Codal Transcripts Crim Ii

BOOK TWO
CRIMES AND PENALTIES

Title One

CRI ME S AGAI NS T NAT I ONAL
SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS

Chapter One
CRI ME S AGAI NS T NAT I ONAL
SECURITY

Section One. Treason and espionage

Art. 114. Treason. Any person who,
owing allegiance to (the United States or) the
Government of the Philippine Islands, not
being a foreigner, levies war against them or
adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or
comfort within the Philippine Islands or
elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion
temporal to death and shall pay a ne not to
exceed P20,000 pesos.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless
on the testimony of two witnesses at least to
the same overt act or on confession of the
accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine
Islands, who commits acts of treason as
dened in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be
punished by prision mayor to death and shall
pay a ne not to exceed P20,000 pesos.
_____________________________________
Giving comfort women is not giving aid or comfort.
Giving aid or comfort is something that will promote
the cause of the enemy. When you give aid or
comfort, you probably give them places to hide or
to tell him the location of the Philippine Armed
Forces and so on. That is giving aid or comfort -
those that will promote the cause of the enemy.
Now, in the crime of treason, because of the nature
of the crime, there is a requirement that in order
that one may be convicted, at least two witnesses
should testify to the same overt act. But that two-
witness rule is applicable only if the crime of
treason falls under the second form that is
adherence. If you want to prove adherence to the
enemy, then there should be two witnesses who
should testify on the giving aid or comfort. The two-
witness rule does not apply to levying war because
levying war, one witness will be sufcient because
they are actually joining the enemy. But when you
prove adherence to the enemy and, therefore, you
want to prove giving aid or comfort, then the two-
witness rule will be apply. Treason may also be
proved if the offender confesses to court, that is,
when he pleads guilty or confesses to the
commission of the crime of treason.
__________________________________
Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to
commi t treason; Penal ty. The
conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime of
treason shall be punished respectively, by
prision mayor and a ne not exceeding
P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a
ne not exceeding P5,000 pesos.
_____________________________________
Proposal and conspiracy to commit the crime of
treason. When one proposes, there is already a
crime, even if it is not accepted. But when the
proposal is accepted, as you learned in Article 8,
then it is becomes conspiracy. So, you"re now
liable.
_____________________________________
Art. 116. Misprision of treason. Every
person owing allegiance to (the United States)
the Government of the Philippine Islands,
wi thout bei ng a forei gner, and havi ng
knowledge of any conspiracy against them,
conceals or does not disclose and make
known the same, as soon as possible to the
governor or scal of the province, or the mayor
or scal of the city in which he resides, as the
case may be, shall be punished as an
accessory to the crime of treason.
_____________________________________
Misprision of treason is a very important crime
because it is a crime of omission. You do nothing in
order to be liable. What is punished is that is the
failure to inform the authorities of the existence of a
crime of a conspiracy to commit the crime of
treason. It is not failure to inform the authorities of
an existing commission of treason. What is
provided for is the existence of a conspiracy to
commit the crime of treason - that is the meaning of
misprision. But if there is an ongoing treason, and
you do not inform the authorities, you are not liable.
You are only liable for a crime of misprision of
treason if you fail to inform the Fiscal, the Mayor,
and Governor of the existence of a conspiracy to
commit the crime of treason.
_____________________________________
Codal and Lecture / Justice Peralta Criminal Law Review | Page 1
Paul IV D A.L.F./N.O.S.
Page 1 of 98
Art. 117. Espionage. The penalty of
prision correccional shall be inicted upon any
person who:
1. Without authority therefor, enters a warship,
fort, or naval or military establishment or
reservation to obtain any information, plans,
photographs, or other data of a condential
nature relative to the defense of the Philippine
Archipelago; or
2. Being in possession, by reason of the
public ofce he holds, of the articles, data, or
information referred to in the preceding
paragraph, discloses their contents to a
representative of a foreign nation.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be
imposed if the offender be a public ofcer or
employee.
__________________________________
There are two acts that are punished in the crime of
espionage. The gathering of data from those
mentioned by the law, military installation, location,
vocation of the military, installation to the
Philippines or naval bases, and so on - that is
espionage. The other one is because you are in
possessi on of dat a pert ai ni ng t o mi l i t ary
installations and so on, and then you pass it to an
enemy of a foreign country or representative of a
foreign country, then that is the crime of espionage.
The ight to an enemy country, correspondence,
violation of neutrality, no need to explain.
__________________________________
Section Two. Provoking war and
disloyalty in case of war

Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving
motives for reprisals. The penalty of
reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any
public ofcer or employee, and that of prision
mayor upon any private individual, who, by
unlawful or unauthorized acts provokes or
gives occasion for a war involving or liable to
involve the Philippine Islands or exposes
Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or
property.
Art. 119. Violation of neutrality. The
penalty of prision correccional shall be inicted
upon anyone who, on the occasion of a war in
which the Government is not involved, violates
any regulation issued by competent authority
for the purpose of enforcing neutrality.
Art. 120. Correspondence with hostile
country. Any person who in time of war,
shall have correspondence with an enemy
country or territory occupied by enemy troops
shall be punished:
1 . By p r i s i o n c o r r e c c i o n a l , i f t h e
correspondence has been prohibited by the
Government;
2. By prision mayor, if such correspondence be
carried on in ciphers or conventional signs;
and
3. By recl usi on temporal , i f noti ce or
information be given thereby which might be
useful to the enemy. If the offender intended to
aid the enemy by giving such notice or
information, he shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion temporal to death.
Art. 121. Flight to enemy country. The
penalty of arresto mayor shall be inicted upon
any person who, owing allegiance to the
Government, attempts to ee or go to an
enemy country when prohibited by competent
authority.

Section Three. Piracy and mutiny on
the high seas

Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny
on the high seas. The penalty of
reclusion temporal shall be inicted upon any
person who, on the high seas, shall attack or
seize a vessel or, not being a member of its
complement nor a passenger, shall seize the
whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its
equipment, or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers.
The same penalty shall be inicted in case of
mutiny on the high seas.
__________________________________
Piracy is now dened and it now included piracy
within Philippine waters and, therefore, is now
dened as a person or persons other than the crew
members or passengers - other than the crew
member or passenger - in the high seas or within
Philippine waters by seizing the vessel or part of
the vessel. In other words, the piracy now in 122
refers to the high seas and Philippine waters.
Originally, it was only piracy in the high seas.
Piracy is actually robbery in the high seas. The
meaning of piracy in the high seas or Philippine
waters is simply a crime of robbery, but the robbery
Page 2 of 98
is committed inside the vessel. And you commit the
crime of robbery by seizing the vessel. But you do
not call it robbery in the high seas
If the passengers rob a co-passenger that cannot
be piracy under 122 because piracy can only be
committed by outsiders because the law states
$persons other than the crew members or
passengers." So if a vessel, therefore, sailing within
Philippine waters and then that vessel now is
attacked by outsiders, they get the cargoes and the
baggage of the passengers are forcibly taken by
those persons, then the crime is piracy in Philippine
waters under Article 122 because it is a crime
committed by persons other than the crew
members or passengers.
But if supposing the vessel is sailing within
Philippine waters and then one of the passengers
poked a gun at a co-passenger or poked a gun at
the captain and then seized the vessel and then
runs away with the equipment of the vessel and the
vessel is running or sailing within Philippine waters,
committed by a passenger, that cannot be anymore
a crime of piracy under the Revised Penal Code
under Article 122, because Article 122 can only be
committed by persons other than crew members or
passengers.
So, because the crime of piracy is committed by a
passenger, then the law that is violated is PD 532
because in Presidential Decree 532, the one who
can commit a crime of piracy within Philippine
waters is any person. It does not provide that it can
only be committed by persons other than crew
members or passengers. So if it is sailing within
Philippine waters, the offender is an outsider, then
Article 122. If it is committed by crew member or a
passenger sailing in Philippine waters then
Presidential Decree 532.
__________________________________
Art. 123. Qualied piracy. The penalty
of reclusion temporal to death shall be
imposed upon those who commit any of the
crimes referred to in the preceding article,
under any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by
boarding or ring upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their
victims without means of saving themselves;
or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.
__________________________________
Now, if you look at the last circumstance in Article
123, where on the occasion of piracy, murder,
homicide, rape or physical injuries are committed,
the crime becomes a qualied piracy. The law
recognizes the commission of those crimes on the
occasion of piracy. Therefore, it becomes a crime of
qualied piracy. There is no such crime as piracy
with homicide or piracy with rape.
Why is there is no crime of piracy with homicide or
piracy with rape? This is because the law itself
already designates the crime that is supposed to be
the proper designation or denomination of the
crime. Ginamit na yung qualied privacy eh. Pag
ginamit mo na yung qualied before the crime, then
that means that all of those crimes committed on
the occasion of piracy are already included in the
term $qualied piracy." You do not denominate the
cri me as qual i ed pri vacy wi th homi ci de.
Redundant yon. Pag sinabi mong qualied piracy,
all those crimes recognized by law to be committed
on the occasion of piracy are already included in
the term $qualied piracy."
Now, if 10 died on the occasion of piracy or even
10 are raped on the occasion of piracy, what is the
crime committed? It is still qualied piracy
regardless of the number of killings. Now, there are
number of 15 who are raped, do not change the
crime as qualied piracy because that is a special
complex crime. Regardless of the number of
deaths, regardless of the number of persons
injured, regardless of the number of persons raped,
they fall under a single indivisible crime of qualied
privacy.
This is different from a complex crime in Article 48
where you can use the word multiple or double.
Like multiple murder, multiple homicide, double
homicide, you can use that in Article 48 as a
complex crime. But if it is special complex crime, do
not use double or multiple because the crimes of
rape, homicide or physical injuries are not treated
as separate crimes. They are part and parcel of a
single indivisible crime of qualied piracy.
__________________________________
Title Two

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL
LAWS OF THE STATE

Chapter One
A R B I T R A RY D E T E N T I O N O R
EXPULSION, VIOLATION
OF DWELLI NG, PROHI BI TI ON,
INTERRUPTION, AND
DI S S OL UT I ON OF P E ACE F UL
MEETINGS AND CRIMES
Page 3 of 98
AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

Section One. Arbitrary detention and
expulsion

Art. 124. Arbitrary detention. Any
public ofcer or employee who, without legal
grounds, detains a person, shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, if the detention has not
exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods, if the detention
has continued more than three but not more
than fteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention
has continued for more than fteen days but
not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention
shall have exceeded six months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity
or any other ailment requiring the compulsory
connement of the patient in a hospital, shall
be considered legal grounds for the detention
of any person.
__________________________________
Arbitrary detention is a crime committed by public
ofcers whose main duty is the maintenance of
peace and order. Not all public ofcers can be
liable for the crime of arbitrary detention - only
those public ofcers whose main duty is to maintain
the peace and order of the community. Who are
these peace ofcers? They are the policemen, NBI
agents, and military men.
For purposes of arbitrary detention, these are
the ofcers recognized by law as authorized
because that is their duty to make arrest. Now, if
they are therefore the ones authorized to make
arrest because that is their duty, and the arrest is
unlawful, meaning there is no valid ground, and the
per son ar r est ed wi t hout a war r ant was
subsequently detained, then the arresting ofcer
may be liable for the crime of arbitrary detention.
Assuming that the arrest is lawful and the arresting
ofcer cannot be liable for arbitrary detention, can
he still be liable for violation of a law? Can you still
be held liable for a crime if the arrest is lawful? Yes.
You can still be liable for violation of Article 125 or
Republic Act 7438.
RA 7438 - The law that penalizes police ofcers in
failure to inform the person arrested without a
warrant, his right to remain silent, his right to an
independent and competent counsel preferably of
his own choice, and so on. So, once he is arrested,
even if the arrest is lawful, then he should inform
the accused his rights under Republic Act 7438. He
is entitled to an independent and competent
counsel. He has the right to remain silent. He has
the right to waive the appearance of a counsel,
independent and competent counsel in the
presence of a counsel.
The accused also has the right to communicate
with the immediate members of his family or with
his lawyer or with his girlfriend or boyfriend. Kung
yan ang hiniling eh, puwede. Sige sir because you
have informed me of my rights to communicate with
my lawyer, with my relatives, nearest of kin,
puwede bang bigyan mo ako ng telepono para
kausapin ko ang nanay ko? However, upon the
request of the accused, the policeman does not
provide him with any means of communication, the
policeman will still be liable for violation of Republic
Act 7438.
INVITATIONS FOR QUESTIONING - As stated
earlier, the other important thing about 7438 is that
it applies to invitations for questioning. For
example, the policeman did not see the accused
commit the crime. But there were reports that he
was the one who committed the crime. There"s an
investigation report, somebody said that this person
committed the crime. However, the police ofcer
has no personal knowledge that the accused
committed the crime. So, the police ofcer will
invite the suspect for questioning. Mr. Patajo,
you"re invited to come to the ofce. Then once the
accused is in the ofce, the policeman asks
questions about the accused"s participation in the
crime. Ikaw, Mr. Patajo, ikaw ang pumatay kay
ganito. Ikaw ang nag rape kay ganito, lahat-lahat.
Once they"ve already asked those questions about
the participation of a person and then placed him
on arrest at that very moment, Republic Act 7438
becomes applicable. In other words, RA 7438
applies not only to those arrested in the presence
of these ofcers, but also to those invited for
questioning concerning the commission of a crime.
The moment the policeman asks questions
concerning the commission of a crime, the
policeman should already inform the suspect of his
rights. That is the meaning of 7438.
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of
detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities. The penalties provided in the
next preceding article shall be imposed upon
the public ofcer or employee who shall detain
any person for some legal ground and shall fail
to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within the period of; twelve (12)
Page 4 of 98
hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by
light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen
(18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable
by correctional penalties, or their equivalent
and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or
offenses punishable by afictive or capital
penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be
informed of the cause of his detention and
shall be allowed upon his request, to
communicate and confer at any time with his
attorney or counsel.
_____________________________________
Now, assuming that the policeman is not liable for
arbitrary detention and for violation of Republic Act
7438 because the he was able to inform the
accused of all his rights and to give them to him,
what should the policeman do so that he will not be
liable for another crime? The policeman must
deliver the person arrested to the judicial
authorities within the period provided for by Article
125 as amended by Executive Order 272, the
Administrative Code.
The meaning of delivery is to transfer jurisdiction.
The meaning there is you transfer the jurisdiction of
the person arrested to the judicial authorities. That
is the meaning. And how do you transfer the
jurisdiction of the person arrested to the judicial
authorities? You have to le the necessary case
within the periods of 36 hours, 18 hours, and 12
hours. If the is arrested without a warrant, then you
have to bring the person arrested to the scal for
inquest.
Now, if the inquest scal found probable cause to
le the information and the information went to
court, what will the court do? They will issue a
warrant of arrest? They will not anymore. Why
should he issue a warrant of arrest, arestado na
nga eh. What will the court do? Ano nakalimutan
nyo. They will issue a commitment order. May
commitment order. A commitment order is one
issued by the court ordering a detention ofcer to
undertake the detention of that prisoner. That is the
meaning. So, commitment order, you commit the
person to be detained to a specic detention cell.
If in case the accuse waives the provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, then that
waiver should be in writing and with the assistance
of the counsel. That is the provision under RA
7438. He cannot waive the provisions of 125 by
himself. Why? Why should he be assisted by a
counsel and the waiver should be in writing? You
know the reason? Because even if the person
arrested waives the provision of 125, then he is
actually telling the person"s arresting him that he
can continue detaining him. In other words, if you
waive the provisions of 125, then you can be
detained beyond the periods provided for by 125.
It"s like telling the policeman, Okay, I am waiving
125, therefore, you can continuously detain me.
That"s the meaning eh, di ba? Why does he have to
waive 125? Because he might avail of his right to
what? Preliminary investigation.
What is the effect of waiving 125? The effect is that
you are practically telling the scal not to le the
information yet because you want to respond to the
complaint led against you. You want to submit
countervailing evidence to rebut the evidence
presented because you want to prove that there
is no probable cause to le the information. If
he is a detention prisoner, by reason of his waiver
of the provisions of 125, he cannot yet go out of
prison. He will have to be detained continuously
until the preliminary investigation is terminated.
_____________________________________
Art. 126. Delaying release. The
penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be
imposed upon any public ofcer or employee
who delays for the period of time specied
therein the performance of any judicial or
executive order for the release of a prisoner or
detention prisoner, or unduly delays the
service of the notice of such order to said
prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition
for the liberation of such person.
Art. 127. Expulsion. The penalty of
prision correccional shall be imposed upon any
public ofcer or employee who, not being
thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any
person from the Philippine Islands or shall
compel such person to change his residence.
_____________________________________
Section Two. Violation of domicile

Art. 128. Violation of domicile. The
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any public
ofcer or employee who, not being authorized
by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling
against the will of the owner thereof, search
papers or other effects found therein without
the previous consent of such owner, or having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being
required to leave the premises, shall refuse to
do so.
Page 5 of 98
If the offense be committed in the night-time,
or if any papers or effects not constituting
evi dence of a cri me be not returned
immediately after the search made by the
offender, the penal ty shal l be pri si on
correccional in its medium and maximum
periods.
_____________________________________
There are those persons recognized by law who
may enter the premises of another to seize, arrest
somebody, or seize or conscate things inside their
dwellings. There are three ways of committing this
crime.
Number 1: When, not being authorized by judicial
order, you enter a dwelling without the consent of
the owner. In other words, when you enter the
domicile without the consent of the owner.
Number 2: When there is no prohibition to enter,
but once inside the domicile, you start
searching items inside the house.
Number 3: When you enter (surreptitiously)
there may be no express prohibition, but once you
are inside the owner asked you to leave but you
do not leave.
Violation of domicile should be read together with
Article 280 on trespass to dwelling. You also have
to refer to the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
that you have learned under your Paragraph 3, last
part of Paragraph 3 of Article 14 because when the
domicile is only is an aggravating circumstance,
then there is no crime of violation of domicile. If
another crime is committed, but the entry is only a
means of committing the crime, then domicile
becomes dwelling as an aggravating circumstance.
Anyway, so violation domicile, therefore, is
committed by public ofcers whose main duty is the
maintenance of peace and order. If he is not a
public ofcial contemplated by Article 128, then the
crime will be trespass to dwelling or qualied
trespass to dwelling under Article 280 of the
Revised Penal Code. So, that"s the counterpart
provision of the violation of domicile. But there will
be some complications later on when we take up
robbery with force upon things.
_____________________________________
Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously
obtained and abuse in the service of
those legally obtained. In addition to
the liability attaching to the offender for the
commission of any other offense, the penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period and
a ne not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be
who shall procure a search warrant without
just cause, or, having legally procured the
same, shall exceed his authority or use
unnecessary severity in executing the same.
__________________________________
Of course you know when a search warrant is
issued. The judge personally conducts the
examination of the complainant or his witnesses.
The investigation is made by conducting searching
questions, di ba yun ang requirement. When
somebody or a police ofcer applies for a search
warrant, the basis usually of the issuance of a
search warrant would be the depositions or
testimony of the complainant or his witnesses.
Depositions are sometimes called testimony of the
applicants or the witnesses in a search warrant.
Because you have to convince the court that there
is a probable cause to issue a search a warrant.
The probable cause can only be arrived at after a
hearing conducted by the judge based on
searching questions, !no. Kaya ang judge niyan,"di
pwedeng magtanong. O, ikaw ba ito? Opo.
Ikaw ba yung applicant? Opo. Di ba ikaw ay 24
years old?Opo. Hindi ban ikaw yung nag testify?
Opo. Di ba yung testimony mo positive? Opo.
Hindi ganon ang searching question, panay leading
eh. Maraming judge ngayon na mga tamad eh.
Ginagawa ganon. But actually searching questions,
even in your Rule 126, mahirap na trabaho yan,
because it is the judge who is only asking the
questions, walang adverse counsel lang eh, ikaw
lang mismo ang magtatanong eh. What is your
name? O ilan taon ka na? Pwede ka lang dito para
mag-apply ng search warrant. Bakit ka nagaaply ng
search warrant? Drug test ba ito? O shabu? Ano
hitsura ng shabu? O asan ang test le? O, i-sketch
mo nga? Saan ka nakapwesto? San dito? Yung
bahay, anong hitsura ng taong yan, panget ba o
guwapo yan? Ganun ang searching questions. You
have to establish really that there is a probable
cause in the issuance of a search warrant.
Now, if the applicant later on, misrepresented
themselves. In other words, there are expert
witnesses, yung mga usual paid witnesses. And
then later, if the court only discovered later that
they were not actually witnesses in the storage of
illegal items in a particular house, but a search
warrant was already issued, then those responsible
for the application of the search warrant will all be
liable for violation of Article 129, malicious
procurement of any search warrant.
Art. 130. Searching domicile without
witnesses. The penalty of arresto mayor
Page 6 of 98
in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed upon a public ofcer or employee
who, in cases where a search is proper, shall
search t he domi ci l e, papers or ot her
belongings of any person, in the absence of
the latter, any member of his family, or in their
default, without the presence of two witnesses
residing in the same locality.
_____________________________________
There is a sequence in the order of those who
should witness.
Ang una, it should be in the presence of the
respondents. In the absence of the respondents,
those who maybe living in the house. In the
absence of any person living in the house and the
absence of the respondent, then that is the time
that the search warrant shall be observed or
witnessed by two disinterested persons from the
community. So, ginalaw ng mga pulis kahit na
nadun ang respondent, nandun yun inhabitants of
the house. Pinapatabi nila tapos kukuha ng
barangay captain, mali yon. The witnesses from
outside will only come in with when there are no
inhabitants, there are no respondents. Now, if there
are no respondents, there are no inhabitants, and
there are no witnesses from the community, but the
policemen still persist in searching the house
without any witnesses, then they will be liable for
violation of Article 130.
Sect i on Thr ee. Pr ohi bi t i on,
interruption
and dissolution of peaceful meetings

Art. 131. Prohibition, interruption and
dissolution of peaceful meetings. The
period shall be imposed upon any public
ofcer or employee who, without legal ground,
shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a
peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a
public ofcer or employee who shall hinder any
person from joining any lawful association or
from attending any of its meetings.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any
public ofcer or employee who shall prohibit or
hinder any person from addressing, either
alone or together with others, any petition to
the authorities for the correction of abuses or
redress of grievances.
__________________________________
Under 131, it covers preventing the holding of a
peaceful meeting. This is usually committed by
those who are required under the law to issue
permits to hold meetings in a public place, so a
public ofcer preventing the holding of a peaceful
meeting. Now if the meeting is held in the private
property, there is no need to get a permit. But when
a meeting is held in a public place, then you have
to secure a permit.
Now, the mayor or his assistant or the person
designated to issue a permit does not like to issue
a permit without any justiable reason, then the
public ofcer maybe liable under 131 for preventing
the holding of a peaceful meeting. Now, if a
meeting is held already and because there is
permit, then the crime can also be committed by
public ofcers who prevent persons from attending
a peaceful meeting or who disturb an ongoing
peaceful meeting, or he stops an ongoing peaceful
meeting.
In other words if the permit is for 10 hours, then on
the 6th hour dinisperse mo na, liable ka na dyan.
Or there is a peaceful meeting already granted then
you prevent others from attending the peaceful
meeting. That is also punishable under 131. Or you
disturb an ongoing, you created noise, and
disturbed an ongoing peaceful meeting. Then you
are likewise liable under 131. So that"s the crime in
131. Preventing the holding of a peaceful meeting,
prevent other persons from attending a peaceful
meeting, disturb an ongoing peaceful meeting, and
disperse the peaceful meeting before the period
granted.
Secti on Four. Cri mes agai nst
religious worship

Art. 132. Interruption of religious
worshi p. The penal t y of pri si on
correccional in its minimum period shall be
who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or
manifestations of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with
violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision
periods.
__________________________________
The problem is that some religious ceremonies are
already held outside of places of religious worship.
Ang situation ng 132 is that you go to church and
then you are a public ofcer, you disturb ongoing
religious ceremony, probably misa, yon 132 ka. You
will fall under 132 because you are disturbing a
Page 7 of 98
religious ceremony in the place of a religious
worship.
So the question is supposing it is a religious
ceremony conducted outside the place of religious
worship and, therefore, somebody is disturbed.
There is an old case involving the Iglesia ni Cristo.
Sabi ng Supreme Court, the law does not apply
because religious worship, you know, those will
include churches where usually the members of the
sect pray. Kasi ang ginawa ng Iglesia ni Cristo, they
invited people to attend a meeting, some sort of
prayer meeting among the Iglesia ni Cristo. Then a
public ofcer belonging to another religion
disturbed the ongoing ceremony. Sabi ng Supreme
Court, ano e hindi yan pwede under 132 because it
took place outside, but they could be liable for
another crime, that would be crime of unjust
vexation. If there is violence, then it would be grave
coercion. If there is no violence, then than is light
coercion. So that decision has not yet been
changed.
But supposing it is committed by private individuals.
There was a time in our place, eh, sa loob ng
simbahan, private individual, he shouted, Sunog!
Sunog! Sinabi niya sa loob ng simbahan. Galit sa
pari because he was a die-hard Marcos. At that
time, alam mo naman sa Ilocos, Marcos, eh. Galit
sa mga pari, mga taga doon. Nagmimisa yung pari.
He shouted, Wag kang maniwala sa pari. Sunog!
Takbuhan yung mga tao.
What case are going to le against him? He is not a
public ofcer. Then the law that is violated is 153
under the last sentence of Article 153. In 153, the
law provides that if the acts or the offenses are not
punishable under 131 or 132, then the law that is
violated is Article 153 - Tumults and other
di st urbance of publ i c orders; Tumul t uous
disturbance or interruption liable to cause
disturbance.
Art. 133. Offending the religious
feelings. The penalty of arresto mayor in
its maximum period to prision correccional in
its minimum period shall be imposed upon
anyone who, in a place devoted to religious
worship or during the celebration of any
rel i gi ous ceremony shal l perform acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful.
__________________________________
Yung 133, any person yun eh. Any person
committing the act offensive to the religious feeling.
What is offensive to the religious feeling? When we
speak of offensive to the religious feeling, then the
act goes to the very belief. It is an act that goes
against the very belief or the faith of those
belonging to that religion.
Like for example, procession. Pag may procession,
may nagpatugtog ng malakas na radio habang may
procession. Ibang religion nun eh. Sa procession,
naistorbo yung mga nasa procession. Is that
offensive to the religious beliefs when somebody is
disturbing you like when there is a loud voice or
sound or the volume of the stereo is very high and,
therefore, it is disturbing the procession? No, that is
not offensive to the religious feeling. That is only a
crime of light coercion or what they call unjust
vexation. Yung unjust vexation kasi kung wala kang
mahanap sa batas, as long as you are not injured,
kasi ang unjust vexation, you are not injured. Lahat
ng pangiinis unjust vexation yan. You kiss a girl on
the cheek and the girl does not like it, as long as it
is not with lewd design, unjust vexation yan,
pangiinis. Or you view a lady taking bath inside the
tub. Sinisilip mo siya, unjust vexation din yun.
Pangiinis yun. But if you kiss a girl with gusto, not
only on the cheek, on the lips, that is acts of
lasciviousness. That is not anymore unjust
vexation. Ang unjust vexation not attended with any
lewd design that"s the meaning. Pangiinis lang e.
Title Three

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Chapter One
R E B E L L I O N , S E D I T I O N A N D
DISLOYALTY

Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How
committed. The crime of rebellion or
insurrection is committed by rising publicly and
taking arms against the Government for the
purpose of removing from the allegiance to
said Government or its laws, the territory of the
Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any
body of land, naval or other armed forces,
depri vi ng t he Chi ef Execut i ve or t he
Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their
powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A.
6968).
Arti cl e 134-A. Coup d' etat; How
committed. The crime of coup d'etat is a
swi ft attack accompani ed by vi ol ence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed
against duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any military
camp or installation, communications network,
Page 8 of 98
public utilities or other facilities needed for the
exercise and continued possession of power,
singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere
in the Philippines by any person or persons,
belonging to the military or police or
holding any public ofce of employment
wi th or wi thout ci vi l i an support or
participation for the purpose of seizing or
diminishing state power. (As amended by
R.A. 6968).
__________________________________
It may be committed even if no arms are taken
against the Government it can be committed
surreptitiously. Surreptitiously. There is no need of
any rearms as long as there is a swift attack
Purpose is to curtail the powers of the government
So, it is not actually taking over, unlike in the crime
of simple rebellion, which may involve the taking
over in whole or in part of the government. This one
is to diminish the power of the State. But the law
enumerates what could be the facilities that should
be the subject matter of the swift attack. Military
installations, camps, police station, all of these
installations including public utilities.
What about in the Oakwood? The subject matter is
a hotel. The soldiers were inside the hotel. It is not
a military instillation. It is not a military facility. It is
not a public utility. we have to look at the motive of
the soldiers. If it is a political motive, then we could
say that it is a coup d"etat. But the law enumerates
the facilities that should be the subject matter of
coup d"etat. So, it is no longer important? Because
the subject matter of the coup d"etat is a hotel? we
really have to look at the motive of the soldiers. It is
more on the purpose rather the one that is
attacked.
It cannot be initiated by civilians, but civilians CAN
commit it with men in uniform if initiated by those
men.
__________________________________
Ar t . 135. Penal t y f or r ebel l i on,
insurrection or coup d'etat. Any person
who promotes, maintains, or heads rebellion or
insurrection shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
Any person merely participating or executing
the commands of others in a rebellion shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal.
Any person who leads or in any manner
directs or commands others to undertake a
coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Any person in the government service who
parti ci pates, or executes di recti ons or
commands of others in undertaking a coup
d'etat shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor
in its maximum period.
Any person not in the government service who
participates, or in any manner supports,
nances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup
d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period.
When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat
shall be under the command of unknown
leaders, any person who in fact directed the
others, spoke for them, signed receipts and
other documents issued in their name, as
performed similar acts, on behalf or the rebels
shall be deemed a leader of such a rebellion,
insurrection, or coup d'etat. (As amended by
R.A. 6968, approved on October 24, 1990).
__________________________________
Under the old provisions in Article 135, there used
to be phrase there, under the old 135, you will nd
there the penalty of rebellion. Nakalagay ang
penalty. The penalty of rebellion in so far as the
leaders are concerned, the penalty of prision mayor
including commission of serious violence and
destruction of property. In other words, if you are a
leader and then you commit the crime of rebellion
then you commit serious violence or damage to
property, whatever violence or damage to property
committed, then the penalty is only one. And that is
prision mayor under the old law. So, that justies
the ruling that there is no such crime of rebellion
complexed with murder because that provision
allows the absorption of other crimes committed on
the occasion of rebellion. But that phrase is not
anymore included there. That has been removed in
Article 135 when there was an amendment. So
what is the effect of removing that phrase? There
may now be a crime of rebellion complexed with
murder.
__________________________________
Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to
commit coup d' etat, rebellion or
insurrection. The conspiracy and
proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be
punished by prision mayor in minimum period
and a ne which shall not exceed eight
thousand pesos (P8,000.00).
The conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion or insurrection shall be punished
respectively, by prision correccional in its
maximum period and a ne which shall not
exceed ve thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and
by prision correccional in its medium period
Page 9 of 98
and a ne not exceeding two thousand pesos
(P2,000.00). (As amended by R.A. 6968,
approved October 24, 1990).
Art. 138. I nci ti ng a rebel l i on or
insurrection. The penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person who, without taking arms or
bei ng i n open host i l i t y agai nst t he
Government, shall incite others to the
execution of any of the acts specied in article
134 of this Code, by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or
other representations tending to the same end.
(Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
__________________________________
Proposal to commit rebellion v. Inciting to
commit rebellion
The main difference is that in a proposal to commit
rebellion, there is no public meeting and such
proposal is done in private as against in inciting to
rebellion when the leader is inciting the members
who attended the meeting in a public place.
In Proposal to Commit Rebellion, no one has
actually committed rebellion. In Inciting to Rebellion
he is not yet in the act of committing a crime of
rebellion in inciting to rebellion. So, in other words,
he just merely delivered a speech, for example,
inciting the people to commit the crime of rebellion.
He is not in the actual commission of the crime of
rebellion. Why? The one proposing is not in the
actual commission of the crime of rebellion, but he
is inciting people to commit the crime of rebellion.
Why? Because you will not anymore be liable for
inciting to rebellion. You may become a principal to
inducement. If there is already an ongoing rebellion
and then you incite people to commit the crime of
rebellion, you are already a principal in the
commission of the crime of rebellion. You may be a
principal to inducement because rebellion is a
continuing offense. So if you are not in the act of
committing a crime of rebellion and then you"re
inciting the people, then that inciting is already part
of the commission of the crime of rebellion. Unlike
in the crime of proposal, yung proposal, you
proposed and then later on you decide.
Coup d"etat
Inciting to commit the crime of coup d"etat, there"s
no such crime. But proposal to commit the crime of
coup d"etat, meron yan. Proposal and conspiracy to
commit the crime of coup d"etat and simple
rebellion, pwede yon, but not the inciting to commit
a crime of coup d"etat. Bakit? Meron bang men in
uniform inviting everybody to commit the crime of
coup d"etat? It"s impossible. It is always done
surreptitiously.
Coup d"etat v. Rebellion
the essence of the crime of coup d"etat is a swift
attack; rebellion is a public uprising and taking up
arms. Secondly, sir, the persons who commit the
crime of coup d"etat must be initiated by military
men or public ofcers or persons in authority.
Unlike in rebellion where there in no such particular
provision in any group of person who can commit a
crime of rebellion. Next, sir, is that a rebellion must
be committed by a multitude of men, unlike in coup
d"etat where an a single military ofcer or group of
military ofcers, with or without civilian authority,
may commit the crime of coup d"etat
The target in coup d"etat is against constituted
authority or military installations or other facilities.
Unlike in rebellion where there is no such condition
and the purpose for rebellion is either to (1) deprive
or prevent the exercise of the government of any of
its powers or prerogatives or take away any
territory from the National Government in whole or
in part. Unlike in coup d"etat where the purpose of
committing is to diminish or seize a power, such
that even if they do not seize power as long as
they diminish, that"s already crime of coup d"etat.
__________________________________
Art. 137. Disloyalty of public ofcers or
employees. The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon public ofcers or employees
who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the
means in their power, or shall continue to
discharge the duties of their ofces under the
cont rol of t he rebel s or shal l accept
appointment to ofce under them. (Reinstated
by E.O. No. 187).
Art. 139. Sedition; How committed.
The crime of sedition is committed by persons
who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to
attain by force, intimidation, or by other means
outside of legal methods, any of the following
objects:
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of
any law or the holding of any popular
election; 2. To prevent the National
Government, or any provincial or municipal
government or any public ofcer thereof
from freely exercising its or his functions, or
prevent the execution of any administrative
order;
3. To inict any act of hate or revenge upon
the person or property of any public ofcer
or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end,
any act of hate or revenge against private
Page 10 of 98
persons or any social class; and
5. To despoil, for any political or social end,
any person, municipality or province, or the
National Government (or the Government of
the United States), of all its property or any
part thereof.
Art . 141. Conspi racy t o commi t
sedition. Persons conspiring to commit
the crime of sedition shall be punished by
prision correccional in its medium period and a
ne not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (Reinstated
by E.O. No. 187).
Art. 142. Inciting to sedition. The
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period and a ne not exceeding 2,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who,
without taking any direct part in the crime of
sedi t i on, shoul d i nci t e ot her s t o t he
accomplishment of any of the acts which
constitute sedition, by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons,
banners, or other representations tending to
the same end, or upon any person or persons
who shall utter seditious words or speeches,
write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels
against the Government (of the United States
or the Government of the Commonwealth) of
the Philippines, or any of the duly constituted
authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or
obstruct any lawful ofcer in executing the
functions of his ofce, or which tend to
instigate others to cabal and meet together for
unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite
rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which 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, or who shall knowingly conceal
such evil practices. (Reinstated by E.O. No.
187).
__________________________________
Sedition is not only public uprising, it"s not only
commotion, legal yan eh. Every citizen has the right
to ventilate his gripe against the government. That
is your right. So, if you are not satised with the
Comelec, it is your right to ventilate your gripe
against Comelec because they do not know how to
count votes. It is also your right to question the
capability or the competence of the members of the
Comelec. Right ng citizen yan, eh. Now, if the
government ofce is not performing well, then it is a
right to question the way it is being run. Right mo
yan eh. But you went over your right. O, yun ang
purpose ng sedition. Because there is no taking up
of arms against the government. If there is taking
up arms against the government, then it is not
sedition. Actually, sedition is when you go beyond
what is required of you as a citizen to ventilate your
grievances against the government.
There is no crime of Proposal to Commit
Sedition
Proposal yun, just the two of us. I"m just proposing
to you. We will not pay our taxes, lahat lahat. Is
there any harm to the government? None. Because
that is freedom of speech. You are protected
because there is no valid crime against the
government. So anything that will be done to
propose or to propose rather, it"s not a crime,
because that"s part of freedom of speech. That is
your right. But supposing the proposal is now
accepted. Inaccept mo na ngayon. In the
Department of Education, we will create a
commotion. We will create trouble was there. We
will disturb them. We will create public uprising. We
will burn tires and create human barricades and so
on.
Inciting to Sedition v. Inciting to Rebellion
Inciting to sedition is broader than the crime of
inciting to rebellion. Oo, broader ang inciting to
sedition because inciting to sedition even includes
scurrilous libels committed against the government.
In inciting to commit the crime of rebellion, what do
you do is that you shout to those who are listening,
and then you tell them to commit a crime of
rebellion by telling them, we will over throw this
government, we will arm ourselves. We will have a
public uprising. The government is not good in
anything. Yun ang you mentioned the elements
of the rebellion. But in the crime of inciting to
sedition, of course, that is also one way of
committing a crime of inciting to sedition. You
announce publicly that you"re inviting everybody to
join in a crime of sedition as long as the proponent
or the one who is delivering this is not himself
involved in the crime of sedition. That"s a clear
provision in 142. Okay. But the law says even the
scurrilous libel is committed in the crime of
sedition. It is not merely telling the people to
prevent a holding of a national election or prevent
t he nat i onal gov er nment or al l or i t s
instrumentalities in their performing their duties by
creating public uprising or in a tumultuous way, di
ba?
Scurrilous Libel
parang ano yan, you made falsities in your
pronouncements. Masamang gobernador ito, i-
nispend lahat para sa pambabae, mga ganito.
Walang ginawa ang gobernador kundi magnakaw,
walang mabuting sinabi. All bad things are uttered.
Page 11 of 98
Yun ang scurrilous libel, Sumosobra ba. But of
course, it should be accompanied with seditious
words not merely scurrilous libel because it is
merely saying that all the government is bad, wala
yun. But if you say, Masama ang gobernador,
palitan natin ito, huwag natin pagtrabahuin dito,
gago ito, pero hindi naman totoo, that is inciting to
sedition.
Inciting to Sedition in relation to Art 153
what is punished in 153, 154, 155 is the public
disturbance or public disorder sa 153, which is
separate from the crime of inciting to sedition or
inciting to rebellion.
In inciting to sedition or inciting to rebellion,
there is no need of those who are listening to
be actually excited because what is punished in
inciting to sedition and inciting to rebellion is
the act of inciting the listeners to the crime of
rebellion or sedition. Dyan sa 153, 154, 155, what
is punished is the public disorder. So, if you incite
the people to commit the crime of rebellion or
sedition, and then the people are actually
excited, ngapalakpakan sila, nagsigawan lahat
sila, lahat-lahat yan, 153 ang punishable. That is
153 because there is a difference. The other
difference is that, the crime of inciting to sedition
and inciting to rebellion, the purpose of the
speaker is very clear from the very beginning.
So, if you go there, you are the audience, you want
to listen, and you go there, you know already what
to expect from the speaker. Hindi ka naman
magaattend dun kung hindi mo alam ang purpose
eh, d iba? So, probably everybody is invited in the
meeting then we will listen to the speech of Joma
Sison or sila Buscayno and the others, you know,
those NPA leaders. You expect what speech will
delivered, di ba? Pag nagsalita sila, - actually,
they"re not involved in rebellion, they are not
involved in sedition. The moment that they incite
people to commit the crime of rebellion or sedition
even if the listeners do not create any noise,
inciting na yun.
Now, in a public outcry under 153, the audience,
those who joined, listeners, they do not know.
They are going to listen from the speaker
probably they will talk about love stories in a
movie or bomba stars, so madaming mga lalaki
dun eh. Pag-uusapan pala eh, movies and then
they deliver the speech, they start the speech with
movies and then later on iba na ang sinasabi. Let"s
overthrow of the Government. Let"s arm ourselves,
di ba? And then, the listeners will now say Sige
bomba! Sige tira! yun ang 153. What is now
punishable is, aside form the speech, the
commotion because the requirement is
tumultuous or public disturbance. Yun ang 153
to differentiate it from inciting to sedition.
Ganun ang diperensya nun. But in inciting to
sedition and inciting to rebellion, the people are not
really excited. What is punished is the act of
inciting. The one who is committing the crime is the
one who is delivering the speech.
__________________________________
Art. 140. Penalty for sedition.
Chapter Two
C R I ME S A G A I N S T P O P U L A R
REPRESENTATION

Sect i on One. Cri mes agai nst
legislative bodies and similar bodies

Art. 143. Act tending to prevent the
meeting of the Assembly and similar
bodies. The penalty of prision correccional or
a ne ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon any person who, by force or
fraud, prevents the meeting of the National
Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or of any of
its committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or
of any provincial board or city or municipal council
or board. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
Art. 144. Disturbance of proceedings.
The penalty of arresto mayor or a ne from 200 to
1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who disturbs the meetings of the National
Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or of any of
its committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or
of any provincial board or city or municipal council
or board, or in the presence of any such bodies
should behave in such manner as to interrupt its
proceedings or to impair the respect due it.
__________________________________
143, and 144, you read these two articles together
with 131, 132, 153. Why? Because in Article 131,
the crime is committed by public ofcers if they
prevent the holding of a peaceful meeting or when
they prevent a person from attending a peaceful
meeting. In 132, it refers to acts of public ofcers in
preventing or disturbing a holy or religious
ceremony in a place of religious worship. But if the
offenders are not public ofcers, then you know
that 153 is the one violated, di ba? If the acts do
not fall under 131 or 132, then is a law that is
violated is 153.
You go now to 143 and 144. When you prevent the
holding or prevent or disturb the ongoing
Page 12 of 98
investigation or session of Congress or any
Legislative body - that means provincial board or
city or municipal board, then the law that is violated
is 143 and 144 of the Revised Penal Code. So, you
disturb an ongoing investigation or meeting or you
prevented or you disturb If you prevent, 143. If
you disturb, 144. Specically applicable only to
those that enact our laws, whether provincial board,
municipal board, city board or Congress or Senate.
__________________________________
Se c t i o n Two . Vi o l a t i o n o f
parliamentary immunity

Art. 145. Violation of parliamentary
immunity. The penalty of prision mayor shall
be imposed upon any person who shall use force,
intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any
member of the National Assembly (Congress of the
Philippines) from attending the meetings of the
Assembly (Congress) or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof, from expressing
his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty of
prision correccional shall be imposed upon any
public ofcer or employee who shall, while the
Assembly (Congress) is in regular or special
session, arrest or search any member thereof,
except in case such member has committed a
crime punishable under this Code by a penalty
higher than prision mayor.

Chapter Three
I L L E G A L A S S E M B L I E S A N D
ASSOCIATIONS

Art. 146. Illegal assemblies. The
period to prision mayor in its medium period
shall be imposed upon the organizers or
leaders of any meeting attended by armed
persons for the purpose of committing any of
the crimes punishable under this Code, or of
any meeting in which the audience is incited to
the commission of the crime of treason,
rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault
upon a person in authority or his agents.
Persons merely present at such meeting shall
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, unless they
are armed, in which case the penalty shall be
prision correccional.
If any person present at the meeting carries an
unlicensed rearm, it shall be presumed that
the purpose of said meeting, insofar as he is
concerned, is to commit acts punishable under
this Code, and he shall be considered a leader
or organizer of the meeting within the purview
of the preceding paragraph.
As used in this article, the word "meeting" shall
be understood to include a gathering or group,
whet her i n a xed pl ace or movi ng.
_________________________________________
Dalawang punished dun to make it punishable.
One, is the meeting of armed men because if it is a
meeting of an unarmed men, walang crime yun,
kahit ano pagusapan nati, kahit na i-rape natin
lahat ng mga babae sa mundo. Unarmed naman e,
walang crime yun. So, what makes it a crime of
illegal assembly in 146, dalawang requirements
dun. One, a meeting of armed men and number
two, for the purpose of committing an act
punishable under our laws. Iyon. Iyon ang purpose
nun. But if it is a meeting merely of unarmed men
and they are trying to commit a crime of conspiracy,
to commit a crime of robbery or conspiracy to
commit a crime of rape, walang crime yun because
they are not armed. But if the purpose is to commit
a crime and they are armed then they will be liable.
Those who attend the meeting who are not armed
will, likewise, be liable, but the penalty will be
lesser. Yung armed at saka unarmed liable yun
kaya lang yung unarmed mas mababa ang penalty.
Illegal Assembly v. Brigandage
Now, on that 306 of the Revised Penal Code
whether a friend, immediate members of a band -
armed band. Because band is composed of at least
four armed men and the purpose of the meeting is
to commit a crime of highway robbery or to extort or
demand ransom, ang crime dyan is 306, brigands
yan. In other words, if the armed men are attending
a meeting for specic purpose or purposes of either
robbery, to extort money or ransom, hindi 146 ang
punishable dun. What is punishable is Article 306
because it is specied in the purpose of the
meeting. But if the meeting, the purpose is not
specied, therefore, if it is a meeting of armed
men it is specied, but it does not involve
highway robbery, ransom or extort money then
the crime that is committed is 146.
Now, if however, there are only three armed men
three armed men for the purpose of committing the
crime of kidnapping for ransom or highway robbery
or extort money, then that is also a crime of 146,
illegal assembly. Why? That cannot be a crime of
brigandage because there must be at least four
armed men. The way it was phrased, it was a crime
of conspiracy of committing the crimes. Pero ang
sabi nila there is no crime because conspiracy to
commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom is not a
crime. $Yan ang sagot, eh. But there are specic
Page 13 of 98
crimes under the law. What is punished is not the
conspiracy, but the meeting of armed men for the
purpose of committing a violation of the law, di ba?
Don sa brigandage naman, committed by a band,
therefore, four armed men for the purpose of
kidnapping for ransom, to extort money. Hindi yung
conspiracy ang punishable dun, because there is
also such a crime as conspiracy to commit the
crime of highway robbery. What is punishable is the
meeting of armed men and for that purpose.
_________________________________________
Art. 147. Illegal associations. The penalty
of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a ne not exceeding
1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon the
founders, di rectors, and presi dents of
associations totally or partially organized for
the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under this Code or for some
purpose contrary to public morals. Mere
members of said associations shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor. (Reinstated by E.O.
No. 187).
_________________________________________
The 147 is legal associations. What is punished is
the purpose. You form an association for the
purpose of prostitution, naku! Or you form an
association for the purpose of child abuse. What is
punished there is the purpose. So, only the
organizers and those who form an association are
l i a b l e . Y u n a n g p u r p o s e d u n .
_____________________________________
Chapter Four
ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE
AND DISOBEDIENCE
TO, PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND
THEIR AGENTS

Art. 148. Direct assaults. Any person or
persons who, without a public uprising, shall
employ force or intimidation for the attainment
of any of the purpose enumerated in dening
the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall
attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or
resist any person in authority or any of his
agents, while engaged in the performance
of ofcial duties, or on occasion of such
performance, shall suffer the penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a ne not exceeding
P1,000 pesos, when the assault is committed
with a weapon or when the offender is a public
ofcer or employee, or when the offender lays
hands upon a person in authority. If none of
these circumstances be present, the penalty of
prision correccional in its minimum period and
a ne not exceeding P500 pesos shall be
imposed.
__________________________________
There are two ways of committing the crime of
direct assault. The rst one is when the purpose is
political in order to achieve the purposes of
rebellion or sedition. The other crime of direct
assault is that when a person in authority or any of
the persons in authority is assaulted or attacked in
the performance of their duties or on the occasion
on the performance of their duties, di ba?
So, if the purpose is political and, therefore, there is
no public uprising, there is no taking up arms
against the Government and there is no swift
attack, the crime committed is direct assault under
the rst part of Article 148.
And then under the second part of 148, when a
person in authority or agents of persons in authority
is attacked, then the crime is direct assault - by
reason or on the occasion of the performance of his
duty or while in the performance of his duty. $Yun
ang ano yun ang direct assault, the second form.
Mr. A is a judge. Judge si Mr. A. While he was in the
performance of his duty, he was assaulted. Then a
private individual private individual comes to the
aid of the judge, so both of them both of them
were assaulted. So Mr. A while a judge, while he is
on the performance of his duties, nagbinigay ng
order binato. Nung binato yun judge na yon,
babatuhin uli, mayrong private individual who
prevented the person who was throwing something
at the judge. So, nung imbes na binato sa judge,
pati ikaw *pak* pinukpok sa ulo. !Yung private
individual who was going to the aid of the person in
authority. What crime was being committed or what
are the crimes committed. Anong type of crimes
committed?
If a person in authority is assaulted, a person or an
agent of the person in authority is assaulted while
on the performance of their duties, the crime is
qualied direct assault, qualied direct assault,
because they"re assaulted while in the performance
of their duties. But if they are assaulted by the
reason of the performance of duty and then the
crime becomes only direct assault. Like what? Or a
judge in the market, he is buying food for the family.
So, here comes a losing litigant, he saw the judge
sabi, Ay ikaw nagpatalo sa akin ha? Tapos
sinampal nya, sinuntok nya ung judge. Anong crime
!yun? Is that a direct assault? Yes. Because he is
assaulted by reason of his being a judge. He was
assaulted by a losing litigant. Then, therefore, he
Page 14 of 98
assaulted him because he lost a case before the
judge. That is still a crime of direct assault because
he was hit by reason of the performance of his
work as a judge. But the crime there is direct
assault. Because he was not assaulted at the time
of the performance of the duties of being judge.
Now, the difference, however, between direct
assault of an agent of a person in authority. The
policeman and a judge, pag sinabi mong direct
assault sa police, then the attack must be more
serious than the attack of a person in authority. Pag
ang judge, sinampal mo yan, ginanun mo lang
yung judge or kinabig mo lang, eh medyo malakas
eh hindi naman nasaktan ng todo. Ano yan, direct
assaul t yan because he i s a per son i n
authority.Kapag police !yan, it should be more than
that. Talagang physical attack ang kailangan sa
police because he is an agent of person in
authority. That"s why under Article 150 or 151, the
crime of disobedience disobedience or resistance
that is a separate crime. Separate from the crime
of direct assault committed against agents of
person in authority.
DEGREE OF RESISTANCE IN RELATION TO
DISOBEDIENCE
Let"s say yung police, ano ha? Inisyuhan ka ng
warrant of arrest. So, the judge orders a policeman
to serve a warrant of arrest. If the person arrested
resists resisted without any physical attack, he
resisted. Ayaw ko. Pinu-push mo na ang pulis.
Tinutulak nya ang pulis, that cannot become a
direct assault. Why? Because the attack is not yet
too serious. He, the person being arrested or the
person who resisted, will be liable only for simple
resistance or disobedience. But if the warrant is
served and he did not just push the police, sinuntok
nya ang pulis na !yun. Pinagsusuntok nya ang
pulis, direct assault na !yun. Direct assault na !yun.
But kung ang judge yan sumita sayo, Hoy! Mali
ang ginagawa mo sa husgado. !Yun tapos
sinampal mo ang judge direct assault agad !yun.
Qualied direct assault? Why? Because when it
comes to a person in authority, the attack need not
be serious unlike with a crime committed against a
policeman. Of course, natural eh pulis lang yan eh.
Ako, justice tayo eh. Lagot ka, di ba?
IN RELATION TO TEACHERS
The professor was courting a lady student. That
lady student was also being courted by another
student. So, after classes, si professor was
assaulted by that student who was courting also
that student. Ano ang crime? May crime dun but it
is not direct assault Why? Because even though he
is a teacher the purpose of the assault was not due
to being a teacher. The assault must have
something to do of his being a teacher. Personal
!yun eh. But supposedly the teacher conducting
was classes. The purpose of the assault by the
student is that he is courting the student because
that means he is courting that student and that
student was also And then he threw a book that
hit the face of the professor, and then beat him.
Anong crime !yun? Physical injuries? Alam nyo
!yun, nung tinanong sa bar exams yan, we were
divided. Dalawang answers ang prinopose namin.
Kasi, if the purpose is personal, then there is no
need to apply Article 152 because a teacher in a
private institution, nakalagay dun, !di ba? Sabi nila
physical injuries. !Yung isang group naman sabi
direct assault. Bakit direct assault? Because you
apply the general principle, eh. When the person in
authority is being assaulted, dapat regardless of
the purpose.
So, therefore, by analogy, if a teacher in a private
institution is teaching, and he is stoned or
assaulted by any of the students, that should be
direct assault. Why? Because you do not need
anymore to determine what is the purpose, eh.
Because under the law, direct assault is committed
when the person in authority or agents of person in
authority is attacked or assaulted while in the
performance of his duties. Hindi sinasabi dun kung
by reason of the ofce o hindi. So, therefore, if the
teacher is directly is conducting classes, whatever
is the purpose of the one who is attacking him, if he
is attacked on the occasion of his performance, that
is direct assault. Eh !yun ang dapat mag-prepare
ng question and answer na direct assault. But
there"s no there"s no case. So, sabi namin, sige,
consider na lang dalawang answer. Kung iyan ang
tinuro mo dun sa kabilang school, !yun. Sa kanila
naman ito tinuturo namin. Dalawa, correct, !di ba?
But it should be really direct assault because it was
done in the performance of his duties.
IN RELATION TO LAWYERS
Okay. Now, the other one also is lawyer. !Yung
lawyer mo ayaw mo saktan. The law does not
make a distinction as to who is the assaulted
lawyer. It"s either the opposing party or your own
client, basta may reason. Pwede !yun. Krinos-
examine nila !yung witness ng adverse party.
Nagalit, nabastos. !Pag labas sa husgado, sinuntok
niya !yung lawyer. The one who is committing the
crime is the opposite party. Direct assault !yun. But
supposing it is his own client, masyadong mataas
maningil ng kliyente. Sinuntok ng kliyente. Direct
assault pa rin because the law does not make a
distinction as who should be committing the crime
as long as it is by reason of his being a lawyer.
COMPLEXING DIRECT ASSAULT
Can it be complexed? Can direct assault be
complexed with other crimes? Yes, under Article
Page 15 of 98
48. If the attack is already more than the required
violence in the crime of direct assault and then
there is already an intent, not actually intent, but is
already more than what is required of a crime of
direct assault, it may become direct assault with
attempted or frustrated homicide or murder
depending upon the commission of the crime.
Binaril mo !yung judge while in the performance of
his duties. If the judge almost died, if the ring of
the gun was attended by any, qual i fyi ng,
aggravating circumstance and loss of life, then you
try to denominate the crime as qualied direct
assault with frustrated or attempted murder
because the assault is already more than the
required element of direct assault. The violence
committed against the person in authority is already
more than what is required by the law.
Eh, !yung police o kung !di naman, namatay !yung
pulis o !yung person in authority. Then, you can
also complex that crime under Article 48. It may be
direct assault with murder or direct assault with
homicide or qualied direct assault with murder or
qualied direct assault with homicide. It depends,
pag namatay !yan, sigurado ka Article 48 ang
magaaply dyan and it will be complex. What I am
saying is that if the injury sustained already more
than sufcient for the crime or required of the crime
of direct assault, then it will become attempted or
frustrated as long as you can show that there is an
intent to kill. Syempre kung binaril mo, may intent
to kill na !yun.? Baka kung ano pa ang gawin.
__________________________________
Art. 149. Indirect assaults. The penalty
of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a ne not exceeding
P500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who shall make use of force or intimidation
upon any person coming to the aid of the
authorities or their agents on occasion of the
commission of any of the crimes dened in the
next preceding article.
__________________________________
A is a policeman. He was assaulted, then later on,
B, a private individual, came to the aid of Mr. A.
Both of them were assaulted. Police ito, policeman.
The policeman was directing trafc. The bystander
did not like the policeman. A was directing trafc, so
he was assaulted. B bystander, came to the aid of
this policeman. B was likewise assaulted. What"s
the crime committed?
Then the crime is indirect assault. So, this one
would be Article 149. So, therefore, in 149 the only
victim now in 149 is a private individual coming to
the aid of agents of person in authority. The private
individual coming to the aid of agent of person in
authority is a crime of indirect assault. But a
private individual who comes to the aid of a person
in authority, because he becomes an agent of a
person in authority, if he is likewise assaulted, then
liable for violation of Article 148.
__________________________________
Art. 150. Disobedience to summons
issued by the National Assembly, its
committees or subcommittees, by the
Const i t ut i onal Commi ssi ons, i t s
commi t t ees, subcommi t t ees or
divisions. The penalty of arresto mayor or
a ne ranging from two hundred to one
thousand pesos, or both such ne and
imprisonment shall be imposed upon any
person who, having been duly summoned to
attend as a witness before the National
Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing
commi t t ees and subcommi t t ees, t he
Const i t ut i onal Commi ssi ons and i t s
committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or
before any commission or committee chairman
or member authorized to summon witnesses,
refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such
summons, or being present before any such
legislative or constitutional body or ofcial,
refuses to be sworn or pl aced under
afrmation or 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.
person who shall restrain another from
attending as a witness, or who shall induce
disobedience to a summon or refusal to be
sworn by any such body or ofcial.
Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience
to a person in authority or the agents of
such person. The penalty of arresto
mayor and a ne not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who not
being included in the provisions of the
preceding articles shall resist or seriously
disobey any person in authority, or the agents
of such person, while engaged in the
performance of ofcial duties.
When the disobedience to an agent of a
person in authority is not of a serious nature,
the penalty of arresto menor or a ne ranging
from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon
the offender.
Page 16 of 98
Art. 152. Persons in authority and
agents of persons in authority; Who
shall be deemed as such. In applying
the provisions of the preceding and other
articles of this Code, any person directly
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or
gover nment al cor por at i on, boar d, or
commission, shall be deemed a person in
authority. A barrio captain and a barangay
chairman shall also be deemed a person in
authority.
A person who, by direct provision of law or
by el ect i on or by appoi nt ment by
competent authority, is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property,
such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman
and barangay leader and any person who
comes to the aid of persons in authority,
shall be deemed an agent of a person in
authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and
151 of this Code, teachers, professors and
persons charged with the supervision of public
or duly recognized private schools, colleges
and universities, and lawyers in the actual
performance of their professional duties or on
the occasion of such performance, shall be
deemed persons in authority. (As amended by
PD No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas
Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985).
_____________________________________
Now, persons in authority, pag sinabi mong vested
with jurisdiction, their acts can be implemented or
enforced within their area of jurisdiction like
mayors. Yung agents of persons in authority, yung
mga police, agents, military, military men, and all
those that implement or those who execute the
orders of persons in authority are agents of
persons in authority.
But the problem is that a private individual may
become an agent of person in authority. A private
individual who comes to the aid of the person in
authority becomes an agent of a person in
authority. So, the private individual who comes to
the aid of a person in authority becomes, likewise,
an agent of a person in authority.
Sinabihan ka nya, bayaran mo ako. Sabi ng
cliyente, Masyado namang mataas attorney. Ito
ang kailangan mo. *Pak*. Sinuntok nya ang
abogado, direct assault !yun. Because a lawyer, for
purposes of his being a lawyer, and the exercise of
his being a lawyer is assaulted or attacked, he is
likewise a person in authority.
So, there are, therefore, several persons in
authority:
1) Public ofcials.
2) Yung mga baranggay chairman included yan by
specic provision in 152.
3) Teachers in private institutions and lawyers in so
far as if they"re assaulted by the reason of their
being a lawyer. Persons in authority yun.
4) Then the other group of authorities will be agents
of persons in authority divided lang into two groups.
$Yung public ofcers tasked to maintain peace and
order, and the other agents of persons in authority
are private individuals who come to the aid of
persons in authority.
Chapter Five
PUBLIC DISORDERS

Art. 153. Tumults and other disturbance
of publ i c or de r s ; Tumul t uous
disturbance or interruption liable to
cause disturbance. The penalty of
arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period and a ne
not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon any person who shall cause any serious
disturbance in a public place, ofce, or
establishment, or shall interrupt or disturb
public performances, functions or gatherings,
or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included
in the provisions of Articles 131 and 132.
i mposed upon per sons causi ng any
disturbance or interruption of a tumultuous
character.
The disturbance or interruption shall be
deemed to be tumultuous if caused by more
than three persons who are armed or provided
with means of violence.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed
upon any person who in any meeting,
association, or public place, shall make any
outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or
in such place shall display placards or
emblems which provoke a disturbance of the
public order.
The penalty of arresto menor and a ne not to
exceed P200 pesos shall be imposed upon
these persons who in violation of the
provisions contained in the last clause of
Article 85, shall bury with pomp the body of a
person who has been legally executed.
Page 17 of 98
__________________________________
Now the others, public outcry in 131, 132. If the
acts do not fall under 131 and 132, then the law
that is applicable is Article 153. That"s the one. The
elements of 153, however, is that there must be
tumults. There must be a public disturbance.
Refer to discussion under Inciting to Sedition/
Rebellion.
__________________________________
Art. 154. Unlawful use of means of
publication and unlawful utterances.
The penalty of arresto mayor and a ne
ranging from P200 to P1,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any person who by means of printing,
lithography, or any other means of publication
shall publish or cause to be published as news
any false news which may endanger the public
order, or cause damage to the interest or credit
of the State;
2. Any person who by the same means, or by
wor ds, ut t er ances or speeches shal l
encourage disobedience to the law or to the
constituted authorities or praise, justify, or extol
any act punished by law;
3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or
cause to be published any ofcial resolution or
document without proper authority, or before
they have been published ofcially; or
4. Any person who shall print, publish, or
distribute or cause to be printed, published, or
distributed books, pamphlets, periodicals, or
leaets which do not bear the real printer's
name, or which are classied as anonymous.
Art. 155. Alarms and scandals. The
penalty of arresto menor or a ne not
exceeding P200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who within any town or public
place, shall discharge any rearm, rocket,
recracker, or other explosives calculated to
cause alarm or danger;
2. Any person who shall instigate or take an
active part in any charivari or other disorderly
meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to
public tranquility;
3. Any person who, while wandering about at
night or while engaged in any other nocturnal
amusements, shall disturb the public peace; or
4. Any person who, while intoxicated or
otherwise, shall cause any disturbance or
scandal in public places, provided that the
circumstances of the case shall not make the
provisions of Article 153 applicable.
__________________________________
FIRING OF A GUN RESULTING TO VARIANT CRIMES
When you re a gun in a public place, then, of
course, that will be alarm and scandal in 155 when
the purpose of ring of the gun is to cause a public
disturbance. But ring a gun may lead to other
crimes committed. It will depend on many things.
If the gun is red in a public place merely to disturb,
then that is alarm and scandal.
If a gun is red at somebody else without the intent
to kill so if a gun is red, directed at somebody
else without the intent to kill, then the crime will be
a crime against person. That"s a crime of illegal
discharge of rearm.
But if the gun is red, aimed at somebody else, with
intent to kill, and the victim is not killed, then that
will be attempted felony.
But if you re the gun aimed at somebody else with
the intent to kill, and he was not killed, and then he
spontaneously desisted at that stage, then the
crime is grave threat.
Supposing I re my gun without intent to kill, aim at
somebody else, with proper bullet, but the bullet did
not re. What"s the crime? I re my gun with bullet,
I aim at somebody else without the intent to kill, but
the gun did not re. What"s the crime? That is a
crime of frustrated illegal discharge of rearm.
Supposing I re my gun, not knowing that there is
no bullet. So I re my gun, not knowing that it is not
loaded with bullets, aim at somebody else without
intent to kill, what"s the crime? It did not re, of
course. Di ko alam na walang bullet. I wanted to
re the gun, aim at somebody else, without intent to
kill, but the gun did not re because there is no
bullet. What"s the crime? Impossible crime.
Because it should have been a crime of illegal
discharge of rearm, but because of inherent
impossibility, there are no bullets. The crime
becomes an impossible crime.
RA8294
what is Republic Act 8294? It penalizes for illegal
possession of rearm or explosives. Of course, that
is a malum prohibitum, but you will have to prove
the intent. It is a malum prohibitum and, therefore,
the intent as an element of the crime is not the
essential element. But what are you going to prove
if it is a malum prohibitum? You have to prove
animus possidendi, the one I told you last time.
Page 18 of 98
There must be an animus possidendi or intent to
possess which is different from intent as an
element of the crime.
Illegal Possession
There are three ways:
1. When one is caught in the act of possessing a
gun without the necessary license.
2. When one is caught in the possession of a gun
with proper license, but has already expired, with
expired license. That"s also illegal possession of
rearms.
3. And then the last one is you may have the
license to possess, but if you bring it out without
necessary license to carry, that is also an
unlicensed rearm.
Violations
And then the violations in Republic Act 8294 would
be:
If one is caught in the act of an unlicensed rearm,
then he is liable for illegal possession of rearm,
unlicensed rearm. So, if you are walking outside of
your residence and then you are caught in
possession of an unlicensed rearm, then that
makes it already a crime of illegal possession of
rearms.
When an unlicensed rearm is used in the killing,
then the crime will be either murder or homicide
and then the use of unlicensed rearm will be
treated as a special aggravating circumstance. So,
there is only one crime of killing. The crime is
killing. That means murder, homicide or infanticide
and then the use of an unlicensed rearm will be
treated as the special aggravating circumstance.
And then the third situation is that when an
unlicensed rearm is used in the commission of the
crime other than killing, then you will be liable for
the crime to which the unlicensed rearm was
used. Isang crime lang.
So, if one res a gun in a public place, and
therefore, it disturbs the peace, and it was found
out that the gun that was used in ring is an
unlicensed rearm, what will be the crime of how
many crimes are committed? So, I used an
unlicensed rearm in a public place and I red the
gun. So I"m caught in the act of possessing an
unlicensed rearm because policemen caught me
right after I red the gun. I am liable for alarm and
scandal because I red the gun in a public place
and, therefore, the crime against public order and
punishable under 155.
What about the gun that was used, which was an
unlicensed rearm? What will happen with that
gun? You cannot be liable for the separate crime of
illegal possession of rearm. Illegal possession of
rearm is absorbed with the crime of alarm and
scandal because that is what the law provides, that
if an unlicensed rearm is used in the commission
of the crime other than killing, then you will only be
liable for the crime to which the unlicensed rearm
was used.
In relation to rebellion
in rebellion, taking up arms is already the element.
You mean, coup d"etat or simple rebellion? No
separate crime in an unlicensed rearm. That is
included in the element of taking up arms against
the government.
RA8294 In relation to Special Complex Crimes
You are passengers in a passenger bus. All of a
sudden, a group of robbers and some of the
passengers brought out their knives and guns and
then pointed at the victims. Now, one of the
passengers brought out his gun and then fought
back the robbers who were armed with guns and
knives. The passenger died. Now, it was found out
that the guns used by them were unlicensed
rearms. So, therefore, they committed a crime of
robbery with homicide with the use of an
unlicensed rearm.
So, how will you treat that unlicensed rearm? How
will you treat that unlicensed rearm? Now, the
unlicensed rearm under Republic Act 8294 will be
now absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide
because the crime is robbery. So, the unlicensed
rearm will be absorbed in the crime of robbery
because they were used in the crime of robbery.
APPLICATION OF PEOPLE v. ESCOTE IN RELATION
TO RA 8294
But supposing, instead of guns, they use knives in
the crime of robbery, and then later on, they used
an unlicensed rearm in the killing of the victim. So
they brought out their knives. Bring out your
valuables. So they used knives in the act of
committing the crime of robbery, and then one of
the passengers brought out a gun, and then one of
the robbers, likewise, after they saw the passenger
bring out a gun, likewise, brought out a gun and
then killed the passenger. It was found out that the
gun used in the killing of the passenger is an
unlicensed rearm. So how will you now treat the
unlicensed rearm?
If that is the case, because of the doctrine laid
down in Escote, if the unlicensed rearm was not
used in the robbery, but was used in the killing,
then the crime is robbery with homicide, and you
can appreciate the special aggravating of
unlicensed rearm in so far as the killing is
concerned because that gun was not used in the
robbery.
Page 19 of 98
But if the gun unlicensed rearm was used in the
robbery, then the crime is merely robbery with
homicide. The unlicensed rearm cannot be treated
as a special aggravating circumstance because
that is absorbed in the crime of robbery.
In fact, merong kaso diyan. Although the facts are
different, but by analogy - what happened there is
that after robbing the victims in a bus, a gun was
found from the possession of the robber, which was
never used in the robbery. Pag baba n"yang
ganyan, may nahulog na baril, !yung robber. When
they picked up the gun, then it was an unlicensed
rearm. But the unlicensed rearm was picked up
after the robbery has already been consummated.
So, ano"ng crime !to? Sabi ng Supreme Court,
dalawang crimes !yan. One is robbery, the other
one is illegal possession of rearm because the
unlicensed rearm was not used in the commission
of the crime of robbery. O, !pag ganun, !di ba?
__________________________________
Art. 156. Delivery of prisoners from
jails. The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period of prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall remove from any jail or penal
establishment any person conned therein or
shall help the escape of such person, by
means of violence, intimidation, or bribery. If
other means are used, the penalty of arresto
mayor shall be imposed.
If the escape of the prisoner shall take place
outside of said establishments by taking the
guards by surprise, the same penalties shall
be imposed in their minimum period.

Chapter Six
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Art . 157. Evasi on of servi ce of
sentence. The penal ty of pri si on
periods shall be imposed upon any convict
who shall evade service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his imprisonment
by reason of nal judgment. However, if such
evasion or escape shall have taken place by
means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors,
windows, gates, walls, roofs, or oors, or by
using picklocks, false keys, deceit, violence or
intimidation, or through connivance with other
convicts or employees of the penal institution,
the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
maximum period.
__________________________________
A detention prisoner, escapes from prison, what is
the liability? Now, if he escapes from prison, then
the detention prisoner is not liable for a crime. Let"s
say the crime is non-bailable. He is charged with
the crime of murder and, therefore, he is under
detention. If that detention prisoner escapes from
prison, that is not evasion of service because there
is no yet judgment, nal judgment. Is there a
crime? If the person escapes while trial is ongoing?
No, he is not liable for a crime. The detention
prisoner is not liable for a crime, but he may lose
some of his rights. If there is now a judgment of
condition and he is convicted, then he cannot
anymore appeal. He cannot ano, he will lose his
right to appeal because there is no judgment eh.
For all we know, he might be acquitted. So, there is
no crime if he escapes.
Art. 158. Evasion of service of sentence
on t he oc c a s i on of di s or de r ,
conagrations, earthquakes, or other
calamities. A convict who shall evade the
service of his sentence, by leaving the penal
institution where he shall have been conned,
on the occasion of disorder resulting from a
conagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar
catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he
has not participated, shall suffer an increase of
one-fth of the time still remaining to be served
under the original sentence, which in no case
shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to give
himself up to the authorities within forty-eight
hours following the issuance of a proclamation
by the Chief Executive announcing the passing
away of such calamity.
Convicts who, under the circumstances
mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall
give themselves up to the authorities within the
above mentioned period of 48 hours, shall be
entitled to the deduction provided in Article 98.
Art. 159. Other cases of evasion of
service of sentence. The penalty of
prision correccional in its minimum period shall
be imposed upon the convict who, having
been granted conditional pardon by the Chief
Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of
such pardon. However, if the penalty remitted
by the granting of such pardon be higher than
six years, the convict shall then suffer the
unexpired portion of his original sentence.
__________________________________
Page 20 of 98
To the differentiate it from parole. The requirements
sa conditional pardon eh a conditional pardon is
granted by the Chief Executive wherein the
accused and the government will enter into a
contract.
Unlike in parole, in parole there is also a contract.
But a violation of the conditions in parole may not
lead to a crime of other forms of evasion of service.
Walang crime ng violation of a parole, eh. Theres
no crime of violation of parole. Unlike in a
conditional pardon, violation of the conditional
pardon is about the crime of Article 159. But there
are two periods in 159, in defense on the period
remitted. So, if the period remitted is more than six
years, then the effect of a violation of the
conditional pardon is that the accused will have to
be arrested and serve the remaining sentence. But
if the period remitted is less than six years, then
there is a crime of violation of a conditional pardon,
the penalty of which is prision correccional.
Chapter Seven
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME
DURI NG SERVI CE OF PENALTY
IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS
OFFENSE

Art. 160. Commission of another crime
during service of penalty imposed for
another offense; Penalty. Besides the
provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person
who shall commit a felony after having been
convicted by nal judgment, before beginning
to serve such sentence, or while serving the
same, shall be punished by the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the
new felony.
Any convict of the class referred to in this
article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be
pardoned at the age of seventy years if he
shall have already served out his original
sentence, or when he shall complete it after
reaching the said age, unless by reason of his
conduct or other circumstances he shall not be
worthy of such clemency.

Title Four

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

Chapter One
F O R G E R I E S

Section One. Forging the seal of the
Government of the
Philippine Islands, the signature or
stamp of the Chief Executive.
Art. 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of
the Government of the Philippine
Islands, forging the signature or stamp
of the Chief Executive. The penalty of
reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any
person who shall forge the Great Seal of the
Government of the Philippine Islands or the
signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.
Art. 162. Using forged signature or
counterfeit seal or stamp. The penalty
of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any
person who shall knowingly make use of the
counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp
mentioned in the preceding article.

Section Two. Counterfeiting Coins

Art. 163. Making and importing and
uttering false coins. Any person who
makes, imports, or utters, false coins, in
connivance with counterfeiters, or importers,
shall suffer:
1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods and a ne not to exceed P10,000
pesos, if the counterfeited coin be silver coin of
the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of
the Philippines of ten centavo denomination or
above.
2. Prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a ne of not to exceed
P2,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coins be any
of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of
the Central Bank of the Philippines below ten-
centavo denomination.
3. Prision correccional in its minimum period
and a ne not to exceed P1,000 pesos, if the
counterfeited coin be currency of a foreign
country. (As amended by R.A. No. 4202,
approved June 19, 1965).
Ar t . 164. Mut i l at i on of coi ns;
Importation and utterance of mutilated
coins. The penalty of prision correccional
in its minimum period and a ne not to exceed
P2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who shall mutilate coins of the legal
currency of the United States or of the
Philippine Islands or import or utter mutilated
current coins, or in connivance with mutilators
or importers.
Page 21 of 98
Art. 165. Selling of false or mutilated
coin, without connivance. The person
who knowi ngl y, al t hough wi t hout t he
connivance mentioned in the preceding
articles, shall possess false or mutilated coin
with intent to utter the same, or shall actually
utter such coin, shall suffer a penalty lower by
one degree than that prescribed in said
articles.

Section Three. Forging treasury or
bank notes, obligations and securities;
importing and uttering false or forged
notes,
obligations and securities.

Art. 166. Forging treasury or bank notes
on other documents payable to bearer;
importing, and uttering such false or
forged notes and documents. The
forging or falsication of treasury or bank notes
or certicates or other obligations and
securi t i es payabl e t o bearer and t he
importation and uttering in connivance with
forgers or importers of such false or forged
obligations or notes, shall be punished as
follows:
1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period
and a ne not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the
document whi ch has been f al si ed,
counterfeited, or altered, is an obligations or
security of the United States or of the
Philippines Islands. The word "obligation or
security of the United States or of the
Philippine Islands" shall be held to mean all
bonds, certicates of indebtedness, national
bank notes, fractional notes, certicates of
deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money,
drawn by or upon authorized ofcers of the
United States or of the Philippine Islands, and
other representatives of value, of whatever
denomination, which have been or may be
issued under any act of the Congress of the
United States or of the Philippine Legislature.
2. By prision mayor in its maximum period and
a ne not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the
falsied or altered document is a circulating
note issued by any banking association duly
authorized by law to issue the same.
3. By prision mayor in its medium period and a
ne not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsied
or counterfeited document was issued by a
foreign government.
4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and
a ne not to exceed P2,000 pesos, when the
forged or altered document is a circulating
note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly
authorized therefor.
Art. 167. Counterfeiting, importing and
uttering instruments not payable to
bearer. Any person who shall forge, import
or utter, in connivance with the forgers or
importers, any instrument payable to order or
other document of credit not payable to bearer,
shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods and a ne
not exceeding P6,000 pesos.
__________________________________
The other one is uttering. In the counterfeit, the
one who counterfeits the money is liable. Now, the
one who actually uses the money is liable for
uttering. So, thats part of Article 166-167, uttering
of false notes. And the one who is caught in the act
of possessing false notes is liable for the crime of
illegal possession of false note. But in illegal
possession of false notes, there must be an
element of intent to utter, intent to utter. That
means that, if Im in possession of lets say, ten
fake money and Im not using it, they are just inside
my wallet, I will not be liable for illegal possession
because there is no intent to use it.
PRESUMPTION OF INTENT TO UTTER
Now, in an old case, Bank of Republic of the
Philippines Islands, an old case raised in the
Supreme Court because the accused was caught
in possession of several pieces of false notes. He
was convicted, but the Supreme Court made a
distinction that mere possession of a false note is
not a crime because what is punishable is that
there must be intent to utter. Kasi, gaya ko gusto
kong merong akong false note, di ko naman
ginagamit, remembrance eh. Why should I be
liable? So, sabi ng Supreme Court, if one, however,
is caught with several bundles, let say, you are not
using it, but you were caught in possession of 10
bundles of false notes. Ah, sabi ng Supreme Court,
you will now be liable. Why? The possession of so
many bundles is an element of intent to use.
__________________________________
Art. 168. Illegal possession and use of
false treasury or bank notes and other
instruments of credit. Unless the act be
one of those coming under the provisions of
any of the preceding articles, any person who
shall knowingly use or have in his possession,
with intent to use any of the false or falsied
instruments referred to in this section, shall
Page 22 of 98
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than
that prescribed in said articles.
Art. 169. How forgery is committed.
The forgery referred to in this section may be
committed by any of the following means:
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument, payable to bearer or order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a true
genuine document.
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or
altering by any means the gures, letters,
words or signs contained therein.
_____________________________________
pag sinabi na, You are liable for the crime of
forgery, walang crime na forgery. Forgery is a way
of committing a crime of falsification. But forgery is
not a crime because forgery is merely the act of
imitating the signature or the handwriting, making it
appear that it was signed by the person concerned.
Yan, yan ang mga forgery. You forge, thats the
meaning, but thats not a crime. Under 169, it is a
manner of committing a crime of falsification.
_____________________________________
Secti on Four. Fal si cati on of
legislative, public, commercial, and
pri vatedocuments, and wi rel ess,
telegraph, and telephone message.

Art. 170. Falsication of legislative
documents. The penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period and a ne
not exceeding P6,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon any person who, without proper
authority therefor alters any bill, resolution, or
ordinance enacted or approved or pending
approval by either House of the Legislature or
any provincial board or municipal council.
Art. 171. Falsication by public ofcer,
employee or notary or ecclesiastic
minister. The penalty of prision mayor
and a ne not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any public ofcer, employee, or
notary who, taking advantage of his ofcial
posi t i on, shal l f al si f y a document by
committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated
in an act or proceeding statements other than
those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration
of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a
genuine document which changes its meaning;
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; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative
to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry,
or ofcial book.
ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of
the offenses enumerated in the preceding
paragraphs of this article, with respect to any
record or document of such character that its
falsication may affect the civil status of
persons.
Art. 172. Falsication by private
i ndi vi dual and use of f al si ed
documents. The penalty of prision
periods and a ne of not more than P5,000
pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any
of the falsications enumerated in the next
preceding article in any public or ofcial
document or letter of exchange or any other
kind of commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third
party, or with the intent to cause such damage,
shall in any private document commit any of
the acts of falsication enumerated in the next
preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in
evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the
damage of another or who, with the intent to
cause such damage, shall use any of the false
documents embraced in the next preceding
article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions
Page 23 of 98
of this article, shall be punished by the penalty
next lower in degree.
__________________________________
171-172
Now, when it comes, however to official public
document, commercial document, and private
document, the laws that are applicable will be
Article 171 and Article 172. But in Article 171,
falsification under 171 can only be committed by
three specified persons or groups of persons.
Public officers taking advantage of their public
position.
Notary publics.
Ecclesiastics.
Only those mentioned in 171 can be liable for the
crime of falsification.
Now, if you go to Article 172, then the crime of
fal si fi cati on can be commi tted by pri vate
individuals, but it makes reference to the
falsifications in 171. So, what is the implication of
that? The implication of that when it is committed
by private individual, then the law that is violated is
172. But the manner of committing the crime of
falsification in 172 is likewise the manner of
committing the crime of falsification in Article 171.
There are four kinds of falsification of documents
under 171 and 172 although like official document,
be it a public document, be it a private document or
be it a commercial document. But the official
document and public document are created as one
for purposes of falsification. So, when you speak of
official document, theyre just the same as (talking)
document for purposes of falsification. But, theyre
not the same in meaning. The other one is
commercial document then the last one is private
document.
The official documents are those that are issued by
the Government as part of the records of the
Government or an order to evidence an act of a
certain government agency, payment of taxes. You
issued a receipt. That is an official document
because it records the payment, a governmental
function. You apply your marriage license. That is
also an official document because it becomes part
of the records of the Civil Registrar. Birth certificate,
court records, pleadings, complaints, decisions. All
of these are public records or official documents
because they become part of the official records of
the government.
Now, official documents may, likewise, include
documents prepared by private individuals. These
are not because, generally, the official documents
are those that are prepared and issued by a
government official. But there may be official
documents prepared by private individuals. When
those documents become part of the records of the
government they become official documents.
Application for a marriage license, the application is
filled up by the applicants. Application of a marriage
contract, the applications are made by private
individuals. But once you have submitted it before
the proper agencies they become part of the
records of the Civil Registrar and, therefore, official
document s. Those who are ent eri ng t he
government service, your application form. They
become part of the record of the Civil Service
Commission or the COMELEC or what, then they
become a part of the records of those government
agencies and also become official documents.
Now, the other one is public document. A public
document usually is not a document which will
record a governmental function that this may
perform. But rather it is prepared by private
individuals. The public document is one involving a
deed of conveyance. In other words, when you
speak of a deed of conveyance, therefore, that
document if consummated will produce rights and
obligations of the parties with the participation of a
notary public. So, a contract of sale that is a deed
of conveyance, you convey something, the other
one pays. So, there is an obligation to deliver and
there is an obligation to pay.
Now, if that contract of sale is acknowledged before
a notary public that means that you go to a lawyer
and then you swear before the lawyer. Yung
acknowledgement, nakabasa na ba kayo nun,
before me, a notary public, personal appeared Mr.
A herein referred to as the vendor, exhibiting his
certificate, issued at blah-blah-blah, and Mr.
Vendee blah-blah-blah, herein referred to as the
vendee. That the attest that they executed this
document with their free will consisting of seven
pages with each page signed on the left portion
including the last page. Subscribed and sworn to
before me. That is the acknowledgment. Thats
what you call acknowledgment. So, that is the
participation of a notary public.
If that document now is the one required by law like
the acknowl edgement then that document
becomes a public document. Then for purposes of
falsification, that public document is treated in the
same category as official document. Now, if that
document, however, is not notarized or is not
acknowledge before a notary public and therefore it
is a deed of conveyance, but in the absence of a
notary public or acknowledgement then that
document becomes a private document, okay.
And the last one is commercial document. Sabi
nila, what is a commercial document? The book of
Reyes will say, or even in the book, a commercial
document is one that is governed by the Code of
Commerce. Meron nang definition, di ba? A
commercial document is one that is governed by
the Code of Commerce e ang dami covered ng
Code of Commerce.
Ano ang commercial documents? So, commercial
documents are those that are usually substitute for
Page 24 of 98
money. Substitute for money, promotes business
t ransact i on. Ang i mport ant e di yan i s t he
characteristics of a negotiable instrument. In other
words, it can be transferred from one person or
negotiated from one person to the other. This is not
only limited to personal checks, yung cheque,
commercial documents yan. Because it promotes
business transaction, it can be negotiated or
delivered from one person to the other. Yung mga
iba dun may mga bill of lading, warehouse receipt,
di ba? Bumili ka ng 100,000 rice. Where will you
get where will you store the 100,000 sacks of
sugar or rice? You may have to get a bonded
warehouse. You store the 100,000 grams of sugar
in a bonded warehouse, what will the warehouse
do? It will issue a warehouse receipt. If you are
now in a possession of the warehouse receipt then
you become naturally the owner of the sugar or rice
stored in that warehouse. You want to sell those
boxes of sugar. What will you do? Do you need to
physically transfer the 100,000? No, you just
negotiate the receipt and whichever is in the
possession of that he becomes the owner. So, that
is the meaning of a commercial document ha, okay.
Now, commercial document and official or public
document have the same element. The only
element is there must be an act of falsification.
So, the mere act of falsifying that document is a
consummated crime of falsification.
FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
Unlike when it is committed by a private individual
under Article 172, when it is a private document
and this is covered by Article 172, then the crime is
falsification of a private document. And, therefore,
has two essential elements:
The act of falsifying the document.
To cause injury to third persons. Remember that, to
cause injury to a third person.
What about if a private individual commits a crime
of falsification of an official document? Is there also
an element of intent to injure? Ill give you an
example. You are an employee of the Civil
Registrar. You are the one in charge of the
issuance of a marriage license or marriage
contracts. You take advantage of your public
position. You make it appear that the person who
wants to get married is already of age. So, finalsify
mo yung edad niya, di ba, in a marriage license.
Tama ba? Ano bang age na ngayon para makapag-
asawa? Eighteen. So, 18. You made it appear that
the one of the contracting parties is already 18
when he knows fully well that he is only 17. So, he
issued a marriage license, pinafalsify nya, ginawa
niyang 18. What about if he is a private individual?
He falsified a marriage license, the same official
and the same contracting party. He likewise
falsified the marriage license. He makes it appear
that he is 18, when in fact he is 17 years of age.
Question: Are they liable for a crime? If it is
committed by public officer taking advantage of his
public position, whether that marriage license is
used or not because there is an element of intent to
cause injury, he becomes liable for a crime of
falsification of public document. Why? Because
there is no need to prove that the falsification of an
official document was intended to cause injury to
another.
Now, what about the minor boy? He falsified the
marriage license. So, if he did not use the license
that he falsified, can he be liable for a crime of
fal si fi cati on of publ i c document or offi ci al
document? Is it the crime of the individual? No,
because there is no harm done to anybody
because he did not use the marriage license.
If a private individual falsifies a public document,
there is still a need to prove damage?
No, its not prove damage. Its the intent to cause
damage. Intent. If a document is falsified by private
individual and he does not use it, there is no intent
of to cause damage. For example, the receipt, the
receipt that you gave to me, if you pay taxes in the
government. So, the receipt is legally is an official
document. I falsified it, but I kept it. No harm
COMPLEXING FALSIFICATION
Now, the other thing is that the most probably you
know this that there is a falsification of public
document that maybe complex with estafa. You can
complex the crime of estafa through the falsification
of public documents or even malversation through
falsification of public document or probably theft
through falsification of public document, qualified
theft through falsification of public document. But
you cannot complex estafa with falsification of
private document. There is no crime of estafa
through falsification of private document. Its either
estafa or falsification of private document.
Why? Because, in a crime of falsification of a public
document, there is only one element of falsification.
Whereas in the crime of estafa, there are two
essential elements which are deceit and damage.
Whereas in the crime of private document, there
are two essential elements, one is the act of
falsifying the document and the other one, the
intent to cause damage. So therefore, in the crime
of estafa in falsification of private document, they
have common elements of damage. So, therefore,
if there are two common elements of damage, then
they cannot be complex. Kasi in private document
may damage and falsification. Estafa, damage and
falsification. So, there is no crime of estafa through
falsification of private documents. Its either estafa
or falsification of private documents.
ART 171 NOTES
So, when a document is already consummated,
you are not supposed to make any erasures. So
this usual interpellations without the knowledge of
the other party, di ba? Lets say contract of sale.
Di ka na pwede magpalit dyan eh because
consummated na. But you can still change without
being liable for a crime of falsification. You can still
change when t he act of changi ng or
Page 25 of 98
interpolating or erasing will not change the
meaning of the document or will not affect the
integrity of the document.
Like, for example, nagkamali ka ng spelling sa
pangalan, walang comma, walang semi-colon, mali
English, pinalitan mo, eh wala ka na dun. Walang
crime, although, the documents are already the
parties have already signed. Then, di pwede yung
sana ma you interpolated something when that
was found out when suppose that word was not
there when the document was signed. There is no
crime of falsification because it is not intended to
alter the meaning of this document. Or when you
alter the document but the one that is altered is not
material to the contract. Walang falsification dun
Making untruthful statement in the narration of
facts.
The first thing that you have to remember is that,
there must be a duty to disclose the truth. If there is
no duty to disclose the truth, then there is no crime
of falsification. In other words, if in a questionnaire,
hindi ba? Lets say, you are applying for a job. You
go over t here, and t hen meet t he ot her
qualifications, and then you are asked. Are you a
college graduate? Therefore, it is your duty to
disclose the truth. You know that is crucial in your
application for a job in the government. Or have
you ever been convicted of a crime? Then you
have a duty to disclose the truth, morality or this is
also recorded in your application for a job abroad.
T E S T T O D E T E R M I N E W H E T H E R
INTERCALATION WILL AFFECT DOCUMENT
INTEGRITY
When it is completely change the meaning of the
document. For example, contract of sale in the
amount 100,000 pesos, you changed to 50,000
pesos. Eh di nag-iba na yung meaning ng
document. It is a contract of sale of 100,000 pesos
naging 50,000 pesos na. Yun ang ibig kong
sabihin. So walang problema, 171-172.
Art. 173. Falsication of wireless, cable,
telegraph and telephone messages, and
use of said falsied messages. The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods shall be imposed upon
ofcer or employee of the Government or of
any private corporation or concern engaged in
the service of sending or receiving wireless,
cable or telephone message who utters a
ctitious wireless, telegraph or telephone
message of any system or falsies the same.
Any person who shall use such falsied
dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or with
the intent of cause such prejudice, shall suffer
the penalty next lower in degree.

Section Five. Falsication of medical
certicates,
certicates of merit or services and the
like.

Art. 174. False medical certicates,
false certicates of merits or service,
etc. The penalties of arresto mayor in its
minimum period and a ne not to exceed
P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any physi ci an or surgeon who, i n
connection, with the practice of his profession,
shall issue a false certicate; and
2. Any public ofcer who shall issue a false
certicate of merit of service, good conduct or
similar circumstances.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed
upon any private person who shall falsify a
certicate falling within the classes mentioned
in the two preceding subdivisions.
__________________________________
The falsification done, that it may happen in two
ways. The doctor makes it appear that you were
sick when, in fact, you were not sick. That is
covered by 174. Or the other one is that, a person
presented a medical certificate which is falsified.
The one who will be liable is the person who filed
something with a falsified document. Like for
example in this hospital, di ba they keep records?
They keep records of all patients, eh. Now, if the
doctor now comes out with the medical certificate
contrary to the records in the hospital, liable yan ng
falsification because he is the one issuing.
So it may happen that the doctor is the one who
uses a falsified document, then hell be liable. Or it
may happen that the person claimed that he is sick
and then presents a certified medical certificate
when in fact there is none, siya din ang liable.
What if it was a private individual who falsified the
medical certificate?
He will be liable because that is covered by 174.
Thats why there are two things that can happen
there. Thats why its not covered in Article 171 and
172 because a medical certificate cannot be
treated as a private document or commercial
document.
__________________________________
Art. 175. Using false certicates. The
penalty of arresto menor shall be imposed
upon any one who shall knowingly use any of
the false certicates mentioned in the next
preceding article.

Page 26 of 98
Sect i on Si x. Manuf act ur i ng,
i mpor t i ng a nd pos s e s s i on of
instruments or implements intended for
the commission of falsication.

Art. 176. Manufacturing and possession
of instruments or implements for
falsication. The penalty of prision
periods and a ne not to exceed P10,000
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who
shall make or introduce into the Philippine
Islands any stamps, dies, marks, or other
instruments or implements intended to be used
i n the commi ssi on of the offenses of
counterfeiting or falsication mentioned in the
preceding sections of this Chapter.
Any person who, with the intention of using
them, shall have in his possession any of the
instruments or implements mentioned in the
preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalty
next lower in degree than that provided
therein.

Chapter Two
OTHER FALSIFICATIONS

Section One. Usurpation of authority,
rank, title, and improper use of names,
uniforms and insignia.

Art. 177. Usurpation of authority or
ofcial functions. Any person who shall
knowingly and falsely represent himself to be
an ofcer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine
Government or of any foreign government, or
who, under pretense of ofcial position, shall
perform any act pertaining to any person in
authority or public ofcer of the Philippine
Government or any foreign government, or any
agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled
to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium
periods.
__________________________________
That usurpation can be committed by a person that
is a private individual.
Art. 178. Using ctitious name and
concealing true name. The penalty of
arresto mayor and a ne not to exceed 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who
shall publicly use a ctitious name for the
purpose of concealing a crime, evading the
execution of a judgment or causing damage.
Any person who conceals his true name and
other personal ci rcumstances shal l be
punished by arresto menor or a ne not to
exceed 200 pesos.
__________________________________
What makes it a crime under 178 is that the use of
an alias is either for the purpose or purposes of any
of those mentioned by the law, to abate judgment,
to cause an act over the public interest and to
cause damage to other party, conceal the
commission of the crime to abate judgment or to
cause damage. If you use an alias for the purposes
of any of the purposes mentioned in 178, then
you"ll be liable to a violation of 178 by mere, but
merely using an alias is not a crime. It is not a
crime, noh.
__________________________________
Art. 179. Illegal use of uniforms or
insignia. The penalty of arresto mayor
shall be imposed upon any person who shall
publicly and improperly make use of insignia,
uniforms or dress pertaining to an ofce not
held by such person or to a class of persons of
which he is not a member.

Section Two. False testimony

Art. 180. False testimony against a
defendant. Any person who shall give
false testimony against the defendant in any
criminal case shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the
defendant in said case shall have been
sentenced to death;
2. The penalty of prision mayor, if the
defendant shall have been sentenced to
reclusion temporal or reclusion perpetua;
3. The penalty of prision correccional, if the
defendant shall have been sentenced to any
other afictive penalty; and
4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the
defendant shall have been sentenced to a
correctional penalty or a ne, or shall have
been acquitted.
Page 27 of 98
In cases provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of
this article the offender shall further suffer a
ne not to exceed 1,000 pesos.
Art. 181. False testimony favorable to
the defendants. Any person who shall
give false testimony in favor of the defendant
in a criminal case, shall suffer the penalties of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period a ne not to
exceed 1,000 pesos, if the prosecution is for a
felony punishable by an afictive penalty, and
the penalty of arresto mayor in any other case.
Art. 182. False testimony in civil cases.
Any person found guilty of false testimony
in a civil case shall suffer the penalty of prision
not to exceed 6,000 pesos, if the amount in
controversy shall exceed 5,000 pesos, and the
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its minimum period
and a ne not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the
amount in controversy shall not exceed said
amount or cannot be estimated.
__________________________________
It must be through a judicial body. Why? Because if
the statement is made before a judicial body like,
for example, the courts. Before testifying, you raise
your right hand. You tell the truth and nothing but
the truth. The you start giving false statements,
malicious. Sabi mo, hindi. Ito, siya ang pumatay.
Kasama ko yan. Andun kami sa America. Andun
kami sa New York, yun pala sa New York, Cubao
lang.
He is now telling a lie and that is false testimony
because it is really false. Anong crime yun? Is that
perjury? No, that is not perjury. The crime will either
be those punished under 180, 181, and 182. If the
statement is made before the false testimony is
made before the court, then the crime will either be
false testimony in a civil case, false testimony
favoring the defendant or false testimony in a
criminal case favoring the accused.
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY
Subornation of perjury is a principal in the crime of
perjury. I ask you to execute a perjured statement.
The one who executed the perjured statement is
liable for the crime of perjury. The one who induced
somebody to commit the crime of perjury is liable
for the crime of subornation of perjury. In other
words, subornation of perjury is equivalent to a
principal by inducement in a crime of perjury.
__________________________________
Art. 183. False testimony in other cases
and perjury in solemn afrmation.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any person, who
knowingly makes untruthful statements and
not being included in the provisions of the next
preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or
make an afdavit, upon any material matter
before a competent person authorized to
administer an oath in cases in which the law
so requires.
Any person who, in case of a solemn
afrmation made in lieu of an oath, shall
commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in
this and the three preceding articles of this
section, shall suffer the respective penalties
provided therein.
__________________________________
Now, if you want to secure a license. Lets say you
apply for a drivers license. Then the drivers
license, you are issued. And you were caught, and
then your license was confiscated because you
incurred some violations. What you do is that you
can no longer secure a new drivers license
because confiscated na eh. You are already
prohibited to drive within a certain period of time
because of too many violations. What you did was
to execute an affidavit of loss to go around the law.
State Iblah blah blah. I was driving in the vehicle,
somebody picked my wallet included in that wallet
is a license and, therefore, I can no longer locate it
and I am executing this statement in order to
secure another license. Then at the end of that
statement, you will find there the jurat. Alam ninyo
yung j urat di ba? To di fferenti ate i t from
acknowledgement. Ano yung jurat? A mere
statement that that statement is under oath.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this blank day
of September date and so and so name of the
notary public. Thats the meaning of jurat.
Now, if those statements are false and then
malicious. These are statements because it is not
only the false statement that is punishable under
perjury. It must be attended with malice. In other
words, fraudulent. Mere false statement, just to be
giving a false statement is not a crime of perjury.
In other words, when you speak of malice, yan ang
unang element dyan. It must be a statement of fact,
done with malice, and number two, substantial for
material to the document. For example, lets say
yung affidavit of loss na yan. Perjury yan. Why do
they have to execute a statement of fact, affidavit of
loss, to secure another license when in fact you
can no longer secure a new one because
confiscated na yung license mo. Yung ang
Page 28 of 98
malicious. There is a motive on the part of the
affiant to execute a perjured statement.
But if the one that is perjured is not essential to the
document like for example affidavit of loss, and
then you stated there I, Mr. blah blah blah single
when you are already married, walang perjury yun
because it is not substantial or essential to the
document because what is essential in the
document is the statement of loss. Walang silbi yun
kung ganun ang sinabi mo, binata ka dun. That is
not perjury because it will no affect, in any way, the
document. Yung ang sinasabi kong immaterial.
The most important thing is that it must be done
with malice.
Now, the other kind of perjury is you do not execute
a written statement, but you are required to testify.
Then before you testify, you are asked to raise your
right hand. You will tell the truth, nothing but the
truth. Yes, I do. The you answer the question and
then you now give perjured statement. Yun ang
other form of perjury. But the oral testimony in the
crime of perjury must be done before a quasi-
judicial body.
__________________________________
Art. 184. Offering false testimony in
evi dence. Any person who shal l
knowingly offer in evidence a false witness or
testimony in any judicial or ofcial proceeding,
shall be punished as guilty of false testimony
and shall suffer the respective penalties
provided in this section.

Chapter Three
F R A U D S

Sect i on One. Machi nat i ons,
monopolies and combinations

Art. 185. Machinations in public
auctions. Any person who shall solicit any
gift or promise as a consideration for refraining
from taking part in any public auction, and any
person who shall attempt to cause bidders to
stay away from an auction by threats, gifts,
promises, or any other artice, with intent to
cause the reduction of the price of the thing
auctioned, shall suffer the penalty of prision
ranging from 10 to 50 per centum of the value
of the thing auctioned.
Title Five

CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND
OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
Part 1
Article 190 Possession, preparation and use of
prohibited drugs and maintenance of opium dens
Let"s now go to 190 which has been amended by
the Dangerous Drugs Law. Okay. Now, the present
dangerous Drugs Law is Republic Act 9165, noh, of
the year 2002. It"s the law that took effect in July 4,
2002. That is RA 9165 otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law of 2002.
Now before that law, the law was then Republic Act
6425, noh. It used to be Republic Act 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Law of
1972. Now, before we go to the salient features of
9165, we will rst know what were those that were
provided under Republic Act 6425 so that we will
understand the amendments in 9165, okay?
RA 6425 DANGEROUS DRUGS LAW
Now, the Dangerous Drugs Law is by its very
nature a malum prohibitum. It is a malum
prohibitum because mere violation of the law
makes the offender criminally liable. Therefore, if it
is a malum prohibitum, then you do not apply the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a rule,
noh? As a rule, you cannot appreciate the
mitigating circumstances or those circumstances
that may be available in crimes punished under the
Revised Penal Code. However, under the old law of
Republic Act 6425, that is the old one, not the
present law, so that you will know the changes.
Under the old law, Republic Act 6425, the
penalties then at that time were based on the
quantity of the prohibited or regulated drugs
and punished with penalties under the Revised
Penal Code. In other words, you have there a
special law where the law provides for penalties
that are found in the Revised Penal Code. So, that
was the reason why the Supreme Court came out
with a doctrine laid down in People versus Martin
Simon, that if the special law adopts the
nomenclature of penalties under the Revised Penal
Code, then the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code are applied as a general rule. So that under
the old law, if one pleads guilty under the old law, or
one proves mitigating circumstances under the old
law, then those mitigating circumstances are
appreciated because the penalties then are
penalties under the Revised Penal Code. Okay.
Page 29 of 98
RA9165 Dangerous Drugs Law of 2002
Republic Act 9165 under Section 98 specically
provides that the Revised Penal Code is not
applicable to this law. So, there is a clear
declaration in this law that the Revised Penal Code
is not applicable to this law. Except that if the
offender is a minor, however, minority pala hindi
exempted, if the offender is a minor, then the
penalty imposed by law is the penalty of life
imprisonment to death, then the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death. So, that is found in
Section 98, ano ha. There is expressed prohibition
of the application of the Revised Penal Code to this
law that makes the Dangerous Drugs Law. But if
the offender is a minor, however, if the offender is a
minor and the offense committed by the minor is a
penalty of life imprisonment to death, then the
penalty to be imposed shall be the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death.
IN RELATION to RA 9344
Okay, how do we explain that? Now, under your
Republic Act 9344, noh, which is the Juvenile
Delinquent Welfare Law of 2006. The law says that
there is only one minor that can now be liable, and
the minor that can be liable is if the age of the
minor is between 15 and 18, hindi ba? Between 15
and 18 acting with discernment. So, that is the only
minor that can now be liable after that law. But if
that minor is liable because he acted with
discernment, then in Article 68 of the Revised
Penal Code, he will be entitled to a privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority. So, it will
then illustrate - you pay particular attention to the
example that I will be giving.
So, if the let"s take the case of shabu. Under
Section 11, if one is found in possession of shabu
where the quantity is more than 50 grams, let"s say
50 grams of shabu, shabu yan, ha and then here
comes a minor, 17-year-old boy, caught in act of
possessing, possessing ha, 51 grams of shabu and
therefore violation of Section 11. The penalty of
which is more than 50 grams of shabu is life
imprisonment to death or the penalty is life
imprisonment to death, is it not? Under Section 11,
okay? Now, the question that will be asked is what
is the effect of a minor committing an offense under
Section 11 where the penalty of life imprisonment
to death is imposable? Now, if you look at this,
never mind Section 98 never mind Section 98 in
the meantime. If the penalty of the offense is life
imprisonment to death, even if you want to
appreciate a privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority, there is nowhere between lower to life
imprisonment to death. Because as I told you in
Article 61 before, only the penalties in the Revised
Penal Code can be graduated. Do you follow?
Even if you want to appreciate the privileged
mitigating circumstance, you cannot lower it by one
degree because there is no one degree lower to life
imprisonment to death. Do you follow?
Now, what does Section 98 provide? Section 98
provides that if a minor commits an offense where
the penalty is life imprisonment to death, then the
penalty to be imposed should be the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death. Di ba? Nakalagay sa
Section 98? If the penalty of the offense committed
by the minor is life imprisonment to death, then the
penalty to be imposed shall be reclusion perpetua
to death. So what happens, therefore, in this
parti cul ar case i s that the penal ty of l i fe
imprisonment to death, a penalty under special law
is converted into a penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death, a penalty under the Revised Penal Code, di
ba? Is this the penalty under the Revised Penal
Code? There is no such thing as life imprisonment.
But is this a penalty under the Revised Penal
Code? Reclusion perpetua to death? Yes.
Therefore, the penalty is converted to a penalty
under the Revised Penal Code.
Now, you now apply the doctrine laid down in
People versus Martin Simon. What does the
doctrine say? That if the offense is now punishable,
the nomenclature of penalty under the Revised
Penal Code, then the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code shall apply as a general rule. So what
will they do now with this? Because the penalty
now is reclusion perpetua to death. If you now
appreciate a privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority, is there one degree lower to reclusion
perpetua to death? Yes. One degree lower is
reclusion temporal. That is the only instance where
the Revised Penal Code is applicable, it is a special
law. That is the implication of Section 98.
Okay. Now, if you go further, if you remember your
computation of penalties in your Article 64 of the
Revised Penal Code, if the penalty now is babae,
what will you do? Divide.
You divide into three, di ba? So, you divide into
three. You have minimum, medium, and maximum.
No mitigating, no more mitigating, no more
aggravating? What"s the penalty?
Medium.
Your authority is Article 64 of the Revised Penal
Code. Where will you get your minimum penalties
under the Indeterminate Sentence Law? The
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum
penalties shall be taken in any of the penalty next
lower or in between. Babae o lalaki?
Babae.
Page 30 of 98
And then you divide into three. So, you have your
minimum, medium, and maximum. So, your
minimum penalty will come from there. Your
maximum penalty will come from here. Is it not?
Okay. So, I convicted the accused minor, applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law and appreciating
a privileged mitigating circumstance, I imposed a
penalty of six years and one day to 15 years as the
maximum. Six years and one day of the minimum
to 15 years as the maximum. Do you follow? Then
the counsel of the accused says, assuming that
there is no suspension, just to explain. Do you now
apply his full probation? Will you approve a
probation here? Yes.
The maximum penalty is six years, eh. The
minimum penalty that I imposed is six years and
one day, eh. The minimum penalty that I imposed is
six years and one day, eh. Under the Probation
Law, you can only apply for probation where the
penalty does not exceed six years. But the penalty
that I imposed is six years and one day to 15 years.
Can he apply for probation? Yes, under Section
70. As long as he"s a rst time minor offender,
ha. Section 70, as long as he is a rst time
minor offender.
Now, but, be careful, as I said. I used an example
of ILLEGAL POSSESSION because there may be
penalties of life imprisonment to death, but does
not fall under the Section 11 like Section 5, that is
drug pushing, drug trafcking, ano, ha? Because
under Section 24, if you look at your Section 24,
there is a prohibition on probation. Ang nakalagay
sa Section 24, NO PROBATION FOR DRUG
TRAFFICKERS AND DRUG PUSHERS. So, that is
the prohibition on probation. No probation for drug
trafckers or drug pushers.
Now, if my example here is that he was caught in
the act of selling, Section 70 is not applicable to
him. Do you follow?
If my example is, let"s say, drug trafcker, he"s a
drug trafcker, he"s a drug pusher, seller, and so
on, you will still apply this computation because he
is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance,
but he cannot apply for probation. Because under
Section 24, probation is prohibited for drug
trafckers or drug pushers. That"s why I used illegal
possession. Do you follow? If I used drug
trafcking, you follow still this computation. But he
is not entitled to probation because under Section
24, probation is prohibited to drug trafckers or
drug pushers.
So, that is the only instance where the Revised
Penal Code will apply as a general rule, because
Section 19.
Yes?
If I read it correctly, RA 934 provides that
9344 yun.
Regarding on what time the offender may be, a
minor offender may be entitled to probation after all
the
If he fails. If he fails in the intervention program.
That"s it. Yeah, that"s why I said forget about 9344
in the meantime, just to explain Section 19 and
Section 17, but I"m assuming that you assumed
that he will apply for probation only if he failed in
the intervention program because he is entitled. We
will come into that under Section 66. I will correlate
this with Section 66 later on. And then, also with
Section 38 and Section 42 of 9344, noh? The
explanation, so that it will no be complicated. My
explanation on Section 98 is only in so far as the
application of the Revised Penal Code and the
application of probation law in the meantime.
Medyo malalim yung tanong, eh. Sobrang complex
yun, eh. Okay. So, let"s go back.
REMOVAL OF DRUG CLASSIFICATIONS; NOW
JUST DANGEROUS DRUGS
Now, under the old law, there were two kinds of
drugs under the old law. You have prohibited drugs
and regulated drugs so that decisions of the
Supreme Court tell us that if you are in possession
- let"s say you have two hands, of course. Your right
hand is holding marijuana and then your left hand
is holding the shabu, caught at the same time, noh.
So you where holding marijuana, then probably
you"re smoking the marijuana, at the same time
you"re snifng the shabu. Pwede yan eh! Kung
gusto mo magpakamatay. So, you are, under the
old law, you"re violating two offenses because
under the old law, prohibited and regulated drugs
were treated separately. So, under the old law if
you are caught in the act of possessing marijuana,
you were then punished under Section 8. Then if
you are in possession of shabu, which is a
regulated drug, then you will be punished under
Section 16. They were treated separately. But,
now, there is no more distinction between
regulated or/and prohibited drugs. They now
fall under one category, which is now
dangerous drugs. So, whether it is a marijuana,
opium, or Indian hemp, or shabu, that will be
treated only as one offense because they now fall
under one category, dangerous drugs.
TRAFFICKING AND POSSESSION
Now, the other the thing is that under the old law,
when you are caught in the act of selling, noh?
Let"s say you were caught in the act of selling
Page 31 of 98
shabu, and then later on after you were arrested,
you were arrested by the policeman, and then you
get one stick of marijuana from his pocket, then you
will be liable for two offenses under the old law. The
one is selling or drug pushing under the old law in
Section 15, and then the marijuana taken from your
possession, because that is a prohibited drug,
Section 8, illegal possession.
What happens now under the present law? Now, if
this is under the present law, then you will have to
make a qualication.
1. If what was found from the possession of the
pusher after he was arrested for selling is part
of the sale; then he will only be liable for one
offense.
2. But, if the pot was found from his pocket after he
was caught selling the dangerous drugs, then he
will be liable for two offenses because that is not
part of the sale.
Let"s say what was found from his pocket is part
of the sale, one offense; if what is found from his
pocket is not part of the sale, then two offenses.
One for selling under Section 5 of 9165; the one
that is found from his pocket is violation of
Section 11 under 9165 as illegal possession.
PRECURSOR OR ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS
Those precursors or essential chemicals are those
that are used for the production of bi-products.
Parang raw material yan, hindi production. So, if
you produce shabu, the ingredients of the shabu
will be called precursor or essential chemicals. The
shabu now will become the nished product that is
a dangerous drug. Now, why do I tell you this?
Because under the old law, we do not nd any
precursor. Now, what they did now here under
Republic Act 9165 that"s why if you read Section 4
or even Section 5, or even Section 11, let"s go to
Section 4 as an example, or Section 5 na lang as
an example, and then Section 11 as an example.
You read the specic violation of the law. That"s in
Section 5, that is the importation of dangerous
drugs regardless of the quantity; the penalty is life
imprisonment to death.
SECTION 5;
FINANCIER PROTECTOR CODDLER
DELIVERY TRANSPORT CARRYING AWAY
SALE
When you read trafcking under Section 5 for
example, the law does not only penalize the act of
trafcking, but it penalizes also the nanciers, the
protectors, or the coddlers, and the settles of
precursor or essential chemicals. That"s what I"m
saying. You did not nd that in the old law. Ang
ginawa nila nagyon, lahat ng mag-participate sa
sel l i ng, o l ahat ng mag-parti ci pate sa
importation, lahat mag-participate sa illegal
possession. Nakalagay na lahat don. Okay, I"ll
give you an example of a protector or coddler so
that you understand what I"m talking about.
Here comes a den. A den. When you operate a vice
den, that means operating a drug den, where
people will go there and then sniff shabu or
marijuana. Parang prostitution den, but this one is a
drug den. Parang sari-sari store for drugs. I think
you read this in the papers, in Pasig, di ba? That is
a clear example of a drug den. The penalty of
operating a drug den, for those who are operating a
drug den is the penalty of life imprisonment to
death. Those who visit the den or visitors are
likewise liable for violating the law as visitors of the
vice den. The two is likewise are liable being
employees of a vice den. The policemen or the
public ofcials who protect or coddle the operators
of a vice den are likewise liable as protector or
coddlers. That"s what I mean by protectors or
coddlers. Where they will be - of course, the
penalty is lower than the penalty of operators
because operators of a vice den, the penalty is life
imprisonment to death, eh. Coddlers can be
penalized with the penalty of 12 years and one day
to 20 years. Ha? $Yon.
This is a I"ll give you another example. So that
you may think that this is a crime of direct bribery
that we will study later on. Okay.
Supposing the drug pusher is arrested, di ba? Let"s
say one kilo of shabu. The policemen did not
anymore le the case against him because the
agreement is that they will divide the one kilo of
shabu. Sabi nun, okay. Hindi ka na kakasuhan. You
get the half kilo of shabu, and then half of that will
be mine, sabi ng pulis. So that gagamitin niya ring
pang negosiyo ung kalahati, hindi ba? Of course,
the one the pusher is liable for drug pushing
because he was caught in the act of selling. But,
what about the liability of the policeman? He
cannot be liable for bribery because he did not
receive money in exchange for not prosecuting
him or not for arresting him. He is liable as a
protector or a coddler. That is the meaning of a
protector or coddler. But, the scal does not
prosecute him, then the crime that is committed
as qualied bribery under Article 211 of the
same which we will study later on. I"m just only
talking about who is the protector or the coddler,
ha?
IN RELATION TO ART 8 RPC; PROPOSAL AND
CONSPIRACY TO SELL
Now, the other thing that you"ll have to remember is
that in your study of your Article 8 of the Revised
Penal Code, it"s Article 8, di ba? Proposal and
conspiracy to commit a crime is not a crime, di ba?
Now, this special law recognizes attempt and
Page 32 of 98
conspiracy, although this is a malum prohibitum
under Section 26. Attempt and conspiracy. Okay,
what is the implication of attempt and conspiracy?
BUY BUST
Now, the situation is like this. Probably, I referred to
entrapment or buy-bust operations, di ba? You
know what is entrapment or buy-bust operation. So,
here comes a group of policemen receiving an
information that Mr. A is a drug pusher. What the
policemen will do is that they will form a buy-bust
team to entrap the seller. So, they will pick one
from them as a pusher-buyer. They will give him
the money to buy, di ba? But usually, policemen,
when they present a case on drug pushing, in most
cases, they will make it appear that the money
could no longer be found, because once the money
is submitted to the courts, they believe that the
money could no longer be returned to them
because that"s the part of the evidence. So, they
will concoct a story that the money was not
recovered. But, you know, in under Section 5 of
Republic Act 9165, if you read Section 5 of 9165,
what is punished there is not only sale, but delivery,
transport, carrying away, and sale.
I. Therefore, the doctrine is that the buy-bust
money is not essential in proving violation of drug
trafcking or drug pushing under Section 5.
Because what is covered by Section 5 is not only
sale, but also includes delivery or transport, okay.
Di ba? That"s why the Supreme Court is very clear
on this matter. Even if the buy bust is money is not
presented before the court, you could still be
convicted of violation of Section 5 because the
money is not indispensable. Okay.
II. The other doctrine is that when you can not
prove sale in some instances when you can not
prove sale, then the offender will now be liable for
violation of Section 11 under illegal possession.
Because illegal possession is necessarily included
in sale. Do you follow?
SECTION 11; ILLEGAL POSSESSION
Illegal possession is necessarily included in
sale. So, if he can not prove the elements of
delivery, transport or sale, then the other doctrine is
that the person can still be liable for illegal
possessi on because i l l egal possessi on i s
necessarily included in the sale, transport or
delivery.
So, what can the policeman do? Therefore, they
will come up with a story that the money was lost in
the process or they will come up with a story like
this. So, before the seller could give the shabu to
the buyer, and before the buyer could give the
money to the seller, the seller sensed that the
buyer is a policeman and ran away. Then they
caught up with him, they were able to take hold of
the shabu in his possession, but in the commotion,
the money could no longer be found. That"s what
they do. If you try to analyze the facts, there is no
exchange although what they have led is drug
pushing because that is they want to prove in their
entrapment.
So, if there is no transfer of the thing, subject
matter of the sale, as in ordinary sale and then the
consideration likewise is not transferred to the
seller, then you can not convict him for selling,
transporting or delivering because there was no
actual delivery. So, in that particular instance, the
offense that is committed is illegal possession
because the shabu was taken from the possession
of the offender, that is Section 11.
But, yun ang problema don. But if in the facts of the
case, it will show that there is intent to sell, intent to
deliver, or intent to transport, then the offense will
no longer be illegal possession under Section 11, it
will now be Section 26. Okay.
SECTION 26; INTENT TO SELL
Example. So you try to add something to the facts,
so it"s still - for example, noh. There was already
delivery, hindi ba? There is already delivery, but
before it could be held by the policemen, he ran
away. In other words, as long as there is an intent
to sell, transport, or deliver, noh, kasi yung example
ko kanina walang pang dini-deliver, hindi pa
nilalabas yung kuwarta, hindi pa nilalabas yung
shabu, so there is he now and senses that he is a
policeman, then he ran away, but he was caught by
the policemen and then found from his possession
is the shabu. But if the facts will now show that he
is already - Let"s say now the policeman is giving
the money, di ba? And then the seller now is giving
the shabu, then all of a sudden he ran away,
although the money was not yet taken by the seller
and the shabu was not yet given to the buyer. But
from those facts, there is already intent to sell, hindi
ba? Nagbabayad na eh, dini-deliver na, eh, so
meron nang intent to sell or delivery or transport,
then the law that is violated is Section 26 under
Republic Act 9165 which provides that attempt and
conspiracy is punishable with the same penalty as
if the act is consummated. Nakalagay sa Section
26, you read Section 26. Therefore, there is no
difference as so far as the penalty is concerned if
the act is consummated selling, or transporting, or
delivering because under Section 5, if it is a
consummated drug pushing, then the penalty is life
imprisonment to death. Now, under Section 26,
attempt and conspiracy, marami yan, ha, but you
know, I am just giving you one example. Sell,
transport, del i ver, mai ntenance of a den,
manufacture, importation, maintenance of a den,
the penalty is the same as if the offense in
Page 33 of 98
consummated. The penalty is still life imprisonment
to death. But that Section 26 will only be applicable
if, as I said, you have already proved an intent to
sell, intent to deliver or transport.
The other one, as I"ve told you last time, noh, when
it comes to violation of 9165 which is very different
from illegal possession of rearms, the corpus
delicti in violation of 9165 must be proved with
certainty. Must be proved with certainty. That is why
you have to prove the chain of custody of this
shabu taken from the possession of the accused,
and that shabu taken from the possession of the
accused must be presented before the court.
Unlike in illegal possession of rearm, di mo
kinakailangan i-presenta sa husgado yan, eh. Facts
or circumstances and evidence will show that the
gun was unlicensed, even if it was not presented
before the court, pwede kang ma-convict sa illegal
possession of rearm, but not in illegal possession
of shabu or dangerous drugs, that must be
presented before the court because that is part of
the corpus delicti.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Now, usually offenses are committed outside of
police precincts, di ba? In places outside of police
precincts, siyempre. If there is one violating
dangerous drugs inside the police precinct, it"s the
policeman. Siya ang nag-shashabu, di ba? So,
what they usually do is that, so that we can
establish the chain of custody, the usual problems
there would be: If you are arrested somewhere in
Rockwell, noh, then the policeman who arrested
that person in Rockwell must now make his
markings on the one that is taken from the
possession. Kasi ang ginagawa ng pulis, huli mo
!don sa Rockwell, they will not make any marking,
they will go to the police precinct and then turn over
to the investigator. Now, if that was not marked and
then the investigator will be the one to mark that
specimen, that is not the corpus delicti. Doubtful.
They say that the chain of custody should be
established with certainty that that shabu was the
one that was taken from the procession of the
offender.
So, if the shabu was taken in Rockwell that has to
already be established, that it"s the same one. So,
what they do is that they should now mark the
exhibit, mark the specimen, and then bring that to
the investigator, that again will be marked, and then
that specimen will be brought to the chemist, that
again will have to be determined that that was the
one that was the subject matter of the examination
and then later on, when it is brought to the court,
that is the same evidence that was taken from the
possession of the accused. If there is a hiatus on
the chain of custody, the accused will be acquitted
because the corpus delicti must be established with
certainty. $Pag merong doubt sa chain of custody,
you can put up doubt that that is not the same
shabu that was taken from the possession of the
offender, the accused will be acquitted. Ganon ka i-
strikto ang dangerous drugs in establishing the
corpus delicti in violation of the dangerous drugs.
SECTION 4 IMPORTATION BY DIPLOMATS
Okay. Now, let"s go to the other areas. Siguro, we"ll
jump to anyway, in Section 4, the offense there
violated is importation. So you know what is
importation, if it is committed by a diplomatic
member of the diplomatic board, taking advantage
of his privileges, then the maximum penalty of
death shall be imposed and those who are
punished likewise are the nanciers or coddlers.
Then you go to Section 5, that"s where we have
taken up pushing or drug trafcking, sale, or
delivery of which will include also precursors and
then likewise penalizes the nanciers and the
protectors and the coddlers. Okay.
Now, in the meantime will go to Section 15 in
relation to Section 12 and Section 11. Now the
other Section, Section 6 maintenance of a den,
manufacture, manufacture of drugs, maintenance
of a den, visitors of a den, employees of a den.
Sel f -expl anat ory yan, wal ang masyadong
problema. Who"s the maintenor of a den? Eh di
yung nagma-maintain ng drug den. Who are
visitors? Then those who go to a den. Visitors. Who
are the employees? The employees. Anu pang ie-
explain natin dyan? Kung sino yung empleyado, eh
di yung mga empleyado roon. Then manufacturer?
The one who manufacture drugs, that"s also
punishable by life imprisonment po yan, eh.
SECTION 15; SECTION 11; SECTION 12
Now, you go to Section 15 so that you can follow
me. Under Section 15, one is liable for illegal
use, that is illegal use, ha?
What is use? Gumagamit. Illegal use of dangerous
drugs for the rst time is punishable by six months
rehabilitation. So, one who is caught in the act of
using dangerous drugs after a conrmatory test,
nakalagay !don, after a conrmatory test is
punishable by six months rehabilitation. If you are
found for the second time with the penalty, there
will now be a penalty of imprisonment. I think it"s 12
years and one week to 20 years, okay.
SEC 15; ILLEGAL USE; PARAPHERNALIA
So, the situation therefore is like this. If you are
caught using or you"re smoking marijuana or you
are snifng shabu, shabu na lang. How do you
commit the crime of, how to you commit or how do
you use shabu? Siyempre, you have a tooter, may
tooter yan, eh. May tooter, may aluminum foil, may
burner at saka may lighter. So what they do is that
they will get a
Page 34 of 98
[laughter]
walang nasabi, biglang explain, noh? Addict yata
si sir, eh.
[laughter]
So, just to illustrate it ba. They will get take
aluminum foil and then there is a burner and then
there is a tooter. And then they will light the burner
and then smoke will be emitting on top of the
aluminum foil. Then you will place the tooter, and
then you start snifng it. Finally.
[laughter]
Kayo lang ang nakakaalam nyan. Then probably
after 30 minutes you will already be through, then
you we will say, heaven. Heaven.
CAPTURE
Now, if the policeman caught me in the act of
snifng shabu, I am not yet liable, I am not liable
because the law says after a conrmatory test,
nakalagay don, after a conrmatory test. You know
what is a conrmatory test?
CONFIRMATORY TEST
Conrmatory test is the second test. There is an
initial test and that initial test must be conrmed,
that is the meaning of a conrmatory test. So, if you
are caught therefore, then the policemen will
probably request you to urinate ha. If that is
positive, then that rst ndings will be conrmed by
another test, that is the meaning of a conrmatory
test. You can not be liable even the policeman
saw you because the law requires after a
conrmatory test. I do not know why we included
that phrase, conrmatory test.
Now, and then you look at the last part of Section
15. Nakalagay don, if however the person caught in
the act of using shabu, a quantity, a quantity of
dangerous drugs is found from his possession,
then he will be liable for violation of Section 11.
Then that is illegal possession. So, the example
you can go further with the example.
So, I am now caught in the act of using. Apart from
any place where I have control, noh, even one
gram or one gram of shabu was found in my
possession under my control, nandun sa table lang,
then the use will now be absorbed by Section 11.
So, you will now be liable for violation of Section 11
because the quantity will now justify the offense to
this violation of Section 11 and therefore, you are
no longer liable for use. Because you know, what
they say is that the Dangerous Drugs Law of 2002
is more favorable to the user. User is not
considered as a criminal. He is rather a victim of
the drug in the case. That"s why to prevent
policemen from taking advantage of those who are
caught, they have to be subjected to a conrmatory
test because if they are found positive under a
conrmat ory t est , t here i s no penal t y of
imprisonment. They will only go on rehabilitation
and after rehabilitation, they will already be
released. Yon ang purpose nyan.
The problem, however is complicated by Section
12. Kasi nakalagay sa Section 12, illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia is punishable by
six months and one day to four years, di ba? Tama
ba? Six months and one day to four years. You
compare the penalty under Section 15 for the rst
offense, the rst offense is only six months
rehabilitation, eh. But ang drug paraphernalia is
punished by six months and one day to four years
imprisonment. Then if you look at the second
sentence of Section 12, illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia, nakalagay dun, ha, is a prima facie
evidence of use under Section 15. Section 12 is a
prima facie evidence of violation of Section 15,
but you can not use shabu wi thout drug
paraphernalia, eh. Kinakain ba yung shabu? Mahal
yan !pag kinain mo yan, ubos ang kwarta mo, eh.
Baka pati Rockwell ibebenta mo nyan. Mahal yan,
eh. So, you did you get my example? I was caught
in the act of using but I"m also using drug
paraphernalia because I can not use shabu without
any drug paraphernalia. So what will be the
situation? You can not be liable for violation of
Sect i on 12, i l l egal possessi on of dr ug
paraphernalia, but instead you will be violating
Section 15 because illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia is a prima facie evidence of use. So
the use now will absorb the drug paraphernalia
because you can not really use shabu without drug
paraphernalia, that is the meaning. But if you are
not using any shabu but merely got caught in
possession of drug paraphernalia, then you are
liable under Section 12. Kaya mas maganda pa
kung gamitin mo na lang.
[laughter]
Section 11 absorbs use. Use absorbs illegal use by
illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. But if in
the problem is that a quantity likewise is found from
your possession, then the quantity will absorb
everything. You will only be liable for violation of
Section 11. Let"s say gumamit ako, di ba? Gumamit
ako, so I"m violating use at the same time, I"m
violating illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
Now, if I"m only using it then the illegal possession
of drug paraphernalia will now be absorbed in the
use because you can not commit a crime of using
without drug paraphernalia. But, however, if I am
caught now, they found two grams of shabu in the
Page 35 of 98
table, then that two grams of shabu will now absorb
the use. Then you will now be liable for violation of
Section 11, illegal possession. So the illegal
possession will absorb everything, ha, but that"s
why if you are caught in the act of possessing drug
paraphernalia, the penalty is six months and one
day to four years, eh. Gamitin mo na lang. Six
months in rehabilitation pa.
If the one caught in the act of using refuses to
undergo conrmatory test, plantingan ka ng pulis.
Plantingan ka ng pulis nyan. Kasi, Hoy, ayaw mo
ng conrmatory a, ayaw mo, ha. O sige,
plantingan ka ng one gram. Patay ka, mas mahaba
ang sentence nun. Kaya nga useless ung Section
11, eh. In fact, that"s what they are doing. Because
it"s very hard to subject a person arrested in the act
of using and then subjecting to a conrmatory test.
Ma-trabaho sa pulis yan, eh. Huhulihin mo,
dadalhin ka sa Camp Crame or sa chemist, eh. It
will take time. Siya pa magbayad ng pamasahe at
lahat pa. So what do you think if they will not
charge you with illegal use? What will they charge
you? Possession na lang. Walang gastos. Eh,
nagbibihis pa lang si pulis sa umaga eh, nag-iisip
na k ung s aan k ak ai n, eh. Kung s aan
magmemeryenda, !san iinom ng beer sa gabi, eh.
Tapos, conrmatory test pa? Maniwala ka diyan.
Is it possible that an offender will be liable in
Section 12 but then he also failed the conrmatory
test?
Now, problem there is that under Section 12, what
the law still provides is that that is a prima facie
evidence of use, ano ha? But when you"re already
in possession of drug paraphernalia, you will
always be become liable for illegal possession of
drug paraphernalia. Probably, what the accused will
do is to put up in defense that he intended to use it
so that he can be absorbed in illegal use. But if the
policeman caught you in the act of possessing drug
paraphernalia, it is already a violation in itself under
Section 12. Ang sinasabi lang diyan prima facie
evidence because he might have used drugs when
he was caught in the act of possessing. Kaya
parang it"s a warning to the policeman that if he is
using it, do not charge him with illegal possession.
So, ang nangyayari dyan, if you are the accused, I
mean the lawyer, probably I can put up a defense
that he was using them so that I can get the six
months rehabilitation. Kaya sinabi !don prima facie
evidence. If you"re the accused"s lawyer, then you
can not put up a defense except that you are
caught in the act, eh. Pano mo idedepensa yon?
Mamimili ka lang ng pulis na ia-assign mo dyan,
eh. So the only defense that you can put up is that
he was using it so that he can escape with the
penalty of six months rehabilitation. Yan. That"s
true. Kasi loko ang mga pulis, eh. Loko, eh.
Ang problema kasi under the law, even under the
old law, pinaghiwalay-hiwalay nila ang provisions
na yon, eh. Yung illegal possession under Section
11 also includes illegal use under Section 15 under
the old law, eh. Pinaghiwalay nila kasi, eh, thinking
it will help the users but rather it is helping the
policeman increase their income. Bakit? Eh, kung
user lang yan, eh, eh, hindi ka magbigay. Ah, wala.
They will convert it into illegal possession nyan.
You go around the court rules sa Metro Manila.
Conduct ka ng survey kung sino ang nag-charge
ng illegal use. Baka sa 100, iisa lang. Sa 100 cases
of drugs, iisa lang ang na-charge ng illegal use.
Dagdag sa trabaho yan eh, pulis pa?
In the information charges possession but is
actually a violation of another provision, is the
accused entitled to an acquittal?
No. No, it is not. As long as the allegations in the
information will include possession, wala. It will not
violate any - it does not violate the right of the
accused in the rules in criminal procedure. di ba?
You can be convicted of a crime not necessarily
charged with the provision as long as it is
necessarily included in the crime charged. Di ba,
gaya ng murder. Like this one also, if you are
charged with illegal sale. Under Section 5, you can
still be convicted of illegal possession because
possession is necessarily included in the sale. You
can not sell without possessing it. Ganon din ang
principle. So it will depend on whether or not that is
a crime necessarily included in the crime charged
in the information.
SECTION 29 - PLANTING IN RELATION TO RPC
363
Planting of evidence. Planting of evidence is
punishable by penalty of death.
But if you plant any other evidence in the crime, in
any other crime, then the law that is violated is
Art i cl e 363 of t he Revi sed Penal Code.
Incriminatory machination, ha? It"s not malicious
persecution. Yung malicious prosecution is you - it
might lead to a crime of perjury, eh. Malicious
prosecution. $Pag malicious prosecution, it"s usually
a damage suit.
Now, if however, what we did is that we planted an
evidence, like a rearm, so that he can be charged
with illegal possession of rearm, that can not be
perjury because there is no false statement, then
that will now become a crime of incriminatory
machination under Article 363. Now, if the charge,
however, is violation of Republic Act 9165, I planted
a shabu in order that he can be liable, then the
offense that is punishable is violation of Section 29,
planting of evidence where the penalty is death.
Penalty yan, penalty of death for planting of
Page 36 of 98
evidence. Do you follow? What about malicious
prosecution? Ano yung malicious prosecution? For
purposes of recovery of damages lang yan.
SECTION 33 - WITNESSES IN RELATION TO
SECTION 26 - CONSPIRACY
This has to be connected with Section 26. Now, 26
and 33 can be correlated with one another. Why did
Congress come up with these two provisions? It"s
like this. When you say malum prohibitum, the
principle is that you can only be liable when you are
caught in the act of violating it, hindi ba? Mere
violation of the law makes the offender criminally
liable. Therefore, you can not make the source of
the drugs liable because the drug pushers or the
drug lord is sleeping in his house. So, if I am the
seller, so the drug lord says, okay. The shabu
came from the drug lord living in a high rise
condominium. Then he has the sellers. Yung mga
bidder man nya. And then here comes now a small
time seller. But those drugs come from the drug
lord. Now, if that seller now is caught in the act of
selling, then who will be liable? The seller. The one
who is caught the one who is caught selling
because that is the essence of malum prohibitum,
ha. The one who is committing the act is the one
liable under the principle of malum prohibitum.
So, the brai ners of the l aw adopted the
characteristics of mala in se into the law, that"s
why you have conspiracy. Attempt and conspiracy
and that"s why you have Section 33. That if you are
charged with offenses where the penalties are light
offense, Section 7 illegal prescription, illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia, illegal use;
then that victim may be utilized as a witness by
the government in order to charge the sources of
these drugs or those who are in the business of
importing under Section 4, in the business of
trafcking under Section 5, in the business of
manufacturing, in the business of maintaining a
den, in the business of cultivating. All of those can
now be liable by utilizing the person arrested as
long as the person arrested is not charged with a
higher offense, specied sa Section 33, eh. Yung
mga light offense lang yan. Illegal prescription,
illegal use, !yung paraphernalia, di ba, or visitors
of a den or employees of a den. So, they can be
now utilized as witnesses against those, even -
even, nakalagay sa Section 33. Even if you do not
comply with the requirements of the discharge
of an accused under your rules of criminal
procedure.
You le a case against all the accused, then if the
evidence of the prosecution, not actually weak, but
the evidence of the prosecution needs one of the
accused to be discharged, then you le a motion to
discharge with the same criminal proceedings, and
then you convince the court that all the essential
elements of a discharge of accused are present, he
does not appear to be the most guilty, that the
evidence can be corroborated by other pieces of
evidence, he should have not been charged as
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, di
ba? Then you have to prove. Okay.
Under Section 33, you do not need that. Even
before the ling of the case, you can already
use the person arrested as a witness to
determine who are the sources, who are those
i nvol ved i n dr ug t r af cki ng, i n dr ug
manufacturing, in drug transporting, or even in
importing. Do you follow? You correlate that with
Section 26. Anong sinasabi sa Section 26?
Conspiracy. A conspiracy allowed in malum
prohibitum. Why? They followed this from the
Narcotics Law of United States of America eh, di
ba? Okay.
Another example, so I was caught in the act of
selling to him, di ba? Now, how will you hold the
source of the drugs who is found in China? If I"m
involved in the act of selling, di ba? Because I am
the one violating the law. Under the principle of
conspiracy. If you can prove that the drugs came
from that man from China or any place in the world,
he can be indicted under the principle of
conspiracy. But of course, the other question will be
how can you establish conspiracy? That"s another
thing.
But what I"m saying is that you can now charge the
sources of the drugs under the principle of
conspiracy. $Yun ang purpose na inilagay !yung
Section 26 at saka Section 33, to hold the sources
of trafcking of drugs likewise liable either under
Section 33 or under Section 26. Kaya magandang
provision yan, but ngayon wala pa, eh.
Paano yung territorial provision?
Well, the problem there is whether or not the law
can be applied here. The crime is committed here,
eh. But, whether or not you can bring it here in the
Philippines, that"s another thing.
If the delivery was made in China?
Ah, hindi puwede dito !yon. Delivery made in
China?
But if the middle man is here based on report, that
the
He can be indicted here under the principle of
conspiracy because the crime was committed here.
That is the effect of Section 33 and Section 26.
That"s a good law, but I have yet to hear others
charged with this kind of conspiracy or under
Page 37 of 98
Section - wala pa, wala pa akong naririnig. It"s a
good law, but very hard. It"s very hard to prove
conspiracy. Alam naman ninyo !yan eh. You prove
conspiracy as if there is the crime, so therefore,
prove conspiracy with proof beyond reasonable
doubt, hind ba? Yes?
Sir, I was going to ask about proving the conspiracy
part, sir, because di ba, malum prohibitum,
mahirap.
We have to prove conspiracy. But probably the
provisions there are deterrent, hindi ba? Deterrent
parati. So - anyway. But let"s go further.
Sir, it says here that anyone who voluntarily
submits to rehabilitation then shall be
exempted from prosecution and punishment.
Sir, makikipag-areglo ka na lang ba sa kanila?
That"s a good question, because they might raise
that as an issue in Section 33, eh. You might be
violating the right of the accused. The one who is
arrested, like for example of illegal use, then you
compel him now to testify against him, he not
assisted by counsel. That can be used as a - ano
ehthat may be used to deect the purpose of
Section 33.
So, my only concern is that, that is a rule, whether
or not it can be admissible, that"s another thing. It"s
up to you. But, as long as the law says that, it will
make you explain. Magiging problema talaga !yan.
Because once you get the statement of a person
arrested, then you will apply now the rules, the
rules of criminal procedure or cal in the Constitution
now, that might become an extrajudicial confession,
eh. Considered $yan admitting eh. That"s another
thing.
Alam mo kasi, pinattern nila sa Amerika yan, eh.
You know that in America, mas strict ang rules
natin, ang laws natin. Ang due process, mas strict
tayo dito kaysa Amerika. Dun sa Amerika, may
search warrant ka, a search warrant is issued
against the individual. That individual is arrested
and then if he will cooperate, then the policeman
and the district attorney can already bargain with
the person arrested, and then he will give his
statement implicating the source, admissible !yan.
Sa atin hindi puwede eh. Oo, ganun sa Amerika
kaya ang dali nilang nakakahuli sila even if the drug
ports from Panama, in other Columbia eh, na-iindict
nila doon, eh because of what? Eh tayo, masyado
tayong pasikat, eh. Ano ha? Sobra sobra eh, hindi
ba?
Kaya, probably they only place that as a
deterrence, but actually if you get the statement of
a person arrested, they might question the legality
of the statement as violation of extrajudicial
confession or they may invoke self incrimination.
Maraming objections diyan eh, but what I am
always saying is that this is better than ordinary
crimes. Because if you want to discharge an
accused in a crime committed as a whole crime,
then you have to follow the requirements under the
rules.
Ganyan din ang mga - kaya nga ang nilagay sa
Section 33, you will not anymore go to this process
of an accused being discharged during the trial
because the process is harder. Kasi ang process
sa rule ng criminal procedure, you present the
witnesses, he will submit an afdavit, then after
submitting the afdavit, you"ll present him as a
wi tness, he wi l l be subj ected to a cross
examination. If the court is not convinced, denied
yung discharge. If the court is convinced, then
discharge him.
But, under this 33, even before you go to trial,
puwede nang i-exclude that person who gave
that statement in order for the arrest of the
source of the drugs under Section 33.
Nakalagay diyan, hindi ba? So, there is no need of
ling a motion to discharge. In the rst place, he is
not being charged as a drug pusher or trafcker.
Ganun !yon. That"s why the law says, not
withstanding the provisions of the rules of criminal
procedure on discharge of the accused, the person
arrested for violation, !yan, of Section 7 yata or
Section 11, probably Section 12 or 15 and so on.
Illegal prescription of drugs or authorized robber, he
can be used as a state witness. $Yan ang
implication ng Section 33.
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, Part 2
SECTION 21 - DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE
Okay, that is a new provision. This is the only
crime in our penal structures where the law
requires the destruction of the evidence even
before trial. The usual position of the destruction
of tools or instruments used in the commission of a
crime or the law would be the provisions in Article
45 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Article 45 of
the Revised Penal Code, those of instruments used
in the commission of the crime, are forfeited in
favor of the government. But that forfeiture under
Article 45 takes place during judgment. In other
words, that is incorporated with the judgment.
When caught, you can only get the tools,
instruments, those used in the commission of the
crime, are for trial because that will be incorporated
in the judgment.
But under Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Law,
the law allows the destruction of the evidence even
before trial. Of course, the process is very long
Page 38 of 98
under Section 21. Masyadong mahaba yung
process dyan, eh. But you can simplify the
process.
1. The rst process is that when dangerous drugs,
or equipment, or precursors, or chemicals are
seized or conscated, then they shall remain in
the place where they seized or conscated.
What the policemen will do is to conduct an
inventory and then brought forth to cuff them.
They cannot move, di ba? Let's say, there is a
search warrant. So this house is now searched.
There are chemicals, or dangerous drugs, or
equipment in the production of drugs, then those
shall not be touched by the arresting policemen
or certain policemen. What they will do is that
they will photograph and then they will inventory.
2. Right after the inventory and the photograph,
3. then the evidence will be transferred to the
chemist, ano?
4. The chemist now will now determine if those
conscated are found to be positive to the test of
dangerous drugs. So then, all of these will be
subjected to a test.
5. And then she will prepare the report under oath.
The purpose of the report is to determine really if
they"re positive to the test for dangerous drugs.
Now, if the result is positive then the chemist
now will and the policemen will now le the case
before the inquest scal.
6. They will now bring the case to inquest scal.
Do you know who the inquest scal? We
studied that under Article 125. The inquest scal
is to determine if there is a probable cause upon
the information if a person is arrested without a
warrant. In other words, if there is a warrant of
arrest, then that case will be brought to the scal
to determine if there is a probable cause of
nding information without a need of a
preliminary investigation. So, the case will go to
the scal and then the scal is required to nd
information if there is a probable cause within 24
hours from receipt of the complaint. If it is the
subject matter of inquest for within 48 hours, if it
passed through the regul ar prel i mi nary
investigation under Section 19 of 9165, noh.
7. If your information now is received by the court,
what will the judge do? The judge within 72
hours from receipt of the information will conduct
an ocular inspection in the place where the
items are located.
8. And then within 24 hours from the ocular
inspection will cause the destruction of the
evidence. If the presence of the accused, his
counsel, the scal, the media, the PDEA,
concerned citizens, dami eh, and then what will
happen is that, it's like a court proceeding. The
process of destruction is recorded by the court.
9. So let"s say this is one ton, di ba? What they will
do is that, they will just get a representative
sample. The representative sample, if this is
one ton, so probably a representative sample of
500 grams will do. So, kukuha ng 500 grams
and then later on, the 500 grams will be one that
will be marked and that will now be the one that
will be used in the presentation of the evidence
of the prosecution. So you get a representative
sample that is recorded by the court, that is
marked during the burning and then all those
that are no longer needed will now be destroyed.
So what will happen is that during the trial, only
those representative samples that were taken
during the burning, will be the one that will be
presented to the court to defend to establish the
purpose direct time. That"s what happens in
Section 21.
That"s why the law, as I said, this is the only crime
that the law allows destruction of the evidence even
before arraignment. Kasi within 72 hours in 24
hours from the ocular inspection, the evidence
must be destroyed. That is a new provision.
SECTION 27
These ofcers or those who are in-charged in the
keeping of evidence, must keep the evidence,
actually you know. They are not supposed to use it
for themselves or steal. That will become a crime
under Section 27 because that will be equivalent to
pilferage. They must account for the drugs in their
possession when required. If they cannot account,
then that"s also a violation of Section 27. It is
either pilferage or misappropriation of the
drugs conscated.
So, what happened to that problem two years ago
is that sabi nila qualied bribery. The problem was
the Chinese arrived on the airport. I told you with
ve kilos wrapped in ve different packages. So,
there were ve kilos wrapped in ve different
packages. He was arrested by the customs with
the aviation police in NAIA, and then, 'yun pala, the
policemen arrested the Chinese and a negotiation.
So, what they did was the arresting ofcers cut
three kilos of the heroin and then the Chinese cut
the two kilos of heroin, and then he was allowed to
leave. In other words he was never arrested.
Question, what are the crimes committed? Nandun
lahat ng facts eh. What are the crimes committed?
Of course, the Chinese is liable for drug trafcking
or importation under Section 4. But there are also
offenses committed by the police ofcers, eh. So,
sabi nila, that is direct bribery or qualied bribery
under article 411-A. If an apprehending ofcer fails
to prosecute or apprehend the person where the
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death or life
imprisonment, the crime is qualied bribery,
because they failed to perform required by law.
And the penalty of the offense committed by the
Page 39 of 98
Chinese is a penalty of life imprisonment to death,
then they are liable to the crime of qualied bribery,
and therefore 411. But that's not the crime. That
is not qualied bribery because there was no
what was taken, what was given rather, to the
policemen in order not to perform required by
law is not money in exchanged. It is the very
evidence, if we dene, the three kilos of heroin
which should have been taken by them, kept by
them and then surrendered to the authorities
later on, if required. But what did they do? They
did not charge the person arrested. Happy sila.
Kinuha ng pulis yung tatlo. Yung dalawa ibinigay
dun sa arrested. So, hindi pwedeng bribery 'yun
because the three kilos were already part of the
evidence, eh. So, anong crime 'to per Section 27?
Because they were supposed to keep the evidence
in order that when they are required to account for
them, they have to account for them. And that is an
evidence in dangerous drugs. So, the violation is
Section 27 not bribery.
The offense committed would be that"s what I
was telling you. They are also liable for the
crime of what, Protectors and coddlers of a
drug trafcker under Section 4 or an importer.
So, there were three crimes. One for Section 4 for
the Chinese, two offenses for the police ofcers
Section 27, and then the other one is protector of
coddlers. That's the meaning of Section 27, ha?
Okay.
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
Look at your Section 66, that if the offender is a
minor, rst time minor offender, hindi ba, and at the
time of the commission of the crime, between the
ages of 15 and 18 acting with discernment, as long
as at the time of trial, he is still or at the time the
judgment should have been promulgated, he is still
18 years of age, then he is entitled to suspension of
sentence, di ba? So, the requirement is that, he
should be less than 18 at the time of the
commission of the offense and less than 18 at
the time the judgment should have been
promulgated. Dalawa lang ang requirement
nun di ba? So, dapat 18 pa rin siya.
But under Section 38 of your 9344, that's why there
is conict between the two, eh. Under Section 38
of Republic Act of 9344, a suspension of sentence
of minor offender, the law says that, if the offender
is less than 18 at the time of the commission of the
crime, even if he is already more than 18 at the
time judgment should have been promulgated, he
can still apply for suspension of sentence. So, may
conict yung dalawa. Yung una eh yung sa 9344,
kahit more than 18 pwede pa rin. In other words,
you were arrested, 17 years old. Then you go to
trial. At the time that the judgment is about to be
promulgated, you already reached the age of 20.
Pwede ka ng magsuspension of sentence under
9344 because the law does not require that you are
still less than 18 at the time the judgment should
have been promulgated. But under Section 66 of
9165, at the time the judgment should have been
promulgated, you are still less than 18. So the
problem is what law are you going to apply? Is it
9344 or Section 66 of Republic 9165?
If the offense is violation of 9165 because that
is a special law, then Section 66 will apply. That
will govern. Suspension of sentence of minor
offender for drug cases the law that is applicable is
Section 66, 9165. Not the general provision in the
Republic Act 9344.
SECTION 91 AND 92 - BUNGLING; DELAY
And then you have also offenses like delay of
bungling under Section 91 and 92. We have there
offenses involving bungling or committed by those
who prosecute or those who apprehend. Bungling.
Ano yung bungling or delay? Bungling. The
policeman testies in favor of the accused, or the
scal probes a case not for the conviction of the
accused but for his acquittal, or the witnesses
testify for the acquittal of the accused, they are
liable of bungling. The penalty is a little bit ano
harsh. 12 years and 1 week to 20 year"s 'yan.
Then policemen or witnesses who refuse to testify
are likewise liable for delay for failure to testify.
That is also a crime. Kaya pag nasubpoenahan ka
ng pulis either ng husgado, yun pulis ayaw
magtestify lan mo ng criminal case. He will be
liable under this provision, sa 91 'yan 92.
CULTIVATION; MANUFACTURING
Then you go back to the other offenses for crimes,
ano. Meron din yung crime na cultivation. 'Yung
mga nagtatanim ng marijuana, cultivation 'yan.
Meron din yung manufacture. Those who
manufacture dangerous drugs. Matindi ang penalty
n'yan, life imprisonment to death. Pag nagtanim ka
ng marijuana sa loob na lang ng bahay. Bakit sa
loob ng bahay? You can put up a defense, eh.
Medicinal, eh. Sabi nila, gamot daw sa tiyan.
Although sa Ilocos maraming nagtatanim sa loob
ng bahay nyan. Oo. Ginagamit ng ano eh. They
boil the leaves and then they drink. Sabi nila
gamot daw. I don"t know. Di ko pa nasubukan.
But that"s what they do. But cultivation that means
plantation is punishable by life imprisonment to
death.
SECTION 25; QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
When one commits a crime and he is found
positive to the test of dangerous drugs, then it is a
qualifying aggravating. Nakalagay sa Section 25.
We debated kasi pag sinabi mong qualied
aggravating, then it may change the nature of the
Page 40 of 98
crime. Gaya ng homicide. Commit a crime of
homicide without any qualifying aggravating then it
becomes a crime of homicide. But when you
commit a crime of killing attended by qualifying
aggravating circumstance of treachery, then the
crime becomes a crime of murder. So, the
treachery is a qualied aggravating.
Now, if you apply that principle. Similar to Section
25 because Section 25 says that if one is found
positive to the test of dangerous drugs, then that is
a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Then if you
kill somebody else, no qualifying aggravating. But
you were found positive to the test of dangerous
drugs, then the crime becomes a crime of murder.
Ganun tatanggap ng qualifying aggravating.
I think that is not the intention of the lawmaker.
Robbery. You put her a gun then give me your
money or else I will kill you. Then you give you the
money. Then you were arrested. Then when you
were arrested you were subjected to a test for the
presence of dangerous drugs. Positive. So, what
will happen now? If that is a qualied aggravating
circumstance, being positive to the test of
dangerous drugs, then the crime becomes qualied
robbery. Wala namang crime na qualied robbery.
So, that is only special aggravating or yung
qualied theft na ninakawan ka ng katulong mo.
She has free access to your personal belongings.
You come to class. When you go home, pagdating
dun sa bahay, mister Puno would like to take a
bath. His boy already ran away with his brief. If
that boy is found positive to the test of dangerous
drugs and you consider his being positive to the
test of dangerous drugs as a qualied aggravating,
then you will have a crime of qualied qualied
theft. Sabi ko hindi qualied yan, special
aggr avat i ng. That shoul d be speci al
aggravating. It was not intended to change the
nature of the crime. With being positive to the test
of dangerous drugs is not intended to change the
nature of the crime because even there is actually,
to impose the maximum penalty of the crime
committed.
SECTION 36 - MANDATORY DRUG TESTING
Then the other thing is that yung sa Section 36,
mandatory drug testing. There is a pending case in
the Supreme Court until now. The case was led
as early as 2002 right then after the law begin
effective. Questioning the mandatory provisions of
Article under Section 36 on mandatory drug testing.
The law says that if you are securing a license for
your gun then you have to undergo mandatory drug
testing.
On your section, a license for the purpose of
driver"s license, then you have to have a mandatory
drug testing. Then, if you belong to the tertiary or
secondary school, then you have to undergo
mandatory drug testing. Then, when you enter the
Civil Service, now there is from the government,
mandatory drug testing. When you enter a private
employment, then that is also mandatory drug
testing, or you run for a public ofce, then you have
to undergo mandatory drug testing. The worst is
given. The worst is when one is charged to the
crime or an offense with the scal"s ofce, ha,
nakalagay doon sa Section 36, when one is charge
with the crime before the scal"s ofce and the
penal ty of the cri me charged agai nst the
respondent is a penalty of more than 6 years,
mandatory drug testing. Let"s say nile mo si Mr.
Sosa ng estafa sa scal"s ofce. Ang penalty ay 6
years and 1 day to 12 years. prison mayor. He will
have to undergo mandatory drug testing under
Section 36. Kaya nga sabi nila foul ang Section 36.
It is - you are presumed innocent, di ba? After the
worker what is the use if they had to undergo
drug testing? Gina-judge ka lang kung may loko is
to bring it up. Kailangan kahit anong pasok basta
more than 6 years. Let's say physical injuries lang
ang dapat na le sa iyo. What will the complainant
do? He will ght against a frustrated homicide
because if it frustrated homicide, the penalty is 6
years and 1 day to 12 years, mag-mamandatory
drug testing ka, iistorbohin ka niyan. But yun ang
nakalagay sa Section 36 eh.
Also in tertiary and secondary schools. What"s
the reason why this young people, young children
will undergo a mandatory drug testing, di ba? Sabi
ni Mayor Duterte e, why should one running for a
republic ofce undergo a mandatory drug testing if
t he const i t ut i on al ready provi des f or t he
qualications, hindi ba? That is another
qualication. So, the problem with this law of dome
effect, a petition was led with the Supreme Court
questioning because of this current Section 36.
Wala pang resulta, matagal na. For those in the
military or armed forces of the Philippine, they are
unquestionable. So, there's now pending
mandatory drug testing.
But then, the other thing that we have to
remember is when you are charged with illegal
possession, di ba? Illegal possession sa
Section 11. The penalty on Section 11 is
dependent on the quantity, regardless of the
purity. That is the only offense where the
penalty is dependent on the quantity.
SECTION 13/14 - POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL
DRUGS AND OR PARAPHERNALIA IN SOCIAL
GATHERING IN RELATION TO SECTION 11 /12
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND OR
PARAPHERNALIA
Page 41 of 98
Now, you look at your Section 13. I think it is in
Section 13. The law says that when one is
caught in the act of possessing dangerous
drugs in the company of two or more persons
or in a social gathering, then the penalties had
been imposed is maximum period. Therefore,
Section 13 is aggravating circumstance of
Section 11.
Section 13 is an aggravating circumstance of
Section 11. And then, that"s why supposing two or
more persons are caught in the act of using. So,
there are 3 persons caught in the act of using
dangerous drug. Kung tatlo kayo, what is the effect
of 3 persons at the same time using dangerous
drugs? What is the effect? Sabi nila, aggravating
pa yun eh. Hindi aggravating yun. The
aggravating circumstance in Section 13 is only in
so far as illegal possession. Illegal possession yan,
not an aggravating in illegal use. There is no
aggravating in illegal use. Kaya sabi nila,
Section 13 daw is pot session. Ang Section 13,
hindi pot session yan. Section 13 is an
aggravating circumstance in illegal possession
under Section 11.
Sect i on 14, l i kewi se, i s an aggr avat i ng
circumstance when illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia is in the comfort of 2 or more
persons or in a social gathering, then the penalty
shall be imposed. It is maximum period. In other
words, the aggravating circumstances in 13 and
14 do not refer to illegal use. There is no such
thing as aggravating circumstance in illegal use
under Section 15.
So, 13 and 14 actually are not offenses, but
aggravating circumstances in violation of Section
11 and Section 12 respectively. So, what for?
Wala na. Of course, I told you last time, yung
number 1 element of illegal possession is or even
the violation of dangerous drugs law is the
presentation of the drugs during the trial, hindi ba?
Let"s say, if you want to prove we're drug pushing
under Section 5. Question: How many witnesses
are you supposed to present? Di ba drug pushing,
sale? Sale, di ba, sale? How many witnesses are
supposed to present? Should be 2, okay? Sabi ng
Supreme Court, 1 is sufcient witness as long as
the witness has personal knowledge and
therefore can testify on the Section 11 of the
offense.
The other thing is that, as I told you last time and I
will say it again, when you say dangerous drugs,
and therefore shall be presented and identied and
offered as evidence in the trial, there must be yet to
prove the chain of custody from the time he is
arrested from the offender up to this time he is
transmitted to the investigator, until the evidence is
submitted to the chemist for examination, until the
evidence is preserved for purposes of trial. And
then, you have also to prove the chain of custody
from the time it is brought to the court and then one
during the trial. If there is any hiatus on the chain
of custody, the accused will be acquitted. Sabi ng
Supreme Court e yung police eh, nakasuhan niya
sana kay Mr. Sosa. Ang ginawa ng pulis, hindi
naman niya minarkahan yung evidence or the
arresting ofcer did was to bring Mr. Sosa to the
police and then it was already police station that
the evidence was not but even the arresting ofcer,
not by the arresting ofcer, but the policeman who
was not even the arresting policeman, but the
policeman who was asked to investigate the case.
Sabi ng Supreme Court, the policemen have
vindicated the case. He is not the one who
arrested the person. That may not be the evidence
conscated from the accused or in a case also why
they decided to the Supreme Court with the arrest
warrant. The place therefore they brought the
person arrested to the police station. That was
only the time that they frisked the accused, then
when they frisked, they found dangerous drugs.
Sabi ng Supreme Court, damputin yan. Bat hindi
mo frinisked dun sa pagkahuli dun sa lugar? Bakit
doon lang sa police station? Don"t expect 'tong
Supreme Court sa purpose the ringside. The
accused established the evidence of conscated
from the accused. There is a doubt there. Okay.
VOLUNTARY / COMPULSORY SUBMISSION
No more. If it is offenses under of the same code,
you're being positive to the dangerous drugs. He
will be liable for violation of Section 13. The
justication of Section 25 is a crime or offense
punishable under the law. Kasi sa Section 55,
yung voluntary submission is procedural, hindi
lalabas sa bar yan e, yung compulsory submission
and then voluntary submission. Supposing you are
asked, what is voluntary submission and what is
compulsory submission? Let"s say, you"re an
addict, di ba? You are not arrested in the act of
using. But they believe that you are really a drug
dependent. What will you do? You go to the court
and then le a petition for voluntary submission.
The purpose there is that before the order, that you
will be rehabilitated. That"s the meaning of
voluntary submission. If you now rehabilitated, you
are not liable for any crime because you"ve
volunteered to the court that you are a drug
dependent. That"s the meaning. But in the crime
of compulsory submission, ayaw mong magamot,
then somebody, probably your father, your mother,
or any agency for that matter, who will le a
petition. That is what they call compulsory
submission. He is not the person who goes to the
court and then asks for an order that he may be
rehabilitated, but another person, the third person
shall be compelled, and the court will order his
Page 42 of 98
arrested and then brought to a rehabilitation center.
That"s the meaning, ano? But in both cases, if you
succeeded in your rehabilitation program, you will
no longer be liable for illegal use. Kasi nag-submit
ka voluntarily e. That is the meaning of voluntary
submission or compulsory submission. I think we
have passed everything that we are supposed to
pass. Yung ngayon, the decisions not in Supreme
Court, have you heard about PDEA? Kasi under
the law, there would be agency, the dangerous
drugs l aw of t he PDEA (Phi l i ppi ne Drug
Enforcement Agency).
PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency).
Now, under the law, the arrest or violators of the
Dangerous Drugs Law, the lead agency is PDEA,
that's the law. So, supposing a policeman does not
belong to the PDEA makes his own arrest without
involving the PDEA of such arrest. So they use
that, they capitalized on those situation for the
acquittal of the used drug as a drug for the
acquittal. Kasi nakalagay dun sa law, the lead
agency and so far as the dangerous drugs disposal
is PDEA. And under the law, before policeman, not
members of the PDEA, who make arrest, they
should rst coordinate with the PDEA. So, let"s
say, they operate here in Rockwell, ordinary
policemen, before they come here and operate, the
members to coordinate with the PDEA. Boss,
meron kaming i-operate dito sa Rockwell. Mga
addicts. That's the procedure. Not in Rockwell
Avenue ha? So, what they do is that, sometimes
they do not anymore inform the PDEA. They do
not coordinate. They go down into the place and
then make arrest. The accused lawyers will raise
that issue. That they cannot be convicted of
violation of 9165 because they failed to inform the
PDEA. That will not cause the acquittal of the
accused. That is only procedural in character.
What is only required by the law is that the PDEA
shall be the lead agency. But the law does not
say that, eh kung ganun ang mangyayar pati
ako. Di ba meron tayong citizen's arrest? At
kung meron akong marijuana dun, eh wala
namang PDEA, hindi ko na arestuhin yan?
Minsan, mga abogado rin mga loko e. Nung
manalo yung mga inaresto, sabi ng Supreme
Court nagalit pa eh. That will prevent others
from conducting arrest. Even if somebody is
smoking marijuana in your presence, you can
no longer arrest him. If you call action PDEA, e
yung PDEA nag-iinuman daw.
Title Six

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS

Chapter One
GAMBLING AND BETTING

Art. 195. What acts are punishable in
gambling.
(a) The penalty of arresto mayor or a ne not
exceeding two hundred pesos, and, in case of
recidivism, the penalty of arresto mayor or a
ne ranging from two hundred or six thousand
pesos, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person other than those referred to in
subsections (b) and (c) who, in any manner
shall directly, or indirectly take part in any
game of monte, jueteng or any other form of
lottery, policy, banking, or percentage game,
dog races, or any other game of scheme the
result of which depends wholly or chiey upon
chance or hazard; or wherei n wagers
consisting of money, articles of value or
representative of value are made; or in 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. Any person who shall knowingly permit any
form of gambling referred to in the preceding
subdivision to be carried on in any unhabited
or uninhabited place of any building, vessel or
other means of transportation owned or
controlled by him. If the place where gambling
is carried on has the reputation of a gambling
place or that prohibited gambling is frequently
carried on therein, the culprit shall be punished
by the penalty provided for in this article in its
maximum period.
(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum degree shall be imposed upon the
maintainer, conductor, or banker in a game of
jueteng or any similar game.
(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium degree shall be imposed upon any
person who shall, knowingly and without lawful
purpose, have in his possession and lottery
list, paper or other matter containing letters,
gures, signs or symbols which pertain to or
are in any manner used in the game of jueteng
or any similar game which has taken place or
about to take place.

Page 43 of 98
Art . 196. I mport at i on, sal e and
possessi on of l ottery ti ckets or
advertisements. The penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period or a ne
ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in
the discretion of the court, shall be imposed
upon any person who shall import into the
Philippine Islands from any foreign place or
port any lottery ticket or advertisement or, in
connivance with the importer, shall sell or
distribute the same.
Any person who shall knowingly and with
intent to use them, have in his possession
lottery tickets or advertisements, or shall sell or
distribute the same without connivance with
the importer of the same, shall be punished by
arresto menor, or a ne not exceeding 200
pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
The possession of any lottery ticket or
advertisement shall be prima facie evidence of
an intent to sell, distribute or use the same in
the Philippine Islands.
Art. 197. Betting in sports contests.
The penalty of arresto menor or a ne not
exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any person who shall bet
money or any object or article of value or
representative of value upon the result of any
boxing or other sports contests.
Art. 198. Illegal betting on horse race.
The penalty of arresto menor or a ne not
exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any person who except during
the period allowed by law, shall be on horse
races. The penalty of arresto mayor or a ne
ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon any person who, under the
same circumstances, shall maintain or employ
a totalizer or other device or scheme for
betting on horse races or realizing any prot
therefrom.
For the purposes of this article, any race held
in the same day at the same place shall be
held punishable as a separate offense, and if
the same be committed by any partnership,
corporation or association, the president and
the directors or managers thereof shall be
deemed to be principals in the offense if they
have consented to or knowingly tolerated its
commission.
Art. 199. Illegal cockghting. The
penalty of arresto menor or a ne not
exceeding 200 pesos, or both, in the discretion
of the court, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who directly or indirectly
participates in cockghts, by betting money or
other valuable things, or who organizes
cockghts at which bets are made, on a day
other than those permitted by law.
2. Any person who directly or indirectly
participates in cockghts, at a place other than
a licensed cockpit.
__________________________________
SPECIAL LAWS ON GAMBLING
PD 1602
Gambling is winning by chance, we bet. So,
winning is dependent on based on level of chance,
not on skill. But even if it is based on chance, these
games are played or gambling is played like a
parlor game, then there is no violation of PD 1602.
Pag sinabing may patay, merong nakipaglamay.
Naglaro sila ng Lucky 9 or games among the
immediate members of the family just to kill the
time. Parlor game yan. Thats not gambling. There
are other special laws concerning gambling, but
they do not fall under PD 1602. We have illegal
cockfighting, yung point shaving, yung sport
contests, illegal bookies. Hindi naman yan
itatanong sa bar yan eh. Maybe 1602 lang ang
itatanon diyan sa bar exam.
__________________________________
Chapter Two
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND
GOOD CUSTOMS

Art. 200. Grave scandal. The penalties
of arresto mayor and public censure shall be
imposed upon any person who shall offend
against decency or good customs by any
highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling
within any other article of this Code.
Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene
publications and exhibitions and
indecent shows. The penalty of prision
mayor or a ne ranging from six thousand to
twel ve thousand pesos, or both such
imprisonment and ne, shall be imposed upon:
(1) Those who shall publicly expound or
proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals;

Page 44 of 98
(1) (a) the authors of obscene literature,
published with their knowledge in any form;
the editors publishing such literature; and
the owners/operators of the establishment
selling the same;
(b) Those who, i n t heat ers, f ai rs,
cinematographs or any other place, exhibit,
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or
shows, whether live or in lm, which are
prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include
those which
(1) glorify criminals or condone crimes;
(2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy
t he mar ket f or vi ol ence, l ust or
pornography;
(3) offend any race or religion;
(4) tend to abet trafc in and use of
prohibited drugs; and
(5) are contrary to law, public order, morals,
and good customs, established policies,
lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
(2) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit
lms, prints, engravings, sculpture or
literature which are offensive to morals. (As
amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969).
__________________________________
Yung obscenity, pornography, obscenity and so on,
then that would be different. Wala masyado yan sa
Book 1 obscenity, pornography. But obscenity is not
only limited to what you see from human beings,
but it may also include yung mga ano obscene
materials or yung mga istorya. Ano ba yan? Xerex
ba yan? Yung mga sa Tiktik. Tiktik, Sagad, ano ba
yun? Yung mga Sagad, ano ba yun? All of these,
included sa obscenity yan. So, its not only in
television, cinematography or human beings that
we see, they include yan, stories, komik,s lahat
yan. So, yun lang yan.
__________________________________
Art. 202. Vagrants and prostitutes;
penalty. The following are vagrants:
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 ledges in
houses of ill fame; rufans 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
justiable purpose;
5. Prostitutes.
For the purposes of this article, women who, for
money or prot, habitually indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to
be prostitutes.
Any person found guilty of any of the offenses
covered by this articles shall be punished by
arresto menor or a ne not exceeding 200 pesos,
and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its
medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period or a ne ranging from 200 to 2,000
pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
__________________________________
A prostitute is very hard to prove because they
have to prove regularity or habituality. There must
be an element of habituality or regularity. Eh, sino
magtetestigo?
In other words, how can you prove a crime of being
a prostitute when there are no witnesses? Sino
mag-te-testify? The only one who can testify is the
customer. Kasi, who will prove habituality or
regularity? Customer lang eh. Most of the
customers are married. Di nahuli sila ng misis.
Kasi nga customer, binata, naku hopeless naman
yang binatang yan. Hopeless! Kukuha ba ng
prostitute eh binata siya? Mag-asawa na lang. Sino
ang gumagamit diyan?
__________________________________
Title Seven

CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS

Chapter One
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

Art. 203. Who are public ofcers. For
the purpose of applying the provisions of this
and the preceding titles of this book, any
person who, by direct provision of the law,
popular election or appointment by competent
authority, shall take part in the performance of
public functions in the Government of the
Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said
Government or in any of its branches public
duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
ofcial, of any rank or class, shall be deemed
to be a public ofcer.
__________________________________
In other words, the crime punishable found under
this chapter are those crimes where being a public
officer is inherent in the crime. So that if you go
Page 45 of 98
back to Paragraph 1 of Article 14, the law says that
taki ng advantage of publ i c posi ti on i s an
aggravating circumstance, hindi ba? So, if you
commit a crime defined from Article 244 then 245,
that taking advantage of public position as an
aggravating circumstance in Paragraph 1 of Article
14 is not applicable to any of the crimes because
you cannot take advantage of your public position
when that is the very element of the crime. Do you
follow?
Article 203, therefore, is who are public officers - all
who work with the government, whether a
consultancy, seasonal, project, regular, regardless
of the position as long as they work for the
government, you are a public officer. Janitor,
regular, temporary, official, member of the board, all
the receiving their pay from the gvernment,
regardless of the manner of wages that you receive
whether allowance or what, you are a public officer
under Article 203.
__________________________________
Chapter Two
MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN
OFFICE

Section One. Dereliction of duty

Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust
judgment. Any judge who shall knowingly
render an unjust judgment in any case
submitted to him for decision, shall be
punished by prision mayor and perpetual
absolute disqualication.
Art. 205. Judgment rendered through
negligence. Any judge who, by reason of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance shall
render a manifestly unjust judgment in any
case submitted to him for decision shall be
punished by arresto mayor and temporary
special disqualication.
Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order.
Any judge who shall knowingly render an
unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period and suspension; but if he shall have
acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance and the interlocutory order or
decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall
be suspension.
__________________________________
KNOWINGLY
Knowingly is fraudulently. You wrongfully applied
the law in order to accommodate one, and then in
order to cause injustice to the other party. But, the
problem, however, is how will you prove knowingly?
Knowingly can only be proven. If it is a state of
mind, like in other crimes, you can merely prove
that the state of mind through acts performed by
the offender, di ba? Knowingly rendering, how do
you prove that it is knowingly? You cannot read my
mind if I render an unjust judgment. Knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment. How will you prove
that? Then probably through the acts of the judge.
He might be whether be given money, but you
cannot prove. If I then promise a benefit or you
might have the son or child receive something from
a willing party. Yun ang thats the way to prove
knowingly. But that is very hard to prove, as I said,
also in interlocutory order.
__________________________________
Art. 207. Mal i ci ous del ay i n the
administration of justice. The penalty
of prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of
malicious delay in the administration of justice.
Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses;
negligence and tolerance. The penalty
of prision correccional in its minimum period
and suspension shall be imposed upon any
public ofcer, or ofcer of the law, who, in
dereliction of the duties of his ofce, shall
maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution
for the punishment of violators of the law, or
shall tolerate the commission of offenses.
Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney
or solicitor. Revelation of secrets.
In addition to the proper administrative action,
the penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period, or a ne ranging from 200 to
1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon
any attorney-at-law or solicitor ( procurador
judicial) who, by any malicious breach of
professional duty or of inexcusable negligence
or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or
reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned
by him in his professional capacity.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon an
attorney-at-law or solicitor
(procurador judicial) who, having undertaken
the defense of a client or having received
condential information from said client in a
case, shall undertake the defense of the
Page 46 of 98
opposing party in the same case, without the
consent of his rst client.
__________________________________
If you are a government lawyer, youre not
supposed to divulge whatever information you
gathered by reason of your decision. You are not
supposed to give it even if you go out from the
government service. You are not supposed to do
that. So thats a breach of trust of lawyers, betrayal
of trust to be exact.
__________________________________
Section Two. Bribery

Art. 210. Direct bribery. Any public
ofcer who shall agree to perform an act
constituting a crime, in connection with the
performance of thi s ofci al duti es, i n
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present received by such ofcer, personally or
through the mediation of another, shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and
maximum periods and a ne [of not less than
the value of the gift and] not less than three
times the value of the gift in addition to the
penalty corresponding to the crime agreed
upon, if the same shall have been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the ofcer in
consideration of the execution of an act which
does not constitute a crime, and the ofcer
executed said act, he shall suffer the same
penalty provided in the preceding paragraph;
and i f sai d act shal l not have been
accomplished, the ofcer shall suffer the
penalties of prision correccional, in its medium
period and a ne of not less than twice the
value of such gift.
If the object for which the gift was received or
promised was to make the public ofcer refrain
from doing something which it was his ofcial
duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of
prision correccional in its maximum period and
a ne [of not less than the value of the gift and]
not less than three times the value of such gift.
In addition to the penalties provided in the
preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer
t h e p e n a l t y o f s p e c i a l t e mp o r a r y
disqualication.
The provisions contained in the preceding
paragraphs shall be made applicable to
assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim
commissioners, experts or any other persons
performing public duties. (As amended by
Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).
Art. 211. Indirect bribery. The penalties
of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, and public censure shall be
imposed upon any public ofcer who shall
accept gifts offered to him by reason of his
ofce. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg.
872, June 10, 1985).
__________________________________
SPECIAL LAWS ON ANTI GRAFT
5 KINDS OF BRIBERY
1. 210 -
There are 3 ways of committing a crime of direct
bribery:
FIRST FORM
The publ i c off i cer recei ves money f or
consideration in order to perform an act that is
punishable under our Code, under our law. So, a
policeman is given money in order to kill, then
the giver as long as or provided a law, then the
public officer is liable for bribery under the first
form. Yung usual na tinatanong sa bribery would
be those that fall under the second and the third
forms.
If a policeman arrests somebody else, what
should the policeman do as a policeman? He
should arrest and then file the case, di ba? So,
the duty of the policeman is to arrest and then
file, apprehend, and then file the case later on.
So, the private complainant in the crime of
robbery told to the policeman, Sir, file mo
naman yung kaso para makulong. Then the
policeman said, Ay, hindi. Yun ang kailangan
ko ng pang-meryenda eh. Pag kinakailangan ko
ng pambili ng iuwi ko para sa pamilya ko eh.
O, sir meron dyan. Eh di, the private
complainant now gives money, then after giving
money, then policeman files the case. Thats the
first form.
SECOND FORM
The law says that when a public officer receives
money or valuable or in exchange for money in
order to perform an act required by law, yun ang
double compensation. Received money in order
to perform and act required by law.
The policeman received money from the private
complainant in order that he will perform the act
required of him that is to file the case, di ba?
Yun ang tinatawag na double compensation.
May sweldo ka na sa gobyerno, kaya lang hindi
ka gagalaw kung hindi ka bibigyan.
THIRD FORM
And the third one is receive money in order not
to perform an act required by law. So, the
example would be - received money in order to
perform an act required by law.
The third form is you receive money in order not
Page 47 of 98
to perform an act required by law. So, I arrested
you. Tapos sabi mo sa pulis, Sir, wag mo na
akong tutuluyan? O bakit? Bigyan kita ng
P20,000. O sige, bigyan mo ko ng P20,000. I
accepted it. So, I will be liable under the third
form that is received money in order not to
perform. What is it that he did not perform? Not
to file the case.
2. 211-A
But that should be differentiated with Article 211-
A, the crime of qualified bribery. Because under
211-A, when the public officer refuses to
apprehend or prosecute the person arrested for
the commission of the crime where the penalty
of the crime committed by that person is the
penalty of life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua
or death, then the penalty either reclusion
perpetua to death. But, if demand is in the
demand came from the public officer then the
maximum penalty of death is one being
imposed.
Where lies the difference? The difference would
be: I caught him in the act of committing a crime
of robbery. He gave me money in order not to
perform an act required by law. Therefore, I do
not file a case against him. Another person, I
arrested him for violation of Dangerous Drugs
Law, selling 1 gram of shabu. The penalty is life
imprisonment to death under Section 5. He gave
me then P20,000 in order that I will not file the
case against him for violation of Section 5. So,
where lies the difference? In so far as the
robbery is concerned, I am liable for a crime of
direct bribery, but in so far the sale of drugs is
concerned, I am liable for the crime of qualified
bribery under 211-A.
Wheres the difference? Because of the penalty
of the offenses or the crime committed by two
persons. The crime of robbery is not punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death. But the crime
committed in the same is punishable by life
imprisonment to death. So if I fail perform an act
required by law where the penalty, we include
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and also death
or even life imprisonment, then I am liable for
the crime of qualified bribery. It will depend on
the penalty of the person arrested.
3. 211
So, in other words the receipt of the money is not
intended for the purpose of committing a crime, for
the purpose of the nonperformance or for the
purpose of performance, then the law that is
violated is Article 211, the law on indirect bribery.
So, what is indirect bribery? Receipt of something
of value or money by reason of the position, by
reason of the position. But that law actually is
intended to prevent or you are building a goodwill
to the public officer eh. Wala kang kinakailangan
ngayon, but i n t he f ut ur e, mer on ka ng
kinakailangan. So, ano nga, pumapapel ka. You are
then building up, nag bi-build ka ng friendship with
the public official. Binibigyan mo ng kwarta, and so
and so on. Then later on, kinakailangan mo siya.
That is indirect bribery because there is no other
purpose except that you are being gifted by reason
of your public position.
4. Paragraph B of Section 3 of Republic Act 3019
under Paragraph B of Section 3 of Republic Act
3019, if a public officer directly or indirectly
receives money for any consideration and for
the award of a contract or a transaction, then the
law that is violated in Section 3 Paragraph B.
When a public officer indirectly or directly
receives money in consideration of the award or
a contract, or transaction, wherein that public
officer has the right to intervene, then the crime
is Paragraph B of Section 3 3019.
The only difference between Article 210 and
Section 3-B is that, in Paragraph B it is specified
that the receipt of money is for the purpose of
awarding a contract or a transaction, likewise
with Paragraph C of Section 3.
5. Paragraph C of Section 3 of Republic Act 3019,
otherwise known as The Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Okay.
The law says in Paragraph C of Section 3, the
receipt of money indirectly or directly for the
purpose of awarding or extending a license or a
permit. So, therefore, if the public officer
receives money in order to perform an act
required by law which is the awarding of a
contract or a transaction, then the law that is
violated is Paragraph B of Section 3.
ROBBERY IN RELATION TO BRIBERY
Kung ang robber, lets say, if you are merely
accosted by a peace officer and, therefore, you are
not actually committing a crime, di ba? Tapos
sasabihin ng peace officer, Hoy, bigyan mo ako ng
kwarta kung hinde pa file-an ka ng robbery. But
the person did not commit any crime. O, bigyan
mo na ako ng kwarta, kung hinde pa file-an kita ng
kaso. Lets say on dangerous drugs. Then the poor
boy says, Oh, Im afraid. Im studying law eh, and
thats not bailable. Can I give you money? Sige,
bibigyan mo ako ng kwarta, kung hinde, pafile-an
kita. Then the poor boy gives the money because
he is (suffering) that in case of robbery will be filed
against him or a crime or a charge will be filed
against him.
Anong crime yon? Hindi bribery yun. That cannot
be bribery. That will become a crime of robbery.
That is intimidation. I will file a case against you
when actually you did not If you did not commit
any crime, and then it is only his version that he will
file a case against you if you do not give the
money, that is a crime of robbery. The false charge
Page 48 of 98
will fall under the element of intimidation. That is
one way of intimidating.
OTHER VIOLATIONS IN RA 3019
Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph A
Now, lets go to Paragraph A. Paragraph A is
sometimes a crime of influence peddling. When a
public officer directly or indirectly induces a public
officer to commit an act in violation of regulations
and the officer so persuaded or induced. Now,
there are two persons here who maybe liable - the
one who is inducing and the one who is actually
induced.
Now, if a public officer induces directly or indirectly
a public officer, even if the public officer is not
induced, the inducer is already liable. Now, if the
person is actually induced, then both of them will
be liable. So, mere inducement, the mere act,
directly or indirectly of inducing a public officer to
violate a regulation is already penalized. If the
public officer so induced and is actually induced,
then both of them will be criminally liable.
Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph B
Then Paragraph B, as I've said, is a sort of bribery
if the purpose is to award a contract or a
transaction.
Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph C
Paragraph C, likewise, is a yung sa ZTE,
maraming liable diyan 'no under Paragraph A.
There are public officers inducing somebody to
violate a rule. They will fall under Paragraph A of
Section 3. If the officer is actually induced, then
both of them are actually liable.
Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph D
Paragraph D prohibits the agreement of the
immediate member of the family wherein an
institution or any persons where that person or
institution has a pending case before, pending
application or an act to be done by the public officer
or within one year after that public officer has
acted on that favor or what.
There was one case where it never reached there
was a labor arbiter in Cebu where they decided a
case in favor of a bank the Metrobank. Because a
case between Metrobank and the labor union. The
bank won in the case before him and then later on,
his son applied with Metrobank. The son was
overqualified. He was even overqualified. He was
employed by the bank within the one year
prohibition under Paragraph D. Then what happen
is that the labor union discovered that the son of
the labor arbiter was employed in the bank. So, a
case was filed against labor arbiter within the one
year period. The case did not progress because
before the accused could be arraigned, he was
charged before us. Before it could be arraigned, the
accused died. That is the best defense eh. Buti na
lang indefensible di ba? The only defense under
Paragraph D is that he is not your son eh. The only
defense under Paragraph D is that the employee is
not your son even if he is even if he is very much
qualified. That's not a defense eh. The only
defense that he is not your son and that the one
year period has already expired. He was employed
beyond the one year period. But you cannot (apply)
those defenses kung patay ka na. You will be liable.
Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph E
By causing undue injury to a private person or to a
person or to the government or giving unwarranted
benefit to any person through evident bad faith,
gross inexcusable negligence or manifest
partiality.
So, there are two things that may happen under
Section 3-E:
One is the causing of undue injury.
The other one is giving unwarranted benefit.
These are two different things. When you cause
injury to the government or to any person, then that
injury can be quantified in terms of damages. When
you are asking for damages, then those damages
must be quantified. In other words, in can be
ascertained. But when you talk of manifest partiality
or unwarranted benefit, then probably you cannot
quantify the amount, but somebody benefited from
your act. Therefore, if you prove undue injury or
you file the case of undue injury, then that undue
injury should be quantified. It should be in the form
of damages which can be ascertained.
But in unwarranted benefit, the one who is
benefited is a private individual, (all concerned).
But if it is undue injury, then it's an undue injury
caused to a person or to the government. So, but
the problem, however is that when we cause undue
injury or you give unwarranted benefit, it is through
evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence
or manifest partiality.
In the purchase of overpriced walis ting-ting.
So, therefore, the difference now between the
actual value and the purchase price of the walis
tingting will now be the undue injury caused to the
government. Instead of filing a case of, let's say,
bribery or indirect bribery or any bribery for that
matter because the giver will not come out in the
open because he benefited. Then usually you file a
case of undue injury caused to the government by
reason of the overprice, yun.
In the case of ghost transactions.
The other one is that, there maybe transactions
were the government official did not benefit from it.
So, like for example, ghost payments, ghost
employees, ghost deliveries. When you prove
ghost deliveries and ghost employees, theyre very
easy to prove because you just determine if there
are disbursements, but there were actually no
projects and there were actually no employees. But
you cannot prove that the public officer made
money of those ghost projects or ghost employees.
What are you going to file? Then you file Paragraph
Page 49 of 98
3-E or Section 3-E because you caused undue
injury to the government. That's another example.
In the case of injury to private individuals. The
other example is causing injury to a private
individual, undue injury to the private individual.
What you find here is that, let's say, you are an
employee of the government, but already retired.
You are entitled to your retirement pay. But the
mayor does not want to give the retirement pay
although youre already entitled to it on the ground
that you are a political opponent. Then, they will
again file Section 3-E because they causing injury-
undue injury - to a private individual. Yun ang mga
example ng undue injury.
In the case of unwarranted benefits.
An example of unwanted benefit would be yung
mga bidders. You are not the lowest bidder, but the
contract is awarded to you. So, there is no injury to
the government that you can prove, but you gave
unwarranted benefit, I mean, therefore, he is
entitled to the bidding. So, because you cannot
quantify the amount that was you cannot quantify
the amount, ano. The and that you are not
causing injury to that bidder, but you awarded the
contract wherein he is not qualified, then you are
giving unwarranted benefit. That's the meaning of
unwarranted benefit?
It is actually getting benefits where the private party
is not entitled to it.
PEOPLE v. GO
he was acquitted because the act of entering into
a contract grossly disadvantageous to the
government can only be committed by a public
officer.
ARIAS DOCTRINE -
The approving officer does not need to go over
again. He is not required to go over again the
documents and then determine for himself if the
documents are in order. The public officer, the
approving officer will go over the signatures of
those who participated in the preparation, the
review, and so on. And he has no reason to doubt
the accuracy of the work of his subordinates
because if he again will go over the documents and
for himself to determine the truthfulness of the
documents or the completeness of all the
documents, then the Supreme Court said what will
happen with the government functionaries. The
government may not anymore move because he
again required the approving officer to do things
that have been done by the subordinates. So, he
can be (exuberated) under that doctrine.
REQUIREMENT : But that doctrine will only apply if
that public officer, the approving officers duty, his
duty is to sign several documents, because if he
only signs one document during that time he
cannot invoke the Arias Doctrine.
Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph H
There are several transactions prohibited by law for
you to be engaged into, but most of those
transactions apply to local government officials.
Yung ano bawal yon eh, yung, let say a mayor
who engages in cockpit, yung operation of a
cockpit that prohibited under Local Government
Code. Yung ang sinabing prohibited transactions.
So, if there is a law prohibiting a public official to
engage in this prohibited transaction, then he will
be liable under this provision.
Republic Act 3019 Section 3 Paragraph G
Then the one that is also very important, the latest
decision of the Supreme Court, is entering a
cont r act gr ossl y di sadvant ageous t o t he
government. That is a case that might have
precipitated the news report that a lady justice was
receiving money from ano yun. That is one of the
cases because of that decision, because of that
gross inexcusable - the entering into a contract that
is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Republic Act 3019 Section 13 Suspension
pendente lite and loss of benefits.
So, there are two requirements:
The information is already valid.
You are charged with those that I mentioned in
3019 or those crimes punishable under the
Revised Penal Code from Article 203 to 245 or
any act of fraud that maybe committed against
the government.
Now, no ifs or buts, that's what they say. No ifs or
buts. In other words, you cannot argue that the
evidence of guilt against you is weak. Wala kang
magawa. When the information is valid, you cannot
do anything except to serve your suspension
pendente lite.
VALID INFORMATION - When the accused is
already arraigned, then that means that the
information is already valid because you can no
longer cure a defect the information once the
arraignment is concluded. You can only raise the
issues of prescription, double jeopardy, di ba, after
arraignment.
SUSPENSION IN RELATION TO ADMIN LAW -
Now, what is good about the suspension pendente
lite unlike in preventive suspension? Probably yung
administrative law you have studied this, di ba? If
you are elected official for example, during your
term from 2004 to 2007, then you are now charged
administratively, di ba? And then you are
preventi vel y suspended. You can onl y be
preventively suspended during your term of office
from 2004 to 2007 of the acts committed while you
were an incumbent public official. So, that if you are
now re-elected after 2007, you cannot now be
preventively suspended for an act, administrative
act, that you committed during your previous terms.
'Yung ang preventive suspension. Hindi na pwede
because the re-election by a people is the best
evidence that the best judge of your administrative
acts, eh. Your acts although not criminal, ano ha?
Page 50 of 98
So, therefore, you can no longer be preventively
suspended.
IN RELATION TO RE-ELECTION - But in
suspension pendente lite, so let's say you are an
incumbent governor from 2004 to 2007. You were
charged criminally for an act committed during that
t er m. Now, you ar e char ge wi t h t he
Sandiganbayan, in the meantime, you are now a
congressman. After 2007 you committed an act in
2005, you are charged in 2007, but at the time that
you were charged, you are already a congressman.
Can you be suspended pendente lite for an act
committed when you were governor, when in fact
you are already a congressman? Yes. Unlike in
preventive suspension, administrative,yes, you can
still be suspended if it is a suspension pendente lite
wherever you are as long you as you remain a
public official.
Republic Act 3019 Section 11 Prescription of
offenses (4 year prescription)
Now, the other thing that you should know about
Republic Act 3019, I think we have discussed
already, yung prescriptions of crimes under 3019,
ano? Because 3019 is special law, therefore, the
prescriptive period of the crime prescriptive period
or offenses under special law is governed not by
the Revised Penal Code, but Republic Act 3326 the
Law on Prescription.
I think I told you already about the case of
Romualdez versus Marcelo. Remember this case
of Romualdez versus Marcelo. That we do not
apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
the second part of second sentence of Article 91,
that when the offender is outside of the Philippine
Archipelago, then the prescriptive period will be
suspended. The crimes punishable under special
law, that Article 91 is not applicable. Okay. So, you
know already the doctrine.
The doctrine there is that we cannot apply the
Revised Penal Code as a supplementary law or
suppletory law to Republic Act 3326 which is a law
on prescription because the applicability of the
Revised Penal Code or the supplementary or
suppletory character of the Revised Penal Code is
only applicable to special penal laws, laws that
define crimes with corresponding penalties.
Republic Act 3326 is not a penal law. Its a law on
prescription. Therefore, the Revised Penal Code
can not be applied suppletorily or supplementarily.
Republic Act 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards For Public Officials And Employees
Nepotism is punished under 6713. Sometimes I call
this law of 6713 as the law of on impropriety.
Impropriety, you do not divest, you double
compensation, moonlighting. The other one is you
fail it is actually a repetition in 3019 because in
3019, you are required to respond. You have to
respond with inquiries from the citizens. If you do
not respond within reasonable time, then that's
punishable under Republic Act 3019. What are the
acts punishable under RA 3019? If there is an
inquiry made, that inquiries should be answered
within reasonable time.
Under Republic Act 6713, that is reiterated under
6713. But 6713, it sets a period in which to respond
to an inquiry. Dun sa 3019, wala. Reasonable time
lang. In 6713, there is a specific period. I think it's
15 days. Magrespond lang within 15 days from
receipt of the inquiry.
Then the other act that is punished is moonlighting,
failure to act on time of the inquiries, and then
failure to file SALN, sworn assets, liabilities, and
net worth. It is required in our laws of the
government service to file every year sworn asset,
liabilities, and net worth.
There may be two violations under this omission on
SALN. And sometimes they call it SALN sworn
asset, liabilities and net worth.
1. Nonfiling.
2. The other one is nondisclosure.
Nonfiling, if they do not file, then you are liable
under 6713. If you file, but you did not disclose your
assets, then you'll also be liable for nondisclosure
of assets. Kaya lang dyan that is why we acquitted
Erap for perjury because if you do not disclose with
your SALN, which is under oath, then they charge
you with perjury under Article 183. So aside from
bei ng charged wi th vi ol ati on of 6713 for
nondisclosure, then you are, likewise, charged with
perjury under Article 183 because there is a
malicious, I mean, there is a false narration of facts
required to be disclosed under 6713 made under
oath.
__________________________________
Art. 212. Corruption of public ofcials.
The same penalties imposed upon the
of c er c or r upt ed, ex c ept t hos e of
disqualication and suspension, shall be
imposed upon any person who shall have
made the offers or promises or given the gifts
or presents as described in the preceding
articles.
_____________________________________
The giver will be liable under 212 for the crime of
corruption of a public official. The private offended
party is not liable for the crime of bribery because
only public officers are liable for the crime of
bribery. Therefore, the giver is liable for the crime of
corruption of the public official under Article 212.
But supposing a justice of the Court of Appeals
does not want to receive the bribed money. In other
words, there is a refusal. He wants to give money
to the justice for an application of a TRO, but the
Justice says, What do you think of me? Im
honest. And, therefore, the justice did not accept.
He did not accept the money. What is the crime
Page 51 of 98
committed? Is there a crime? Walang crime yung
public officer. He should be rewarded for refusing to
accept bribed money. So, what is the crime
committed of the giver? That will now become a
crime of attempted corruption of a public official. If
the money is not accepted, the giver has the right
to uphold the crime of attempted corruption of a
public official. The public officer who does not
receive the money will be rewarded, if there is a
reward.
_____________________________________

Chapter Three
FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS
AND TRANSACTIONS
Art. 213. Frauds against the public
treasury and similar offenses. The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium
period to prision mayor in its minimum period,
or a ne ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any public ofcer
who:
1. In his ofcial capacity, 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, shall enter into an
agreement with any interested party or
speculator or make use of any other scheme,
to defraud the Government;
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes,
licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be
guilty or any of the following acts or omissions:

(a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger than
those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as
provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him ofcially.
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly,
by way of payment or otherwise things or
objects of a nature different from that provided
by law.
When the culprit is an ofcer or employee of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau
of Cus t oms , t he pr ov i s i ons of t he
Administrative Code shall be applied.
__________________________________
PAR 1.; SPECULATORS
Now 213, we now go back to 213. Parehong sa
213, there are actually two offenses that may be
committed under it. Iyong paragraph 1, bihira lang
nacoconvict yan, eh. 'Yung speculators, 'yung
illegal escapes committed by a public officers, ano?
Between the contract or transaction may be broad
yan eh. But if you look at the title of 213, it is
actually false committed that is falsification is. Sa
paraghraph 1, ano yon? 'Yung mga speculators
yan o 'yung mga ano mga yun logos or in charge
of supplies. Ang gagawin nya, i-overprice, yan
paragraph 1, 213. Kung hindi naman, hindi nya
muna bibilhin yun ngayon. Di pa mababa yon, ano
ha? "Pare huwag muna natin bibilhin ito, ibenta mo
na lang pag tumaas ang presyo." Iyan 213 yan,
paragraph 1. That is brought against public
hearing or yung speculators, let say, properties of
the government, di ba? Bebenta nya. Bago ibenta,
bibilhin nya muna yung katabi ng government
property. Bibilhin nya lahat yun. Magspeculate
sya, then sells the government property. If the
property of the government is sold, tumaas na
presyo. Aba iyon pala, sa kanyang katabi. That is
also punishable under paragraph 1 of Article 213.
PAR 2.; ILLEGAL EXACTION
There are three ways of committing the crime of
illegal exaction. Ano yun?
1. You demand payment higher than what is
required to be paid. Hindi direct bribery yan.
That is not direct bribery because in direct
bribery, may exchange, eh. Ito Sir, magkano
babayaran ko? P20,000. Yun pala P18,000
lang babayaran. So, he's demanding more than
what is required of the tax payer who pay. Yun
illegal exaction.
2. refusal to issue a receipt
3. you require somebody to pay other than money.
Let say, 100,000 ang babayaran. Hindi, huwag
mo na kong bayaran ng 100,000. Ibayad mo na
lang yung Mercedes Benz mo. Wala ng gulong.
You demand payment other than money.
Art. 214. Other frauds. In addition to the
penalties prescribed in the provisions of
Chapter Six, Title Ten, Book Two, of this Code,
t h e p e n a l t y o f t e mp o r a r y s p e c i a l
disqualication in its maximum period to
perpetual special disqualication shall be
imposed upon any public ofcer who, taking
advantage of his ofcial position, shall commit
any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in
said provisions.
Art. 215. Prohibited transactions. The
period or a ne ranging from 200 to 1,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
appointive public ofcer who, during his
incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become
interested in any transaction of exchange or
speculation within the territory subject to his
jurisdiction.
Page 52 of 98
Art. 216. Possession of prohibited
interest by a public ofcer. The
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period
to prision correccional in its minimum period,
or a ne ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon a public ofcer
who directly or indirectly, shall become
interested in any contract or business in which
it is his ofcial duty to intervene.
This provisions is applicable to experts,
arbitrators and private accountants who, in like
manner, shall take part in any contract or
transaction connected with the estate or
pr oper t y i n appr ai sal , di st r i but i on or
adjudication of which they shall have acted,
and to the guardians and executors with
respect to the property belonging to their
wards or estate.

Chapter Four
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY

Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or
property; Presumption of malversation.
Any public ofcer who, by reason of the
duties of his ofce, is accountable for public
funds or property, shall appropriate the same
or shall take or misappropriate or shall
consent , t hr ough abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person
to take such public funds, or property, wholly
or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of such funds
or property, shall suffer:
medium and maximum periods, if the
amount involved in the misappropriation or
malversation does not exceed two hundred
pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
and medium periods, if the amount involved
is more than two hundred pesos but does
not exceed six thousand pesos.
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum
period to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period, if the amount involved is more than
six thousand pesos but is less than twelve
thousand pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its
amount involved is more than twelve
thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two
thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the
latter, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation
shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual
special disqualication and a ne equal to the
amount of the funds malversed or equal to the
total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public ofcer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property with
which he is chargeable, upon demand by any
duly authorized ofcer, shall be prima facie
evidence that he has put such missing funds
or property to personal use. (As amended by
RA 1060).
__________________________________
Crimes Committed by Public Officers: Part 1
MANNER OF COMMITTING MALVERSATION
There are actually three ways of committing a
crime of malversation.
1. to misappropriate or convert to a personal use.
2. Or you allow a third person to commit the crime
of malversation either by abandonment
3. and number three is through the negligence.
Tatlo eh.
So example. I am a treasurer. I receive money as
payment. From the first day, so that money now is
entrusted to me. And therefore, that money is under
my custody. If I spent that money collected then I
am liable under the first one. That is the meaning
of malversation, when you misappropriate or you
convert the same for your personal benefit. The
other one is abandonment or negligence. You do
not misappropriate for your own benefit. We do not
convert the same to your own benefit, but you allow
a t hi rd person t o commi t a cri me or t o
misappropriate and not commit a crime. You allow
a third person to misappropriate or you convert the
money entrusted to you.
So, the best example, in the one of the cases as
with the bar exam two years ago. Yung government
official is assigned a government vehicle. So,
therefore, that government maker is entrusted to
that government official and, therefore, he is an
accountable officer in so far as the car is
concerned. Ginawa niya, he left the key inside the
car one night. Umuwi na yung driver. Then later on,
the driver when to the garage, and then at 3 o
clock or 4 o clock in the morning, he got the car
because the government official left the key inside
the ignition key. Tinangay. Yun ang crime of
malversation through abandonment or negligence.
Thats the meaning.
Page 53 of 98
INCURRING LIABILITY
But if you are charged with malversation under 217,
let say, you are charged with misappropriating or
converting to a personal benefit, and then what was
proven in the trial is not you allowed the third
person to commit a crime of malversation either
through abandonment or negligence, pwede kang
maconvict. Di ba tatlo ang manners of committing
a crime of 217? The misappropriate or you convert
to your personal benefit. Allowing a third person to
commi t a cri me of mal versat i on t hrough
abandonment or through negligence. Tatlo yan eh,
di ba? Okay.
ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS
Now, who is the accountable officer under 217?
Yung accountable officer is tasked by law to take
custody or the property or funds of the government
in trust, in the meantime, and then to return or to
remit to the proper authorities the funds or property
if required or demanded by the government agency
concerned. Thats the meaning. So, the janitor,
therefore, is not an accountable officer because he
is not entrusted with money or property, and has a
duty to remit or to return the fund or property
required by the government agency. So, thats the
meaning of an accountable officer.
PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION
So, how will you prove then that a public officer
misappropriates or converts it to his personal
benefit, the funds entrusted by the government to
that accountable officer? The law said that if the
government wants all the accounting of the funds
entrusted to him by the government, and there is a
shortage in the funds which he cant explain, then
the presumption arises that he misappropriated or
converted the money for his personal benefits. So,
in the other words, the burden of proof now that the
accountable officer did not misappropriate the
money is on the part of the accountable officer. So,
what will you do is now explain, thats the meaning.
The only way to rebut that presumption is that to
explain why there are shortages. If there is no valid
explanation as to the shortages, in other words,
there is no justifiable reason why there were
shortages, then that accountable officer will be
liable for a crime of malversation.
JUSTIFICATION OF SHORTAGE
For example, nagka-ano, nag karoon ng calamity
walang ilaw, bumili ng baterya, in the meantime,
ayun. That will be a valid defense because that is
an emergency spending or probably walang walang
pambili ng pagkain ng mga empleyado nasa
remote area sila. They are in a place where there
are no food or what they have to buy. Ayun
pwede yon no ha? Bat hindi ka mag explain
because not all explanations can be justified.
In one of the cases, I think, it is Quimzon versus
Sandiganbayan. One of the cases in rebutting that
presumption is the giving of vale or advance salary.
So, sabi ng treasurer, O, kulang ng twenty
thousand dito? Eh sir, pinabale ko eh. O,bakit
mo pinabale? Kasi para walang pampasweldo.
Is that a valid excuse? Is that a valid act on the
part of the treasurer to rebut the presumption,
presumption that he converted or misappropriated
the same? In one case the Supreme Court said
that is not a valid excuse. Otherwise, if you allow
that as a valid excuse, then nobody will be liable for
a crime of malversation. He would just say, binale
eh di tapos na. Gagawa ka lang ng resibo eh, bale
ng bale. Ang sabi ng Supreme Court, if is not a
practice of that government agency in giving vales
or advance salaries, if it is not a practice in the
office of giving vales or advance salaries, then
you can be still liable for a crime of malversation.
But if that has been a practice even before he
became an accountable officer, and that is already
being practice in the office, that may be a valid
excuse. And, therefore, sufficient to rebut that
presumption of misappropriation or conversion,
okay. So, ayan ang malversation under Article 217.
RA 7080 - PLUNDER LAW
Now, the amassing of wealth or the accumulation of
wealth in the amount of at least fifty million pesos
should be done through a series of acts or a
combination of overt acts arising from any of the
crimes provided for in the Republic Act 7080, six
predicate crimes. You know the six predicate
crimes that include bribery, or receipt of any
pecuniary benefit by reason in part of the position.
So, one of the predicate prime is bribery. Ano
yung predicate crime na bribery? Receipt of any
amount or pecuniary benefit by reason of position.
So, we have 210, direct bribery. Then we have 211,
indirect bribery, then 211-A, qualified bribery. Then
we have the special the two special kinds of
bribery under Republic Act 3019. Those are
Paragraph B and C of Section 3 of Republic Act
3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. So, those are limited to the
first predicate crime.
The second predicate crime is the crime of
mal ver sat i on, whi c h means t hat y ou
misappropriated or you converted your personal
benefit, the funds or property entrusted to you by
the government where you are an accountable
official or raid to be tantamount to a raid in the
public treasury. That is also a part of malversation,
pinaganda lang yung raid.
Then the other predicate crime yung 3, 4, 5,
recei pt of shares of st ocks or f ut ure
employment. Yung shares of the stock, you know,
it does not say if you are benefiting from the shares
of stock. Nakalagay don, receipt of shares of stock
or future employment. Walang sinasabi, making
money from the shares of the stock. Unlike yung
bribery talagang you make money out of it, eh.
Yung malversation also, you make money out of it.
But yung shares of the stock, receipt lang, eh.
Okay.
Page 54 of 98
Then the other one is fraudulent or illegal sale of
assets of the National Government. What I mean
is that you declared that the property of the
government is now for sale to the private sector.
Then by selling to the private sector, you made
money out of it. That is illegal or fraudulent sale.
Yan di ko masabing binenta, ganun yun di ba?
Government properties, there is no proof.
Maraming allegations dun, maraming kumita, diba?
The other one is formation of monopolies among
relatives, friends or associations of the public
officials. Of course you know what is monopoly. You
control a certain industry. You make money of it,
formed by your business associates, friends,
partners or even relatives.
Catch-all provision yung Paragraph 6. Receipt of
pecuniary benefit detrimental to the interest of
the Filipino people and the Republic of the
Philippines. Hindi binanggit kung ano yan, anong
crime yan. Basta sinabi nya receipt of pecuniary
benefit by reason of public position detrimental to
the interest of the Republic of the Philippines and
the Filipino people. Yun ang tinatawag nilang catch-
all provision. Okay.
PLUNDER; ILL GOTTEN WEALTH
So, if you amass, therefore, an amount of more
than 50 million pesos. So Mr. General, they
conducted an investigation and was found to have
an ill-gotten wealth of more than a hundred million
pesos. You know how to discover ill-gotten wealth?
What is ill-gotten wealth actually? When the wealth
is grossly more than out of proportion rather of
your legitimate income, any amounts beyond your
legitimate income will question for ill-gotten wealth.
There is a presumption of ill-gotten wealth under
the law of Republic Act 3019, The Anti-Graft and
Corruption Practices Acts.
So any amount thats out of proportion for your
legitimate income is called ill-gotten wealth. If the
ill-gotten wealth of the public official is more than
50 million pesos, is that government official liable
now for the crime of plunder? No, he is not liable
for a crime of plunder.
The amount that you discovered should have come
from a combination of overt acts or series of
combination of overt acts from any of those crimes
mentioned by law. So, the amount of 50 million
pesos, more than 50 million pesos should have
come from the series of acts from any of those
predicate crimes mentioned by law should have
come from bribery, malversation, shares of
stock, illegal sale, receipt of pecuniary benefits
or even creation of monopoly among friends or
his associates.
Sir, in the case of Chairman Abalos, do you mean
there is pecuniary benefit
You have to prove that he has more than 50 million
pesos.
But he might be
No. You can prove that. If his ill-gotten wealth is
more than 50 million pesos and then the amounts
were derived from the series of acts coming from
any of those predicate crimes, he may be liable.
But, you know, there is an issue there kasi eh. He
knows that kasi a amassing of (unintelligible) series
of acts or combination of overt acts, the series of
acts or combination of overt acts.
The problem there is that will you be liable a
public official will be liable if there is an
accumulation of more than 50 million pesos for a
series of acts, but the amount was derived from a
single transaction? So, one was awarded a
contract, he gave the amount of 100 million pesos
in order that contract will be awarded. That is a
crime of bribery, hindi ba?
Question: Is he now liable for a crime of plunder
because the act does not involve a series of acts?
Kasi nakalagay sa ill-gotten wealth, if the ill-gotten
is the amassing or accumulating of at least 50
million pesos, di ba, through series or combination
of overt acts, therefore it involved several acts, and
then through these acts, theres an accumulation of
more than 50 million pesos. Yun ang anothats
the problem. So, something like that.
Supposing you are with the Central Bank and then
you brought gold bullion, the amount the value of
which is 100 million. You are the person in custody.
So, you are the accountable officer of Central
Bank. In your custody is the gold. At one instance,
you brought out several gold bars worth 100 million
pesos.
SERI ES OF ACTS; PERALTA OPI NI ON
INCLUDES SINGLE ACTS AMOUNTING TO 50M
Question: Are you liable for a crime of plunder
because there is only one act producing probably
more than the amount of 50 million pesos? Sabi
nila hindi ako covered, eh. Ang sabi ko you know
the law why the law said a series of acts?
Because it was intended really to accumulate that
amount through the years because if you indicate
in the law what act - there is a bribery or
malversation of 50 million pesos only in one act.
And what will the banking officer do? Hindi
tatanggap ng 50 million, hatihatiin niya. So, ang
purpose na inilagay sa series of acts, so that it will
cover the accumulation of amounts that might take
place in two or three years. Then kung ilagay yung
single amount yan, hahatiin niya. Thats why they
said series of acts. So, he did not anticipate that
by saying series of act that might not include a
single act. Ang sabi ko, that includes single
acts. Kasi meron na dyan, dun sa BP 22 by
analogy.
So, they acquitted the accused on the ground that
he cannot be convicted because the law does not
provide that if the reason of the owner is account
Page 55 of 98
closed, you are liable for violation of BP 22. Ang
nakalagay lang dun, eh, drawn against insufficiency
of fund. Pagdating sa Supreme pinagalitan yung
judge, eh. Anong sabi, ikaw naman judge ika, yung
drawn against insufficiency of fund may account na
yan, di ba, kaya lang kulang ang pondo. Ito account
closed na nga wala nang account, hindi pa
covered, thats even worse. Pinagalitan, so covered
na nga yung account closed.
When do you know apply that question? If series of
acts are covered, hindi ba, that involved reasoning.
The act is only a single act. You have accumulated
more than 50 million through the years, eh, covered
ka. That was only one act of amounting to more
than 50 million pesos is not covered, with more
reason that should be covered, hindi ba? Okay.
PLUNDER CONSPIRACY IN RELATION TO
ROBBERY;
The giver is not liable for a crime of corruption of a
public official. He becomes a conspirator in a crime
of plunder. Therefore, if in the crime of robbery, the
giver was practically forced to give his money, can
you charge now the giver as liable for the crime of
plunder when the money is not willingly given?
Kaya hindi pwedeng robbery, eh. Because the giver
must also may be liable as part of the series of
acts. Eh, kung pinilit mo yung robber. Pwede bang -
will you file it? Will you file a case against him or
plunder? The money was not willingly given. Yun,
maraming questions ka doon kung ang iba'y
nagsasabi, covered daw eh. We dont know if it is
covered. Bawal yan under the six predicate crime.
Or even if you read the catch-all provision, receipt,
eh, of pecuniary benefit, eh. You receive, in a crime
of robbery, you do not receive eh. You unlawfully
take, eh. Yun ang diperensya ng bribery at saka
robbery. Yung bribery, mutual. Yung robbery, you
unlawfully take because it is against the consent.
PLUNDER CONSPIRACY IN RELATION TO
GIVERS; LIABILITY
Supposing five persons or three persons gave 20
million each, di ba? You gave me 20 million, 20
million, 20 million. In so far as Im concerned as the
public officer, I am now liable for a crime of plunder
because the amount already reached more than 50
million.
But about the givers? He only gave 20 million, eh.
20 million, 20 million. Will they now be liable for a
crime of plunder? Of course, they will be liable for
the crime of plunder as long as they come from the
same predicate crime. What does that mean? Yun
ang kaso ni thats was the raised in the case of
Senator Estrada, Jinggoy, eh. Kasi siya, in the
information he was charged with the crime of
plunder, but in the evidence he did not contribute.
But there is no showing that he got more than 50
million pesos as far as the conspiracy. Two million
lang sa kanya, eh. So, kinuwestyon na nya ngayon
yung provision. How could I be liable for a crime of
plunder when it is submitted that the extent of my
participation is only up to 2 million. Anong sabi ng
Supreme Court, liable ka because that is part of the
series of acts.
If all the amounts came from a single predicate
crime of bribery, lets say 20 million, 20 million, 20
million. Lahat kayo liable kayo ng plunder because
those are parts of the series of act and they come
from the same predicate crime. But if for example,
the 40 million came from the two, but the 50 million
did not come from they are probably shares of
stock. Shares of stock worth 20 million was given to
me. It is not bribery, but I receive shares of stock
worth 20 million.
Question: Will I be liable for a crime of plunder? Of
course, because there is an accumulation of more
than 50 million. Eh, pano yung kwan yung tatlo,
they cannot be liable for a crime of plunder? Why?
Because one of the amount of 20 million did not
come from the same predicate crime. The amount
should come from the same predicate crime, so to
speak. Hindi pwede yung iba lets say kung 10
million lang yung participation, yung isa, different
predicate crime pagkatapos ipapataw mo doon sa
iba yung wala 50 million, he will be treated
separately from the others because they do not
come from the same predicate crime.
RA 1379; PRESUMPTION ESTABLISHED
If you may approve, the acts that lead to the
accumulation of an ill-gotten wealth more than P50
million, the remedy of the State is not to file a crime
of plunder. The remedy of the State is to file a
forfeiture of assets under Republic Act 1379 which
is civil in character. Thats what they did with
President Marcos and family. It was very easy to
recover any ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses
because under Republic Act 1379, the law of
forfeiture, when they have established that there is
an ill-gotten wealth, the burden of proof shall be
part of the defendants, to prove that it is not ill-
gotten. May presumption of ill-gotten, eh under RA
1379.
AMOUNTS PLUNDERED NEED NOT BE
LOCATED TO SUSTAIN PLUNDER CONVICTION
But you can prove the accumulation because
whatever amounts deposited in the bank in the
fund, yun ang ill-gotten wealth. You do not need to
prove that the amount is still there. What all you
need to prove, there were amounts deposited. The
amounts accumulated are more than 50 million and
then the same were withdrawn by the same
person. Thats sufficient ill-gotten wealth. Because
if you prove that in the requirements that amount is
still there, walang mako-convict.
__________________________________
Art. 218. Failure of accountable ofcer
to render accounts. Any public ofcer,
whether in the service or separated therefrom
by resignation or any other cause, who is
required by law or regulation to render account
to the Insular Auditor, or to a provincial auditor
Page 56 of 98
and who fails to do so for a period of two
months after such accounts should be
rendered, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum period, or by a ne
ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public
ofcer to render accounts before
leaving the country. Any public ofcer
who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the
Philippine Islands without securing a certicate
from the Insular Auditor showing that his
accounts have been nally settled, shall be
punished by arresto mayor, or a ne ranging
from 200 to 1,000 pesos or both.
Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or
property. Any public ofcer who shall
apply any public fund or property under his
administration to any public use other than for
which such fund or property were appropriated
by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of
prision correccional in its minimum period or a
ne ranging from one-half to the total of the
sum misapplied, if by reason of such
mi s a p p l i c a t i o n , a n y d a ma g e s o r
embarrassment shall have resulted to the
public service. In either case, the offender
shall also suffer the penalty of temporary
special disqualication.
If no damage or embarrassment to the public
service has resulted, the penalty shall be a ne
from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied.
__________________________________
Crimes Committed by Public Officers: Part 2
TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
When you talk of illegal use of public funds or the
crime of technical malversation, the government
does not lose money. It does not lost any property
or money involved. What happens is that there is a
diversion of the funds of the government for a
purpose other than to which it was intended by law
or by ordinance. It was very important. It is the
illegal use of the public funds, therefore funds used
for a purpose different from what it is intended by
an ordinance or by law.
So, you use now the money for salaries of
employees for a purpose different from what it was
intended. The General Appropriations Act allotted
P10 million or P20 million for salaries. Therefore,
that amount should only be utilized for salaries. If
that amount allotted by law is used to buy, for you
to be used for other purposes others than what was
intended, that is a crime of technical malversation.
But it should be provided for by law of ordinance.
M A LV E R S AT I O N A N D T E C H N I C A L
MALVERSATION ARE TWO DISTINCT CRIMES
Now, one of the cases, the accused was charged
with malversation under Article 217, 'no? He was
charged with misappropriating or converting to his
per sonal benef i t f unds bel ongi ng t o t he
government. But during the trial, it was found out
that is was not actually Article 217. It was actually
a crime of technical malversation that he
committed. Question: Can he be convicted for
technical malversation? Or supposing, he was
charged with technical malversation but during the
trial it was actually misappropriation, or conversion
to his personal benefit, and therefore malversation
under 217, misaversion. Can he be convicted of
technical malversation if what is charged in the
formation is malversation under 217? So, people
said no.
These are two different crimes. They are not the
same. As I said, usually, the crime of illegal use of
public funds, walang nawawala sa gobyerno.
Misuse lang yan, misuse. Walang nawawala. As
a rule, ha. May nawawala because a general rule.
Walang nawawala as a rule. They are may be
instances where crime of technical malversation
can only be committed. Yung kotse ng baranggay
official for my use, di ba? So, I have a vehicle for
my use.
So, the purpose why a vehicle in the budget is
purchased is for the use of a government official. If
that car is used by other persons, your family, they
are members of your family for personal use, liable
ba yan ng illegal use of public funds. That is
technical malversation. Kaya ako di ako
nagpaplaka ng pula. Di ba ung pula government
car? Iyong plaka ko dalawa eh. Pwedeng may
pula pwedeng itim. Pag pumunta sa palengke,
itim. Technical malversation yan. When you used
the property of the government for a purpose other
than it was intended, that is technical malversation
under Article 220. Hindi malversation yan sa
Article 217.
__________________________________
Art. 221. Failure to make delivery of
public funds or property. Any public
ofcer under obligation to make payment from
Government funds in his possession, who
shall fail to make such payment, shall be
punished by arresto mayor and a ne from 5 to
25 per cent of the sum which he failed to pay.
This provision shall apply to any public ofcer
who, being ordered by competent authority to
deliver any property in his custody or under his
administration, shall refuse to make such
delivery.
Page 57 of 98
The ne shall be graduated in such case by
the value of the thing, provided that it shall not
less than 50 pesos.
Art. 222. Ofcers included in the
preceding provisions. The provisions of
this chapter shall apply to private individuals
who in any capacity whatever, have charge of
any insular, provincial or municipal funds,
revenues, or property and to any administrator
or depository of funds or property attached,
seized or deposited by public authority, even if
such property belongs to a private individual.

Chapter Five
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section One. Indelity in the custody
of prisoners

Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting
to evasion. Any public ofcer who shall
consent to the escape of a prisoner in his
custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special
perpetual special disqualication, if the fugitive
shall have been sentenced by nal judgment
to any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum
period and temporary special disqualication,
in case the fugitive shall not have been nally
convicted but only held as a detention prisoner
for any crime or violation of law or municipal
ordinance.
Art. 224. Evasion through negligence.
If the evasion of the prisoner shall have
taken place through the negligence of the
ofcer charged with the conveyance or
custody of the escaping prisoner, said ofcer
shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its
minimum period and temporary special
disqualication.
Art. 225. Escape of prisoner under the
custody of a person not a public ofcer.
Any pr i vat e per son t o whom t he
conveyance or custody or a prisoner or person
under arrest shall have been conded, who
shall commit any of the offenses mentioned in
the two preceding articles, shall suffer the
penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed for the public ofcer.

Section Two. Indelity in the custody
of document

Art. 226. Removal, concealment or
destruction of documents. Any public
ofcer who shall remove, destroy or conceal
documents or papers ofcially entrusted to
him, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a ne not
exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious
damage shall have been caused thereby to a
third party or to the public interest.
minimum and medium period and a ne not
exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever the damage
to a third party or to the public interest shall not
have been serious.
In either case, the additional penalty of
temporary special disqualication in its
maximum period to perpetual disqualication
shall be imposed.
__________________________________
IN RELATION TO THE CRIME OF ESTAFA
But you know, there is a twist here because what
we are talking of 226 is the crime committed by
public officer entrusted in the custody of public
documents, either he destroys, conceals, or
transfer the documents to other place without
authority. But when the evidence or when the
documents pertaining to records of the courts, then,
the crime may be estafa. Estafa under Article 315
Paragraph 3 Subparagraph C. Tingnan nyo sa
estafa sa 315 Paragraph 3, 'yun other forms of
fraudulent acts. Meron destruction of court records
and documents. If the destruction is for the
purpose of deceits, nakalagay yan. I think it's
Article 315 Paragrah 3 Section C. Kung court
records, estafa. If you destroyed the document,
you are in custody. The crime is infidelity in the
custody of documents. What if there were
destruction of court records or even documents of
evidence? Under Article 315 Paragraph 3
Subparagraph C, estafa yan. Bakit? When the
destruction of the document or a court record of
documents, it's for the purpose of causing damage
to another party, estafa yan. Destroyed the
evidence. Yung court record pinunit mo yung
evidence para manalo kaso 'yan, estafa yun.
__________________________________
Art. 227. Ofcer breaking seal. Any
public ofcer charged with the custody of
papers or property sealed by proper authority,
who shall break the seals or permit them to be
Page 58 of 98
broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision
periods, temporary special disqualication and
a ne not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Art. 228. Opening of closed documents.
Any public ofcer not included in the
provisions of the next preceding article who,
without proper authority, shall open or shall
permit to be opened any closed papers,
documents or objects entrusted to his custody,
shall suffer the penalties or arresto mayor,
temporary special disqualication and a ne of
not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

Section Three. Revelation of secrets

Art. 229. Revelation of secrets by an
ofcer. Any public ofcer who shall reveal
any secret known to him by reason of his
ofcial capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver
papers or copies of papers of which he may
have charge and which should not be
published, shall suffer the penalties of prision
periods, perpetual special disqualication and
a ne not exceeding 2,000 pesos if the
revelation of such secrets or the delivery of
such papers shall have caused serious
damage to the public interest; otherwise, the
penalties of prision correccional in its minimum
period, temporary special disqualication and
a ne not exceeding 50 pesos shall be
imposed.
Art. 230. Public ofcer revealing secrets
of private individual. Any public ofcer
to whom the secrets of any private individual
shall become known by reason of his ofce
who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer the
penalties of arresto mayor and a ne not
exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Chapter Six
O T H E R O F F E N S E S O R
I RREGUL ARI T I ES BY PUBL I C
OFFICERS

Art. 231. Open disobedience. Any
judicial or executive ofcer who shall openly
refuse to execute the judgment, decision or
order of any superior authority made within the
scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and
issued with all the legal formalities, shall suffer
the penalties of arresto mayor in its medium
period, temporary special disqualication in its
maximum period and a ne not exceeding
1,000 pesos.
Art. 232. Disobedience to order of
superior ofcers, when said order was
suspended by inferior ofcer. Any
public ofcer who, having for any reason
suspended the execution of the orders of his
superiors, shall disobey such superiors after
the latter have disapproved the suspension,
shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods and
perpetual special disqualication.
Art. 233. Refusal of assistance. The
penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period
to prision correccional in its minimum period,
perpetual special disqualication and a ne not
exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed
upon a public ofcer who, upon demand from
competent authority, shall fail to lend his
cooperation towards the administration of
justice or other public service, if such failure
shall result in serious damage to the public
interest, or to a third party; otherwise, arresto
mayor in its medium and maximum periods
and a ne not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed.
Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective
ofce. The penalty of arresto mayor or a
ne not exceeding 1,000 pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon any person who, having
been elected by popular election to a public
ofce, shall refuse without legal motive to be
sworn in or to discharge the duties of said
ofce.
Art. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
period, in addition to his liability for the
physical injuries or damage caused, shall
be imposed upon any public ofcer or
employee who shall overdo himself in the
correction or handling of a prisoner or
detention prisoner under his charge, by the
imposition of punishment not authorized by the
regulations, or by inicting such punishment in
a cruel and humiliating manner.
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a
confession, or to obtain some information from
Page 59 of 98
the prisoner, the offender shall be punished by
prision correccional in its minimum period,
temporary special disqualication and a ne
not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his
liability for the physical injuries or damage
caused.
__________________________________
Maltreatment of prisoners is committed by public
officer or entrusted in dragging the prisoners and
the prisoner is maltreated under their custody.
Pinagbubugbog mo yung kwan. Kawawa naman.
Nakakul ong na nga, bi nubugbog mo pa.
Maltreatment yan.
__________________________________
Section Two.
Anticipation, prolongation
and abandonment of the duties and
powers of public ofce.

Art. 236. Anticipation of duties of a
public ofce. Any person who shall
assume the performance of the duties and
powers of any public ofcer or employment
without rst being sworn in or having given the
bond required by law, shall be suspended from
such ofce or employment until he shall have
complied with the respective formalities and
shall be ned from 200 to 500 pesos.
Art. 237. Prolonging performance of
duties and powers. Any public ofcer
shall continue to exercise the duties and
power s of hi s of ce, empl oyment or
commission, beyond the period provided by
law, regulation or special provisions applicable
to the case, shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional in its minimum period, special
temporary disqualication in its minimum
period and a ne not exceeding 500 pesos.
Art. 238. Abandonment of ofce or
position. Any public ofcer who, before
the acceptance of his resignation, shall
abandon his ofce to the detriment of the
public service shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor.
If such ofce shall have been abandoned in
order to evade the discharge of the duties of
preventing, prosecuting or punishing any of the
crime falling within Title One, and Chapter One
of Title Three of Book Two of this Code, the
offender shal l be puni shed by pri si on
periods, and by arresto mayor if the purpose of
such abandonment is to evade the duty of
preventing, prosecuting or punishing any other
crime.

Section Three. Usurpation of powers
and unlawful appointments

Art. 239. Usurpation of legislative
powers. The penal ti es of pri si on
correccional in its minimum period, temporary
speci al di squal i cati on and a ne not
exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed
upon any public ofcer who shall encroach
upon the powers of the legislative branch of
the Government, either by making general
rules or regulations beyond the scope of his
authority, or by attempting to repeal a law or
suspending the execution thereof.
Art. 240. Usurpation of executive
functions. Any judge who shall assume
any power pertaining to the executive
authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the
lawful exercise of their powers, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period
to prision correccional in its minimum period.
Art . 241. Usurpat i on of j udi ci al
functions. The penalty of arresto mayor in
its medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and shall be imposed upon
any ofcer of the executive branch of the
Government who shall assume judicial powers
or shall obstruct the execution of any order or
decision rendered by any judge within its
jurisdiction.
Art. 242. Disobeying request for
disqualication. Any public ofcer who,
before the question of jurisdiction is decided,
shall continue any proceeding after having
been lawfully required to refrain from so doing,
shall be punished by arresto mayor and a ne
not exceeding 500 pesos.
Art. 243. Orders or requests by
executive ofcers to any judicial
authority. Any executive ofcer who shall
address any order or suggestion to any judicial
authority with respect to any case or business
coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
courts of justice shall suffer the penalty of
Page 60 of 98
arresto mayor and a ne not exceeding 500
pesos.
Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. Any
public ofcer who shall knowingly nominate or
appoint to any public ofce any person lacking
the legal qualications therefor, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor and a ne not
exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Section Four. Abuses against
chastity

Art. 245. Abuses against chastity;
Penalties. The penalties of prision
periods and temporary special disqualication
shall be imposed:
1. Upon any public ofcer who shall solicit or
make immoral or indecent advances to a
woman interested in matters pending before
such ofcer for decision, or with respect to
which he is required to submit a report to or
consult with a superior ofcer;
2. Any warden or other public ofcer directly
charged with the care and custody of prisoners
or persons under arrest who shall solicit or
make immoral or indecent advances to a
woman under his custody.
If the person solicited be the wife, daughter,
sister of relative within the same degree by
afnity of any person in the custody of such
warden or ofcer, the penalties shall be prision
periods and temporary special disqualication.
_____________________________________
Yung mga guards, warden. Bago papasukin yung
asawa ng preso, pindot-pindot muna from the
guard. Request for a sexual favor in order that the
request of the lady visitor will be accommodated in
exchange. Yun, abuse of chastity yan for those
public officials who request for sexual favor in
exchange of a transaction. Lets say, yung mga
detained women. Nagbebenta ng mga dugo sa
mga ospital. Meron din lokong doctor. Op! Lagot
ka, iha. Bibili ako ng gamot. Pindot-pindot muna.
Ayan. That is the meaning of 245 abuse of
chastity. What makes it a crime of abuse of
chastity is that the victim has a transaction in the
public officer and in exchange of that favor,
magkakaroon siya ng sexual favor in exchange to
it. That is not a crime involving chastity. Thats
abuse of chastity committed only by those persons
mentioned by the law.
Title Eight
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Chapter One
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE

Section One. Parricide, murder,
homicide
Art. 246. Parricide. Any person who shall
kill his father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his
ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse,
shall be guilty of parricide and shall be
punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death.
Art. 247. Death or physical injuries
inicted under exceptional
circumstances. Any legally married
person who having surprised his spouse in the
act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person, shall kill any of them or both of
them in the act or immediately thereafter, or
shall inict upon them any serious physical
injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inict upon them physical injuries of
any other kind, he shall be exempt from
punishment.
These rules shall be applicable to parents with
respect to their daughters under eighteen
years of age, and their seducer, while the
daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall
otherwise have consented to the indelity of
the other spouse shall not be entitled to the
benets of this article.
_________________________________
Immediately thereafter - does not mean right
after, determine if he was still in control of himself.
There is no crime in this article. Destierro here is
not a penalty. It is for the purpose for protecting the
would be offender. Civil indemnity would be
improper.
Remember: While in destierro under 247, caught
using DRUGS
NO ISLAW, 6 months rehabilitation for rst time
offender, penalty is less than 1 year.
Page 61 of 98
DAUGHTER AND SEDUCER
That means the daughter and her seducer so, in
other words, the father kills the daughter. That"s
what the law says. This law applies also to the
daughter and her seducer.
So, what does that mean? It means, therefore, that
there is a crime of qualied seduction or simple
seduction being committed. Then you have to
refer yourselves to 337 and 338 of the Revised
Penal Code to understand that. Under Article 337,
the law provides that when a girl between the ages
of 12 and 18 consents to carnal knowledge or even
sexual intercourse through abuse of condence, or
committed by domestic servant, a teacher, or those
of religious calling, then the crime becomes a
qualied seduction, as long as the woman is of
good reputation. The other one is Article 338, the
crime of simple seduction. When the girl between
the ages of 12 and 18, virgin, consents to carnal
knowledge through deceit, then that becomes a
crime of simple seduction.
If the daughter now is being seduced, and there is
an ongoing sexual intercourse between the
daughter and the offender, in a qualied seduction
or in a simple seduction, and then the father kills
the man or even the daughter, 247 applies as an
absolutory cause. That is the application. Kaya lang
unfair don sa daughter. But the law says, in so far
as the daughter and the seducer, hindi sinabi na
seducer lang ang pinatay.
_____________________________________
Art. 248. Murder. Any person who, not
falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall
kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall
be punished by reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death, if committed with
any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. 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.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or
promise.
3. By means of inundation, re, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a street car or
locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities
enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of
an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public
calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scofng at his person or corpse.
__________________________________
Bar exam: guard red gun to scare, bullet bounced
back caused injuries... now it may lead to three
crimes
murder
homicide
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide
When the killing is attended by any of the qualifying
aggravating circumstances, then it becomes a
crime of murder.
However, if there is no intent to kill from the very
beginning, no intent to kill from the very beginning
even if the killing is attended by a qualifying
aggravating circumstance, that cannot become a
crime of murder. That becomes a crime of
homicide.
As we have studied in Paragraph 1 of Article 4
when you perform a lawful act, and then different
from what you have intended to commit, then that
is unintentional crime. I mean, you were performing
an unlawful act, although different from what you
have intended to commit, then that becomes a
crime of homicide, !di ba? He dies. Although
different from what he intended to commit. But if
you are performing a lawful act, in the performance
of such lawful act you caused the death of
somebody else, that cannot be homicide. That
cannot be murder. It becomes a crime of reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide.
Intent to Kill
1. Manner of killing
2. utterances prior and at the occasion of
3. weapon used (although a handkerchief may also
be used in a lethal manner)
__________________________________
Art. 249. Homicide. Any person who, not
falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall
kill another without the attendance of any of
the circumstances enumerated in the next
preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of
homicide and be punished by reclusion
temporal.
Page 62 of 98
Art. 250. Penalty for frustrated
parricide, murder or homicide
Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous
affray.
Art. 252. Physical injuries inicted in a
tumultuous affray.
_______________________________
Remember, there are just two kinds of tumultuous
affrays, one where death results, and one where
serious physical injuries results.
there is no such thing as attempted or frustrated
death during tumultuous affray. There is no such
thing. The crime becomes physical injuries during
tumultuous affray if the victim does not die. There is
no attempted or frustrated. It is only infanticide,
parricide, murder, and homicide where you have
attempted or frustrated. There is no such thing as
attempted or frustrated death. If the victim does not
die, then it is physical injuries.
REMEMBER: The essence of this crime is the
inability to identify, so the moment you can identify
who dealt those blows, then they should be
charged under the proper crime.
_____________________________________
Art. 253. Giving assistance to suicide.
__________________________________
Difference only in penalty if the one assisting pretty
much did the killing of the poor bastard.
__________________________________
Art. 254. Discharge of rearms. Any
person who shall shoot at another with any
rearm shall suffer the penalty of prision
periods, unless the facts of the case are such
that the act can be held to constitute frustrated
or attempted parricide, murder, homicide or
any other crime for which a higher penalty is
prescribed by any of the articles of this Code.
_____________________________________
Frustrated illegal discharge loaded aimed but
did not re, and if there was no bullet and
accused did not know, impossible crime.
_____________________________________
Section Two. Infanticide and abortion
Art. 255. Infanticide.
__________________________________
Killing a child under 72 hours old.
Difference in penalty if the mother or her
parents did the killing to conceal dishonor.
__________________________________
Art. 256. Intentional abortion. Any
person who shall intentionally cause an
abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall
use any violence upon the person of the
pregnant woman.

2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without
using violence, he shall act without the
consent of the woman.
medium and maximum periods, if the woman
shall have consented.
Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. The
and medium period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall cause an abortion by
violence, but unintentionally.
__________________________________
Intentional and Unintentional
purpose is to kill fetus but both woman and child
die
- if purpose was not kill the fetus, but then dies,
unintentional abortion
- if no intent to kill woman only fetus, homicide with
intentional abortion
- if to kill woman with treachery but not to kill the
fetus, murder with unintentional abortion
- theoretical instance : two intentions, one to kill
woman, and other child, this may result to two
crimes.
__________________________________
Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the
woman herself of by her parents.
_____________________________________
This article is self-explanatory. The woman
may commit this or her parents. Lower penalty
provided for if the purpose is to conceal
dishonor.
__________________________________
Page 63 of 98
Art. 259. Abortion practiced by a
physician or midwife and dispensing of
abortives.
__________________________________
Midwife or Physician cause or assist in an
abortion.
Physician is also liable for dispensing without
proper prescription abortives.
__________________________________
Section Three. Duel
Art. 260. Responsibility of participants
in a duel.
Art. 261. Challenging to a duel. (A)ny
person who shall challenge another, or
incite another to give or accept a challenge
to a duel, or shall scoff at or decry another
publicly for having refused to accept a
challenge to ght a duel.

Chapter Two
PHYSICAL INJURIES

Art. 262. Mutilation.
__________________________________
What about serious intentional mutilation or
intentional mutilation. What are these crimes? Now,
serious intentional mutilation, it will depend on what
is mutilated. If what is mutilated is a reproductive
organ, then that is serious intentional mutilation.
Any other part of the body mutilated other than the
reproductive organ is what we called intentional
muti l ati on. It becomes seri ous when i t i s
reproductive organ. It is intentional mutilation when
it is not a reproductive organ. But mutilation may
also be a serious physical injuries. If you cut off one
nger, that is also serious physical injuries. You cut
one nger that can be also intentional mutilations.
How do you differentiate the two? If the intention is
only to injure, then 263. But if the intention is to
mutilate, then that is intentional mutilation. Akin
!yung kamay mo tapos pinalo mo ng martilyo,
intentional mutilation !yun. But in the process of a
quarrel, nag away kayo, and then one of the ngers
was cut off because of the quarrel, then that is
serious physical injuries.
__________________________________
Art. 263. Serious physical injuries.
Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault
another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious
physical injuries and shall suffer:
1. insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind;
2. lost the use of speech or the power to hear
or to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a
foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have lost the use
of any such member, or shall have become
incapacitated for the work in which he was
therefor habitually engaged;
3. the person injured shall have become
deformed, or shall have lost any other part of
his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or
shall have been ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he as
habitually engaged for a period of more than
(90) ninety days;

4. illness or incapacity for labor of the injured
person for more than (30) thirty days.
If the offense shall have been committed against
any of the persons enumerated in Article 246, or
with attendance of any of the circumstances
mentioned in Article 248, the case covered by
subdivision number 1 of this Article shall be
punished by reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods; the case covered by subdivision
number 2 by prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period; the
case covered by subdivision number 3 by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
and the case covered by subdivision number 4 by
prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph
shall not be applicable to a parent who shall
inict physical injuries upon his child by
excessive chastisement.
Art. 264. Administering injurious
substances or beverages. The
penalties established by the next preceding
article shall be applicable in the respective
case to any person who, without intent to
kill, shall inict upon another any serious,
physical injury, by knowingly administering to
him any injurious substance or beverages or
by taking advantage of his weakness of mind
or credulity.
Art. 265. Less serious physical injuries.
Any person who shall inict upon another
physical injuries not described in the preceding
articles, but which shall incapacitate the
Page 64 of 98
offended party for labor for (10) ten days or
more, or shall require medical assistance for
the same period, shall be guilty of less serious
physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor.
Whenever less serious physical injuries
shall have been inicted with the manifest
intent to kill or offend the injured person, or
under circumstances adding ignominy to
the offense in addition to the penalty of
arresto mayor, a ne not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed.
Any less serious physical injuries inicted upon
the offender's parents, ascendants, guardians,
curators, teachers, or persons of rank, or
persons in authority, shall be punished by
prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods, provided that, in the case of
persons in authority, the deed does not
constitute the crime of assault upon such
person.
_____________________________________
Check that it does not amount to Direct Assault.
__________________________________
Art. 266. Slight physical injuries and
maltreatment. The crime of slight
physical injuries shall be punished:
1. By arresto menor when the offender has
inicted physical injuries which shall
incapacitate the offended party for labor from
one to nine days, or shall require medical
attendance during the same period.
2. By arresto menor or a ne not exceeding 20
pesos and censure when the offender has
caused physical injuries which do not prevent
the offended party from engaging in his
habitual work nor require medical assistance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a
ne not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender
shall ill-treat another by deed without
causing any injury.
Art 266-A. Rape: When and How
Committed. - Rape is Committed-
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge
of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority;
d) When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above
be present;
2) By any person who, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1
hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault
by inserting his penis into other person's
mouth or anal orice, or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orice of another
person.
Art. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under
paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use
of a deadly weapon or by two or more
persons, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, the victim has become insane, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion
thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua
to death.
rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall
be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the
crime of rape is committed with any of the
following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18)
years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or afnity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim.
2) When the victim is under the custody of the
police or military authorities or any law
enforcement of penal institution.
3) When the rape is committed in full view of
the spouse, parent, any of the children or other
relatives within the third civil degree of
consanguinity.
Page 65 of 98
4) When the victim is a religious engaged in
legitimate religious vocation or calling and is
personally known to be such by the offender
before or at the time of the commission of the
crime.
(5) When the victim is a child below seven (7)
years old.
(6) When the offender knows that he is
aficted with Human Immune-Deciency Virus
(HIV)/Acquired Immune Deciency Syndrome
(AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible
disease and the virus or disease is transmitted
to the victim.
(7) When committed by any member of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines or paramilitary
units thereof or the Philippine National Police
or any law enforcement agency or penal
institution, when the offender took advantage
of his position to facilitate the commission of
the crime.
(8) When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, the victim suffered permanent physical
mutilation or disability.
(9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy
of the offended party at the time of the
commission of the crime.
(10) When the offender knew of the mental
disability, emotional disorder and/or physical
handicap of the offended party at the time of
the commission of the crime.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use
of a deadly weapon or by two or more
persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to
reclusion temporal.
rape, the victim has become insane, the
penalty shall be reclusion temporal.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion
thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal
to reclusion perpetua.
rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if
the rape is committed by any of the ten
aggravating/qualifying circumstances
mentioned in this article.
Art. 266-C. Effect of Pardon - The
subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty
imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the
offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the
wife as the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty. Provided, That
the crime shall be extinguish or the penalty
shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab
initio.
Art. 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical
overt act manifesting resistance against the
act of rape in any degree from the offended
party, or where the offended party is so
situated as to render her/him incapable of
giving valid consent, may be accepted as
evidence in the prosecution of the acts
punished under Article 266-A
__________________________________
ATTEMPTED RAPE; MEANING
Then that"s attempted rape. Sometimes some say,
intent to lie down with the woman or in sometimes
they call it - intent to penetrate. Because lying down
is ano eh broad yun, eh. Pinahiga mo yun eh, that"s
lying down. But there is no intent to penetrate, eh.
So, if there is intent to penetrate, but the problem is
how do you know if there is intent to penetrate?
How will you know? It still depends on the facts.
Supposing the man insisted on inserting his private
organ, but he was prevented by the girl, so that he
could not insert his private organ. Then that is sure
intent to penetrate. But there was no penetration
slightest because the woman forced the man, di
ba? Ganun yun, eh. May intent to penetrate but
because there is no slight penetration, that will
become a crime of attempted rape.
FORCE; REQUIRED
enough for her not to be able to prevent the intent
to penetrate.
DEPRIVED OF REASON; MEANING
P: She might be asleep or was boxed. What about
a woman who"s sleeping? A woman who is
sleeping. Can you do a crime of rape when the
woman is sleeping? Is she unconscious?
S: Yes, sir. She is probably unconscious. Assuming
that there is a possibility that
P: There was an old case, I think 10 years ago,
when the woman was already sleeping but she did
not resist. If she is sleeping and then you go on top
of the woman and then she wakes up - of course
she will wake up. Then, she did not persist, ayun
Page 66 of 98
baka walang rape yun because she did not resist,
eh. When a woman is sleeping and then you go on
top of her she will be awaken. But if she does not
resist at that time, walang rape iyon. That is not
unconscious. What is unconscious is that, she only
discovers that somebody inserted his private organ
after she"s awakened. Yun ang unconscious or
deprived of reason. What about sleeping? There
was an old case, where the accused was convicted
because what happened there was she was
sleeping. Then when she was sleeping, somebody
went on top of her. Naramdaman niya eh. But
before that she thought that it was her husband.
Hindi nagrereklamo. Sabi niya ah, husband ko !to.
Okay lang. Ang problema after he inserted his
private organ, I do not know kung bakit ano- ah,
Hindi ito ang asawa ko! Hindi ito ang asawa ko!
Hindi sinabi sa case kung bakit, eh. Naramdaman
niya, hindi pala yun ang asawa niya. Baka maliit e,
o iba yung korte. That is still a crime of rape. She
did not resist him because she thought then that he
was her husband. Yun, sinabi ng Supreme Court,
rape yan.
Then there was another case in Palawan. Actress
yun ng British, eh. Kasama yung boyfriend then
they have been drinking, nag inuman sila dun.
Then the woman was a littler tipsy, probably tipsy,
nakatulog. Because this case came later than the
rst one, so the boy yung ano dun, yung parang
bellboy doon sa hotel. Yun pala ang ano, he went
on top of the British stage actress and then he
charged the boy with rape and he was convicted in
the lower court. But in the Supreme Court the boy
was acquitted because she was not totally asleep.
She was conscious. It does not fall under otherwise
conscious kasi she testied on cross examination
that she could feel what was being done to her. So,
if she felt there"s something but she did not resist.
She only resisted after eh. And then the other
problem is she fails to le the case, belatedly. Hindi
niya agad -nile yung kaso, eh. So, ang suspetsa
ko dun, the boyfriend later discovered that she
went to bed with another man, and the boyfriend
discovered, -nilan niya ng rape, iyon ang suspetsa
ko. So, that boy was acquitted in follow up. Swerte.
Nakalibre!
FRAUDULENT MACHINATION
The example that they gave you in congress is that,
let"s say even a customer. You"re a prostitute, you
have a customer and then you agreed that you will
pay the prostitute, let"s say in the amount of 5,000
pesos. Then after that she agreed to have a sexual
intercourse because you will have to pay her 5,000
pesos. Now, after the sexual intercourse, the boy
said, No, I will not pay you, pulis ako eh. Libre ang
pulis, eh. According to Congress, rape yun. That"s
the meaning of rape. That"s rape because she
should not have agreed to sexual intercourse if not
that is now fraudulent machination. Fraud, eh. Di
ba ang estafa can be committed also through
fraud? Likened to estafa yun eh. Or you have a
prostitute the asking price is 5,000 pesos. Then
sabi niya, Hoy, tama na sayo isang libo eh. Hindi
ka naman pala magaling. So, 1,000 lang. That"s a
crime of rape. That is fraudulent machination. Wala
pang nagaganyan eh. Meron na ba? Wala. The
prostitute will charge the customer? If she does
that, she will lose all her customers. She will not do
that. They included that, but that was not there
before the amendment, but they included that.
Okay. So, more than 12, you have to prove without
the consent?
RAPE OF VICTIM OF AGES BETWEEN 12 AND
18 IN RELATION TO QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
Between the ages 12 and 18, ha, as long as it does
not fall under qualied or simple seduction. So,
between 12 and 18 you always prove that is done
through any of those mentioned in Paragraph A, B,
and C. In all cases. There is one exception. When
the rape is commitment by the father over the
daughter or stepfather or stepdaughter even if the
daughter consented to a carnal knowledge as long
as the daughter is between the ages of 12 and 18
that can still be a crime of rape because according
to the Supreme Court, the moral ascendancy
exercised by the father by reason of parental
authority substitutes for the required force of
intimidation in a crime of rape. Kasi daw pag more
than 12 daw less than 18, pag sinabi daw ng tatay
walang magawa yung anak because of the
ascendancy. But if the daughter is already more
than 18, consented to a sexual intercourse
requested by the father, the father can no longer be
liable of a crime of rape. Why? Because there is no
parental authority to speak of. But the father cannot
escape liability, he will still be liable. He can still be
liable for a crime of qualied seduction under the
second paragraph of Article 337. Walang lusot ang
tatay, eh. Palagi yun. Kung more than 12, less than
18, nag consent yung anak, rape yan. Kung more
than 18, nag consent yung anak, hindi rape yan,
but the father may be liable for qualied seduction
under the second paragraph of Article 337.
Nakalagay dun sa second paragraph ng 337; even
if the daughter is more than 18 and is not of good
reputation, consents to a sexual intercourse of the
father, the crime is qualied seduction
MISSIONARY RAPE AND DOG-STYLE RAPE;
SUCCESSIVE STYLES, ONE CRIME EACH
Missionary rape is when the woman and the man
face each other. So, frontal ang rape. Dog style is
dog style, patalikod. Now, the difference between
the two is that, when it is a missionary rape, it is a
simple rape. Dog style rape is, likewise, a simple
rape but aggravated by ignominy. Aggravated by
ignominy. That means under Paragraph 17 of
Page 67 of 98
Article 14. It is still a simple rape but there is now
an aggravating circumstance of ignominy or moral
suffering under Paragraph 17 of Article 14. Not
treachery. Hindi rin mistake of the blow.
SUCCESSIVE PENETRATION
Yeah, three crimes !yan. Rape is consummated the
moment that there is a slightest penetration. So, if
you committed a crime of rape frontal and then
afterwards dog style, that"s another form of rape.
S: Sir, go back to missionary rape.
P: You go back to?
S: Missionary rape.
P: Eh, !di pangatlo na !yun.
S: Then go back to frontal, four times?
P: Yes.
DOCTRINE : PEOPLE v. ORILLA
Bawat hugot mo at saksak isang crime of rape yun.
People vs. Joseph Orilla where the Supreme Court
said that in that case the man ejaculated twice. So,
ilan crimes of rape? He ejaculated twice, ano. Sabi
ng Supreme isa lang crime of rape. Because
according to the Supreme Court consummated
crime of rape is determined by how many times the
private organ touched the opening. So, in other
words, you there is one consummated crime of
rape, ha. Inalis mo. Tapos regardless of the interval
of time, ibinalik mo. Pangalawang rape !yun. Bawa"t
hugot, isang rape yun. That is the implication. It is
determined by the number of times the private
organ penetrates the private organ of the female.
RAPE IN RELATION TO
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Ngayon, if your interpretation is that it is done
merely to satisfy one"s lust through lewd design,
acts of lasciviousness $yun, hindi ba? So, how will
you distinguish now if that"s acts of lasciviousness
or lewd design? Then, it will depend on the
intention of the offender because more than
lewd design is attempted rape, kasi. So, if your
problem is that walang erection, incapable of
erection, ah, mahirap i-prove !yun, eh. You're
incapable of erection, siya lang nagsasabi nun.
Then, that will be acts of lasciviousness if there"s
no intent to penetrate, hindi ba? What I am saying
is that, if there is no intent to penetrate, eh bakit
nandun kung may absence of erection? Bakit
nandun sa ibabaw yung lalaki? Conducting
surveillance? Hindi ba? That will be a matter of
defense. Sa tingin ko that will still be attempted
rape if you can prove that there is an intent to
penetrate.
SEXUAL ASSAULT AS A CRIME OF RAPE
266-B Par 2.
it can be committed against any person that means
that the victim maybe a boy, maybe a girl. The
offender may also be a boy, may also be a girl.
OFFENDER
The offender is the one employing force, not
necessarily the one who inserted his penis.
FINGER AS AN INSTRUMENT
Can you not insert an instrument or object into the
private organ of the male? But the law says any
person, eh, or instrument or object on the anal
orice of any person. $Yun ang any person. Even if
he is undergoing treatment for hemorrhoids?
Minsan itong batas kasi ano eh, because the law
says instrument or object, eh. That"s why the
question in one of the cases that was brought to
the Supreme Court, I think that"s in 2003, whether
or not that instrument or object includes a nger
includes a nger because the law says instrument
or object. The law does not say instrument or
object or any part of the body except private organ.
Nakalagay dun instrument or object, eh. So, any
instrument or object is something that is not part of
the body, kasi instrument or object, eh. So, a man
now, if a man touches the private organ of a male,
a male person touches the private organ of male
person against his consent, is that covered by
sexual assault as a form of rape? Yes.
The Supreme Court already interpreted that
instrument or object includes ngers or any part of
the body other than the private organ of the male. If
it is the private organ of the male, then it becomes
a crime of rape. If any part of the body, the tongue,
the ngers, that is sexual assault as a form of rape.
Kaya !yung genitalia na sinasabi mo. That also
applies to male person. Oh, let"s say a male person
forces another male. Okay. You undress and then
touch his private organ. Ginanun niya. That"s
covered by sexual assault as form of rape. Okay.
So, that"s not anymore acts of lasciviousness.
That"s already been settled, ano ha. But if you
touch the private organ of the female, then
afterwards in one occasion you went up and then
touch the breast of the woman. $Yun, dalawang
crimes !yun. The touching of the private organ of
the female is a sexual assault as a form of rape
and the touching of the breast or you fondle the
breast. That"s a crime of acts of lasciviousness
under Article 336.
INSERTION v. MERE TOUCH
Sir, is slightest penetration rule apply also to the
what sexual assault as a form of rape?
No, there is none, there must be insertion.
Consummated parati yun.
Page 68 of 98
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES IN RAPE
If the victim died in the crime of rape, special
complex crime of RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.
If the rape is attempted and the victim dies, it
becomes the special complex crime of
ATTEMPTED RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.
If the victim raped did not die from the injuries, the
crime is QUALIFIED RAPE. All the injuries now will
become elements of violence as a crime of rape.
If a vibrator was inserted in the victim, and died as
a result therefrom, then he becomes liable for the
special complex crime of SEXUAL ASSAULT AS A
FORM OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.
QUALIFIED RAPE
So what is then qualified rape? If the rape is
attended by any of the 10 circumstances in the law
on rape
RA 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Law) and RA 9262
(Anti-VAWC Law) in Relation to Article 266-A.
Republic Act No. 7610 Section 5 Child Prostitution
and Other Sexual Abuse
This says that the law applicable is the law on rape
in the revised penal code.
If the victim is more than 12 and less than 18,
then the law that is applicable is RA 7610.
Republic Act 9262 Anti-Violence Against Women
and Their Children Act - there is a relationship
between the offender and the mother of the
victim or the offender has a relationship with
the victim.
9262 covers four kinds of violence:
1) Physical violence.
2) Sexual violence.
3) Psychological violence.
4) Economic violence.
9262 WHEN APPLICABLE
When the act is committed against a wife, former
wife or has a common child. Naanakan niya,
common child or has had dating relationships or
has had sexual relationships, and their children.
That means that committed against women; those I
mentioned wife, former wife, has a common child,
has had dating relationships or has had sexual
relationships, and their children. Therefore, these
are the victims.
STEP FATHERS
The offender is the stepfather of an 11-year-old girl.
So, a man is living with a woman who has a child of
their own, and they had sexual relationship. They
are living together as husband and wife. But the
stepfather of the child later can be and then 11-
year-old girl surrendered herself, consented to a
sexual intercourse requested by the stepfather. So,
he will find now that is a crime of rape that his
statutory rape because the woman, the girl is less
than 12 even if she consents, that is always rape.
But, the law says in 9262, that if the victim is the
child of a common law wife and there's a sexual
violence, the law that is applicable is Republic Act
9262. But, there is no penalty for sexual violence in
9262. So what rule is violated? The laws
violated would be Republic Act 9262 in relation
to the law and rape in the Revised Penal Code.
Do not answer it immediately as Revised Penal
Code because the relationship of the offender and
the offended party is covered 9262. So, violation of
Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the Law on
the Violence Against Women and Children in
relation to statutory rape under the Revised Penal
Code.
! Now, if however, there is no relationship between
the offenders. So, a man was walking and then he
saw a little girl, 11 years old, not related, comes up
to the girl, then gives her candy. Then after giving
candy, the girl consented to a sexual intercourse or
carnal knowledge. What is the crime committed?
Then the offender will now be liable under the
Revised Penal Code because that is statutory rape
and there is no relationship covered by 9262, in so
far as the offended and the offender are concerned.

! Okay. Now, if the victim is more than 12 and less
than 18, so a man raped a girl between the ages of
12 and 18. What is the law violated? Definitely the
Republic Act 7610 as provided for in Paragraph 2
of Section 5 in relation to the law on rape in the
Revised Penal Code.
! But if there is a relationship between the offender
and the offended parties covered by 9262, then the
law that is violated is Republic Act 9262 in relation
to the law on rape in the Revised Penal Code.
MINOR VICTIMS
So, let's go to Section 5. Now, Section 5, as I've
said, covers victims of child abuses less than 18
years of age or those more than 18 years of age
who cannot properly manage themselves. That
means those are suffering from mental disorder,
covered yun by child abuse because they think like
a child. Hindi lang less than 18 yon and also those
who cannot properly manage themselves because
of mental deficiency.
Okay. So, a girl was sold by her mother. A girl was
sold by her mother. Probably, the girl was 11 years
of age to a foreigner who likes to have young
children. The girl was, likewise, raped. The 11-year-
old girl was, likewise, rapes. And then because he's
a foreigner, you went to the highest court in Pasig.
What is the highest court in Pasig? Victoria Court.
That is the highest court. And with the consent of
the owner of the motel, allowed the foreigner and
the girl to rent a room where he could use the girl
for sexual abuse. But the girl consented, she was
Page 69 of 98
raped. The mother, likewise, was raped. Ganon
ang nangyari kay Inday eh. Mamaya sabihin ko
sa'yo.
So what happened? So, consented? What is the
crime or what are the crimes? Are there crimes
committed? There are three crimes committed
there because she is less than 18 years of age. In
fact, she is 11 years of age. The mother will be
liable under Section 5 Paragraph A as a procurer.
Thats the meaning, pimp, under Section 5
Paragraph A.
The foreigner will be liable to the crime of rape.
Why crime of rape? Because the girl is less than 12
years old, that is always rape under the Revised
Penal Code.
Now, the administrator of the motel who knew of
what the man did to the girl because he allowed
them to go inside the room will be liable for
violation of Section 5 Paragraph C. The owner, the
administrator, of the place where the act is
committed is likewise liable under Paragraph C.
Now, if however the girl is more than 12, but less
than 18, what's the crime committed? There could
be no rape. Why no rape? Because the woman
consented, more than 12 na eh, less than 18, di
ba? But still the foreigner or the mother would still
be liable under Paragraph A, still a procurer. And
then the man could still be liable under Section 5
under the second part for the crime of child abuse.
Thats the meaning of child abuse or sexual
exploitation. And then the place where it took place
is still liable under Paragraph C of Section 5.
Walang lusot diyan eh.
But, supposedly, if the victim is more than 18,
allowed herself to be used, it doesn't anymore fall
under Republic Act 7610 because she is already of
age. She is not considered as a child for purposes
of Republic Act 7610.
So, the bar exams last year or 2 years ago, the
examiner combined the provisions of Section 5 and
the law of rape. Maganda yung tanong eh. Ang
ginawa niya, the mother allowed her daughter to be
used by a foreigner, and the foreigner instead of
having sexual intercourse with the girl, he inserted
a vibrator in the private organ and she dies, di ba?
She dies inside a motel where the administrator or
the manager allowed the foreigner to engage in
that lascivious act inside the motel.
STATUTORY SEXUAL ASSUAULT
Ang tinanong ngayon anong crimes committed.
Anong crimes? Yung mother is still liable as a
pimp, procurer. What about the foreigner in so far
as the girl is concerned? He is liable for the crime
of assault sexual assault with homicide. Ano
yan, sexual assault because if the sexual assault -
there is also what they call statutory sexual
assault. Di ba kung rape, statutory rape. But if you
do not insert your private organ, but instead the
instrument or object, it becomes sexual assault.
Therefore, you do not also prove consent. So, if
she died, if the girl consent, immaterial. Consent is
immaterial if the victim is less than 12. If she dies, if
the girl consented to the insertion of a vibrator and
she is less than 12, then the crime is sexual assault
with homicide under the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Republic Act 8353. And, then, the man
who the (manager) of motel will still be liable under
Paragraph C pf Section 5. Do you follow?
Yon ganon. Maraming sumagot homicide daw eh,
because there was no intent to kill. Hindi kako
sexual assault yan with homicide because she is
less than 11. So, everybody agreed that that should
be the answer. So, that was the answer in the bar
exams. Eh buti nalang ganon lang ang tanong he.
Mahirap kase pag pinag they ask you a question,
and then probably the answers could be found in
two or three special laws. Yun ang mahirap. Like in
the next topic, of course, you know already what is
battered woman syndrome, di ba? Under 9262, we
took that up when we took up Paragraph 1 of
Article 11, the defense of battered woman
syndrome, okay.
Title Nine

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL
LIBERTY AND SECURITY

Chapter One
CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY

Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention. Any private individual who shall
kidnap or detain another, or in any other
manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have
lasted more than ve days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating
public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have
been inicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained; or if threats to kill him shall have
been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be
a minor, female or a public ofcer.
The penalty shall be death where the
kidnapping or detention was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or
any other person, even if none of the
Page 70 of 98
circumstances above-mentioned were present
in the commission of the offense.
_____________________________________
267 in relation to grave coercion 286
Now, when you speak of 267, the intention of the
offender is to deprive the liberty. 'Pag 267,
deprivation of liberty. Para mas madali ninyo
maintindihan. 'Pag 286 sa grave coercion causing
somebody to do something against his will ang
grave coercion 286. You force somebody with the
use of violence or intimidation against his will
whether it is punishable by law or not.
267 in relation to 342 FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
Then we go to 342, to forcible abduction, it may
only be committed against a woman. The purpose
there is to commit lewd design. In other words, you
force a woman to go with you in order to commit
lascivious acts, lewd design, ano? Excluding rape.
Only lewd design. Lewd design does not include
rape.
kidnapping and serious illegal detention
lockup - restraint. When your freedom or your
liberty or your freedoms have already been
completely restrained. Meron ng lock up yon. Like
what? You are tied with your hands or your feet.
Tinali ka sa punongkahoy, tinali ka doon, nilagyan
ka ng blindfold. Nilagyan ka sa bunganga mo ng
handkerchief so that you cannot talk and, therefore,
you cannot see, you cannot talk, you cannot move.
Yun ang lock up. If there is already lock up, then
from that moment, your liberty is already restrained.
Kidnapping yan.
So when the perpetrator is caught but before
$lockup", he is only liable for grave coercion.
(peralta: no attempted kidnapping)
A child was taken against her will. She was being
brought inside the car. But before the child could be
brought to the car, the person was arrested. That
cannot be kidnapping because at the time that he
was arrested, the child was not yet lock up because
there was no yet complete loss of freedom, wala
pa. Pwede pa siyang sumigaw. Pwede pa siyang
tumakbo.
In other words wala pang loss of freedom at that
time. But that will not be a crime of kidnapping, that
cannot be a crime of kidnapping, but there should
be a crime, 'di ba? Ano ang crime doon? Then that
is grave coercion under 286 because somebody is
forced to do something against his will. And what is
the force? He is taken against his will, but theres
no lock up, then it becomes grave coercion.
New doctrine: 2006 - even if no demand for
ransom, but there is an intent to demand for
ransom, the crime is kidnapping for ransom.
Grave coercion
taken against will but no lockup
(In the words of justice, namimilit)
KIDNAPPING OR FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
If person abducted is woman, this is either
kidnapping or forcible abduction.
The only difference is the purpose. if to commit only
lascivious acts, then forcible abduction.
Basta minor/babae and the purpose to deprive
liberty, it is either kidnapping or serious illegal
detention
If the victim is a minor, check if the one detaining is
under the obligation to return the child, for if he is,
then he becomes chargeable under Art 270 and not
under Art 267.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF KIDNAPPING
AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION WITH
HOMICIDE
Let's go to some problem areas in 267. Although
the problem was already in the bar exams two
years ago in the case of People versus Larraaga,
et al, ano ha. Kaya lang dun sa question na 'yon
meron kaunting diperensya. But anyway, it was
already decided by the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court just recognized that when the
victim in kidnapping is killed or a crime of homicide
is committed or murder is committed or rape then it
is now a special complex crime. It is now special
complex crime, not a complex crime under Article
48. So, you denominate the crime as kidnapping
and serious illegal detention with homicide, tapos
sinabi nila puwede pang murder or rape as special
complex crime. Okay.
Kidnapping of minors in relation to special
laws.
RA 7610 sec 7 trafcking of children, sale/barter of
a child (mere act of selling/bartering is punishable).
The child is not taken against his will. The child is
just sold/bartered. This is not kidnapping.
RA 9208 sec 4 that a person is sold/bartered (a
purpose is required: FOR SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION, DEBT BONDAGE,
PROSTITUTION...)
SEC 7 ACTS PUNSIHED
Recruitment, employment abroad, sale, barter,
employment abroad, adoption, marriages for
purposes of going abroad, and then you have also
employment abroad, or also getting arranging
travels abroad for the purposemay purpose dun,
Now, if you now go to the enumerations from A to
H, ano ha, except the Paragraph G, 'yang purpose
ng trafficking enumerated by law is either for
prostitution, sexual exploitation, involuntary
Page 71 of 98
servitude, debt bondage, then on the last
Paragraph, Paragraph H, for the purpose of armed
activities, mercenaries, except in Paragraph G.
par (g) when child is abducted against his will/
violence - why not kidnapping? because of
purpose which is FOR SELLING ORGANS.
GUIDE
Oo, pag deprivation of liberty, sigurado ka 267.
Ngunit kung walang lock up, grave coercion. Ngunit
kung child trafficking, then Section 7 Republic Act
7610. For purposes of exploitation or any of the
purpose or any of the purposes mentioned by
Section 4 Republic Act 9208. But, there is also a
crime of kidnapping of a minor under 270. Kaya
kung kidnapping ng minor yan, dapat and
complete answer is if the answer falls under
267, they can denominate the crime as
kidnapping and serious illegal detention if the
victim is a minor.
_____________________________________
Art. 268. Slight illegal detention. The
penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed
upon any private individual who shall commit
the crimes described in the next preceding
article without the attendance of any of
circumstances enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone
who shall furnish the place for the perpetration
of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the
person so kidnapped or detained within three
days from the commencement of the
detention, without having attained the purpose
intended, and before the institution of criminal
proceedings against him, the penalty shall be
prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods and a ne not exceeding seven
hundred pesos.
Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. The penalty
of arresto mayor and a ne not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who,
in any case other than those authorized by
law, or without reasonable ground therefor,
shall arrest or detain another for the purpose
of delivering him to the proper authorities.
Section Two. Kidnapping of minors

Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to
return a minor. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon any person
who, being entrusted with the custody of a
minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore
the latter to his parents or guardians.
Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon
his home.
(A)nyone who shall induce a minor to abandon
the home of his parent or guardians or the
persons entrusted with his custody.
_____________________________________
The father or the mother of the child may also be
liable for this crime.
__________________________________
Art. 272. Slavery. The penalty of prision
mayor and a ne of not exceeding 10,000
pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who
shall purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a human
being for the purpose of enslaving him.
If the crime be committed for the purpose of
assigning the offended party to some immoral
trafc, the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
Art. 273. Exploitation of child labor.
The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods and a ne not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon
anyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing
himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian or person entrusted with the custody
of a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain
him in his service.
Art. 274. Services rendered under
compulsion in payment of debt.
Page 72 of 98
Chapter Two
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
Section One. Abandonment of
helpless persons and exploitation of
minors.
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in
danger and abandonment of one's own
victim. The penalty of arresto mayor shall
be imposed upon:
1. Any one who shall fail to render
assistance to any person whom he shall
nd 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.
__________________________________
If you cause injury to another through reckless
imprudence, then you abandon, it is a crime. so
you end up liable for two crimes. this only applies to
reckless imprudence, and does not apply to
intentional felonies.
Bar Question: Abandonment of a person on the
verge of death. - luneta park at 12mn - qualify if
inhabited/uninhabited.
Now, what is an uninhabited place? When there
are no people at any given time. If it so happens
that there are no people at that time, that does not
make the place uninhabited. Let's say, in the
evening at 12 o'clock, there are no persons around
the area. There are many houses. Is that
uninhabited? That is not uninhabited. That is
inhabited. So, there is no crime. 275 is not
applicable.
__________________________________
Art. 276. Abandoning a minor.
__________________________________
Abandoning of a child under 7 of which one
has custody of.
Higher penalty if the child dies or his life is put
in danger.
_____________________________________
Art. 277. Abandonment of minor by
person entrusted with his custody;
indifference of parents. The penalty of
arresto mayor and a ne not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who,
having charge of the rearing or education of a
minor, shall deliver said minor to a public
institution or other persons, without the
consent of the one who entrusted such child to
his care or in the absence of the latter, without
the consent of the proper authorities.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the
parents who shall neglect their children by not
giving them the education which their station in
life require and nancial conditions permit.
__________________________________
One in charge of rearing or education of a minor
delivers to a public institution or other persons
without the consent of the one who entrusted the
child to his care or the consent of proper
authorities.
Parents who neglect their children (by not giving
them the education which their nancial conditions
permit) are also liable under this article.
_____________________________________
Art. 278. Exploitation of minors. The
and medium periods and a ne not exceeding
500 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl
under sixteen years of age to perform any
dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength,
or contortion. 2. Any person who, being an
acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-
animal tamer or circus manager or engaged in
a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of
these kinds children under sixteen years of
age who are not his children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings
enumerated in the next paragraph preceding
who shall employ any descendant of his under
Page 73 of 98
twelve years of age in such dangerous
exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person
entrusted in any capacity with the care of a
child under sixteen years of age, who shall
deliver such child gratuitously to any person
following any of the callings enumerated in
paragraph 2 hereof, or to any habitual vagrant
or beggar.

If the delivery shall have been made in
consideration of any price, compensation, or
promise, the penalty shall in every case be
imposed in its maximum period.
In either case, the guardian or curator
convicted shall also be removed from ofce as
guardian or curator; and in the case of the
parents of the child, they may be deprived,
temporarily or perpetually, in the discretion of
the court, of their parental authority.
5. Any person who shall induce any child
under sixteen years of age to abandon the
home of its ascendants, guardians, curators,
or teachers to follow any person engaged in
any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2
hereof, or to accompany any habitual vagrant
or beggar.
__________________________________
278, I believe, has already been amended by
Republic Act 7610 exploitation of minors. It may
fall under child abuse. 'Yung act is punishable.
Why? Because the minor children is less than 16
years of age or below, or sometimes 12 years of
age or below, they are required to perform
dangerous tricks. 'Yung kumakain ng apoy, espada,
circus. That's true. That's 278. 'Yung dangerous
falling, 'yung acrobats, 'yung kumakain ng apoy, o
kumakain ng espada, yung mga acrobats, circus.
Those are punished under Article 278. But if the
acts fall under child abuse, then the law that is
applicable is Republic Act 7610.
__________________________________
Art. 279. Additional penalties for other
offenses.
Section Two. Trespass to dwelling

Art. 280. Qualied trespass to dwelling.
__________________________________
Trespass to dwelling : Any private person who
shall enter the dwelling of another against the
latter's will.
Qualied Trespass to dwelling : If committed with
violence or intimidation, a higher penalty shall be
imposed.
EXCEPTIONS
1. Any person who shall enter another's dwelling
for the purpose of preventing some serious harm
to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a
third person,
2. any person who shall enter a dwelling for the
purpose of rendering some service to humanity
or justice,
3. Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and
other public houses, while the same are open.
Art 128 Violation of Domicile - only public ofcers
But supposing you enter and then later on you
caused injury to the owner of the house. What's the
crime committed? The entry is not accompanied by
violence. But if the entry is accompanied by
violence, there is no problem. But if the entry is not
accompanied by violence and then after the entry,
violence is committed, what's the crime committed?
Will it be trespass to dwelling and another crime?
Or qualied trespass to dwelling?
Now, the violence required of qualied trespass to
dwelling should not be so serious. It is merely
violence in order to cause entry. Now, if you enter
the dwelling without any violence, but right after the
entry the owner of the house says, "Why did you
enter?" and then you box the owner of the house.
In other words, if the violence is still in connection
with the entry, then it's still qualied trespass to
dwelling. Pag pasok niya, "O, ba't ka pumasok?"
Sinuntok mo. In other words, if the violence has
something to do with the entry, even if the
violence took place after the entry, the crime is
still qualied trespass to dwelling. But if the
violence has nothing more to do with the entry, then
dwelling now becomes aggravating circumstance if
there is another crime committed.
The violence required in qualied trespassing
need not be serious, but only enough to enter.
If the violence had nothing to do with the entry,
then it is not qualied trespass. dwelling may
Page 74 of 98
then now become an aggravating
circumstance
__________________________________
Art. 281. Other forms of trespass.
_____________________________________
Trespassing into a
1. closed premises
2. fenced estate
of another while UNINHABITED, if the prohibition to
ENTER be not manifest and there has been no
consent form owner or caretaker.
Simply stated
But if you just merely enter an enclosed estate
period, the crime is Article 281. If you enter and
then build a house, claim that that is your property,
then the crime is 312 under crimes against
property.
__________________________________
Section Three. Threats and coercion

Art. 282. Grave threats. Any person
who shall threaten another with the iniction
upon the person, honor or property of the
latter or of his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law for the crime be threatened
to commit, if the offender shall have made
the threat demanding money or imposing
any other condition, even though not
unlawful, and said offender shall have attained
his purpose.
If the offender shall not have attained his
purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees
shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a
middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in
its maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a ne not
exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not
have been made subject to a condition.
__________________________________
Peralta:
Grave Threat - bodily harm/property/person/honor
What is punished is the threat employed.
papatayin kita is grave threat.
but if you say i will kiss you? That may fall under Art
285.
Supposing i tell you to give me your money
tomorrow or else i will kill you!
there is a threat of bodily harm, killing is a crime,
there is a future condition. no need to fulll the
condition. Grave Threat.
Supposing i say give me money now or i"ll kill you!
Difference : there is no more condition. the threat is
immediate. this is a crime of robbery. the threat
employed is an element of robbery, with violence/
intimidation.
So tomorrow, let's say, the time now comes for the
fulllment of the condition. Nagkita kami. Wala
akong kuwarta. "Give me your money." Wala akong
kuwarta. Kahit ano, gagawin ko. So, if he does not
give me the money, you are liable for a crime of
grave threat because the threat was employed the
day before. So, let's say, "Give me money
tomorrow or else I will kill you." Is it not that the day
before there is already a grave threat? So that if it
is tomorrow now, whether they have money or not,
there is already a consummated crime of grave
threat. There is no need for you to fulll that
condition because the law says even fullled or not.
Now, if the money is there, you give the money,
that is still grave threat. That is not a crime of
robbery because the giving of the money is not
immediate. So, "Give me your money or else I will
kill you," and then you give now the money. What is
the crime? Is that grave threat? No, that will now be
a crime of robbery because the threat that you
employed now is the element of robbery with
violence or intimidation. So, now it becomes a
crime of robbery.
__________________________________
Art. 283. Light threats. Any threat to
commit a wrong not constituting a crime,
made in the manner expressed in subdivision
1 of the next preceding article, shall be
punished by arresto mayor.
_____________________________________
Now, if the threat, however, does not constitute a
crime, then it may be Article 283. There is a
demand for money, that is the meaning of light
threat, or even 285 under Paragraph (c), any form
of threat.
Page 75 of 98
Peralta:
Writer in publication. give me money or else ill
expose your wrong doings as a public ofcial? or
else i will publish your criminal acts?
the threats do not constitute a crime. this is a crime
of light threats under 283
although in art 356, this may be punished as a
crime of blackmail.
283 - element is a future condition. but let"s say
there was no demand for money? then crime would
be par c of 285. it is not subject to a condition.
_____________________________________
Art. 284. Bond for good behavior. In
all cases falling within the two next preceding
articles, the person making the threats may
also be required to give bail not to molest the
person threatened, or if he shall fail to give
such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.
Art. 285. Other light threats. The
penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period
or a ne not exceeding 200 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in
the provisions of the next preceding article,
shall threaten another with a weapon or
draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be
in lawful self-defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall
orally threaten another with some harm not
constituting a crime, and who by subsequent
acts show that he did not persist in the idea
involved in his threat, provided that the
circumstances of the offense shall not bring it
within the provisions of Article 282 of this
Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do
another any harm not constituting a felony.
Art. 286. Grave coercions. The penalty
of arresto mayor and a ne not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who,
without authority of law, shall, by means of
violence, prevent another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or compel
him to do something against his will, whether it
be right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of
compelling another to perform any religious act
or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty
next higher in degree shall be imposed.
_____________________________________
So, let's go to grave coercion. Medyo mabigat ang
grave coercion. Bakit mabigat? Sometimes, grave
coercion is actually taking the law into your own
hands when there is a legal remedy. 'Yan ang
unang isipin niyo sa grave coercion. One of the
forms of grave coercion is taking the law into your
own hands when there is a proper remedy.
Example, somebody is renting your apartment and
he does not want to pay. What is your remedy?
Apartment dweller. You"re the owner of the
apartment. He is not paying. What are you
supposed to do? 'Di ba File a complaint for unlawful
detainer? That's your remedy. But supposing, in
order to require him to pay or in order that he can
get out from the premises, you cut off the water
line, you cut off the electricity. That's a crime of
grave coercion. That is taking to your own hands
when there is a proper remedy. Or somebody is
indebted to you, then you force him or you force
her to pay. That is, likewise, grave coercion.
The other form of grave coercion is you force
somebody to do something against his will. In order
words, like a woman, the woman does not like you.
You forced her to go with you. That's grave
coercion. There is violence, which is different from
grave threat. In grave threat, what is punished is
the threat. When you threaten somebody else, then
it becomes grave threat or light threat. When it is
grave coercion, the threat may be the element of
the coercion. So, if I threaten you and the purpose
is to force you to do something against his will, then
it becomes grave coercion because the threat is
now utilized. It is now the element of the grave
coercion.
_____________________________________
Art. 287. Light coercions. Any person
who, by means of violence, shall seize
anything belonging to his debtor for the
purpose of applying the same to the payment
of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor in its minimum period and a ne
equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no
case less than 75 pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall
be punished by arresto menor or a ne ranging
from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.
__________________________________
Page 76 of 98
Unjust vexation as a form of light coercion -
causing annoyance or vexing the senses of the
offended party short of injury. merely pangiinis.
peeping tom. kissing a woman without lewd design.
basta wag lang may injury.
In slander by deed, punished in Art 359(?) slapping
somebody in the face in the presence of other
persons, but if no one saw the slapping, it is not
slander by deed because you cannot besmirch his
reputation. If the person is injured, even if for a
short time, it may become a crime of ill treatment,
but if no injury and no one saw the act, then unjust
vexation.
But supposing a woman is being followed
persistently, what is the crime committed? there is
now a crime of STALKING. under VAWC.
In Art 132 offensive to religious feeling... same as
unjust vexation but only peculiar to religious
feelings
__________________________________
Art. 288. Other similar coercions;
(Compulsory purchase of merchandise
and payment of wages by means of
tokens.) The penalty of arresto mayor or a
ne ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon any person, agent or
ofcer, of any association or corporation who
shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or
shall knowingly permit any laborer or
employee employed by him or by such rm or
corporation to be forced or compelled, to
purchase merchandise or commodities of any
kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon
any person who shall pay the wages due a
laborer or employee employed by him, by
means of tokens or objects other than the legal
tender currency of the laborer or employee.
Art. 289. Formation, maintenance and
prohibition of combination of capital or
labor through violence or threats.
The penalty of arresto mayor and a ne not
exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who, for the purpose of organizing,
maintaining or preventing coalitions or capital
or labor, strike of laborers or lock-out of
employees, shall employ 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, if the act
shall not constitute a more serious offense in
accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Chapter Three
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF
SECRETS

Art. 290. Discovering secrets through
seizure of correspondence.
_____________________________________
Private person who seizes correspondence of
another.
Higher penalty if he REVEALS such secrets.
Not applicable to
1. parents,
2. guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody
of minors with respect to the papers or letters of
the children or minors placed under their care or
study, nor to
3. spouses with respect to the papers or letters of
either of them.
_____________________________________
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse
of ofce. The penalty of arresto mayor
and a ne not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any manager, employee, or
servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the
secrets of his principal or master and shall
reveal such secrets. (Learn AND reveal)
Art. 292. Revelation of industrial
secrets. The penalty of prision
periods and a ne not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon the person in charge,
employee or workman of any manufacturing or
industrial establishment who, to the prejudice
of the owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of
the industry of the latter.
Title Ten
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Chapter One
ROBBERY IN GENERAL

Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery.
Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take
any personal property belonging to another, by
means of violence or intimidation of any
Page 77 of 98
person, or using force upon anything shall
be guilty of robbery.
__________________________________
Manner of asportation if attended by violence or
force upon things
robbery under 293, if not attended, simple theft
If along the hiway - the crime maybe PD 532 hiway
robbery, if not maybe simply robbery under 293.
__________________________________
Section One. Robbery with violence
or intimidation of persons.
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons; Penalties.
1. on occasion of the robbery the crime of
homicide shall have been committed.
2. when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape or intentional
mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of
such robbery, any of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263
(insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind) shall
have been inicted; Higher penalty if rape is
committed with the use of a deadly weapon
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by
reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of
the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2
(loss of speech, hearing, smelling, an eye, a
hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have lost
the use of any such member, or shall have
become incapacitated for the work in which he
was therefor habitually engaged) of the article
mentioned in the next preceding paragraph,
shall have been inicted.
4. If the violence or intimidation employed
in the commission of the robbery shall have
been carried to a degree clearly
unnecessary for the commission of the crime,
or when in the course of its execution, the
offender shall have inicted upon any person
not responsible for its commission any of the
physical injuries covered by sub-divisions 3
and 4 (deformity, loss of any other part of his
body, or loss of the use thereof, or shall have
been ill or incapacitated for the performance of
the work in which he as habitually engaged for
a period of more than (90) ninety days; illness
or incapacity for labor of the injured person for
more than (30) thirty days.) of said Article 263.
maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period in other cases. (As amended
by R. A. 18).
_____________________________________
1. Homicide rape mutilation arson on the occasion
of robbery, should include by reason thereof. So
even if killing takes place after, as long as it was
by reason of the robbery then robbery with
homicide. This also includes killing through
culpa or reckless imprudence. If killing
happened before the taking, the intention was to
kill. Two crimes: Murder and Theft.
Regardless of number of rape/killings, it does
not result to different crimes or serve to
aggravate. Special Complex. if several people
were killed and some were hurt, those who hurt
fall under the designation of Robbery with
Homicide. If the victim does not die, then
Robbery with Serious physical injuries, but if
slight then it is covered by 294 par 5, simple
robbery.
If someone was killed and raped on account of
the robbery, then robbery with homicide and
rape.
Now, the other thing here is that - of course, I
told you last time I think in Article 48 that if two
or more persons died on the occasion of
robbery, then you denominate the crime as
robbery with homicide. There is no such thing as
robbery with multiple homicide or double
homicide. The excess killings will be included
under the generic term "homicide." So,
regardless of persons who died, we denominate
the crime as robbery with homicide because that
is a special complex crime. So, you do not
anymore create the additional homicides as
analogous to aggravating circumstances of
cruelty. Wala na yan. The old doctrine has been
overtaken by the doctrines later on in People vs.
Rutan and People vs. Regala.
Now, if on the occasion of robbery, some died,
some were killed, some survived, therefore,
physical injuries, what"s the crime committed?
Merely robbery with homicide. Those who
survived or those who suffered serious physical
injuries are included likewise in the generic term
"homicide." Walang crime na robbery with
homicide and physical injuries, no crime. Injuries
there are included in the generic term
"homicide."
Now, if the victim does not die on the occasion
of robbery, what is the crime committed? No
Page 78 of 98
crime of robbery with attempted or frustrated
homicide. No crime of attempted or frustrated
murder. If the victim does not die, then
denominate the crime as robbery with
serious physical injuries if the injuries are
serious. But if the injuries are only less
serious, or slight physical injuries, then
denominate the crime as simple robbery.
Walang robbery with slight physical injuries.
Walang robbery with less serious physical
injuries. Less or slight physical injuries are
covered by Paragraph 5 of Article 294. That
is simple robbery.
Okay, then intentional mutilation, of course you
know what is intentional mutilation. If on the
occasion of robbery, he is intentionally mutilated
or arson, so only one crime. So, robbery with
homicide, if all of these crimes take place on the
occasion of robbery, that is only one crime, a
single indivisible crime.
2. robbery with serious physical injuries - where the
victim ends up blind/imbecile
_____________________________________
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries,
committed in an uninhabited place and
by a band, or with the use of rearm on
a street, road or alley. If the offenses
mentioned in Art 294 (3)(4)(5) shall have been
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 passenger's compartments
in a train or,
5. in any manner, taking the passengers
thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances, or on a street, road, highway,
or alley, and the intimidation is made with
the use of a rearm,
the offender shall be punished by the
maximum period of the proper penalties.
In the same cases, the penalty next higher in
degree shall be imposed upon the leader of
the band.
Art. 296. Denition of a band and
penalty incurred by the members
thereof. When more than three armed
malefactors take part in the commission of a
robbery, it shall be deemed to have been
committed by a band.
When any of the arms used in the commission
of the offense be an unlicensed rearm, the
penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors
shall be the maximum of the corresponding
penalty provided by law, without prejudice of
the criminal liability for illegal possession of
such unlicensed rearms.
Any member of a band who is 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 same.
_____________________________________
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE
What do you mean by robbery with violence? So,
there are two kinds of robbery. One is robbery with
violence. The other one is robbery with force upon
things. When the robbery is directed against a
person, you want to deprive the possession or the
property of another person, and then you use
violence, that is robbery. That is the meaning of
robbery with violence. "Give me your money or else
I will kill you!" That is robbery with violence.
ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS
But when the subject matter of the asportation
pertains to inhabited or uninhabited houses,
therefore, you enter the house and then rob the
house. Then, the crime is robbery with force upon
things.
Art 295-296
Four armed men seriously injured somebody on
account of robbery:
294(1)(2) BAND is considered as an ordinary
aggravating, ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE/
ATTENDED BY SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
aggravated by a BAND
294(3)(4)(5) other forms of physical injuries, if
committed by a band, ROBBERY WITH/IN BAND
EXPLANATION
if the robbery with serious physical injuries falls
under paragraphs 3, 4 or 5 of 294 then the crime is
robbery in band. The band there is used in the
denomination of the crime because it is committed
by a band. Robbery in band. Now, if however, the
robbery with serious physical injuries falls under
paragraph 2 of 294, he became blind and became
insane, became imbecile, ano ha, committed by
four armed men, then denominate the crime as
robbery with serious physical injuries. The band is
Page 79 of 98
merely an aggravating circumstance. That is the
interpretation. Kung ang robbery mo eh 3, 4, 5,
committed by a band, they you denominate the
crime as robbery in band. But if your robbery falls
under paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 294, then
denominate the crime as robbery with serious
physical injuries aggravated by a band. Not robbery
in band. It"s not covered by 295 and 296
_____________________________________
Art. 297. Attempted and frustrated
robbery committed under certain
circumstances. When by reason or on
occasion of an attempted or frustrated
robbery a homicide is committed, the
person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to reclusion perpetua, unless the
homicide committed shall deserve a higher
penalty under the provisions of this Code.
__________________________________
If victim dies, robbery not consummated, this is
Attempted/frustrated robbery with homicide.
General rule is that there is no treachery in crimes
against property.
BUT in people v. ESCOTE if the victim was killed
treacherously, ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, but
because killing was aggravated by treachery, then
you consider it as an aggravating circumstance.
CRUELTY can also be appreciated if it attended the
homicide on account of robbery.
_____________________________________
Art. 298. Execution or delivery of deeds
by means of violence or intimidation.

Section Two. Robbery by the use of
force upon things

Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house
or public building or edice devoted to
worship. Any armed person who shall
commit robbery in an inhabited house or
public building or edice devoted to
religious worship, shall be punished by
reclusion temporal, if the value of the property
taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if:
(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or
building in which the robbery was committed,
by any of the following means:
1. Through a opening not intended for
entrance or egress.
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or oor or
breaking any door or window.
3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar
tools.
4. By using any ctitious name or pretending
the exercise of public authority.
Or if
(b) The robbery be committed under any of the
following circumstances:
1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes,
chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle;
2. By taking such furniture or objects to be
broken or forced open outside the place of the
robbery.
When the offenders do not carry arms, and the
value of the property taken exceeds 250
pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be imposed.
The same rule shall be applied when the
offenders are armed, but the value of the
property taken does not exceed 250 pesos.
When said offenders do not carry arms and
the value of the property taken does not
exceed 250 pesos, they shall suffer the
penalty prescribed in the two next preceding
paragraphs, in its minimum period.
If the robbery be committed in one of the
dependencies of an inhabited house, public
building, or building dedicated to religious
worship, the penalties next lower in degree
than those prescribed in this article shall be
imposed.
__________________________________
1) The rst one madali lang naman intindihin
yan. Bakit kamo? Eh kasi when we speak of force
upon things, then the subject matter is a house, or
public or a private building. But it becomes a
robbery with force upon things because there is an
unlawful entry. Unlawful entry. In other words, you
enter the premises. So, in other words, when you
enter the premises, as long as there is an unlawful
entry regardless of the manner of the unlawful
taking, that is always robbery.
Example: There are how many ways I think there
are
a) When you enter by breaking a wall, or a roof, or
a window. You enter. Kumuha ka ng nasa mesa.
Page 80 of 98
Let say, you broke open the window, even if the
valuable was on the top of the table, robbery 'yan
because what makes it a crime of robbery with
force upon things is the unlawful entry. 'Yun ang
rst mode of committing a crime. So, you broke
open a window kahit na hindi ka ano ang kukunin
mo dun, robbery with force upon things yan
because what makes it a robbery with force upon
things under the rst group or manners of
committing the crime is the entry. The entry is
unlawful.
b) Or you enter a window there is no force, but you
are entering an opening which is not intended for
entry or exit. Because if you enter an opening not
intended for entry or exit, that is unlawful entry.
'Yung window para saan ba ang window? Di ba
para sa hangin. Hindi naman daanan ng tao 'yan
eh. So, kung hindi daanan ng tao 'yan, tapos
pumasok ka. Kinuha mo yung nakalagay sa table
yung kwarta, robbery pa rin 'yun because the entry
is unlawful.
c) Or by using any ctitious name or pretending
the exercise of public authority. Kumatok ka sabi,
"Hoy, pulis ako." Naniwala. Pinapasok mo, unlawful
entry 'yun. Regardless of the taking that takes
place the manner of taking the place like inside the
house that is robbery with force upon things. 'Yun
ang the manner of committing the crime.
d) And the other is the use of a picklock, false key.
Nabuksan mo then you enter. You take something
inside the house even you did not break open
anything that is also robbery with force upon things.
2) Now the second mode there is an entry. So,
what the law provides in 299 is the entry now is
lawful. It does not fall under unlawful entry. And
what is it?
You enter an opening intended for entry or exit.
Nakabukas 'yung pintuan. Di ba pasukan ng tao
'yan? Pumasok ka sa loob ng pintuan. Therefore,
there is no unlawful entry because it is an opening
intended for entry or exit. Somebody did not
prohibit you from entering. Nakapasok ka eh.
Nakabukas eh. Now, the valuable at the top of the
table, you took that valuable on the top of the table.
Is that robbery with force upon things? That cannot
be robbery with force upon things. Why? Because
the entry is lawful. There is no unlawful entry. There
is no breaking. But it will still become robbery with
force upon things if after entering when the entry is
not unlawful you break open the receptacle, or
cabinets, so the watch is inside the cabinet.
Pumasok ka. Binasag mo 'yung cabinet, kinuha mo
'yung valuables that is still robbery with force upon
things even if the entry is not unlawful. Or pamasok
ka, the entry is not unlawful and then you brought
out the cabinet. Nilabas mo sa labas ng bahay. Pag
labas mo sa labas ng bahay break open mo 'yung
cabinet. It is still robbery with force upon things.
Art. 300. Robbery under Art 299 in an
uninhabited place and by a band,
penalty MAX
Art. 301. What is an inhabited house,
public building or building dedicated to
religious worship and their
dependencies.
Inhabited house means any shelter, ship or
vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more
persons, even though the inhabitants thereof
shall temporarily be absent therefrom when
the robbery is committed.
All interior courts, corrals, waterhouses,
granaries, barns, coach-houses, stables or
other departments or inclosed places
contiguous to the building or edice, having an
interior entrance connected therewith, and
which form part of the whole, shall be deemed
dependencies of an inhabited house, public
building or building dedicated to religious
worship.
Orchards and other lands used for cultivation
or production are not included in the terms of
the next preceding paragraph, even if closed,
contiguous to the building and having direct
connection therewith.
The term "public building" includes every
building owned by the Government or
belonging to a private person not included
used or rented by the Government, although
temporarily unoccupied by the same.
Art. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited
place or in a private building. Any
robbery committed in an uninhabited place or
in a building other than those mentioned in the
rst paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the
property taken exceeds 250 pesos, shall be
punished by prision correccional if any of the
following circumstances is present:
1. If the entrance has been effected through
any opening not intended for entrance or
egress.
2. If any wall, roof, our or outside door or
window has been broken.
Page 81 of 98
3. If the entrance has been effected through
the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar
tools.
4. If any dorm, wardrobe, chest or by sealed or
closed furniture or receptacle has been
broken.
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as
mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has
been removed even if the same to broken
open elsewhere.
When the value of the property takes does not
exceed 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be imposed.
In the cases specied in Articles 294, 295,
297, 299, 300, and 302 of this Code, when the
property taken is mail matter or large cattle,
the offender shall suffer the penalties next
higher in degree than those provided in said
articles.
__________________________________
Pag kotse, pumasok ka sa loob ng kotse walang
roberry 'yan, theft lang' yan. Pumasok ka sa
inhabited or uninhabited even if you used force,
there is no robbery. Robbery with force upon things
only applies to inhabited or uninhabited places,
public or private buildings. Ngunit kung squatters
area, robbery pa rin 'yun because the law does not
say, "The house will be big or small," basta sinabi
natin, inhabited or uninhabited."
__________________________________
Art. 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or
rewood in an inhabited house or
public building or edice devoted to
worship or an uninhabited place or
private building, penalty next lower in
degree.
__________________________________
Robbery with force upon things
When the subject matter of the asportation pertains
to inhabited or uninhabited houses, therefore, you
enter the house and then rob the house. Then, the
crime is robbery with force upon things.
But the subject matter of robbery with force upon
things, dalawa lang:
1) Inhabited, which is Article 299.
2) The other one is uninhabited, which is Article
302.
Example,kotse mo, nandyan sa parking. Somebody
broke the window in order to enter the car and then
valuables were taken from inside the car. The entry
was done through the breaking of a door or a
window, the crime cannot be robbery even if there
is force. Why? Because the car is not an
uninhabited or inhabited place, that's what I mean.
So, only the uninhabited or inhabited places may
be the subject matter of robbery with force upon
things.
Art 302 : same as Art 299; although, you cannot
use simulating of public authority kasi wala ngang
tao.
__________________________________
Art. 304. Possession of picklocks or
similar tools. Any person who shall
without lawful cause have in his possession
picklocks or similar tools especially adopted to
the commission of the crime of robbery, shall
be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum
period.
person who shall make such tools. This
includes locksmiths.
Art. 305. False keys. The term "false
keys" shall be deemed to include:
1. The tools mentioned in the next preceding
articles.
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner.
3. Any keys other than those intended by the
owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by
the offender.
Chapter Two
BRIGANDAGE

Art. 306. Who are brigands; Penalty.
When a band of robbers for the purpose of
1. committing robbery in the highway, or
2. kidnapping persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom or
3. for any other purpose to be attained by
means of force and violence, they shall be
deemed highway robbers or brigands.
If any of the arms carried by any of said
persons be an unlicensed rearms, it shall be
presumed that said persons are highway
robbers or brigands, and in case of convictions
the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum
period.
Page 82 of 98
_____________________________________
Where there are only three armed men for the
purpose of those in 306, then does not fall under
306. They will be liable for illegal assembly. armed
men for the purpose of committing a violation of a
penal law.
The mere formation of at least four armed men for
the purpose of extorting ransom or for the purpose
of committing highway robbery, then that becomes
a consummated crime. If, however, the four armed
men actually committed highway robbery, then they
will now be liable for a crime of highway robbery, no
longer liable under Article 306. What is punished in
306 is that before the highway robbery, there are
four armed men formed for the purpose of
committing any of those crimes mentioned in Article
306. That is already a consummated crime under
Article 306.
if asportation by a band is committed in the
highway, is that highway robbery? is may be under
PD 532.
In the case of people v. puno et al, SC made a
distinction in PD 532 and ART 306
HIGHWAY ROBBERY
Three essential requirements
1. the asportation should take place in the highway
2. the victim is not a predetermined victim
3. should not be an isolated one. it should happen
indiscriminately.
kidnapping - purpose is to deprive liberty
highway robbery
If only one robbery, then simple robbery only.
Supposing it happens in a bus with 10 passengers.
everyone is robbed.
Is that hiway robbery or simple robbery?
conicting jurisprudence. More accepted view, one
crime of robbery under the principle of continuado
delicto.
_____________________________________
Art. 307. Aiding and abetting a band of
brigands.
_____________________________________
1. Any person knowingly and in any manner aiding,
abetting or protecting a band of brigands or
acquiring
2. or receiving the property taken by such brigands
It shall be presumed that the person performing
any of the acts provided in this article has
performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is
proven.
_____________________________________
Chapter Three
THEFT

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft
is committed by any person who, with intent to
gain but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
shall take personal property of another without
the latter's consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property,
shall fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously
damaged the property of another, shall remove
or make use of the fruits or object of the
damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed
estate or a eld where trespass is forbidden or
which belongs to another and without the
consent of its owner, shall hunt or sh upon
the same or shall gather cereals, or other
forest or farm products.
Art. 309. Penalties. Any person guilty of
theft shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
and medium periods, if the value of the thing
stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not
exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the
thing stolen exceeds the latter amount the
penalty shall be the maximum period of the
one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year
for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the
total of the penalty which may be imposed
shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases,
and in connection with the accessory penalties
which may be imposed and for the purpose of
the other provisions of this Code, the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be.
medium and maximum periods, if the value of
the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but
does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
minimum and medium periods, if the value of
the property stolen is more than 200 pesos but
does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to
prision correccional in its minimum period, if
Page 83 of 98
the value of the property stolen is over 50
pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos.
5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value
is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos.
6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if such value does not exceed 5
pesos.
7. Arresto menor or a ne not exceeding 200
pesos, if the theft is committed under the
circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of
the next preceding article and the value of the
thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos. If such
value exceeds said amount, the provision of
any of the ve preceding subdivisions shall be
made applicable.
8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a
ne not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value
of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the
offender shall have acted under the impulse of
hunger, poverty, or the difculty of earning a
livelihood for the support of himself or his
family.
__________________________________
there is no more frustrated theft.
entering an enclosed estate, other forms of
trespass.
entering an enclosed estate, you use violence, then
you claim, usurpation.
entering an enclosed estate then you start
harvesting farm products/sh (as long as it doesn"t
fall under Art 310.)
INCREMENTAL PENALTY
So, if you are asked What is an incremental
penalty? in your bar exams, then they are referring
to a penalty of estafa and the penalty of theft.
Because the penalty sometimes will depend on the
value of the thing stolen in theft and the damage
caused in the crime of estafa.
__________________________________
Art. 310. Qualied theft. The crime of
theft shall be punished by the penalties next
higher by two degrees than those respectively
specied in the next preceding article, if
committed by a
1. domestic servant, or
2. with grave abuse of condence, or
3. if the property stolen is motor vehicle,
4. mail matter or
5. large cattle or
6. consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of the plantation or
7. sh taken from a shpond or shery, or
8. if property is taken on the occasion of re,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or
civil disturbance. (As amended by R.A. 120
and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980).
_____________________________________
Grave abuse of condence refers to other people
and not to the domestic servant.
What if helper has access to cabinets, And then
when you came home, she is no longer there and,
therefore, ran away your personal belongings, yun
ang qualified theft. Because you allowed her to
have access to your personal belongings. But that
is not grave abuse of confidence. It is merely abuse
of confidence. So, therefore, if it is a domestic
servant, there must be some sort of abuse of
confidence. Not just because she is a domestic
servant qualified theft na yan. Hindi.
what if teller receives deposits from a depositr, at
the end of day she did not turn over. she is liable
for Qualied theft.
Now, the other thing is that when the subject matter
of the theft is mail matters, then that's qualified
theft. Nagnakaw ka ng sulat, that's qualified theft.
Or if the subject, when it is cattle, it is no longer a
qualified theft. What is the crime committed? Cattle
rustling under PD 533, but under cattle rustling, it is
not merely the unlawful taking of a member of the
bovine family. It also includes butchering of a
member of the bovine family without the consent of
the owner. So, PD 533 does not only cover
unlawful taking. It also covers killing of a member of
the bovine family without the consent of the owner.
Baka akala niyo yung PD 533 nagnakaw lang eh.
Pag kinatay mo yung baka walang alam yung may-
ari eh, yan. So, you have to get the consent before
you slaughter a carabao or a cow. Okay.
what if subject of asportation is a motorvehicle? is it
carnapping
Carnapping
1. taking is attended with violence threat or
intimidation
2. in any other unlawful means. (lack of consent on
the part of the owner)
but supposing you went to have the car repaired,
and the you will redeem your car after one month.
you go back, the owner ran away with your vehicle.
it cannot be carnapping because taking was not
unlawful at the very beginning. could that be
estafa? when you speak of estafa, there must be
physical possession and juridical possession, while
in theft, only physical possession. when do you say
there"s juridical possession. TEST: can he put up a
Page 84 of 98
defense of ownership or lawful possessor? That is
the meaning of juridical possession.
people v. santos : the SC said that was Qualied
Theft. The owner cannot claim
the driver who steals the car, there is no juridical
possession. driver cannot put up defense of lawful
possessor.. so no estafa.
the taking of the vehicle must be unlawful from the
beginning. so in car repair : QUALIFIED THEFT OF
A MOTORVEHICLE.
in the occasion of carnapping and a person is
killed, it becomes a special complex crime. the
crime should be denominated as qualied
carnapping. people v. mejia. carnapping in its
aggravated form. RA 6539. But if it is qualied theft,
law does not recognize the killing, then you
complex the crime under Art 48. Supposing in a
carnapping three died, regardless o the death, then
it is just qualied carnapping, because it is a
special complex crime.
S: Sir, what if a motor vehicle was taken. The
taking was lawful from the beginning and so it is a
crime of qualified theft. But then someone was
killed later on. What is the crime?
P: That's a good question. Kasi yan when it is a
qualified theft of a motor vehicle under Article 310
and then supposing on the occasion so the driver
ran away the vehicle. If two days or three days
after, policemen ran after him, and then as a result,
there was a fire fight, one of the policemen was
killed. So, on the occasion of qualified theft, a
policeman was killed. So, how will you denominate
the crime?
Now, you could denominate the crime as qualified
theft? Okay, so that's a good question. Kasi if it is
carnapping - if on the occasion of carnapping,
somebody is killed then it becomes special
complex crime because under 6539, it recognizes
the killing as a crime that really committed on the
occasion of carnapping. But if it is a qualified theft,
the law does not recognize a crime of killing on the
occasion of qualified theft eh. So, if therefore,
somebody dies on the occasion of the qualified
theft, then you can still complex the crime as
qualified theft with murder or qualified theft with
homicide, but no longer under the principle of a
special complex crime. It will be under the principle
of Article 48 as a complex crime
Ang maganda roon kung tatlo ang namatay.
Suppossing in a carnapping, three died. How will
you denominate the crime? Regardless of the
death because that is a special complex crime, you
always denominate the crime as qualified
carnapping whether it is done with treachery or not,
it is qualified carnapping because that is a special
complex crime. But if it is a qualified theft, if the
crime committed is murder, of course, you can
qualify the crime as qualified theft with murder
because that is a complex crime under Article 48.
That's a good question.
Art. 311. Theft of the property of the
National Library and National Museum.
If the property stolen be any property of the
National Library or the National Museum, the
penalty shall be arresto mayor or a ne
ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, unless
a higher penalty should be provided under
other provisions of this Code, in which case,
the offender shall be punished by such higher
penalty.

Chapter Four
USURPATION

Art. 312. Occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights in property.
Any person who, by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, shall
take possession of any real property or shall
usurp any real rights in property belonging to
another, in addition to the penalty incurred
for the acts of violence executed by him,
shall be punished by a ne from 50 to 100 per
centum of the gain which he shall have
obtained, but not less than 75 pesos.
If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained,
a ne of from 200 to 500 pesos shall be
imposed.
__________________________________
there is intent to gain. It is actually a crime of land-
grabbing.
two-tiered penalty rule. two penalties may be
imposed. the payment of the ne here is xed. the
penalty of imprisonment is dependent on the extent
of violence used. so if violence is grave threat, then
penalty of grave threat + ne.
__________________________________
Art. 313. Altering boundaries or
landmarks. Any person who shall alter
the boundary marks or monuments of towns,
provinces, or estates, or any other marks
intended to designate the boundaries of the
same, shall be punished by arresto menor or a
ne not exceeding 100 pesos, or both.

Page 85 of 98
Chapter Five
CULPABLE INSOLVENCY

Art. 314. Fraudulent insolvency.
_____________________________________
Any person who shall abscond with his property
to the prejudice of his creditors
Making it it appear that you are insolvent to escape.
__________________________________
Chapter Six
SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any
person who shall defraud another by any of
the means mentioned herein below shall be
punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is
over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed
22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum
period, adding one year for each additional
10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may
be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In
such cases, and in connection with the
accessory penalties which may be imposed
under the provisions of this Code, the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be.
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, if the amount
of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not
exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period if such amount is over 200
pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if
such amount does not exceed 200 pesos,
provided that in the four cases mentioned, the
fraud be committed by any of the following
means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of condence,
namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or
quality or anything of value which the
offender shall deliver by virtue of an
obligation to do so, even though such
obligation be based on an immoral or
illegal consideration.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the
prejudice of another, money, goods, or any
other personal property received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same, even
though such obligation be totally or
partially guaranteed by a bond; or by
denying having received such money,
goods, or other property.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the
signature of the offended party in blank,
and by writing any document above such
signature in blank, to the prejudice of the
offended party or of any third person.
2. By means of any of the following false
pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud:
(a) By using ctitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, inuence,
qualications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits.
(b) By altering the quality, neness or weight
of anything pertaining to his art or
business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any
Government employee, without prejudice
to the action for calumny which the
offended party may deem proper to bring
against the offender. In this case, the
offender shall be punished by the
maximum period of the penalty.
(d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check
in payment of an obligation when the
offender therein were not sufcient to cover
the amount of the check. The failure of the
drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three
(3) days from receipt of notice from the
bank and/or the payee or holder that said
check has been dishonored for lack of
Page 86 of 98
insufciency of funds shall be prima facie
evidence of deceit constituting false
pretense or fraudulent act.
(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or
accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or
apartment house and the like without
paying therefor, with intent to defraud the
proprietor or manager thereof, or by
obtaining credit at hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or
apartment house by the use of any false
pretense, or by abandoning or
surreptitiously removing any part of his
baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house or
apartment house after obtaining credit,
food, refreshment or accommodation
therein without paying for his food,
refreshment or accommodation.
3. Through any of the following fraudulent
means:
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to
sign any document.
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to
insure success in a gambling game.
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in
whole or in part, any court record, ofce
les, document or any other papers.
_____________________________________
DIFFERENCE OF ESTAFA AND THEFT
Taking is always without consent of the owner, but
in estafa, the owner actually gives the property so
there is no unlawful taking. the offender receives
the property.
Bank teller who receives deposits. that is qualied
theft not estafa. The teller receives but does not
turn over. it is qualied theft.Meron bang juridical
possession? Meron bang unlawful taking? it is
qualied theft because when the teller receives the
money, it becomes the money of the bank, but the
teller does not declare, she ends up unlawfully
taking the money of the bank. The bank did not
give the money to the teller.
Now it would be different if you are an employee/
salesman, your work is to sell the product of your
employer. you"re a softdrinks sales man, in the
morning you bring out the products with the
obligation to remit the proceeds and to receive the
commission and return the unsold products and if
you run away with the money. estafa. there is a
legal duty to deliver.
Is there a juridical tie? yes, he is entitled to
commission. That will be his defense, he is entitled
to the money.
Novation of contracts. The agreement of the
parties is abandoned, and a new contract is
entered into. so the question is, what is the effect of
novation? does it extinguish criminal penalty for
estafa? Novation is not a ground for extinction of
criminal penalty.
EXCEPTION, the only estafa that can be
extinguished is only in Par 1. not par 2 or 3.
because the enumerations there a and b can be
novated, because it is a borderline of a civil
contract.
ex. you enter into sale, commission basis. money
was not remitted. nahuli in misappropriation? Then
you asked puwede ba yung reremit hulugan na
lang? and there is an agreement. There is no more
estafa. the rst contract is novated.
Estafa
1. Abuse of condence and unfaithfulness
NOT deceit - you repose condence to another
and it is abused
a. it is a borderline between a civil and criminal
obligation. Altering substance quality even if
consideration is illegal
i. contract of sale - civil character. if the
agreement is to deliver of 100 bags of
rice and quality is specied. What if is
delivered is NFA rice. The alteration of
the quality makes it ESTAFA. It is the
unfaithfulness or abuse of condence.
ii. If quantity is altered, that still makes it a
crime of estafa
iii. illegal consideration of gambling
iv. selling of shabu.
b. Par 1 (c) signature.
2. Misrepresentation, false pretense IS deceit -
PRIOR OR SIMULTANEOUS WITH
COMMISSION OF THE FRAUD
There is panloloko from the very beginning. The
crime of estafa is that the private offended party
could not have parted if you did not employ
misrepresentation or false pretenses.
a. Job recruiter. by pretending to have
inuence - panloloko. i can bring you to iraq
for employment, but you have to pay certain
fees. Only to nd out he is not an authorized
recruiter? he makes it appear that he has
authority to bring workers. Prior
simultaneous - and that the reaon why she
had parted was because of the
Page 87 of 98
representation that she could be brought
abroad.
b. Art or Business - ito gold ring ito because i
was the one who made it, sweet talking,
nabola, and the ring turns out na hindi gold.
if it is your own art, then 315(2). the reason
why i bought that was because of your
misrepresentation.
c. D - postdating of check - zosa owns a
jewelry store. i want to buy a ring for my
wife. yes sir, ito 100k. ok i can pay but i did
not bring my cash. i paid in check. issuance
of the check was simultaneous with the
parting of the goods.
3. compare with 290(a)
a. destruction of court records ESTAFA, all the
rest indelity in the custody of public
ofcers.
b. eating evidence to win, destruction of
evidence
cannot complex estafa through falsication of
private document
it is either estafa or falsication of private
document. same elements.
CREDIT CARDS
hindi puwedeng commercial document ang credit
card because there is a special law about it. We
agreed that that-hindi pa nga estafa ang sagot
naming dun. We agreed that the crime is
unauthorized use of access device, not even
estafa. It is only one crime of unauthorized use
of access device. You know what's the penalty?
Mataas ang penalty of access device, higher pa ng
theft, unauthorized use of, ano? Access device,
higher than theft because theft is determinedthe
penalty of theft is determined by the value of the
thing stolen.
Sir, unauthorized use din ba yung duplicated credit
card?
That's also under the special law. That's a crime if
that will be illegal use or illegal manufacture or
illegal production of access devices.
__________________________________
Art. 316. Other forms of swindling.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
and medium period and a ne of not less than
the value of the damage caused and not more
than three times such value, shall be imposed
upon:
1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of
any real property, shall convey, sell, encumber
or mortgage the same. 2. Any person, who,
knowing that real property is encumbered,
shall dispose of the same, although such
encumbrance be not recorded.
3. The owner of any personal property who
shall wrongfully take it from its lawful
possessor, to the prejudice of the latter or any
third person.
4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another,
shall execute any ctitious contract.
5. Any person who shall accept any
compensation given him under the belief that it
was in payment of services rendered or labor
performed by him, when in fact he did not
actually perform such services or labor.
6. Any person who, while being a surety in a
bond given in a criminal or civil action, without
express authority from the court or before the
cancellation of his bond or before being
relieved from the obligation contracted by him,
shall sell, mortgage, or, in any other manner,
encumber the real property or properties with
which he guaranteed the fulllment of such
obligation.
Art. 317. Swindling a minor. Any
person who taking advantage of the
inexperience or emotions or feelings of a
minor, to his detriment, shall induce him to
assume any obligation or to give any release
or execute a transfer of any property right in
consideration of some loan of money, credit or
other personal property, whether the loan
clearly appears in the document or is shown in
any other form, shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor and a ne of a sum ranging
from 10 to 50 per cent of the value of the
obligation contracted by the minor.
Art. 318. Other deceits. The penalty of
arresto mayor and a ne of not less than the
amount of the damage caused and not more
than twice such amount shall be imposed upon
any person who shall defraud or damage
another by any other deceit not mentioned in
the preceding articles of this chapter.
Any person who, for prot or gain, shall
interpret dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes,
or take advantage of the credulity of the public
in any other similar manner, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor or a ne not
exceeding 200 pesos.

Page 88 of 98
Chapter Seven
CHATTEL MORTGAGE

Art. 319. Removal, sale or pledge of
mortgaged property. The penalty or
arresto mayor or a ne amounting to twice the
value of the property shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall knowingly remove any
personal property mortgaged under the Chattel
Mortgage Law to any province or city other than the
one in which it was located at the time of the
execution of the mortgage, without the written
consent of the mortgagee, or his executors,
administrators or assigns. 2. Any mortgagor who
shall sell or pledge personal property already
pledged, or any part thereof, under the terms of the
Chattel Mortgage Law, without the consent of the
mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record hereof in the ofce of the
Register of Deeds of the province where such
property is located.
Chapter Eight
ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES
INVOLVING DESTRUCTIONS

Art. 320. Destructive arson. The
penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua
shall be imposed upon any person who
shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard,
storehouse or military powder or reworks
factory, ordinance, storehouse, archives or
general museum of the Government. 2.
Any passenger train or motor vehicle in
motion or vessel out of port.
3. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or
factory of inammable or explosive
materials.
Art. 321. Other forms of arson. When
the arson consists in the burning of other
property and under the circumstances
given hereunder, the offender shall be
punishable:
1. By reclusion temporal or
reclusion perpetua:

! (a) if the offender shall set
re to any building, farmhouse,
warehouse, hut, shelter, or vessel in port,
knowing it to be occupied at the time by
one or more persons; (b) If the building
burned is a public building and value of the
damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos;
(c) If the building burned is a public
building and the purpose is to destroy
evidence kept therein to be used in
instituting prosecution for the punishment
of violators of the law, irrespective of the
amount of the damage;chan robles virtual
law library
(d) If the building burned is a public
building and the purpose is to destroy
evidence kept therein to be used in
legislative, judicial or administrative
proceedings, irrespective of the amount of
the damage; Provided, however, That if the
evidence destroyed is to be used against
the defendant for the prosecution of any
crime punishable under existing laws, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua;
(e) If the arson shall have been committed
with the intention of collecting under an
insurance policy against loss or damage
by re.
2. By reclusion temporal:

! (a) If an inhabited house or
any other building in which people are
accustomed to meet is set on re, and the
culprit did not know that such house or
building was occupied at the time, or if he
shall set re to a moving freight train or
motor vehicle, and the value of the
damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos; (b)
If the value of the damage caused in
paragraph (b) of the preceding subdivision
does not exceed 6,000 pesos;
(c) If a farm, sugar mill, cane mill, mill
central, bamboo groves or any similar
plantation is set on re and the damage
caused exceeds 6,000 pesos; and
(d) If grain elds, pasture lands, or forests,
or plantings are set on re, and the
damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos.
3. By prision mayor:

Page 89 of 98
! (a) If the value of the damage
caused in the case mentioned in
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) in the next
preceding subdivision does not exceed
6,000 pesos; (b) If a building not used as a
dwelling or place of assembly, located in a
populated place, is set on re, and the
damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos;
4. By prision correccional in
its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period:

! (a) If a building used as
dwelling located in an uninhabited place is
set on re and the damage caused
exceeds 1,000 pesos; (b) If the value or
the damage caused in the case mentioned
in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subdivision 2
of this article does not exceed 200 pesos.
its medium period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, when the damage
caused is over 200 pesos but does not
exceed 1,000 pesos, and the property
referred to in paragraph (a) of the
preceding subdivision is set on re; but
when the value of such property does not
exceed 200 pesos, the penalty next lower
in degree than that prescribed in this
subdivision shall be imposed. 6. The
penalty of prision correccional in its
damage caused in the case mentioned in
paragraph (b) of subdivision 3 of this
article does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is
over 200 pesos.
minimum and medium periods, if the
damage caused in the case mentioned
paragraph (b) subdivision 3 of this article
does not exceed 200 pesos.
8. The penalty of arresto mayor and a ne
ranging from fty to one hundred per
centum if the damage caused shall be
imposed, when the property burned
consists of grain elds, pasture lands,
forests, or plantations when the value of
such property does not exceed 200 pesos.
(As amended by R.A. 5467, approved May
12, 1969).
Art. 322. Cases of arson not included in
the preceding articles. Cases of arson
not included in the next preceding articles
shall be punished:
1. By arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods, when the
damage caused does not exceed 50
pesos; 2. By arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, when the damage
exceed 200 pesos;
3. By prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods, if the damage
exceed 1,000 pesos; and
4. By prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods, if it is over 1,000
pesos.
Art. 323. Arson of property of small value.
The arson of any uninhabited hut,
storehouse, barn, shed, or any other
property the value of which does not
exceed 25 pesos, committed at a time or
under circumstances which clearly exclude
all danger of the re spreading, shall not
be punished by the penalties respectively
prescribed in this chapter, but in
accordance with the damage caused and
under the provisions of the following
chapter.
Art. 324. Crimes involving destruction.
Any person who shall cause destruction by
means of explosion, discharge of electric
current, inundation, sinking or stranding of
a vessel, intentional damaging of the
engine of said vessel, taking up the rails
from a railway track, maliciously changing
railway signals for the safety of moving
trains, destroying telegraph wires and
telegraph posts, or those of any other
system, and, in general, by using any
other agency or means of destruction as
effective as those above enumerated, shall
be punished by reclusion temporal if the
commission has endangered the safety of
any person, otherwise, the penalty of
prision mayor shall be imposed.
Art. 325. Burning one's own property as
means to commit arson. Any person
guilty of arson or causing great destruction
Page 90 of 98
of the property belonging to another shall
suffer the penalties prescribed in this
chapter, even though he shall have set re
to or destroyed his own property for the
purposes of committing the crime.
Art. 326. Setting re to property exclusively
owned by the offender. If the property
burned shall be the exclusive property of
the offender, he shall be punished by
arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period,
if the arson shall have been committed for
the purpose of defrauding or causing
damage to another, or prejudice shall
actually have been caused, or if the thing
burned shall have been a building in an
inhabited place.
Art. 326-A. In cases where death resulted
as a consequence of arson. If death
resulted as a consequence of arson
committed on any of the properties and
under any of the circumstances mentioned
in the preceding articles, the court shall
impose the death penalty.
Art. 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arson.
Any of the following circumstances shall
constitute prima facie evidence of arson:
1. If after the re, are found
materials or substances soaked in
gasoline, kerosene, petroleum, or other
inammables, or any mechanical, electrical
chemical or traces or any of the foregoing.
2. That substantial amount of inammable
substance or materials were stored within
the building not necessary in the course of
the defendant's business; and
3. That the re started simultaneously in
more than one part of the building or locale
under circumstances that cannot normally
be due to accidental or unintentional
causes: Provided, however, That at least
one of the following is present in any of the
three above-mentioned circumstances:

! (a) That the total insurance
carried on the building and/or goods is
more than 80 per cent of the value of such
building and/or goods at the time of the
re; (b) That the defendant after the re
has presented a fraudulent claim for loss.
The penalty of prision correccional shall be
imposed on one who plants the articles
above-mentioned, in order to secure a
conviction, or as a means of extortion or
coercion. (As amended by R.A. 5467,
approved May 12, 1969).

Chapter Nine
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF

Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious
mischief. Any person who shall
deliberately cause the property of another
any damage not falling within the terms of
the next preceding chapter shall be guilty
of malicious mischief.
Art. 328. Special cases of malicious
mischief. Any person who shall cause
damage to obstruct the performance of
public functions, or using any poisonous or
corrosive substance; or spreading any
infection or contagion among cattle; or
who cause damage to the property of the
National Museum or National Library, or to
any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in
common by the public, shall be punished:
its minimum and medium periods, if the
value of the damage caused exceeds
1,000 pesos; 2. By arresto mayor, if such
value does not exceed the
abovementioned amount but it is over 200
pesos; and
3. By arresto menor, in such value does
not exceed 200 pesos.
Art. 329. Other mischiefs. The mischiefs
not included in the next preceding article
shall be punished:
1. By arresto mayor in its
value of the damage caused exceeds
1,000 pesos; 2. By arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods, if such
value is over 200 pesos but does not
exceed 1,000 pesos; and
3. By arresto menor or ne of not less than
the value of the damage caused and not
more than 200 pesos, if the amount
involved does not exceed 200 pesos or
cannot be estimated.
Page 91 of 98
Art. 330. Damage and obstruction to
means of communication. The penalty
of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon
any person who shall damage any railway,
telegraph or telephone lines.
If the damage shall result in any
derailment of cars, collision or other
accident, the penalty of prision mayor shall
be imposed, without prejudice to the
criminal liability of the offender for the
other consequences of his criminal act.
For the purpose of the provisions of the
article, the electric wires, traction cables,
signal system and other things pertaining
to railways, shall be deemed to constitute
an integral part of a railway system.
Art. 331. Destroying or damaging statues,
public monuments or paintings. Any
person who shall destroy or damage
statues or any other useful or ornamental
public monument shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor in its medium period to
prision correccional in its minimum period.
Any person who shall destroy or damage
any useful or ornamental painting of a
public nature shall suffer the penalty of
arresto menor or a ne not exceeding 200
pesos, or both such ne and
imprisonment, in the discretion of the
court.

Chapter Ten
EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal
liability. No criminal, but only civil
liability, shall result from the commission of
the crime of theft, swindling or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by
the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and
descendants, or relatives by afnity in the
same line. 2. The widowed spouse with
respect to the property which belonged to
the deceased spouse before the same
shall have passed into the possession of
another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law
and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article
shall not be applicable to strangers
participating in the commission of the
crime.

Title Eleven

CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY

Chapter One
ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE

Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery.
Adultery is committed by any married
woman who shall have sexual intercourse
with a man not her husband and by the
man who has carnal knowledge of her
knowing her to be married, even if the
marriage be subsequently declared void.
Adultery shall be punished by prision
periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed
this offense while being abandoned
without justication by the offended
spouse, the penalty next lower in degree
than that provided in the next preceding
paragraph shall be imposed.
Art. 334. Concubinage. Any husband
who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse,
under scandalous circumstances, with a
woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit
with her in any other place, shall be
punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods.
The concubine shall suffer the penalty of
destierro.

Chapter Two
RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

Art. 335. When and how rape is
committed. REPEALED
Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. Any
person who shall commit any act of
lasciviousness upon other persons of either
sex, under any of the circumstances
mentioned in the preceding article, shall be
Page 92 of 98
punished by prision correccional.

Chapter Three
SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF
MINORS
AND WHITE SLAVE TRADE

Art. 337. Qualied seduction. The
seduction of a virgin over twelve years and
under eighteen years of age, committed by
any person in public authority, priest, home-
servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any
person who, in any capacity, shall be
entrusted with the education or custody of
the woman seduced, shall be punished by
medium periods.
imposed upon any person who shall seduce
his sister or descendant, whether or not she be
a virgin or over eighteen years of age.
Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction
is committed when the offender has carnal
knowledge of any of the persons and under
the circumstances described herein.
__________________________________
Art. 338. Simple seduction. The
seduction of a woman who is single or a widow
of good reputation, over twelve but under
eighteen years of age, committed by means of
deceit, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Art. 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the
consent of the offended party. The
penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed to
punish any other acts of lasciviousness
committed by the same persons and the same
circumstances as those provided in Articles
337 and 338.
Art. 340. Corruption of minors. Any
person who shall promote or facilitate the
prostitution or corruption of persons underage
to satisfy the lust of another, shall be punished
by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic
ofcer or employee, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations,
he shall also suffer the penalty of temporary
absolute disqualication. (As amended by
Batas Pambansa Blg. 92).
Art. 341. White slave trade. The
penalty of prision mayor in its medium and
maximum period shall be imposed upon any
person who, in any manner, or under any
pretext, shall engage in the business or shall
prot by prostitution or shall enlist the services
of any other for the purpose of prostitution (As
amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 186.)

Chapter Four
ABDUCTION

Art. 342. Forcible abduction. The
abduction of any woman against her will
and with lewd designs shall be punished
by reclusion temporal.
The same penalty shall be imposed in
every case, if the female abducted be
under twelve years of age.
Art. 343. Consented abduction. The
abduction of a virgin over twelve years and
under eighteen years of age, carried out
with her consent and with lewd designs,
shall be punished by the penalty of prision
periods.

Chapter Five
PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE
PRECEDING
CHAPTERS OF TITLE ELEVEN

Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of
adultery, concubinage, seduction,
abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. The crimes of adultery
and concubinage shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint led by the
offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute
criminal prosecution without including both
the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor,
in any case, if he shall have consented or
pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape
or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be
prosecuted except upon a complaint led
by the offended party or her parents,
grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any
case, if the offender has been expressly
pardoned by the above named persons, as
the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of
the offender with the offended party shall
Page 93 of 98
extinguish the criminal action or remit the
penalty already imposed upon him. The
provisions of this paragraph shall also be
applicable to the co-principals,
accomplices and accessories after the fact
of the above-mentioned crimes.
Art. 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of
crimes against chastity. Person guilty of
rape, seduction or abduction, shall also be
sentenced:
1. To indemnify the offended
woman. 2. To acknowledge the offspring,
unless the law should prevent him from so
doing.
3. In every case to support the offspring.
The adulterer and the concubine in the
case provided for in Articles 333 and 334
may also be sentenced, in the same
proceeding or in a separate civil
proceeding, to indemnify for damages
caused to the offended spouse.
Art. 346. Liability of ascendants,
guardians, teachers, or other persons
entrusted with the custody of the offended
party. The ascendants, guardians,
curators, teachers and any person who, by
abuse of authority or condential
relationships, shall cooperate as
accomplices in the perpetration of the
crimes embraced in chapters, second,
third and fourth, of this title, shall be
punished as principals.chan robles virtual
law library
Teachers or other persons in any other
capacity entrusted with the education and
guidance of youth, shall also suffer the
penalty of temporary special
perpetual special disqualication.
Any person falling within the terms of this
article, and any other person guilty of
corruption of minors for the benet of
another, shall be punished by special
disqualication from lling the ofce of
guardian.

Title Twelve

CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS
OF PERSONS

Chapter one
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
Art. 347. Simulation of births, substitution
of one child for another and concealment
or abandonment of a legitimate child.
The simulation of births and the
substitution of one child for another shall
be punished by prision mayor and a ne of
not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
any person who shall conceal or abandon
any legitimate child with intent to cause
such child to lose its civil status.
Any physician or surgeon or public ofcer
who, in violation of the duties of his
profession or ofce, shall cooperate in the
execution of any of the crimes mentioned
in the two next preceding paragraphs,
shall suffer the penalties therein prescribed
and also the penalty of temporary special
disqualication.
Art. 348. Usurpation of civil status. The
penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed
upon any person who shall usurp the civil
status of another, should he do so for the
purpose of defrauding the offended part or
his heirs; otherwise, the penalty of prision
periods shall be imposed.

Chapter Two
ILLEGAL MARRIAGES

Art. 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prision
mayor shall be imposed upon any person
who shall contract a second or subsequent
marriage before the former marriage has
been legally dissolved, or before the
absent spouse has been declared
presumptively dead by means of a
judgment rendered in the proper
proceedings.
Art. 350. Marriage contracted against
provisions of laws. The penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon
any person who, without being included in
the provisions of the next proceeding
article, shall have not been complied with
Page 94 of 98
or that the marriage is in disregard of a
legal impediment.
If either of the contracting parties shall
obtain the consent of the other by means
of violence, intimidation or fraud, he shall
be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty provided in the next preceding
paragraph.
Art. 351. Premature marriages. Any
widow who shall marry within three
hundred and one day from the date of the
death of her husband, or before having
delivered if she shall have been pregnant
at the time of his death, shall be punished
by arresto mayor and a ne not exceeding
500 pesos.
any woman whose marriage shall have
been annulled or dissolved, if she shall
marry before her delivery or before the
expiration of the period of three hundred
and one day after the legal separation.
Art. 352. Performance of illegal marriage
ceremony. Priests or ministers of any
religious denomination or sect, or civil
authorities who shall perform or authorize
any illegal marriage ceremony shall be
punished in accordance with the
provisions of the Marriage Law.

Title Thirteen

CRIMES AGAINST HONOR

Chapter One
LIBEL

Section One. Denitions, forms, and
punishment of this crime.

Art. 353. Denition of libel. A libel is
public and malicious imputation of a crime,
or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or to blacken
the memory of one who is dead.
Art. 354. Requirement for publicity.
Every defamatory imputation is presumed
to be malicious, even if it be true, if no
good intention and justiable motive for
making it is shown, except in the following
cases:
1. A private communication
made by any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral or social
duty; and 2. A fair and true report, made in
good faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other
ofcial proceedings which are not of
condential nature, or of any statement,
report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed
by public ofcers in the exercise of their
functions.
Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar
means. A libel committed by means of
writing, printing, lithography, engraving,
radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or
any similar means, shall be punished by
medium periods or a ne ranging from 200
to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the
civil action which may be brought by the
offended party.
Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer
to present such publication for a
compensation. The penalty of arresto
mayor or a ne from 200 to 2,000 pesos,
or both, shall be imposed upon any person
who threatens another to publish a libel
concerning him or the parents, spouse,
child, or other members of the family of the
latter or upon anyone who shall offer to
prevent the publication of such libel for a
compensation or money consideration.
Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts
referred to in the course of ofcial
proceedings. The penalty of arresto
mayor or a ne of from 20 to 2,000 pesos,
or both, shall be imposed upon any
reporter, editor or manager or a
newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall
publish facts connected with the private life
of another and offensive to the honor,
virtue and reputation of said person, even
though said publication be made in
connection with or under the pretext that it
is necessary in the narration of any judicial
Page 95 of 98
or administrative proceedings wherein
such facts have been mentioned.
Art. 358. Slander. Oral defamation shall
be punished by arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in
its minimum period if it is of a serious and
insulting nature; otherwise the penalty
shall be arresto menor or a ne not
exceeding 200 pesos.
Art. 359. Slander by deed. The penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period
or a ne ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who
shall perform any act not included and
punished in this title, which shall cast
dishonor, discredit or contempt upon
another person. If said act is not of a
serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto
menor or a ne not exceeding 200 pesos.

Section Two. General provisions

Art. 360. Persons responsible. Any
person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause
the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or by similar means,
shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet,
or the editor or business manager of a
daily newspaper, magazine or serial
publication, shall be responsible for the
defamations contained therein to the same
extent as if he were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages
in cases of written defamations as
provided for in this chapter, shall be led
simultaneously or separately with the court
of rst instance of the province or city
where the libelous article is printed and
rst published or where any of the
offended parties actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense:
Provided, however, That where one of the
offended parties is a public ofcer whose
ofce is in the City of Manila at the time of
the commission of the offense, the action
shall be led in the Court of First Instance
of the City of Manila, or of the city or
province where the libelous article is
printed and rst published, and in case
such public ofcer does not hold ofce in
the City of Manila, the action shall be led
in the Court of First Instance of the
province or city where he held ofce at the
time of the commission of the offense or
where the libelous article is printed and
rst published and in case one of the
offended parties is a private individual, the
action shall be led in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where he
actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense or where the
libelous matter is printed and rst
published: Provided, further, That the civil
action shall be led in the same court
where the criminal action is led and vice
versa: Provided, furthermore, That the
court where the criminal action or civil
action for damages is rst led, shall
acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of
other courts: And, provided, nally, That
this amendment shall not apply to cases of
written defamations, the civil and/or
criminal actions which have been led in
court at the time of the effectivity of this
law.
Preliminary investigation of criminal action
for written defamations as provided for in
the chapter shall be conducted by the
provincial or city scal of the province or
city, or by the municipal court of the city or
capital of the province where such action
may be instituted in accordance with the
provisions of this article.
No criminal action for defamation which
consists in the imputation of a crime which
cannot be prosecuted de ocio shall be
brought except at the instance of and upon
complaint expressly led by the offended
party. (As amended by R.A. 1289,
approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363,
approved June 19, 1965).

Art. 361. Proof of the truth. In every
criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may
be given in evidence to the court and if it
appears that the matter charged as
libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was
published with good motives and for
justiable ends, the defendants shall be
acquitted.
Page 96 of 98
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act
or omission not constituting a crime shall
not be admitted, unless the imputation
shall have been made against
Government employees with respect to
facts related to the discharge of their
ofcial duties.
In such cases if the defendant proves the
truth of the imputation made by him, he
shall be acquitted.
Art. 362. Libelous remarks. Libelous
remarks or comments connected with the
matter privileged under the provisions of
Article 354, if made with malice, shall not
exempt the author thereof nor the editor or
managing editor of a newspaper from
criminal liability.

Chapter Two
INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS

Art. 363. Incriminating innocent person.
Any person who, by any act not
constituting perjury, shall directly
incriminate or impute to an innocent
person the commission of a crime, shall be
punished by arresto menor.
Art. 364. Intriguing against honor. The
penalty of arresto menor or ne not
exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed for
any intrigue which has for its principal
purpose to blemish the honor or reputation
of a person.

Title Fourteen

QUASI-OFFENSES

Sole Chapter
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence.
Any person who, by reckless imprudence,
shall commit any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave felony,
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in
its maximum period to prision correccional
in its medium period; if it would have
constituted a less grave felony, the penalty
of arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium periods shall be imposed; if it
would have constituted a light felony, the
penalty of arresto menor in its maximum
period shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or
negligence, shall commit an act which
would otherwise constitute a grave felony,
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in
its medium and maximum periods; if it
would have constituted a less serious
felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by
this article shall have only resulted in
damage to the property of another, the
offender shall be punished by a ne
ranging from an amount equal to the value
of said damages to three times such value,
but which shall in no case be less than
twenty-ve pesos.
A ne not exceeding two hundred pesos
and censure shall be imposed upon any
person who, by simple imprudence or
negligence, shall cause some wrong
which, if done maliciously, would have
constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the
court shall exercise their sound discretion,
without regard to the rules prescribed in
Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article
shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided
for the offense is equal to or lower than
those provided in the rst two paragraphs
of this article, in which case the court shall
impose the penalty next lower in degree
than that which should be imposed in the
period which they may deem proper to
apply. 2. When, by imprudence or
negligence and with violation of the
Automobile Law, to death of a person shall
be caused, in which case the defendant
shall be punished by prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary,
but without malice, doing or falling to do an
act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the person performing of
failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or
Page 97 of 98
occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other
circumstances regarding persons, time
and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of
precaution displayed in those cases in
which the damage impending to be caused
is not immediate nor the danger clearly
manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those
provided for in this article shall be imposed
upon the offender who fails to lend on the
spot to the injured parties such help as
may be in this hand to give. (As amended
by R.A. 1790, approved June 21, 1957).

Page 98 of 98

Codal Transcripts Crim Ii

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

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

Codal Transcripts Crim Ii

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BOOK TWO

CRIMES AND PENALTIES

S-ar putea să vă placă și