UP 2012 Criminal Law (Book 2) PDF

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
154

C
CCR
RRI
IIM
MMI
IIN
NNA
AAL
LL
LAW
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 2012

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Ramon Carlo Marcaida |Commissioner
Raymond Velasco Mara Kriska Chen |Deputy Commissioners
Barbie Kaye Perez |Secretary
Carmen Cecilia Veneracion |Treasurer
Hazel Angeline Abenoja|Auditor

COMMITTEE HEADS
Eleanor Balaquiao Mark Xavier Oyales|Acads
Monique Morales Katleya Kate Belderol Kathleen Mae Tuason (D) Rachel
Miranda (D) |Special Lectures
Patricia Madarang Marinella Felizmenio |Secretariat
Victoria Caranay |Publicity and Promotions
Loraine Saguinsin Ma. Luz Baldueza |Marketing
Benjamin Joseph Geronimo Jose Lacas |Logistics
Angelo Bernard Ngo Annalee Toda|HR
Anne Janelle Yu Alyssa Carmelli Castillo |Merchandise
Graciello Timothy Reyes |Layout
Charmaine Sto. Domingo Katrina Maniquis |Mock Bar
Krizel Malabanan Karren de Chavez |Bar Candidates Welfare
Karina Kirstie Paola Ayco Ma. Ara Garcia |Events

OPERATIONS HEADS
Charles Icasiano Katrina Rivera |Hotel Operations
Marijo Alcala Marian Salanguit |Day-Operations
Jauhari Azis |Night-Operations
Vivienne Villanueva Charlaine Latorre |Food
Kris Francisco Rimban Elvin Salindo |Transpo
Paula Plaza |Linkages

Criminal Law 2

UP LAW BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
BAR REVIEWER
UP LAW
2012
CRIMINAL LAW TEAM 2012
Faculty Editor | Prof. Jay
Batongbacal
Subject Heads | Camille
Umali Charmaine Sto.
Domingo

LAYOUT TEAM 2012
Layout Artists | Alyanna
Apacible Noel Luciano RM
Meneses Jenin Velasquez
Mara Villegas Naomi
Quimpo Leslie Octaviano
Yas Refran Cris Bernardino
Layout Head| Graciello
Timothy Reyes

155

Criminal Law 2
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law 1
Criminal Law 2

I. Crimes against National
Security
II. Crimes against Fundamental
Laws of the State
III. Crimes against Public Order
IV. Crimes against Public Interest
V. Crimes relative to Opium and
other Prohibited Drugs
VI. Crimes against Public Morals
VII. Crimes committed by Public
Officers
VIII. Crimes against Persons
IX. Crimes against Personal Liberty
and Security
X. Crimes against Property
XI. Crimes against Chastity
XII. Crimes against Civil Status
XIII. Crimes against Honor
XIV. Criminal Negligence

Title I. Crimes against National
Security and the Law of Nations

CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY:
(1) Art. 114: Treason
(2) Art. 115: Conspiracy and Proposal to
Commit Treason
(3) Art. 116: Misprision of Treason
(4) Art. 117: Espionage

CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS
(1) Art. 118: Inciting to War or Giving Motives
for Reprisals
(2) Art. 119: Violation of Neutrality
(3) Art. 120: Correspondence with Hostile
Country
(4) Art. 121: Flight to Enemys Country
(5) Art. 122: Piracy in General and Mutiny on
the High Seas or in Philippine Waters
(6) Art. 123: Qualified Piracy

Remember:
The crimes under this title can be prosecuted even if
the criminal act or acts were committed outside the
Philippine territorial jurisdiction.

This is one of the instances where the RPC may be
given extra-territorial application under Article 2 (5)
thereof. However, prosecution can proceed only if
the offender is:
(1) within Philippine territory, OR
(2) brought to the Philippines pursuant to an
extradition treaty.

Crimes against national security can be tried only
in the Philippines, as there is a need to bring the
offender here before he can be made to suffer the
consequences of the law.
In the case of crimes against the law of nations,
the offender can be prosecuted whenever he may
be found because the crimes are regarded as
committed against humanity in general.

The acts against national security may be
committed abroad and still be punishable under
our law.

General rule: Almost all of these are crimes
committed in times of war.

Exceptions: The following can be committed in
times of peace:
(1) Espionage (Art 117) This is also covered by
Commonwealth Act No. 616 which punishes
conspiracy to commit espionage.
(2) Inciting to War or Giving Motives for
Reprisals (Art 118) This can be committed
even if the Philippines is not a participant.
(3) Violation of Neutrality (Art. 119) The
Philippines is not a party to an on-going
war.

A. Crimes against Security

1. Article 114 Treason

MODE 1: Levying War
Elements:
(1) The offender is a Filipino or resident alien
(2) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(3) The offender levies war against the
government

MODE 2: Adherence to the Enemies
Elements:
(1) The offender is a Filipino or resident alien
involved
(3) That the offender adheres to the enemies,
giving them aid or comfort

Requirements of levying war
(1) Actual assembling of men;
(2) To execute a treasonable design by force;
(3) Intent is to deliver the country in whole or
in part to the enemy; and
(4) Collaboration with foreign enemy or some
foreign sovereign

Two ways of proving treason
(1) Testimony of at least two witnesses to the
same overt act; or
(2) Confession of accused in open court.
(3) Circumstances surrounding the act

Jurisprudence:

What acts constitute treason?

156
To be treasonous, the extent of aid and comfort
given to the enemies must be to render assistance to
them as enemies and not as individuals, in the
furtherance of the enemies hostile designs.

Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime
of treason, which in the absence of admission may
be gathered from the nature and circumstances of
each particular case. [People vs. Perez]

Testimony required to convict a person for treason
The mere fact of having joined a Makapili
organization is evidence of both adherence to the
enemy and giving him aid and comfort.

At the same time, being a Makapili is in itself
constitutive of an overt act.

The crime of treason was committed if he placed
himself at the enemy's call to fight side by side with
him when the opportune time came even though an
opportunity never presented itself.

However, membership as a Makapili, as an overt act,
must be established by the deposition of two
witnesses.

Adherence need not be proven by two witness
testimonies may be inferred from one witness, or
from the nature of the act itself or other
circumstances [People vs. Adriano]

Treason cannot be complexed; testimony required
to convict a person for treason
Treason requires concurrence between adherence to
the enemy & giving aid & comfort. Giving aid &
comfort requires some kind of action, deed or
physical activity usually punishable by law as
opposed to a mental operation.

If an act is charged as an element of treason, that
act cannot be the subject of a separate punishment
or used to increase the penalty of treason

Separate prosecution for murder or physical injuries
may be pursued if they are unrelated to treasonous
intent. The government should elect to prosecute
the accused specifically for those crimes instead of
relying on them as elements of treason.

Testimonies of the witnesses should refer to the
same overt act. [People vs. Prieto]

Inherent acts in treason shall not be appreciated
as aggravating
The crime of treason is of such a nature that it may
be committed by one single act, by a series of acts,
or by several series thereof, not only in a single
time, but in different times, it being a continuous
crime.

The presence of the aggravating circumstances of
treachery, the aid of armed persons to insure or
afford impunity, and deliberately augmenting the
crimes by causing other wrongs not necessary in the
commission thereof are inherent in the crime of
treason and thus shall not be appreciated as
aggravating circumstances. [People vs Victoria]

NOTE: There can be no treason through negligence.
[Cramer v. US]

2. Article 115 - Conspiracy and
Proposal to Commit Treason

Elements of conspiracy to commit treason:
involved
(2) At least two persons come to an agreement
to
(a) Levy war against the government; or
(b) Adhere to the enemies, giving them
aid or comfort
(3) That person proposes its execution to other
persons
(4) They decide to commit it

Elements of proposal to commit treason
involved
(2) At least one person decides to
(a) Levy war against the government; or
(b) Adhere to the enemies, giving them aid
or comfort

3. Article 116 - Misprision of Treason
(asked once during 1994-96)

Elements:
(1) Offender owes allegiance to the
government, and is not a foreigner
(2) He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit
treason against the government
(3) He conceals or does not disclose and make
known the same as soon as possible to the
governor or fiscal of the province in which
he resides, or the mayor or fiscal of the city
in which he resides

Remember:
Misprision of treason is a crime that may be
committed only by citizens of the Philippines.

The essence of the crime is that there are persons
who conspire to commit treason and the offender
knew this and failed to make the necessary report to
the government within the earliest possible time.

What is required is to report it as soon as possible.
The criminal liability arises if the accused learned of
the treasonous activity while still at the
conspiratorial stage because if he learned of the
treason when it had already erupted into an overt
act, then the implication is that the government is
already aware of it.

Any person in authority having the equivalent
jurisdiction (of a mayor, fiscal or governor), like a
provincial commander, will already negate criminal
liability.

157
Blood relationship is always subservient to national
security.
Article 20
19
does not apply in this case because
persons found liable for this crime are not
considered accessories, but as principals.

Under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of
misprision of rebellion.

4. Article 117 Espionage

MODE 1: By a private individual

Elements:
(1) That the offender enters a warship, fort, or
naval or military establishment or
reservation
(2) That he has no authority therefor
(3) That his purpose is to obtain information,
plans, photographs or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the defense
of the Philippines

MODE 2: By a public officer

Elements:
(1) That the offender is a public officer
(2) That he has in his possession the articles,
data or information of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippines,
by reason of the public office he holds
(3) That he discloses their contents to a
representative of a foreign nation

B. Crimes against the Law of
Nations

1. Article 118 - Inciting to War or
Giving Motives for Reprisals

Elements:
(1) Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized
acts
(2) The acts provoke or give occasion for
(a) A war involving or liable to involve the
Philippines; or
(b) Exposure of Filipino citizens to reprisals
on their persons or property

2. Article 119 - Violation of
Neutrality

Elements

19
Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal
liability. The penalties prescribed for accessories shall
not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to
their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception
of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1
of the next preceding article.
not involved
(2) There is a regulation issued by a competent
authority to enforce neutrality
(3) Offender violates the regulation

Neutrality takes no part in a contest of arms going
on between other countries

3. Article 120 - Correspondence with
Hostile Country

Elements:
(1) It is in time of war in which the Philippines
is involved
(2) Offender makes correspondence with an
enemy country or territory occupied by
enemy troops
(3) The correspondence is either
(a) Prohibited by the government
(b) Carried on in ciphers or conventional
signs; or
(c) Containing notice or information which
might be useful to the enemy

Correspondence communication by means of
letters which pass between those who have friendly
or business relations

4. Article 121 - Flight to Enemy's
Country

Elements:
involved
(2) Offender must be owing allegiance to the
government
(3) Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy
country
(4) Going to the enemy country is prohibited by
competent authority

5. Article 122 - Piracy in General and
Mutiny on the High Seas or in
Philippine Waters

Elements:
(1) The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine
waters
(2) Offenders are neither members of its
complement nor passengers of the vessel
(3) Offenders either
(a) Attack or seize that vessel; or
(b) Seize the whole or part of its cargo, its
equipment or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers
(4) There is intent to gain

Acts Punished in Piracy:
(1) Attacking or seizing a vessel on the high
seas or in Philippine waters
(2) Seizing the whole or part of its cargo,
complement or passengers while the vessel
is on the high seas or in Philippine waters

158

Abetting Piracy
In Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532, the act
of aiding pirates or abetting piracy is penalized as a
crime distinct from piracy.

Said section penalizes any person who knowingly and
in any manner aids or protects pirates, such as giving
them information about the movement of the police
or other peace officers of the government, or
acquires or receives property taken by such pirates,
or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or
who directly or indirectly abets the commission of
piracy.

Also, it is expressly provided in the same section
that the offender shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders and punished
in accordance with the Revised Penal Code.

This provision of PD No. 532 with respect to piracy in
Philippine waters has not been incorporated into the
RPC. Neither may it be considered repealed by RA
7659 since there is nothing in the amendatory law
which is inconsistent with said section.

Apparently, there is still the crime of abetting piracy
in Philippine waters under PD No. 532.

6. Article 123 - Qualified Piracy
(Asked twice 1983-90; once 2000-06)

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

If any of the circumstances in Article 123 is present,
piracy is qualified.

Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are mere
circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot be
punished as separate crimes, nor can they be
complexed with piracy.

Although Article 123 refers to qualified piracy, there
is also the crime of qualified mutiny. Mutiny is
qualified under the following circumstances:
(1) When the offenders abandoned the victims
without means of saving themselves; or
(2) When the mutiny is accompanied by rape,
murder, homicide, or physical injuries

Note: The first circumstance which qualifies piracy
does not apply to mutiny.

See also:
(1) PD 532: Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery
(2) RA 6235: Anti-Hijacking Law
(3) RA 9372: Human Security Act of 2007

Title II. Crimes against
Fundamental Laws of the State

(1) Art. 124: Arbitrary Detention
(2) Art. 125: Delay in the Delivery Of Detained
Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities
(3) Art. 126: Delaying Release
(4) Art. 127: Expulsion
(5) Art. 128: Violation of Domicile
(6) Art.129: Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained
and Abuse in the Service of those Legally
Obtained
(7) Art. 130: Searching Domicile Without Witnesses
(8) Art. 131: Prohibition, Interruption and
Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
(9) Art. 132: Interruption of Religious Worship
(10) Art. 133: Offending the Religious Feelings

Crimes under this title are those that violate certain
provisions of the Bill of Rights.

All offenses under this title can only be committed
by public officers except offending the religious
feelings under Article 133.

The primary offender in ARTICLES 124-132 is a public
officer acting under supposed exercise of official
functions, albeit illegally.

A private person may be liable under these articles
ONLY WHEN he:
(1) Conspires with a public officer; OR
(2) He becomes an accomplice or accessory to
said crimes

ARTICLE 133 can be committed by EITHER a public
officer OR a private person.

1. Article 124 - Arbitrary Detention
(asked twice 1975-82; once 1991-93; once 2000-06)

Elements:
(1) That the offender is a public officer or
employee
(2) That he detains a person
(3) That the detention is without a legal ground

The Crime of Arbitrary Detention assumes several
forms:
(1) Detaining a person without legal grounds
(Article 124);

159
(2) Having arrested the offended party for legal
grounds but without warrant of arrest, and
the public officer does not deliver the
arrested person to the proper judicial
authority within the period of 12, 18, or 36
hours, as the case may be (Article 125); or
(3) Delaying release by competent authority
with the same period mentioned in number
2 (Article 126).

A public officer is deemed such when he is acting
within the bounds of his official authority or
function.
A police officer who employs force in excess of what
is necessary is acting outside the bounds of his duties
and is considered acting in his private capacity.
[Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law]

Note: In the crime of arbitrary detention, although
the offender is a public officer, not any public
officer can commit this crime. Only those public
officers whose official duties carry with it the
authority to make an arrest and detain persons can
be guilty of this crime.
In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay
Chairman who unlawfully detains another was held
to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention. This
is because he is a person in authority vested with
jurisdiction to maintain peace and order within his
barangay. [Milo v. Salanga (1987)]

There must be an actual restraint of liberty of the
offended party.

The crime committed is only grave or light threats if
the offended party may still go to the place where
he wants to go, even though there have been
warnings.

If the offender falsely imputes a crime against a
person to be able to arrest him and appear not
determined to file a charge against him, the crime is
arbitrary detention through unlawful arrest.
[Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law]

A case where a DENR team was invited to Mayor
Astorgas house from 530pm to 230am for dinner and
drinks, does not fall under Arbitrary Detention.
Absent any physical restraint, an element of the said
crime is fear. No record on evidence showed that
the mayor instilled fear into the minds of the DENR
team while they were in the Mayors house. [Astorga
v. People (2004)]

Difference between Arbitrary Detention, Illegal
Detention and Unlawful Arrest
See Annex A.

2. Article 125 - Delay in the Delivery
of Detained Persons to the Proper
Judicial Authorities

Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He detains a person for some legal ground
(3) He fails to deliver such person to the proper
judicial authorities within
(a) 12 hours for light penalties
(b) 18 hours for correctional penalties
(c) 36 hours for afflictive or capital
penalties

This is applicable ONLY WHEN the arrest is without a
warrant.

At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in
the pursuance of a lawful arrest. Detention becomes
arbitrary when the:
(1) Applicable period lapses
(2) Without the arresting officer filing a formal
charge with the proper court.

The periods stated are counted only when the
prosecutors office is ready to receive the complaint
or information. Nighttime is NOT included in the
period.

Jurisprudence:

Delivery means the filing of correct information
with the proper court (or constructive delivery --
turning over the person arrested to the jurisdiction
of the court).

Purpose is to determine whether the offense is
bailable or not. (Upon delivery, judge or court
acquires jurisdiction to issue an order of release or
of commitment of prisoner.) [Sayo v. Chief of Police
(1948)]

The elements of custodial investigation are:
(1) The suspect is deprived of liberty in any
significant manner;
(2) The interrogation is initiated by law
enforcement authorities;
(3) The interrogation is inculpatory in
character. [People v. Tan (1998)]

Where the invitation comes from a powerful group
composed predominantly of ranking military officers
and the designated interrogation site is a military
camp, the same can be easily taken NOT as a strictly
voluntary invitation.

It is an authoritative command that one can only
defy at ones peril. [Sanchez v. Demetriou (1993)]

3. Article 126 - Delaying Release

Elements:
(2) There is a:
(a) Judicial or executive order for the
release of a prisoner or detention
prisoner, OR
(b) A proceeding upon a petition for the
liberation of such person
(3) Offender without good reason delays
(a) The service of the notice of such order

160
to the prisoner
(b) The performance of such judicial or
executive order for the release of the
prisoner; OR
(c) The proceedings upon a petition for the
release of such person

4. Article 127 Expulsion

Elements:
(2) He either
(a) Expels any person from the Philippines;
OR
(b) Compels a person to change residence
(3) Offender is not authorized to do so by law

The city mayor of Manila committed the crime of
expulsion when he ordered certain prostitutes to be
transferred to Davao WITHOUT observing due process
since they have not been charged with any crime.
[Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919)]

The right to return to ones country is not among the
rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,
which treats only of the Liberty of Abode and the
right to travel.

However, it is a well-settled view that the right to
return may be considered as a generally accepted
principle of international law and, under the
Constitution, forms part of the law of the land.
However, it is distinct and separate from the right to
travel.

The constitutional guarantees invoked by the
Marcoses are neither absolute nor inflexible for the
exercise of such freedoms has limits and must adjust
to the concerns which involve the public interest.
[Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)]

5. Article 128 - Violation of Domicile

Acts punished:
(1) Entering any dwelling against the will of the
owner thereof
(2) Searching papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of
such owner, OR
(3) Refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling and
after having been required to leave the
same

Elements COMMON to the three acts:
(2) He is not authorized by judicial order
(a) To enter the dwelling;
(b) To make a search therein for papers or
other effects; or
(c) He refuses to leave, after having
surreptitiously entered such dwelling
and been required to leave the same

Qualifying circumstances:
(1) Night time
(2) Papers or effects not constituting evidence
of a crime are not returned immediately
after the search made by the offender

RULE 113 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT: a public
officer, who breaks into the premises, incurs no
liability WHEN a person to be arrested enters said
premises and closes it thereafter, provided that the
officer first gives a notice of arrest.

The public officer should have first given notice of
an arrest.

According to People vs. Doria (1999) and People vs.
Elamparo (2000), the following are the accepted
exceptions to the warrant requirement:
(1) Search incidental to an arrest;
(2) Search of moving vehicles;
(3) Evidence in plain view;
(4) Stop and frisk;
(5) Customs searches; AND
(6) Consented warrantless search.

[M]ere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop
and frisk."

A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person detained has
weapons concealed about him.

Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest:
(1) The general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies
the recognition that a police officer may,
under appropriate circumstances and in an
appropriate manner, approach a person for
purposes of investigating possible criminal
behavior even without probable cause; and
(2) The more pressing interest of safety and
self-preservation which permit the police
officer to take steps to assure himself that
the person with whom he deals is not armed
with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against
the police officer. [Malacat v. CA (1997)]

Against the will means that the offender ignored
the prohibition of the owner which may be express
or implied as when the door is closed even though
not locked. [Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in
Criminal Law]

6. Article 129 - Search Warrants
Maliciously Obtained, and Abuse in
the Service of Those Legally
Obtained

Elements of procuring a search warrant without
just cause:
(2) He procures a search warrant
(3) There is no just cause

Elements of exceeding authority or using
unnecessary severity in executing a search

161
warrant legally procured:
(2) He has legally procured a search warrant
(3) He exceeds his authority or uses
unnecessary severity in executing the same

7. Article 130 - Searching Domicile
without Witnesses

Elements:
(2) He is armed with search warrant legally
procured
(3) He searches the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person
(4) The owner, or any members of his family,
or two witnesses residing in the same
locality are not present

RULE 116: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
A search warrant is an order in writing -
(1) Signed by a judge
(2) Directed to a peace officer, commanding
him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the
court

Requisites for issuing a search warrant:
(1) Probable cause, in connection with one
specific offense, to be determined
personally by the judge AFTER examination
under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witness he may
produce
(2) Particular description of:
(a) Place to be searched; AND
(b) Things to be seized which may be
anywhere in the Philippines

An officer may break open any outer or inner door or
window of a house or any part of a house or anything
therein WHEN these circumstances concur:
(1) He is refused admittance to the place of
directed search;
(2) His purpose is to execute the warrant to
liberate himself or any person lawfully
aiding him when unlawfully detained
therein; and
(3) He has given notice of his purpose and
authority.

The warrant must direct that it be served in the
daytime. HOWEVER, it can be served at any time of
the day or night WHEN the affidavit asserts that the
property is on the person or in the place ordered to
be searched.

A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days
from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void.

The officer seizing the property under the warrant
must give a detailed receipt for the same to the
lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence
the search and seizure were made.

In the absence of such occupant, the officer must:
(1) leave a receipt in the place in which he
found the seized property;
(2) In the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the
same locality.

8. Article 131 - Prohibition,
Interruption and Dissolution of
Peaceful Meetings

Elements:
(2) He performs any of the following acts:
(a) Prohibiting or interrupting, without
legal ground, the holding of a peaceful
meeting, or by dissolving the same
(b) Hindering any person from joining any
lawful association, or from attending
any of its meetings
(c) Prohibiting or hindering any person
from addressing, either alone or
together with others, any petition to
the authorities for the correction of
abuses or redress of grievances

The government has a right to require a permit
before any gathering can be made. HOWEVER, the
government only has regulatory, NOT PROHIBITORY,
powers with regard to such requirement.

The permit should state the day, time, and place of
the gathering.
If the permit is denied arbitrarily, OR the officer
dictates the place where the meeting is to be held,
this article is VIOLATED.

If in the course of the assembly, which started out
peacefully, the participants committed illegal acts
like oral defamation or inciting to sedition, a public
officer or law enforcer can stop or dissolve the
meeting.

Two criteria to determine whether this article would
be violated:
(1) Dangerous tendency rule applied during
times of national unrest such as to prevent
coup detat.
(2) Clear and present danger rule applied
during times of peace. Stricter rule.

9. Article 132 - Interruption of
Religious Worship

Elements:
(2) Religious ceremonies or manifestations of
any religion are about to take place or are
going on
(3) Offender prevents or disturbs the same

162
10. Article 133 - Offending the
Religious Feelings

Elements:
(1) Acts complained of were performed in a
place devoted to religious worship, OR
during the celebration of any religious
ceremony
(2) The acts must be notoriously offensive to
the feelings of the faithful

Jurisprudence:

A Catholic priest complained against a group that
passed by the churchyard as they were holding the
funeral rites of a Church of Christ member.

An act is NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE to the religious
feelings when a person:
(1) Ridicules or makes light of anything
constituting religious dogma
(2) Works or scoffs at anything devoted to
religious ceremonies
(3) Plays with or damages or destroys any
object of veneration of the faithful

WON an act is offensive to the religious feelings, is a
question of fact which must be adjudged only
according to the feelings of the Catholics and not
those of other faithful ones. [People v. Baes (1939)]

Laurel Dissent: The determination should NOT be
made to depend upon a more or less broad or narrow
conception of any given religion. Facts and
circumstances should be viewed through an unbiased
judicial criterion. (Note: This later became the
majority decision in People v. Tengson)

The crime is only UNJUST VEXATION when the act is
NOT directed at the religious belief itself and there
is no intention of causing so serious a disturbance as
to interrupt a religious ceremony. [People v. Nanoy]

See also:
(1) RA 9372 : Human Security Act
(2) RA 9745: Anti-Torture Act

Title III. Crimes against Public
Order

(1) Article 134 - Rebellion/Insurrection
(2) Article 134-A - Coup d tat
(3) Article 135 - Penalty for Rebellion,
Insurrection or Coup d tat
(4) Article 136 - Conspiracy and Proposal to
Commit Coup d tat, Rebellion or
Insurrection
(5) Article 137 - Disloyalty of Public Officers or
Employees
(6) Article 138 - Inciting to Rebellion or
Insurrection
(7) Article 139 Sedition
(8) Article 141 - Conspiracy to Commit Sedition
(9) Article 142 Inciting to Sedition
(10) Article 140 - Persons Liable for Sedition
(11) Article 143 - Acts Tending to Prevent the
Meeting of the Congress of the Philippines
and Similar Bodies
(12) Article 144 - Disturbance of Proceedings
(13) Article 145 - Violation of Parliamentary
Immunity
(14) Article 146 - Illegal Assemblies
(15) Article 147 - Illegal Associations
(16) Article 148 - Direct Assault
(17) Article 149 - Indirect Assault
(18) Article 150 - Disobedience to Summons
Issued by Congress, Its Committees or
Subcommittees, by the Constitutional
Commissions, Its Committees,
Subcommittees or Divisions
(19) Article 153 - Tumults and Other
Disturbances of Public Order
(20) Article 151 - Resistance and Disobedience
to a Person in Authority or the Agents of
Such Persons
(21) Article 154 - Unlawful Use of Means of
Publication and Unlawful Utterances
(22) Article 156 - Delivering Persons from Jail
(23) Article 155 - Alarms and Scandals
(24) Article 157 - Evasion of Service of Sentence
(25) Article 159 - Other Cases of Evasion of
Service of Sentence
(26) Article 158 - Evasion of Service of Sentence
on the Occasion of Disorders,
Conflagrations, Earthquakes, or Other
Calamities
(27) Article 160 - Quasi Recidivism

A. Chapter I Rebellion, Coup
detat, Sedition and Disloyalty

1. Article 134 - Rebellion
/Insurrection

Elements:

163
(1) There is a public uprising and taking arms
against the government;
(2) The purpose of the uprising or movement is:
(a) To remove from the allegiance to the
government or its laws the Philippine
territory or any part thereof, or any
body of land, naval, or other armed
forces; or
(b) To deprive the Chief Executive or
Congress, wholly or partially, of any of
their powers or prerogatives.

Rebellion vs. Insurrection
The object of rebellion is to completely overthrow
and supplant the existing government. On the other
hand, insurrection is a movement seeking to effect
some change of minor importance, or to prevent the
exercise of governmental authority with respect to
particular matters or subjects [Reyes]

Rule on Complexing of Rebellion: Rebellion cannot
be complexed with, but absorbs other crimes
committed in furtherance of rebellion. There is no
complex crime of rebellion with murder and other
common crimes.

Jurisprudence:
The doctrine laid down in People v. Hernandez
remains good law. This prohibits the complexing of
rebellion with any other offense committed in the
occasion thereof, either as a means to its
commission or as an unintended effect of an activity
that constitutes rebellion. [Enrile v Salazar (1990)]

All crimes, whether punishable under special or
general law, which are mere components or
ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof,
become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and
cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes
themselves. [Ponce Enrile v Amin (1990)]

Both motive and overt acts are essential components
of the crime of rebellion. If the political motive of a
supposedly rebellious act cannot be sufficiently
proven, the accused should be convicted of the
common crime (e.g. murder) and not of rebellion.

Rebellion is not covered by Art. 2 on extraterritorial
jurisdiction. [People v. Lovedioro (1995)]

Rebellion vs. Treason
Rebellion Treason
The levying of war
against the government
during peace time for
any purpose mentioned
in Art. 134
The levying of war
against the government
would constitute
treason when performed
to aid the enemy; it
would also constitute
adherence to the enemy,
giving him aid and
comfort
Always involves taking
up arms against the
government.
Mere adherence to the
enemy giving him aid
and comfort

NOTE: No crime of misprision of rebellion.

Rebellion vs. Subversion
Rebellion Subversion
Crime against pubic
order
Crime against national
security
There must be public
uprising to overthrow
the government
Being officers and
ranking members of
subversive groups
constitute subversion

NOTE: There is no longer a crime of subversion by
virtue of RA 7636, which repealed RA 1700.

Rebellion vs. Sedition
Rebellion Sedition
There must be taking up
of arms against the
government.
It is sufficient that the
public uprising be
tumultuous.
The purpose is always
political.
The purpose may be
political or social.

NOTE : When any of the objectives of rebellion is
pursued but there is no public uprising in the legal
sense, the crime is direct assault of the first form.

2. Article 134-A - Coup d tat
(asked twice 1991-93 ; four times 1997-06)

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

Persons who may commit coup detat:
(1) It may be committed singly or collectively
(2) Requires as a principal offender a member
of the AFP, PNP, or a public officer with or
without civilian support

3. Article 135 - Penalty for
Rebellion, Insurrection or Coup d
tat

Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection or coup
d'etat
(1) The leaders:
(a) Any person who promotes, maintains or
heads a rebellion or insurrection; or
(b) Any person who leads, directs or
commands others to undertake a coup
d'etat;

164
(2) The participants:
(a) Any person who participates or
executes the commands of others in
rebellion or insurrection;
(b) Any person in the government service
who participates or executes directions
or commands of others in undertaking a
coup detat;
(c) Any person not in the government
service who participates, supports,
finances, abets or aids in undertaking a
coup d'etat.
If under the command of unknown leaders, any
person who directed the others, spoke for them,
signed receipts and other documents issued in their
name on behalf of the rebels shall be deemed a
leader.

Note: Mere silence or omission is not punishable.

4. Article 136 - Conspiracy and
Proposal to Commit Coup d tat,
Rebellion or Insurrection

Mode 1: Conspiracy to commit coup dtat,
rebellion or insurrection

Elements:
(1) Two or more persons come to an agreement
to swiftly attack or to rise publicly and take
arms against the Government for any of the
purposes of rebellion or insurrection;
(2) They decide to commit it.

Mode 2: Proposal to commit coup dtat,
rebellion or insurrection

Elements:
(1) A person has decided to swiftly attack or to
rise publicly and take arms against the
Government for any of the purposes of
rebellion or insurrection;
(2) Such person proposes its execution to some
other person or persons.

Conspiracy vs. Proposal
Conspiracywhen two or more persons come to an
agreement to rise publicly and take arms against
government for any of the purposes of rebellion and
decide to commit it.

Proposalwhen the person who has decided to rise
publicly and take arms against the government for
any of the purposes of rebellion proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.

5. Article 137 - Disloyalty of Public
Officers or Employees

Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
(2) Offender commits any of the following acts:
(a) Failing to resist a rebellion by all the
means in their power;
(b) Continuing to discharge the duties of
their offices under the control of the
rebels
(c) Accepting appointment to office under
them.

The crime presupposes rebellion committed by other
persons. Offender must not be in conspiracy with the
rebels. Effect of conspiracy: Public officer is himself
guilty of rebellion.

6. Article 138 - Inciting to Rebellion
or Insurrection

Elements:
(1) Offender does not take arms or is not in
open hostility against the government;
(2) He incites others to the execution of any of
the acts of rebellion;
(3) The inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners
or other representations tending to the
same end.

NOTE: There is no crime of inciting to treason.

Inciting to Rebellion vs. Proposal to Commit
Rebellion

Proposal to Commit
Rebellion
Inciting to Rebellion
The offender induces another to commit rebellion.
Rebellion should not be actually committed by the
persons to whom it is proposed or who are incited.
[Otherwise, they become principals by inducement
in the crime of rebellion.]
The person who proposes
has decided to commit
rebellion.
There is no need that
the offender has decided
to commit rebellion.
The person who proposes
the execution of the
crime uses secret means.
The act of inciting is
done publicly.

7. Article 139 - Sedition
(asked once)

Elements:
(1) Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously;
(2) Offenders employ force, intimidation, or
other means outside of legal methods;
(3) Purpose is to attain any of the following
objects:
(a) To prevent the promulgation or
execution of any law or the holding of
any popular election;
(b) To prevent the national government or
any provincial or municipal government
or any public officer from exercising its
or his functions, or prevent the
execution of an administrative order;
(c) To inflict any act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of any
public officer or employee;
(d) To commit, for any political or social
end, any act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social classes;
(e) To despoil for any political or social

165
end, any person, municipality or
province, or the national government
of all its property or any part thereof.

Tumultuous: If caused by more than three persons
who are armed or provided with the means of
violence. (Art. 163)

The purpose of this crime is not the overthrowing of
the government but the violation of public peace.

Under R.A. 8294, sedition absorbs the use of
unlicensed firearm as an element thereof; hence, it
is not an aggravating circumstance, and the offender
can no longer be prosecuted for illegal possession of
firearm. (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in
Criminal Law).

Sedition vs. Coup detat
Sedition Coup detat
There is no distinction as
to who may commit; a
private individual may
commit the offense
Offender belongs to
the military or police
or holding any public
office or employment
Primary purpose is to
disturb public peace
To seize or to diminish
state power

Sedition vs. Treason
Sedition Treason
It is the raising of
commotions or
disturbances in the
State.
It is the violation by a
subject of his allegiance
to his sovereign.

A friction between the Philippine constabulary and
the Manila police escalated and resulted in the
deaths of 6 policemen and 2 civilians and in the
serious injuries of 3 civilians.

The Court held that unlike the crime of rebellion,
common crimes committed in the occasion of
sedition are to be appreciated as separate crimes.
[People v Cabrera (1922)]

8. Article 140 - Persons Liable for
Sedition

(1) The leader of the sedition;
(2) Other person participating in the sedition.

9. Article 141 - Conspiracy to
Commit Sedition

Elements:
(1) Two or more persons come to an agreement
and a decision to rise publicly and
tumultuously to attain any of the objects of
sedition;
(2) They decide to commit it.

NOTE: There is no proposal to commit sedition.

10. Article 142 Inciting to
Sedition

Mode 1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of
any of the acts which constitute sedition
by means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, etc.

Elements:
(1) Offender does not take direct part in the
crime of sedition;
(2) He incites others to the accomplishment of
any of the acts which constitute sedition by
means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, cartoons, banners, or other
representations tending towards the same
end.

Mode 2. Uttering seditious words or speeches
which tend to disturb the public peace;

Mode 3. Writing, publishing, or circulating
scurrilous libels against the
government or any of the duly
constituted authorities thereof, which
tend to disturb the public peace.

Elements:
(1) Offender does not take part in the crime of
sedition.
(2) He uttered words or speeches and writing,
publishing or circulating scurrilous libels
and that
(a) Tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful
officer in conducting the functions of
his office;
(b) Tend to instigate others to cabal and
meet together for unlawful purposes;
(c) Suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies
or riots; OR
(d) Lead or tend to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities or to
disturb the peace of the community,
the safety and order of the government

Considering that the objective of sedition is to
express protest against the government and in the
process creating hate against public officers, any act
that will generate hatred against the government or
a public officer concerned or a social class may
amount to Inciting to Sedition.

Article 142 is, therefore, quite broad.

Constitutional Tests relative to seditious words:
Clear and Present Danger, and Dangerous Tendency

The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the
dramatic play, in view of the time, place, and
manner of its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit
of hatred and enmity against the American people
and the Government of the US in the Philippines. [US
v Tolentino (1906)]

166
B. Chapter II - Crimes against
Popular Representation

1. Article 143 - Acts Tending to
Prevent the Meeting of the
Congress of the Philippines and
Similar Bodies

Elements:
(1) There is a projected or actual meeting of
Congress or any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional committees
or divisions thereof, or of any provincial
board or city or municipal council or board;
(2) Offender, who may be any person, prevents
such meetings by force or fraud.

2. Article 144 - Disturbance of
Proceedings

Elements:
(1) There is a meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees
or divisions thereof, or of any provincial
board or city or municipal council or board;
(2) Offender does any of the following acts:
(a) He disturbs any of such meetings;
(b) He behaves while in the presence of
any such bodies in such a manner as to
interrupt its proceedings or to impair
the respect due it.

Complaint may be filed by a member of the
legislative body. One who disturbs may also be
punished for contempt by Congress.

3. Article 145 - Violation of
Parliamentary Immunity

Mode 1: Using force, intimidation, threats, or
frauds to prevent any member of
Congress from attending the
meetings of Congress or of any of its
committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof, or
from expressing his opinion or
casting his vote;
Elements:
(1) Offender uses force, intimidation, threats
or fraud;
(2) The purpose of the offender is to prevent
any member of Congress from:
(a) Attending the meetings of the Congress
or of any of its committees or
constitutional commissions;
(b) Expressing his opinion; OR
(c) Casting his vote.

Note: Offender in mode 1 is any person

Mode 2: Arresting or searching any member
thereof while Congress is in regular or
special session, except in case such
member has committed a crime
punishable under the Code by a
penalty higher than prision mayor.

Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer of employee;
(2) He arrests or searches any member of
Congress;
(3) Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is
in regular or special session;
(4) The member arrested or searched has not
committed a crime punishable under the
Code by a penalty higher than prision
mayor.

Parliamentary immunity does not protect members
of Congress from responsibility in accordance with
the disciplinary rules of Congress itself.

1987 Constitution: Members of Congress cannot be
arrested for offenses punishable by a penalty less
than prision mayor (6 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs), while
Congress is in session. They can be prosecuted after
Congress adjourns.

C. Chapter III Illegal Assemblies
and Associations

1. Article 146 - Illegal Assemblies
(asked once 1983-86) (See RA 8294)

Mode 1: Any meeting attended by armed persons
for the purpose of committing any of
the crimes punishable under the Code;

Elements:
(1) There is a meeting, a gathering or group of
persons, whether in a fixed place or
moving;
(2) The meeting is attended by armed persons;
(3) The purpose of the meeting is to commit
any of the crimes punishable under the
Code.

Mode 2: Any meeting in which the audience,
whether armed or not, is incited to the
commission of the crime of treason,
rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or
assault upon person in authority or his
agents.

Elements:
(1) There is a meeting, a gathering or group of
persons, whether in a fixed place or
moving;
(2) The audience, whether armed or not, is
incited to the commission of the crime of
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition
or direct assault.

Persons liable for illegal assembly:
(1) The organizer or leaders of the meeting;

167
(2) Persons merely present at the meeting, who
must have a common intent to commit the
felony of illegal assembly.

Presumptions if a person carried an unlicensed
firearm:
(1) The purpose of the meeting insofar as he is
concerned is to commit acts punishable
under the RPC
(2) He is considered a leader or organizer of
the meeting.

NOTE: Not all persons present at the meeting of the
first form of illegal assembly must be armed.

2. Article 147 - Illegal Associations

(1) Associations totally or partially organized
for the purpose of committing any of the
crimes punishable under the Code;
(2) Associations totally or partially organized
for some purpose contrary to public morals.

Persons liable for illegal associations:
(1) Founders, directors and president of the
association;
(2) Mere members of the association.

Public Morals: matters which affect the interest of
society and public convenience, not limited to good
customs

Illegal Assemblies vs. Illegal Associations
Illegal Assembly Illegal Association
There must be an actual
meeting or assembly
Actual meeting not
necessary
What is punished are the
meeting and the
attendance therein
What is punished is the
act of forming or
organizing the
association
Persons liable:
(1) Organizers or
leaders of the
meeting
(2) Persons present at
the meeting
Persons liable:
(1) Founders,
directors,
president
(2) The members

See also: BP 880 - Public Assembly Act of 1985

D. Chapter IV - Assault upon and
Resistance and Disobedience
to, Persons in Authority and
Their Agents

1. Article 148 - Direct Assault
(asked twice 1975-79; once 1987-89; once 2000-06)

Mode 1. Without public uprising, by employing
force or intimidation for the
attainment of any of the purposes
enumerated in defining the crimes of
rebellion and sedition;

Elements:
(1) Offender employs force or intimidation;
(2) The aim of the offender is to attain any of
the purposes of the crime of rebellion or
any of the objects of the crime of sedition;
(3) There is no public uprising.

Mode 2. Without public uprising, by attacking,
by employing force or by seriously
intimidating or by seriously resisting
any person in authority or any of his
agents, while engaged in the
performance of official duties, or on
occasion of such performance.

Elements:
(1) Offender makes an attack, employs force,
makes a serious intimidation, or makes a
serious resistance;
(2) The person assaulted is a person in
authority or his agent;
(3) At the time of the assault, the person in
authority or his agent is engaged in the
actual performance of official duties, OR
that he is assaulted by reason of the past
performance of official duties;
(4) Offender knows that the one he is
assaulting is a person in authority or his
agent in the exercise of his duties.
(5) There is no public uprising.

The first form of direct assault is tantamount to
rebellion or sedition, except that there is no pubic
uprising.

Classifications of direct assault: simple and
qualified.

Assault is qualified when:
(1) There is a weapon employed in the attack
(2) The offender is a public officer
(3) The offender lays hands on a public
authority

When the assault results in the killing of that agent
or of a person in authority, the offense committed is
complex crime of direct assault with murder or
homicide. The only time when it is not complexed is
when material consequence is a light felony, that is,
slight physical injury. Direct assault absorbs the
lighter felony.

The force employed need not be serious when the
offended party is a person in authority;

Intimidation or resistance must be serious whether
the offended party is a person in authority OR an
agent of a person in authority

If the public officer is not a person in authority, the
assault on him is an aggravating circumstance in Art.
14, no. 3 (rank). (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in
Criminal Law).

168
There must be however an intent to disregard the
victims rank.

Gabutero was acting in the performance of his duties
[as he was trying to pacify Dollantes who was
causing trouble] as barangay captain when he was
stabbed to death. Thus, the crime committed was
murder with assault upon a person in authority.
[People v. Dollantes (1987)]

2. Article 152 - Persons in Authority
and Agents of Persons in Authority
Public
Officer
(Art. 207)
Persons in
Authority
(Art. 152)
Agents of a
Person in
Authority
(Art. 152)
Any person
who takes part
in the
performance
of public
functions in
the
government.
Any person
directly vested
with
jurisdiction,
whether as an
individual or as
a member of
some court or
governmental
corporation,
board or
commission.
Any person
who, by direct
provision of law
or by election
or by
appointment by
competent
authority, is
charged with
the
maintenance of
public order
and the
protection and
security of life
and property.
Teachers, lawyers and heads of schools
recognized by government are persons in
authority only for purposes of Art. 152 in
relation to Arts. 148 and 151, and in connection
with their duties.

A person in authority includes a barangay
chairman and members of the Lupong
Tagapagkasundo as provided under the Local
Government Code. [Boado]

3. Article 149 - Indirect Assault

Elements:
(1) A person in authority or his agent is the
victim of any of the forms of direct assault
defined in Article 148;
(2) A person comes to the aid of such authority
or his agent;
(3) Offender makes use of force or intimidation
upon such person coming to the aid of the
authority or his agent.

Indirect assault can only be committed when a
direct assault is also committed.

Art. 152 clothes any person who comes to the
aid of a person in authority with the fiction of
an agent of a person in authority.
Any assault on him on the occasion of his aiding
a person in authority or his agent is indirect
assault.

4. Article 150 - Disobedience to
Summons Issued by Congress, Its
Committees or Subcommittees, by
the Constitutional Commissions,
Its Committees, Subcommittees or
Divisions

Mode 1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to
obey summons of Congress, its special
or standing committees and
subcommittees, the Constitutional
Commissions and its committees,
subcommittees or divisions, or by any
commission or committee chairman or
member authorized to summon
witnesses;

Mode 2. By refusing to be sworn or placed under
affirmation while being before such
legislative or constitutional body or
official;

Mode 3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry
or to produce any books, papers,
documents, or records in his
possession, when required by them to
do so in the exercise of their functions;

Mode 4. By restraining another from attending
as a witness in such legislative or
constitutional body;

Mode 5. By inducing disobedience to a summons
or refusal to be sworn by any such body
or official.

The testimony of a person summoned must be
upon matters into which the legislature has
jurisdiction to inquire.

5. Article 151 - Resistance and
Disobedience to a Person in
Authority or the Agents of Such
Persons
(asked once 1979-82; twice 2000-06)

Mode 1: Resistance and serious disobedience

Elements:
(1) A person in authority or his agent is
engaged in the performance of official duty
or gives a lawful order to the offender;
(2) Offender resists or seriously disobeys such
person in authority or his agent;
(3) The act of the offender is not included in
the provision of Articles 148, 149 and 150.

Mode 2: Simple disobedience

Elements:
(1) An agent of a person in authority is engaged
in the performance of official duty or gives
a lawful order to the offender;

169
(2) Offender disobeys such agent of a person in
authority;
(3) Such disobedience is not of a serious
nature.

The accused must have knowledge that the
person giving the order is a peace officer.

Serious Disobedience vs. Direct Assault
Serious Disobedience Direct Assault
Person in authority or his
agent must be in actual
performance of his
duties
The person in authority
or his agent must be
engaged in the
performance of official
duties or that he is
assaulted by reason
thereof
Committed only by
resisting or seriously
disobeying a person in
authority or his agent
Committed in four ways
(see Art. 148, Mode 2
above)
Use of force is not so
serious
There is force employed

E. Chapter V - Public Disorders

1. Article 153 - Tumults and Other
Disturbances of Public Order

Mode 1: Causing any serious disturbance in a
public place, office or establishment;

Mode 2: Interrupting or disturbing
performances, functions or gatherings,
or peaceful meetings, if the act is not
included in Arts. 131 and 132;

Mode 3: Making any outcry tending to incite
rebellion or sedition in any meeting,
association or public place;

Mode 4: Displaying placards or emblems which
provoke a disturbance of public order
in such place;

Mode 5: Burying with pomp the body of a
person who has been legally executed.

Serious disturbance must be planned or
intended. This article applies if the disturbance
is not caused by a public officer; or, if it is
committed by a public officer, he is a
participant therein.

Definition of outcry: to shout subversive or
provocative words tending to stir up the people
to obtain by means of force or violence any of
the objects of rebellion or sedition.

If done unconsciously or without intent to incite
the listeners to rise to sedition or rebellion, this
article applies.
If done with intent to commit rebellion or
sedition: The crime is inciting to rebellion or
sedition.

Definition of tumultuous: If caused by more
than 3 persons who are armed or provided with
the means of violence

Definition of burying with pomp the body of
a person: ostentatious display of a burial

2. Article 154 - Unlawful Use of
Means of Publication and Unlawful
Utterances

Mode 1. Publishing or causing to be published,
by means of printing, lithography or
any other means of publication, as
news any false news which may
endanger the public order, or cause
damage to the interest or credit of
the State.

Mode 2. Encouraging disobedience to the law
or to the constituted authorities or
praising, justifying or extolling any
act punished by law, by the same
means or by words, utterances or
speeches;

Mode 3: Maliciously publishing or causing to
be published any official document or
resolution without proper authority,
or before they have been published
officially

Mode 4: Printing, publishing or distributing
(or causing the same) books,
pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets
which do not bear the real printers
name, or which are classified as
anonymous.

To be liable, the offender must know that the news
is false.

Actual public disorder or actual damage to the credit
of the State is not necessary.

3. Article 155 - Alarms and Scandals

Mode 1: Discharging any firearm, rocket,
firecracker, or other explosive within
any town or public place, calculated
to cause (which produces) alarm or
danger;

Mode 2: Instigating or taking an active part in
any charivari or other disorderly
meeting offensive to another or
prejudicial to public tranquility;

Mode 3: Disturbing the public peace while
wandering about at night or while

170
engaged in any other nocturnal
amusements;

Mode 4: Causing any disturbances or scandal
in public places while intoxicated or
otherwise, provided Art. 153 is not
applicable.

The crime alarms and scandal is only one crime.

Scandal here does not refer to moral scandal; that
one is grave scandal in Article 200.

The essence of the crime is disturbance of public
tranquility and public peace.

Any kind of disturbance of public order where the
circumstance at the time renders the act offensive
to the tranquility prevailing, the crime is committed.

Definition of charivari: includes a medley of
discordant voices, a mock serenade of discordant
noises made on kettles, tin, horns, etc. designed to
annoy or insult

NOTE: Calculated to cause should be which
produces alarm and danger according to the correct
translation of the RPC. Hence, the result, and not
the intent, that counts. (Reyes)

4. Article 156 - Delivering Persons
from Jail
(asked once 1987-89; once 2000-06)

Elements:
(1) There is a person confined in a jail or penal
establishment;
(2) Offender removes therefrom such person,
or helps the escape of such person.

In relation to infidelity in the custody of prisoners,
correlate the crime of delivering person from jail
with infidelity in the custody of prisoners punished
under Arts. 223, 224 and 225 of the Revised Penal
Code.

In both acts, the offender may be a public officer or
a private citizen.

Crime under Art. 156 is committed by a public
officer when he is not the custodian of the prisoner
at the time the prisoner was made to escape.

If the public officer has the custody of the prisoner
when such prisoner escaped he is liable under Art.
223 for Infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.

If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention
prisoner, he does not incur liability from escaping if
he does not know of the plan to remove him from
jail.

But if such prisoner knows of the plot to remove him
from jail and cooperates therein by escaping, he
himself becomes liable for delivering prisoners from
jail as a principal by indispensable cooperation.

If three persons are involved a stranger, the
custodian and the prisoner three crimes are
committed:
(1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners [public
officer-custodian];
(2) Delivery of the prisoner from jail [stranger];
and
(3) Evasion of service of sentence [prisoner].

Cledera, as the governor, is the jailer of the
Province. Esmeralda is the Assistant Provincial
Warden. As public officials who have the custody or
charge of the prisoner, they cannot be prosecuted
under Art. 156.

Art 223 would have applied; however, there is no
sufficient evidence to warrant their prosecution for
infidelity in the custody of prisoner. It is necessary
that the public officer had consented to, or connived
in, the escape of the prisoner under his custody or
charge. [Alberto v. Dela Cruz (1980)]

F. Chapter VI - Evasion of Service
of Sentence

1. Article 157 - Evasion of Service of
Sentence
(asked once 1975-79; once 1987-90)

Elements:
(1) Offender is a convict by final judgment;
(2) He is serving sentence which consists in the
deprivation of liberty;
(3) He evades service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his
imprisonment.

Qualifying circumstances as to penalty imposed if
such evasion or escape takes place:
- By means of unlawful entry (this should be
by scaling - Reyes);
- By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls,
roofs or floors;
- By using picklock, false keys, disguise,
deceit, violence or intimidation; or
- Through connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution.

Evasion of service of sentence has three forms:
(1) By simply leaving or escaping from the
penal establishment under Article 157;
(2) Failure to return within 48 hours after
having left the penal establishment because
of a calamity, conflagration or mutiny and
such calamity, conflagration or mutiny has
been announced as already passed under
Article 158;
(3) Violating the condition of conditional
pardon under Article 159.

In leaving or escaping from jail or prison, that the
prisoner immediately returned is immaterial.

171
It may be mitigating, but it will not absolve his
criminal liability.

2. Article 158 - Evasion of Service of
Sentence on the Occasion of
Disorders, Conflagrations,
Earthquakes, or Other Calamities

Elements:
(1) Offender is a convict by final judgment,
who is confined in a penal institution;
(2) There is disorder, resulting from
(a) conflagration;
(b) earthquake;
(c) explosion;
(d) similar catastrophe; or
(e) mutiny in which he has not
participated;
(3) He evades the service of his sentence by
leaving the penal institution where he is
confined, on the occasion of such disorder
or during the mutiny;
(4) He fails to give himself up to the authorities
within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation by the Chief Executive
announcing the passing away of such
calamity.

Leaving the penal establishment is not the basis of
criminal liability. It is the failure to return within 48
hours after the passing of the calamity,
conflagration or mutiny had been announced.

Under Article 158, those who return within 48 hours
are given credit or deduction from the remaining
period of their sentence equivalent to 1/5 of the
original term of the sentence.

If the prisoner fails to return within said 48 hours,
there will be an additional penalty of 1/5, shall be
imposed but the 1/5 penalty is based on the
remaining period of the sentence, not on the original
sentence. In no case shall that penalty exceed six
months.

Mutiny is one of the causes which may authorize a
convict serving sentence in the penitentiary to leave
the jail provided he has not taken part in the
mutiny.

3. Article 159 - Other Cases of
Evasion of Service of Sentence

Elements:
(1) Offender was a convict;
(2) He was granted a conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive;
(3) He violated any of the conditions of such
pardon.

Violation of conditional pardon is a distinct crime. In
violation of conditional pardon, as a rule, the
violation will amount to this crime only if the
condition is violated during the remaining period of
the sentence.

If the condition of the pardon is violated when the
remaining unserved portion of the sentence has
already lapsed, there will be no more criminal
liability for the violation.
However, the convict maybe required to serve the
unserved portion of the sentence, that is, continue
serving original penalty.

Violation of Conditional Pardon vs. Evasion of
Service of Sentence by Escaping
Violation of Conditional
Pardon
Evasion of Service of
Sentence
Does not cause harm or
injury to the right of
another person nor does
it disturb the public
order; merely an
infringement of the
stipulated terms in
conditional pardon
An attempt at least to
evade the penalty
inflicted by the courts
upon criminals and thus
defeat the purpose of
the law of either
reforming or punishing
them for having
disturbed the public
order.

G. Chapter VII - Commission of
Another Crime during Service
of Penalty Imposed for Another
Previous Offense

1. Article 160 - Quasi Recidivism

Elements:
(1) Offender was already convicted by final
judgment of one offense;
(2) He committed a new felony before
beginning to serve such sentence or while
serving the same.

See Also:
(1) PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294: Illegal
Possession of Firearms
(2) RA 9372: Human Security Act

Distinction between Habitual Delinquency,
Recidivism and Habituality/Reiteracion/Repetition
See Annex B.

H. Title IV. Crimes against Public
Interest

Acts of Counterfeiting
(1) Article 162 - Using Forged Signature or
Counterfeit Seal or Stamp
(2) Article 161 - Counterfeiting the Great Seal
of the Government of the Philippine Islands,
Forging the Signature or Stamp of the Chief
Executive
(3) Article 164 - Mutilation of Coins
(4) Article 163 - Making and Importing and
Uttering False Coins

172
(5) Article 165 - Selling of False or Mutilated
Coin, Without Connivance
(6) Article 167 - Counterfeiting, Importing, and
Uttering Instruments Not Payable to Bearer
(7) Article 166 - Forging Treasury or Bank Notes
or Other Documents Payable to Bearer;
Importing and Uttering Such False or Forged
Notes and Documents

Acts of Forgery
(1) Article 168 - Illegal Possession and Use of
False Treasury or Bank Notes and Other
Instruments of Credit
(2) Article 169 - How Forgery is Committed

Acts of Falsification
(1) Article 170 - Falsification of Legislative
Documents
(2) Article 171 - Falsification by Public Officer,
Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastical
Minister
(3) Article 172 - Falsification by Private
Individual and Use of Falsified Documents
(4) Article 173 - Falsification of Wireless,
Cable, Telegraph and Telephone Messages,
and Use of Said Falsified Messages
(5) Article 175 - Using False Certificates
(6) Article 174 - False Medical Certificates,
False Certificates of Merits or Service, etc.
(7) Article 176 - Manufacturing and Possession
of Instruments or Implements for
Falsification

Other Falsities
(1) Article 177 - Usurpation of Authority or
Official Functions
(2) Article 179 - Illegal Use of Uniforms and
Insignia
(3) Article 178 - Using Fictitious and Concealing
True Name
(4) Article 180 - False Testimony Against a
Defendant
(5) Article 181 - False Testimony Favorable to
the Defendant
(6) Article 182 - False Testimony in Civil Cases
(7) Article 184 - Offering False Testimony in
Evidence
(8) Article 183 - False Testimony in Other Cases
and Perjury in Solemn Affirmation
(9) Article 185 - Machinations in Public Auctions
(10) Article 186 Monopolies and Combinations
in Restraint of Trade
(11) Article 187 Importation and Disposition of
Falsely Marked Articles or Merchandise
Made of Gold, Silver, or other Precious
Metals or their Alloys

The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or
falsity to the public. Deceit perpetrated upon the
public is the act being punished.

1. Acts of Counterfeitin

1. Article 161 - Counterfeiting the
Great Seal of the Government of
the Philippine Islands, Forging the
Signature or Stamp of the Chief
Executive

Acts punished: Forging the
(1) Great Seal of the Government of the
Philippines;
(2) Signature of the President;
(3) Stamp of the President.

When the signature of the president is forged, the
crime committed is covered by this provision and not
falsification of public document.

Intent to use is necessary. Actual use, however, is
not required, as long as the forger intended to use
it.

2. Article 162 - Using Forged
Signature or Counterfeit Seal or
Stamp

Elements:
(1) The great Seal of the Republic was
counterfeited OR the Signature or stamp of
the Chief Executive was forged by another
person;
(2) Offender Knew of the counterfeiting or
forgery;
(3) He Used the counterfeit seal or forged
signature or stamp.

Remember:
Offender under this article should not be the forger.
The participation of the offender is in effect that of
an accessory.

Although the general rule is that he should be
punished by a penalty of two degrees lower, under
Art. 162 he is punished by a penalty only one degree
lower.

3. Article 163 - Making and Importing
and Uttering False Coins

Elements:
(1) There be False or counterfeited coins;
(2) Offender either Made, imported or uttered
such coins;
(3) In case of uttering such false or
counterfeited coins, he Connived with the
counterfeiters or importers.

Remember:
To utter is to pass counterfeited coins. It includes
delivery or the act of giving them away.

To import fake coins means to bring them into port.
The importation is complete before entry at the
Customs House [US vs. Lyman]

Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is
punished
A. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the
Central Bank of the Philippines;

173
B. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or
of the Central Bank of the Philippines;
C. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.

The counterfeiting of foreign currency is punishable,
regardless of whether or not it is still in official
circulation. The reason behind this is not only the
harm that it may cause to the public in case it goes
into circulation again, but also the possibility that
the counterfeiter may later apply his trade to the
making of coins in actual circulation. [People vs.
Kong Leon]

4. Article 164 - Mutilation of Coins

Acts punished
(1) Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with
the further requirement that there be
intent to damage or to defraud another;
(2) Importing or uttering such mutilated coins,
with the further requirement that there
must be connivance with the mutilator or
importer in case of uttering.

The first acts of falsification or falsity include:
(1) Counterfeiting
(2) Forgery
(3) Falsification

In so far as coins in circulation are concerned, there
are two crimes that may be committed:
(1) Counterfeiting coins
(2) Mutilation of coins

Requisites of Mutilation under the RPC:
(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust
abstracted from the coin;
(3) It has to be a coin.

Mutilation means to take off part of the metal
either by filling it or substituting it for another metal
of inferior quality.

Since the coins before were made of silver and/or
other precious metal, shaving the metal from the
coins became a practice. Hence, the coins intrinsic
value is diminished.

This is the only article that requires that the
mutilated coin be legal tender.

Foreign coins are covered in this article.

There is no requirement of expertise involved here.

Deliberate intent arises only when the offender
collects the precious metal dust from the mutilated
coin.

If the offender does not collect such dust, intent to
mutilate is absent, but PD 247 will apply.

See Special Law: PD 247 (Defacement, Mutilation,
Tearing, Burning or Destroying Central Bank Notes
and Coins)

5. Article 165 - Selling of False or
Mutilated Coin, Without
Connivance

Mode 1: Possession of coin, counterfeited or
mutilated by another person, with
intent to utter the same, knowing that
it is false or mutilated;

Elements:
(1) Possession;
(2) With Intent to utter; and
(3) Knowledge.

Mode 2: Actually uttering such false or mutilated
coin, knowing the same to be false or mutilated.

Elements:
(1) Actually uttering; and
(2) Knowledge.

Possession prohibited in this article is not only actual
and physical possession, but also that of a
constructive one, or the subjection of the thing to
ones control. The possessor should not be the
counterfeiter, mutilator, or importer of the coins.

As long as the offender has knowledge that the coin
is false or mutilated, there is no need for him to
connive with the counterfeiter or mutilator.

6. Article 166 - Forging Treasury or
Bank Notes or Other Documents
Payable to Bearer; Importing and
Uttering Such False or Forged
Notes and Documents

Acts punished
(1) Forging or falsification of treasury or bank
notes or other documents payable to
bearer;
(2) Importation of such false or forged
obligations or notes;
(3) Uttering of such false or forged obligations
or notes in connivance with the forgers or
importers.

Forging: By giving any treasury or bank note, or
any instrument payable to bearer, or to order the
appearance of a true and genuine document.

Falsification: By erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting or altering by any means, the figures,
letters, words, or signs contained therein.

The instrument is payable to bearer:
(1) When expressed to be so payable
(2) When payable to a person named therein or
bearer

174
(3) When payable to the order of a fictitious or
non-existing person, and such fact was
known to the person making it so payable
(4) When the name of the payee does not
purport to be the name of any person
(5) When the only or last endorsement is an
endorsement in blank.

Reason for this is that the forging tends to bring such
documents into discredit and the offense produces a
lack of confidence on the part of the holders of said
documents to the prejudice of society and of the
State.

7. Article 167 - Counterfeiting,
Importing, and Uttering
Instruments Not Payable to Bearer

Elements:
(1) There is an Instrument payable to order or
other document of credit not payable to
bearer;
(2) Offender either Forged, imported or
uttered such instrument;
(3) In case of uttering, he Connived with the
forger or importer.

This covers instruments or other documents of credit
issued by a foreign government or bank.

Forgery of currency is punished so as to maintain
integrity of the currency and thus insure the credit
standing of the government.

2. Acts of Forgery
0.
1. Article 168 - Illegal Possession and
Use of False Treasury or Bank
Notes and Other Instruments of
Credit

Elements:
(1) Any treasury or bank note or certificate or
other obligation and security:
(a) Payable to bearer, or any instrument
payable to order or other document of
credit not payable to bearer is
(b) Forged or falsified by another person;
(2) Offender Knows that any of those
instruments is forged or falsified;
(3) He either
(a) Uses any of such forged or falsified
instruments; or
(b) Possesses with intent to use any of such
forged or falsified instruments

The rule is that if a person had in his possession a
falsified document and he made use of it, taking
advantage of it and profiting thereby, the
presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification.

Intent to use is sufficient to consummate the crime
when the offender is in possession of false or
falsified notes or obligations. [People vs.
Sendaydiego, (1978)]

2. Article 169 - How Forgery is
Committed

(1) By Giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a
true and genuine document;
(2) By Erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or
altering by any means the figures, letters,
words, or sign contained therein.

Forgery includes falsification and counterfeiting.

For possession of false treasury or bank note to
constitute a criminal offense, it must be with intent
to use.

The essence of forgery is giving a document the
appearance of a true and genuine document.

Not any alteration of a letter, number, figure or
design would amount to forgery. At most, it would
only be frustrated forgery.

Forgery can be committed through the use of
genuine paper bills that have been withdrawn from
circulation, by giving them the appearance of some
other true and genuine document. [People vs.
Galano]

3. Acts of Falsification
0.
1. Article 170 - Falsification of
Legislative Documents

Elements:
(1) There is a Bill, resolution or ordinance
enacted or approved or pending approval by
either House of the Legislature or any
provincial board or municipal council;
(2) Offender Alters the same;
(3) He has No proper authority therefor;
(4) The alteration has Changed the meaning of
the documents.

The writing must be:
(1) complete in itself; and
(2) capable of extinguishing an obligation or
creating rights; or
(3) capable of becoming evidence of the facts
stated therein.

Five classes of falsification:
(1) Falsification of legislative documents;
(2) Falsification of a document by a public
officer, employee or notary public;
(3) Falsification of a public or official, or
commercial documents by a private
individual;
(4) Falsification of a private document by any
person;

175
(5) Falsification of wireless, telegraph and
telephone messages.

Distinction between falsification and forgery:
FALSIFICATION FORGERY
Commission of any of the
8 acts mentioned in Art
171 on legislative (only
alteration), public or
official commercial, or
private documents, or
wireless, or telegraph
messages.
Refers to the
falsification and
counterfeiting of
treasury or bank notes,
or any instruments
payable, or to order

Crimes under Forgeries.

2. Article 171 - Falsification by
Public Officer, Employee or Notary
or Ecclesiastical Minister
(asked 8 times)

Elements:
(1) Offender is a Public officer, employee, or
notary public;
(2) He Takes advantage of his official position;
(3) He falsifies a document by committing any
of the following acts:
(a) Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric;
(b) Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so
participate;
(c) Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact
made by them;
(d) Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
(e) Altering true dates;
(f) Making any alteration or intercalation
in a genuine document which changes
its meaning;
(g) Issuing in an authenticated form:
(i) A document purporting to be a
copy of an original document
(ii) When no such original exists, or
(iii) Including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different
from, that of the genuine original;
(h) Intercalating any instrument or note
relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book.

1
st
Element: Persons Liable under this Article
Under this article, only a public officer, employee or
notary public, or ecclesiastical minister can be the
offender.

The ecclesiastical minister is liable with respect to
any record or document that its falsification may
affect the civil status of persons.

2
nd
Element: Offender Take Advantage of his
Official Position
Offender takes advantage of his official position in
falsifying a document when:
(1) He has the duty to make or prepare, or
intervene in the preparation of the
document; or
(2) He has the official custody of the document
he falsifies.

3
rd
Element: Offender Falsifies a Document
A document is any written statement by which a
right or status is established or an obligation is
extinguished.

PAR1 PAR2 PAR3 PAR4
May be a
genuine
(later
falsified)
or an
entirely
fabricated
document
May be a
genuine
(later
falsified)
or an
entirely
fabricated
document
May be a
genuine
(later
falsified)
or an
entirely
fabricated
document
May be a
genuine
(later
falsified)
or an
entirely
fabricated
document

PAR5 PAR6 PAR7 PAR8
May be a
genuine
(later
falsified)
or an
entirely
fabricated
document
There must
be a
genuine
document
There must
be a
genuine
document
There must
be a
genuine
document

PAR 1: Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric.
2 ways of committing falsification under this
paragraph:
(1) Counterfeiting, which is imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric
(a) There should be an intent to imitate, or
an attempt to imitate
(b) Two signatures, the genuine and the
forged, should bear some resemblance.
(2) Feigning, which is simulating a signature,
handwriting or rubric out of one which does
not actually exist.

PAR 2: Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate.
Two Requisites:
(1) Offender caused it to appear in a document
that a person/s participated in an act or
proceeding.
(2) Such person/s did not in fact participate.

PAR 3: Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding statements
other than those in fact made by them
Three Requisites:
(1) Person/s participated in an act or
proceeding
(2) Such person/s made statements in that act
or proceeding

176
(3) Offender, in making a document, attributed
to such person/s statements other than
those they in fact made.

PAR 4: Making untruthful statements in a narration
of facts
Four Requisites:
(1) Offender makes in a document statements
in a narration of facts
(2) He has a legal obligation to disclose truth of
facts
(3) Facts narrated are absolutely false
(4) Perversion of truth in the narration was
made with the wrongful intent of injuring a
third person.

There must be narration of facts, not conclusion of
law. There should be a legal obligation to disclose
the truth. [Beradio vs. CA]

The person making the narration of facts must be
aware of the falsity of facts narrated by him. The
narration of facts must be absolutely false. If there
is some colorable truth in such statements, crime of
falsification is not deemed to have been committed.
The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third
person is immaterial in falsification of a public
document. [Siquian vs. People]

There can be falsification by omission. An assistant
bookkeeper is guilty of falsification by intentionally
not putting a record in his personal account of chits
and destroyed them so he could avoid paying the
same. [People vs. Dizon]

PAR 5: Altering true dates
(1) The date must be essential
(2) The alteration of the date must affect the
veracity of the documents or the effects
thereof (such as dates of birth, marriage, or
death).

PAR 6: Making any alteration or intercalation in a
genuine document which changes its meaning
Four Requisites:
(1) There be an alteration (change) or
intercalation (insertion) on a document.
(2) It was made on a genuine document.
(3) Alteration or intercalation has changed the
meaning of the document.
(4) Change made the document speak
something false.

Change or insertion must affect the integrity or
effects of the document. Furthermore, the
alteration should make the document speak
something false. Otherwise, it would merely be a
correction.

PAR 7: Issuing in an authenticated form a document
purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such a
copy a statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original
Falsification in this paragraph cannot be committed
by a private individual, or by a notary public, or by a
public officer, who does not take advantage of his
official position.

This is because authentication of a document can
only be made by the custodian or the one who
prepared and retained a copy of the original.
(1) Purporting to be a copy of the original when
no such original exists.
(2) Including a copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine original.

A private person who cooperates with a public
officer in the falsification of a public document is
guilty of the crime and incurs the same liability and
penalty.

There are four kinds of documents:
(1) Public document in the execution of which,
a person in authority or notary public has
taken part;
(a) A document created, executed or
issued
(b) By a public official
(c) In response to the exigencies of the
public service,
(d) Or in execution of w/c public official
intervened.
(2) Official document in the execution of which
a public official takes part;
(a) A document issued by a public official
in the exercise of the functions of his
office. It falls within the larger class
called public documents.
(b) A document required by a bureau to be
filled by its officers for purposes of
record and information is a public
document.
(3) Commercial document or any document
recognized by the Code of Commerce or any
commercial law; and
(4) A deed or instrument executed by a private
person without the intervention of a notary
public or other persons legally authorized. -
Private document in the execution of which
only private individuals take part.

The element of damage is not necessary because it
is the interest of the community which is intended to
be guaranteed.

The character of the offender and his faithfulness to
his duty is mainly taken into consideration.

Public and Private writings under the
Rules of Court:
The following are public documents:
(1) Written official acts, or records, of the
official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers
(2) Documents acknowledged before a notary
public except last will and testaments
(3) Public records kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be
entered therein.

177
All other writings are private.

After an investigation, a group of public officers
were caught and convicted of falsifying cash
vouchers.

On appeal the SC held that cash vouchers are NOT
commercial documents because they are not
documents used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate credit transactions nor they are
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or
other commercial law.

Rather, they are private documents which have been
defined as:
(1) Deeds or instruments executed by a private
person
(2) Without the intervention of a pubic notary
or of other person legally authorize,
(3) By which some disposition or agreement is
proved, evidenced or set forth. [People v.
Batulanon (2007)]

3. Article 172 - Falsification by
Private Individual and Use of
Falsified Documents
(asked 6 times)

Mode 1: Falsification of public, official or
commercial document by a private
individual;

Elements:
(1) Offender is a Private individual OR Public
officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position;
(2) He committed any act of Falsification (Art.
171);
(3) The falsification was committed in a public,
official, or commercial Document or letter
of exchange.

Mode 2: Falsification of private document by any
person;

Elements:
(1) Offender committed any of the acts of
Falsification except Article 171(7), that is,
(a) Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such
original exists, or
(b) Including in such a copy a statement
contrary to, or different from, that of
the genuine original;
(2) Falsification was committed in any Private
document;
(3) Falsification causes Damage to a third party
or at least the falsification was committed
with intent to cause such damage.

Mode 3: Use of falsified document.

Elements in introducing in a judicial proceeding
(1) Offender Knew that the document was
falsified by another person;
(2) The False document is in Articles 171 or 172
(1 or 2);
(3) He Introduced said document in evidence in
any judicial proceeding.

Elements in use in any other transaction
(1) Offender Knew that a document was
falsified by another person;
(2) The False document is embraced in Articles
171 or 172 (1 or 2);
(3) He Used such document;
(4) The use caused Damage to another or at
least used with intent to cause damage.

In the falsification of public or official documents, it
is not necessary that there be present the idea of
gain or the intent to cause damage. This is because
the principal thing punished is the violation of public
faith and destruction of the truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed.

The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third
person is not necessary when the falsified document
is a public document. [Siquian vs People]

NOTE: This statement applies as well to commercial
documents, because as to this kind of document, a
credit is sought to be protected. [Reyes]

Since damage is not an element of falsification of a
public document, it could be complexed with estafa
as a necessary means to commit the latter.

There is no crime of falsification of private
document through negligence or imprudence.

If the document is intended by law to be part of the
public or official record, the falsification, although it
was private at the time of falsification, it is
regarded as falsification of a public or official
document.

Falsification through imprudence implies lack of such
intent, thus there is no crime of falsification of a
private document through negligence or
imprudence.

The possessor of a falsified document is presumed to
be the author of the falsification. [People vs.
Manansala]

The presumption also holds if the use was so closely
connected in time with the falsification and the user
had the capacity of falsifying the document. [People
vs. Sendaydiego]

There is no crime of estafa through falsification of a
private document. Both crimes, separately, require
the element of damage, which each of the two
should have its own.

178
The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit should
not be the very same damage caused by the
falsification of the private document.

In this case, the petitioners are charged under
Article 171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of the RPC.
Petitioners Regidor and Zapatos, as Mayor, and
Member and Temporary Presiding Officer of the
Sangguniang Panglungsod, respectively, made it
appear that private complainants, among others,
participated in the Sangguniang Panglungsod
sessions when they did not in fact so participate, and
issued, in authenticated forms, the assailed
resolutions purporting to be copies of original
documents when no such originals exist.

SC held that all the elements of the offense
punishable under Article 171, paragraphs 2 and 7 of
the RPC are present in this case.

Furthermore, it is a fundamental principle in the law
on public officers that administrative liability is
separate from and independent of criminal liability.
A simple act or omission can give rise to criminal,
civil or administrative liability, each independently
of the others. This is known as the threefold
liability rule.

Thus, absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar
to an administrative prosecution, and vice-versa.

In this criminal prosecution, the dismissal of the
administrative cases against the petitioners will not
necessarily result in the dismissal of the criminal
complaints filed against them. [Regidor v. People of
the Phils & Sandiganbayan (2009)]

4. Article 173 - Falsification of
Wireless, Cable, Telegraph and
Telephone Messages, and Use of
Said Falsified Messages

Mode 1: Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or
telephone message;

Elements:
(1) Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of a
private corporation, engaged in the service
of sending or receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message;
(2) He utters fictitious wireless, cable,
telegraph or telephone message.

Mode 2: Falsifying wireless, telegraph or
telephone message;

Elements:
(1) Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of a
private corporation, engaged in the service
of sending or receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message;
(2) He falsifies wireless, cable, telegraph or
telephone message.

Mode 3: Using such falsified message.

Elements:
(1) Offender knew that wireless, cable,
telegraph, or telephone message
(a) Was falsified by an officer or employee
of the government or an officer or
employee of a private corporation,
(b) Engaged in the service of sending or
receiving wireless, cable or telephone
message;
(2) He used such falsified dispatch;
(3) The use resulted in the prejudice of a third
party or at least there was intent to cause
such prejudice.

5. Article 174 - False Medical
Certificates, False Certificates of
Merits or Service, etc.

Persons liable
(1) Physician or surgeon who, in connection
with the practice of his profession, issues a
false certificate (it must refer to the illness
or injury of a person);

Note: The crime here is false medical certificate by
a physician.

(2) Public officer who issues a false certificate
of merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;

Note: The crime here is false certificate of merit or
service by a public officer.

(3) Private person who falsifies a certificate
falling within the classes mentioned in the
two preceding subdivisions.

Note: The crime here is false medical certificate by
a private individual or false certificate of merit or
service by a private individual.

See Special Law: RA 4200: Anti-wiretapping Law

6. Article 175 - Using False
Certificates

Elements:
(1) The following Issues a false certificate:
(a) Physician or surgeon, in connection
with the practice of his profession,
issues a false Medical certificate;
(b) Public officer issues a false certificate
of Merit of service, good conduct or
similar circumstances;
(c) Private Person falsifies a certificate
falling within the 2 preceding
subdivisions.
(2) Offender Knows that the certificate was
false;
(3) He Uses the same.

179
7. Article 176 - Manufacturing and
Possession of Instruments or
Implements for Falsification

Acts punished:
(1) Making or introducing into the Philippines
any stamps, dies, marks, or other
instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification;
(2) Possession with intent to use the
instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification made in or
introduced into the Philippines by another
person.

As in Art. 165, the possession contemplated here is
constructive possession. The implements confiscated
need not form a complete set.

4. OTHER FALSITIES
0.
1. Article 177 - Usurpation of
Authority or Official Functions

Mode 1: Usurpation of authority. (no connection
with the office represented)

The mere act of knowingly and falsely representing
oneself to be an officer is sufficient. It is not
necessary that he perform an act pertaining to a
public officer.

Elements:
(1) Offender knowingly and falsely Represents
himself;
(2) As an Officer, agent or representative of
any department or agency of the Philippine
government or of any foreign government.

Mode 2: Usurpation of official functions. (excess of
authority)

In usurpation of official functions, it is essential that
the offender should have performed an act
pertaining to a person in authority or public officer,
in addition to other requirements.

Elements
(1) Offender Performs any act;
(2) Pertaining to any person in authority or
public officer of the Philippine government
or any foreign government, or any agency
thereof;
(3) Under Pretense of official position;
(4) Without being lawfully entitled to do so.

The offender should have:
(1) Represented himself to be an officer, agent
or representative of any agency of the
government.
(2) Performed an act pertaining to a person in
authority or public officer.

2. Article 178 - Using Fictitious and
Concealing True Name

Mode 1: Using fictitious name

Elements:
(1) Offender uses a name other than his real
name;
(2) He uses the fictitious name publicly;
(3) Purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to
evade the execution of a judgment or to
cause damage [to public interest Reyes].

Mode 2: Concealing true name

Elements:
(1) Offender conceals his true name and other
personal circumstances;
(2) Purpose is only to conceal his identity.

Fictitious Name Concealing True Name
Element of Publicity Publicity not necessary
Purpose is to conceal a
crime, evade execution
of judgment, cause
damage)
Merely to conceal
identity.

If the purpose is for causing damage, it must be
damage to public interest.

If it is damage to private interest, the crime will be
estafa under Art 315 2(a).

See Special Law: Commonwealth Act No. 142
(Regulating the Use of Aliases)

3. Article 179 - Illegal Use of
Uniforms and Insignia

Elements:
(1) Offender makes Use of insignia, uniforms or
dress;
(2) The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to
an Office not held by such person or a class
of persons of which he is not a member;
(3) Said insignia, uniform or dress is Used
publicly and improperly.

Remember:
Exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary;
a colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the
common run of people is sufficient.

RA 75 also punishes using the use of uniform,
decoration or regalia of a foreign state by people not
entitled to do so.

RA 493 punishes wearing an insignia, badge, or
emblem of rank of the members of the AFP or
constabulary.

180
4. Article 180 - False Testimony
Against a Defendant

Elements:
(1) There is a Criminal proceeding;
(2) Offender Testifies falsely under oath
against the defendant therein;
(3) Offender who gives false testimony Knows
that it is false.
(4) Defendant against whom the false
testimony is given is either acquitted or
convicted in a Final judgment.

The witness who gave the false testimony is liable
even if his testimony was not considered by the
court.

False Testimony: Committed by a person who,
being under oath and required to testify as to the
truth of a certain matter at a hearing before a
competent authority, shall deny the truth or say
something contrary to it.

False testimony is punished because of its tendency
to prejudice defendant.

Three forms of false testimony:
(1) False testimony in criminal cases under
Article 180 and 181;
(2) False testimony in civil case under Article
182;
(3) False testimony in other cases under Article
183.

Articles 180 184 punish the acts of making false
testimonies since because such acts seriously expose
society to miscarriage of justice.

5. Article 181 - False Testimony
Favorable to the Defendant

Elements:
(1) A person Gives false testimony;
(2) In Favor of the defendant;
(3) 3. In a Criminal case.

The testimony need not in fact be beneficial to the
defendant. It is not necessary that the testimony
should directly influence the decision of acquittal, it
being sufficient that it was given with the intent to
favor the accused.

Conviction or acquittal of defendant in the principal
case is not necessary.

Rectification made spontaneously after realizing the
mistake is not false testimony.

Penalty for false testimony against the accused is
based on the sentence imposed or if accused is
acquitted; that for testimony favorable to the
accused is based on the imposable penalty. The
rationale for the difference is the measure of the
wrong occasioned by the injustice in each case, i.e.
the undeserved sentence and the imposable penalty
avoided, respectively.

6. Article 182 - False Testimony in
Civil Cases

Elements:
(1) Testimony Given in a civil case;
(2) Testimony Relates to the issues presented
in said case;
(3) Testimony is False;
(4) Offender Knows that testimony is false;
(5) Testimony is Malicious
(6) And given with an intent to affect the issues
presented in said case.

Art. 182 does not apply in special proceedings. These
are covered by 183 under other cases.
Pending the determination of the falsity of the
subject testimonies in the civil cased, the criminal
action for false testimony must perforce be
suspended.

7. Article 183 - False Testimony in
Other Cases and Perjury in Solemn
Affirmation

Acts Punished
(1) By falsely Testifying under oath;
(2) By Making a false affidavit.

Note: The false testimony should not be in a judicial
proceeding. [Diaz vs. People]

Elements of perjury:
(1) Offender Makes a statement under oath or
executes an affidavit upon a material
matter;
(2) The statement or affidavit is made Before a
competent officer, authorized to receive
and administer oaths;
(3) Offender makes a Willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood in the statement or
affidavit;
(4) The sworn statement or affidavit containing
the falsity is Required by law, that is, it is
made for a legal purpose.

The statement should be outside the coverage of art
180-181.

Oath: Any form of attestation by which a person
signifies that he is bound by conscience to perform
an act faithfully and truthfully.

Affidavit: Sworn statement in writing; declaration
in writing, made upon oath before an authorized
magistrate or officer.

There could be no perjury through negligence or
imprudence. This is because of the requirement that
the assertion of a falsehood be made willfully and
deliberately. Hence, good faith or lack of malice is a
defense in perjury.

181
It is not necessary that there be a law requiring the
statement to be made under oath, as long as it is
made for a legal purpose.

Perjury is a crime other than false testimony in
criminal cases or false testimony in civil cases, which
are perversions of truth in judicial proceedings.
Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other
than those taken in the course of judicial
proceedings. [US vs. Estrada]

Material Relevant Pertinent
Directed to
prove a fact in
issue
Tends in any
reasonable
degree to
establish
probability or
improbability of
a fact in issue
Concerns
collateral
matters which
make more or
less probable
the proposition
at issue

8. Article 184 - Offering False
Testimony in Evidence

Elements:
(1) Offender Offers in evidence a false witness
or testimony;
(2) He Knows that the witness or the testimony
was false;
(3) The offer is made in any Judicial OR Official
proceeding.

Offer of evidence begins at the moment a witness is
called to the stand and interrogated by counsel. The
witness must testify.

9. Article 185 - Machinations in
Public Auctions

Mode 1: Soliciting any gift or promise as a
consideration for refraining from taking part in
any public auction;

Elements:
(1) There is a Public auction;
(2) Offender Solicits any gift or a promise from
any of the bidders;
(3) Such gift or promise is the Consideration for
his refraining from taking part in that public
auction;
(4) Offender has the Intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing
auctioned.

Mode 2: Attempting to cause bidders to stay away
from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or any
other artifice.

Elements:
(1) There is a Public auction;
(2) Offender Attempts to cause the bidders to
stay away from that public auction;
(3) It is Done by threats, gifts, promises or any
other artifice;
(4) Offender had the Intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing
auctioned.

The crime is consummated by:
(1) Mere solicitation of gift or promise as
consideration for not bidding, or
(2) By mere attempt to cause prospective
bidders to stay away from an auction.

10. Article 186 Monopolies and
Combinations in Restraint of Trade

Mode 1: Combination to prevent free competition
in the market
Elements:
(1) Entering into any contract or agreement;
OR taking part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or
otherwise;
(2) In restraint of trade or commerce or to
prevent by artificial means free competition
in the market

Mode 2: Monopoly to restrain free competition in
the market

Elements:
(1) Monopolizing any merchandise or object of
trade or commerce; OR
(2) Combining with any other person or persons
to monopolize said merchandise or object in
order to alter the prices thereof by
spreading false rumors or making use of any
other artifice to restrain free competition
in the market

Mode 3: Manufacturer, producer, or processor or
importer combining, conspiring or
agreeing with any person to make
transactions prejudicial to lawful
commerce or to increase the market
price of merchandise

Elements:
(1) Person liable: (1) manufacturer, (2)
producer, (3) processor, or (4) importer of
any merchandise or object of commerce
(2) Crime committed by: (1) combining, (2)
conspiring, or (3) agreeing with any person
(3) Purpose: (1) to make transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce, or (2) to
increase the market price of any
merchandise or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed,
assembled, or imported into the Philippines

Theory of the law: Competition, not combination,
should be the law of trade

Mere conspiracy of combination is punished.

If the offense affects any food substance or other
article of prime necessity, it is sufficient that initial
steps are taken.

182
When offense is committed by a corporation or
association, the president and directors or managers
are liable.

11. Article 187 Importation and
Disposition of Falsely Marked
Articles or Merchandise Made of
Gold, Silver, or other Precious
Metals or their Alloys

Elements:
(1) Offender imports, sells or disposes of any of
those articles or merchandise (i.e. gold,
silver, other precious metals or their alloys)
(2) The stamps, brands, or marks of those
articles of merchandise fail to indicate the
actual fineness or quality of said metals or
alloys
(3) Offender knows that the stamps, brands, or
marks fail to indicate the actual fineness or
quality of the metals or alloys

Selling the misbranded articles is not necessary.
Art. 187 does not apply to manufacturer of
misbranded articles he would be liable for estafa
under Art. 315(2)(b).

See Also:
(1) RA 9184: New Public Bidding Law
(2) CA 142: Anti-Alias Law

Title V. Crimes Relative to
Opium and Other Prohibited
Drugs

A. Acts Punished
B. Penalties for Unlawful Acts:
C. Definition of Important Terms:
D. Other Important Points

NOTE: Art 190-194 were repealed by RA 6425, known
as the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972. RA No. 9165,
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002 in turn repealed RA No. 6425.

A. Acts Punished:

(1) Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemical (Sec. 4)
(2) Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 5)
(3) Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. (Sec.
6)
(4) Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or
Resort (Sec. 7)
(5) Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Chemicals (Sec. 8)
(6) Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. (Sec. 9)
(7) Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus, and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or
Chemicals. (Sec. 10)
(8) Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 11)
(9) Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 12)
(10) Possession of Dangerous Drugs During
Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings (Sec.
13)
(11) Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings (Sec. 14)
(12) Use of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 15)
(13) Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as
Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof.
(Sec. 16)
(14) Maintenance and Keeping of Original
Records of Transactions on Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals (Sec. 17)
(15) Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous
Drugs (Sec. 18)
(16) Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs
(Sec. 19)

B. Penalties for Unlawful Acts:

(1) The penalty of life imprisonment to death
and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00) - Those acts which
include or involve any dangerous drugs
(Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 16 and 19)
(2) The penalty of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years of
imprisonment and a fine ranging from One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to
Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)
(a) Those acts which involve any controlled
precursor and essential chemical
(Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10)
(b) Anyone who acts as a
"protector/coddler" of any violator of
the provisions under sections 4, 5, 6, 8
and 16
(c) Sections 7, 10, 16, 17.
(3) The maximum penalty provided for under
sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 16 shall be imposed
upon any person, who organizes, manages
or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal
activities prescribed in those sections.
(4) Any person charged under any provision of
this Act regardless of the imposable penalty
shall not be allowed to avail of the
provision on plea-bargaining. Section 23,
Article II, RA 9165

Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing
under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by
the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by

183
the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as
amended. [Section 24, Article II, RA 9165]

Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the
contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous
drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance
in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the
application of the penalty provided for in the
Revised Penal Code shall be applicable. [Section 25,
Article II, RA 9165]

The maximum penalties of the unlawful acts
provided for in this Act shall be imposed, in addition
to absolute perpetual disqualification from any
public office, if those found guilty of such unlawful
acts are government officials and employees.
[Section 28, Article II, RA 9165]

Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical, regardless of quantity and
purity, shall suffer the penalty of death. [Section 29,
Article II, RA 9165]

In case any violation of this Act is committed by a
partnership, corporation, association or any juridical
entity, the partner, president, director, manager,
trustee, estate administrator, or officer who
consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation
shall be held criminally liable as a co-principal.
[Section 30, Article II, RA 9165]

In addition to the penalties prescribed in the
unlawful act committed, any alien who violates such
provisions of this Act shall, after service of sentence,
be deported immediately without further
proceedings, unless the penalty is death. [Section
31, Article II, RA 9165]

Accessory Penalties: A person convicted under this
Act shall be disqualified to exercise his/her civil
rights such as but not limited to:
(1) the rights of parental authority or
guardianship, either as to the person or
property of any ward
(2) the rights to dispose of such property by
any act or any conveyance inter vivos,
(3) and political rights such as but not limited
to,
(4) the right to vote and be voted for.
(5) Such rights shall also be suspended during
the pendency of an appeal from such
conviction. [Section 35, Article II, RA 9165]

32 possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale
thereof, except where the seller is further
apprehended in possession of another quantity of the
prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the
sale and which are probably intended for some
future dealings or use by the seller. [People v.
Lacerna]

Art. 36 (f), concerning mandatory drug testing for all
persons charged with crimes is declared
unconstitutional because it violates the right against
self-incrimination.

Art 36 (g), concerning mandatory drug testing for
candidates for public office is also unconstitutional.
[SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board]

C. Definition of Important Terms

Dangerous drugs: include those listed
(1) in the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended
by the 1972 Protocol, and
(2) in the Schedules annexed to the 1971 Single
Convention on Psychotropic Substances as
enumerated in the attached annex which is
an integral part of this Act. [Section 3 (j),
RA 9165]

Chemical Diversion: The sale, distribution, supply or
transport of legitimately imported, in-transit,
manufactured or procured controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, in diluted, mixtures, or in
concentrated form, to any person or entity engaged
in the manufactured of any dangerous drugs, and
shall include packaging, labelling, or concealment of
such transaction.

Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals:
Include those listed in Tables I and II of the 188 UN
Convention Against Illicit traffic in Narcotics Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances.

D. Other Important Points

May a drug dependent who is found guilty of the
use of dangerous drugs voluntarily submit himself
for treatment and rehabilitation? Yes. The drug
dependent may, by himself/herself or through
his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within
the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, apply
to the Board or its duly recognized representative,
for treatment and rehabilitation of the drug
dependency.

Upon such application, the Board shall bring forth
the matter to the Court which shall order that the
applicant be examined for drug dependency (Section
54, Article VIII, RA 9165).

Is there also compulsory confinement? Yes.
Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to the
contrary, any person determined and found to be
dependent on dangerous drugs shall, upon petition
by the Board or any of its authorized representative,
be confined for treatment and rehabilitation in any
Center duly designated or accredited for the
purpose.

A petition for the confinement of a person alleged to
be dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center may
be filed by any person authorized by the Board with
the Regional Trial Court of the province or city

184
where such person is found. (Section 61, Article VIII,
RA 9165).

How long will the drug dependent be confined for
treatment and rehabilitation? Confinement in a
Center for treatment and rehabilitation shall not
exceed one (1) year, after which time the Court, as
well as the Board, shall be apprised by the head of
the treatment and rehabilitation center of the status
of said drug dependent and determine whether
further confinement will be for the welfare of the
drug dependent and his/her family or the community
(Section 54, Article VIII, RA 9165).

How will a drug dependent who is under the
voluntary submission program and is finally
discharged from confinement in the Center be
exempt from criminal liability?

(1) He/she has complied with the rules and
regulations of the center, the applicable
rules and regulations of the Board, including
the after-care and follow-up program for at
least eighteen (18) months following
temporary discharge from confinement in
the Center
(2) He/she has never been charged or
convicted of any offense punishable under
this Act, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 or
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended; the
Revised Penal Code, as amended; or any
special penal laws
(3) He/she has no record of escape from a
Center
(4) He/she poses no serious danger to
himself/herself, his/her family or the
community by his/her exemption from
criminal liability (Section 55, Article VIII,
RA 916)

What are the functions of the Dangerous Drugs
Board?

(1) Be the policy-making and strategy-
formulating body in the planning and
formulation of policies and programs on
drug prevention and control.
(2) Develop and adopt a comprehensive,
integrated, unified and balanced national
drug abuse prevention and control strategy.
(3) Be under the Office of the President.
(Section 77, Article IX, RA 9165)

What is the PDEA? The PDEA is the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency. It serves as the implementing
arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board. It shall be
responsible for the efficient and effective law
enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical as provided in this Act. (Section 82, Article
IX, RA 916)

Title VI. Crimes against Public
Morals

CHAPTER I: Gambling and Betting
(1) Gambling (Art 195)
(2) Importation, sale and possession of lottery
tickets or advertisements (Art 196)
(3) Betting in sports contests (Art 197)
(4) Illegal betting on horse races (Art 198)
(5) Illegal cockfighting (Art 199)

CHAPTER II: Offenses against Decency and Good
Customs
(1) Grave Scandal (Art 200)
(2) Immoral doctrines, obscene publications
and exhibitions (Art 201)
(3) Vagrancy and prostitution (Art 202)

A. Chapter I - Gambling and
Betting

0.
1. Article 195 - What Acts Are
Punishable in Gambling

Acts punished:
(1) Taking part directly or indirectly in
(a) any game of monte, jueteng, or any
other form of lottery, policy, banking,
or percentage game, dog races, or any
other game or scheme the results of
which depend wholly or chiefly upon
chance or hazard; or wherein wagers
consisting of money, articles of value,
or representative of value are made; or
(b) the exploitation or use of any other
mechanical invention or contrivance to
determine by chance the loser or
winner of money or any object or
representative of value;
(2) Knowingly permitting any form of gambling
to be carried on in any place owned or
controlled by the offender;
(3) Being maintainer, conductor, or banker in a
game of jueteng or similar game;
(4) Knowingly and without lawful purpose
possessing lottery list, paper, or other
matter containing letters, figures, signs or
symbol which pertain to or are in any
manner used in the game of jueteng or any
similar game.

The provisions of Art 195-199, PD 483 and 449 are
repealed insofar as they are inconsistent with PD
1602, which provides for stiffer penalties for violation
of Gambling Laws.

Gambling: any game of chance or scheme, whether
upon chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of
money, articles or value or representative or value
are at stake or made.

185
Spectators are not liable in gambling, because they
do not take part directly or indirectly.

Before, the Revised Penal Code considered the skill
of the player in classifying whether a game is
gambling or not. But under the new gambling law,
the skill of the players is immaterial.

Even sports contents like boxing, would be gambling
insofar as those who are betting therein are
concerned.

Lottery
Definition: It is a scheme for the distribution of
prizes by chance among persons who have paid or
agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for the
chance to obtain a prize.

Elements:
(1) Consideration
(2) Chance
(3) Prize or some advantage or inequality in
amount or value which is in the nature of a
prize

There is no lottery when the person gets the full
value for his money.

Illustration: A package of cigarette sold at P0.30
each includes a coupon which may allow the buyer
to win a gold watch. This is not lottery. Winning the
watch is only a bonus.

Criteria to determine if lottery is already
gambling:
(1) If the public is made to pay not only for the
merchandise that he is buying, but also for
the chance to win a prize out of the lottery.
(2) Public is made to pay a higher price.
(3) If the merchandise is not saleable because
of its inferior quality, so that the public
actually does not buy them, but with the
lottery the public starts patronizing such
merchandise.
(4) In effect, the public is paying for the lottery
and not for the merchandise, and therefore
the lottery is a gambling game.
(5) Public is not made to pay a higher price.

The maintainer or conductor in a gambling game is
likewise punished.

Maintainer: A person who sets up and furnishes the
means with which to carry on the gambling game or
scheme.

Conductor: A person who manages or carries on the
gambling game or scheme.

To be prosecuted for possessing a jueteng list, proof
that the game took place or is about to take place is
not necessary.

2. Article 196 - Importation, Sale and
Possession of Lottery Tickets or
Advertisements

Acts punished:
(1) Importing into the Philippines from any
foreign place or port any lottery ticket or
advertisement; or
(2) Selling or distributing the same in
connivance with the importer;
(3) Possessing, knowingly and with intent to use
them, lottery tickets or advertisements; or
(4) Selling or distributing the same without
connivance with the importer of the same.
[Reyes]

The possession of any lottery ticket or advertisement
is prima facie evidence of intent to sell, distribute or
use the same in the Philippines.

3. Article 197 Betting in Sports
contents

This article (Art. 197) has been repealed by
Presidential Decree No. 483 (Betting, Game-fixing or
Point-shaving and Machinations in Sport Contests)

Sec 2. Betting, game-fixing, point-shaving or game
machination unlawful. Game-fixing, point-shaving,
game machination, as defined in the preceding
section, in connection with the games of basketball,
volleyball, softball, baseball; chess, boxing bouts,
jai-alia, sipa, pelota and all other sports contests,
games or races; as well as betting therein except as
may be authorized by law, is hereby declared
unlawful.

Betting: betting money or any object or article of
value or representative of value upon the result of
any game, races and other sport contests.

Game-fixing: any arrangement, combinations,
scheme or agreement by which the result of any
game, races or sport contests shall be predicated
and/or known other than on the basis of the honest
playing skill or ability of the players or participants.

Point-shaving: any such arrangement, combination,
scheme or agreement by which the skill of ability of
any player or participant in a game, races or sports
contests to make points or scores shall be limited
deliberately in order to influence the result thereof
in favor one or the other team, player or participant
therein.

Game machinations: any other fraudulent, deceitful,
unfair or dishonest means, methods, manner or
practice employed for the purpose of influencing the
result of any game, races or sports contest.

4. Article 198 - Illegal Betting on
Horse Race

186
Acts punished:
(1) Betting on horse races during periods not
allowed by law;
(2) Maintaining or employing a totalizer or
other device or scheme for betting on races
or realizing profit therefrom during the
periods not allowed by law. [Reyes]

Totalizer: a machine for registering and indicating
the number and nature of bets made on horse races.

Maintaining or employing a totalizer aggravates the
liability of offenders.

When horse races are not allowed:
(1) July 4 (Republic Act No. 137);
(2) December 30 (Republic Act No. 229);
(3) Any registration or voting days (Republic
Act No. 180, Revised Election Code); and
(4) Holy Thursday and Good Friday (Republic
Act No. 946).

Any race held on the same day and at the same
place shall be held punishable as a separate offense.

5. Article 199 (as amended by PD
449)

Acts Punished:
(1) Any person who, directly or indirectly,
participates in cockfights by betting money
or other valuable things in a day other than
those permitted by law.
(2) Any person, who, directly or indirectly,
organizes cockfights at which bets are
made in a day other than those permitted
by law.
(3) Any person, directly or indirectly,
participates in cockfights, by betting
money or other valuable things at a place
other than a licensed cockpit.
(4) Any person, who, directly or indirectly,
organizes cockfights at which bets are
made at a place other than a licensed
cockpit.
(5) Owner, manager, or lessee of the cockpit
who shall permit gambling of any kind on
the premises of the cockpit or place of
cockfighting during cockfights.

Cockfighting allowed on the following dates:
(1) Sundays
(2) Legal holidays
(3) During local fiestas for not more than three
days
(4) During provincial, municipal, city,
industrial, agricultural fairs, carnivals, or
exposition not more than three days

Cockfighting not allowed on:
(1) Rizal Day (December 30)
(2) Independence Day (June 12)
(3) National Heroes Day (November 30)
(4) Holy Thursday
(5) Good Friday
(6) Election or Referendum Day
(7) Registration days for referendums and
elections

Only municipal and city mayors are allowed to issue
licenses for such.

This decree does not punish a person attending as a
spectator in a cockfight. To be liable, he must
participate as a bettor.

B. Chapter II. Offenses against
Decency and Good Customs

0.
1. Article 200 - Grave Scandal

Elements:
(1) Offender performs an act or acts;
(2) Such act or acts be highly scandalous as
offending against decency or good customs;
(3) The highly scandalous conduct is not
expressly falling within any other article of
this Code; and
(4) The act or acts complained of be committed
in a public place or within the public
knowledge or view. (Reyes)

Decency: means proprietary of conduct; proper
observance of the requirements of modesty, good
taste, etc.

Customs: established usage, social conventions
carried on by tradition and enforced by social
disapproval of any violation thereof.

Grave Scandal: consists of acts which are offensive
to decency and good customs which, having
committed publicly, have given rise to public scandal
to persons who have accidentally witnessed the
same.

The acts must be performed in a public place or
within the public knowledge or view. If it is
committed in a private place, the crime of grave
scandal is not committed.

In conducts involving lasciviousness, it is grave
scandal only where there is mutual consent. (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)

Any act which is notoriously offensive to decency
may bring about criminal liability for the crime of
grave scandal, Provided such act does not constitute
some other crime under the Revised Penal Code.
Grave scandal is a crime of last resort.

2. Article 201 - Immoral Doctrines,
Obscene Publications and
Exhibitions and Indecent Shows

Acts punished (as amended by PD No. 960, 969)
(1) Those who shall publicly expound or
proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals;

187
(2) The authors of obscene literature,
published with their knowledge in any form,
(3) The editors publishing such literature;
(4) The owners/operators of the establishment
selling the same;
(5) Those who, in theaters, fairs,
cinematographs, or any other place, exhibit
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts, or
shows,

it being understood that the obscene literature or
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows,
whether live or in film, which are proscribed by
virtue hereof, shall include those which:
(a) glorify criminals or condone
crimes;
(b) serve no other purpose but to
satisfy the market for violence,
lust or pornography;
(c) offend any race, or religion;
(d) tend to abet traffic in and use of
prohibited drugs; and
(e) are contrary to law, public order,
morals, good customs, established
policies, lawful orders, decrees
and edicts
(6) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit
films, prints, engravings, sculpture or
literature which are offensive to morals.

MORALS: imply conformity with the generally
accepted standards of goodness or rightness in
conduct or character, sometimes, specifically, to
sexual conduct.

Offense in any of the forms mentioned in the article
is committed only when there is publicity

The test of obscenity:
(1) The test is objective.
(2) It is more on the effect upon the viewer and
not alone on the conduct of the performer.
(3) If the material has the tendency to deprave
and corrupt the mind of the viewer then the
same is obscene and where such obscenity
is made publicly, criminal liability arises.
(4) As long as the pornographic matter or
exhibition is made privately, there is no
crime committed under the Revised Penal
Code because what is protected is the
morality of the public in general.

Jurisprudence:

Postcards of Philippine inhabitants in native attire
were not obscene because the aggregate judgment
of the community, and the moral sense of the
people were not shocked by those pictures. They
were not offensive to chastity but merely depicted
persons as they actually lived. [People v Kottinger
(1923)]

The reaction of the public during the performance of
a dance by one who had nothing to cover herself
with, except nylon patches over her breasts and too
abbreviated pair of nylon panties to interrupt her
stark nakedness should be made the gauge in the
determination of whether the dance or exhibition
was indecent or immoral. [People v Aparici (1955)]

An actual exhibition of the sexual act can have no
redeeming featureno room for art. Therefore, it is
a clear and unmitigated obscenity. [People v Padan
(1957)]

3. Article 202 - Vagrancy and
Prostitution

Persons Liable:
(1) Any person having no apparent means of
subsistence, who has the physical ability to
work and who neglects to apply himself or
herself to some lawful calling;
(2) Any person found loitering about public or
semi-public buildings or places or trampling
or wandering about the country or the
streets without visible means of support;
(3) Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in
houses of ill fame; ruffians or pimps and
those who habitually associate with
prostitutes;
(4) Any person who, not being included in the
provisions of other articles of this Code,
shall be found loitering in any inhabited or
uninhabited place belonging to another
without any lawful or justifiable purpose;
and
(5) Prostitutes

Prostitutes: women who, for money or profit
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct

Dissolute: lax, unrestrained, immoral

Ruffian: brutal, violent, lawless persons

Pimp: One who provides gratification for the lust of
others

Even millionaires or one who has more than enough
for his livelihood can commit vagrancy by habitually
associating with prostitutes, pimps, ruffians, or by
habitually lodging in houses of ill-repute. The
purpose of the law is not simply to punish a person
because he has no means of livelihood; it is to
prevent further criminality.

Any person found wandering in an estate belonging
to another whether public or private without any
lawful purpose also commits vagrancy, unless his
acts constitutes some other crime in the Revised
Penal Code.

The term prostitution is applicable to a woman who
for profit or money habitually engages in sexual or
lascivious conduct.

A man, if he engages in the same conduct sex for
money is not a prostitute, but a vagrant.

188

In law, the mere indulging in lascivious conduct
habitually because of money or gain would amount
to prostitution, even if there is no sexual
intercourse. Virginity is not a defense.

Habituality is the controlling factor; it has to be
more than one time.

There cannot be prostitution by conspiracy. One who
conspires with a woman in the prostitution business
like pimps, taxi drivers or solicitors of clients are
guilty of the crime under Article 341 for white
slavery.

See Special Law: PD 1563 (Mendicancy Law of 1978)

Under the Mendicancy Law of 1978 (PD 1563),
(1) one who has no visible and legal means of
support, or lawful employment
(2) and who is physically able to work but
neglects to apply himself to some lawful
calling
(3) and instead uses begging as a means of
living,
(4) is a mendicant.

Any person who abets mendicancy by giving alms
directly to mendicants, exploited infants and minors
on public roads, sidewalks, parks and bridges shall
be punished by a fine.

See Special Law: RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act)

Note Sec. 17: Persons trafficked (including
prostitutes) are exempt from criminal liability.

Note also: Under RA 9208, persons who hire
trafficked persons are criminally liable. Not so in Art
202 RPC.

Title VII. Crimes Committed by
Public Officers

Chapter 1: Preliminary Provisions
(1) Article 203 - Who Are Public Officers

Chapter 2: Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office
(1) Article 204 - Knowingly Rendering Unjust
Judgment
(2) Article 205 - Judgment Rendered Through
Negligence
(3) Article 206 - Unjust Interlocutory Order
(4) Article 207 - Malicious Delay in the
Administration of Justice
(5) Article 208 - Prosecution of Offenses;
Negligence and Tolerance
(6) Article 209 - Betrayal of Trust by an
Attorney or a Solicitor - Revelation of
Secrets
(7) Article 210 - Direct Bribery
(8) Article 211 - Indirect Bribery
(9) Article 211-A - Qualified Bribery
(10) Article 212 - Corruption of Public Officials
(11) Article 214 - Other Frauds

Chapter 3: Frauds and Illegal Exactions and
Transactions
(1) Article 213 - Fraud against the Public
Treasury and Similar Offenses
(2) Article 215 - Prohibited Transactions
(3) Article 216 - Possession of Prohibited
Interest by a Public Officer

Chapter 4: Malversation of Public Funds and
Properties
(1) Article 217 - Malversation of Public Funds or
Property - Presumption of Malversation
(2) Article 218 - Failure of Accountable Officer
to Render Accounts
(3) Article 219 - Failure of a Responsible Public
Officer to Render Accounts Before Leaving
the Country
(4) Article 220 - Illegal Use of Public Funds or
Property
(5) Article 221 - Failure to Make Delivery of
Public Funds or Property
(6) Article 222 - Officers Included in the
Preceding Provisions

Chapter 5: Infidelity of Public Officers
(1) Article 223 - Conniving With or Consenting
to Evasion
(2) Article 224 - Evasion through Negligence
(3) Article 225 - Escape of Prisoner under the
Custody of a Person Not a Public Officer
(4) Article 226 - Removal, Concealment, or
Destruction of Documents
(5) Article 227 - Officer Breaking Seal
(6) Article 228 - Opening of Closed Documents
(7) Article 229 - Revelation of Secrets by an
Officer
(8) Article 230 - Public Officers Revealing
Secrets of Private Individuals

Chapter 6: Other Offenses and Irregularities by

189
Public Officers
(1) Article 231 - Open Disobedience
(2) Article 232 - Disobedience to the Order of
Superior Officer When Said Order Was
Suspended by Inferior Officer
(3) Article 233 - Refusal of Assistance
(4) Article 234 - Refusal to Discharge Elective
Office
(5) Article 235 - Maltreatment of Prisoners
(6) Article 236 - Anticipation of Duties of a
Public Officer
(7) Article 237 - Prolonging Performance of
Duties and Powers
(8) Article 238 - Abandonment of Office or
Position
(9) Article 239 - Usurpation of Legislative
Powers
(10) Article 240 - Usurpation of Executive
Functions
(11) Article 241 - Usurpation of Judicial
Functions
(12) Article 242 - Disobeying Request for
Disqualification
(13) Article 243 - Orders or Request by Executive
Officer to Any Judicial Authority
(14) Article 244 - Unlawful Appointments
(15) Article 245 - Abuses against Chastity

Remember:
This is one of the instances where the Revised Penal
Code may be given extra-territorial application
under Article 2 (5) thereof.

Crimes under this title can be committed by public
officers or a non-public officer, when the latter
become a conspirator with a public officer, or an
accomplice, or accessory to the crime. The public
officer has to be the principal.

A. Chapter I: Preliminary
Provisions

4.
5. Article 203 - Who Are Public
Officers

Requisites:
(1) Taking part in the performance of public
functions in the government;
(2) Performing in said government or in any of
its branches public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official, or any rank or
class;
(3) His authority to take part in the
performance of public functions or to
perform public duties must be
(a) By direct provision of the law;
(b) By popular election; or
(c) By appointment by competent
authority.

The term public officers embraces every public
servant from the highest to lowest.

Officers and employees of government owned and
controlled corporations included but not those of a
sequestered corporation.

The better rule is that GOCCs created by law are
covered while GOCCs registered with the SEC
(including sequestered companies) are not.
[Macalino v. Sandiganbayan]

The more recent case of People v. Sandiganbayan
held that, based on RA 8249, presidents, directors,
trustees, and managers of all GOCCs, regardless of
type, are subject to the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan when they are involved in graft and
corruption.

B. Chapter II: Malfeasance and
Misfeasance in Office

Malfeasance
(see Arts 210 and
211)
Doing of an act which a
public officer should not
have done
Misfeasance (see
Arts 204 to 207)
Improper doing of an act
which a person might
lawfully do
Nonfeasance (see Art
208)
Failure of an agent to
perform his undertaking for
the principal
0.
1. Article 204 - Knowingly Rendering
Unjust Judgment

Elements:
(1) Offender is a judge;
(2) He renders a judgment in a case submitted
to him for decision;
(3) Judgment is unjust;
(4) The judge knows that his judgment is
unjust.

Defense: Mere error in good faith.

There must be positive evidence imputing an unjust
judgment; presumption will not suffice.

The offense refers only to a judgment of an
individual judge in his court, and not to the
judgment rendered in a collegial court by the
members thereof [In Re: Wenceslao Laureta (1987)]

Before a criminal action against a judge for violation
of Articles 204 and 205 can be entertained, there
must be a trial or authoritative judicial declaration
that his decision or order is really unjust which may
result from either an action of certiorari or
prohibition in a higher court. [De Vera v. Pelayo
(2000)]

2. Article 205 - Judgment Rendered
Through Negligence

Elements:

190
(2) He renders a judgment in a case submitted
to him for decision;
(3) The judgment is manifestly unjust;
(4) It is due to his inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.

A manifestly unjust judgment is one which is so
manifestly contrary to law that even a person having
basic knowledge of the law cannot doubt the
injustice.

The Supreme Court held that a judgment is said to
be unjust when it is contrary to the standards of
conduct prescribed by law.

The test to determine whether an order or judgment
is unjust may be inferred from the circumstances
that it is contrary to law or is not supported by
evidence. [Louis Vuitton SA v. Judge Villanueva]

3. Article 206 - Unjust Interlocutory
Order

Elements:
(2) He performs any of the following acts:
(a) Knowingly rendering an unjust
interlocutory order or decree; or
(b) Rendering a manifestly unjust
interlocutory order or decree through
inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

If the order leaves something to be done in the trial
court with respect to the merits of the case, it is
interlocutory. If it does not, it is final.

The unjust interlocutory order must have been
issued by the judge with deliberate intent to cause
damage to the party concerned.

4. Article 207 - Malicious Delay in
the Administration of Justice

Elements:
(2) There is a proceeding in his court;
(3) He delays in the administration of justice;
(4) The delay is malicious, that is, with
deliberate intent to inflict damage on
either party in the case.

Malice must be proven. Malice is present where the
delay is sought to favor one party to the prejudice of
the other.

5. Article 208 - Prosecution of
Offenses; Negligence and
Tolerance

Mode 1. Maliciously refraining from instituting
prosecution against violators of the law;
Mode 2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of
offenses.

Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or officer of the
law who has a duty to cause the prosecution
of, or to prosecute, offenses;
(2) There is a dereliction of the duties of his
office, that is, knowing the commission of
the crime, he does not cause the
prosecution of the criminal, or knowing that
a crime is about to be committed, he
tolerates its commission;
(3) Offender acts with malice and deliberate
intent to favor the violator of the law.

This crime can only be committed by a public officer
whose official duty is to prosecute offenders. Ex.
Chief of police, barrio captain and fiscal.

The crime committed by the law violator must be
proved first. [US v. Mendoza]

Also known as prevaricacion.

6. Article 209 Betrayal of Trust by
an Attorney or a Solicitor
Revelation of Secrets

Elements:
(1) Causing damage to his client, either
(a) By any malicious breach of professional
duty;
(b) By inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
(2) Revealing any of the secrets of his client
learned by him in his professional capacity
(damage is not necessary);
(3) Undertaking the defense of the opposing
party in the same case, without the consent
of his first client,
(a) after having undertaken the defense of
said first client, or
(b) after having received confidential
information from said client.

When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of his
employment or inexcusable negligence or ignorance,
there must be damage to his client.

Communications made with prospective clients to a
lawyer with a view to engaging his professional
services are already privileged even though the
client-lawyer relationship did not eventually
materialize.

The confidential matters or information must be
confided to the lawyer in the latters professional
capacity.

Mere malicious breach without damage is not a
violation of Article 209; at most he will be liable
administratively as a lawyer, e.g., suspension or
disbarment under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Modes of Commission:

191
(1) Maliciously causing damage to his client
through a breach of his professional duty.

Note: The breach of professional duty must
be malicious. If it is just incidental, it
would not give rise to criminal liability,
although it may be the subject of
administrative discipline;

(2) Through gross ignorance, causing damage to
the client;
(3) Inexcusable negligence;
(4) Revelation of secrets learned in his
professional capacity;
(5) Undertaking the defense of the opposite
party in a case without the consent of the
first client whose defense has already been
undertaken.

The Supreme Court held that not all information
received by counsel from client is classified as
privileged.

A distinction must be made between confidential
communications relating to past crimes already
committed, and future crimes intended to be
committed by the client. [People v. Sandiganbayan]

7. Article 210 - Direct Bribery
(asked 6 times)

Mode 1. Agreeing to perform, or performing,
in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift or present; an act
constituting a crime, in connection
with the performance of his official
duties;
Mode 2. Accepting a gift in consideration of
the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime, in connection
with the performance of his official
duty;
Mode 3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining,
from doing something which is his
official duty to do, in consideration
of gift or promise.

Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer within the scope
of Article 203;
(2) Offender accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or
through another;
(3) Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift
or present received by the public officer
(a) With a view to committing some crime;
or
(b) In consideration of the execution of an
act which does not constitute a crime,
but the act must be unjust; or
(c) To refrain from doing something which
it is his official duty to do.
(4) The act which offender agrees to perform
or which he executes be connected with the
performance of his official duties.

The crime of bribery has no frustrated stage. If one
party does not concur, then there is no agreement
and not all the acts necessary to commit the crime
were present.

Temporary performance of public functions is
sufficient to constitute a person a public officer.

Bribery exists when the gift is:
(1) voluntarily offered by a private person;
(2) solicited by the public officer and
voluntarily delivered by the private person;
(3) solicited by the public officer but the
private person delivers it out of fear of the
consequences should the public officer
perform his functions (here the crime by
the giver does not fall under corruption of
public officials due to the involuntariness of
the act).

In the FIRST MODE of bribery, actual receipt of the
gift is not necessary.

An accepted offer or promise of a gift is sufficient.
However, if the offer is not accepted, only the
person offering the gift is liable for attempted
corruption of a public officer.

In the SECOND MODE of bribery, the gift must be
accepted by the public officer.

The GIFT must have a value or capable of pecuniary
estimation. It could be in the form of money,
property or services. It cannot consist of a mere
offer or promise of a gift.

If the act required of the public officer amounts to a
crime and he commits it, he shall be liable for the
penalty corresponding to the crime.

The THIRD MODE of bribery and prevaricacion (art
208) are similar offenses, both consisting of omission
of an act required to be performed.

In direct bribery however, a gift or promise is given
in consideration of the omission. This is not
necessary in prevaricacion.

Direct bribery does not absorb Art. 208 (dereliction
of duty). See Qualified Bribery (211-A)

Police Sergeant Malfrosque asked and accepted
money in exchange for the recovery of the reported
stolen gas tanks to the owners.

This made him liable under the 2nd mode of Art 210
since in the act of returning the gas tanks to the
owners does not constitute a crime; he demanded
money and said act was in connection with the
performance of his duty as a policeman. [People v.
Malfrosque (2004)]

8. Article 211 - Indirect Bribery
(asked twice)

192

Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He accepts gifts;
(3) The gifts are offered to him by reason of his
office.

The principal distinction between direct and
indirect bribery is that in the former, the officer
agrees to perform or refrain from doing an act in
consideration of the gift or promise.

In the latter case, it is not necessary that the officer
do any act. It is sufficient that he accepts the gift
offered by reason of his office.

If after receiving the gift, the officer does any act in
favor of the giver which is unfair to the others, the
crime continues to be indirect bribery.

Precisely the evil of indirect bribery is in its
tendency to produce future, unspecified, and
unwarranted favors from the official.

This is always in the consummated stage. There is
no attempted much less frustrated stage in indirect
bribery.

There must be clear intention on the part of the
public officer:
(1) to take the gift offered and
(2) consider the property as his own for that
moment.

Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other
sign, circumstance or act to show such acceptance is
not sufficient to convict the officer.

Public officers receiving gifts and private persons
giving gifts on any occasion, including Christmas are
liable under PD 46.

9. Article 211-A - Qualified Bribery

Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer entrusted with
law enforcement;
(2) He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
death;
(3) Offender refrains from arresting or
prosecuting in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift, or present.

The crime of qualified bribery may be committed
only by public officers entrusted with enforcement
(those whose official duties authorize them to arrest
or prosecute offenders).

The penalty is qualified if the public officer is the
one who asks or demands such present.

If the penalty imposed is lower than reclusion
perpetua and/or death had the offender been
arrested or the crime prosecuted, the crime is direct
bribery.

The dereliction of the duty punished under Article
208 of the Revised Penal Code is absorbed in
Qualified Bribery.

Dacumas v. Sandiganbayan expanded the meaning of
official duties. It included those which may be in
ones capacity to perform by reason of his office.

10. Article 212 - Corruption of
Public Officials
(asked 4 times)

Elements:
(1) Offender makes offers or promises or gives
gifts or presents to a public officer;
(2) The offers or promises are made or the gifts
or presents given to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public
officer liable for direct bribery or indirect
bribery.

The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror of
the promise.

The act may or may not be accomplished.

The following are the SPECIAL LAWS related to the
prosecution and punishment of GRAFT and
CORRUPTION:
(1) PD No. 749
(2) RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act)
(3) RA 7080 (Anti-Plunder Act)
(4) RA 1379 (FORFEITURE OF ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH)
(5) PD NO. 46
(6) RA 6713: Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees

C. Chapter III: Frauds and Illegal
Exactions and Transactions
0.
1. Article 213 - Fraud against the
Public Treasury and Similar
Offenses
(asked twice)

Mode 1 Entering into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or
making use of any other scheme, to
defraud the government, in dealing
with any person with regard to
furnishing supplies, the making of
contracts, or the adjustment or
settlement of accounts relating to
public property or funds;

Mode 2 Demanding, directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or
larger than those authorized by law,
in collection of taxes, licenses, fees,
and other imposts;

193

Mode 3 Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt,
as provided by law, for any sum of
money collected by him officially, in
the collection of taxes, licenses, fees
and other imposts;

Mode 4 Collecting or receiving, directly or
indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise, things or objects of a
nature different from that provided
by law, in the collection of taxes,
licenses, fees and other imposts.

Elements of Fraud against Public Treasury (par.1):
(2) That he should have taken advantage of his
public office, that is, he intervened in the
transaction in his official capacity
(3) That he entered into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or made use
of any other scheme with regard to:
(a) Furnishing supplies
(b) The making of contracts
(c) The adjustment or settlement of
accounts relating to public property or
funds

Consummated by merely entering into agreement
with any interested party or speculator or by merely
making use of other scheme to defraud the
government.

It is not necessary that the Government is actually
defrauded by the reason of the transaction

Elements of Illegal Exactions (par.2.):
entrusted with the collection of taxes,
licenses, fees and other imports;
(2) He is guilty of the following acts or
omissions:
(a) Demanding directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums of different from or
larger than those authorized by law;
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt as
provided by law, for ay sum of money
collected by him officially; or
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or
indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise, things or object of a nature
different from that provided by law

This can only be committed principally by a public
officer whose official duty is to collect taxes, license
fees, import duties and other dues payable to the
government.

Mere demand of a larger or different amount is
sufficient to consummate the crime. The essence is
the improper collection (damage to government is
not required).

The act of receiving payment due the government
without issuing a receipt will give rise to illegal
exaction even though a provisional receipt has been
issued. What the law requires is a receipt in the
form prescribed by law, which means official
receipt.

If sums are received without demanding the same, a
felony under this article is not committed.
However, if the sum is given as a sort of gift or
gratification, the crime is indirect bribery.

When there is deceit in demanding a greater fee
than those prescribed by law, the crime committed
is estafa and not illegal exaction.

Illegal exaction may be complexed with malversation
if illegal exaction was committed as a necessary
means to commit malversation.

Officers and employees of the BIR or Customs are
not covered by the article. The NIRC or the Revised
Administrative Code is the applicable law.

2. Article 214 - Other Frauds

Elements:
(2) He takes advantage of his official position;
(3) He commits any of the frauds or deceits
enumerated in Article 315 to 318 (estafa,
other forms of swindling, swindling a
minor, other deceits).

Additional penalty of temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
special disqualification, apart from the penalties
imposed in Arts 315-318.

3. Article 215 - Prohibited
Transactions

Elements:
(1) Offender is an appointive public officer;
(2) He becomes interested, directly or
indirectly, in any transaction of exchange or
speculation;
(3) The transaction takes place within the
territory subject to his jurisdiction;
(4) He becomes interested in the transaction
during his incumbency.

Examples of transactions of exchange or speculation
are: buying and selling stocks, commodities, land etc
wherein one hopes to take advantage of an expected
rise or fall in price

Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simple
investment and not a violation of the article.
However, regularly buying securities for resale is
speculation.

The offender may also be held liable under RA 3019
Sec 3(i). (infra)

194
4. Article 216 - Possession of
Prohibited Interest by a Public
Officer

Persons liable:
(1) Public officer who, directly or indirectly,
became interested in any contract or
business in which it was his official duty to
intervene;
(2) Experts, arbitrators, and private
accountants who, in like manner, took part
in any contract or transaction connected
with the estate or property in the appraisal,
distribution or adjudication of which they
had acted;
(3) Guardians and executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or the
estate.

Fraud is not necessary. Intervention must be by
virtue of the public office held.

The basis here is the possibility that fraud may be
committed or that the officer may place his own
interest above that of the government or party he
represents.

D. Chapter IV: Malversation of
Public Funds or Property

0.
1. Article 217 - Malversation of
Public Funds or Property -
Presumption of Malversation
(asked 14 times)

Mode 1. Appropriating public funds or property;

Mode 2. Taking or misappropriating the same;

Mode 3. Consenting, or through abandonment or
negligence, permitting any other
person to take such public funds or
property; and

Mode 4. Being otherwise guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of
such funds or property.

Elements common to all modes:
(2) He had the custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his
office;
(3) Those funds or property were public funds
or property for which he was accountable;
(4) He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to
take them.

Malversation is also called embezzlement.

The public officer must have official custody or the
duty to collect or receive funds due the government,
or the obligation to account for them.

It is not necessary that the offender profited for as
long as the accountable officer was remiss in his
duty of safekeeping public funds or property. He is
liable for malversation if such funds were lost or
otherwise misappropriated by another.

It can be committed either with malice or through
negligence or imprudence. This is one crime in the
Revised Penal Code where the penalty is the same
whether committed with dolo or through culpa.

The nature of the duties of the public officer, not
the name of the office, is controlling. The funds or
property must be received in an official capacity.
Otherwise, the crime committed is estafa.

If the public officer is not accountable for the funds
or property but someone else is, the crime
committed is theft or qualified theft if there is an
abuse of confidence.

Returning the malversed funds is not exempting, it is
only mitigating.

A person whose negligence made possible the
commission of malversation by another can be held
liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation

Demand as well as damage to the government are
not necessary elements

A private person may also commit malversation
under the following situations:
(1) Conspiracy with a public officer in
committing malversation;
(2) When he has become an accomplice or
accessory to a public officer who commits
malversation;
(3) When the private person is made the
custodian in whatever capacity of public
funds or property, whether belonging to
national or local government, and he
misappropriates the same;
(4) When he is constituted as the depositary or
administrator of funds or property seized or
attached by public authority even though
said funds or property belong to a private
individual.

Technical malversation (Art. 220) (infra) is not
included in the crime of malversation.

Presumption of misappropriation: When a demand
is made upon an accountable officer and he cannot
produce the fund or property involved, there is a
prima facie presumption that he had converted the
same to his own use. There must be indubitable
proof that thing unaccounted for exists.

Audit should be made to determine if there was
shortage. Audit must be complete and trustworthy.
If there is doubt, presumption does not arise.

195
The accused incurred shortage (P1.74) mainly
because the auditor disallowed certain cash
advances the accused granted to employees. But on
the same date that the audit was made, he partly
reimbursed the amount and paid it in full three days
later.

The Supreme Court considered the circumstances as
negative of criminal intent. The cash advances were
made in good faith and out of good will to co-
employees which was a practice tolerated in the
office. There was no negligence, malice, nor intent
to defraud. [Quizo v. Sandiganbayan]

Malversation (Art. 217) Estafa with Abuse of
Confidence (Art. 315)
Funds or property usually
public

Funds/property are
always private
Offender is usually a public
officer who is accountable
for the public
funds/property
Offender is a private
individual or even a
public officer who is
not accountable for
public funds/property
Crime is committed by
appropriating, taking, or
misappropriating/consenting
or through abandonment or
negligence, permitting any
other person to take the
public funds/property
Crime is committed
by misappropriating,
converting, or
denying having
received money,
goods or other
personal property
No element of damage.

There is damage.
Demand not necessary. There is a need for
prior demand.

A routine government audit was conducted in Wa-
Acons office and it was discovered that the sacks of
rice entrusted to him for safekeeping were missing.

Art 217 no longer requires proof by the State that
the accused actually appropriated, took, or
misappropriated public funds or property; instead, a
presumption, though disputable and rebuttable, was
installed upon demand by any duly authorized
officer, the failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property which said
officer is accountable for should be prima facie
evidence that he had put such missing funds or
properties to personal use. [People v. Wa-Acon
(2006)]

2. Article 218 - Failure of
Accountable Officer to Render
Accounts

Elements:
(1) Offender is public officer, whether in the
service or separated therefrom by
resignation or any other cause;
(2) He is an accountable officer for public funds
or property;
(3) He is required by law or regulation to
render account to the Commission on Audit,
or to a provincial auditor;
(4) He fails to do so for a period of two months
after such accounts should be rendered.

Demand for accounting is not necessary. It is also not
essential that there be misappropriation because if
present, the crime would be malversation.

3. Article 219 - Failure of a
Responsible Public Officer to
Render Accounts Before Leaving
the Country

Elements:
(2) He is an accountable officer for public funds
or property;
(3) He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave
the Philippine Islands without securing a
certificate from the Commission on Audit
showing that his accounts have been finally
settled.

The purpose of the law is to discourage responsible
or accountable officers from leaving without first
liquidating their accountability. It is not necessary
that they really misappropriated public funds.

4. Article 220 - Illegal Use of Public
Funds or Property

Elements:
(2) There are public funds or property under his
administration;
(3) Such fund or property were appropriated by
law or ordinance;
(4) He applies such public fund or property to
any public use other than for which it was
appropriated for.

Illegal use of public funds or property is also known
as technical malversation. The term technical
malversation is used because in this crime, the fund
or property involved is already appropriated or
earmarked for a certain public purpose.

Regardless of damage or embarrassment to the
public service.

Malversation vs. Technical Malversation
Malversation (Art. 217) Technical malversation
(Art. 220)
The offender
misappropriates public
funds or property for his
own personal use, or
allows any other person
to take such funds or
property for the latters
own personal use.
The public officer
applies the public funds
or property under his
administration to
another public use
different from that for
which the public fund
was appropriated by law

196
or ordinance.

5. Article 221 - Failure to Make
Delivery of Public Funds or
Property

Mode 1. Failing to make payment by a public
officer who is under obligation to make
such payment from government funds
in his possession;

Mode 2. Refusing to make delivery by a public
officer who has been ordered by
competent authority to deliver any
property in his custody or under his
administration.

Elements:
(1) Public officer has government funds in his
possession;
(2) He is under obligation to either:
(a) make payment from such funds;
(b) to deliver any property in his custody or
under his administration
(3) He maliciously fails to make the payment or
refuses to make delivery.
(4) He maliciously fails to make the payment.

6. Article 222 - Officers Included in
the Preceding Provisions

(1) Private individual who, in any capacity,
have charge of any national, provincial or
municipal funds, revenue, or property
(2) Administrator or depositary of funds or
property that has been attached, seized or
deposited by public authority, even if
owned by a private individual.

Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term
administrator. A judicial administrator in charge
of settling the estate of the deceased is not covered
by the article.

E. Chapter V: Infidelity of Public
Officers
0.
1. Article 223 - Conniving With or
Consenting to Evasion

Elements:
(2) He had in his custody or charge a prisoner,
either detention prisoner or prisoner by
final judgment;
(3) Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
(4) He was in connivance with the prisoner in
the latters escape. (shall consent to the
escape)

Classes of prisoners involved
(1) Those who have been sentenced by final
judgment to any penalty;
(2) Detention prisoners who are temporarily
held in custody for any crime or violation of
law or municipal ordinance.

This includes allowing prisoners to sleep and eat in
the officers house or utilizes the prisoners services
for domestic chores.

The release of a detention prisoner who could not be
delivered to judicial authorities within the time
fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a
prisoner.

2. Article 224 - Evasion through
Negligence
(asked 5 times)

Elements:
(2) He is charged with the conveyance or
custody of a prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment;
(3) Such prisoner escapes through negligence.

This covers only positive carelessness and definite
laxity which amounts to deliberate non-performance
of duties.

The fact that the public officer recaptured the
prisoner who had escaped from his custody does not
afford complete exculpation.

The liability of an escaping prisoner:
(1) If he is a prisoner by final judgment, he is
liable for evasion of service (Art. 157)
(2) If he is a detention prisoner, he does not
incur criminal liability (unless cooperating
with the offender).

3. Article 225 - Escape of Prisoner
under the Custody of a Person Not
a Public Officer

Elements:
(1) Offender is a private person;
(2) The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or
person under arrest is confided to him;
(3) The prisoner or person under arrest
escapes;
(4) Offender consents to the escape, or that
the escape takes place through his
negligence.

If the offender who aided or consented to the
prisoners escaping from confinement, whether the
prisoner is a convict or a detention prisoner, is not
the custodian, the crime is delivering prisoners from
jail under Article 156.

197

The party who is not the custodian but who
conspired with the custodian in allowing the prisoner
to escape does not commit infidelity in the custody
of the prisoner.

Art. 225 not applicable if a private person was the
one who made the arrest and he consented to the
escape of the person he arrested.

Policeman Rodillas escorted detained prisoner Sacris
to the court. After the court adjourned he let her
eat lunch with her family, permitted her to go to the
ladies washroom unescorted and after her escape,
did not report it immediately to his superiors,
instead he went around looking for her.

SC held that he is guilty of the crime in Art 224 for
being negligent in the performance of his duties
which made the escape of Sacris possible. [People v.
Rodillas]

4. Article 226 - Removal,
Concealment, or Destruction of
Documents

Elements:
(2) He abstracts, destroys or conceals a
document or papers;
(3) Said document or papers should have been
entrusted to such public officer by reason of
his office;
(4) Damage, whether serious or not, to a third
party or to the public interest has been
caused.

Can only be committed by the public officer who is
made the custodian of the document in his official
capacity.
If the officer was placed in possession of the
document but it is not his duty to be the custodian
thereof, this crime is not committed.

The document must be complete and one by which a
right could be established or an obligation could be
extinguished.

If the writings are mere forms, there is no crime.

Damage to public interest is necessary. However,
material damage is not necessary.

Removal is consummated upon taking or secreting
away of the document from its usual place. It is
immaterial whether or not the illicit purpose of the
offender has been accomplished.

This could cover failure on the part of the post
office to forward the letters to their destination.

Damage in this article may consist in mere alarm to
the public or in the alienation of its confidence in
any branch of the government service.

5. Article 227 - Officer Breaking Seal

Elements:
(2) He is charged with the custody of papers or
property;
(3) These papers or property are sealed by
proper authority;
(4) He breaks the seal or permits them to be
broken.

In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking" should not
be given a literal meaning. Even if actually, the seal
was not broken, because the custodian managed to
open the parcel without breaking the seal.

The element of damage is not required.

6. Article 228 - Opening of Closed
Documents

Elements:
(2) Any closed papers, documents, or objects
are entrusted to his custody;
(3) He opens or permits to be opened said
closed papers, documents or objects;
(4) He does not have proper authority.

The act should not fall under 227. Damage also not
necessary

7. Article 229 - Revelation of Secrets
by an Officer

Mode 1. Revealing any secrets known to the
offending public officer by reason of
his official capacity;

Elements:
(2) He knows of a secret by reason of his
official capacity;
(3) He reveals such secret without authority or
justifiable reasons;
(4) Damage, great or small, is caused to the
public interest.

Mode 2. Wrongfully delivering papers or
copies of papers of which he may
have charge and which should not be
published.

Elements:
(2) He has charge of papers;
(3) Those papers should not be published;
(4) He delivers those papers or copies thereof
to a third person;
(5) The delivery is wrongful;
(6) Damage is caused to public interest.

198
Espionage is not contemplated in this article since
revelation of secrets of the State to a belligerent
nation is already defined in Art 117 and CA 616.

Secrets must affect public interest. Secrets of
private persons are not included.

Charge: means custody or control. If he is merely
entrusted with the papers and not with the custody
thereof, he is not liable under this article.

If the papers contain secrets which should not be
published, and the public officer having charge
thereof removes and delivers them wrongfully to a
third person, the crime is revelation of secrets.

On the other hand, if the papers do not contain
secrets, their removal for an illicit purpose is
infidelity in the custody of documents.

Damage is essential to the act committed.

Revelation Of Secrets
By An Officer (Art. 229)
Removal, Concealment
or Destruction of
Documents (Art. 226)
The papers contain
secrets and therefore
should not be published,
and the public officer
having charge thereof
removes and delivers
them wrongfully to a
third person.
The papers do not
contain secrets but their
removal is for an illicit
purpose.

8. Article 230 - Public Officers
Revealing Secrets of Private
Individuals

Elements:
(2) He knows of the secrets of a private
individual by reason of his office;
(3) He reveals such secrets without authority or
justifiable reason.

Revelation to one person is sufficient.
When the offender is a public attorney or a solicitor,
the act of revealing the secret should not be covered
by Art 209.

Damage to private individual is not necessary.

The reason for this provision is to uphold faith and
trust in public service.

F. Chapter VI: Other Offenses or
Irregularities by Public Officers
0.
1. Article 231 - Open Disobedience

Elements:
(1) Officer is a judicial or executive officer;
(2) There is a judgment, decision or order of a
superior authority;
(3) Such judgment, decision or order was made
within the scope of the jurisdiction of the
superior authority and issued with all the
legal formalities;
(4) He, without any legal justification, openly
refuses to execute the said judgment,
decision or order, which he is duty bound to
obey.
2. Article 232 - Disobedience to the
Order of Superior Officer When
Said Order Was Suspended by
Inferior Officer

Elements:
(2) An order is issued by his superior for
execution;
(3) He has for any reason suspended the
execution of such order;
(4) His superior disapproves the suspension of
the execution of the order;
(5) Offender disobeys his superior despite the
disapproval of the suspension.

This does not apply if the order of the superior is
illegal.

3. Article 233 - Refusal of Assistance

Elements:
(2) A competent authority demands from the
offender that he lend his cooperation
towards the administration of justice or
other public service;
(3) Offender maliciously fails to do so.

The request must come from one public officer to
another. If he receives consideration therefore,
bribery is committed.

But mere demand will fall under the prohibition
under the provision of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

Applies whether or not serious damage to the public
interest was committed.

4. Article 234 - Refusal to Discharge
Elective Office

Elements:
(1) Offender is elected by popular election to a
public office;
(2) He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge
the duties of said office;
(3) There is no legal motive for such refusal to
be sworn in or to discharge the duties of
said office.

Once an individual is elected to an office by the will
of the people, discharge of duties becomes a matter
of duty, not only a right. This only applies for
elective, not appointive officers.

199
5. Article 235 - Maltreatment of
Prisoners

Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
(2) He has under his charge a prisoner or
detention prisoner;
(3) He maltreats such prisoner in either of the
following manners:
(a) By overdoing himself in the correction
or handling of a prisoner or detention
prisoner under his charge either
i. By the imposition of punishment
not authorized by the regulations;
ii. By inflicting such punishments
(those authorized) in a cruel and
humiliating manner;
(b) By maltreating such prisoners to extort
a confession or to obtain some
information from the prisoner.

This is committed only by such public officer charged
with direct custody of the prisoner.

Offender may also be held liable for physical injuries
or damage caused.

If the public officer is not the custodian of the
prisoner, and he manhandles the latter, the crime is
physical injuries.

The offended party can either be a convict by final
judgment or a detention prisoner. To be considered
a detention prisoner, the person arrested must be
placed in jail even for just a short while.

The maltreatment does not really require physical
injuries. Any kind of punishment not authorized or
although authorized if executed in excess of the
prescribed degree.

If the maltreatment was done in order to extort
confession, the penalty is qualified to the next
higher degree.

See: Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. 9372)

6. Article 236 - Anticipation of Duties
of a Public Officer

Elements:
(1) Offender is entitled to hold a public office
or employment, either by election or
appointment;
(2) The law requires that he should first be
sworn in and/or should first give a bond;
(3) He assumes the performance of the duties
and powers of such office;
(4) He has not taken his oath of office and/or
given the bond required by law.

7. Article 237 - Prolonging
Performance of Duties and Powers

Elements:
(1) Offender is holding a public office;
(2) The period provided by law, regulations or
special provision for holding such office, has
already expired;
(3) He continues to exercise the duties and
powers of such office.

The offenders here can be those suspended,
separated, declared over-aged, or dismissed.

8. Article 238 - Abandonment of
Office or Position

Elements:
(2) He formally resigns from his position;
(3) His resignation has not yet been accepted;
(4) He abandons his office to the detriment of
the public service.

For the resignation to be formal, it has to be in
written form.

The offense is qualified when the purpose of the
abandonment is to evade the discharge of duties of
preventing, prosecuting, punishing any of the crimes
falling within Title One and Chapter One of Title
Three of book two of the RPC.

Abandonment of Office
or Position
(Art. 238)
Dereliction of Duty
(Art. 208)
Committed by any public
officer
Committed only by
public officers who have
the duty to institute
prosecution for the
punishment of violations
of the law
There is actual
abandonment through
resignation to evade the
discharge of duties.
Public officer does not
abandon his office but
merely fails to prosecute
a violation of the law.

Legislative Powers

Elements:
(1) Offender is an executive or judicial officer;
(2) That he:
(a) makes general rules or regulations
beyond the scope of his authority; or
(b) attempts to repeal a law; or
(c) suspends the execution thereof.

Arts 239-241 punish interference by public officers of
the executive or judiciary with the functions of
another department of government to keep them
within legitimate confines of their respective
jurisdictions.

200

Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of
powers.

Executive Functions

Elements:
(2) That he:
(a) assumes a power pertaining to the
executive authorities, or
(b) obstructs the executive authorities in
the lawful exercise of their powers.

Judicial Functions

Elements:
(1) Offender is an officer of the executive
branch of the government;
(2) That he:
(a) assumes judicial powers, or
(b) obstructs the execution of any order or
decision rendered by any judge within
his jurisdiction.

12. Article 242 - Disobeying
Request for Disqualification

Elements:
(2) A proceeding is pending before such public
officer;
(3) There is a question brought before the
proper authority regarding his jurisdiction,
which is not yet decided;
(4) He has been lawfully required to refrain
from continuing the proceeding;
(5) He continues the proceeding.

The disobedient officer is liable even if the
jurisdictional question is resolved in his favor.

13. Article 243 - Orders or Request
by Executive Officer to Any
Judicial Authority

Elements:
(1) Offender is an executive officer;
(2) He addresses any order or suggestion to any
judicial authority;
(3) The order or suggestion relates to any case
or business coming within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of justice.

The purpose is to maintain the independence of the
judiciary from executive dictations.

14. Article 244 - Unlawful
Appointments

Elements:
(2) He nominates or appoints a person to a
public office;
(3) Such person lacks the legal qualifications
therefore;
(4) Offender knows that his nominee or
appointee lacks the qualification at the
time he made the nomination or
appointment.

This can also be covered by RA 3019.

Recommending, knowing that the person
recommended is not qualified is not a crime.

There must be a law providing for the qualifications
of a person to be nominated or appointed to a public
office.

15. Article 245 - Abuses against
Chastity

Mode 1. Soliciting or making immoral or
indecent advances to a woman
interested in matters pending before
the offending officer for decision, or
with respect to which he is required to
submit a report to or consult with a
superior officer;

indecent advances to a woman under
the offenders custody;

indecent advances to the wife,
daughter, sister or relative within the
same degree by affinity of any person
in the custody of the offending warden
or officer.

Elements:
(2) He solicits or makes immoral or indecent
advances to a woman;
(3) Such woman is
(a) interested in matters pending before
the offender for decision, or with
respect to which he is required to
submit a report to or consult with a
superior officer; or
(b) under the custody of the offender who
is a warden or other public officer
directly charged with the care and
custody of prisoners or persons under
arrest; or
(c) the wife, daughter, sister or relative
within the same degree by affinity of
the person in the custody of the
offender.

The crime is consummated by mere proposal.

The mother of the person in the custody of the
public officer is not included but the offender may
be prosecuted under the Section 28 of RA 3019 (Anti-

201

If the offender were not the custodian, then crime
would fall under Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-

Solicit: means to propose earnestly and persistently
something unchaste and immoral to a woman. The
advances must be immoral or indecent.

Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is
sexual intercourse.

Abuse against chastity is not absorbed in rape
because the basis of penalizing the acts is different
from each other

See also:
(1) RA 3019: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
(2) RA 7080: Anti-Plunder Act

Title VIII. Crimes against Persons

Chapter I: Destruction of Life
(1) Article 246 Parricide
(2) Article 247 - Death or Physical Injuries
Under Exceptional Circumstances
(3) Article 248 Murder
(4) Article 249 Homicide
(5) Article 250 - Penalty for Frustrated
Parricide, Murder or Homicide
(6) Article 251 - Death Caused in Tumultuous
Affray
(7) Article 252 - Physical Injuries Caused in
Tumultuous Affray
(8) Article 253 - Giving Assistance to Suicide
(9) Article 254 - Discharge of Firearms
(10) Article 255 Infanticide
(11) Article 256 - Intentional Abortion
(12) Article 257 - Unintentional Abortion
(13) Article 258 - Abortion Practiced by the
Woman Herself or by Parents
(14) Article 259 - Abortion by a Physician or
Midwife and Dispensing of Abortives
(15) Article 260 - Responsibility of Participants
in a Duel
(16) Article 261 - Challenging to a Duel

Chapter II: Physical Injuries
(1) Article 262 Mutilation
(2) Article 263 - Serious Physical Injuries
(3) Article 264 - Administering Injurious
Substances or Beverages
(4) Article 265 - Less Serious Physical Injuries
(5) Article 266 - Slight Physical Injuries and
Maltreatment
(6) Article 266-A - Rape (amended by RA 8353)

About this Title: The essence of crimes involves the
taking of human life, destruction of the fetus, or
inflicting injuries.

A. Chapter I: Destruction of Life
0.
1. Article 246 - Parricide
(asked 10 times)

Elements:
(1) Person is killed;
(2) Deceased is killed by the accused;
(3) Deceased is the
(a) legitimate/illegitimate father
(b) legitimate/illegitimate mother
(c) legitimate/illegitimate child
* should not be less than 3 days old,
otherwise crime is infanticide
(d) other legitimate ascendant
(e) other legitimate descendant
(F) legitimate spouse

Essential element: relationship of offender with the
victim; except for spouses, only relatives by blood
and in direct line. Hence, adopted are not included.
[Reyes]

202

Supreme Court ruled that Muslim husbands with
several wives can be convicted of parricide only in
case the first wife is killed.

Parricide when the penalty shall not be reclusion
perpetua to death:
(1) Reckless or simple imprudence (Art. 365)
(2) Parricide by mistake (Art. 49)
(3) Parricide under exceptional circumstances
(Art. 247)

A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the
commission of the crime of parricide, is not guilty of
parricide but only homicide or murder, as the case
may be.

The key element in parricide is the relationship of
the offender with the victim. Ergo, the fact of the
relationship should be alleged in the information.
[People vs. Dalag]

2. Article 247 - Death or Physical
Injuries Under Exceptional
Circumstances
(asked 8 times)

Elements:
(1) A legally married person, or a parent,
surprises his spouse or his daughter, the
latter under 18 years of age and living with
him in the act of sexual intercourse with
another person;
(2) He or she kills any or both of them, or
inflicts upon any or both of them any
serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter;
(3) He has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that
she has not consented to the infidelity of
the other spouse.

Living with parent(s) is understood to be in their
own dwelling.

If done in a motel, article does not apply.

Surprise means to come upon suddenly and
unexpectedly.

Immediately thereafter: there is no set time as
jurisprudence has held 1 hour or even 4 hours as
immediately thereafter. However, the act done
must be a direct result of the outrage of the
cuckolded spouse, and a continuous act from the
moment of the surprising.

Article does not apply: If the surprising took place
before any actual sexual intercourse could be done.
Destierro for killer spouse is not so much a penalty
as it is meant to protect him from acts of reprisal by
relatives of dead spouse. This is because law regards
the act done in 247 as a lawful action.

No criminal liability when less serious or slight
physical injuries are inflicted.

Evidence of the victims promiscuity is
inconsequential to the killing. The offender must
prove that he actually surprised his wife and [her
paramour] in flagrante delicto, and that he killed
the man during or immediately thereafter. [People
v. Puedan]

The killing must be the direct result of the outrage
suffered by the cuckolded husband.

Although about one hour had passed between the
time the accused discovered his wife having sexual
intercourse with the victim and the time the latter
was actually killed, it was held that Article 247 was
applicable, as the shooting was a continuation of the
pursuit of the victim by the accused.

Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is
not murder.

Two other persons suffered physical injuries as they
were caught in the crossfire when the accused shot
the victim. A complex crime of double frustrated
murder was not committed as the accused did not
have the intent to kill the two victims. Here, the
accused did not commit murder when he fired at the
paramour of his wife. No aberratio ictus because he
was acting lawfully. [People v. Abarca]

3. Article 248 - Murder
(asked 20 times)

Elements:
(1) Person was killed;
(2) Accused killed him;
(3) Killing attended by any of the following
qualifying circumstances (EPIC
2
SW
2
AT)
(a) with treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength, with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense, or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity;
(b) in consideration of a price, reward or
promise;
(c) by means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a
railroad, fall of an airship, by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any
other means involving great waste and
ruin;
(d) on occasion of any of the calamities
enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic, or any other public
calamity;
(e) with evident premeditation;
(f) with cruelty, by deliberately and
inhumanly augmenting the suffering of
the victim, or outraging or scoffing at
his person or corpse.
(4) The killing is not parricide or infanticide.

203
One attendant qualifying circumstance is enough. If
there are more than one alleged in the information
for murder, only one will qualify the killing to
murder and the other circumstances will be taken as
generic aggravating circumstance.
Any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in
Art. 248 must be alleged in the information. When
the other circumstances are absorbed or included in
one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be
considered as generic aggravating.

When the victim is already dead, intent to kill
becomes irrelevant. It is important only if the victim
did not die to determine if the felony is physical
injury or attempted or frustrated homicide.

TREACHERY
The essence of treachery is that the offended party
was denied the chance to defend himself because of
the means, methods, deliberately adopted by the
offender and were not merely incidental to the
killing.

Killing of a child of tender age is murder qualified by
treachery.

Abuse of superior strength is inherent in and
comprehended by the circumstance of treachery or
forms part of treachery.

FIRE
When a person is killed by fire, the primordial
criminal intent of the offender is considered.

If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to
kill and fire was only used as a means to do so, the
crime is only murder.

If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to
destroy property with the use of pyrotechnics and
incidentally, somebody within the premises is killed,
the crime is arson with homicide, a single indivisible
crime penalized under Article 326, which is death as
a consequence of arson.

Intent to kill must be present for the use of fire to
be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
Intending to make fun of a mentally-disabled person,
Pugay poured gasoline on the latter while Samson
set him on fire. The victim died.

There was no animosity between the two accused
and the victim such that it cannot be said that they
resort to fire to kill him. It was merely a part of
their fun making but because their acts were
felonious, they are criminally liable. [People v.
Pugay and Samson]

POISON
Treachery and evident premeditation are inherent in
murder by poison only if the offender has the intent
to kill the victim by use of poison.

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Act of the offender manifestly indicating that he
clung to his determination to kill his victim.

Evident premeditation is absorbed in price, reward
or promise, if without the premeditation the
inductor would not have induced the other to
commit the act but not as regards the one induced.

Pariseo Tayag was shot dead by several policemen in
the course of their pursuit to get his fan knife.

Although it has not been shown which of the
policemen fired the fatal shot each should be held
guilty of murder since they are in conspiracy to
effect the death of the victim. [People v.
Buensuceso (1984)]

CRUELTY
Under Article 14, the generic aggravating
circumstance of cruelty requires that the victim be
alive, when the cruel wounds were inflicted and,
therefore, there must be evidence to that effect.

Yet, in murder, aside from cruelty, any act that
would amount to scoffing or decrying the corpse of
the victim will qualify the killing to murder.

4. Article 249 - Homicide
(asked 16 times)

Elements:
(1) Person was killed;
(2) Offender killed him without any justifying
circumstances;
(3) Offender had the intention to kill, which is
presumed;
(4) Killing was not attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder, or by
that of parricide or infanticide

Use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating
circumstance in homicide.

In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent
to kill. In physical injuries, there is none. However,
if as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the
victim died, the crime will be homicide because the
law presumes intent to kill and punishes the result,
and not the intent of the act. The accused will,
however, be entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

Physical injuries sufficient to cause death are one of
the essential elements of frustrated homicide.

In accidental homicide wherein death of a person is
brought about by a lawful act performed with proper
care and skill and without homicidal intent, there is
no liability.

There is no offense of frustrated homicide through
imprudence.

204
Accused pharmacist prepared the medicine on
prescription but erroneously used a highly poisonous
substance. When taken by the patient, the latter
nearly died. Accused is guilty only of reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.

The element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide
is incompatible with negligence or imprudence.
[People v. Castillo]

5. Article 250 - Penalty for
Frustrated Parricide, Murder or
Homicide

Courts may impose a penalty:
(1) 2 degrees lower for frustrated parricide,
murder, or homicide
(2) 3 degrees lower for attempted parricide,
murder, or homicide.

6. Article 251 - Death Caused in
Tumultuous Affray

Elements:
(1) There are several persons;
(2) They do not compose groups organized for
the common purpose of assaulting and
attacking each other reciprocally;
(3) These several persons quarreled and
assaulted one another in a confused and
tumultuous manner;
(4) Someone was killed in the course of the
affray;
(5) It cannot be ascertained who actually killed
the deceased;
(6) The person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries or who used violence can
be identified.

Tumultuous affray is a commotion in a confused
manner to an extent that it would not be possible to
identify who the killer is if death results, or who
inflicted the serious physical injury, but the person
or persons who used violence are known.

If there is conspiracy, this crime is not committed.
The crime would be murder or homicide.

If nobody could still be traced to have employed
violence upon the victim, nobody will answer.

The crimes committed might be disturbance of
public order, or if participants are armed, it could
be tumultuous disturbance, or if property was
destroyed, it could be malicious mischief.

7. Article 252 - Physical Injuries
Caused in Tumultuous Affray

Elements:
(1) There is a tumultuous affray;
(2) A participant or some participants thereof
suffered serious physical injuries or physical
injuries of a less serious nature only;
(3) The person responsible thereof cannot be
identified;
(4) All those who appear to have used violence
upon the person of the offended party are
known.

Physical injury should be serious or less serious.

No crime of physical injuries resulting from a
tumultuous affray if the physical injury is only slight.

Slight physical injury is considered as inherent in a
tumultuous affray.

8. Article 253 - Giving Assistance to
Suicide

Mode 1: Assisting another to commit suicide,
whether the suicide is consummated
or not;
Mode 2: Lending his assistance to another to
commit suicide to the extent of doing
the killing himself.

Giving assistance to suicide means giving means
(arms, poison, etc.) or whatever manner of positive
and direct cooperation (intellectual aid, suggestions
regarding the mode of committing suicide, etc.).

If the person does the killing himself, the penalty is
similar to that of homicide, which is reclusion
temporal.

There can be no qualifying circumstance because the
determination to die must come from the victim.

The person attempting suicide is not liable. Reason:
He should be pitied, not punished.

This does not contemplate euthanasia or mercy
killing where the crime is murder. (if without
consent; with consent, covered by Article 253).
Euthanasia is not lending assistance to suicide. In
euthanasia, the victim is not in a position to commit
suicide.

A doctor who resorts to euthanasia of his patient
may be liable for murder. But if the patient himself
asks to be killed by his doctor, this Article applies.

9. Article 254 - Discharge of Firearms

Elements:
(1) Offender discharges a firearm against
or at another person.
(2) Offender has no intention to kill that
person.

No crime if firearm is not discharged. It is essential
for prosecution to prove that the discharge of
firearm was directed precisely against the offended
party.

205
If there is intention to kill, it may be classified as
attempted parricide, murder, or homicide.

No presumed intent to kill if the distance is 200
meters.

There is a special complex crime of illegal discharge
of firearm with serious or less serious physical
injuries.

10. Article 255 - Infanticide

Elements:
(1) A child was killed by the accused;
(2) The deceased child was less than 3
days old.

If the offender is the parent and the victim is less
than three days old, the crime is infanticide and not
parricide.

The fact that the killing was done to conceal her
dishonor will not mitigate the criminal liability
anymore because concealment of dishonor in killing
the child is not mitigating in parricide.

Only the mother and maternal grandparents of the
child are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
concealing the dishonor. Concealment of dishonor is
not an element of infanticide. It merely lowers the
penalty.

A stranger who cooperates in the perpetration of
infanticide committed by the mother or grandparent
on the mothers side, is liable for infanticide, but he
must suffer the penalty prescribed for murder.

If the child is abandoned without any intent to kill
and death results as a consequence, the crime
committed is not infanticide but abandonment under
Article 276.

11. Article 256 - Intentional
Abortion

Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman;
(2) Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages
administered, or that the accused otherwise
acts upon such pregnant woman;
(3) As a result of the use of violence or drugs or
beverages upon her, or any other act of the
accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb
or after having been expelled therefrom;
(4) The abortion is intended.

Ways of committing intentional abortion
(1) Using any violence upon the person of the
pregnant woman;
(2) Acting, but without using violence, without
the consent of the woman. (By
administering drugs or beverages upon such
pregnant woman without her consent.)
(3) Acting (by administering drugs or
beverages), with the consent of the
pregnant woman.

ABORTION vs. INFANTICIDE
ABORTION INFANTICIDE
Fetus could not sustain
independent life. No
legal viability.
Fetus could sustain an
independent life after
separation from the
mothers womb.

If the mother as a consequence of abortion suffers
death or physical injuries, you have a complex crime
of murder or physical injuries and abortion.

In intentional abortion, the offender must know of
the pregnancy because the particular criminal intent
is to cause an abortion.
If the woman turns out not to be pregnant and
someone performs an abortion upon her, he is liable
for an impossible crime if the woman suffers no
physical injury.

If she dies or suffers injuries, the crime will be
homicide, serious physical injuries, etc.

Frustrated abortion is committed if the fetus that is
expelled is viable and, therefore, not dead as
abortion did not result despite the employment of
adequate and sufficient means to make the pregnant
woman abort.

12. Article 257 - Unintentional
Abortion
(asked 3 times)

Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman;
(2) Violence is used upon such pregnant woman
without intending an abortion;
(3) The violence is intentionally exerted;
(4) Result of violence fetus dies, either in the
womb or expelled therefrom

Unintentional abortion requires physical violence
inflicted deliberately and voluntarily by a third
person upon the pregnant woman, without intention
to cause the abortion.

If the pregnant woman aborted because of
intimidation, the crime committed is not
unintentional abortion because there is no violence;
the crime committed is light threats.

If the pregnant woman was killed by violence by her
husband, the crime committed is the complex crime
of parricide with unlawful abortion.

Unintentional abortion may be committed through
negligence as it is enough that the use of violence be
voluntary.

If the act of violence is not felonious, that is, act of
self-defense, and there is no knowledge of the
womans pregnancy, there is no liability.

206

Jose is declared guilty of the crime of unintentional
abortion through reckless imprudence for having
bumped a calesa which resulted in a pregnant
woman bumping her abdomen against the wall of the
calesa and eventually led to an abortion. [People v.
Jose]

Mere boxing of the stomach taken together with the
immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is not
sufficient proof to show an intent to cause abortion.

The accused must have merely intended to kill the
victim but not necessarily to cause abortion.

The accused is liable for complex crime of parricide
with unintentional abortion for it was merely
incidental to the killing. [People v. Salufrania
(1988)]

For the crime of abortion, even unintentional, to be
held committed, the accused must have known of
the pregnancy. [People v. Carnaso]

13. Article 258 - Abortion
Practiced by the Woman Herself
or by Parents

Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman who has
suffered an abortion;
(2) Abortion is intended;
(3) Abortion is caused by
(a) The pregnant woman herself;
(b) Any other person, with her consent; or
(c) Any of her parents, with her consent
for the purpose of concealing her
dishonour.

If the purpose of abortion is to conceal dishonor,
mitigation applies only to pregnant woman and not
to parents of pregnant woman, unlike in infanticide.

If the purpose of parents is not to conceal dishonor,
the crime is intentional abortion.

14. Article 259 - Abortion by a
Physician or Midwife and
Dispensing of Abortives

Elements:
(1) There is a pregnant woman who has
suffered an abortion;
(2) The abortion is intended;
(3) Offender, who must be a physician or
midwife, caused or assisted in causing the
abortion;
(4) Said physician or midwife took advantage of
his or her scientific knowledge or skill.

If the abortion is produced by a physician to save the
life of the mother, there is no liability.

Article punishes a pharmacist who merely dispenses
with an abortive without the proper prescription of a
physician.

If pharmacist knew that the abortive would be use
for abortion, her would be liable as an accomplice in
the crime of abortion.

15. Article 260 - Responsibility of
Participants in a Duel

Mode 1: Killing ones adversary in a duel;

Mode 2: Inflicting upon such adversary physical
injuries;

Mode 3: Making a combat although no physical
injuries have been inflicted.

Persons liable
(1) The person who killed or inflicted physical
injuries upon his adversary, or both
combatants in any other case, as principals.
(2) The seconds, as accomplices.

Duel is a formal or regular combat previously
consented to by two parties in the presence of two
or more seconds of lawful age on each side, who
make the selection of arms and fix all the other
conditions of the fight to settle some antecedent
quarrel.

There is no such crime nowadays because people hit
each other even without entering into any pre-
conceived agreement. This is an obsolete provision.
If these are not the conditions of the fight, it is not a
duel in the sense contemplated in the Revised Penal
Code.

It will be a quarrel and anyone who killed the other
will be liable for homicide or murder, as the case
may be.

16. Article 261 - Challenging to a
Duel

Mode 1. Challenging another to a duel;
Mode 2. Inciting another to give or accept a
challenge to a duel;
Mode 3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly
for having refused to accept a
challenge to fight a duel.

Persons Responsible under Art. 261:
(1) Challenger
(2) Instigators

If one challenges another to a duel by shouting
Come down, Olympia, let us measure your prowess.
We will see whose intestines will come out. You are
a coward if you do not come down, the crime of
challenging to a duel is not committed.

207
What is committed is the crime of light threats
under Article 285, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code. [People v. Tacomoy]

B. Chapter II: Physical Injuries
0.
1. Article 262 - Mutilation

Mode 1. Intentionally mutilating another by
depriving him, either totally or
partially, of some essential organ for
reproduction; (Mutilation)

Elements:
(1) There be a castration, that is, mutilation of
organs necessary for generation, such as the
penis or ovarium;
(2) The mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately

Mode 2. Intentionally making other mutilation,
that is, by lopping or clipping off any
part of the body of the offended
party, other than the essential organ
for reproduction, to deprive him of
that part of his body. (Mayhem)

Intent to mutilate must be established. If there is
no intent, the crime is only serious physical injury.

CASTRATION - intentionally mutilating another by
depriving him, either totally or partially, of some
essential organ for reproduction

MAYHEM - intentionally making other mutilation
other than some essential organ for reproduction
and to deprive him of that part of the body

2. Article 263 - Serious Physical
Injuries
(asked 6 times)

Modes of Commission:
(1) By wounding;
(2) By beating;
(3) By assaulting; or
(4) By administering injurious substance. (Art.
264)

Levels of Penalty: When the injured person, in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted
(1) becomes insane, imbecilic, impotent or
blind
(2) loses the use of speech or the power to
hear or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand,
afoot, an arm, or a leg;
(3) loses the use of any such member;
(4) becomes incapacitated for the work in
which he was theretofore habitually
engaged, in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted;
(5) becomes deformed; or
(6) loses any other member of his body;
(7) loses the use thereof; or
(8) becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he was
habitually engaged for more than 90 days in
consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted;
(9) becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for
more than 30 days (but must not be more
than 90 days), as a result of the physical
injuries inflicted.

3. Article 264 - Administering
Injurious Substances or Beverages

Elements:
(1) Offender inflicted upon another any serious
physical injury;
(2) It was done by knowingly administering to
him any injurious substance or beverages or
by taking advantage of his weakness of
mind or credulity;
(3) He had no intent to kill.

Physical Injuries vs. Attempted or Frustrated
homicide
Physical Injuries Attempted or
Frustrated homicide
The offender inflicts
physical injuries.
Attempted homicide may
be committed, even if
no physical injuries are
inflicted.
Offender has no intent
to kill the offended party
The offender has an
intent to kill the
offended party.

The reason why there is no attempted or frustrated
crime of physical injuries is because this felony is
defined by the gravity of the injury. It is a crime of
result. As long as there is no injury, there can be no
attempted or frustrated stage thereof.

Classification of physical injuries:
(1) Between less serious physical injuries and
serious physical injuries, you do not
consider the period of medical treatment.
You only consider the period when the
offended party is rendered incapacitated
for labor.

(2) When the injury created a deformity upon
the offended party, you disregard the
healing duration or the period of medical
treatment involved. At once, it is
considered serious physical injuries.

(3) Deformity requires the concurrence of the
following conditions:
(a) The injury must produce ugliness;
(b) It must be visible;
(c) The ugliness will not disappear through
natural healing process.

Illustration:

208
(1) Loss of molar tooth This is not deformity
as it is not visible.
(2) Loss of permanent front tooth This is
deformity as it is visible and permanent.
(3) Loss of milk front tooth This is not
deformity as it is visible but will be
naturally replaced.

Serious physical injuries is punished with higher
penalties in the following cases:
(1) If it is committed against any of the persons
referred to in the crime of parricide under
Article 246;
(2) If any of the circumstances qualifying
murder attended its commission.

See Special Law: RA 8049 (The Anti-Hazing Law)

See Special Law: RA 9745 (The Anti-Torture Law)

4. Article 265 - Less Serious Physical
Injuries

Elements:
(1) Offended party is incapacitated for labor
for 10 days or more (but not more than 30
days), or needs medical attendance for the
same period of time;
(2) The physical injuries must not be those
described in the preceding articles.

Qualified as to penalty
(1) A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition
to arresto mayor, when
(a) There is a manifest intent to insult or
offend the injured person; or
(b) There are circumstances adding
ignominy to the offense.
(2) A higher penalty is imposed when the victim
is either
(a) The offenders parents, ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers; or
(b) Persons of rank or person in authority,
provided the crime is not direct
assault.

5. Article 266 - Slight Physical
Injuries and Maltreatment

Mode 1. Physical injuries incapacitated the
offended party for labor from 1-9
days, OR required medical
attendance during the same
period;

Mode 2. Physical injuries which did not
prevent the offended party from
engaging in his habitual work or
which did not require medical
attendance;

Mode 3. Ill-treatment of another by deed
without causing any injury.

This involves even ill-treatment where there is no
sign of injury requiring medical treatment.

Slapping the offended party is a form of ill-
treatment which is a form of slight physical injuries.
But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor upon the
person slapped, or to humiliate or embarrass the
offended party out of a quarrel or anger, the crime
is slander by deed.

Between slight physical injuries and less serious
physical injuries, not only the healing duration of
the injury will be considered but also the medical
attendance required to treat the injury.

So the healing duration may be one to nine days, but
if the medical treatment continues beyond nine
days, the physical injuries would already qualify as
less serious physical injuries.

The medical treatment may have lasted for nine
days, but if the offended party is still incapacitated
for labor beyond nine days, the physical injuries are
already considered less serious physical injuries.

Where there is no evidence of actual injury, it is
only slight physical injuries.

In the absence of proof as to the period of the
offended partys incapacity for labor or of the
required medical attendance, the crime committed
is slight physical injuries.

See Special Law: RA 7610 (Special Protection of
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act)

6. Article 266-A - Rape (amended by
RA 8353)
(asked: 10x)

Mode 1: Rape through sexual intercourse
without consent of the woman:
(Traditional Rape)

Elements:
(1) Offender is a man;
(2) Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;
(3) Such act is accomplished under any of the
following circumstances:
(a) By using force, threat or intimidation;
(b) When the woman is deprived of reason
or is otherwise unconscious;
(c) By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority;
(d) When the woman is under 12 years of
age (Statutory Rape) or is demented.

Mode 2: Rape Through Sexual Assault

Elements:
(1) Offender commits an act of sexual assault;
(2) The act of sexual assault is committed by
any of the following means:
(a) By inserting his penis into another
person's mouth or anal orifice; or
(b) By inserting any instrument or object
into the genital or anal orifice of

209
another person;
(3) The act of sexual assault is accomplished
under any of the following circumstances:
(a) By using force or intimidation; or
(b) When the woman is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; or
(c) By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; or
(d) When the woman is under 12 years of
age or demented.

Classification of rape
(1) Traditional Rape
Offended party is always a woman
Offender is always a man.

(2) Sexual assault
Rape can now be committed by a man
or a woman, that is, if a woman or a
man uses an instrument on anal orifice
of male, she or he can be liable for
rape.
Inserting a finger inside the genital of a
woman is rape through sexual assault
within the context of object.

Penalties
Traditional Rape Sexual Assault
In general: Reclusion
perpetua
In general: Prision
mayor
A. Committed:
1) with the use of a deadly weapon; or
2) by 2 or more persons
Reclusion perpetua to
death
Prision mayor to
reclusion temporal
B. Victim becomes insane by reason or on the
occasion of rape
death
Reclusion temporal
C. Rape is attempted & homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion thereof
death
Reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua
D. Rape is consummated & homicide is committed
by reason or on the occasion thereof (a special
complex crime)
Death Reclusion perpetua
E. Committed with any of the ff. aggravating
circumstances:
(1) On the VICTIM:
(a) victim is under 18 yrs. old, & the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity w/in the 3
rd

civil degree, or the common law spouse
of the parent of the victim
(b) victim is under the custody of the
police / military authorities / law
enforcement agency
(c) victim is a religious and such legitimate
vocation is known by the offender
before or at the time of rape
(d) victim is a child below 7 yrs. old
(e) victim suffered permanent or physical
mutilation or disability by reason or on
the occasion of rape

(2) On the OFFENDER:
(a) Offender is afflicted with a sexually
transmissible disease & the virus /
disease is transmitted to the victim
(b) Offender is a member of the AFP / PNP
/ any law enforcement agency / penal
institution, & took advantage of his
position
(c) Offender knew of the pregnancy of the
offended party at the time of the
commission of rape
(d) Offender knew of the mental disability,
emotional disorder, & / or physical
handicap of the offended party at the
time of the commission of rape

(3) On 3
RD
PERSONS: Rape is committed in full
view of the of the spouse, parent, any of
the children, or other relatives w/in the 3
rd

civil degree of consanguinity

Old Anti-Rape Law vs. RA 8353
Old Anti-Rape Law RA 8353
Crime against chastity Crime against persons
May be committed by a
man against a woman
only
Under the 2
nd
type,
sexual assault may be
committed by ANY
PERSON against ANY
PERSON
PRIVATE CRIME
Complaint must be filed
by the woman or her
parents, grandparents or
guardian if the woman
was a minor or
incapacitated
May be prosecuted even
if the woman does not
file a complaint
Marriage of the victim
w/ one of the offenders
benefits not only the
principal but also the
accomplices and
accessories
Marriage extinguishes
the penal action only as
to the principal (the
person who married the
victim), and cannot be
extended to co-
principals in case of
MULTIPLE RAPE
Marital rape NOT Marital rape recognized

210
recognized

Complete penetration is NOT necessary. The
slightest penetrationcontact with the labiawill
consummate the rape.

Rape must have specific intent or lewd design.

A soldier raped a 19-year old student by poking a
knife on her neck. Only a portion of his penis
entered her vagina because the victim kept on
struggling until she was able to escape. The accused
was convicted of frustrated rape.

There is NO crime of FRUSTRATED RAPE because in
rape, from the moment the offender has carnal
knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his
purpose, all the essential elements of the offense
have been accomplished. [People v. Orita]

The accused had his pants down and was on top of
the 4-year old child when the childs mother arrived.
Medical findings showed no signs of genital injury
and the victims hymen was intact.

For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or
scrape of the penis on the external layer of the
vagina will not suffice. Mere touching of the external
layer of the vagina without the intent to enter the
same cannot be construed as slight penetration.

Accused is only liable for ATTEMPTED RAPE.

Conviction does not require a medico-legal finding of
any penetration on the part of the woman.

Force employed against the victim of the rape need
not be of such character as could be resisted. When
the offender has an ascendancy or influence over the
girl, it is not necessary that she put up a determined
resistance. A rape victim does not have the burden
of proving resistance.

Rape by means of fraudulent machinations and grave
abuse of authority absorbs the crime of qualified and
simple seduction.

Statutory rape is consummated when the victim is
below 12 yrs. old. Victims consent is immaterial.
Offenders knowledge of the victims age is
immaterial in statutory rape.
Carnal knowledge of a child below 12 yrs. old even if
she is engaged in prostitution is still considered
statutory rape. [People v. Campuhan]

A 16-year old mental retardate, who has the
intellectual capacity of a 9, was repeatedly raped by
the accused.

The accused was found guilty of raping a woman
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, and
was also held liable for rape under the provision that
pertains to a victim under 12 notwithstanding the
victims actual age.

Age requirement was subsequently amended to refer
also to mental age.

Incestuous rape refers to rape committed by an
ascendant of the offended woman. [People v.
Atento]

Gallo was found guilty of the crime of qualified rape
with the penalty of death.

The information filed against him does not allege his
relationship with the victim, his daughter, thus, it
CANNOT be considered as a qualifying circumstance.
Special qualifying circumstances have to be alleged
in the information for it to be appreciated.

The case was reopened and the judgment is
modified from death to reclusion perpetua. [People
v. Gallo]

A 14-year old was raped by her brother-in-law. To
effectively prosecute the accused for the crime of
rape committed by a relative by affinity w/in the 3
rd

civil degree, it must be established that:
(1) the accused is legally married to the
victims sister; and
(2) the victim and the accuseds wife are full or
half-blood siblings.

Since relationship qualifies the crime of rape, there
must be clearer proof of relationship and in this
case, it was not adequately substantiated. [People v.
Berana]

Evidence which may be accepted in the
prosecution of rape:
(1) Any physical overt act manifesting
resistance against the act of rape in any
degree from the offended party; or
(2) Where the offended party is so situated as
to render him/her incapable of giving his
consent

Rape shield rule: Character of the offended woman
is immaterial in rape.

An accused may be convicted of rape on the sole
testimony of the offended woman.
When several persons conspired to rape a single
victim, each shall be liable for the rape committed
personally by him, as well as those committed by the
others.

An accused may be considered a principal by direct
participation, by inducement, or by indispensable
cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against
a woman, provided, a man is charged together with
her.

Effect of Pardon
(1) Subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and the offended party shall

211
extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty imposed.
(2) When the legal husband is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or the penalty, provided that their
marriage is NOT VOID ab initio.

Jurisprudence on TITLE EIGHT:

Frustrated Homicide
By invoking self-defense, accused, in fact, admitted
that he inflicted injuries on the victim. The burden
of proving with clear and convincing evidence the
justifying circumstances to exculpate him from
criminal liability was thereby shifted to him. [De
Leon v. People (2007)]

Homicide
Direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix
wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and
finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial
court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support
its conclusion of guilt.

Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which
proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts
in issue may be established by inference. At times,
resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since
to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases,
result in setting felons free and deny proper
protection to the community.

All the circumstances must be consistent with one
another, consistent with the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent
with the hypothesis that he is innocent.

Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence
can be upheld, provided that the circumstances
proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to
one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person. [Salvador v. People (2008)]

Murder
Murder is committed by any person who, not falling
within the provisions of Article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), kills another, if the killing is
committed with treachery.

The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by an aggressor on an
unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real
chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
commission without risk to himself.

The killing occurred at around two oclock in the
morning, an hour when generally people are asleep
and the victim was shot at the back. [People v.
Bohol (2008)]

Qualified Rape
There is qualified rape when the facts alleged in the
Information and the facts proven in court establish
the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship. [People v. Abellano (2007)]

A stepfather, who exercises moral and physical
ascendancy over his stepdaughter, need not make
any threat against her because the latter is cowed
into submission when gripped with the fear of
refusing the advances of a person she customarily
obeys.

Rape may, likewise, be committed in a room
adjacent to where the victim's family is sleeping, or
even in a room shared with other people. There is no
rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.
[People v. Glivano (2008)]

Rape
Physical resistance need not be established in rape
when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who
submits against her will to the rapists lust because
of fear for her life or personal safety.

The force, violence or intimidation in rape is a
relative term, depending not only on the age, size,
and strength of the parties but also on their
relationship with each other. Because of the victims
youthfulness, coupled with the fact that the
assailant is her stepfather, it was easy for her to
believe that appellant would make good his threat to
kill her should she resist. [People v. Tuazon (2007)]

Rape
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states
the elements of the offense and the acts or
omissions constitutive thereof.

The precise time or date of the commission of an
offense need not be alleged in the complaint or
information, unless it is an essential element of the
crime charged. In rape, it is not.

The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a
woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the
precise time when the rape takes place has no
substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the
date or time need not be stated with absolute
accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or
information states that the crime has been
committed at any time as near as possible to the
date of its actual commission. [People v. Domingo
(2007)]

Rape BY a Minor

The accused at the time of the commission of the
offense was only 13 years old and it occurred prior
to RA 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006.

The subsequently enacted law should be construed
to retroact in favor of the accused. While the latter
is now 25 years old as of this decision, he is still
exculpated from criminal liability.

212
However, RA 9344 does not relieve the minor of civil
liability arising from the offense. [Ortega v. People
(2008)]

See Also:
(1) RA 9262: Anti-Violence against Women and
their Children
(2) RA 9775: Anti-Child Pornography Law
(3) RA 8049: Anti-Hazing Law
(4) RA 7610: Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse
(5) RA 9344: Juvenile Justice and Welfare act
(6) PD 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code

Title IX. Crimes against Personal
Liberty and Security

Chapter I: Crimes against Liberty
(1) Article 267 - Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention
(2) Article 268 - Slight Illegal Detention
(3) Article 269 - Unlawful Arrest
(4) Article 270 - Kidnapping and Failure to
Return a Minor
(5) Article 271 - Inducing a Minor to Abandon
His Home
(6) Article 272 Slavery
(7) Article 273 - Exploitation of Child Labor
(8) Article 274 - Services Rendered Under
Compulsion in Payment of Debt

Chapter II: Crimes against Security
(1) Article 275 - Abandonment of Persons in
Danger and Abandonment of Own Victim
(2) Article 276 - Abandoning a Minor
(3) Article 277 - Abandonment of Minor by
Person Entrusted With Custody; Indifference
of Parents
(4) Article 278 - Exploitation of Minors
(5) Article 280 - Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
(6) Article 281 - Other Forms of Trespass
(7) Article 282 - Grave Threats
(8) Article 283 - Light Threats
(9) Article 284 - Bond for Good Behavior
(10) Article 285 - Other Light Threats
(11) Article 286 - Grave Coercions
(12) Article 287 - Light Coercions
(13) Article 288 - Other Similar Coercions
(14) Article 289 - Formation, Maintenance, and
Prohibition of Combination of Capital or
Labor through Violence or Threats

Chapter III: Discovery and Revelation of Secrets
(1) Article 290 - Discovering Secrets through
Seizure of Correspondence
(2) Article 291 - Revealing Secrets with Abuse
of Office
(3) Article 292 - Revelation of Industrial Secrets

A. Chapter I: Crimes against
Liberty
0.
1. Article 267 - Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention
(asked 7 times)

Elements: (PICK)
(1) Offender is a private individual;
(2) He kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner deprives the latter of his
liberty;
(3) The act of detention or kidnapping must be
illegal;
(4) In the commission of the offense, any of the
following circumstances is present:
(a) The kidnapping lasts for more than 3
days;

213
(b) it is committed simulating public
authority;
(c) Any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained or threats to kill him are
made; or
(d) The person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer.

Qualifying Circumstances: (r
2
kt)
(1) Purpose is to extort ransom.
(2) When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention.
(3) When the victim is raped.
(4) When victim is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts.

The offenders here are private individuals or public
officers acting in their private capacity. If they are
public officers, they are covered by the crimes under
Title 2.

When a public officer conspires with a private person
in the commission of any of the crimes under Title
IX, the crime is also one committed under this title
and not under Title II.

The purpose is immaterial when any of the
circumstances in the first paragraph of Art. 267 is
present.

Essential element: deprivation of liberty.

Definition of ransom: It is the money, price or
consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a
captured person or persons, a payment that releases
a person from captivity.

When the kidnapping was done to extort ransom, it
is not necessary that one or any of circumstances
enumerated be present.

Actual demand for ransom not necessary, as long as
it can be proven that the kidnapping was done for
the purpose of extorting money.

Essential: There be actual confinement or
restriction of the person of the offended party. It is
not necessary that the victim be placed in an
enclosure, as long as he is deprived, in any manner,
of his liberty.

When detention is illegal: It is not ordered by
competent authority nor permitted by law.

Special complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder:
When the victim dies or is killed as a consequence of
the detention, which is covered by the last
paragraph of Art. 267 as amended.

Forcible abduction: If a woman is transported from
one place to another by virtue of restraining her of
her liberty, and that act is coupled with lewd
designs.

Serious illegal detention: If a woman is transported
just to restrain her of her liberty. There is no lewd
design or lewd intent.
Grave coercion: If a woman is carried away just to
break her will, to compel her to agree to the
demand or request by the offender.

Illegal Detention Arbitrary Detention
Committed by a private
individual who
unlawfully deprives a
person of his liberty
Committed by public
officer or employee who
detains a person without
legal ground
Crime against personal
liberty
Crime against the
fundamental laws of the
State

Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was
to kill him, and from the acts of the accused it
cannot be inferred that the latters purpose was to
actually detain or deprive the victim of his liberty,
the subsequent killing of the victim did not
constitute the crime of kidnapping. The demand for
ransom did not convert the crime into kidnapping,
since no deprivation of liberty was involved. [People
v Padica (1993)]

The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation
of the victims liberty coupled with the intent of the
accused to effect it. [People v Luartes (1999)]

The duration of the detention even if only for a few
hours does not alter the nature of the crime
committed. [People v Pavillare (2000)]

Physical detention is not necessary. It is enough that
the victim is under the complete control of the
perpetrators as in this case when the Japanese
victim had to rely on his abductors for survival after
he was tricked into believing that the police was
after him.

It was also held in this case that keeping a person as
collateral for payment of an obligation is kidnapping.
[People v. Tomio]

The elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by
Republic Act (R.A.) 7659 warranting the imposition
of the death penalty, are as follows:
(1) intent on the part of the accused to deprive
the victim of his liberty;
(2) actual deprivation of the victim of his
liberty; and
(3) motive of the accused, which is extorting
ransom for the release of the victim.

Neither actual demand for nor payment of ransom is
necessary for the consummation of the felony. It is
sufficient that the deprivation of liberty was for
extorting ransom even if none of the four
circumstances mentioned in Article 267 were present
in its perpetration. [People v. Cenahonon (2007)]

214
Article 267 has been modified by Republic Act No.
7659 (AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON
CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT
PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED,
OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES) in the following respects:
(1) Illegal detention becomes serious when it
shall have lasted for more than three days,
instead of five days as originally provided;
(2) In paragraph 4, if the person kidnapped or
detained was a minor and the offender was
anyone of the parents, the latter has been
expressly excluded from the provision. The
liability of the parent is provided for in the
last paragraph of Article 271;
(3) A paragraph was added to Article 267,
which states: When the victim is killed or
dies as a consequence of the detention or is
raped, or is subjected to torture, or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed.
(4) The amendment introduced in our criminal
statutes the concept of "special complex
crime" of kidnapping with murder or
homicide.
(5) It eliminated the distinction drawn by the
courts between those cases where the
killing of the kidnapped victim was
purposely sought by the accused, and those
where the killing of the victim was not
deliberately resorted to but was merely an
afterthought.

2. Article 268 - Slight Illegal
Detention

Elements: (PrIKO)
(1) Offender is a private individual;
(2) He kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner deprives him of his liberty.
(3) The act of kidnapping or detention is
illegal;
(4) The crime is committed without the
attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in Article 267.

This felony is committed if any of the five
circumstances in the commission of kidnapping or
detention enumerated in Article 267 is not present.

The penalty is lowered if:
(1) The offended party is voluntarily released
within three days from the start of illegal
detention;
(2) Without attaining the purpose;
(3) Before the institution of the criminal
action.

The prevailing rule now is Asistio v. Judge, which
provides that voluntary release will only mitigate
criminal liability if crime was slight illegal detention.
If serious, it has no effect.

The liability of one who furnishes the place where
the offended party is being held captive is that of a
principal and not of an accomplice.

3. Article 269 - Unlawful Arrest

Elements: (ADU)
(1) Offender arrests or detains another person;
(2) The purpose of the offender is to deliver
him to the proper authorities;
(3) The arrest or detention is not authorized by
law or there is no reasonable ground
therefor. (unauthorized)

This felony consists in making an arrest or detention
without legal or reasonable ground for the purpose
of delivering the offended party to the proper
authorities.

Generally, this crime is committed by incriminating
innocent persons by the offenders planting evidence
to justify the arrest a complex crime results, that
is, unlawful arrest through incriminatory
machinations under Article 363.

If the arrest is made without a warrant and under
circumstances not allowing a warrantless arrest, the
crime would be unlawful arrest.

If the person arrested is not delivered to the
authorities, the private individual making the arrest
incurs criminal liability for illegal detention under
Article 267 or 268.

If the offender is a public officer, the crime is
arbitrary detention under Article 124.

If the detention or arrest is for a legal ground, but
the public officer delays delivery of the person
arrested to the proper judicial authorities, then
Article 125 will apply.

Note: This felony may also be committed by public
officers.

Unlawful Arrest vs. Delay in the Delivery of
Detained Persons
DELAY IN THE
DELIVERY OF DETAINED
PERSONS (Art. 125)
UNLAWFUL ARREST
(Art. 269)
Detention is for some
legal ground.
Detention is not
authorized by law.
Crime is committed by
failing to deliver such
person to the proper
judicial authority within
a certain period.
Committed by making an
arrest not authorized by
law

4. Article 270 - Kidnapping and
Failure to Return a Minor
(asked twice)

Elements: (EF)
(1) Offender is entrusted with the custody of a
minor person (whether over or under seven
years but less than 18 years of age)
(2) He deliberately fails to restore the said
minor to his parents or guardians

215

If any of the foregoing elements is absent, the
kidnapping of the minor will then fall under Article
267.

The essential element which qualifies the crime of
kidnapping a minor under Art. 270 is that the
offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor.

If the accused is any of the parents, Article 267 does
not apply; Articles 270 and 271 apply.

If the taking is with the consent of the parents, the
crime in Article 270 is committed.

The deliberate failure to return a minor under ones
custody constitutes deprivation of liberty.
Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is
necessarily included in kidnapping and serious illegal
detention of a minor under Article 267(4). [People v.
Generosa]

Where a minor child was taken by the accused
without the knowledge and consent of his parents,
the crime is kidnapping and serious illegal detention
under Article 267, not kidnapping and failure to
return a minor under Article 270. [People v.
Mendoza]

5. Article 271 - Inducing a Minor to
Abandon His Home
(asked twice)

Elements: (LI)
(1) A minor (whether over or under seven years
of age) is living in the home of his parents
or guardians or the person entrusted with
his custody;
(2) Offender induces said minor to abandon
such home.

Inducement must be (a) actual, and (b) committed
with criminal intent

The minor should not leave his home of his own free
will.

What constitutes the crime is the act of inducing a
minor to abandon his home of his guardian, and it is
not necessary that the minor actually abandons the
home.

Father or mother may commit the crimes in Art. 170
and 171 where they are living separately and the
custody of the minor children is given to one of
them.

6. Article 272 - Slavery
(asked once)

Elements: (PE)
(1) Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or
detains a human being;
(2) The purpose of the offender is to enslave
such human being.

This is committed if anyone shall purchase, kidnap,
or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving
him.

The penalty is increased if the purpose of the
offender is to assign the offended party to some
immoral traffic.

If the purpose of the kidnapping or detention is to
enslave the offended party, slavery is committed.

The crime is slavery if the offender is not engaged in
the business of prostitution. If he is, the crime is
white slave trade under Article 341.

The employment or custody of a minor with the
consent of the parent or guardian, although against
the childs own will, cannot be considered
involuntary servitude.

But where is proven that the defendant was obliged
to render service in plaintiffs house as a servant
without remuneration whatever and to remain there
so long as she has not paid her debt, there is slavery.

See Special Law: RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking of Person
Act of 2003)

7. Article 273 - Exploitation of Child
Labor
(asked once)

Elements: (RARage)
(1) Offender retains a minor in his services;
(2) It is against the will of the minor;
(3) It is under the pretext of reimbursing
himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian or person entrusted with the
custody of such minor.

The existence of indebtedness constitutes no legal
justification for holding a person and depriving him
of his freedom to live where he wills.

8. Article 274 - Services Rendered
Under Compulsion in Payment of
Debt
(asked once)

Elements: (CAP)
(1) Offender compels a debtor to work for him,
either as a household servant or farm
laborer;
(2) It is against the debtors will;
(3) The purpose is to require or enforce the
payment of a debt.

See Special Law: RA 9231 (Anti-Child Labor Act of
2003)

216
B. Chapter II: Crimes against
Security
0.
Persons in Danger and
Abandonment of Own Victim
(asked once)

MODE 1: Failing to render assistance to any
person whom the offender finds in an
uninhabited place, wounded or in
danger of dying when he can render
such assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.

Elements: (UWOF)
(1) The place is not inhabited;
(2) Accused found there a person wounded or
in danger of dying;
(3) Accused can render assistance without
detriment to himself;
(4) Accused fails to render assistance.

MODE 2: Failing to help or render assistance
to another whom the offender has
accidentally wounded or injured; (FA)

MODE 3: By failing to deliver a child, under
seven years of age, whom the
offender has found abandoned, to
the authorities or to his family, or by
failing to deliver him to a safe place.
(SAD)

Does not apply: When a person intentionally wounds
another and leaves him in an uninhabited place.

Immaterial: That the offender did not know that the
child is under seven years.

2. Article 276 - Abandoning a Minor

Elements: (SCAN)
(1) Offender has the custody of a child;
(2) The child is under seven years of age;
(3) He abandons such child;
(4) He has no intent to kill the child when the
latter is abandoned.

Circumstances qualifying the offense:
(1) When the death of the minor resulted from
such abandonment; or
(2) If the life of the minor was in danger
because of the abandonment.

The purpose in abandoning the minor under his
custody is to avoid the obligation of taking care of
said minor.

Intent to kill cannot be presumed from the death of
the child.

The ruling that the intent to kill is presumed from
the death of the victim of the crime is applicable
only to crimes against persons, and not to crimes
against security, particularly the crime of
abandoning a minor under Art. 276.

Minor by Person Entrusted With
Custody; Indifference of Parents

MODE 1: Delivering a minor to a public
institution or other persons without
the consent of the one who entrusted
such minor to the care of the
offender or, in the absence of that
one, without the consent of the
proper authorities;
Elements:
(1) Offender has charge of the rearing or
education of a minor;
(2) He delivers said minor to a public institution
or other persons;
(3) The one who entrusted such child to the
offender has not consented to such act; or
if the one who entrusted such child to the
offender is absent, the proper authorities
have not consented to it.

MODE 2. Neglecting his (offenders) children
by not giving them the education
which their station in life requires
and financial condition permits.

Elements:
(1) Offender is a parent;
(2) He neglects his children by not giving them
education;
(3) His station in life requires such education
and his financial condition permits it.

ABANDONMENT OF
MINOR BY PERSONS
ENTRUSTED WITH
CUSTODY
(ART. 277)
ABANDONMENT OF
MINOR
(ART. 276)
The custody of the
offender is specific, that
is, the custody for the
rearing or education of
the minor
The custody of the
offender is stated in
general

Minor is under 18 yrs. of
age
Minor is under 7 years of
age
Minor is delivered to a
public institution or
other person
Minor is abandoned in
such a way as to deprive
him of the care and
protection that his
tender years need

4. Article 278 - Exploitation of
Minors

217
Mode 1. Causing any boy or girl under 16
years of age to perform any
dangerous feat of balancing, physical
strength or contortion, the offender
being any person;

Mode 2. Employing children under 16 years of
age who are not the children or
descendants of the offender in
exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast,
rope-walker, diver, or wild-animal
tamer, the offender being an
acrobat, etc., or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling;

Mode 3. Employing any descendant under 12
years of age in dangerous exhibitions
enumerated in the next preceding
paragraph, the offender being
engaged in any of the said callings;

Mode 4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age
gratuitously to any person following
any of the callings enumerated in
paragraph 2, or to any habitual
vagrant or beggar, the offender
being an ascendant, guardian,
teacher or person entrusted in any
capacity with the care of such child;

Mode 5. Inducing any child under 16 years of
age to abandon the home of its
ascendants, guardians, curators or
teachers to follow any person
engaged in any of the callings
mentioned in paragraph 2 or to
accompany any habitual vagrant or
beggar, the offender being any
person.

Circumstance qualifying the offense:
(1) If the delivery of the child to any person
following any of the calling of acrobat,
gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-animal
tamer or circus manager or to any habitual
vagrant or beggar is made in consideration
of any price, compensation or promise, the
penalty is higher.

(2) The offender is engaged in a kind of
business that would place the life or limb of
the minor in danger, even though working
for him is not against the will of the minor.

Nature of the Business: this involves circuses which
generally attract children so they themselves may
enjoy working there unaware of the danger to their
own lives and limbs.

Age: Must be below 16 years. Article 278 has no
application if minor is 16 years old and above, but
the exploitation will be dealt with by RA 7610.

If the employer is an ascendant, the crime is not
committed, unless the minor is less than 12 years
old.

If the minor so employed would suffer some injuries
as a result of a violation of Article 278, Article 279
provides that there would be additional criminal
liability for the resulting felony.

5. Article 280 - Qualified Trespass to
Dwelling
(asked 5 times)

Elements (PrEA)
(1) Offender is a private person;
(2) He enters the dwelling of another;
(3) Such entrance is against the latters will.

DWELLING: This is the place that a person inhabits.
It includes the dependencies which have interior
communication with the house.

It is not necessary that it be the permanent dwelling
of the person; hence, a persons room in a hotel may
be considered a dwelling.

It also includes a room where one resides as a
boarder.

If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not shown,
trespass is committed.

If the purpose is shown, it may be absorbed in the
crime as in robbery with force upon things, the
trespass yielding to the more serious crime.

If the purpose is not shown and while inside the
dwelling he was found by the occupants, one whom
he subsequently injured if there was a struggle, the
crime committed will be trespass to dwelling and
frustrated homicide or physical injuries, or if there
was no injury, unjust vexation.

If the entry is made by a way not intended for entry
that is presumed to be against the will of the
occupant (example, entry through a window).

It is not necessary that there be a breaking.

Against the will: This means that the entrance is,
either expressly or impliedly, prohibited or the
prohibition is presumed.

Fraudulent entrance may constitute trespass. The
prohibition to enter may be made at any time and
not necessarily at the time of the entrance.

To prove that an entry is against the will of the
occupant, it is not necessary that the entry should
be preceded by an express prohibition, provided that
the opposition of the occupant is clearly established
by the circumstances under which the entry is made,
such as the existence of enmity or strained relations
between the accused and the occupant.

218
Offender is public officer: crime is violation of
domicile.

No overt act of the crime intended to be committed:
Crime is trespass to dwelling.

Examples of trespass by means of violence:
(1) Pushing the door violently and maltreating
the occupants after entering.
(2) Cutting of a ribbon or string with which the
door latch of a closed room was fastened.
The cutting of the fastenings of the door
was an act of violence.
(3) Wounding by means of a bolo, the owner of
the house immediately after entrance

Examples of trespass by means of intimidation:
(1) Firing a revolver in the air by persons
attempting to force their way into a house.
(2) The flourishing of a bolo against inmates of
the house upon gaining an entrance

6. Article 281 - Other Forms of
Trespass

Elements:
(1) Offender enters the closed premises or the
fenced estate of another;
(2) The entrance is made while either of them
is uninhabited;
(3) The prohibition to enter is manifest;
(4) The trespasser has not secured the
permission of the owner or the caretaker
thereof.

Premises: signifies distinct and definite locality. It
may mean a room, shop, building or definite area,
but in either case, locality is fixed.

Qualified Trespass vs. Other Forms of Trespass
QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO
DWELLING
(ART. 280)
OTHER FORMS OF
TRESPASS
(ART. 281)
person
The offender is any
person
Offender enters a
dwelling
Offender enters closed
premises or fenced
estate
Place entered is
inhabited
Place entered is
uninhabited
Act constituting the
crime is entering the
dwelling against the will
of the owner
It is the entering the
closed premises or the
fenced estate without
securing the permission
of the owner or
caretaker thereof
Prohibition to enter is
express or implied
Prohibition to enter must
be manifest

7. Article 282 - Grave Threats

Mode 1. Threatening another with the
infliction upon his person, honor or
property or that of this family of any
wrong amounting to a crime and
demanding money or imposing any
other condition, even though not
unlawful, and the offender attained
his purpose;

Elements:
(1) That the offender threatens another person
with the infliction upon the latters person,
honor or property, or upon that of the
latters family, of any wrong.
(2) That such wrong amounts to a crime.
(3) That there is a demand for money or that
any other condition is imposed, even though
not unlawful.
(4) That the offender attains his purpose.

Mode 2. Making such threat without the
offender attaining his purpose;

Mode 3. Threatening another with the
infliction upon his person, honor or
property or that of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime, the
threat not being subject to a
condition.

Elements:
(1) That the offender threatens another person
with the infliction upon the latters person,
honor or property, or upon that of the
latters family, of any wrong.
(2) That such wrong amounts to a crime.
(3) That the threat is not subject to a
condition.

Qualifying Circumstance: If threat was made
(1) in writing OR
(2) through a middleman.

It is essential that there be intimidation.

It is not necessary that the offended party was
present at the time the threats were made. It is
sufficient that the threats came to his knowledge.

When consummated: As soon as the threats came to
the knowledge of the offended party.

8. Article 283 - Light Threats

Elements:
(1) Offender makes a threat to commit a
wrong;
(2) The wrong does not constitute a crime;
(3) There is a demand for money or that other
condition is imposed, even though not
unlawful;
(4) Offender has attained his purpose or, that
he has not attained his purpose.

The harm threatened must not be in the nature of
crime and there is a demand for money or any other
condition is imposed, even though lawful.

219

Blackmailing may be punished under this article.

9. Article 284 - Bond for Good
Behavior
(asked 3 times)

When a person is required to give bail bond:
(1) When he threatens another under the
circumstances mentioned in Art. 282.
(2) When he threatens another under the
circumstances mentioned in Art. 283.

10. Article 285 Other Light
Threats

Mode 1. Threatening another with a weapon,
or by drawing such weapon in a
quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-
defense;

Mode 2. Orally threatening another, in the
heat of anger, with some harm
constituting a crime, without
persisting in the idea involved in his
threat;

Mode 3. Orally threatening to do another any
harm not constituting a felony.

Under the first type, the subsequent acts of the
offender must show that he did not persist in the
idea involved in the threat.

Threats which are ordinarily grave threats, if made
in the heat of anger, may be other light threats.

If the threats are directed to a person who is absent
and uttered in a temporary fit of anger, the offense
is only other light threats.

11. Article 286 - Grave Coercions
(asked 8 times)

Mode 1. Preventing another, by means of
violence, threats or intimidation,
from doing something not prohibited
by law;

Mode 2. Compelling another, by means of
violence, threats or intimidation, to
do something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong.

Elements:
(1) A person prevented another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or that he
compelled him to do something against his
will; be it right or wrong;
(2) The prevention or compulsion be effected
by violence, threats or intimidation; and
(3) The person that restrained the will and
liberty of another had not the authority of
law or the right to do so, or in other words,
that the restraint shall not be made under
authority of law or in the exercise of any
lawful right.

Purpose of the Law: To enforce the principle that
no person may take the law into his hands, and that
our government is one of law, not of men.

Arises only if the act which the offender prevented
another to do is not prohibited by law or ordinance.

If a person prohibits another to do an act because
the act is a crime, even though some sort of violence
or intimidation is employed, it would not give rise to
grave coercion. It may only give rise to threat or
physical injuries, if some injuries are inflicted.

In case of grave coercion where the offended party
is being compelled to do something against his will,
whether it be wrong or not, the crime of grave
coercion is committed if violence or intimidation is
employed in order to compel him to do the act.

A public officer who shall prevent by means of
violence or threats the ceremonies or manifestations
of any religion is guilty of interruption of religious
worship (Art. 132).

Any person who, by force, prevents the meeting of a
legislative body is liable under Art. 143.

Any person who shall use force or intimidation to
prevent any member of Congress from attending the
meetings thereof, expressing his opinions, or casting
his vote is liable under Art. 145.
The crime is not grave coercion when the violence is
employed to seize anything belonging to the debtor
of the offender. It is light coercion under Art. 287.

The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the
interference of another with the same, if the
interference is necessary to avert an imminent
danger and the threatened damage, compared to the
damage arising to the owner from the interference,
is much greater. (Art. 432, Civil Code)

Neither the crime of threats nor coercion is
committed although the accused, a branch manager
of a bank made the complainant sign a withdrawal
slip for the amount needed to pay the spurious dollar
check she had encashed, and also made her execute
an affidavit regarding the return of the amount
against her better sense and judgment. The
complainant may have acted reluctantly and with
hesitation, but still, it was voluntary. [Lee v. CA]

12. Article 287 - Light Coercions

Elements:
(1) Offender must be a creditor;
(2) He seizes anything belonging to his debtor:
(3) The seizure of the thing be accomplished by
means of violence or a display of material
force producing intimidation;
(4) The purpose of the offender is to apply the

220
same to the payment of the debt.

Deals with light coercions wherein violence is
employed by the offender who is a creditor in seizing
anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of
applying the same to the payment of the debt.

Unjust Vexation: Any act committed without
violence, but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes an
innocent person amounts to light coercion. It should
include any human conduct which, although not
productive of some physical or material harm would,
however, unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent
person.

Unjust Vexation is distinguished from grave coercion
by the absence of violence.

13. Article 288 - Other Similar
Coercions

Mode 1. Forcing or compelling, directly or
indirectly, or knowingly permitting
the forcing or compelling of the
laborer or employee of the offender
to purchase merchandise of
commodities of any kind from him;

Elements:
(1) Offender is any person, agent or officer of
any association or corporation;
(2) He or such firm or corporation has
employed laborers or employees;
(3) He forces or compels, directly or indirectly,
or knowingly permits to be forced or
compelled, any of his or its laborers or
employees to purchase merchandise or
commodities of any kind from him or from
said firm or corporation.

Mode 2. Paying the wages due his laborer or
employee by means of tokens or
object other than the legal tender
currency of the Philippines, unless
expressly requested by such laborer
or employee.

Elements:
(1) Offender pays the wages due a laborer or
employee employed by him by means of
tokens or object;
(2) Those tokens or objects are other than the
legal tender currency of the Philippines;
(3) Such employee or laborer does not
expressly request that he be paid by means
of tokens or objects.

General rule: wages shall be paid in legal tender
and the use of tokens, promissory notes, vouchers,
coupons or any other forms alleged to represent
legal tender is absolutely prohibited even when
expressly requested by the employee. (Section 1,
Rule VIII, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code)

No employer shall limit or otherwise interfere with
the freedom of any employee to dispose of his
wages. He shall not in any manner force, compel,
oblige his employees to purchase merchandise,
commodities or other property from the employer or
from any other person. (Art. 112, Labor Code.)

14. Article 289 - Formation,
Maintenance, and Prohibition of
Combination of Capital or Labor
through Violence or Threats

Elements:
(1) Offender employs violence or threats, in
such a degree as to compel or force the
laborers or employers in the free and legal
exercise of their industry or work;
(2) The purpose is to organize, maintain or
prevent coalitions of capital or labor, strike
of laborers or lockout of employers.

Repealed by the Labor Code.

C. Chapter III: Discovery and
Revelation of Secrets
0.
1. Article 290 - Discovering Secrets
through Seizure of
Correspondence

Elements:
(1) Offender is a private individual or even a
public officer not in the exercise of his
official function;
(2) He seizes the papers or letters of another;
(3) The purpose is to discover the secrets of
such another person;
(4) Offender is informed of the contents of the
papers or letters seized.

This is a crime against the security of ones papers
and effects. The purpose must be to discover its
effects. The act violates the privacy of
communication.

According to Dean Ortega, it is not necessary that
the offender should actually discover the contents of
the letter. Reyes, citing People v. Singh, CA, 40 OG,
Suppl. 5, 35, believes otherwise.

The last paragraph of Article 290 expressly makes
the provision of the first and second paragraph
thereof inapplicable to parents, guardians, or
persons entrusted with the custody of minors placed
under their care or custody, and to the spouses with
respect to the papers or letters of either of them.

The teachers or other persons entrusted with the
care and education of minors are included in the
exceptions.

Distinction from estafa, damage to property, and
unjust vexation:

221
(1) If the act had been executed with intent of
gain, it would be estafa;
(2) If, on the other hand, the purpose was not
to defraud, but only to cause damage to
anothers, it would merit the qualification
of damage to property;
(3) If the intention was merely to cause
vexation preventing another to do
something which the law does not prohibit
or compel him to execute what he does not
want, the act should be considered as
unjust vexation.

Relevant Special Penal Law: RA 4200 (ANTI WIRE
TAPPING ACT)

2. Article 291 - Revealing Secrets
with Abuse of Office

Elements:
(1) Offender is a manager, employee or
servant;
(2) He learns the secrets of his principal or
master in such capacity;
(3) He reveals such secrets.

An employee, manager, or servant who came to
know of the secret of his master or principal in such
capacity and reveals the same shall also be liable
regardless of whether or not the principal or master
suffered damages.

Essence of this crime is that the offender learned of
the secret in the course of his employment.

He is enjoying a confidential relation with the
employer or master so he should respect the privacy
of matters personal to the latter.

If the matter pertains to the business of the
employer or master, damage is necessary and the
agent, employee or servant shall always be liable.

Reason: no one has a right to the personal privacy of
another.

3. Article 292 - Revelation of
Industrial Secrets

Elements:
(1) Offender is a person in charge, employee or
workman of a manufacturing or industrial
establishment;
(2) The manufacturing or industrial
establishment has a secret of the industry
which the offender has learned;
(3) Offender reveals such secrets;
(4) Prejudice is caused to the owner.

Secrets must relate to manufacturing processes.

The act constituting the crime is revealing the secret
of the industry which the offender has learned.

The revelation of the secret might be made after the
employee or workman had ceased to be connected
with the establishment.

Prejudice is an element of the offense.

See also:
(1) RA 4200: Anti-Wiretapping Act
(3) RA 9208: Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act

222
Title X. Crimes against Property

Chapter I: Robbery in General
(1) Article 293 - Who Are Guilty of Robbery
(2) Article 294 - With Violence or Intimidation
of Persons
(3) Article 295 - Robbery with Physical Injuries,
in an Uninhabited Place and by a Band
(4) Article 296 - Definition of a Band and
Penalty Incurred by the Members Thereof
(5) Article 297 - Attempted and Frustrated
Robbery with Homicide
(6) Article 298 - Execution of Deeds through
Violence or Intimidation
(7) Article 299 - Robbery in an Inhabited House
or Public Building or Edifice Devoted to
Worship
(8) Article 300 - Robbery in an Uninhabited
Place and by a Band
(9) Article 302 - In an Uninhabited Place or
Private Building
(10) Article 303 - Robbery of Cereals, Fruits or
Firewood in an Inhabited Place or Private
Building
(11) Article 304 - Possession of Picklock or
Similar Tools
(12) Article 305 - Defines False Keys

Chapter 2: Brigandage
(1) Article 306 - Who Are Brigands
(2) Article 307 - Aiding and Abetting a Band of
Brigands

Chapter 3: Theft
(1) Article 308 - Who Are Liable for Theft
(2) Article 309 Penalties
(3) Article 310 - Qualified Theft
(4) Article 311 - Theft of the Property of the
National Library and National Museum

Chapter 4: Usurpation
(1) Article 312 - Occupation of Real Property or
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property
(2) Article 313 - Altering Boundaries or
Landmarks

Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency
(1) Article 314 - Fraudulent Insolvency

Chapter 6: Swindling
(1) Article 315 Estafa
(2) Article 316 - Other Forms of Swindling
(3) Article 317 - Swindling of a Minor
(4) Article 318 - Other Deceits

Chapter 7: Chattel mortgage
(1) Article 319 - Removal, Sale, or Pledge of
Mortgaged Property

Chapter 8: Arson and other Crimes involving
Destruction

Chapter 9: Malicious mischief
(1) Article 327 - Who Are Responsible
(2) Article 328 - Special Cases of Malicious
Mischief
(3) Article 329 - Other Mischiefs
(4) Article 330 - Damage and Obstruction to
Means of Communication
(5) Article 331 - Destroying or Damaging
Statues, Public Monuments or Paintings

Chapter 10: Exemption from Criminal Liability
(1) Article 332 - Exemption from Criminal
Liability in Crimes Against Property

A. Chapter I: Robbery in General
0.
1. Article 293 - Who Are Guilty of
Robbery
(asked 3 times)

Elements of Robbery in General: (PAUI, V/I/F)
(1) Personal property
(2) Belonging to another
(3) There be Unlawful taking
(4) With Intent to gain
(5) Violence against or intimidation of any
person OR force upon anything

The property taken must be personal, if real
property/right is usurped the crime is usurpation
(Art. 312).

Prohibitive articles may be the subject of robbery,
e.g., opium

From the moment the offender gains possession of
the object, even without the chance to dispose of
the same, the unlawful taking is complete.

Taking: depriving the offended party of possession
of the thing taken with the character of
permanency.

Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking.
It cannot be established by direct evidence, except
in case of confession.

It is not necessary that violence or intimidation is
present from the beginning. The violence or
intimidation at any time before asportation is
complete, the taking of property is qualified to
robbery.

VIOLENCE AGAINST OR
INTIMIDATION OF
PERSON
USE OF FORCE UPON
THINGS
The taking is always
robbery.

VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
TAKEN IS IMMATERIAL.

The taking is robbery
only if force is used to:
(1) enter the building
(2) break doors,
wardrobes, chests,
or any other kind of
locked or sealed
furniture or
receptacle inside
the building; OR
(3) force them open
outside after taking
the same from the

223
VIOLENCE AGAINST OR
INTIMIDATION OF
PERSON
USE OF FORCE UPON
THINGS
building (Art. 299 &
302)
The penalty depends on:
(1) the result of the
violence used
(homicide,
rape,
intentional
mutilation,
serious physical
injuries, less
serious or slight
physical injuries
resulted) and
(2) the existence of
intimidation
only
If committed in an
inhabited house, public
building, or edifice
devoted to religious
worship, the penalty is
based on:
(1) the value of the
thing taken and
(2) whether or not the
offenders carry
arms;

2. Article 294 - With Violence or
Intimidation of Persons
(asked 7 times)

Acts punished under:
(1) When by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, Homicide is committed. (Robbery
with Homicide)
(2) When the robbery is accompanied by Rape
or Intentional Mutilation or Arson.
(Robbery with Rape, Robbery with
Intentional Mutilation, Robbery with Arson)
(3) When by reason or on occasion of such
robbery, any of the Physical Injuries
resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency,
or blindness is inflicted.
(4) When by reason or on occasion of robbery,
any of the Physical Injuries resulting in the
loss of the use of speech or the power to
hear or to smell, or the loss of an eye, a
hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or the loss of
the use of any such member, or incapacity
for the work in which the injured person is
theretofore habitually engaged is inflicted.
(5) If the Violence or Intimidation employed in
the commission of the robbery is carried to
a degree clearly Unnecessary for the
commission of the crime.
(6) When in the course of its execution, the
offender shall have inflicted upon any
person not responsible for the commission
of the robbery any of the Physical Injuries
in consequence of which the person injured
becomes deformed or loses any other
member of his body or loses the use
thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for
the performance of the work in which he is
habitually engaged for labor for more than
30 days
(7) If the violence employed by the offender
does not cause any of the serious physical
injuries defined in Art. 263, or if the
offender employs intimidation only.

The crime defined in this article is a special complex
crime.

On the occasion and by reason mean that
homicide or serious physical injuries must be
committed in the course or because of the robbery.

The violence must be against the person, not upon
the thing taken. It must be present before the taking
of personal property is complete.

Homicide is used in its generic sense, as to include
parricide and murder. Hence, there is no robbery
with murder. The crime is still robbery with
homicide even if, in the course of the robbery, the
person killed was another robber or a bystander.

Even if the rape was committed in another place, it
is still robbery with rape. When the taking of
personal property of a woman is an independent act
following defendants failure to consummate the
rape, there are two distinct crimes committed:
attempted rape and theft. Additional rape
committed on the same occasion of robbery will not
increase the penalty.

Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of
personal property grave coercion if there is violence
used (Art. 286).

If both violence/intimidation of persons (294) and
force upon things (299/302) co-exist, it will be
considered as violation of Art 294 because it is more
serious than in Art 299/302.

BUT when robbery is under Art 294 par 4 & 5 the
penalty is lower than in Art 299 so the complex
crime should be imputed for the higher penalty to be
imposed without sacrificing the principle that
robbery w/ violence against persons is more severe
than that w/ force upon things. [Napolis v. CA
(1972)]

When the taking of the victims gun was to prevent
the victim from retaliating, then the crimes
committed are theft and homicide not robbery with
homicide. [People v. Millian (2000)]

3. Article 295 - Robbery with
Physical Injuries, in an
Uninhabited Place and by a Band

Robbery with violence against or intimidation or
persons is qualified when it is committed:
(1) In an Uninhabited place, or
(2) By a Band, or
(3) By Attacking a moving train, street car,
motor vehicle, or airship, or
(4) By Entering the passengers compartments
in a train, or in any manner taking the
passengers thereof by surprise in the
respective conveyances, or

224
(5) On a Street, road, highway, or alley, AND
the intimidation is made with the use of
firearms, the offender shall be punished by
the maximum periods of the proper
penalties in Art. 294.

It cannot be offset by a generic mitigating
circumstance.

The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies
only robbery on a street, road, highway, or alley.

4. Article 296 - Definition of a Band
and Penalty Incurred by the
Members Thereof
(asked once)

Outline of Art. 296:
When at least 4 armed malefactors take part in the
commission of a robbery, it is deemed committed by
a band.

When any of the arms used in the commission of
robbery is not licensed, penalty upon all the
malefactors shall be the maximum of the
corresponding penalty provided by law, without
prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal
possession of such firearms.

Any member of a band who was present at the
commission of a robbery by the band, shall be
punished as principal of any of the assaults
committed by the band, unless it be shown that he
attempted to prevent the crime.

Requisites for Liability for the acts of the other
members:
(1) Member of the band.
(2) Present at the commission of the robbery.
(3) Other members committed an assault.
(4) He did not attempt to prevent assault.

Conspiracy is presumed when robbery is by band.

There is no crime as robbery with homicide in
band.

Band is only ordinary aggravating circumstance in
robbery w/ homicide

In order that special aggravating circumstance of
unlicensed firearm be appreciated, it is condition
sine qua non that offense charged be robbery by a
band under Art 295.

Pursuant to Art 295, circumstance of a band is
qualifying only in robbery under par 3, 4 & 5 of Art
294.

Hence, Art. 295 does not apply to robbery with
homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with
serious physical injuries under par. 1 of Art. 263.

Special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed
firearm is inapplicable to robbery w/ homicide, or
robbery with rape, or robbery with physical injuries,
committed by a band. [People v. Apduhan]

5. Article 297 - Attempted and
Frustrated Robbery with Homicide
(asked 4 times)

Homicide includes multiple homicides, murder,
parricide, or even infanticide.

The penalty is the same, whether robbery is
attempted or frustrated.

Robbery with homicide and attempted or frustrated
robbery with homicide are special complex crimes,
not governed by Art. 48, but by the special
provisions of Arts. 294 & 297, respectively.

There is only one crime of attempted robbery with
homicide even if slight physical injuries were
inflicted on other persons on the occasion or by
reason of the robbery.

6. Article 298 - Execution of Deeds
through Violence or Intimidation
(asked twice)

Elements:
(1) Offender has Intent to defraud another
(2) Offender Compels him to sign, execute, or
deliver any public instrument or document
(3) Compulsion is by means of Violence or
Intimidation.

If the violence resulted in the death of the person to
be defrauded, crime is robbery with homicide and
shall be penalized under Art 294 par. 1.

Art. 298 applies to private or commercial document,
but it does not apply if document is void.

When the offended party is under obligation to sign,
execute or deliver the document under the law, it is
not robbery but coercion.

BY FORCE UPON THINGS

Robbery by the use of force upon things is
committed only when either:
(1) Offender entered a House or Building by any
of the means specified in Art. 299 or Art.
302, or
(2) Even if there was no entrance by any of
those means, he broke a wardrobe, chest,
or any other kind of locked or closed or
sealed furniture or receptacle in the house
or building, or he took it away to be broken
or forced open outside.

7. Article 299 - Robbery in an
Inhabited House or Public Building
or Edifice Devoted to Worship
(asked thrice)

Elements of robbery with force upon things under

225
SUBDIVISION (A):
(1) Offender entered
(a) Inhabited House
(b) Public Building
(c) Edifice devoted to Religious Worship
(2) Entrance was effected by any of the
following means:
(a) Through an opening Not intended for
entrance or egress;
(b) By Breaking any wall, roof, or floor, or
door or window;
(c) By using False keys, picklocks or similar
tools; or
(d) By using any Fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public
authority.
(3) That once inside the building, the offender
Took personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain.

There must be evidence that accused entered the
dwelling house or building by any of the means
enumerated in subdivision (a). In entering the
building, there must be the intent to take personal
property.

Inhabited house: any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons
even though the inhabitants thereof are temporarily
absent when the robbery is committed.

Public building: every building owned by the
Government or belonging to a private person but
used or rented by the Government, although
temporarily unoccupied by the same.

Any of the four means described in subdivision (a)
must be resorted to enter a house or building, not to
get out otherwise it is only theft. The whole body of
the culprit must be inside the building to constitute
entering.

Illustration: If the culprit had entered the house
through an open door, and the owner, not knowing
that the culprit was inside, closed and locked the
door from the outside and left, and the culprit, after
taking personal property in the house, went out
through the window, it is only theft, not robbery.

Breaking: means entering the building. The force
used in this means must be actual, as distinguished
from that in the other means which is only
constructive force.

False keys: genuine keys stolen from the owner or
any keys other than those intended for use in the
lock forcibly opened by the offender. The genuine
key must be stolen, not taken by force or with
intimidation, from the owner.

If false key is used to open wardrobe or locked
receptacle or drawer or inside door it is only theft

Elements of robbery with force upon things under
SUBDIVISION (B) of Art. 299:
(1) Offender is inside a dwelling house, public
building, or edifice devoted to religious
worship, regardless of the circumstances
under which he entered it.

(2) Offender takes personal property belonging
to another, with intent to gain, under any
of the following circumstances.
(a) Breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests,
or any other kind of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle; or
(b) Taking such furniture or objects away
to be broken or forced open outside the
place of the robbery.

Entrance into the building by any of the means
mentioned in subdivision (a) is not required in
robbery under subdivision (b)

The term door in par. 1, subdivision (b) of Art.
299, refers only to doors, lids or opening sheets of
furniture or other portable receptaclesnot to inside
doors of house or building.

Breaking the keyhole of the door of a wardrobe,
which is locked, is breaking a locked furniture.

It is theft, if the locked or sealed receptacle is not
forced open in the building where it is kept or taken
from to be broken outside.

The penalty depends on the value of property taken
and on whether or not offender carries arm. Arms
carried must not be used to intimidate. Liability for
carrying arms is extended to all those who
participated in the robbery, including those without
arms.

The provision punishes more severely the robbery in
a house used as a dwelling than that committed in
an uninhabited place, because of the possibility that
the inhabitants in the former might suffer bodily
harm during the robbery.

Article 301 - What is an Uninhabited House, Public
Building Dedicated to Religious Worship and Their
Dependencies: Even if the occupant was absent
during the robbery, the place is still inhabited if the
place was ordinarily inhabited and intended as a
dwelling.

Dependencies: all interior courts, corrals,
warehouses, granaries or inclosed places contiguous
to the building or edifice, having an interior
entrance connected therewith, and which form part
of the whole (Art. 301, par. 2).

Requisites:
(1) Contiguous to the building;
(2) Interior entrance connected therewith;
(3) Form part of the whole.

Orchards and lands used for cultivation or production
are not included in the term dependencies (Art.
301, par. 3).

226

8. Article 300 Robbery in an
Uninhabited Place and by a Band

Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or
edifice to religious worship is qualified when
committed by a band and located in an uninhabited
place.

See discussion on Art. 296 for definition of band.

To qualify Robbery w/
force upon things (Art
299)
To qualify Robbery w/
violence against or
intimidation
It must be committed in
uninhabited place AND
by a band (Art 300)
It must be committed in
an uninhabited place OR
by a band (Art. 295)

9. Article 302 - In an Uninhabited
Place or Private Building

Elements:
(1) Offender entered an Uninhabited place or a
building which was not a dwelling house,
not a public building, or not an edifice
devoted to religious worship.
(2) That any of the following circumstances was
present:
(a) Entrance was effected through an
opening Not intended for entrance or
egress;
(b) A Wall, roof, floor, or outside door or
window was broken
(c) Entrance was effected through the use
of False keys, picklocks or other similar
tools;
(d) A Door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed
or closed furniture or receptacle was
broken; or
(e) A Closed or sealed receptacle was
removed, even if the same be broken
open elsewhere.
(3) With intent to gain, the offender took
therefrom personal property belonging to
another.

Building: includes any kind of structure used for
storage or safekeeping of personal property, such as
(a) freight car ad (b) warehouse.

Entrance through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress is not necessary, if there is
breaking of wardrobe, chest, or sealed or closed
furniture or receptacle, or removal thereof to be
broken open elsewhere.

Breaking padlock is use of force upon things.

Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of
public authorities is not covered under this article.

A receptacle is a container, which must be closed
or sealed.

Penalty is based only on value of property taken.

Robbery in a store
Punishable under
Art. 299
Punishable under
Art. 302
If the store is used as a
dwelling, the robbery
committed therein
would be considered as
committed in an
inhabited house (People
v Suarez)

If the store is located on
the ground floor of the
house belonging to the
owner, having an interior
entrance connected
therewith, it is a
dependency of an
inhabited house and the
robbery committed
therein (US v Tapan).
If the store was not
actually occupied at the
time of the robbery and
was not used as a
dwelling, since the
owner lived in a separate
house, the robbery
committed therein
(People v Silvestre)

10. Article 303 - Robbery of
Cereals, Fruits or Firewood in an
Inhabited Place or Private Building

The penalty is one degree lower only when robbery
is committed by use of force upon things, without
intimidation or violence against a person.

Cereals are seedlings which are the immediate
product of the soil. The palay must be kept by the
owner as seedling or taken for that purpose by the
robbers.

11. Article 304 - Possession of
Picklock or Similar Tools

Elements:
(1) Offender has in his possession Picklocks or
similar tools;
(2) Such picklock or similar tools are especially
Adopted to the commission of robbery;
(3) Offender does Not have lawful cause for
such possession.

12. Article 305 - Defines False
Keys

TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
(1) Tools mentioned in Article 304;
(2) Genuine keys Stolen from the owner;
(3) Any key other than those intended by the
owner for Use in the lock forcibly opened by
the offender.

B. Chapter 2: Brigandage (Articles
306-307)
0.
1. Article 306 - Who Are Brigands

Elements of Brigandage:

227
(1) There be at least 4 armed persons
(2) They Formed a band of robbers
(3) The Purpose is any of the following:
(a) To commit Robbery in the highway; or
(b) To Kidnap for the purpose of extortion
or to obtain ransom; or
(c) To Attain by means of force and
violence any other purpose.

Presumption of law as to brigandage: all are
presumed highway robbers or brigands, if any of
them carries unlicensed firearm.

The arms carried may be any deadly weapon.

The main object of the law is to prevent the
formation of band of robbers.

The term highway includes city streets.

The following must be proved:
(1) Organization of more than 3 armed persons
forming a band of robbers
(2) Purpose of the band is any of those
enumerated in Art. 306.
(3) That they went upon the highway or roamed
upon the country for that purpose.
(4) That the accused is a member of such band.

BRIGANDAGE ROBBERY IN BAND
Purpose (1) Commit
robbery in a
highway
(2) Kidnap to
extort or get
ransom
(3) Any other
purpose to be
achieved by
means of
force or
violence
Commit robbery,
and not necessarily
in a highway
Proof Mere formation of
a band for any of
the above purposes
is sufficient. There
is no requirement
that the brigands
consummate the
crime.
It is necessary to
prove that the
band actually
committed the
robbery.
Conspiracy to
commit robbery is
not punishable.

2. Article 307 - Aiding and Abetting a
Band of Brigands

Elements:
(1) There is a Band of brigands
(2) Offender Knows the band to be of brigands
(3) Offender Does any of the following acts:
(a) He in any manner Aids, abets or
protects such band of brigands; or
(b) He gives them Information of the
movements of the police or other
peace officers; or
(4) He Acquires or receives the property taken
by such brigands.

It is presumed that the person performing any of the
acts provided in this article has performed them
knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.

Any person who aids or protects highway robbers or
abets the commission of highway robbery or
brigandage shall be considered as an accomplice.

See Special Law: PD 532 Anti-Piracy And Anti-
Highway Robbery

It is necessary to prove that the intention and
purpose of the accused was to commit robbery
indiscriminately and such robbery is committed on
any Philippine Highway. [People v. Pulusan (1998)]

C. Chapter 3: Theft
0.
1. Article 308 - Who Are Liable for
Theft
(asked 13 times)

Elements of Theft:
(1) Taking of personal property
(2) That Belongs to another
(3) With Intent to gain.
(4) Without the Consent of the owner.
(5) Accomplished Without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things.

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

Persons liable for theft:
(1) Those who,
(a) with intent to gain,
(b) without violence against or intimidation
of persons nor force upon things,
(c) take,
(d) personal property,
(e) of another,
(f) without the latters consent.

(2) Those who,
(a) having found lost property,
(b) fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner.

(3) Those who,
(a) after having maliciously damaged the
property of another,
(b) remove or make use of the fruits or
object of the damage caused by them.

(4) Those who,
(a) enter an inclosed estate or field where
(b) trespass is forbidden or which belongs
to another and, without the consent of
its owner,

228
(c) hunt or fish upon the same or gather
fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm
products.

The theft is consummated & taking completed once
the culprit is able to place the thing taken under his
control, and in such a situation that he could dispose
of it at once.

In accordance with the definition in Art 308, there is
no frustrated theft. The offender has either
complete control of the property (consummated) or
without (attempted). Intent to gain is presumed
from the unlawful taking of personal property
belonging to another. [Valenzuela v. People (2007)]

If a person takes property of another, believing it to
be his own, presumption of intent to gain is
rebutted. Hence, he is not guilty of theft.

If one takes personal property openly and avowedly
under claim of title made in good faith, he is not
guilty of theft even though claim of ownership is
later found to be untenable.

If possession was only material or physical, the crime
is THEFT. If possession was juridical, crime is
ESTAFA.

Selling share of a partner or co-owner is not theft.

Actual or real gain is not necessary in theft.

The consent contemplated in this article refers to
consent freely given, and not mere lack of
opposition by owner of the property taken.

It is not robbery when violence is for a reason
entirely foreign to the fact of taking.

Gulinao shot Dr. Chua and left. Then he went back &
took Dr. Chuas diamond ring. The crime was Theft
and not robbery. Circumstances show that the taking
was merely an afterthought. Violence used in killing
Dr. Chua had no bearing on the taking of the ring.
[People v. Gulinao, (1989)]

Properties were taken after accused has already
carried out his primary criminal intent of killing the
victim. Considering that the victim was already
heavily wounded when his properties were taken,
there was no need to employ violence against or
intimidation against his person. Hence, accused can
only be held guilty of the separate offense of theft.
[People vs Basao (1999)]

One in possession of part of recently stolen property
is presumed to be thief of all.

Lost property: embraces loss by stealing or by
act of he owner or by a person other than the
owner, or through some casual occurrence.

It is necessary to prove the following in order to
establish theft by failure to deliver or return lost
property:
(1) Time of the seizure of the thing
(2) It was a lost property belonging to another;
and
(3) That the accused having had the
opportunity to return or deliver the lost
property to its owner or to the local
authorities, refrained from doing so.

The law does not require knowledge of the owner of
the property.

Elements of hunting, fishing or gathering fruits,
etc., in enclosed estate:
(1) That there is an enclosed estate or a field,
where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another
(2) Offender enters the same
(3) Offender hunts or fishes upon the same or
gathers fruits, cereals or other forest or
farm products in the estate or field; and
(4) That the hunting or fishing or gathering of
products is without the consent of the
owner.

2. Article 309 - Penalties

The basis of the penalty in theft is
(1) the value of the thing stolen, or
(2) the value and nature of the property taken,
or
(3) the circumstances that impelled the culprit
to commit the crime.

If there is no evidence of the value of the property
stolen, the court should impose the minimum
penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of
P5.00. The court may also take judicial notice of its
value in the proper cases.

3. Article 310 - Qualified Theft
(asked 10 times)

Theft is qualified if:
(1) Committed by a Domestic servant
(2) Committed with Grave abuse of confidence
(3) The property stolen is
(a) motor vehicle,
(b) mail matter, or
(c) large cattle

The property stolen consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of a:
(1) plantation
(2) The property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery
(3) The property is taken on the occasion of
fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic
eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance.

The penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees higher.

229
Theft by domestic servant is always qualified.
Theres no need to prove grave abuse of discretion.

The abuse of confidence must be grave. There must
be allegation in the information and proof of a
relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship or
vigilance, between the accused and the offended
party that has created a high degree of confidence
between them, which the accused abused.

Theft of any material, spare part, product or article
by employees and laborers is heavily punished under
PD 133.

Motor vehicle: all vehicles propelled by power,
other than muscular power. Theft of motor vehicle
may now fall under the anti-carnapping law.

When the purpose of taking the car is to destroy by
burning it, the crime is arson.

If a private individual took a letter containing postal
money order it is qualified theft. If it was the
postmaster, to whom the letter was delivered, the
crime would be infidelity in the custody of
documents.

Regarding the theft of coconuts and fish, what
matters is not the execution, but the location where
it is taken. It should be in the plantation or in the
fishpond.

RA 6539: ANTI-CARNAPPING law
Carnapping: taking, with intent to gain, of motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latters
consent or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by force upon things (Izon
v. People, 1981)

Motor Vehicle: any vehicle which is motorized using
the streets which are public, not exclusively for
private use (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in
Criminal Law)

PD 533 ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW
Cattle rustling: taking away by means, methods or
schemes, without the consent of the owner/raiser,
of any large cattle whether or not for profit, or
whether committed with or without violence against
or intimidation of person or force upon things. It
includes killing of large cattle, taking its meat or
hide without the consent of owner/raiser.

Large cattle: include cow, carabao, horse, mule,
ass, other domesticated member of bovine family. A
goat is not included because it is not large (Boado,

Presumption: Every person in possession of large
cattle shall upon demand by competent authorities
exhibit required documents. Failure to do so is prima
facie evidence that large cattle in possession are
fruits of crime of cattle rustling

Killing of owner is absorbed in cattle rustling (Boado,

Considering that the gravamen of the crime is the
taking or killing of large cattle or taking its meat or
hide without the consent of the owner or raiser,
conviction for the same need only be supported by
the fact of taking without the cattle owners
consent. There is a disputable presumption that a
person found in possession of a thing taken in the
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the
doer of the whole act. [Ernesto Pil-ey vs. People
(2007)]

PD 704: ILLEGAL FISHING
Prima facie presumption of illegal fishing when:
(1) Explosive, obnoxious or poisonous substance
or equipment or device for electric fishing
are found in the fishing boat or in the
possession of fisherman; or
(2) When fish caught with the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous
substances or by electricity are found in a
fishing boat

PD 1612: Anti-Fencing Law
Fencing:
(1) the act of any person who,
(2) with intent to gain for himself or for
another,
(3) shall buy, receive, keep, acquire, conceal,
sell, or dispose of, or shall buy and sell or in
any other manner deal in
(4) any article, item, object, or anything of
value
(5) which he knows, or should be known to him,
(6) to have been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft.

Elements:
(1) Robbery or theft has been committed.
(2) The accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in the crime of robbery or theft,
buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires,
conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and
sells, or in any manner deals in any article,
item, object, or anything of value, which
has been derived from the proceeds of the
said crime.
(3) The accused knows or should have known
that the said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
(4) There is, on the part of the accused, intent
to gain for himself or another.

Mere possession of any good, article, item, object,
or anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing. [People v. Dizon-Pamintuan]

Robbery/theft and fencing are separate and distinct
offenses.

230

4. Article 311 - Theft of the Property
of the National Library and
National Museum

Theft of property of the National Museum and
National Library has a fixed penalty regardless of its
value. But if it was with grave abuse of confidence,
the penalty for qualified theft shall be imposed.

D. Chapter 4: Usurpation
0.
1. Article 312 - Occupation of Real
Property or Usurpation of Real
Rights in Property
(asked twice)

Acts punishable under Art. 312:
(1) Taking possession of any real property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons
(2) Usurping any real rights in property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons.

Elements:
(1) Offender takes possession of any real
property OR usurps any real rights in
property
(2) Real property or real rights belong to
another
(3) Violence against or intimidation of persons
is used by the offender in occupying real
property or usurping real rights in property.
(4) There is intent to gain.

If no violence or intimidation only civil liability
exists. Violence or intimidation must be the means
used in occupying real property or in usurping real
rights.

Art. 312 does not apply when the violence or
intimidation took place subsequent to the entry into
the property.

Art. 312 does not apply to a case of open defiance of
the writ of execution issued in the forcible entry
case.

Criminal action for usurpation of real property is not
a bar to civil action for forcible entry.

Usurpation Theft or Robbery
Act Occupation or
Usurpation
Taking or
asportation
What is
Taken
Real property or
Real Right
Personal property
Intent To Gain To Gain

RA 947 punishes entering or occupying public
agricultural land including lands granted to private
individuals.

2. Article 313 - Altering Boundaries
or Landmarks

Elements:
(1) That there be boundary marks or
monuments of towns, provinces, or estates,
or any other marks intended to designate
the boundaries of the same.
(2) That the offender alters said boundary
marks.

Provision does not require intent to gain.

The word alter may include:
(1) destruction of stone monument
(2) taking it to another place
(3) removing a fence

E. Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency
0.
1. Article 314 - Fraudulent
Insolvency

Elements:
(1) That the offender is a debtor; that is, he
has obligations due and payable
(2) That he absconds with his property
(3) That there be prejudice to his creditors

Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required.
Even if the debtor disposes of his property, unless it
is shown that it has actually prejudiced his creditor,
conviction will not lie.

Fraudulent concealment of property is not sufficient
if the debtor has some property with which to satisfy
his obligation.

Abscond: does not require that the debtor should
depart and physically conceal his property. Real
property could be the subject matter of Art. 314.

The person prejudiced must be creditor of the
offender.

Art 314 Insolvency law
No need for insolvency
proceedings.

No need to be adjudged
bankrupt or insolvent.
Crime should be
committed after the
institution of insolvency
proceedings

F. Chapter 6: Swindling and Other
Deceits
0.
1. Article 315 - Estafa
(asked 28 times)

Elements of Estafa in General:
(1) That the accused defrauded another

231
(a) by abuse of confidence; or
(b) by means of deceit; and
(2) That damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third person.
(3) Through
(a) With unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence (315 par. 1(a) (b) (c))
(b) Estafa by means of fraudulent acts (315
Par. 2(A) (B) (C)(D) (E) ; BP22):
(c) Through other fraudulent means (315
par 3(a) (b) (c) )

a. With Unfaithfulness or Abuse of
Confidence (315 par. 1(a) (b) (c))

Par 1(a): Altering substance, quantity or quality of
object subject of obligation to deliver

Elements:
(1) Offender has an Onerous obligation to
deliver something of value.
(2) That he Alters its substance, quantity, or
quality
(3) That Damage or prejudice is caused to
another

Deceit is NOT an essential element of estafa with
abuse of confidence.

Damage or prejudice must be capable of estimation,
because it is the basis of the penalty.

Delivery of anything of value must be by virtue of
an onerous obligation to do so.

When the fraud committed consists in the
adulteration or mixing of some extraneous substance
in an article of food so as to lower its quantity, it
may be a violation of the Pure Food Law.

Its not estafa if the thing delivered is not
acceptable to the complainant when there is no
agreement as to its quality.

Estafa may arise even if thing delivered is not
subject of lawful commerce, such as opium.

Par.1(b): Misappropriation and Conversion

Elements:
(1) That Money, goods, or other personal
property be received by the offender in trust,
or in commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty
to make delivery of, or to return, the same;
(2) There be Misappropriation or conversion of
such money or property by the offender, or
denial on his part of such receipt;
(3) That such misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the Prejudice of another; and
(4) That there is a demand made by the offended
party to the offender

The 4th element is not necessary when there is
evidence of misappropriation of goods by the
defendant.

Check is included in the word money.

Money, goods or other personal property must be
received by the offender under certain kinds of
transaction transferring juridical possession to him.

The offender acquires both physical possession and
juridical possession when the thing received by the
offender from the offended party
(1) in trust, or
(2) on commission, or
(3) for administration,

Juridical possession: means a possession which
gives the transferee a right over the thing which he
may invoke even as against the owner.

When the delivery of a chattel does not transfer
juridical possession/title, it is presumed that the
possession/title of the thing remain w/ owner.

Failure to turn over to the bank the proceeds of sale
of goods covered by trust receipts is estafa.

The phrase or under any obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of, or to return the same,
includes quasi-contracts and certain contracts of
bailment. The obligation to return the thing must be
contractual but without transferring to accused
ownership of the thing.

When ownership is transferred to recipient, his
failure to return it results in civil liability only.

Applicable Civil Code provisions:
(1) Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold
shall be transferred to the vendee upon
actual or constructive delivery thereof.
(2) Art. 1482. Whenever earnest money is given
in a contract of sale, it shall be considered
as part of the price and as proof of the
perfection of the contract.

In estafa with abuse of confidence under par. (b),
subdivision 1 of Art. 315, the thing received must be
returned if there is an obligation to return it.

If no obligation to return there is only civil liability.

No estafa when:
(1) Transaction sale fails. There is no estafa if
the accused refused to return the advance
payment.
(2) The money or personal property received by
accused is not to be used for a particular
purpose or to be returned.
(3) Thing received under a contract of sale on
credit

Payment by students to the school for the value of
materials broken is not mere deposit.

232

Novation of contract of agency to one of sale, or to
one of loan, relieves defendant from incipient
criminal liability under the first contract.

He exerted all efforts to retrieve dump truck, albeit
belatedly and to no avail. His ineptitude should not
be confused with criminal intent. Criminal intent is
required for the conviction of Estafa. Earnest effort
to comply with obligation is a defense against
estafa. [Manahan vs CA (1996)]

3 Ways Of Committing Estafa With Abuse Of
Confidence Under Art. 315 Par. (B):
(1) Misappropriating the thing received.
(2) Converting the thing received.
(3) Denying that the thing was received.

Misappropriating: means to own, to take
something for one's own benefit.

Converting: Using or disposing of anothers
property as if it were ones own.

Conversion: presupposes that the thing has been
devoted to a purpose or use different from that
agreed upon.

The fact that an agent sold the thing received on
commission for a lower price than the one fixed,
does not constitute estafa (US v Torres).

The law does not distinguish between temporary and
permanent misappropriations.

No estafa under Art. 315 par (b) when there is
neither misappropriation nor conversion.

Right of agent to deduct commission from amounts
(1) If agent is authorized to retain his
commission out of the amounts he
collected, there is no estafa.
(2) Otherwise he is guilty of estafa, because his
right to commission does not make the
agent a co-owner of money

3rd element of estafa with abuse of confidence is
that the conversion, or denial by offender resulted
in the prejudice of the offended party.

To the prejudice of another: not necessarily of the
owner of the property.

General rule: Partners are not liable for estafa of
money or property received for the partnership
when the business commenced and profits accrued.
Failure of partner to account for partnership funds
may give rise to civil obligation only, not estafa.

Exception: when a partner misappropriates the
share of another partner in the profits, the act
constitutes estafa.

A co-owner is not liable for estafa, but he is liable if,
after the termination of the co-ownership, he
misappropriates the thing which has become the
exclusive property of the other.

Estafa with abuse of
confidence
Theft
With juridical possession
of thing misappropriated
Only with physical /
material possession of
thing misappropriated
Offender receives the
thing from the victim
Offender takes the thing

But when the money or property had been received
by a partner for specific purpose and he
misappropriated it, there is estafa.

Under the 4th element of estafa with abuse of
confidence demand may be required.

In estafa by means of deceit, demand is not needed,
because the offender obtains the thing wrongfully
from the start. In estafa with abuse of confidence,
the offender receives the thing under a lawful
transaction.

Demand is not required by law, but it may be
necessary, because failure to account upon demand
is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
Presumption arises only when the explanation of the
accused is absolutely devoid of merit.

The mere failure to return the thing received for
safekeeping or under any other obligation w/ the
duty to return the same or deliver the value thereof
to the owner could only give rise to a civil action and
does not constitute the crime of estafa.

There is no estafa through negligence.

The gravity of the crime of estafa is based on the
amount not returned before the institution of the
criminal action.

Test to distinguish theft from estafa: In theft, upon
the delivery of the thing to the offender, the owner
expects a return of the thing to him.

General rule: When the owner does not expect the
immediate return of the thing he delivered to the
accused, the misappropriation of the same is estafa.

Exception: When the offender received the thing
from the offended party, with the obligation to
deliver it to a third person and, instead of doing so,
misappropriated it to the prejudice of the owner,
the crime committed is qualified theft.

Sale of thing received to be pledged for owner is
theft, when the intent to appropriate existed at the
time it was received.

Estafa with abuse of
confidence
Malversation
Entrusted with funds or property
Both are continuing offenses
Funds or property are
always private
Funds or property
usually public

233
individual or public
officer not accountable
for public funds or
property
Offender is a public
officer accountable for
public funds or property
Committed by
misappropriating,
converting or denying
having received money,
other personal property
Committed by
misappropriating, or
thru abandonment or
negligence, letting other
person to take the
public funds or property
There is no estafa
through negligence.
There can be
malversation through
abandonment or
negligence.

When in prosecution for malversation the public
officer is acquitted, the private individual in
conspiracy w/ him may be held liable for estafa,
depending on the nature of the funds.

Misappropriation of firearms received by a police
(1) ESTAFA: if it is not involved in the
commission of a crime
(2) MALVERSATION: if it is involved in the
commission of a crime.

Par.1(c): Taking advantage of signature in blank

Elements:
(1) Paper with the signature of the offended
party be in Blank.
(2) Offended party should have Delivered it to
the offender.
(3) That above the signature of the offended
party a Document is written by the offender
without authority to do so.
(4) That the document so written Creates a
liability of, or causes damage to, the
offended party or any third person.

b. Estafa by Means of False
Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts (315
par. 2(a) (b) (c) (d) (e); BP22):

Elements of estafa by means of deceit:
(1) There must be a False pretense, fraudulent
act or fraudulent means.
(2) That such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or
executed Prior to or Simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud.
(3) Offended party must have Relied on the
false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means, that is, he was induced
to part with his money or property because
of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means.
(4) As a result thereof, the offended party
Suffered damage.

The acts must be fraudulent. Acts must be founded
on, deceit, trick, or cheat, and such must be made
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud.

In false pretenses the deceit consists in the use of
deceitful words, in fraudulent acts the deceit
consists principally in deceitful acts. The fraudulent
acts must be performed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud.

The offender must be able to obtain something from
the offended party because of the fraudulent acts.

Knowledge of criminal intent of the principal is
essential to be convicted as an accomplice in Estafa
through falsification of commercial document. There
must be knowing assistance in the execution of the
offense. [Abejuela vs People (1991)]

In the case where a tenant-landowner relationship
exists between the parties, the jurisdiction for the
prosecution of the crime Estafa is not divested from
the RTC; though the matter before us apparently
presents an agrarian dispute, the RTC cannot shirk
from its duty to adjudicate on the merits a criminal
case initially filed before it, based on the law and
evidence presented, in order to determine whether
an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged.

In a tenant-landowner relationship, it was incumbent
upon the tenant to hold in trust and, eventually,
account for the share in the harvest appertaining to
the landowner, failing which the tenant could be
held liable for misappropriation.

As correctly pointed out by the respondents, share
tenancy has been outlawed for being contrary to
public policy as early as 1963, with the passage of
R.A. 3844. What prevails today, under R.A. 6657, is
agricultural leasehold tenancy relationship, and all
instances of share tenancy have been automatically
converted into leasehold tenancy. In such a
relationship, the tenants obligation is simply to pay
rentals, not to deliver the landowners share.

Given this dispensation, the petitioners allegation
that the respondents misappropriated the
landowners share of the harvest as contained in
the information is untenable. Accordingly, the
respondents cannot be held liable under Article 315,
paragraph 4, No. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
[People v. Vanzuela (2008)]

It is well established in jurisprudence that a person
may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and
estafa. The reason, therefore, is not hard to discern:
illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while
estafa is malum in se.

In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent
is imperative. Petitioners claim that she did not

234
represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but that
she merely tried to help the complainants secure a
tourist visa could not make her less guilty of illegal
recruitment, it being enough that she gave the
impression of having had the authority to recruit
workers for deployment abroad; consequently she is
also held liable for the violation of Estafa under
Article 315(2)(a). [Lapasaran v. People (2009)]

Par 2(a): Using fictitious name or false pretenses at
power, influence or other similar
deceits

Ways of committing the offense:
(1) By using fictitious name;
(2) By falsely pretending to possess:
(a) power,
(b) influence,
(c) qualifications,
(d) property,
(e) credit,
(f) agency,
(g) business or imaginary transactions;
(3) By means of other similar deceits.

For estafa under Art. 315 par. 2(a), it is
indispensable that the false statement or fraudulent
representation of the accused,
(1) be made prior to, or, at least
simultaneously with,
(2) the delivery of the thing by the
complainant.
It is essential that such false statement or fraudulent
representation constitutes the cause or only motive
which induced the complainant to part with the
thing. If there be no such prior or simultaneous false
statement or fraudulent representation, any
subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent
and suspicious it may appear, cannot serve as a basis
for prosecution for the class of estafa.

A creditor who deceived his debtor is liable for
estafa.

In estafa by means of deceit under Art. 315 2(a),
there must be evidence that the pretense of the
accused is false. Without such proof, criminal intent
to deceive cannot be inferred. Fraud must be proved
with clear and positive evidence.

Where commission salesman took back the machines
from prospective customers and misappropriated
them, it is theft, not estafa.

Estafa through false pretenses made in writing is
only a simple crime of estafa, not a complex crime
of estafa through falsification.

Manipulation of scale is punished under the Revised
Administrative Code

Par 2(b): by altering the quality, fineness or weight
of anything pertaining to art or business
Par. 2(c): by pretending to have bribed any
government employee

Person would ask money from another for the
alleged purpose of bribing a government employee
but just pocketed the money.

Par 2(d): By postdating a check or issuing a bouncing
check

Elements:
(1) Offender Postdated a check, or issued a
check in payment of an obligation;
(2) Such postdating or issuing a check was done
when the offender had No funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited therein were
not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check.

The check must be genuine, and not falsified.

The check must be postdated or for an obligation
contracted at the time of the issuance and delivery
of the check and not for pre-existing obligation.

Exception:
(1) When postdated checks are issued and
intended by the parties only as promissory
notes
(2) When the check is issued by a guarantor

The accused must be able to obtain something from
the offended party by means of the check he issues
and delivers.

The mere fact that the drawer had insufficient or no
funds in the bank to cover the check at the time he
postdated or issued a check, is sufficient to make
him liable for estafa.

RA 4885
20
deleted the phrase the offender knowing
at the time he had no funds in the bank:
(1) the failure of the drawer to deposit the
amount needed to cover his check
(2) within 3 days from receipt of notice of
dishonor of check for lack or insufficiency
of funds

20
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION TWO, PARAGRAPH (d),
ARTICLE THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN OF ACT NUMBERED
THIRTY-EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN, AS AMENDED,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE. (re:
issuance of checks.)
Section 1. Section Two, Paragraph (d), Article Three
hundred fifteen of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and
fifteen is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud:
"(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of
an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank,
or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover
the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the
check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check
within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank
and/or the payee or holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima
facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act."
Section 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: June 17, 1967

235
(3) shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent
act.

Good faith is a defense in a charge of estafa by
postdating or issuing a check. One who got hold of a
check issued by another, knowing that the drawer
had no sufficient funds in the bank, and used the
same in the purchase of goods, is guilty of estafa.
[People v. Isleta]

PD 818
21
applies only to estafa under par 2(d) of Art.
315, and does not apply to other forms of estafa.
[People v Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95]
Hence, the penalty prescribed in PD 818, not the
penalty provided for in Art. 315, should be imposed
when the estafa committed is covered by par 2(d) of
Art. 315.

Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing crime.

See Special Law: BP 22 (Anti-Bouncing Checks Law)

c. Through Other Fraudulent
Means (315 Par 3 (a) (b) (c))

Par 3 (a): By inducing another, through deceit, to
sign any document

Elements:
(1) Offender Induced the offended party to sign
a document.
(2) That deceit be Employed to make him sign
the document.
(3) Offended party Personally signed the
document.
(4) That Prejudice be caused.

Offender must induce the offended party to sign the
document. If offended party is willing from the start

21
AMENDING ARTICLE 315 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
BY INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA COMMITTED
BY MEANS OF BOUNCING CHECKS
Section 1. Any person who shall defraud another by means
of false pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in
paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 4885, shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the
fraud is over 12,000 pesos but not exceed 22,000 pesos,
and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty
provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum
period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos
but the total penalty which may be imposed shall in no
case exceed thirty years. In such cases, and in connection
with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under
the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed
reclusion perpetua;
2nd. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period, if
the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not
exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period, if
such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000
pesos; and,
4th. By prision mayor in its maximum period, if such
amount does not exceed 200 pesos.
Section 2. This decree shall take effect immediately.

to sign the document, because the contents are
different from those which the offended told the
accused to state in the document, the crime is
falsification.

There can be no conviction for estafa in the absence
of proof that defendant made statements tending to
mislead complainant.

Par.3 (b): By resorting to some fraudulent
practice to ensure success in a
gambling game

Par.3 (c): By removing, concealing or destroying
any court record, office files,
document or any other papers

Elements:
(1) That there be court Record, office files,
documents or any other papers.
(2) That the offender Removed, concealed or
destroyed any of them.
(3) That the offender had Intent to defraud
another.

If there is no malicious intent to defraud, the
destruction of court record is malicious mischief.

Elements of deceit and abuse of confidence may co-
exist.

If there is neither deceit nor abuse of confidence,
its not estafa, even if there is damage. There is only
civil liability.

Deceit through
Fraudulent Means
Infidelity in Custody of
Documents
person OR a public
person not entrusted w/
documents
Offender is a public
person entrusted with
the documents
There is intent to
defraud
Intent to defraud is not
required

Double jeopardy does not apply because RPC is a
distinct crime from BP 22. Deceit and damage are
essential elements of RPC, which are not required in
BP 22. [Nierras vs Dacuycuy (1990)]

The element of damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation may consist in:
(1) The offended party being deprived of his
money or property, as result of the fraud;
(2) Disturbance in property right; or
(3) Temporary prejudice

Payment subsequent to the commission of estafa
does not extinguish criminal liability or reduce the
penalty.

The crime of estafa is not obliterated by acceptance
of promissory note.

A private person who procures a loan by means of
deceit through a falsified public document of

236
mortgage, but paid loan within the period agreed
upon, is not guilty of estafa but only falsification of
a public document.

Accused cannot be convicted of estafa with abuse of
confidence if charged w/ estafa by means of deceit

2. Article 316 - Other Forms of
Swindling and Deceits

Par 1. By conveying, selling, encumbering, or
mortgaging any real property, pretending to be the
owner of the same

Elements:
(1) That the thing be Immovable, such as a
parcel of land or a building.
(2) Offender who is not the owner of said
property should Represent that he is the
owner thereof.
(3) Offender should have Executed an act of
ownership (selling, encumbering or
mortgaging the real property).
(4) Act be made to Prejudice of the owner or a
third person.

The thing disposed of must be real property. If its
chattel, crime is Estafa.

There must be existing real property.
Even if the deceit is practiced against the second
purchaser but damage is incurred by the first
purchaser, there is violation of par.1 of Art. 316.

Since the penalty is based on the value of the
damage there must be actual damage caused.

Par. 2. By disposing of real property as free from
encumbrance, although such encumbrance be not
recorded

Elements:
(1) That the thing disposed of be Real property.
(2) Offender Knew that the real property was
encumbered, whether the encumbrance is
recorded or not.
(3) There must be Express representation by
the offender that the real property is free
from encumbrance.
(4) Act of disposing of the real property be
made to the Damage of another.

Act constituting the offense is disposing of the real
property representing that it is free from
encumbrance.

Dispose: includes encumbering or mortgaging.

Encumbrance: includes every right or interest in
the land which exists in favor of third persons.

The offended party would not have granted the loan
had he known that the property was already
encumbered. When the loan had already been
granted when defendant offered the property as
security for the loan, Art. 316 par. 2 is not
applicable.

Usurious loan with equitable mortgage is not an
encumbrance on the property.

If 3rd element not established, there is no crime.

There must be damage caused. It is not necessary
that act prejudice the owner of the land.

The omitted phrase as free from encumbrance in
par 2 of Art. 316 is the basis of the ruling that
silence as to such encumbrance does not involve a
crime.

Par. 3. By wrongfully taking by the owner of his
personal property from its lawful possessor

Elements:
(1) Offender is the Owner of personal property.
(2) Said property is in the Lawful possession of
another.
(3) Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful
possessor.
(4) Prejudice is thereby caused to the lawful
possessor or third person.

Offender must wrongfully take the personal property
from the lawful possessor. Wrongfully take does not
include the use of violence, intimidation.
If the thing is taken by means of violence, without
intent to gain, it is not estafa, but grave coercion.

If the owner took the personal property from its
lawful possessor without the latters knowledge and
later charged him with the value of the property,
the crime is theft. If there is intent to charge the
bailee with its value, the crime is robbery. [US v
Albao]

Par. 4. By executing any fictitious contract to the
prejudice of another

Illustration: A person who simulates a
conveyance of his property to another, to defraud
his creditors. If the conveyance is real and not
simulated, the crime is fraudulent insolvency.

Par. 5. By accepting any compensation for services
not rendered or for labor not performed

Elements:
(1) Accepting a compensation given to accused
for service not rendered
(2) Malicious failure to return the compensation
wrongfully received (fraud)

There must be fraud. Otherwise, it will only be
solutio indebiti, with civil obligation to return the
wrong payment.

If the money in payment of a debt was delivered to a
wrong person, Art. 316 par 5 is not applicable.

237
In case the person who received it later refused or
failed to return it to the owner of the money, Art.
315 subdivision 1(b) is applicable.

Par. 6. By selling, mortgaging or encumbering real
property or properties with which the offender
guaranteed the fulfilment of his obligation as surety

Elements:
(1) Offender is a Surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action.
(2) He Guaranteed the fulfillment of such
obligation with his real property or
properties.
(3) He Sells, mortgages, or, in any other
manner encumbers said real property.
(4) That such sale, mortgage, or encumbrance
is
(a) Without express authority from the
court, or
(b) Made Before the cancellation of his
bond, or
(c) Before being relieved from the
obligation contracted by him.

There must be damage caused under Art. 316.

3. Article 317 - Swindling of a Minor

Elements:
(1) That the offender Takes advantage of the
inexperience or emotions or feelings of a
minor.
(2) That he induces such minor
(a) to Assume an obligation, or
(b) to Give release, or
(c) to Execute a transfer of any property
right.
(3) That the consideration is
(a) some Loan of money,
(b) Credit, or
(c) Other Personal property.
(4) That the transaction is to the Detriment of
such minor.

Real property is not included because only money,
credit and personal property are enumerated, and
because a minor cannot convey real property
without judicial authority.

4. Article 318 - Other Deceits

Other deceits are:
(1) By Defrauding or damaging another by any
other deceit not mentioned in the
preceding articles.
(2) By Interpreting dreams, by making
forecasts, by telling fortunes, or by taking
advantage of the credulity of the public in
any other manner, for profit or gain.

Any other kind of conceivable deceit may fall under
this article. As in other cases of estafa, damage to
the offended party is required.

The deceits in this article include false pretenses
and fraudulent acts.

Chattel Mortgage
The object of the Chattel Mortgage Law is to give
the necessary sanction to the statute, so that
mortgage debtors may be deterred from violating
its provisions and mortgage creditors may be
protected against loss of inconvenience from
wrongful removal or sale of mortgaged property.

G. Chapter 7: Chattel Mortgage
0.
1. Article 319 - Removal, Sale, or
Pledge of Mortgaged Property

Acts punishable under Art. 319:
(1) By knowingly removing any personal
property mortgaged under the Chattel
Mortgage Law to any province or city other
than the one in which it was located at the
time of execution of the mortgage, without
the written consent of the mortgagee or his
executors, administrators or assigns.
(2) By selling or pledging personal property
already pledged, or any part thereof, under
the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law,
without the consent of the mortgagee
written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record thereof in the office of
the register of deeds of the province where
such property is located.

Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting.
If chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit of
good faith and is not registered, it is void and cannot
be prosecuted under Art 319

Elements of knowingly removing mortgaged
personal property:
(1) Personal property is mortgaged under the
Chatter Mortgage Law.
(2) Offender knows that such property is so
mortgaged.
(3) He removes such mortgaged personal
property to any province or city other than
the one in which it was located at the time
of the execution of the mortgage.
(4) That the removal is permanent.
(5) That there is no written consent of the
mortgagee or his executors, administrators
or assigns to such removal.

A person other than the mortgagor who removed the
property to another province, knowing it to be
mortgaged, may be liable. The removal of the
mortgaged personal property must be coupled with
intent to defraud.

No felonious intent if transfer of personal property is
due to change of residence.

238
If the mortgagee opted to file for collection, not
foreclosure, abandoning the mortgage as basis for
relief, the removal of property to another province
is not a violation of Art 319 par1.

In estafa, the property involved is real property. In
sale of mortgaged property, it is personal property.

Elements of selling or pledging personal property
already pledged:
(1) That personal property is already pledged
under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage
Law.
(2) That the offender, who is the mortgagor of
such property, sells or pledges the same or
any part thereof.
(3) That there is no consent of the mortgagee
written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record thereof in the office of
the register of deeds.

The consent of the mortgagee must be
(1) in writing,
(2) on the back of the mortgage, and
(3) noted on the record thereof in the office of
the register of deeds.

Damage is NOT essential.

Chattel mortgage may give rise to estafa by means
of deceit.

Art 319 Art 316 Estafa
In both there is selling of a mortgaged property.
Personal property

Property involved is real
property(Art. 316 par 2)
Committed by the mere
failure to obtain
consent of the
mortgagee in writing,
even if offender should
inform the purchaser
that the thing sold is
mortgaged
Committed by selling
real property mortgaged
as free, even though the
vendor may have
obtained the consent of
the mortgagee in writing.
Purpose: to protect the
mortgagee
Purpose: to protect the
purchaser (1st or 2
nd
)

H. Chapter 8: Arson and Other
Crimes Involving Destruction

Kinds of Arson:
(1) Arson (PD 1613, Sec. 1)
(2) Destructive arson (Art. 320, as amended by
RA 7659)
(3) Other cases of arson (Sec. 3, PD 1613)

Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Arson
Attempted arson: A person, intending to burn a
wooden structure, collects some rags, soaks them in
gasoline and places them beside the wooden wall of
the building. When he about to light a match to set
fire to the rags, he is discovered by another who
chases him away. In attempted arson, it is not
necessary that there be a fire.

Frustrated arson: If that person is able to light or
set fire to the rags, but the fire was put out before
any part of the building was burned.

Consummated arson: If before the fire was put out,
it had burned a part of the building.

If the property burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling, it is not required that the house be
occupied by one or more persons and the offender
knew it when the house was burned.

No complex crime of arson with homicide. If by
reason of or on the occasion of arson death results,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed. Homicide is absorbed.

Any of 7 circumstances in Sec. 6 of PD 1613 is
sufficient to establish fact of arson if unexplained.

PD 1613, 1. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
(asked 20 times)

SEC. 2. Destructive ArsonThe penalty of Reclusion
Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion
Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is
any of the following:
(1) Any ammunition factory and other
establishment where explosives,
inflammable or combustible materials are
stored.
(2) Any archive, museum, whether public or
private, or any edifice devoted to culture,
education or social services.
(3) Any church or place of worship or other
building where people usually assemble.
(4) Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or
watercraft, or conveyance for
transportation of persons or property.
(5) Any building where evidence is kept for use
in any legislative, judicial, or administrative
or other official proceeding.
(6) Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging
house, housing tenement, shopping center,
public or private market, theater or movie
house or any similar place or building.
(7) Any building, whether used as a dwelling or
not, situated in a populated or congested
area.

SEC. 3. Other Cases of ArsonThe penalty of
Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be
imposed if the property burned is any of the
following:
(1) Any building used as offices of the
government or any of its agencies
(2) Any inhabited house or dwelling
(3) Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil
well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel
(4) Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing
crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or
forest;
(5) Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill
central
(6) Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
warehouse

239
I. Chapter 9: Malicious Mischief

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF: It is the willful causing of
damage to anothers property for the sake of causing
damage because of hate, revenge or other evil
motive.
0.
1. Article 327 - Who Are Responsible

Elements of malicious mischief:
(1) Offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another.
(2) Such act does not constitute arson or other
crimes involving destruction
(3) Act of damaging anothers property be
committed merely for the sake of damaging
it.

If there is no malice in causing damage, the
obligation to pay for the damages is only civil (Art.
2176)

Damage means not only loss but also diminution of
what is a mans own. Thus, damage to anothers
house includes defacing it. [People v Asido]

2. Article 328 - Special Cases of
Malicious Mischief

Special cases of malicious mischief: (qualified
malicious mischief)
(1) causing damage to obstruct the
performance of public functions
(2) using any poisonous or corrosive substance
(3) Spreading infection or contagion among
cattle
(4) causing damage to property of the National
Museum or National Library, or to any
archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in
common by the public.

3. Article 329 - Other Mischiefs

Other mischiefs not included in Art. 328 are
punished based on value of the damage caused.

If the amount involved cannot be estimated, the
penalty of arresto menor of fine not exceeding P200
is fixed by law.

When several persons scattered coconut remnants
which contained human excrement on the stairs and
floor of the municipal building, including its interior,
the crime committed is malicious mischief under Art.
329. [People v Dumlao]

4. Article 330 - Damage and
Obstruction to Means of
Communication

Committed by damaging any railway, telegraph, or
telephone lines. If the damage shall result in any
derailment of cars, collision, or other accident, a
higher penalty shall be imposed. (Qualifying
Circumstance)

Telegraph/phone lines must pertain to railways.

Q: What is the crime when, as a result of the
damage caused to railway, certain passengers of the
train are killed?

A: It depends. Art. 330 says without prejudice to
the criminal liability of the offender for other
consequences of his criminal act.

If there is no intent to kill, the crime is damages to
means to means of communication with homicide
because of the first paragraph of Art. 4 and Art. 48.

If there is intent to kill, and damaging the railways
was the means to accomplish the criminal purpose,
the crime is murder

5. Article 331 Destroying or
Damaging Statues, Public
Monuments or Paintings

The penalty is lower if the thing destroyed is a
public painting, rather than a public monument.

J. Chapter 10: Exemption from
Criminal Liability
0.
1. Article 332 - Exemption from
Criminal Liability in Crimes
Against Property

Crimes involved in the exemption:
(1) Theft
(2) Swindling (estafa)
(3) Malicious mischief

If the crime is robbery, exemption does not lie.

Persons exempt from criminal liability:
(1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line.
(2) The widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same passed into the
possession of another.
(3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.

The law recognizes the presumed co-ownership of
the property between the offender and the offended
party. There is no criminal, but only civil liability.

Art. 332 does not apply to a stranger who
participates in the commission of the crime.

240
Stepfather and stepmother are included as
ascendants by affinity. [People v Alvarez; People v
Adame]

Guevarra: An adopted or natural child should also be
considered as included in the term descendants
and a concubine or paramour within the term
spouses.

Art. 332 also applies to common-law spouses. [Art.
144, CC; People v Constantino]

Jurisprudence on Title Ten:

THEFT
The fact that beans (subject of the crime were sacks
of beans) were scattered on the floor inside and in
front of the stall of petitioner and in the parking lot
does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
petitioner is the perpetrator of the crime.

This cannot be equated with the principle of law
that a person in possession or control of stolen goods
is presumed to be the author of the larceny. Absent
proof of any stolen property in the possession of a
person, as in the case at bar, no presumption of guilt
can arise. The place was a market and presumably,
petitioner was not the only vendor of beans.

Where the proven facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with innocence and the other with guilt,
the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to convict the
accused. [Aoas v. People (2008)]

DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
It is clear that the place of the commission of the
crime was a residential and commercial building
located in an urban and populated area. This
qualifying circumstance places the offense squarely
within the ambit of Section 2(7) of P.D. 1613, and
converts it to destructive arson.

It was also established that the subject building was
insured against fire for an amount substantially more
than its market value, a fact that has given rise to
the unrebutted prima facie evidence of arson, as
provided in Section 6 of P.D. 1613. [Amora v. People
(2008)]

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Does not include taking the gun to shoot its previous
holder. The Court disagrees with the Court of
Appeals that appellant committed the crime of
robbery with homicide. There is nothing in the
records that would show that the principal purpose
of appellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun
(Serial No. 9600942).

It must be emphasized that when the victim and
appellant met and had a heated argument, the
absence of the intent to rob on the part of the
appellant was apparent. Appellant was not trying to
rob the victim. Appellants act of taking the shotgun
was not for the purpose of robbing the victim, but to
protect himself from the victim.

No one would in ones right mind just leave a
firearm lying around after being in a heated
argument with another person.

Having failed to establish that appellants original
criminal design was robbery, appellant could only be
convicted of the separate crimes of either murder or
homicide, as the case may be, and theft. [People vs.
Lara]

QUALIFIED THEFT (Abuse of Confidence)
Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees
of Western does not suffice to create the relation of
confidence and intimacy that the law requires.

The element of grave abuse of confidence requires
that there be a relation of independence,
guardianship or vigilance between the petitioners
and Western.

Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive
payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping,
preparation and issuance of invoices. They merely
assisted customers in making a purchase and in
demonstrating the merchandise to prospective
buyers. While they had access to the merchandise,
they had no access to the cashiers booth or to the
cash payments subject of the offense. [Astudillo vs.
People (2006)]

THEFT (Corpus Delicti)
The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held
liable for the charges on the ground that he was not
caught in possession of the missing funds. This is
clutching at straws. To be caught in possession of
the stolen property is not an element of the corpus
delicti in theft.

Corpus delicti means the body or substance of the
crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact
that the crime has been actually committed.

In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely:
(1) that the property was lost by the owner,
and
(2) that it was lost by felonious taking.

In the case before us, these two elements were
established. The amounts involved were lost by WUP
because petitioner took them without authority to
do so. [Gan vs. People (2007)]

THEFT; Attempted or Consummated only
The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not
been designed in such fashion as to accommodate
the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, there is
no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly
allows that the free disposition of the items stolen
is in any way determinative of whether the crime of
theft has been produced. We thus conclude that
under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of
frustrated theft. [Valenzuela vs. People (2007)]

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; (Absorption Theory
applied)

241
Attempted homicide or attempted murder
committed during or on the occasion of the robbery,
as in this case, is absorbed in the crime of Robbery
with Homicide which is a special complex crime that
remains fundamentally the same regardless of the
number of homicides or injuries committed in
connection with the robbery. [People v. Cabbab, Jr.
(2007)]

ESTAFA; Essence of Misappropriation
The words convert and misappropriate connote
an act of using or disposing of anothers property as
if it were ones own or devoting it to a purpose or
use different from that agreed upon. To
misappropriate for ones own use includes not only
conversion to ones personal advantage but also
every attempt to dispose of the property of another
without any right. [Tan vs. People]

ESTAFA (Sale of jewelry; Failure to return)
In an agency for the sale of jewelries, as in the
present case, it is the agents duty to return the
jewelry upon demand of the owner and failure to do
so is evidence of conversion of the property by the
agent. In other words, the demand for the return of
the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the
accused to account for it are circumstantial
evidence of misappropriation. However, this
presumption is rebuttable. If the accused is able to
satisfactorily explain his failure to produce the thing
delivered in trust or to account for the money, he
may not be held liable for estafa. [People v.
Manantan]

Additional Notes

THEFT
Presumption of thievery -- possession of
stolen goods [People vs. Dela Cruz (2000)]
No frustrated theft; Either attempted or
consummated only [Valenzuela vs. People
(2007)]

QUALIFIED THEFT
Related Laws
(1) Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (RA 6539);
(2) Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (PD 533);
(3) Heavier Penalties for Thefts by Employees
and Laborers (PD 133);
(4) Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act (RA 7832);
(5) Some LGUs have anti-Cable Television Theft
Ordinances.
(6) Theft of Forestry Products (PD 330);
(7) Theft of Minerals/Ores (PD 581);

Cases:
Theft by bank teller considered Qualified
Theft [Roque vs. People (2004)]
Grave abuse of confidence, requirements
[Astudillo vs. People (2006)]
Carnapping vs. Qualified Theft [People vs.
Bustinera (2004)]

ESTAFA
Conversion/Misappropriation,
explained [Lee vs. People (2005)]
Estafa may coincide with Illegal recruitment
[People vs. Hernandez (2002)]
Deceit/False Pretense, explained
[Pablo vs. People (2004)]
SYNDICATED ESTAFA/Economic Sabotage
(Presidential Decree No. 1689)Ponzi
scheme; Pyramid Scams

Case:
Soliciting funds from and eventually
defrauding the general public constitutes
syndicated estafa amounting to economic
sabotage [People vs. Balasa (1998)]

BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
Modes of committing violations of BP 22;
Presumptions/Evidentiary Rules

Cases:
Rule of Preference in BP 22 violations:
Court may impose imprisonment or a fine
[Bernardo vs. People (2007)]
Only a full payment of the face value of the
second check at the time of its presentment
or during the five-day grace period could
exonerate one from criminal
liability. [Macalalag vs. People (2006)]

See Also:
(1) PD 1612: Anti-Fencing Law
(2) BP 22: Bouncing Check Law
(3) RA 6539: Anti-Carnapping Act
(5) PD 1613: Anti-Arson Law

242
Title XI. Crimes against Chastity

(1) Art. 333: Adultery
(2) Art. 334: Concubinage
(3) Art. 336: Acts of Lasciviousness
(4) Art. 337: Qualified Seduction
(5) Art. 338: Simple Seduction
(6) Art. 339: Acts of Lasciviousness with the
consent of the offended party
(7) Art. 340: Corruption of minors
(8) Art. 341: White Slave Trade
(9) Art. 342: Forcible Abduction
(10) Art. 343: Consented Abduction
(11) Art. 344: Prosecution of the crimes of
Adultery
(12) Art. 345: Civil Liability
(13) Art. 346: Liability of Ascendants, guardians,
teachers, or other persons entrusted with
custody of the offended

0.
1. Article 333 - Adultery
(asked twice)

Elements:
(1) that the woman is married;
(2) that she has sexual intercourse with a man
not her husband;
(3) that as regards the man with whom she has
sexual intercourse: he must know her to be
married.

LEGENDS:
H husband; W wife; M - marriage

Offenders: Married woman and/or the man who has
carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married,
even if the M be subsequently declared void. It is not
necessary that there be a valid M (i.e. void ab initio)

Essence of adultery: violation of the marital vow

Gist of the crime: the danger of introducing spurious
heirs into the family, where the rights of the real
heirs may be impaired and a man may be charged
with the maintenance of a family not his own. (US v.
Mata)

The offended party must be legally married to the
offender at the time of the filing of the complaint.

Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of
adultery.

Abandonment without justification is not exempting,
but only mitigating. Both defendants are entitled to
this mitigating circumstance.

Acquittal of one of the defendants does not operate
as a cause of acquittal of the other.

Under the law, there is no accomplice in adultery.

Direct proof of carnal knowledge is not necessary.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient. (i.e. love
letters signed by the paramour, photos showing
intimate relations, testimony of witnesses)

Pardon by the H does not exempt the adulterous W
and her paramour from criminal liability for
adulterous acts committed subsequent to such
pardon, because the pardon refers to previous and
not to subsequent adulterous acts

Effect of Pardon - applies to Concubinage as well:
(1) The pardon must come before the
institution of the criminal prosecution; and
(2) Both the offenders must be pardoned by
the offended party. Act of sexual
intercourse subsequent to adulterous
conduct is considered as an implied pardon.
(3) Pardon of the offenders by the offended
party is a bar to prosecution for adultery or
concubinage.
(4) Delay in the filing of complaint, if
satisfactorily explained, does not indicate
pardon.

Effect of consent: The husband, knowing that his
wife, after serving sentence for adultery, resumed
living with her co-defendant, did nothing to
interfere with their relations or to assert his rights as
husband. The second charge of adultery should be
dismissed because of consent. [People v. Sensano
and Ramos]

Agreement to separate may be used as evidence to
show consent by the husband to the infidelity of his
wife.

Effect of death of paramour: Offending wife may
still be prosecuted. The requirement that both
offenders should be included in the complaint is
absolute only when the two offenders are alive.

Effect of death of offended party: The proceedings
may continue. Art. 353 seeks to protect the honor
and reputation not only of the living but of dead
persons as well.

2. Article 334 - Concubinage
(asked 5 times)

Elements:
(1) That the man must be married;
(2) That he committed any of the following
acts:
(a) keeping a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling;
(b) Having sexual intercourse under
scandalous circumstance with a woman
not his wife;
(c) Cohabiting with her in any other place;
(3) That as regards the woman, she must know
him to be married.

LEGENDS: H husband; W wife; M - marriage

Offenders: married man and the woman who knows
him to be married.

243
The woman only becomes liable only if she knew him
to be married prior to the commission of the crime.
In the 3
rd
way committing the crime, mere
cohabitation is sufficient; Proof of scandalous
circumstances not necessary. [People v. Pitoc, et.
al.]

A married man is not liable for concubinage for mere
sexual relations with a woman not his wife. A man
would only be guilty of concubinage if he appeared
to be guilty of any of the acts punished in Art. 334.

A married man who is not liable for adultery because
he did not know that the woman was married, may
be held liable for concubinage. If the woman knew
that the man was married, she may be held liable
for concubinage as well.

Mistress a woman taken by the accused to live with
him in the conjugal dwelling as his
mistress/concubine. [People v. Bacon and People v.
Hilao]

Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling no
positive proof of sexual intercourse is necessary

Conjugal Dwelling the home of the H and the W
even if the wife appears to be temporarily absent
on any account.

The dwelling of the spouses was constructed from
the proceeds of the sale of their conjugal properties.
The fact that W never had a chance to reside therein
and that H used it with his mistress instead, does not
detract from its nature. [People v. Cordova (1959)]

Cohabit to dwell together as H and W for a period
of time (i.e. A week, a month, year or longer)

Scandalous circumstances Scandal consists in any
reprehensible word or deed that offends public
conscience, redounds to the detriment of the
feelings of honest persons, and gives occasion to the
neighbors spiritual damage or ruin. [People v.
Santos]

It is only when the mistress is kept elsewhere
(outside the conjugal dwelling) that scandalous
circumstances become an element of the crime.
[US v. Macabagbag]

Qualifying expression: Sexual act which may be
proved by circumstantial evidence

Scandal produced by the concubinage of H:
(1) H and mistress live in the same room of a
house
(2) They appear together in public,
(3) Perform acts in sight of the community
which give rise to criticism and general
protest among the neighbors.

When spies are employed for the purpose of
watching the conduct of the accused and it
appearing that none of the people living in the
vicinity has observed any suspicious conduct, there is
no evidence of scandalous circumstances. [US v.
Campos Rueda]
Reason: Adultery is punished more severely than
concubinage because adultery makes possible the
introduction of another mans offspring into the
family so that the offended H may have another
mans son bearing Hs name and receiving support
from him.

3. Article 335 Rape

Repealed by R.A. 8353. See previous discussion.

4. Article 336 - Acts of
Lasciviousness
(asked 7 times)

Elements:
(1) That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2) That the is committed against a person of
either sex;
(3) That is done under any of the ff.
circumstances:
(a) By using force or intimidation; or
(b) When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
(c) When the offended party is under 12
years of age or is demented.

Lewd obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous;
signifies form of immorality which has relation to
moral impurity or that which is carried in wanton
manner

Motive of lascivious acts is not important because
the essence of lewdness is in the very act itself.

Example: If the kissing etc. was done inside church
(which is a public place), absence of lewd designs
may be proven, and the crime is unjust vexation
only. But if the kissing was done in the house of a
woman when she was alone, the circumstances may
prove the accuseds lewd designs.

Absent any of the circumstances of rape under the
3
rd
element, the crime is UNJUST VEXATION. (e.g.
touching of breast)

Lascivious intent is implied from the nature of the
act and the surrounding circumstances.

Consider the act and the environment to distinguish
between Acts of Lasciviousness and Attempted Rape.
Desistance in the commission of attempted rape may
constitute acts of lasciviousness.

No attempted and frustrated acts of lasciviousness.

244
Acts of Lasciviousness v. Grave Coercion
Acts of Lasciviousness Grave Coercion
Compulsion or force is
included in the
constructive element of
force.
Compulsion or force is
the very act constituting
the offense of grave
coercion.
Must be accompanied by
acts of lasciviousness or
lewdness.
Moral compulsion
amounting to
intimidation is sufficient.

Acts of Lasciviousness v. Attempted Rape
Acts of Lasciviousness Attempted Rape
Same means of committing the crime:
(1) Force, threat, or intimidation is employed; or
(2) By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority; or
(3) The offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; or
(4) Victim is under 12 yrs. of age or is demented
Offended party is a person of either sex.
The performance of acts of lascivious character
Acts performed do not
indicate that the accused
was to lie w/ the offended
party.
Acts performed clearly
indicate that the
accuseds purpose was
to lie w/ the offended
woman.
Lascivious acts are the final
objective sought by the
offender.
Lascivious acts are
only the preparatory
acts to the
commission of rape.

Abuses against chastity (Art. 245) v acts of
lasciviousness (Art. 336)
Offenses against
Chastity
Abuses against Chastity
Committed by a private
individual, in most cases
Committed by a public
officer only
Some act of
lasciviousness should
have been executed by
the offender.
Mere immoral or
indecent proposal made
earnestly and
persistently is sufficient.

The accused followed the victim, held her,
embraced her, tore her dress, and tried to touch her
breast. When a complaint for acts of lasciviousness
was filed against him, accused claimed that he had
no intention of having sexual intercourse with her
and that he did the acts only as revenge. TC found
the accused guilty of FRUSTRATED ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS. SC held that there is no frustrated
crime against chastity which includes acts of
lasciviousness, adultery, and rape. [People v.
Famularcano]

From the moment the offender performs all the
elements necessary for the existence of the felony,
he actually attains his purpose.

Motive of revenge is of no consequence since the
element of lewdness is in the very act itself.
Example: Compelling a girl to dance naked before a
man is an act of lasciviousness, even if the dominant
motive is revenge, for her failure to pay a debt.

See Special Law: R.A. 7877 - Anti-Sexual Harassment
Act of 1995

Two kinds of seduction:
(1) Qualified seduction (Art. 337)
(2) Simple seduction (Art. 338)

5. Article 337 - Qualified Seduction
(asked thrice)

Elements:
(1) That the offended party is a virgin, which is
presumed if she is unmarried and of good
reputation;
(2) That the she must be over 12 and under 18
yrs. of age; (13-17 years 11 months 29 days)
(3) That the offender has sexual intercourse
with her;
(4) That the there is abuse of authority,
confidence, or relationship on the part of
the offender.

Seduction - enticing a woman to unlawful sexual
intercourse by promise of marriage or other means
of persuasion without use of force. It applies when
there is abuse of authority (qualified seduction) or
deceit (simple seduction).

Two classes of Qualified Seduction:
(1) Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and
under 18 years of age by certain persons
such as, a person in authority, priest,
teacher or any person who, in any capacity
shall be entrusted with the education or
custody of the woman seduced.
(2) Seduction of a sister by her brother, or
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of
her age or reputation.

Virgin - a woman of chaste character and of good
reputation. The offended party need not be
physically a virgin.

If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of
lewdness are performed, the crime is acts of
lasciviousness. If any of the circumstances in the
crime of rape is present, the crime is not to be
punished under Art. 337.

The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted
of qualified seduction under the same information.

Offenders in Qualified Seduction:
(1) Those who abused their authority: (PaG-
TE/C)
(a) Person in public authority;
(b) Guardian;
(c) Teacher;
(d) Person who, in any capacity, is
entrusted with the education or
custody of the woman seduced.
(2) Those who abused confidence reposed in
them: (PHD)
(a) Priest;
(b) House servant;
(c) Domestic

245
(3) Those who abused their relationship:
(a) Brother who seduced his sister;
(b) Ascendant who seduced his
descendant.

Domestic - a person usually living under the same
roof, pertaining to the same house.

Not necessary that the offender be the teacher of
the offended party; it is sufficient that he is a
teacher in the same school.
Qualified seduction may also be committed by a
master to his servant, or a head of the family to any
of its members.

Qualified seduction of a sister or descendant, also
known as INCEST, is punished by a penalty next
higher in degree.

The age, reputation, or virginity of the sister or
descendant is irrelevant. The relationship need not
be legitimate.

A 15-year old virgin, who was brought by her mother
to the house of the accused and his wife to serve as
a helper, repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of
the accused, as she was induced by his promises of
marriage and frightened by his acts of intimidation.

HELD: DECEIT, although an essential element of
ordinary or simple seduction, does not need to be
proved or established in a charge of qualified
seduction. It is replaced by ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE.
[People v. Fontanilla]

The accused, a policeman, brought a 13-year old girl
with low mentality, to the ABC Hall where he
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. The
complaint did not allege that the girl was a virgin.
The accused was charged with RAPE but convicted of
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION.

HELD: Though it is true that virginity is presumed if
the girl is over 12 but under 18, unmarried and of
good reputation, virginity is still an essential
element of the crime of qualified seduction and
must be alleged in the complaint. Accused is guilty
of RAPE, considering the victims age, mental
abnormality and deficiency. There was also
intimidation with the accused wearing his uniform.
[Babanto v. Zosa]

Perez succeeded in having sexual intercourse with
Mendoza after he promised to marry her. As he did
not make good on said promise, Mendoza filed a
complaint for Consented Abduction. Trial Court
found that the acts constituted seduction, acquitting
him on the charge of Consented Abduction. Mendoza
then filed a complaint for Qualified Seduction. Perez
moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of double
jeopardy.

HELD: There are similar elements between
consented abduction and qualified seduction,
namely:
(1) the offended party is a virgin, and
(2) over 12 but under 18 yrs. of age

However, an acquittal for CONSENTED ABDUCTION
will not preclude the filing of a charge for QUALIFIED
SEDUCTION because the elements of the two crimes
are different. [Perez v. CA]

Consented
Abduction
Qualified
Seduction
Means: Requires the
taking away of
the victim w/ her
consent
Requires abuse of
authority,
confidence or
relationship
Act: Offender has
sexual
intercourse.
Taking away with
lewd designs
Wronged: The girl The girls family

NOTE: The fact that the girl gave consent to the
sexual intercourse is not a defense.

6. Article 338 - Simple Seduction
(asked three times)

Elements:
1) That the offended party is over 12 and under 18
years of age;
2) That she is of good reputation, single or widow;
3) That the offender has sexual intercourse with
her;
4) That it is committed by means of deceit.

Purpose of the law - To punish the seducer who by
means of promise of marriage, destroys the chastity
of an unmarried female of previous chaste character
Virginity of offended party is not essential, good
reputation is sufficient.

Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled
promise of marriage.

What about unfulfilled promise of material things,
as when the woman agrees to sexual intercourse in
exchange for jewelry? This is not seduction because
she is a woman of loose morals.

Promise of marriage after sexual intercourse does
not constitute deceit. Promise of marriage by a
married man is not a deceit, if the woman knew him
to be married.

Seduction is not a continuing offense.

7. Article 339 - Acts of
Lasciviousness with the Consent of
the Offended Party

Elements:
(1) Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or
lewdness;

246
(2) The acts are committed upon a woman who
is a virgin or single or widow of good
reputation, under 18 yrs. of age but over 12
yrs., or a sister or descendant, regardless of
her reputation or age;
(3) The offender accomplishes the acts by
abuse of authority, confidence,
relationship, or deceit.

It is necessary that it be committed under
circumstances which would make it qualified or
simple seduction had there been sexual intercourse,
instead of acts of lewdness only.
When the victim is under 12 yrs., the penalty shall
be one degree higher than that imposed by law.

Males cannot be the offended party.

Acts of Lasciviousness
(Art. 336)
with consent (Art. 339)
Committed under
circumstances w/c, had
there been carnal
knowledge, would
amount to rape
Committed under
circumstances w/c, had
there been carnal
knowledge, would
amount to either
qualified or simple
seduction
Offended party is a
female or male
Offended party should
only be female

8. Article 340 - Corruption of Minors

Acts punishable: The promotion or facilitation of
the prostitution or corruption of persons under age
(minors), to satisfy the lust of another

LIABILITY:
(1) Any person
(2) Punishable by prision mayor
(3) A public officer or employee, including
those in government-owned or controlled
corporations
(4) Shall also be penalized by temporary
absolute disqualification (As amended by BP
92).

Habituality or abuse of authority or confidence is not
necessary.

It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall have
been done.

Mere proposal will consummate the offense.

SEE ALSO: RA 7610: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION, AND
DISCRIMINATION ACT

There is a crime of ATTEMPTED CHILD
PROSTITUTION. (Sec. 6, RA 7610)

9. Article 341 - White Slave Trade

Acts punishable:
(1) Engaging in business of prostitution
(2) Profiting by prostitution
(3) Enlisting the services of women for the
purpose of prostitution.

Habituality is not a necessary element of white slave
trade.

Under any pretext one who engaged the services
of a woman allegedly as a maid, but in reality for
prostitution, is guilty under this article.

Victim is under 12 yrs., penalty shall be one degree
higher.

Offender need not be the owner of the house.

Maintainer or manager of house of ill-repute need
not be present therein at the time of raid or arrest.

Corruption of Minors White Slave Trade
Minority of victims
essential
Minority is not required
Victims may be male or
female
Applies only to females
May not necessarily be
for profit
Generally for profit
Committed by a single
act
Generally committed
habitually

10. Article 342 - Forcible
Abduction

Elements:
(1) The person abducted is any woman,
regardless of her age, civil status or
reputation;
(2) The abduction is against her will;
(3) The abduction is with lewd designs.

Abduction the taking away of a woman from her
house or the place where she may be for the purpose
of carrying her to another place with the intent to
marry or to corrupt her.

Two kinds of abduction:
(1) Forcible abduction (Art. 342)
(2) Consented abduction (Art. 343)

Crimes against chastity where age and reputation
are immaterial:
(1) Acts of lasciviousness against the will or
without the consent of the offended party
(2) Qualified seduction of sister or descendant
(3) Forcible abduction

The taking away of the woman may be accomplished
by means of deceit first and then by means of
violence and intimidation.

If the female abducted is under 12, the crime is
forcible abduction, even if she voluntarily goes with
her abductor.

When the victim was abducted by the accused
without lewd designs, but for the purpose of lending
her to illicit intercourse with others, the crime is not
abduction but corruption of minors.

247

Rape may absorb forcible abduction, if the main
objective was to rape the victim.

Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible
abduction.

Lewd designs may be shown by the conduct of the
accused. When there are several defendants, it is
enough that one of them had lewd designs. Husband
is not liable for abduction of his wife, as lewd design
is wanting.

Attempt to rape is absorbed in the crime of forcible
abduction, thus there is no complex crime of forcible
abduction with attempted rape.

Nature of the crime - The act of the offender is
violative of the individual liberty of the abducted,
her honor and reputation, and public order.

Forcible Abduction Grave Coercion
There is violence or intimidation by the offender.
The offended party is compelled to do something
against her will.
Abduction is
characterized by lewd
design.
No lewd design,
provided that there is
no deprivation of
liberty for an
appreciable length of
time.

Forcible Abduction Corruption of Minors
Purpose is to effect his
lewd designs on the
victim.
Purpose is to lend the
victim to illicit
intercourse with others.

Forcible Abduction Serious Illegal Detention
There is deprivation of
liberty and lewd designs.
There is deprivation of
liberty and no lewd
designs.
Commission of other
crimes during
confinement of victim is
immaterial to the charge
of kidnapping w/ serious
illegal detention.

Forcible Abduction with Rape - a complex crime
under Art. 48, and not a special complex crime

The victim was abducted by the accused and was
brought to a hotel where the latter succeeded in
having sexual intercourse with her.

HELD: The elements of both rape and forcible
abduction are proven. The presence of lewd designs
in forcible abduction is manifested by the
subsequent rape of the victim. [People v.
Sunpongco]

This is the Maggie Dela Riva story wherein Maggie
was abducted and brought to a hotel, where the 4
accused took turns in raping her.

HELD: While the first act of rape was being
performed, the crime of forcible abduction had
already been consummated, hence, forcible
abduction can only be attached to the first act of
rape, detached from the 3 subsequent acts of rape.
The effect therefore would be one count of forcible
abduction with rape and 4 counts of rape for each of
the accused. [People v. Jose]

The accused and 2 other men raped the victim. The
victim was a jeepney passenger who was prevented
from leaving the jeepney. She was taken to a remote
place where she was raped.

HELD: The accused is guilty of FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
WITH RAPE. It was proven that the victim was taken
against her will and with lewd design, and was
subsequently forced to submit to the accuseds lust,
rendering her unconscious in the process. [People v.
Alburo]

Forcible Abduction with
Rape
Kidnapping (with rape)
The violent taking of the
woman is motivated by
lewd designs.
Not so motivated
Crime against chastity Crime against liberty

There can only be one complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape.

The victim witnessed the killing of another by the 2
accused. Upon seeing her, the accused dragged her
to a vacant lot where they took turns in raping her.
TC convicted them of rape.

HELD: FORCIBLE ABDUCTION is absorbed in the crime
of RAPE if the main objective is to rape the victim.
Conviction of acts of lasciviousness is not a bar to
conviction of forcible abduction. [People v. Godines]

11. Article 343 - Consented
Abduction

Elements:
(1) Offended party is a virgin;
(2) She is over 12 and under 18 yrs. of age;
(3) Offender takes her away with her consent,
after solicitation or cajolery from the
offender;
(4) The taking away is with lewd designs.
Adultery and
Concubinage
Seduction, Abduction,
Offended spouse 1. Offended party
2. Her parents,
grandparents, or
guardians, in the order
in which they are named
above.

248

Purpose of the law - Not to punish the wrong done to
the girl because she consents to it, but to prescribe
punishment for the disgrace to her family and the
alarm caused by the disappearance of one who is, by
her age and sex, susceptible to cajolery and deceit.

If the virgin is under 12 or is deprived of reason, the
crime is forcible abduction because such is incapable
of giving a valid consent.

The taking away of the girl need not be with some
character of permanence. Offended party need not
be taken from her house.

When there was no solicitation or cajolery and no
deceit and the girl voluntarily went with the man,
there is no crime committed even if they had sexual
intercourse.

12. Article 344 - Prosecution of
Private Offenses

(1) Adultery
(2) Concubinage
(3) Seduction
(4) Abduction
(5) Acts of lasciviousness

Nature of the complaint: The complaint must be
filed in court, not with the fiscal. In case of complex
crimes, where one of the component offenses is a
public crime, the criminal prosecution may be
instituted by the fiscal.

The court motu proprio can dismiss the case for
failure of the aggrieved party to file the proper
complaint even if the accused never raised the
question on appeal.

Crimes against chastity cannot be prosecuted de
oficio.

Adultery and Concubinage

Who may file the complaint: Adultery and
Concubinage must be prosecuted upon complaint
signed by the offended spouse.

The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including BOTH the guilty
parties if they are alive. Both parties must be
included in the complaint even if one of them is not
guilty.

Consent and pardon bar the filing of a criminal
complaint.

The imputation of a crime of prostitution against a
woman can be prosecuted de oficio, but crimes
against chastity cannot.

Prosecution of rape may be made upon complaint by
any person.

Effect of Pardon: (see Effect of Pardon in Art. 333
Adultery)
(1) Effect of Pardon in Adultery applies also to
Concubinage
(2) Condonation or forgiveness of one act of
adultery or concubinage is not a bar to
prosecution of similar acts that may be
committed by the offender in the future.

Consent:
(1) May be express or implied
(2) Given before the adultery or concubinage
was committed
(3) Agreement to live separately may be
evidence of consent.
(4) Affidavit showing consent may be a basis for
new trial.

Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness

Seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness must
be prosecuted upon complaint signed by
(1) Offended party - When the offended party
is a minor, her parents may file the
complaint.
(2) When the offended party is of age and is in
complete possession of her mental and
physical faculties, she alone can file the
complaint.
(3) Parents, Grandparents or Guardian in that
order

When the offended is a minor or incapacitated and
refuses to file the complaint, any of the persons
mentioned could file.

The term guardian refers to legal guardian. He
must be legally appointed by the Court.

The State may also file the complaint as parens
patriae when the offended party dies or becomes
incapacitated before she could file the complaint
and has no known parents, grandparents, or
guardians

Effect of Pardon:
(1) Offended party cannot institute criminal
proceedings if the offender has been
EXPRESSLY pardoned by the offended party,
or her parents, grandparents or guardian.
(2) Pardon by the parent, grandparent, or
guardian must be accompanied by the
express pardon of the offended woman.
(3) The right to file action of the parents,
grandparents and guardian shall be
EXCLUSIVE of other persons and shall be
exercised successively in the order
provided.
(4) Pardon by the offended party who is a
minor must have the concurrence of
parents, EXCEPT when the offended party
has no parents.

Rape complexed with another crime against chastity
need NOT be signed by the offended woman, since
rape is a public crime. When the evidence fails to
prove a complex crime of rape with another crime,

249
and there is no complaint signed by the offended
woman, the accused CANNOT be convicted of rape.

Marriage of the offender with the offended party in
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape,
extinguishes criminal action or remits the penalty
already imposed.

Marriage (in cases of seduction, abduction, and acts
of lasciviousness) extinguishes the criminal action
even as to co-principals, accomplices, and
accessories.

Marriage must be entered into in good faith.

Marriage may take place AFTER criminal proceedings
have commenced, or even after conviction
(extinguishes criminal action and remits penalty).

13. Article 345: Civil Liability

Those guilty of rape, seduction or abduction:
(1) To indemnify the offended woman
(2) To acknowledge the offspring, unless the
law should prevent him from doing so
(3) In every case to support the offspring,
EXCEPT:
(a) in cases of adultery and concubinage
(b) where either of the offended party or
accused is married
(c) when paternity cannot be determined,
such as in multiple rape
(d) other instances where the law prevents
such

The adulterer and the concubine can be sentenced
only to indemnify for damages caused to the
offended spouse.

Under the RPC, there is no civil liability for acts of
lasciviousness.

Art. 2219, CC: moral damages may be recovered in
seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts,
as well as in adultery and concubinage.

The parents of the female seduced, abducted,
raped, or abused may also recover moral damages.
In multiple rape, all the offenders must support the
offspring.

Art. 283 (1), CC: Judgment to recognize the
offspring may only be given if there is pregnancy
within the period of conception, which is within 120
days from the commission of the offense.

In rape of a married woman, only indemnity is
allowed.

14. Article 346 Liability of
ascendants, guardians, teachers
and other persons entrusted with
the custody of the offended party

Liability of ascendants, guardians, teachers or
other persons entrusted with the custody of the
offended party
(1) Persons who cooperate as accomplices but
are punished as principals in rape,
seduction, abduction, etc. (see list below
for the complete set of crimes referred to
in this article):
(a) ascendants
(b) guardians
(c) curators
(d) teachers, and
(e) any other person, who cooperate as
accomplice with abuse of authority or
confidential relationship
(2) The teachers or persons entrusted with
education and guidance of the youth shall
also be penalized with disqualification.

Jurisprudence for Title Eleven

CHILD ABUSE; Sweetheart defense not available
The sweetheart theory applies in acts of
lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed against
or without the consent of the victim. It operates on
the theory that the sexual act was consensual. It
requires proof that the accused and the victim were
lovers and that she consented to the sexual
relations.

For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious
conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the
sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual
intercourse with another person. [Malto v. People
(2007)]

RAPE; Exemplary Damages; Child Victims
Exemplary damages must also be awarded in these
child abuse cases to deter others with perverse
tendencies from sexually abusing young girls of their
own flesh and blood. [People vs. Abellera (2007)]

CHILD ABUSE; Pandering Child Prostitutes
Appellants violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of R.A. No.
7610 is as clear as day. The provision penalizes
anyone who engages in or promotes, facilitates or
induces child prostitution either by:
(1) acting as a procurer of a child prostitute; or
(2) inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means; or
(3) by taking advantage of influence or
relationship to procure a child as a
prostitute; or
(4) threatening or using violence towards a
child to engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) giving monetary consideration, goods or
other pecuniary benefits to the child with
the intent to engage such child in
prostitution.

250
The purpose of the law is to provide special
protection to children from all forms of abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination,
and other conditions prejudicial to their
development.

A child exploited in prostitution may seem to
consent to what is being done to her or him and
may appear not to complain.

However, we have held that a child who is a person
below eighteen years of age or those unable to fully
take care of themselves or protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of their age or mental
disability or condition is incapable of giving rational
consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
In fact, the absence of free consent is conclusively
presumed when the woman is below the age of
twelve. [People vs. Delantar (2007)]

CHILD ABUSE; Definition of Lascivious Conduct
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of
RA 7610 that must be proven in addition to the
elements of acts of lasciviousness are as follows:
(1) The accused commits the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct.
(2) The said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse.
(3) The child, whether male or female, is
below 18 years of age. [Navarrete vs.
People (2007)]

Lascivious conduct is defined under Section 2
(h) of the rules and regulations of RA 7610 as:
(1) The intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, OR
the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
(2) whether of the same or opposite sex,
(3) with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person,
(4) bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a
person

See Also:
(1) RA 9995: Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism
Act of 2009
(2) RA 7610: Special Protection of Children
against Child abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination
(3) RA 9208: Anti-Trafficking in Persona Act
(4) RA 9262: Anti-Violence against Women and
their Children
(5) RA 7877: Anti-Sexual Harassment Act

Title XII. Crimes against the Civil
Status of Persons

Chapter I: Simulation of Births and Usurpation of
Civil Status
(1) Art 347: Simulation of births, substitution of
one child for another and concealment or
abandonment of a legitimate child
(2) Art 348: Usurpation of civil status

Chapter II: Illegal Marriages
(1) Art 349: Bigamy
(2) Art 350: Marriage contracted against
provisions of law
(3) Art 351: Premature marriages
(4) Art 352: Performance of illegal marriage
ceremony

A. Chapter I: Simulation of Births
and Usurpation of Civil Status
0.
1. Article 347 - Simulation of Births,
Substitution of One Child for
Another, and Concealment or
Abandonment of a Legitimate
Child

Mode 1. Simulation of births;

Mode 2. Substitution of one child for another;

Mode 3. Concealing or abandoning any
legitimate child with intent to cause
such child to lose its civil status.

Illustration:
(1) People who have no child and who buy and
adopt the child without going through legal
adoption.
(2) Same is true even if the child was
kidnapped but they knew that the
kidnappers are not the real parents of the
child.
(3) When the real parents make it appear in
the birth certificate that the parents who
bought the child are the real parents

2. Article 348 - Usurpation of Civil
Status

This crime is committed when a person represents
himself to be another and assumes the filiation or
the parental or conjugal rights of such another
person.

Civil status seems to include ones profession.

There must be an intent to enjoy the rights arising
from the civil status of another.

B. Chapter II: Illegal Marriages

251
0.
1. Article 349 - Bigamy
(asked 8 times)

Elements:
(1) Offender has been legally married;
(2) The marriage has not been legally dissolved
or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed
dead according to the Civil Code;
(3) He contracts a second or subsequent
marriage;
(4) The second or subsequent marriage has all
the essential requisites for validity.

Good faith is a defense in bigamy.

Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the
whereabouts of the first wife is bigamy through
reckless imprudence.

A judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage,
that is, that the marriage was void ab initio, is now
required.

One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for
concubinage as both are distinct offenses. The first
is an offense against civil status, which may be
prosecuted at the instance of the state; the second
is an offense against chastity, and may be
prosecuted only at the instance of the offended
party.

The test is not whether the defendant has already
been tried for the same act, but whether he has
been put in jeopardy for the same offense.

2. Article 350 - Marriage Contracted
against Provisions of Laws

Elements:
(1) Offender contracted marriage;
(2) He knew at the time that
(a) The requirements of the law were not
complied with; or
(b) The marriage was in disregard of a
legal impediment.

Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage.

Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages
which are performed without complying with the
requirements of law, or marriages where the consent
of the other is vitiated, or such marriage which was
solemnized by one who is not authorized to
solemnize the same.

3. Article 351 - Premature Marriage

Persons liable:
(1) A widow who is married within 301 days
from the date of the death of her husband,
or before having delivered if she is pregnant
at the time of his death;
(2) A woman who, her marriage having been
annulled or dissolved, married before her
delivery or before the expiration of the
period of 301 days after the date of the
legal separation.

The Supreme Court considered the reason behind
making such marriages within 301 days criminal, that
is, because of the probability that there might be a
confusion regarding the paternity of the child who
would be born.

If this reason does not exist because the former
husband is impotent, OR was shown to be sterile
such that the woman has had no child with him, that
belief of the woman that after all there could be no
confusion even if she would marry within 301 days
may be taken as evidence of good faith and that
would negate criminal intent.

4. Article 352 - Performance of
Illegal Marriage Ceremony

PERSONS LIABLE:
(1) Priests or ministers of any religious
denomination or sect, or civil authorities
(2) who shall perform or authorize any illegal
marriage ceremony

Jurisprudence:

Bigamy
The primordial issue should be whether or not
petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether
his defense of good faith is valid.

In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, we laid down the
elements of bigamy thus:
(1) The offender has been legally married;
(2) The first marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse has
not been judicially declared
presumptively dead;
(3) He contracts a subsequent marriage;
and
(4) The subsequent marriage would have
been valid had it not been for the
existence of the first.

Applying the foregoing test to the instant case,
we note that the trial court found that there was
no actual marriage ceremony performed between
Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead,
what transpired was a mere signing of the
marriage contract by the two, without the
presence of a solemnizing officer.

The first element of bigamy as a crime requires
that the accused must have been legally married.
But in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner
was never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there
is no first marriage to speak of.

252
Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage
being declared void ab initio, the two were never
married from the beginning. The contract of
marriage is null; it bears no legal effect.

Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, for
legal purposes, petitioner was not married to
Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage
with Maria Jececha. The existence and the
validity of the first marriage being an essential
element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical
that a conviction for said offense cannot be
sustained where there is no first marriage to
speak of. The petitioner, must, perforce be
acquitted of the instant charge. [Lucio Morigo v.
People (2002)]

The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity
of the first marriage was immaterial because
prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had
already been consummated. Moreover,
petitioner's assertion would only delay the
prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an
accused could simply file a petition to declare his
previous marriage void and invoke the pendency
of that action as a prejudicial question in the
criminal case. We cannot allow that.

The outcome of the civil case for annulment of
petitioner's marriage to Narcisa had no bearing
upon the determination of petitioner's innocence
or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because
all that is required for the charge of bigamy to
prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at
the time the second marriage is contracted.
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which
is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until
declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.

In this case, even if petitioner eventually
obtained a declaration that his first marriage was
void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the
second marriage were subsisting before the first
marriage was annulled. [Abunado v. People
(2004)]

A careful study of the disputed decision reveals
that respondent Judge had been less than
circumspect in his study of the law and
jurisprudence applicable to the bigamy case. In
his comment, respondent Judge stated: That
the accused married Manuel P. Diego in the
honest belief that she was free to do so by virtue
of the decree of divorce is a mistake of fact.

This Court, in People v. Bitdu, carefully
distinguished between a mistake of fact, which
could be a basis for the defense of good faith in a
bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which does
not excuse a person, even a lay person, from
liability. Bitdu held that even if the accused, who
had obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan
custom, honestly believed that in contracting her
second marriage she was not committing any
violation of the law, and that she had no criminal
intent, the same does not justify her act.

This Court further stated therein that with
respect to the contention that the accused acted
in good faith in contracting the second marriage,
believing that she had been validly divorced from
her first husband, it is sufficient to say that
everyone is presumed to know the law, and the
fact that one does not know that his act
constitutes a violation of the law does not
exempt him from the consequences thereof.

Moreover, squarely applicable to the criminal
case for bigamy, is People v. Schneckenburger,
where it was held that the accused who secured
a foreign divorce, and later remarried in the
Philippines, in the belief that the foreign divorce
was valid, is liable for bigamy. [Diego v. Castillo
(2004)]

253
Title XIII. Crimes against Honor

Chapter I: Libel
(1) Art 353: Definition of Libel
(2) Art 354: Privileged communication
(3) Art 355: Libel by means of writings or
similar means
(4) Art 356: Threatening to publish and offer to
prevent such publication for a
compensation
(5) Art. 357: Prohibited Publication of Acts
Referred to in the course of Official
Proceedings
(6) Art 358: Slander
(7) Art 359: Slander by Deed

Chapter II: Incriminatory Machinations
(1) Art 363: Incriminating innocent person
(2) Art 364: Intriguing against honor

A. Chapter I: Libel
0.
1. Article 353 - Definition of Libel
(asked 4 times)

Elements:
(1) There must be an imputation of
(a) a crime,
(b) a vice or defect, real or imaginary, OR
(c) any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance;
(2) The imputation must be made publicly;
(3) It must be malicious;
(4) The imputation must be directed at a
natural or juridical person, or one who is
dead;

Libel as used in Art. 353. (Reyes)

Defamation is composed of:
(1) Libel written defamation
(2) Slander- oral defamation
(3) Slander by deed defamation through acts

Test of the defamatory character of words used:
Whether they are calculated to induce the hearers
to suppose and understand that the person against
whom they (i.e. the defamatory words) were uttered
was guilty of certain offenses; OR are sufficient to
impeach his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold
him up to public ridicule. (U.S. vs. OConnell)

Publication: communication of the defamatory
matter to some third person or persons. There is no
crime if the defamatory imputation is not published.

It is essential that the victim be identifiable,
although it is not necessary that he be named.

For a statement to be considered malicious, it must
be shown that it was written or published with the
knowledge that they are false OR in reckless
disregard of WON they were false.

Reckless disregard the defendant entertains
serious doubt as to the truth of the publication, OR
that he possesses a high degree of awareness of their
probable falsity.

To avoid self-censorship that would necessarily
accompany strict liability for erroneous statements,
rules governing liability for injury to reputation are
required to allow an adequate margin of error by
protecting some inaccuracies. [Borjal v. CA (1999)]

Doctrine of fair comment: Fair commentaries on
matters of public interest are privileged and
constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or
slander.

In order that a discreditable imputation to a public
official may be actionable, it must either be:
(1) A false allegation of fact; OR
(2) A comment based on a false supposition.
[People v. Velasco (2000)]

PUBLIC FIGURE one who, by his accomplishments,
fame, mode of living, OR by adopting a profession
or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest
in his doings, his affairs and his character, has
become a public personage [Ayer Productions v.
Capulong (1988)]

Based on the ruling in US v. Ocampo, proof of
knowledge of and participation in the publication of
the offending article is not required, if the accused
has been specifically identified as author, editor, or
proprietor or printer/publisher of the
publication.

On January 25, 2008, the Court issued Administrative
Circular No. 08-2008, entitled Guidelines in the
Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition
of Penalties in Libel Cases. The Circular expresses a
preference for the imposition of a fine rather than
imprisonment, given the circumstances attendant in
the cases cited therein in which only a fine was
imposed by this Court on those convicted of libel.

It also states that, if the penalty imposed is merely a
fine but the convict is unable to pay the same, the
Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary
imprisonment should apply.

However, the Circular likewise allows the court, in
the exercise of sound discretion, the option to
impose imprisonment as penalty, whenever the
imposition of a fine alone would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense, work violence on the
social order, or otherwise be contrary to the
imperatives of justice. [Fermin v. People (2008)]

254
2. Article 354 - Requirement for
Publicity

General rule: MALICE IS PRESUMED in every
defamatory imputation.

Exception: in privileged communications, namely:
(1) A private communication to an officer or a
board, or superior, having some interest or
duty in the matter, made by any person in
the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty;
(2) A fair and true report, made in good faith,
without any comments or remarks, of
(a) any judicial, legislative or other official
proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, OR
(b) any statement, report or speech
delivered in said proceedings, OR
(c) any other act performed by public
officers in the exercise of their
functions.

Defamatory remarks are PRESUMED malicious. The
presumption of malice is REBUTTED, if it is shown by
the accused that (see discussion of Art. 361)
(1) The defamatory imputation is true, IN CASE
the law allows proof of the truth of the
imputation;
(2) It is published with good intention; AND
(3) There is justifiable motive for making it

Privileged communication is NOT PRESUMED
malicious.

Kinds of Privilege:
ABSOLUTE QUALIFIED
NOT actionable. Narrow
and few:
(1) Privileged
speeches in
congress
(2) Statements made
in judicial
proceedings as
long as they are
relevant to the
issue
(3) Military affairs
Actionable IF Malice or
Bad faith is proven
(malice in Fact)

Based on par 1 and 2 of
Art 354, although the list
is not exclusive

Art 354 does not cover absolute privilege because
character of communications mentioned therein is
lost upon proof of malice in fact.

MALICE IN LAW MALICE IN FACT
Presumed from
defamatory character of
statement
To be proved by
prosecution ONLY IF
malice in law has been
rebutted
Statement is presented
to court, and the latter
will decide whether it is
defamatory or not
Can be negated by
evidence of:
(1) Good motives AND
Justifiable ends; or
(2) Privileged character

Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith.

3. Article 355 - Libel by Writing or
Similar Means

Libel may be committed by means of:
(1) Writing;
(2) Printing;
(3) Lithography;
(4) Engraving;
(5) Radio;
(6) Photograph;
(7) Painting;
(8) Theatrical exhibition;
(9) Cinematographic exhibition; or
(10) Any similar means. (e.g. video broadcast)

Common characteristic of written libel: their
permanent nature as a means of publication.

Use of amplifier system is not libel but oral
defamation (slander)

In a libel case filed in August 2006 against RP
Nuclear Solutions and blogger Abe Olandres, the
Pasig City Prosecutor dismissed the charges against
them because they have no participation in the
creation. Neither did they have the authority to
modify the content of the site being hosted where
the allegedly libelous remarks were posted.
22

The prosecutor however ordered the filing of cases
against two other respondents who never denied
authorship of the posted comments.

It remains debatable when the moment of
publication occurs with respect to statements made
over the Internet.
23
One view holds that there is
publication once the statement is uploaded or
posted on a website. The other view maintains that
publication occurs only when another person gains
access or reads the statement on the site.

4. Article 356 - Threatening to
Publish and Offer to Prevent Such
Publication for a Compensation

Acts Punished:
(1) Threatening another to publish a libel
concerning him, his parents, spouse, child
or other members of his family
(2) Offering to prevent the publication of such
libel for compensation or money
consideration.

The essence of this crime is blackmail, which is
defined as any unlawful extortion of money by
threats of accusation or exposure.

Blackmail can also be in the form of light threats,
which is punished under ARTICLE 283.

22
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/vie
w_article.php?article_id=68456

23
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/03/04/libel-on-the-
internet-under-philippine-law-part-ii/)

255

5. Article 357 - Prohibited
Publication of Acts Referred to in
the Course of Official Proceedings
(Gag Law)

Elements:
(1) Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of
a newspaper, daily or magazine;
(2) He publishes facts connected with the
private life of another;
(3) Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue
and reputation of said person.

This article is referred to as the Gag Law.

Newspaper reports on cases pertaining to adultery,
divorce, legitimacy of children, etc. are barred from
publication.

Under RA 1477, a newspaper reporter cannot be
compelled to reveal the source of the news report
he made, UNLESS the court or a House or committee
of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded
by the security of the state.

6. Article 358 - Slander
(asked 5 times)

Slander, or oral defamation is composed of two
kinds:
(1) Simple slander
(2) Grave slander

Factors that determine the gravity of the oral
defamation:
(1) Expressions used
(2) Personal relations of the accused and the
offended party.
(3) The surrounding circumstances.

Illustration of grave slander:
A woman of violent temper hurled at a respectable
married lady with young daughters offensive and
scurrilous epithets including words imputing
unchastity to the mother and tending to injure the
character of the daughters [U.S. vs. Toloso]

Illustration of simple slander:
(1) Calling a person a gangster
(2) Uttering defamatory words in the heat of
anger with some provocation on the part of
the offended party
(3) The word putang ina mo is a common
expression in the dialect that is often
employed not really to slander but rather to
express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if
ever taken in its literal sense by the hearer,
that is, as a reflection on the virtue of a
mother. [Reyes vs. People]

7. Article 359 - Slander by Deed

Elements:
(1) Offender performs any act not included in
any other crime against honor;
(2) Such act is performed in the presence of
other person or persons;
(3) Such act casts dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon the offended party.

Slander by deed is of two kinds
(1) Simple slander by deed
(2) Grave slander by deed

There is no fixed standard in determining whether a
slander is serious or not; hence the courts have
sufficient discretion to determine the same, basing
the finding on the attendant circumstances and
matters relevant thereto.

8. Article 360 - Persons Responsible
for Libel

(1) The person who publishes, exhibits or
causes the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or similar means.
(2) The author or editor of a book or pamphlet.
(3) The editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper magazine or serial publication.
(4) The owner of the printing plant which
publishes a libelous article with his consent
and all other persons who in any way
participate in or have connection with its
publication.

Under Republic Act no. 8792, otherwise known as the
Electronic Commerce Act, a party or person acting as
a service provider incurs NO civil or criminal liability
in the making, publication, dissemination or
distribution of libelous material if:
(1) The service provider does not have actual
knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or
circumstances from which it is apparent
that making, publication, dissemination or
distribution of such material is unlawful or
infringes any rights;
(2) The service provider does not knowingly
receive a financial benefit directly
attributable to the infringing activity;
(3) The service provider does:
(a) not directly commit any infringement
or other unlawful act and
(b) does not induce or cause another
person or party to commit any
infringement or other unlawful act
(c) and/or does not benefit financially
from the infringing activity or unlawful
act of another person or party (Section
30, in relation to Section 5, E-
Commerce Law.
24

Where to file the criminal action? It depends on
who the offended party is.

24
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/03/04/libel-on-the-
internet-under-philippine-law-part-ii/)

256

If he is a public officer, the criminal action can only
be instituted in either:
(1) RTC of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first
published, OR
(2) RTC of the province or city where he held
office at the time of the commission of the
offense

If he is a private person, the criminal action may be
brought in:
(1) RTC of the province or city where the
published, OR
(2) RTC of the province or city where he
actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense

9. Article 361 - Proof of Truth

When admissible?
(1) When the act or omission imputed
constitutes a crime regardless of whether
the offended party is a private individual or
a public officer.
(2) When the offended party is a Government
employee, even if the imputation does not
constitute a crime, provided it is related to
the discharge of his official duties.

Rule of actual malice: Even if the defamatory
statement is false, NO liability can attach IF it
relates to official conduct, UNLESS the public official
concerned proves that the statement was made with
actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that it was false
or with reckless disregard of WON it was false.

10. Article 362 - Libelous Remarks

(1) Libelous remarks or comments
(2) connected with the matter privileged under
the provisions of Art. 354,
(3) if made with malice,
(4) shall NOT exempt the author thereof nor
the editor or managing editor of a
newspaper from criminal liability.

B. Chapter II: Incriminatory
Machinations
0.
1. Article 363 - Incriminating
innocent person

As far as this crime is concerned, this has been
interpreted to be possible only in the so-called
planting of evidence. If this act is resorted to, to
enable officers to arrest the subject, the crime is
unlawful arrest through incriminating innocent
persons.

This crime cannot be committed through verbal
incriminatory statements.

INCRIMINATING
INNOCENT
PERSON
PERJURY BY
MAKING FALSE
ACCUSATIONS
DEFAMATION
act of planting
evidence and
the like in
order to
incriminate an
innocent person
giving of false
statement
under oath or
making a false
affidavit,
imputing to the
person the
commission of a
crime
public and
malicious
imputation
calculated to
cause dishonor,
discredit, or
contempt upon
the offended
party

2. Article 364 - Intriguing against
Honor

(1) Intriguing against honor is referred to as
gossiping: the offender, without
ascertaining the truth of a defamatory
utterance, repeats the same and pass it on
to another, to the damage of the offended
party
(2) This crime is committed by any person who
shall make any intrigue which has for its
principal purpose to blemish the honor or
reputation of another person.

Jurisprudence

Libel against a public official
An open letter addressed to the stockholders of
OPMC was the subject of a full-page advertisement
published in 5 major daily newspapers. Coyiuto, Jr.,
wrote in his capacity as Chairman of the Board and
President of OPMC, that there was a sweetheart deal
between Commissioner Mario Jalandoni of the PCGG
and Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) to the
prejudice of the Government .

In the recent case of Vasquez v. Court of Appeals,
et. al., the Court ruled that: "The question is
whether from the fact that the statements were
defamatory, malice can be presumed so that it was
incumbent upon petitioner to overcome such
presumption. Under Art. 361 of the Revised Penal
Code, if the defamatory statement is made against a
public official with respect to the discharge of his
official duties and functions and the truth of the
allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled to
an acquittal even though he does not prove that the
INTRIGUING
AGAINST
HONOR
SLANDER INCRIMINATING
INNOCENT
PERSON
the source of
the defamatory
utterance is
unknown and
the offender
simply repeats
or passes the
same to
blemish the
honor or
reputation of
another
offender made
the utterance,
where the
source of the
defamatory
nature of the
utterance is
known, and
offender makes
a republication
thereof
offender
performs an act
by which he
directly
incriminates or
imputes to an
innocent person
the commission
of a crime

257
imputation was published with good motives and for
justifiable ends."

Moreover, the Court has ruled in a plethora of cases
that in libel cases against public officials which
relate to official conduct liability will attach only if
the public official concerned proves that the
statement was made with actual malice, that is,
with knowledge that it was false.

Imputations regarding official conduct do not carry
the presumption of malice, hence even if the
defamatory statement is false, if malice was not
proven, there is no libel. Here petitioner failed to
prove actual malice on the part of the private
respondents. Nor was the Court of the opinion that
the open letter was written to cast aspersion on the
good name of the petitioner.

The paid advertisement merely served as a vehicle
to inform the stockholders of the goings-on in the
business world and only exposed the irregularities
surrounding the PCGG and RCBC deal and the parties
involved. [Mario C.V Jalandoni v Secretary of Justice
(2000)]

Slander (Art. 358)
Atty. Benjamin C. Escolango was conversing with his
political leaders at the terrace of his house when
Rogelio Pader appeared at the gate and shouted
"putang ina mo Atty. Escolango. Napakawalanghiya
mo!" The latter was dumbfounded and embarrassed.
At that time, Atty. Escolango was a candidate for
vice mayor in the 1995 elections. Atty. Escolango
filed with the Municipal Trial Court a complaint
against Pader for grave oral defamation. The MTC
rendered decision convicting petitioner of grave oral
defamation.

HELD: Unquestionably, the words uttered were
defamatory. Considering, however, the factual
backdrop of the case, the oral defamation was only
slight. The trial court believed the defamation to be
deliberately done to destroy Atty. Escolango's
reputation since the parties were political
opponents. The trial court failed to appreciate the
fact that the parties were also neighbors: that
petitioner was drunk at the time he uttered the
defamatory words; and the fact that petitioner's
anger was instigated by what Atty. Escolango did
when petitioner's father died. In which case, the oral
defamation was not of serious or insulting nature.

In Reyes v. People, we ruled that the expression
"putang ina mo" is a common enough utterance in
the dialect that is often employed, not really to
slander but rather to express anger or displeasure.
In fact, more often, it is just an expletive that
punctuates one's expression of profanity. We do not
find it seriously insulting that after a previous
incident involving his father, a drunk Rogelio Pader
on seeing Atty. Escolango would utter words
expressing anger. Obviously, the intention was to
show his feelings of resentment and not necessarily
to insult the latter. [Rogelio Pader v. People (2000)]

Venue of criminal and civil actions in libel cases
(Art. 360 and RA 4363 AN ACT TO FURTHER
AMEND ARTICLE THREE HUNDRED SIXTY OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE)
Alfie Lorenzo, Allen Macasaet, Nicolas Quijano, Jr.,
and Roger Parajes, columnist, publisher, managing
editor, and editor, respectively of the newspaper
"Abante" were charged before the RTC, with the
crime of libel. Respondents tried to have the
complaint dismissed on the basis that Trinidad, the
complainant was not a resident of Quezon City but
rather of Marikina. However, the RTC and the Court
of Appeals upheld Trinidad.

HELD: In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule
that venue is jurisdictional. Thus, the place where
the crime was committed determines not only the
venue of the action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction.

In the case of Uy v. Court of Appeals and People of
the Philippines, this Court had the occasion to
expound on this principle. It is a fundamental rule
that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in
criminal cases:
(1) the offense should have been committed or
any one of its essential ingredients took
place within the territorial jurisdiction of
the court.
(2) Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is
the territory where the court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the
offense allegedly committed therein by the
accused.
(3) Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a
person charged with an offense allegedly
committed outside of that limited territory.
(4) Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court
over the criminal case is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information.
(5) And once it is so shown, the court may
validly take cognizance of the case.
(6) However, if the evidence adduced during
the trial show that the offense was
committed somewhere else, the court
should dismiss the action for want of
jurisdiction.

The law, however, is more particular in libel cases.
The possible venues for the institution of the
criminal and the civil aspects of said case are
concisely outlined in Article 360 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363.

In Agbayani v. Sayo, we summarized the foregoing
rule in the following manner:
(1) Whether the offended party is a public
official or a private person, the criminal
action may be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where the
published.

258
(2) If the offended party is a private individual,
the criminal action may also be filed in the
Court of First Instance of the province
where he actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense.
(3) If the offended party is a public officer
whose office is in Manila at the time of the
commission of the offense, the action may
be filed in the Court of First Instance of
Manila.
(4) If the offended party is a public officer
holding office outside of Manila, the action
may be filed in the Court of First Instance
of the province or city where he held office
at the time of the commission of the
offense.

In the case at bar, private respondent was a private
citizen at the time of the publication of the alleged
libelous article, hence, he could only file his libel
suit in the City of Manila where Abante was first
published or in the province or city where he
actually resided at the time the purported libelous
article was printed.

This Court finds it appropriate to reiterate our
earlier pronouncement in the case of Agbayani, to
wit: In order to obviate controversies as to the
venue of the criminal action for written defamation,
the complaint or information should contain
allegations as to whether, at the time the offense
was committed, the offended party was a public
officer or a private individual and where he was
actually residing at that time.
Whenever possible, the place where the written
defamation was printed and first published should
likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine
qua non if the circumstance as to where the libel
was printed and first published is used as the basis of
the venue of the action. [Macasaet v. People (2005)]

Unsealed letters
Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended
party constitutes publication. [Magno vs. People
(2006)]

What constitutes publication; Fine Instead of
Imprisonment
There is publication in this case. In libel,
publication means making the defamatory matter,
after it is written, known to someone other than the
person against whom it has been written.

Petitioners subject letter-reply itself states that the
same was copy furnished to all concerned. Also,
petitioner had dictated the letter to his secretary.
It is enough that the author of the libel complained
of has communicated it to a third person.
Furthermore, the letter, when found in the mailbox,
was open, not contained in an envelope thus, open
to public.

While Vaca case is for violation of B.P. 22, we find
the reasons behind the imposition of fine instead of
imprisonment applicable to petitioners case of
libel. We note that this is petitioners first offense of
this nature. He never knew respondent prior to the
demand letter sent by the latter to Mrs. Quingco
who then sought his assistance thereto. He appealed
from the decision of the RTC and the CA in his belief
that he was merely exercising a civil or moral duty in
writing the letter to private complainant. In fact,
petitioner could have applied for probation to evade
prison term but he did not do so believing that he
did not commit a crime thus, he appealed his case.

We believe that the State is concerned not only in
the imperative necessity of protecting the social
organization against the criminal acts of destructive
individuals but also in redeeming the individual for
economic usefulness and other social ends.
Consequently, we delete the prison sentence
imposed on petitioner and instead impose a fine of
six thousand pesos.

This is not the first time that we removed the
penalty of imprisonment and imposed a fine instead
in the crime of libel. In Sazon v. Court of Appeals,
petitioner was convicted of libel and was meted a
penalty of imprisonment and fine; and upon a
petition filed with us, we affirmed the findings of
libel but changed the penalty imposed to a mere
fine. [Buatis vs. People (2006)]

Slight Oral Defamation
The Court does not condone the vilification or use of
scurrilous language on the part of petitioner, but
following the rule that all possible circumstances
favorable to the accused must be taken in his favor,
it is our considered view that the slander committed
by petitioner can be characterized as slight slander
following the doctrine that: uttering defamatory
words in the heat of anger, with some provocation
on the part of the offended party, constitutes only a
light felony. [Villanueva vs. People (2006)]

Effect of Name-calling
While it is true that a publication's libelous nature
depends on its scope, spirit and motive taken in
their entirety, the article in question as a whole
explicitly makes mention of private complainant
Rivera all throughout.

It cannot be said that the article was a mere general
commentary on the alleged existing state of affairs
at the aforementioned public market. Rivera was not
only specifically pointed out several times therein
but was even tagged with derogatory names.
Indubitably, this name-calling was, as correctly
found by the two courts below, directed at the very
person of Rivera himself. [Figueroa vs. People
(2006)]

Victim Identifiable
The last element of libel is that the victim is
identified or identifiable from the contents of the
libelous article.

259
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that
the victim be identifiable, although it is not
necessary that the person be named. It is enough if
by intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent or if
the publication contains matters of description or
reference to facts and circumstances from which
others reading the article may know the person
alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by
extraneous circumstances so that those knowing
such person could and did understand that he was
the person referred to.

Kunkle v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid the
rule that this requirement is complied with where a
third person recognized or could identify the party
vilified in the article. [People vs. Ogie Diaz (2007)]

See Also: AC 08-2008: Re: Guidelines in the
Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition
of Penalties in Libel Cases

Title XIV. Quasi-Offenses
0.
1. Article 365 - Imprudence and
Negligence

Quasi-offenses punished:
(1) Committing through reckless imprudence
any act which, had it been intentional,
would constitute a grave or less grave
felony or light felony;
(2) Committing through simple imprudence or
negligence an act which would otherwise
constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
(3) Causing damage to the property of another
through reckless imprudence or simple
imprudence or negligence;
(4) Causing through simple imprudence or
negligence some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light
felony.

IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE
Both indicate a deficiency of action
Failure in precaution Failure in advertence

The rules for graduating penalties (under Art. 64)
based on mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are NOT applicable to offenses punishable thru
criminal negligence.

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: failure to render
immediate assistance to the injured party. This
qualifying circumstance must be distinguished from
the punishable OMISSION under Article 275.
25

If the danger that may result from the criminal
negligence is clearly perceivable, the imprudence is
RECKLESS. If it could hardly be perceived, the
criminal negligence would only be simple.

Criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring
criminal liability. This is so because under Article 3,
a felony may result from dolo or culpa. THEREFORE,
even if there are several results arising from ONLY
ONE CARELESSNESS, the accused may only be
prosecuted under one count for the criminal
negligence. Otherwise, double jeopardy would arise.

Reckless Imprudence:

25
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of one's own victim. The penalty of arresto
mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any
person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded
or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance
without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to
another whom he has accidentally wounded or
injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under
seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to
the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take
him to a safe place.

260
(1) The offender does or fails to do an act
(2) The doing of or the failure to do the act is
voluntary
(3) It be without malice
(4) Material damage results
(5) There is inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the offender, taking into
consideration:
(a) His employment/occupation
(b) Physical condition
(c) Degree of intelligence
(d) Other circumstances regarding the
persons, time and place

NOTE:
(1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
(asked 3 times)
(2) Resulting in Physical Injuries(asked 3 times)

Simple Imprudence
(1) There is lack of precaution on the part of
the offender
(2) The damage impending to be caused is not
immediate or the danger is not clearly
manifest.

Jurisprudence:

The gravamen of SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE is the failure
to exercise the diligence necessitated or called for
by the situation which was NOT immediately life-
destructive BUT which culminated, as in the present
case, in the death of a human being 3 days later.
[Carillo v. People (1994)]

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, which is a form of
negligence, consists in the failure of a physician or
surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that
degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed
by the profession generally, under similar conditions,
and in like surrounding circumstances (this is the
test applied). [Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio (1997)]

Elements involved in medical negligence cases:
(D.B.P.I.)
(1) Duty
(2) Breach
(3) Injury
(4) Proximate causation

Requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur:
(1) The accident was of a kind which does NOT
ordinarily occur UNLESS someone is
negligent;
(2) The instrumentality or agency which caused
the injury was under the exclusive control
of the person in charge; and
(3) The injury suffered must NOT have been
due to any voluntary action or contribution
of the person injured.

Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of skill and
experience are competent to testify as to whether a
patient has been treated or operated upon with a
reasonable degree of skill and care.

HOWEVER, testimony as to the statements and acts
of physicians and surgeons, external appearances,
and manifest conditions which are observable by any
one may be given by non-expert witnesses. [Reyes v.
Sis. of Mercy Hospital (2000)]

While playing one day, a child-Honey Fe heard a
commotion from a nearby house and went to
investigate. She saw Randy Luntayao being tortured
and killed by Alexander Sibonga, Reynario Nuez,
Eutiquia Carmen, Delia Sibonga, and Celedonia
Fabie. Apparently it was a ritual supposed to cure
him of demonic possession. The father of the boy
filed charges against the participants, and the child
who witnessed the macabre incident testified as to
what she saw. The trial court convicted the
participants of murder.

HELD: It would appear that accused-appellants are
members of a cult and that the bizarre ritual
performed over the victim was consented to by the
victim's parents. With the permission of the victim's
parents, accused-appellant Carmen, together with
the other accused-appellants, proceeded to subject
the boy to a "treatment" calculated to drive the "bad
spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the
strange procedure resulted in the death of the boy.
Thus, accused-appellants had no criminal intent to
kill the boy.

Their liability arises from their reckless imprudence
because they ought that to know their actions would
not bring about the cure. They are, therefore, guilty
of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and not
of murder.

Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
states that reckless imprudence consists in
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to
do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part
of the person performing such act.

Compared to intentional felonies, such as homicide
or murder, what takes the place of the element of
malice or intention to commit a wrong or evil is: the
failure of the offender to take precautions due to
lack of skill taking into account his employment, or
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition, and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.

The elements of reckless imprudence are apparent
in the acts done by accused-appellants which,
because of their lack of medical skill in treating the
victim of his alleged ailment, resulted in the latter's
death. As already stated, accused-appellants, none
of whom is a medical practitioners, belong to a
religious group, known as the Missionaries of Our
Lady of Fatima, which is engaged in faith healing.
[People v. Carmen (2001)]

The trial court found the accused "guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Double Homicide

261
Through Reckless Imprudence with violation of the
Motor Vehicle Law (Rep. Act No. 4136)."

HELD: There is no such nomenclature of an offense
under the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the trial court
was misled to sentence the accused "to suffer two
(2) indeterminate penalties of four (4) months and
one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three
(3) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of
prision correccional, as maximum."

This is erroneous because in reckless imprudence
cases, the actual penalty for criminal negligence
bears no relation to the individual wilful crime or
crimes committed, but is set in relation to a whole
class, or series of crimes. Unfortunately, we can no
longer correct this judgment even if erroneous, as it
is, because it has become final and executory.

Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code,
criminal negligence "is treated as a mere quasi
offense, and dealt with separately from wilful
offenses. It is not a question of classification or
terminology. In intentional crimes, the act itself is
punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is
principally penalized is the mental attitude or
condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, and lack of care or foresight, the
imprudencia punible.

Much of the confusion has arisen from the common
use of such descriptive phrase as 'homicide through
reckless imprudence', and the like; when the strict
technical sense is, more accurately, 'reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide'; or 'simple
imprudence causing damages to property'." [Rafael
Reyes Trucking v People (2000)]

FACTS: Ireneo, Abundio and Lourdes Mangruban were
with their paralyzed aunt at a bus terminal. Lourdes
Mangruban was tasked to accompany their paralyzed
aunt to Butuan City. A dispatcher informed them
that a bus bound for Tacloban via Cebu and Butuan
was about to leave. They were told to wait as the
bus maneuvered to its proper position prior to
departure. The said bus, driven by Teofilo Abueva,
came to a full stop in front of the terminal building.
As they negotiated their way towards the back of the
bus, Lourdes, with luggage in hand, was waiting on
the first stepboard when the bus suddenly moved.
Due to the sudden movement, according to the
witness, Lourdes fell off the bus and hit her head on
the cement pavement below.

According to the witness, the driver did not
disembark to assist Lourdes, while a dispatcher of
the bus company assured them that there was
nothing to worry about because the victim was not
bleeding. Petitioner continued driving per his
scheduled trip.

Lourdes was taken to the San Pedro Hospital where a
brain scan revealed the presence of a blood clot that
needed immediate surgery. The bus company
refused to give financial assistance to the
Mangrubans. On their own, the family raised the
amount required by the hospital as downpayment for
the operation. Surgery was performed but Lourdes
never regained consciousness and expired five days
later. The trial court convicted Teofilo Abueva for
Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide.

HELD: After a careful review of the records, the
Court agrees with the factual findings of the lower
courts showing that the victim, Lourdes Mangruban,
fell rather than jumped off the bus.

The prosecution has provided sufficient, clear and
convincing basis for the conclusion that Lourdes fell
off the bus due to the reckless act of the petitioner.
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that
reckless imprudence consists in:
(1) voluntarily, but without malice,
(2) doing or failing to do an act from which
(3) material damage results
(4) by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the person performing or
failing to perform such act,
(5) taking into consideration:
(a) his employment or occupation;
(b) his degree of intelligence;
(c) his physical condition; and
(d) other circumstances regarding persons,
time and place.

Petitioner herein is a professional driver who has
been in the employ of the bus company for 18 years
26 and has undergone training courses and seminars
to improve his skills as a driver. He is expected to be
well aware of his responsibilities to his passengers.
Not only must he make sure that they reach their
destinations on time, he must also ensure their
safety while they are boarding, during the entire
trip, and upon disembarking from the vehicle.
[Abueva v. People (2002)]

FACTS: "In the evening of February 16, 1990, Pat.
Domingo Belbes and Pat. Jose Pabon were assigned
to maintain peace and order at the Junior and Senior
Prom of Pili Barangay High School. Around 9:00 p.m.
while Teacher-In-Charge Mila Ulanca, Pat. Pabon and
Belbes were watching the dance, two students
approached Mrs. Ulanca and said "Ma'm, it seems
that there is somebody making trouble." Pat. Belbes
and Pat. Pabon, armed with an Armalite rifle and a
.38 caliber revolver, respectively, responded
forthwith. Moments after the two police officers
left, bursts of gunfire filled the air.

Fernando Bataller, a graduating student was hit on
different parts of his body and died. The accused
Pat. Belbes stated that they acted in self defense.
The trial court convicted Pat. Belbes of murder and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

HELD: The offense is definitely not reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide because the
shooting was intentional.

262

Illustrations of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide are: (1) exhibiting a loaded revolver to a
friend, who was killed by the accidental discharge
brought about by negligent handling; or (2)
discharging a firearm from the window of one's
house and killing a neighbor who just at the moment
leaned over the balcony front; or (3) where the
defendant, to stop a fist fight, fired his .45 caliber
pistol twice in the air, and, as the bout continued,
he fired another shot at the ground, but the bullet
ricocheted and hit a bystander who died soon
thereafter. In this case, appellant intended to fire
AT the victim, and in fact hit ONLY the victim.
[People v. Belbes (2000)]

Effect of Victims Contributory Negligence
Finally, as to petitioners argument that Jesus
Basallo (Victim; deceased) should be presumed
negligent because he was driving with an expired
license and the passenger jeepney owned by his
brother Teodorico did not have a franchise to
operate, we hold that the same fails to
convince. The defense of contributory negligence
does not apply in criminal cases committed through
reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the
negligence of another to evade the effects of his
own negligence. [Manzanares vs. People (2006)]

Annex A
ARBITRARY DETENTION ILLEGAL DETENTION UNLAWFUL ARREST
Offender Public officer who has
authority to make arrests and
detain persons
(1) Private person; OR
(2) Public officer who is
acting in a private
capacity or beyond the
scope of his official duty
Any person
Criminal
intent
Violate the offended partys
constitutional freedom against
warrantless arrest
Deprive the offended party of
his personal liberty
Accuse the offended party of
a crime he did not commit,
deliver him to the proper
authority, and file the
necessary charges to
incriminate him

Annex B
Habitual Delinquency
Art. 62 (5)
Recidivism
Art. 14 (9)
Habituality/ Reiteracion/
Repetition
Art. 14 (10)
Crimes Specific crimes:
1. Less serious or
serious physical
injuries
2. Robbery
3. Theft
4. Estafa
5. Falsification
Sufficient that the offender has
been:
1. Previously convicted by final
judgment
2. For another crime
3. Embraced in the same title of
the Code
4. On the date of his trial
Necessary that the offender shall
have served out his sentence for
the first offense
Period of
time
Within 10 years from his
last release or conviction
No period of time
Number of
crimes
Guilty the third time or
oftener
The second conviction for an
offense embraced in the same
title of this Code
The previous and subsequent
offenses must NOT be embraced in
the same title of the Code
Their
effects
An additional penalty
shall be imposed
If not offset by any mitigating
circumstance, increase the
penalty only to the maximum
Not always an aggravating
circumstance

UP 2012 Criminal Law (Book 2) PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UP 2012 Criminal Law (Book 2) PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

S-ar putea să vă placă și