
Whereas a charge is filed under the RPC, there can only be criminal liability. Pending the
decision in the criminal case, the respondent will be continuing to hold office. That will result
in this officer having influence over the investigation against him. That is why there is
preference in going with Anti-Graft than RPC. BUT it doesn't mean to say that the crimes
under RPC have been repealed. They can still be prosecuted.

Under 203, the law makes it clear that these can only be committed by public officers. Do
not confuse yourself with person in authority from public officer. These are two different
things. Person in Authority may not be a public officer. A public officer may not be an PA.
Two different things.

A public officer is he who holds a government position by reason of law, appointment, or


election. They were neither appointed nor elected, but they assumed the office by
operation of law. For example, there is a Sanggunian. One died. The remaining will have to
assume office by operation of law.

Art. 204, 205, 206, and 207 - These crimes can only be committed by judges. Only judges can
commit the crimes punished by these articles. For 204, it's rendering knowingly an unjust
judgment, and 205 it is not deliberate or intentional, but the judgment was given by reason
of negligence. What is the difference between 204 and 206?

When there is a case filed in a court, the judge may issue either a judgment, sometimes the
judgment is called a decision. Or, the judge may issue an order. The order, there are two
kinds: final or interlocutory. What's the difference?

A judgment is made by a judge after a hearing based on the evidence. It is called trial on
the merits of the case. So, there is a finding by the judge regarding a case filed before it,
and this finding was arrived at after considering the evidence of the parties. There is the
complainant, or the petitioner, and there is the accused or defendant. After weighing the
evidence, judge will come up with decision. That will terminate the case. The decision is
arrived at after weighing evidence. The decision may be in a civil case or criminal, basta it's
a decision. It's based on a decision after a trial based on the merits.

We have another issuance called an order. It is a ruling of the court but that ruling is not
based on the evidence presented by the parties. For example, Juan filed a case against
Pedro, and then it was found out that the case was not filed in the correct court because
remember, territoriality? Estafa was committed in Davao but was filed in Cebu. What the
judge does is dismiss the case. The dismissal will not be based on the evidence. It will be
based on the fact alone that the court does not have jurisdiction. The judge will not issue a
judgment. The judge will issue an order. Meaning to say that the order is a ruling not based
on evidence.

1|Page
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

That kind of order is called a final order. Why? It is a final order because it puts an end to the
case because it's a dismissal. It is not a judgment because the dismissal was not arrived at
because of the evidence presented.

There is also called another order - interlocutory order. It is an order issued by the judge that
does not terminate the case. It does not end the case. For example, there was a case for
collection of debt. Juan filed a case against Pedro because Pedro failed to pay utang.
Pedro is supposed to answer but failed to do so. Now, Juan will move to declare Pedro in
default, and therefore, he cannot participate in hearing anymore. What Juan does is file a
motion to declare Pedro in default. Court says okay. When Pedro is declared in default, it
does not put an end to the case. It will still proceed, but Pedro cannot be allowed to
proceed because he already defaulted. This is an interlocutory order. Why? It is because it
does not terminate the case.

Regardless of whether the order is final or interlocutory, or if it's an order or judgment, there is
a crime committed by the judge who either issues the judgment: knowing it is unjust, or
ignorance of the law/negligence. Wala'y lusot. He will be criminally liable. NOTE: (Also
applicable to justices).

207 - malicious delay in the administration of justice. Note that the delay must be
MALICIOUS. If for example, the judge purposely reset it to some impossible date, then that it
malicious. If the setting or scheduling was the only logical setting because of constraints,
then it won't be malicious. Malicious delay is a crime. For the prosecutors, the crime would
be Art. 208.

If the public officer/officer of the law in dereliction of his duties, he malicious refrains from
prosecuting somebody or tolerate commission of offenses. Refusal to prosecute will result in
crime. But let's say a crime is filed for rape, and the prosecutor says there is no rape here. It
cannot automatically be a crime because the prosecutor is given a certain standard, not
because there is an allegation that there is a prosecution. Even if there is an allegation, but it
would not make the crime, or there is no evidence to support allegation, the prosecutor will
still not file the case, and that will not be considered a violation of the law. That is not a
MALICIOUS REFUSAL. The refusal to prosecute is because there is no crime committed per
the evidence presented.

Betrayal of trust by an Atty and Revelation of Secrets - an atty, doctor, or CPA maybe have
privileged communication, and malicious breach of professional duty or negligence or
ignorance that can prejudice interest of client is actually a crime. For example, you are a
lawyer - you cannot divulge the secrets.

Art 210 - There are two kinds of bribery. In ordinary parlance, or in the dialect, when we say
corrupt in the dialect, we tend to refer to the person who receives money. We tend to think
in Visayan that the person who gives money is the person who bribes. But if you look at the
crimes, it is actually the reverse. Why?

Under the RPC, the crime of bribery is not the crime committed by the giver of the bribe. It is
the crime committed by the recipient of the bribe. He is corrupt, but his crime will be bribery.
For the giver of the bribe, the crime will be corruption. The crime of corruption is committed
by the one giving. Usually, when there is bribery, there is corruption because you cannot
receive if it is not given. Not always though. If it is a case of entrapment setup, the "corruptor"
will not be liable. There is bribery, but there is no corruption.

On the other hand, there can also be corruption, but no bribery if the bribe is not received.
CASE: There was corruption, but there was no bribery. Gidawat gihapon pero walay bribery.
Why? Because in direct bribery, there must be a purpose for the giving. If money were
received without any clear purpose, it may not be DIRECT BRIBERY. SO, there are two kinds:
direct and indirect.

For direct, the purpose of the giving must be for the performance of something, of an act
which is in relation to the public. For example, you give money to the police not to arrest so
and so. It was given and for the purpose of the police not doing something in relation to his
public function.

2|Page
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

In direct bribery, it may not be money. It may not be property. It may be a promise. In direct
bribery, what is needed to consummate is not the actual receipt of money but the
agreement to do something. It is possible that there is no money yet. Here's the thing, what if
he says judge, I will give you one million if you acquit the accused. If the judge acquits the
accused, but there is no money yet. There is already consummation because there was
already an agreement. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE AGREEMENT TO DO THE THING.

The difference is when the giving has no relation to the function. For example, let us say that
Bato was given a trip to the US by Pacquiao to watch the fight. It was not in consideration of
a public function. IT was just given. It may still constitute a crime. A crime could be INDIRECT
BRIBERY. The difference between direct bribery and indirect, direct bribery - there is
something to be done or not be done in relation to a public office. Meaning there is a
request. Whereas in indirect bribery, there is no request for anything to be done. In indirect,
the thing has no kapalit. It is a crime only if the amount is not substantial.

For example, birthday gihatagan ka ug usa ka karton na otap. It is not substantial. Another
difference between direct and indirect bribery, and you have to take note: another
difference between direct and indirect is that in direct bribery, a promise is sufficient
consideration. Whereas, in indirect bribery, a promise is not sufficient consideration.

For example, there is a successful businessman because he is a druglord. He says fiscal, I will
give you something. Without request, not with any consideration, is there a crime?

No because it is not in relation to a public function. It cannot also be indirect because a


promise is not a sufficient consideration. In indirect, there must be something GIVEN. Not
JUST a future promise.

RA 3019 - Anti-Graft and Corruption Act. This is more lax because under 3019, it does not
have to be in relation to a public office. In 3019, especially if the act causes an unwarranted
benefit to anybody, not only to the person receiving, but also to anybody, or it causes injury
to a government or third person, that is a violation. Never mind the specific request. As long
as it causes unwarranted benefit in favor of somebody and injury to the government or
anybody. That’s all. That's the crime. It's very sweeping. For one crime, two penalties - admin
and criminal.

Note: If dili ma-substantiate ang amount, is that still direct bribery? The burden of proof in
criminal cases belongs to the accuser. The accuser must make an allegation to the amount,
even if it is an estimate. So, now, what if there is no amount because the charges failed to
state amount. In other cases such as theft, when there is no amount stated, the law will
already presume it to be less than 5 pesos.

Illegal Exactions and Transactions

For illegal exactions (pertains to specifically number 2 or Article 213 - it mentions a supplier to
a public office. We're talking about a supplier, making supplies so if there is an agreement
where regarding supplies, where the government has been defrauded, then that is a crime
under 1. Number 2 - illegal whose duty is to collect money or fees. It may not always be a
higher amount. What's important is that…. For example, he is authorized to collect fees
regarding a stall for example, instead of a fee, he collected an iniktan, or instead of atty's
fee, it was in kind. Because in the collection of fees, the collector of public fees must only
receive exact amount, not lower or higher or in kind. If he collects any of these, he can be
liable for illegal exactions).

What if the CITOM will catch you making a left turn or maybe jaywalking. Ordinance is 1000.
Sometimes, you negotiate it to 500. Is that a crime?

No, because the crime of illegal exactions can only be committed by a public official who is
not authorized to compromise. If he is authorized to compromise, he will not commit this
crime.

For example, city allows a compromise fee for a commission of a certain infraction. If that
was allowed, the public official who allows compromise will not be liable for this because he
is authorized. As a matter of fact, to a certain degree, BIR can be able to compromise and

3|Page
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

also Bureau of Customs. Because they can enter in compromise, then there is no illegal
exactions (e.g. lowering the fee if you pay during the first month etc).

Prohibited Transactions and Prohibited Interests

Same crime here punished also by Anti-Graft. A person who is forced to sign a contract, he
or his relatives cannot enter into a contract with a government. They are not allowed to
have any interest in government contracts. (?)

Malversation

What you need to understand is that there are public funds or property. That is the property
involved here. They are owned technically by the government. But later on we will discuss
the exceptions, or the jurisprudence regarding what are excluded in public funds or
property. SO, there is a public officer who is in custody of public funds or property, and there
is misappropriation where it is committed intentionally or by negligence. So, now, in SC
rulings, the SC clarified that when we say public funds or property, we are not only limiting
ourselves to funds or properties owned by the government. Even funds or property not really
owned by government but intended for public use may be included here.

Example: There was Yolanda. Because of Yolanda, private persons donated money and
goods to the government. Let's say for example that the government sold these goods to
private businesses. Can there be malversation or misappropriation considering that the
sardines and etc. were not bought by government. They were donated by private persons.

The answer is yes. Even if they were not public funds or property, they assumed its character
when private persons donated it for a public purpose. So now, the term public funds or
property has been stretched to include that which is not technically owned by government.

#2 - The person involved must be a public officer who is in custody of public funds or
property. SC said that the accused need not always be a public officer. Even if he is a
private person but it so happens that he was given custody of these public funds/property,
he can still be liable for malversation. THIS ELEMENT HAS BEEN STRETCHED. NOT ONLY LIMITED
PUBLIC OFFICIALS, BUT ALSO PRIVATE OFFICIALS WHO ARE IN CUSTODY OF PUBLIC FUNDS.

Misappropriation may be done by the person himself or another through the malicious or
intentional or culpable act of the public officers. For example, if there is a treasurer who has
a lot of money, and then the treasurer was going to a bank with the money, and while in the
bus, he felt he needed to pee, and so he entrusted the money to his seatmate to take care
of it. When he came back, the money is gone. Could he be liable?

Answer is yes. Crime of malversation may be committed by negligence. Committed by


another by virtue of negligence. MALVERSATION NOT ALWAYS INTENTIONAL.

ADDITIONAL:

Pozar v. CA - Good faith can be a defense in corruption. If a crime is a mala in se, good
faith can be a defense. If the crime is mala prohibita, usually, good faith is not an offense.
The act would be criminal regardless of intent. Since corruption is essentially a malum in se
felony, so good faith can be a defense. In this case, a foreigner gave money to a clerk of a
public office. He thought the money was for a photocopy. He didn't give money to bribe
the clerk. He thought that the money was a legitimate expense to photocopy. He was
arrested. He was exonerated because of the defense of good faith.

In Formilleza, SC clarified the meaning of receiving in bribery. So, according to SC, the
essential ingredient there is that the public officer must have received the money as a
consideration for something. It must be in exchange of a favor. Even if there was receiving,
but the receiving was not for the purpose of doing something, and there was no agreement
or meeting of the minds between the parties as to the purpose of the money, there can be
no direct bribery. Never mind in indirect bribery because an agreement is not necessary.

There was a public officer, and there was according to the victim here, that they agreed to
meet somewhere like a restaurant wherein the victim was supposed to give the money.
What was supposed to happen is that the victim was supposed to give an envelope to the

4|Page
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

official. She gave the envelope without saying anything, and inside was money. When it was
given, the public officer received it. At that point, she was arrested. It was not clear what the
money was for. It was not even clear if the recipient knew that what was inside was money.
There was no clear evidence or understanding of the purpose of what was given. It is
indirect bribery diay here, not direct.

Whether indirect or direct, there must be a purpose. For direct, there must be a request for
the doing of something or the omission of something. There must be an agreement that this
must be something to be done or not. In indirect, it need not consideration, but there still has
to be a purpose. Purpose is necessary in both direct and indirect bribery, but in indirect
bribery, it may not be in consideration of the performance or non-performance of an official
function. Without that, the mere giving or receiving will not itself constitute a crime of bribery
whether direct or indirect.

PP v. Francisco - (Bribery from Robbery) Here, he did not only receive something that was
offered. He demanded it with the use of intimidation. When there is intimidation, taking
something, of personal property, with intimidation is already robbery. So, extortion is already
robbery. The difference between robbery and bribery is that in bribery, there is a mutual
agreement as to the giving and receiving. But in robbery, there is a one sided demand.
There is a demand, and the demand must be made through intimidation. When personal
property is taken with the use of intimidation, that's not already bribery, that's robbery.

US v. Jader (Bribery from Estafa) - The difference here is that the means of taking the money
was not anymore intimidation, but fraud or deceit. It's the means. Here, there was no
voluntary agreement for money to pass between the parties. It's not like it's offered for the
purpose of doing something. He convinced the victim because of such and such but it's not
true because it's fraud/deceit. The taking of the money was not for the performance of an
official function. If victim was deceived in giving the money thinking that the thing is
necessary, so it's fraud or deceit. When that is the case, the crime will not be bribery. It will
be estafa.

RA 7659 - Qualified Bribery (same RA that amends piracy. Actually the one that imposes
death penalties. It makes a new penalty not found in RPC). What happened to 7659 is that a
law was passed providing for death penalty, and in so doing, what Congress did was it re-
defined certain crimes and created crimes that were not in original RPC. It was repealed,
but not the whole. It was only the penalties. Penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Technical Malversation under Art. 220 - In here, there is public funds involved, and it is still
used for a public purpose. But the public purpose for which it used is not authorized. It is not
an authorized purpose. For example, money was allocated to build a bridge. So, we have
here 100 million for a bridge, or maybe 50 million. Here is Kapitan Juan who says why should
we build a bridge, we don't have a river. We'll just use this 20 million to build a health center
so people can still have somewhere to go to if they need medicine and etc. If the money
was not intended for that purpose, even if the money went to a very good cause, there is
still malversation.

Spending money intended for one purpose, and using it for another purpose which was not
authorized to be used, is a crime of technical malversation. There has to be either a LAW or
ORDINANCE REALIGNING the budget. Without realignment, public funds cannot be used for
a purpose other than for which it was not intended/allocated.

Parungao v. Sandiganbayan - Technical malversation is not a crime necessarily included in


malversation. Their elements are not the same. Municipal mayor was charged with
malversation, and during trial, he was found innocent. Can he be filed for technical
malversation? No. It has different elements. If the commission of the graver crime cannot be
proven, it does not mean that the accused can be convicted of the lesser crime of
technical malversation.

Infidelity of Public Officers

1. Custody of prisoners

Evasion, Removal, and Infidelity

5|Page
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

Removal of a prisoner from jail is a crime. In the crime of removal, the classification of a
prisoner is not crucial. It is not necessary. The prisoner may be convicted or a prisoner who is
still undergoing trial and has not posted bail. He may still be accused. But if he is removed
from jail, the person who removed is liable. However, if that is the case, the prisoner would
not be liable for any crime. He can only be liable if the prisoner is a convicted prisoner. It is
only for the evasion of the service of sentence that a prisoner is convicted. In so far as
removing the prisoner, the classification does not matter for the person removing to be liable

Offenses in Relation to Elective Office

There is this gap between elections to the date of assumption. Second Monday of May to
June is six weeks. The proclaimed winner may not yet hold office. He cannot perform
function, yet. On the other hand, the incumbent who lost in the elections, within the second
Monday of May to June, he is still the mayor. He can still perform functions. What happens if
Mike Rama is discouraged and no longer performs functions like not taking the garbage
anymore.

What if Mike Rama lost and goes to the US? That would be a crime of abandonment
because he abandoned. You are still the mayor. I'm not even saying that it has to be
between second Monday of May to June. It can be anytime during incumbency.

What if he will not get out after losing? Crime of prolonging performance.

What if in the case of the winner, he is already proclaimed and he will assign people as
CITOM because he is the winner. There is already a crime of anticipation of duties. It could
also be usurpation of public function. It does not preclude the commission of another crime.
One act can result in many crimes.

Let's say that after the new mayor won, he will not assume office. The crime would be refusal
to discharge elective office. In relation to 236-237, there can be usurpation of public
functions, aside from anticipating or prolonging performance/functions.

Usurpation of Powers and Unlawful Appointments

This time, it's a public officer usurping another public officer's function. These are specific
kinds of usurpation. Art. 239-241, this can be committed by any public officer. If committed
by a public officer, it is here. If not a public officer, Art. 177.

The usurpation of public function punished as a felony can only be committed by a judge.
The judge cannot usurp executive functions. Art 240.

What about COMELEC advising the police and teachers to perform certain functions during
election period? Is this a violation of Art. 240? NO because (1) they are not judges, and (2)
they are authorized by law.

Let's say Juan got drunk and pelted stones at house to destroy it. He got arrested and during
the Lupon, kapitan says that he must be fined 10, 000. IS that allowed? No. The Lupon
cannot act as judge. It is not a barangay. It is only for conciliation, arbitration, and
mediation. There is no decision-making. That would be usurpation of a judicial function.

Disobeying Requests for Disqualification

Someone is disqualified. Ombudsman cannot implement disqualification itself. They have to


course it to the higher authority. They request DILG to implement the order. Or it could be a
suspension. Or it is possible that the one disqualified is the police. The Ombudsman cannot
implement it on its own. They have to request DILG or PNP. If they disobey, it is a crime.

243 - Says that orders or requests by executive officers to judicial authorities is a crime. So,
when Duterte said that judges, you report to me. That could be a crime.

Unlawful appointments - It is also a crime. In appointments, there is an independent


commission, and that will give the requirements. Anyone who is appointed to a public office
must possess the requirements set. If a mayor appoints his yaya as a social worker because
she is being good at being a yaya, but she does not have the requisites. It is a crime.

6|Page
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

1. Custody of documents
2. Revelation of secrets

Title VIII - Crimes against Persons


Tuesday, 5 December 2017
5:47 PM
Killing a Person:

• When infanticide
• When parricide
• When Murder
• When Homicide

When the victim dies, the possible crimes would be these four. Those are the only possible crimes
committed when the victim dies. That is excluding abortion. Let us talk about a person who is
expelled from the mother's womb.

So, four possible crimes. In infanticide, the victim must be less than three days old. So, don't be
deceived by the three. It's not really three. It's two or one, or below one. So, less than three is not
three. That's the ONLY time that the crime could be INFANTICIDE.

What about parricide? In parricide, the victim must be SAD (spouse [legitimate] - if not common
law, it is not parricide. Ascendants and Descendants - if parents, the relationship is as parents,
the relationship need NOT be legitimate. As to other descendants and ascendants, the
relationship MUST be legitimate. Legitimacy is not an issue if the relationship is parental.)

Murder is committed wen the death or the killing is attended with certain circumstances. THE
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES. How many groups? (6 groups of circumstances). When any of
those circumstances are present in the killing, then the crime will become murder. But in order to
be qualified, the circumstance must be specifically sought to commit the killing. IF the
circumstance was present, it attended the commission of the crime, but it was not specifically
sought for that purpose, it MAY not qualify. When NIGHTTIME is SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT in order
that the victim cannot put up a defense, it will be converted to treachery which qualifies it to
murder.

In PP v. Galura, this guy invited a girl to a dinner date, and during dinner, the guy puts something
in the food of the girl. The intention of putting the drug was to create a good mood for
subsequent activity. So, that was the objective. The victim died by poisoning. The guy was
charged with murder because the victim died, and the victim died because the death
certificate said that it was through poisoning. SC said it is not murder. It is only homicide.
Accused did not specifically seek for poison to kill. It goes to the general rule, prevailing
doctrine: in order to qualify, or in order to even aggravate, any circumstance whether qualifying
or aggravating, must be specifically sought to accomplish commission of the crime.

#1 of the qualifying circumstances will not be taken separately. If more than one of the #1
circumstances, it will be taken together.

PP v. Enriquez - The crime of murder when it is consummated, it is not determined by whether


there was intent to kill or not. It is determined on whether a qualifying circumstance was present.
If there is, the crime would be murder.

If fire, if the house was intentionally burned, and the arson results in someone killed. The crime
would ONLY BE arson. If someone was killed and intentionally, the killing was done by means of
fire, then the crime would be MURDER. So, the intent of the accused should be determined. Kill
or burn? If it is to kill, there would be murder. What if the intention to kill was there, and the means
was to burn, and it also resulted in the burning of the house. What would it be? The primary
intention was to kill, and the burning was an incidental crime. What will happen? There will be

7|Page
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

two crimes. ARSON AND MURDER = SEPARATE CRIMES. Simple arson is not found in RPC. It is
found in an SPL. That is WHY YOU CANNOT COMPLEX IT.

Title VIII - Crimes against Persons II


Monday, 11 December 2017
5:30 PM
Frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence?

• No. Frustrated or attempted homicide/murder/parricide/infanticide can only be


committed when there is intent to kill, hence it cannot be committed through
imprudence. Reckless imprudence means the crime is committed by culpa. When we
say attempted/frustrated this, it is always intentional.

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS AND USE OF FIREARM (MUST BE GIVEN DUE EMPHASIS)

We have to give particular emphasis on the crime committed using a firearm. When there is
a firearm, we do not really worry too much if the victim is killed because we would be able
to correctly determine the crime. If there is a firearm and there are injuries caused, I'm
making this simple, your clue would be THE EXTENT OF THE INJURY.

If the injury is fatal but the victim survives, the crime is in its frustrated stage. If the wound
inflicted is fatal, that means all acts of execution have been performed, but the victim did
not die. Meaning to say that if the wounds are not fatal, then not all the acts of execution
have been performed.

For attempted stage, it's not necessary that there is a wound. If there is no intent to kill, then
what is the crime?

There is no crime. Impossible crime is always intentional. The reason why it was punished
even if there is no injury caused is in order to serve as a lesson or sort of punish the offender
for his criminal act. It is ALWAYS intentional.

What if by reason of somebody's negligence, a firearm or explosive fired and it caused the
death. No intent to have it exploded or fired the firearm. What is the crime?

• Imprudence resulting in homicide or physical injuries if the victim did not die.

When the victim is not killed, and the wounds inflicted are fatal - automatically frustrated.
Not fatal - it could be attempted or it's possible that it is another crime. Or it is possible that
there is NO crime.

In order to constitute an attempted stage of the 4 with the use of a firearm, the firearm must
be fired. It must be fired, or there must be pulling of the trigger. Without that act, even if
there is a firearm used, it cannot be attempted. Even if there was intent to kill. It can be
another crime.

Even if the victim dies, there can still be physical injuries. If one just enters a mauling of one
person using a book as a weapon, and then someone kills the mauled person with a knife,
he may be charged with physical injuries. There was no conspiracy. So, even if the victim
dies, there can be physical injuries.

Let's say for example that there was a firearm, the firearm was fired, and there was no intent
to kill, no injuries as well. Would there be a crime?

The crime would be illegal discharge of firearm. However, it is important in illegal discharge
that the firearm should be aimed, not just at a person, but also a house. It must not be
indiscriminate firearm. If it is indiscriminate, that is not illegal discharge. In ILLEGAL
DISCHARGE, there must be an aim, and there must be no intent to kill or injuries. If there is
injury, then it could be physical injuries. If there is intent, there can be attempted homicide,
etc.

8|Page
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

If firearm = indiscriminately fired, then the crime would be different depending on the
purpose. If it were fired to scare people, then the crime would alarms and scandals. If the
purpose of the indiscriminate firing is to terrorize a specific person, then it would be grave
threats.

For example, during New Years, someone indiscriminately fired. It was alarms and scandals.
But he fired at a group of people while he was drunk, and someone was killed without the
intent to kill. Indiscriminate firing, no intent to kill, someone died. It will not be reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide. It will be a GRAVER crime of illegal discharge with
homicide.

Abortion

Abortion - here we have a baby in the uterus. It is a crime against the fetus. If both woman
and baby dies, it could be a complex crime of (4) killing-crimes with abortion. It must be a
FETUS in the womb while inside the womb or is expelled and dies.

Art. 256 - Intentional Abortion - The offender must know that the mother is pregnant. The
mode of committing intentional abortion may or may not involve violence, such as the
taking of certain drugs. The mother herself may be liable for intentional abortion. IF it is the
mother who committed it or the grandparents of the baby/fetus, and the purpose is to
conceal dishonor, then it will be a mitigating circumstance. OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE: MUST BE
TO KILL THE BABY.

Art. 257 - Unintentional Abortion - Knowledge of pregnancy is not required. Mode of


committing this crime must be with violence/force. It is important that the mode committed
is either force/violence. If there is no force or violence, then there will be no unintentional
abortion. For example, Maria owed money to Juana. Maria did not pay. Juana wanted to
threaten. So, she kept sending text messages saying this and that until the victim could not
sleep and miscarried.

NOT UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION. There is no violence.

Duel

It is a formal fight with the weapons used and all those things.

Even if in boxing, one of the boxers die, normally in sports events, if somebody dies, the sort
of presumption is that there is no intent to kill. It is JUST a presumption. Even if there were
presumption but a deliberate act which clearly shows an intent to kill for example. I would
say that there in that case, there may still be a crime committed. Normally, the fact that the
sort of protagonists are supposed to be professional sportsmen that abide by certain rules,
and if they do, even if one dies, there is no crime. No intent to kill, sport, and an accident
without dolo or culpa. IF IN THE FIGHT, there is evidence that there was an intent to kill which
caused the death. The fact that they are sportsmen engaged in sports would not necessarily
negate criminal liability.

Physical Injuries

If the crime would have been murder/homicide, and the injury sustained is serious, then the
result would be qualifying serious injuries.

RAPE

It used to be a crime against chastity. With the enactment of RA 8353, it is classified as a


crime against persons. It has also become a public crime. There are two kinds of are:

• Rape by sexual intercourse/carnal knowledge


• Victim must be woman. The offender MUST be a man. That is what the law says. The
same with seduction. It is only committed by a woman to a man.

• Rape by sexual assault


• Gender/sex preference of offender does not matter. It can be committed by a
woman - woman, man-man, etc.

9|Page
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

It involves anal, vaginal, or oral sex.

If the act is not one of those enumerated, it may still result in a different crime, such as acts
of lasciviousness. If the offender is the one who gives a blowjob, that is not included in the
enumeration of rape. Kailangan ang magpa blowjob is the offender to constitute rape by
sexual assault.

Modes of committing whether a or b is same mode. There are now four modes of
commission. Before, there were only three modes of committing rape.

FOUR modes:

• Force, threat, intimidation


• Offended is deprived of reason
• Offended is under 12 years old - statutory rape.
• (RA 8353) rape by fraudulent machinations or abuse of authority (NO DECISIONS YET IN
RAPE COMMITTED BY FRAUDULENT MACHINATIONS)

There may be a higher penalty/QUALIFY if the rape, by reason of the rape, the victim dies. If
the rapist is a parent or if the victim is below 7, or by reason of rape, victim contracted STDs,
or and this is crazy, if the rape was committed in the full view of the spouse (opinion of Fiscal:
pwede kanang usa ra ka eye ang spouse or in the other room but could hear the
commotion. Faulty wording of the qualifying circumstance).

In seduction, there is still carnal knowledge. IT is used with abuse of authority, fraud, and etc.
It can only be committed when the victim is a minor. THE VICTIM MUST BE A MINOR.

Prostitute wants 2000 for sex. Guy agreed. They did it. It turned out the guy forgot his wallet,
and only had 20 pesos. There was already fraud. However, would it be rape? There would
have been no carnal knowledge without the agreement of 2000 pesos. NO DECISION YET.

Rape and homicide can be special complexed. What do we mean by that? Homicide, there
can be a special complex case of rape with homicide, robbery with homicide, kidnapping
with murder/homicide. These are all special complex. If a woman was kidnapped for the
purpose of raping, it will not be special complex. Why? Because to constitute kidnapping
with homicide, the main objective is to deprive the liberty. If it is to rape as a main objective,
then the kidnapping would be incidental to the criminal intent of rape. The crime would
simply be rape. If the rape would not have happened without the indispensable
cooperation of another person, then that person would be a principal as well to the rape.

Rape with homicide: Main purpose must be to rape. If for some reason afterwards, he/she is
killed, then it is this special complex crime. If it was to murder as the main objective, it will be
murder with rape as a separate crime. In special complex crimes, there is only one crime.

If there is robbery, rape, and homicide - it must be robbery with homicide with the rape as
an aggravating circumstance IF ROBBERY IS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE.

If rape were the main objective, it would be rape with homicide. The robbery may be
another crime of robbery if the robbery came before the killing. If the robbery came after
the killing, the robbery must be by force upon things. Why? Because if the taking of the
property happened after the victim died, there can be no more robbery because there is
no one to intimidate. It would merely be theft. If it was committed through entering illegally,
the crime could still be robbery - it can be robbery upon the use of force on things.

When you complex robbery (special complex robbery with homicide/rape), you can only
do that if the main purpose is TO ROB. Main intention is to rob and then someone dies. Crime
is robbery with homicide. Also same logical thinking with rape.

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES (SINGLE, SPECIAL, INDIVISIBLE)

• Rape with Homicide; Attempted Rape with Homicide


• Kidnapping under Art. 267

10 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

• Robbery with Homicide or Serious Physical Injuries; Robbery with Rape or intentional
mutilation or arson
• Attempted or Frustrated Robbery with Homicide

Title VIII - Crimes against Persons III


Tuesday, 12 December 2017
5:42 PM
Stages of Rape

There must be penetration however slight. Slightest penetration would consummate rape.
Now, SC says however slight even the slightest. Because of that, there is no more frustrated
rape. It's either attempted or consummated, but it cannot anymore be frustrated rape. It is
either there is penetration or none at all.

Rape is attempted if there is no penetration. Consummated if it is penetrated the slightest.


Decision in People v. Aca-ac. In another case, the case of Baleros v. People, the woman
was walking on a footpath, and then she was surprised by a man who happens to be
Baleros. Suddenly, Baleros grabbed her and kissed her, and touched her body, and made
her smell a piece of cloth with chloroform. The state filed a case of attempted rape. Was
there attempted rape?

SC says there is no attempted rape. Because the acts so far performed by the accused were
only to ambush her, touch her body, and make her smell a piece of cloth to deprive her of
consciousness. That was all. There is no clear connection yet between the act and the intent
to have sexual intercourse. You cannot yet make out the mind, the criminal intent of the
accused. To constitute attempted rape, the acts must lead to the unavoidable conclusion
that the intention was to have carnal knowledge. For example, accused started to undress
and pushed girl to the ground to get on top. The intention was to have sexual intercourse.
Without the connection between act and intent, there can be no attempted rape.

To constitute acts of lasciviousness, there must be lewd designs of the offender which is to
satisfy the lust. It must show. In one case, accused was on a public place, and he was
pulling the bra string of the woman. Was that acts of lasciviousness?

It is unjust vexation. Lewd designs negated as it was done in a public place. He was only
trying to annoy victim, not satisfy lust. Lascivious conduct is generally not displayed in public.
You have an instance where the acts may constitute attempted rape (nexus of acts and
carnal knowledge), acts of lasciviousness (there are lewd designs, but no safe conclusion to
have carnal knowledge), or only just unjust vexation (there can be no conclusion of a
lascivious/lewd design).

In the case of peeping toms, that is merely unjust vexation.

What is meant by lewd? Sambilon v. People - Lewd is something that is indecent or obscene.
Characterized to excite crude sexual desire.

Can a woman rape? Maybe if a woman commits a conspiracy. Rape by sexual assault may
be committed by a woman against another woman. Rape by sexual intercourse may be
committed by a woman, provided that she commits it together with a man. (PP v. dela Torre
- on rape by sexual assault, also People v. Villamala and People v. Saba)

Degree of resistance required in rape. There is a sort of inconsistency, but the thing is that
now in Gutierrez, physical resistance may need not be proved in rape with intimidation. For
example, perpetrator is using a firearm or will say that I will kill your parents. It is not necessary
that there is physical injuries. While it is true that rape may be committed by violence, but it is
also a means of committing rape.

SC said that where the victim is related to the perpetrator, and this is not uncommon,
incestuous rape - it is not necessary that there be violence or intimidation. There is also a
thing such as constructive force. It is not really like actual force. SC said when the victim and
offender are related, force is not required. Perpetrator is a father with a minor child, it is not
necessary that the victim proves the employment of force or intimidation. Moral

11 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

ascendancy of the perpetrator is already considered force. Even if there is acquiescence,


there is no need to prove force. It's not as strict as before in so far as resistance.

Statutory rape - consent of the victim in statutory rape has no bearing because her minority
makes her incapable of giving consent.

If the woman consents to sex at first, and then changes her mind, but the man still has sex
with her, is that rape?

No. If the rape was consensual, it would be given prior to or during so we can say that it was
consensual. If she changed her mind, it would have been done before. In real cases, it
would be that they had no consent from the start.

Extra Note - Additional Questions Answered:

In one case, SC did not believe that there was rape committed because the complainant
was unable to present a medical certificate. Why was this unique? This one case, the
testimony of the woman was that she was raped repeatedly by reason of which she was
bloodied and suffered from wounds. Because of the testimony, the court now says that if
you suffered from all those wounds, then why is it that the medical certificate says
otherwise? What happened there was not that the victim's story did not make for rape. It's
just that her story was not believed because it was not believable.

Even if there was consent before the act but during the act, she was deprived of reason
and passed out, that can be considered as rape. What about the offender? He was also
drunk. His drunkenness may only mitigate but not exculpate him. If the woman were the
aggressive one and doing it more, then it could be rape.

Rape in Special Complex Crimes

In order to constitute rape with homicide, the main objective must be to rape. Robbery with
rape, must be to rob as the main purpose. Kidnapping with rape, there must be the main
purpose of depriving liberty.

Forcible abduction v. Kidnapping

In kidnapping with rape, the main objective is to deprive victim of liberty. Rape became an
afterthought. If from the start, the objective was to rape, the woman was taken from a
place to another place, but the purpose was to rape. Crime would simply be rape if the
intention was to rape. It is a simple crime of rape. But if the woman was taken with lewd
designs, but without that conclusive evidence that the objective was to rape or to have
carnal knowledge, then the crime would be forcible abduction with rape. Not a special
complex - ordinary complex crime. Abduction was the means to commit the rape. LINING
CASE - ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME. Woman was taken with lewd designs where she was
raped by five different people.

SC said that there will be one ordinary complex crime of forcible abduction with rape for the
first crime. For the subsequent rapes, it will be the simple crime of rape.

It is different if it is a special complex crime.

IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES. INCLUDED IN MIDTERMS. Favorite of


bar examiners.

People v. Amaro - She was given food and then she was raped. Even if she did not pass out,
it would still be rape. She was 7, so it is statutory rape. It was forcible abduction with rape. In
forcible abduction, for victims who are above seven, there must be actual force in the
abduction. If victim is 7 or below, even if the victim consented, it will be considered forcible.

Not kidnapping - no showing of depriving liberty.

When you go to crimes against chastity, there are two kinds of abduction.

12 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

1. Consented abduction - can only happen if the victim is a minor. If a victim is not a
minor and she consents, there is no crime. A minor who is seven below, she is not
expected to be able to give consent.

2. Forcible abduction

Both of them are crimes.

Title IX - Crimes against Liberty and Security


Monday, 8 January 2018
5:27 PM
KIDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL DETENTION

It is about crimes against personal liberty and security. And so we have the crimes of
kidnapping and you will see that in the same article, what is punished, 2 acts. It is kidnapping
and serious illegal detention.

In layman's term, when we say kidnapping, we mean that a person is taken, there is a taking or
"asportation" of a person from one place to another. That is the layman's concept of
kidnapping. When we say illegal detention, there is a deprivation of liberty.

So, in illegal detention, we have person who is deprived of his liberty. For purposes of the law,
what is important is that there is deprivation of liberty. THE TAKING, THE ASPORTATION IS NOT
REQUIRED. There may be no taking. It will STILL be kidnapping.

The concept of the crime of kidnapping under the RPC is not that a person should be taken
from one place to another. The concept of kidnapping under RPC is that a person is deprived
of his liberty. That IS ALL. There are two requisites:

a. The actual deprivation of liberty.


b. The intention to deprive liberty.

Let's say for example a yaya left her amo's child inside the house. She locked the child. If the
deprivation of liberty was not intentional, it cannot be deprived. If she didn't know that
someone else was in the house, there is no crime. There is actual deprivation of liberty, but there
was no intention. These two must concur if it is to be consummated.

If there was intention but no actual deprivation, there may be attempted stage, NO
FRUSTRATED STAGE. Or it can be grave coercion or any other crime, but not consummated
kidnapping.

How does kidnapping under Title IX, known as illegal detention, how do we differ it from the
other kind of detention in Art 124?

In 124, the one who detains may have authority to detain. Only that in that particular arrest,
there was no legal power, but he is authorized to arrest. When the person who committed the
detention has the authority but has no legal ground, the crime cannot be illegal detention. It
will be arbitrary detention.

GENERAL RULE: Illegal detention - private individuals/public individuals without authority to


detain. Not to say that those who do have authority to detain cannot be charged with illegal
detention.

FORCIBLE ABDUCTION v. KIDNAPPING

In forcible abduction, there is a taking, and the taking may result in deprivation of liberty, but
the deprivation is INCIDENTAL. It is NOT the main intention. In forcible abduction, the main
design is LEWD DESIGN. The thing is that, in forcible abduction, it also results in deprivation of
liberty, and yet it needs a specific intent - lewd design. Same result - deprivation of liberty FOR A
SPECIFIC PURPOSE. That would make the act more evil, but then when the intention is lewd, it is
a LESSER OFFENSE. Forcible abduction - lower penalty compared to kidnapping.

13 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

If a woman is taken for the purpose of raping her, the crime was simply rape. The taking was
only the means to commit the main objective which was to rape. The taking was absorbed,
and it becomes simply rape. If there is no evidence however that the taking was for the
purposes of having carnal knowledge, like when the woman was for example, there was
already manifestation of a lewd design, but we don't know if the main objective was to rape,
and she was taken from one place to another, and she was raped. It will become FORCIBLE
ABDUCTION WITH RAPE. There is now evidence of the purpose. It now becomes an ordinary
complex crime - graver offense than just rape. THIS CASE, THE INTENTION IS NOT APPARENT.

Where there is neither evidence of lewd designs or intent to rape, but the taking resulted in
deprivation of liberty, the fact and act deprived her of liberty, and she was raped. It will
become graver. It is kidnapping with rape.

• Actress gangraped by 5 people. She was taken. At the time, PP v. Jose, SC said that the
crime would be forcible abduction with rape because she was taken and there was some
kind of joy ride where people were doing lascivious acts, and later on she was raped.
Lewd designs first but no immediate rape. The crime was forcible abduction with rape. SC
SAID that there are five counts of the ordinary complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape. ABCD, and E all conspired to commit forcible abduction and then rape. Each of
them committed rape. 5 counts, and for each count we have five accused. All of them
conspired. For rape #1, forcible abduction with rape against 5.

• NEW RULING IS THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE COUNT OF THE ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME OF
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ABDUCTION. So, just one
crime of forcible abduction with rape. -----> DI KO SURE ANI. Check the bottom nalang.

• If five girls gi-kidnap and rape, it's not the number of people, it's the number of acts. For
each crime, that would be one act, one count. We have one person raping five victims,
that is five counts where there is only one accused. Five guys raping five victims, then we
have five counts for each count, all of them are accused. There would be 25 counts all in
all. NOT NUMBER OF ACCUSED, IT IS THE NUMBER OF ACTS.

• Five girls raped by 5, and there are only five acts. A raped 1, B raped 2, C raped 3, and so
on. For one girl, she was only raped once. Five of them raped by different people. Five
acts translating into five crimes, and there will be five accused for each crime by virtue of
the conspiracy. Because the taking from the start was for the purpose of raping, that
taking would be a means to the rape. The taking is absorbed. The crime will simply be
RAPE.

• If for example, ABCDE girls were taken by 12345 by the guys, and they were taken for a
joyride. Then later on they were brought to a place where they were raped. You cannot
really say that the objective was to rape. There were lewd designs and evidence. But we
cannot say that the main objective was to rape. The crime is FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH
RAPE. We can only apply ordinary complex crime when there is somebody who was
forcibly taken and someone who was raped.

• In so far as victim A is concerned, she is the victim of one ordinary complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape. Now, if A was raped only by one, then that will constitute
only one count of the ordinary complex crime of F-A-R. All of them are liable. Count 1, five
accused. Second victim, it's another crime. Second victim, B - there is another count of
forcible abduction with rape. If there are 5 rapes, 5 counts of forcible abduction with
rape, but applying the Liring (?) ruling, if girl #1 was raped by 5 of them, girl #2 raped by 5
of them, and so on, then how many acts do we have? 25. Then we will have 25 crimes,
but what are these crimes? 5 counts of forcible abduction with rape for the first rape. For
the succeeding rapes, there will only be four counts each, meaning twenty counts of
rape. All of them will be the accused.

SC said that once the objective is to collect money, it is kidnapping with ransom. Landlady
padlocks tenant for failure to pay. There is deprivation of liberty for the purpose to extract
money. Then, it will be kidnapping for ransom. Even if the ransom turned out to be fake money,
if there was a demand for money, then the crime becomes kidnapping for ransom.

Art. 267 - Serious Illegal Detention

14 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

Serious v. Slight

Slight illegal detention is not so slight. In here, the penalty is still grave. It is still reclusion perpetua.
What therefore constitutes serious illegal detention?

a. Kidnapping lasts more than 3 days. Now, it is three days. If not more than three days, it is
slight.
b. Even if detention did not last for more than three days, if committed by simulating public
authority.
c. Serious physical injury/threats to kill have been made.

o (Vhong Navarro. In his case, he was deprived from leaving the condo, and he was
also physically battered. Aside from the SPI, there were also threats to kill. So, it is STILL
SERIOUS.)

d. If victim is minor, female, or a public officer.

If you look at 268, there is that last paragraph that says even if none of the 4 are present, it will
still be considered grave and therefore there can be death penalty, if the motive is for ransom.
Even if none of the circumstances are present.

Art. 267 - Does not apply to a parent committing this to his/her child. Art 270-271 applies. Don't
believe that the parents can NEVER commit 267. What if the parent is in conspiracy for
example? If he is the one who kidnapped, but he is in conspiracy. Mother/father is really rich.
He will have the child kidnapped for ransom. A person can kidnap himself/herself.

Special complex crimes arising from kidnapping RA 7659:

1. Kidnapping with death.


2. Kidnapping with rape.
3. Kidnapping with torture.

Kidnapping with torture (Special Complex Crime) - The torture here does not have a specific
definition. We have a law punishing the crime of torture. The special complex crime of
kidnapping with torture was already in existence even before our torture law. So, what do we
mean by torture? Is it the definition of torture under the law? We cannot have the cart before
the horse. There was no torture as a crime when this SCC was made. This remains a grey area
because there is also the crime of kidnapping with serious physical injuries which is not a
complex crime. It is actually the crime of serious illegal detention.

• BUT NOW WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR TORTURE. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT IF SUBMITTED TO
THE COURT, THEY WILL TAKE GUIDANCE FROM THE NEWER LAW. UNTIL THERE IS A DEFINITIVE
RULING ON THAT, WE CAN ONLY ASSUME.

Meaning of Deprivation of Liberty

PP v. Ramos - SC said that kidnapping when there is a death that occurs on the occasion of the
kidnapping, it is automatically a SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME. As long as there is death, there is a
special complex crime. What is its name?

• In this particular case, the accused was convicted for the special complex crime of
kidnapping with murder.

• Two important things: actual deprivation and the intent. Absent either, there will be no
consummated crime.

Three instances:

1. The girl was taken by a woman, and she was taken under the pretext of looking for the
dentist's office. The little girl accompanied the woman, but they were already going
outside the school, and she was taken to a place unknown. She was really taken against
her will. There were a group of bystanders, and the bystanders knew the little girl. So, the
bystanders said where you going to take that girl? Because of the intervention of the
bystanders, the woman left. Question is, was there a kidnapping, and if so what kind.

15 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

• The girl already wanted to leave, but she was deprived. The only reason why she was able
to get away was because of the intervention of the bystanders. SC said that even if they
did not yet reach the place where she was to be detained, there was already an actual
deprivation of liberty. Therefore, in the first place, the crime is ALREADY CONSUMMATED.

2. Similar case where girl was enticed to go with a random woman. When she arrived at the
house where she was kept, she could go around the bedroom, to the sala, she could
watch TV, and fed nice food, there was ice cream once in a while, but she could not get
out of the house. She was treated well. What was the crime in that case?

• Serious illegal detention in its consummated stage. Deprivation of liberty was present. She
could not go outside. There was actual deprivation and there was intent.

• Similar to first case, but here the girl was willing to go. There was the intent and there were
overt acts leading to deprivation, but not all acts of execution were not performed
because bystanders were heroes. But there was no actual deprivation. She could still
leave.

• This could be attempted kidnapping. Once there is actual deprivation, you have a
consummated kidnapping.

Complexing Kidnapping

In the Ramos case, someone was kidnapped, and there was a demand for money, but before
the money was paid, the victim fled. He tried to escape. While he was trying to escape, he was
shot and died. He did not die technically during detention. He died, but he was already
beyond the control of the kidnappers. The ransom was never paid, but SC said that it is not the
actual payment for ransom, but it is the intention of depriving him of liberty for the purpose of
money. If that happens, it is kidnapping for ransom. It doesn’t matter also whether the death
was during the actual kidnapping or by reason of it - so long as death occurs, it is a special
complex crime. It is in effect, special complex crime of kidnapping with murder.

Title IX - Crimes against Liberty and Security II


Tuesday, 9 January 2018
5:23 PM
If a parent has parental authority of a child, he cannot be charged under Art. 267. Other articles
can be used. Liability will be lower.

In 270, please take note of the word entrusted. Here, the offender must have custody whether
temporary or a very fleeting custody, but the custody over the victim must be entrusted to the
offender. It is not like he took the victim and deprived the victim of his liberty.

If he is entrusted a minor, and he refuses to return the minor, then he commits this crime. This can
be any person, and this can also be a yaya. Note the word entrusted. A few years ago, there
was this woman who pretended to be a nurse and went to Vicente Sotto and told the mother of
a newly born baby that she will get her baby because the baby needs to be vaccinated or
whatever. That is craft in a sense that there was no entrusting of custody. Mother had no choice
as the person was dressed like a nurse but was not connected to the hospital. She didn't want
to return the baby because she wanted it. Fortunately, CCTV captured her face and so the
police were able to recover the baby.

Was that act in violation of Art. 270?

No. That will be Art. 267. Because there was practically no consent there. We cannot say that
there was custody.

PP v. Cherry Bondoc - The minor was lured. The family went to Luneta and had a picnic. There is
a woman that befriended the child. The lady was playing with the child, and they engaged in a
little conversation. It's as if there is some kind of an encounter because there was a conversation.
This does not mean that the woman gained custody over the child. As a matter of fact, when
the parents were looking somewhere else, the offender got the baby and took her away. It

16 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

cannot be 270. There can be no entrusting of the custody. They barely know each other. They
chatted for a while, but that is not to say that there was entrusting. When she took the baby, it’s
not anymore 270 but 267.

In another case, the yaya/nanny took the child to her hometown, and she was not able to
return on time because she got sick. So, she was charged with this. There was entrusting of
custody and there was no intention to deprive the child of his liberty. The reason why the yaya
couldn't deliver was because she got sick. It wasn't deliberate. SC said that the nanny was not
liable.

The word deliberate must be something more than negligence - must be premeditated, foolishly
daring, headstrong, or intentionally and maliciously wrong. In order for 270 to apply, it must be
deliberate.

There are crimes punished under RPC where the victims are children. We have to enter into
consideration other special penal laws, EXCEPT for the crime of child pornography, in which the
SC stated rule in the case of …. The SC said in the case involving that cybercrime law, there was
the case where the cybercrime law was not implemented for 1-2 years. In that case, SC said that
when there is child porno committed through the Internet or computers that you cannot file
separately. You cannot choose both cybercrime or child pornography. Because in so far as
other laws punishing violations against children, the SC has not made a categorical statement of
whether or not one is absorbed in the other. So, we are saying that under the RPC, there are
crimes that can be committed against children.

There are also other laws which penalize the commission of acts against children. The most
common are child abuse law, the worst forms of child labor, or VAWC. In the absence of any
declaration by the SC that there will be an absorption, if there is a crime committed against a
minor, and that crime is defined under RPC, that will not prevent you from filing another case
under a special penal law.

Ex. Abandonment of minors. Punished under RPC. It is also punished under RA 7610. If offender is
parent, that is also punished under 9262. But, it is possible that there can be three cases for one
violation.

Desni (?) v. Secretary of Justice - Libel case could be committed both in person and in the
internet. Cybercrime says that if a crime is committed, such as libel, through the internet or
computer, then it becomes cybercrime. It can be prosecuted under cybercrime law where the
penalty is one degree higher than the RPC. The same ruling also said that child porn can also be
committed with the use of the Internet. Child porn is punished under another law which is the
child pornography law. With one act, there can be two laws that are violated. What did SC say?
It said that only e-libel and child porn (Fiscal opinion: assumed that SC may also include mail-
order bride in the future) committed with the use of the internet, you cannot use two punishing
the same act. According to the SC, the elements in the RPC are the same as that under the
cybercrime law. Only difference is that libel could also be done through the Internet. Child porn
- same elements.

There can be crimes wherein or which involve the same act but the same act constitutes
another crime with a different set of elements, and it also constitutes another crime with a
different set of elements.

People v. Lalli - This woman and her cohorts enticed a woman that they will provide her an
overseas employment. They told her that they will provide her employment, paying her this
much, and take care of her in Malaysia. When victim reached Malaysia, she was made to do
some sexual jobs. So, that is what happened. Lalli prosecuted for violation of human trafficking
act and violation of the migrant worker's act for recruiting/recruitment overseas. ONE ACT
TECHNICALLY. Under the Migrant Worker's Act, the crime is that she recruited without a permit
from the POEA. ELEMENTS DIFFERENT. In human trafficking, she recruited her but for the purpose
of sexual exploitation. She could be prosecuted twice for the same act because they are two
different crimes with two different elements. Prosecution of the other will not constitute double
jeopardy.

In crimes against minors, there could be several prosecutions for the abandonment of the minor.

17 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

There is also the exploitation of minors. It can constitute child abuse. If the job he is paid to do is
considered hazardous, it could also be a violation for worst forms of labors. If recruiter does not
possess a license, that could also be another crime.

The thing is that the SPL, the prosecution for this is more popular and used more because the
penalties are lower (?). Complainant opt to file under SPL.

Abandonment of Persons

When a person is abandoned when dying and in need of health in an uninhabited place (does
not mean that there are no buildings. There can be but the chances are nil. Like, everyone goes
home in the evening, or they are all factories). In abandonment, we are talking about as a
general rule, an offender who merely abandons. He is not responsible for the condition of the
victim. Maybe the victim was injured, but it was not the offender who was responsible. Only thing
is that he abandoned. It is ONE OF THE CRIMES BY OMMISSION.

In a hit-and-run situation, the person who abandoned is also the person responsible for the injury.
In that case, that is not abandonment. The crime would be (physical injuries, homicide, etc). The
abandonment will not be a separate crime but it will become sort of a qualifying circumstance
because automatically the penalty will increase by one degree. Not aggravating because it will
only go to the maximum. This one jumps one degree higher. Although the law calls in
aggravating. (Hit and run - must be leaving the victim so that he does not answer for his crimes.
Evading responsibility.)

Another crime punished by Title IX is Trespass. What is dwelling?

Violation of domicile can be committed three ways. Check Title III.

Here, you need not search. In here, you enter the place without the consent of the owner. It
must be AGAINST THE WILL. The entry was resisted by the owner.

Dwelling - A place where a person presides. The residence may or may not be permanent. If you
are renting a boarding house and occupying the four corners of the room, that is your
residence. It must be a place where the person exclusively devotes it for rest and comfort. IF IT IS
NOT EXCLUSIVE FOR REST, THEN IT IS NOT DWELLING.

Dwelling as aggravating may have different concept from dwelling in trespassing. In dwelling as
aggravating, even if the offender shoots the person from outside, the victim is inside the house
but shooter outside the house, that is not trespass. But, it is still aggravating. For example, the
stairwell. Even if the attack happened on the stairwell/kitchen (?) - a part of the dwelling, that's
already aggravating. For purpose of trespass, there cannot be dwelling.

There is trespass not in a dwelling. For example, you can go to the farm. It is not trespassing the
dwelling, but it is trespassing the private property. What is important is that there is a
manifestation that entry is prohibited. There must be for example, a fence or an announcement.
If you have an idle lot where people are used to passing, we cannot say there is trespass
because it does not say that entry is not allowed.

Threats

The next crime is threats. There are three kinds of crimes: grave threats, light threats, and other
light threats.

Grave threats - there is a wrong threatened to be inflicted amounts to a crime. If you will say, if
you do not do this, you will not be able to go to my house. That is not a crime. That will not be
grave threats.

(If they draw a weapon and are vague about their explanation "Hindi ko alam ang
mangyayari," it cannot be considered a grave threat if there it is not clear).

Light Threats - When the act threatened to be done does not amount to a crime.

Other Light Threats - There are specific acts punished as other light threats, such as when there is
a quarrel and one of them draws a weapon without the intention of using the weapon. When

18 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

there is an act showing that the offender intends to use the weapon against the other
protagonist, that would not be a grave threat.

Grave Coercion

A. Preventive Coercion - Will only constitute a crime if the act to be done is legal. If it is illegal,
then it is a crime. The act that he was prevented from doing was illegal.

B. Compulsive Coercion - Doesn't matter if the act is legal or illegal. For example, you have to
kill him, otherwise I will kill you. This will be compulsive coercion of an act that is illegal. If you
say, you have to do this thing, even if the act to be done is legal, it is still grave coercion. It
is the coercion that is punished here.

It must be by means of violence, threats, or intimidation (?). There must be no personal property
involved. If personal property is involved or taken, then the crime will change. It will become
robbery because of the violence, threats, or intimidation.

Threats from Coercion

It is not committed against a representative. For example, you cannot pass this way. The owner
of the vehicle would like to pass would not be the victim. The one who is coerced is the
employee. It is not by representation. It is directed to the person.

COERCION - harm directed towards the person of the victim.

THREATS - harm is directed against the person, family, honor, or property of the victim.

Light Coercion and Unjust Vexation

Light coercion - Violence employed to seize property belonging to a debtor for the purpose of
paying a debt.

Unjust Vexation - Catch-all provision. Anything that annoys the offended party. Crime by dolo. It
is inherent and need not be alleged in the information.

Other similar coercions - compelling an employee to purchase merchandise, etc.

Title X - Crimes against Property


Tuesday, 9 January 2018
6:51 PM
The elements of Theft, Qualified Theft, and Robbery:

Theft

FOUR Elements:

1. Taking of personal property.

If A was walking and somebody took the cellphone from the bag of A secretly, the crime
would be theft. Taking here is like taking. But, later on we will see that the taking does not
necessarily mean that the offender will get something from the victim. Sometimes, the taking
could mean that he received.

Taking - meaning can be not only the act of getting property but even receiving property.
In certain cases, this was stretched. For example, Villa can you give this book to Cavalida? It
was entrusted to you but it was not for you. If you did not give it to him, that will still fall under
the term taking. If you do not give it to him, the crime will be theft, but you did not
technically take it. HIS POSSESSION OF THE BOOK WILL NOT ENTITLE HIM TO CLAIM ANYTHING
THAT HE CAN CLAIM THE BOOK BECAUSE HE MERELY POSSESSED IT BECAUSE IT WAS INTENDED
FOR CAVALIDA. IT WAS MERELY MATERIAL POSSESSION.

19 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

BUT IF, I WILL SAY VILLA, HERE IS A BOOK, I WILL ENTRUST IT TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE
STUDYING LAW, AND AFTER PASSING IT, YOU SHOULD RETURN IT TO ME. YOUR POSSESSION OF
THE BOOK NOW ENTITLES YOU TO A CERTAIN DEGREE TO KEEP THE BOOK. FIRST EXAMPLE, YOU
HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO KEEP THE BOOK. IT WAS MERELY PHYSICAL OR MATERIAL. (NATURE OF
THE POSSESSION - DIFFERENCE)

If you abused my trust and confidence, then there is abuse of confidence and the
possession is not merely physical. It is now juridical possession. Once possession is juridical,
there can now be estafa.

Usual case example: I am a dealer of jewelry. Then I will tell Villa, "Villa, Cavalida wants to
see this jewelry. Please take it to him and show it to him." Nature of your possession
physical/material. No claim to it. If you take it, it will be theft. There was no taking in its strict
sense but in its stretched sense.

If you say you can sell these if you like on a commission basis. I will give it to you for 100k and
it's up to you to determine price afterwards. If it is not sold, you give it back. If it is, you remit
some of it to me. Now, I give it to you. It is not sold, but you did not return. You have the
obligation to return.

Question: The crime that you have committed would depend on your possession. What was
your possession? This time, you have a claim to it. Because your possession is juridical in
nature, when you sell it to another, the owner cannot go against the buyer. Why? Because I
authorized you to sell. If X bought it from Villa, but you did not remit the money, I cannot get
the jewelry back. When you sold it, you were authorized to do it.

It's different if you took it and sold it. This time, I can go after the buyer.

PERSONAL PROPERTY DEFINITION

What about if you steal electricity? Is that theft? Is that personal property? It is not
considered personal property.

There are kinds of properties that my not fall under personal property. (Ex. Identity)

(Question: Estafa v. Theft) The usual explanation is that when you receive it, you do not
anymore have the crime of theft but estafa. That is the general LOOSE way of differentiating
theft from estafa. Because when you go to estafa, you will find that there are several kinds.
Can be through abuse of confidence, but that is not the only way. It can only be committed
by means of deceit. You got my property because you tricked me.

2. It must belong to another.

NOTE: (Belong does not necessarily mean own. That's why I said can we steal from another
thief? Yes. He must have some kind of possession).

3. Without consent.
4. Specific criminal intent which is the intent to gain.

ROBBERY

• Can become robbery from theft when there is a difference in the means of
taking/commission

• Violence/intimidation against Persons


• Use of Force upon Things
o Crime happened in an inhabited place
o Crime happened in an uninhabited place

If A was walking along the road and someone took it secretly, it would be theft. If the
offender used or pointed a knife at him for surrendering the cellphone, then there is
intimidation, and the crime would be robbery. Even if there is no intimidation, if the property
was in a house and the guy destroyed the door to get the phone, then it will still be robbery
through use of force upon things.

20 | P a g e
Criminal law II | adrian Vargas | fiscal petralba | eh307MC

Example: Juan saw a cellphone that was being charged inside the house, and what he did
was he got a blade of the jealousy, so that he can insert his hand. He got the phone and
took the phone with him. Crime is:

Example: Same as above except that he broke the jealousy. Crime is: Theft. It is true that he
broke it. If the crime was committed in an inhabited place, the breaking must be FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENTERING. If the breaking occurred in an uninhabited place, the breaking need
not be for the purpose of entering.

Theft can be qualified theft, but this time, in order for the taking to become qualified theft,
we will no longer talk about the means used, but:

• Who took:
o Taker is domestic.
o There is trust and confidence reposed on the perpetrator. (Ex. Cashier).
Possession must be physical (Otherwise, estafa - difference between the two trust
and confidence is the nature of the possession).

• What is taken?
o Coconut in a coconut plantation. (Coconut in a coconut plantation - qualified. If
coconut is from Carbon - simple theft). Plantation need not be one-hectare, ten-
hectare, etc. It just needs to be a place where coconuts are planted.
o Fish in a fishpond/fishery (What if the shrimp is taken? Reyes would say that
because of ejusdem generis, they are the same and blah. Even if it is shrimp, it
would be more or less the same thing as fish.)

For cattle, although it could have been qualified theft, we now have anti-cattle taking
law or something. If it is a motor vehicle, it will constitute qualified theft - not anymore.
We have the law against carnapping. If motorized bangka - piracy.

Note that NO MORE FRUSTRATED STAGE FOR THEFT. Valenzuela v. People

Qualified Theft: Motor Vehicle

READ: Paramount Ins. v. Remondeulaz Nov 28, 2012. IT WILL COME OUT "DAW" IN THE EXAM.

FEW QUESTIONS ON ROBBERY. WILL TOUCH OF SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME. NOT TOUCH TOO
MUCH ON THE NUANCES OF ROBBERY. WE STILL NEED TO DISCUSS THAT. BUT WILL ASK ABOUT
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME ON ROBBERY. NO QUESTION ON ESTAFA. WE MUST HAVE MIDTERMS
AS SCHEDULED.

People v. Bustinera - READ. Here, the SC had made a declaration that you take a motor
vehicle, it is carnapping. After it made this declaration, it backslid to its old ruling that it's
qualified theft. Newer case went back to the old doctrine after it made this declaration
already.

COVERAGE: TITLE 7 - ROBBERY; EVEN ROBBERY - NOT DISCUSSED VERY THOROUGHLY.

21 | P a g e

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi