Crim Reviewer 2

am+dg
From some Reyes, mostly Boado, Justice Callejos lectures, Rosie (02-03) elements table and Glenn Tuazons
brilliant notes! Good luck! Have fun! And be sure to take breaks! (No stamping please!)
BOOK TWO
CRIMES AND PENALTIES
Title One
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Chapter One
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL 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 fine 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 defined in paragraph 1
of this Article shall be punished by prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos.
(As amended by E.O. No. 44, May 31, 1945).
Elements:
o Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the Philippines
o There is a war in which the Philippines is involved
o The offender either
Levies war against the government, or
Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort

Who may be liable for treason?
o Filipinos, where ever they may be
o Aliens, who reside here, even temporarily (codal and Laurel v Misa)
How come? Because of allegiance to the country, whether temporary (aliens) or

permanent (Filipinos)
Allegiance: obligation for fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to his
government or to his sovereign in return for the protection which he receives
Are dual citizens liable for treason?
Yes. Dual citizenship is not a defense. There must have been a prior (to the
treasonous act) renunciation of citizenship to serve as a valid defense to treason.
(DAquino v US, Kawakita v US).
So if youre a Filipino-Malaysian who helps Malaysians during a war between the

Philippines and Malaysia, youll be liable for treason.
Relate to Art 2 (extra-territoriality principle)
Two modes of committing treason:
o Levying war against the Philippines
o Adhering to the enemy, by giving aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere
First mode: levying war against the Philippines
o Means an assemblage of armed men committing acts of violence for the purpose of overthrowing
the government
Mere conspiracy is not enough
There must be actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing the treasonous
design by force
No need to be with high-powered guns, enough that they constitute enough men to
overthrow the government (hence, the number is the determining factor)
The capability to overthrow is NOT important, the probability is immaterial
No need for the act to be consummated, meaning, no need for the government
to be actually overthrown.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
am+dg
Second mode: adhering to the enemy, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere
o Must have adhered to the enemy AND given them aid or comfort
Both must concur. He must translate his adherence to overt acts.
The requirement of the overt act of giving aid or comfort is to make sure that the crime
of treason has moved from the realm of through to the realm of action.
o Enemy here is a foreign power, foreign country.
Cannot refer to rebels under Art 135.

o Adhering emotionally or intellectually favors the enemy, harbors sympathies disloyal to his
own country
This mental act need not be testified to by 2 witnesses

o Overt acts enough even if it did not succeed in helping the enemy
The overt act must be testified to by 2 witnesses

o As long as you performed an overt act, there is treason already.
No accomplices or accessories in treason.
So if you hide traitors or helped them by giving arms, there is treason already.
Treason differs from other crimes because all persons are regarded as principals.
o Even those playing a small part are considered principals. (Corpus Juris)
Treason is delito continuado.
o It contemplates a series of acts committed over time, but only instigated by a single criminal
resolution.
Either a single act, or a series of acts impelled by one criminal intent.

Treason is a specific intent crime.
o It can only be done by dolo.
o The specific intent is to deliver the country to the enemy.
If you dont intend to deliver the country to an enemy, then its mere rebellion.
Treason is a war crime.
o It cannot be committed during time of peace.
o It may be incubated during peace, but once a war commences, treason may blossom into a
crime. Only then will it be considered treason.
o No need for a declaration of state of war. As long as there is actual war going on.
NO complex crime of treason with rape, murder, etc.
o Treason is a POLITICAL crime and thus absorbs these other component acts.
o These crimes are essential elements of treason, without these, treason could not be committed.
On the two-witness rule
o Not an element of the crime, but a REQUIREMENT to prosecute.
o No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the SAME
overt act.
If the overt act is separable, two witnesses must also testify to each part of the overt act
for conviction. (P v Adriano)
In these cases, no need to prove the entire composite act, enough to have the
witnesses prove each component. (P v Deguyo)
o The two witness rule is the only provision in the RPC that is based on the US Constitution and
not borrowed from Spain.
o The purpose is to prevent the possible fabrication of evidence to prosecute a person.
o The two witnesses must be credible. Just because there are two witnesses testifying doesnt
mean that sure conviction, they must be credible.
What if there were no witnesses, is there any other way to convict one for treason?
o Yes. If he confesses in OPEN COURT.
Extra-judicial confessions NOT enough.

Treasonous or not?
o Acceptance of public office/duties in de facto government during occupation: NOT treason
Unless you do other acts to show sympathy to the enemy

o Getting women to satisfy sexual urges of enemy soldiers: NOT treason (P v Perez, Lozano)
J-Call DISAGREES. This should fall under aid and comfort.

o Being part of the Philippine constabulary during enemy occupation: NOT treason (P v Recode,
since not aid or comfort)

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
am+dg
Unless you yourself tortured the Filipinos.

Making speeches to support the enemy: TREASON (Gillard v US)
Aid and comfort may be made by speech

o Broadcasting messages over the radio which discourages your troops: TREASON. (DAquino v
US)
o Letting ones son (who is aligned with the enemy) work in a weapons firm during the time of
war: TREASON (Haut v US)
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Will Art 12 defenses apply?
o YES! Uncontrollable fear, etc will apply.
Will the ISL apply to treason?
o No! By express provision of law.
What about minors?
o They can avail of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. (P v Nunez)
Art 13 and 14 are not applicable to treason. The penalty does not depend on Art 13 and 14 but on the
nature of the crime committed.
o The SC will not apply these articles but assess the crime according to the barbarity.
Use of unlicensed firearms are NOT aggravating.
o
Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. The conspiracy or proposal to commit the
crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos,
and prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000 pesos.
Conspiracy or proposal to commit treason is a crime in itself. (Relate to Art 8)

o But when the acts of treason are carried out, the conspiracy loses juridical existence and become
mere modes to commit treason.
Unlike treason, conspiracy and proposal to commit treason may be committed during times of peace.
o But see Reyes who said that it must be committed in time of war. (so I dont know. Follow J-Call)
Art. 116. Misprision of treason. Every person owing allegiance to the Government of the Philippine Islands,
without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or does not
disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the
mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the
crime of treason.
Elements:
o Offender must owe allegiance to the Government, and is not a foreigner
o He has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason) against the Government
o He conceals or does not disclose and make known the same asap to the governor or fiscal of the
province or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides
Misprision of treason is the failure of a citizen to report asap a conspiracy, which comes to his
knowledge, against the government.
Gravamen of crime: WILLFUL or MALICIOUS concealment.
Hence, crime by DOLO.
Only committed by Filipinos, not foreigners.
o Dual citizens may NOT be liable for misprision of treason. (Remember this!)
Two-witness rule does not apply.
Misprision of treason is different from being an accessory-after-the-fact.
o The latter hides the principal. (But remember, no accessories in treason!)
o Misprision hides the conspiracy.
Misprision is punished two degrees lower than treason since the person who committed it is punished as
an accessory to the crime of treason. But he is still a PRINCIPAL of misprision of treason.
Boado says there must be a war in which the Philippines is involved. (not sure about this though because
J-Call said conspiracy to commit treason may be committed during times of peace)
Art 20 does not apply.
Art. 117. Espionage. The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted 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 confidential nature relative to the defense of
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
am+dg
the Philippine Archipelago; or
2. Being in possession, by reason of the public office 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 officer or employee.
Offenses:
o Without authority, entering warship, fort, naval or military establishment to obtain any
information, plans, etc of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines
As long as there is intent, accused will be held liable. No need to actually obtain such
plans
o Possessing by reason of public office such information and disclosing them to a foreign
representative
Elements of 1st way:
o Offender enters any of the places mentioned therein
o He has not authority therefore
o His purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippines
Elements of 2nd way:
o Offender is a public officer
o He has in his possession the articles, data or information referred in the paragraph 1, by reason
of the public office he holds
o He discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation
Can be committed even in times of peace
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 officer 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.
Elements:
o Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts
o Such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines or
expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property
Done in times of peace
Art. 119. Violation of neutrality. The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted 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.
Elements:
o There is a war in which the Philippines is not involved
o There is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality
o Offender violates such
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 prision correccional, if the 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 reclusion temporal, if notice
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.
Elements:
o Time of war in which the Philippines is involved
o The offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy
troops
o The correspondence is either
Prohibited by the Government, or
Carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or
Containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy

Qualified when:

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
am+dg
o
o
Notice or information might be useful to the enemy, and

Offender intended to aid the enemy
Art. 121. Flight to enemy country. The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who,
owing allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee or go to an enemy country when prohibited by
competent authority.
Elements:
o There is a war in which the Philippines is involved
o Offender must owe allegiance to the Government
o Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country
o Going to such enemy country is prohibited by competent authority
Section Three. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be inflicted
upon any person who, on the high seas or in Philippine waters, 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 inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters. (As amended by
Sec 3, RA 7659)
Two modes of committing piracy:

o Attacking or seizing a vessel on high seas or Philippine wares
o Seizing the vessel whole/part of its cargo, equipment or personal belongings or complement or
passengers while in high seas or Philippine waters
Elements:
o Vessel is on the high seas or in Philippine waters
o Offenders are not members of its complement or passengers of the vessel
o Offenders:
Attack or seize the vessel, or
Seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings
of its complement or passengers
The offenders must not be members of the complement or passengers
o Complement: all persons on board, from the captain to the cabin boy
If those who take the cargo or implements are part of the complement and they are in
the high seas, the act is robbery under Art 293, 294
If in Philippine waters, you can charge them with PD 532, because under that PD,
the offenders can be members of the complement or the passengers 1
o Can you still charge Art 122 even if the complement took the cargo?
Yes. If they conspired with the people outside the ship who participated.
Is there a conflict between PD 532 and Art 122 (as amended by RA 7659)?
o No. All the PD did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the
citizenry as well as neighboring states for crimes against the law of nations. (P v Tulin)
How do you distinguish between PD 532 and Art 122 (as amended)?
o In PD 532, one must prove that the perpetrators were purposely organized not just for one act of
robbery, but several indiscriminate commissions thereof. There must be evidence of similar
attempts or takings before. (P v Puno, this was actually a highway robbery case, but it is
applicable to piracy under PD 532 as well)
If just one act, and done in the highway, crime is only robbery.
If just one act, and done in Philippine waters or high seas, charge under Art 122/123.
o In P v Tulin, J-Call said that it was proved in the RTC decision that the pirates engage in several
indiscriminate commissions in the past. It was just not written into the SC decision.
If piracy was committed outside the Philippine waters, will the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the
offense?
d. Piracy. Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of
its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed
by any person, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall
be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
am+dg
Yes. Under Art 2.

The same rule will apply even when charged with PD 532, which penalizes piracy in Philippine
waters. PD 532 should be applied with more force since is purpose is precisely to discourage and
prevent piracy in Philippine waters.
o Moreover, it is well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a
reprehensible crime against the whole world (hostes humani generis)
o Piracy on the high seas is a crime against the law of nations. (P v Lol-lo) It has two aspects
Violation of the common right of nations
Criminal liability of the pirates may be imposed by the municipal law of the country
where the pirates are found
o In P v Tulin, Hiong (the person who supervised the transfer of the stolen goods to another ship in
Singapore waters) claimed the courts had no jurisdiction over him since the disposition was done
outside the Philippine waters. He was charged with PD 532.
SC said that although PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel be in
Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed
part of piracy, hence the same need not be committed in the Philippine waters.
Moreover, piracy is an exception to the rule on territoriality. Regardless of the law

penalizing piracy, it remains to be a reprehensible crime against the whole world.
Relate piracy with terrorism.

o Piracy in Philippine waters or high seas (both Art 122 and PD 532) are predicate crimes of
terrorism.
o If these are committed for purpose of sowing terror in the population, then terrorism is
committed, with piracy as predicate crimes.
o But once you are charged with terrorism, you can no longer be charged with piracy.2
o Terrorism is a crime against the law of nations and against humanity.
It says so in Sec 2 of RA 9372.

o Aircraft highjacking (RA 6235) is also a predicate crime for terrorism.
Using an illegal firearm when highjacking a plane is neither a separate crime nor an
aggravating circumstance.
Vessel: Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another
through Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing. (PD
532, hence it includes a banca)
Distinguish Art 19, PD 1612, PD 1829 and Art 122/123.

o Art 19 talks of accomplices and accessories
Will apply to Art 122

o PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing) will only apply to robbery and theft cases 3
o PD 1829 (Obstruction of Justice) can be charge in lieu of Art 19, since PD 1829 also talks of
harboring or concealing escapees
Will apply to Art 122

o Take note of PD 532, as related to Art 19
In PD 532, those who acquire or receive property taken by pirates or brigands or benefits
therefrom are considered accomplices (not accessories!) 4
Take note that MUTINY is also punished

Piracy
Mutiny
Offenders are neither members of the complement of Offenders are the passengers and may include the
the vessel nor passengers (under Art 122)
members of the complement of the vessel
o
o
SEC. 49. Prosecution Under This Act Shall Be a Bar to Another Prosecution Under the Revised Penal Code or Any Special Penal Laws. When a person
has been prosecuted under a provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain
a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution
for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act.
3
"Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose
of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
4
Section 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. Any person who knowingly and in any
manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police or other peace officers of the
government, or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any person who directly
or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be
punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
am+dg
Essence: robbery where the taking is the seizure of

the vessel or cargo or personal belongings of the
passengers
Essence: to protest or to go against the lawful

command of the captain employing violence and
endangering the safety of passengers. Gain is merely
incidental.
Art. 123. Qualified 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 firing 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.
Piracy is qualified when:

o The offenders have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same,
o The pirates have abandoned their victims without any means of saving themselves, or
o The crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape
For the 1st paragraph
o Even if the pirates used unlicensed firearms, there is no violation of RA 8294 5. (no other crime
was committed)
Can the use of unlicensed firearms be used as an aggravating circumstance to piracy?
No. It can only be aggravating in homicide or murder.

For the 2nd paragraph
o In Titanic v Random Iceberg, was there qualified piracy since Jack and Rose were left without
any means of saving themselves?
No. There were no pirates. It sank because of an iceberg.

For the 3rd paragraph
o Includes frustrated or attempted stages; used in its generic term
o For these common crimes to be an element of qualified piracy, they must accompany the crime
of piracy.
There is NO complex crime of piracy with rape, murder, homicide, or PI. There is only
one crime of piracy. It is a single indivisible offense. Art 48 will NOT apply.
Even if a lot of people were killed or raped, there is still one crime of piracy.
HOWEVER, if the acts were done AFTER piracy had been committed, consider
them as separate crimes.
o When the crimes other than murder, homicide, rape or PI is committed, such are crimes in
themselves and not qualifying circumstances. (Boado)
So you can have piracy with direct assault.

o Under PD 532, there is piracy even when the offender did not seize the vessel but merely
boarded it and inflicted physical injuries on the occupant or owner. (P v Catantan)
Is there qualified mutiny?
o Yes. But only the 2nd and 3rd qualifying circumstances will apply to it since in mutiny, the
offenders are already on board.
Title Two
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Chapter One
ARBITRARY DETENTION OR EXPULSION, VIOLATION
OF DWELLING, PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS AND CRIMES
AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
Section One. Arbitrary detention and expulsion
Art. 124. Arbitrary detention. Any public officer 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
5
Remember that the peculiar situations of unlicensed-licensed only apply to firearms, not explosives.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
am+dg
more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen 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 confinement of
the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person.
Elements:
o Offender is a public officer or employee
o Detains a person
o Detention is without legal ground (Astorga v People)
Gravamen: detention without legal grounds by public officer or employee of another person
Pubic officers liable under this article are those whose official duties give them the authority to effect
arrest and detain persons
o Those who are authorized to detain another person
o Includes:
PNP, NBI, even judges acting in official capacity
punong barangays, members of the sangguniang barangays, members of the lupong

tagapamayapa6
But they are limited to their jurisdiction or their respective barangays. If they
arrest beyond their barangays, they are not public officers under this provision
barangays captains, barangays councilmen, barrio policemen (because of Art 152)
district foresters authorized to enforce the Forestry Code
but are limited to violations of the Forestry Code
members of the CAFGU since they are authorized to carry firearms, complement the
operations of the PNP and given that under EO 264, they may arrest. (P v Flores)
school heads, supervisors and teachers, but only for the purpose of enforcing the DDA
within school premises or outside school premises in an official school activity
o A person is deemed a public officer when he is acting within the bounds of his official authority or
function
If not, he acts in his private capacity, hence crime is illegal detention

o If committed by other kinds public officers, the crime is illegal detention
o Can a private person be liable for arbitrary detention?
Yes, if he connives with a public official/person in authority. (Cuello Callon)

Detention, what is it?
o The curtailment of the victims liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victims
person.
o Includes psychological restraint in whatever form for whatever length of term. (P v Olivia)
If the acts and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim
sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own
actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is
detained against his will. (Astorga v People, wherein the Mayor told the victims not to
leave the barangay. The victims could roam around the barangay, but they could not
leave. If they did, they would be harmed.)
In arbitrary detention, the detention at the very start is unlawful because there is no warrant of arrest
and there is no lawful cause as provided in the Rules on warrantless arrests
o There is no warrant of arrest to begin with.
o A detention without lawful cause by barangays officials constitutes arbitrary detention because
they are persons in authority or agents of persons in authority
o If the offender falsely imputes a crime against a person to be able to arrest him and appears not
determined to file a charge against him, the crime is arbitrary detention through unlawful arrest
LGC SEC. 388. Persons in Authority. - For purposes of the Revised Penal Code, the punong barangay, sangguniang barangay members, and members of
the lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions, while other barangay officials and members who
may be designated by law or ordinance and charged with the maintenance of public order, protection and security of life and property, or the maintenance
of a desirable and balanced environment, and any barangay member who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed agents of persons in
authority.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
am+dg
If they planted evidence to effect the arrest, it is arbitrary detention through incriminating
innocent persons
When can you validly arrest someone without a warrant?
o Art 124 gives legal grounds for detention:
Commission of a crime
Violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient
in a hospital
o The ROC also gives valid grounds7
o A person evading his sentence may be arrested on the run without a warrant because he is
committing an offense in flagrante delicto (Parulan v Director)
J-Call: If merely evading his detention (as in, hes merely a detention prisoner), a new
arrest warrant must be issued
But see ROC codal, lawful warrantless arrest can be done even on one
temporarily confined while his case is pending
o Being a member of the NPA is a continuing offense and he can be arrested without a warrant,
provided that the warrantless arrest still be based on probable cause (Umil v Ramos)
o Hot pursuit based on actual facts with the use of the senses of the policemen, with reasonable
basis to believe that the person arrested is the author of the crime is valid ground for a
warrantless arrest (P v Lozada)
o Person arrested need not actually be convicted as having committed a crime, enough that the
nature of his deed, and how the officer at the moment characterized the act.
Arbitrary detention may be committed by dolo or culpa.
o Culpa, how? By following orders (which were wrong) by the superior officer, or just plain
mistake.
Example: re-arresting a person who was released by means of order of the court. (P v
Misa)
May there be a complex crime of arbitrary detention with physical injuries?
o Oh yes! When excessive means is employed in the arrest.
The periods provided are NOT essential elements of the crime. They exist as a guide for calculating the
sentence.
Compare with unlawful arrest (Art 269) and kidnapping (Art 267)
o Arbitrary detention is committed by a public officer authorized to arrest and detain a person but
he does so without lawful cause
o Unlawful arrest is committed by either a private individual or public officer who feigned to arrest
a person without any legal cause, the purpose is to bring him to authority and file a charge
If the charge is filed, the detention is deemed an incident of the arrest and the filing of
charges against him
o In kidnapping, the offender is a private person and the purpose is to deprive the victim of his or
her liberty.
o
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 officer 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) 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 afflictive 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. (As amended by E.O. Nos.
59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).
Elements:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail
and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
am+dg
o Detained a person legally

o Fails to deliver person to proper judicial authorities within proper time period
Gravamen: failure to deliver persons to proper judicial authorities within given time period
Applies only to WARRANTLESS arrests
Delivery means the filing of correct information with the proper court
o Constructive delivery, when the complaint or information is filed with the court for appropriate
judicial proceedings
o Must be to the MTC, RTC, Family Court, SB (trial courts!)
Not to the SC or CA as they are not trial courts
Boado, however, says otherwise. He says included CA or SC. Follow J-Call.
If the case is cognizable by the OMB or SB, there is an agreement between OMB and DOJ
where the DOJ can conduct PI but they have to submit findings to the OMB. (?)
o What if delivered to the fiscal, not to the court?
The clock will still keep ticking.
The inquest8 made by the fiscal must be terminated within the periods given in the
article. Or else, the fiscal can be held liable.
o What if delivered to the clerk of court?
Clock will still keep ticking.
In Albior v Auguis, the prisoner was delivered to the clerk who had the prisoner detained.
The clerk was found guilty of Art 125. The clerk has no power to issue detention orders.
The good faith of the clerk does not excuse his behavior.
If there is no judge, the detaining officer must release the accused upon the
expiration of the maximum period of detention in Art 125.
Applies both to RPC and SPL (Boado since law says equivalent)
o J-Call: depends if the penalties used by the SPL follow the nomenclature of the RPC
Detention becomes arbitrary only when the time required for the delivery of prisoner to the judicial
authority lapses
o Article contemplates that there was a legal cause for arresting but without a warrant of arrest
o If the arrest is based on a warrant, Art 125 does not apply
How do you determine the imposable penalty?
o 12 hours light
o 18 hours correctional
o 36 hours afflictive
o Basis: what crime as it appeared to the arresting officer, and not what the crime actually turned
out
Arresting officer thought it was murder, turns out it was merely physical injuries
o Period is not strict, it depends on the situation of the arresting officer.
Are holidays included in counting?
o No. Election days, special holidays are NOT included in counting since these are no office days.
(Soria v Desierto)
o The 12-18-36 hours do not run when the courts are not open to receive the complaint or
information being filed. (So, I guess weekends are not counted as well)
Art 12, Par 7 applies a defense. There can be defense of insuparable cause for delay in delivery.
o Good faith is also a defense.
Can be committed by dolo or culpa.
o Culpa, how? If by order of superior.
What if done by a private person?
Sec. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a
preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been
conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or
a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a
waiver of the provision of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply
for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he
learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
10
am+dg
Delay in delivery of a prisoner arrested lawfully by a private person amounts to illegal detention,
not arbitrary detention.
Failure of officer to comply with Art 125 does not affect the legality of the confinement.
During confinement, can the access to counsel be regulated to work hours? Yes, because of security
reasons. Moreover, opening and reading of non-confidential letters is allowed. When it comes to
confidential letters (like to a lawyer), the guards can open them, but not read them. (Alejano v Cabuay)
Relate to the Anti-Terrorism/Human Security Act, RA 9372:
o When it comes to terrorism, the period for lawful detention prior to reporting is a maximum of 3
days.9
The arrest must be made after surveillance (Sec 7) or after authorized inquiry into bank
deposits (Sec 27)
o The 3-day period can be extended upon order by authorities in the event of an actual or
imminent terrorist attack.10
o Ra 9372 is more expansive than RA 7438. Why?
Before detaining a person after a warrantless arrest for terrorism, he must first deliver
the person to the nearest office or residence of a judge, so the judge can:
Ascertain the identity of the officer and the arrested person
Determine the circumstances behind the arrest
Check for torture or other abuses11

o Then the judge delivers within 3 days to the nearest court with jurisdiction his report.
o Read RA 9372 for the penalties for the violations.
o
Art. 126. Delaying release. The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified 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.
Crime by omission
Follows the same periods as Art 124
Penalizes the delay in the following:
o Performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner,
o Service of the notice of such order to said prisoner, or
o Proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person
Elements:
SEC. 18. Period of Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary
notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken custody
of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall, without incurring any criminal
liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said charged or suspected person to the proper judicial
authority within a period of three (3) days counted from the moment the said charged or suspected person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and
taken into custody by the said police, or law enforcement personnel: Provided, That the arrest of those suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism must result from the surveillance under Section 7 and examination of bank deposits under Section 27 of this Act.
10
SEC. 19. Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack. In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may
not be detained for more than three (3) days without the written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a Human Rights
Commission or judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest. If the
arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the arresting police or law enforcement personnel shall bring the person thus
arrested to the residence of any of the officials mentioned above that is nearest the place where the accused was arrested. The approval in writing of any of
the said officials shall be secured by the police or law enforcement personnel concerned within five (5) days after the date of the detention of the persons
concerned: Provided, however, That within three (3) days after the detention the suspects, whose connection with the terror attack or threat is not
established, shall be released immediately.
11
Sec 18. xxx the police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall, before detaining the person suspected of the crime of terrorism, present him or her
before any judge at the latters residence or office nearest the place where the arrest took place at any time of the day or night. It shall be the duty of
the judge, among other things, to ascertain the identity of the police or law enforcement personnel and the person or persons they have arrested and
presented before him or her, to inquire of them the reasons why they have arrested the person and determine by questioning and personal observation
whether or not the suspect has been subjected to any physical, moral or psychological torture by whom and why. The judge shall then submit a written
report of what he/she had observed when the subject was brought before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction over the case of the person thus
arrested. the judge shall forthwith submit his/her report within three (3) calendar days from the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence or office.
Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law
enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest: Provided, That where the arrest is made
during saturdays, sundays, holidays or after office hours, the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge nearest the place where the
accused was arrested.
The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the police or law enforcement personnel who fails
to notify any judge as provided in the preceding paragraph.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
11
am+dg
There is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or there
is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person
o The offender without good reason delays in any of the abovementioned situations
Proceedings: habeas corpus
Offenders:
o Heads of jail or penal establishment
o Custodial guards
Who may order release of prisoner?
o Courts
o Prosecutor
o Director of Bureau of Prisons
o Police leaders
Same penalty as Art 124 because failure to release is tantamount to arbitrary detention.
Can be done by culpa or dolo (Cuello Callon)
o Before the filing of information against Draco, Police Chief Dumbledore told Hagrid to release
Draco. Hagrid didnt want because he wanted to beat Draco up. He kept Draco in his jail hut for 5
days. What is Hagrid liable for?
Delay in the delivery to judicial authorities (Art 125), and
Refusal to release (Art 126)
Not complex since the delay was already committed before the refusal to release
o
Art. 127. Expulsion. The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer 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.
Two acts punished:

o Expelling a person from the Philippines
o Compelling a person to change his residence
Elements:
o He expels ay person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change his residence
o Offender is not authorized to do so by law
Can only apply to public officers or employees
To be liable: there must be force, violence or other measures to compel another to change his residence
against his will
In relation to DDA:
o In addition to the penalty provided for in DDA, any alien who violates the provision must be
deported immediately without further proceedings 12
In relation to the Probation law.
o The court may require the probationer to reside in a place designated by court and may not
change residence without prior notice. (Sec 10)
Destierro is a valid order to compel persons to change their residences.
The President has authority to prohibit people from entering the Philippines. (Marcos v Manglapus)
o Also has the power to deport, with respect to aliens through the deportation board.
If there is an extradition treaty with another country, a person may be compelled to be deported and
extradited.
In relation to terrorism:
o One charged with terrorism may be granted bail, but placed under house arrest under usual
place of residence until further order of the court. 13
12
Section 31. Additional Penalty if Offender is an Alien. In addition to the penalties prescribed in the unlawful act committed, any alien who violates
such provisions of this Act shall, after service of sentence, be deported immediately without further proceedings, unless the penalty is death.
13
SEC. 26. Restriction on Travel. In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to
within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety, consistent with Article
III, Section 6 of the Constitution. Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the
terms and conditions of his bail, which shall then be forfeited as provided under the Rules of Court.
He or she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his or her usual place of residence.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
12
am+dg
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 officer 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.
If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime
be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender, the penalty shall be prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods.
Acts punished:
o Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner
o Searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner
o Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave the same
Common elements of the three:
o He is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search therein for
papers or other effects
Note: if all three modes are committed, there is still just ONE CRIME committed.
Gravamen: entering without authority by pubic officers to arrest or to search
If the purpose of entering is to commit another crime, no more violation of Art 128 (hence, no more Art
48), but dwelling becomes an aggravating circumstance.
o Public officer enters the house of the victim to shoot him. NO violation of Art 128, dwelling is
considered aggravating/qualifying for the muder.
o Public officer A went into Bs house without Bs knowledge. A conducted search and found a
licensed fiream. A brought gun with him and never returned.
A is guilty of violation of domicile and theft (since intent to gain is presumed)
But if As original intent was to rob B of his gun, A will be guilty of robbery (not
sure if dwelling is absorbed since robbery with force upon things, or dwelling as
aggravating, either way, violation of domicile will no longer be considered).
Against the will covers when the offender ignores the prohibition of the owner which may be express or
implied as when the door is closed even though not locked.
o If entry is made through a way not intended for ingress, there is entry against the will of the
owner (denial here is implied) (US v Panes)
o Implied denial will cover entry when:
The door is closed
The offender unlocks a chained door

o If the door is open, no more implied objection. But in this case, objection can still be expressly
given.
Owner includes lessee of a house
o Residence under this provision is the place where the person is habitually present, and from
where he departs and intends to return.
Permission once given cannot be recalled as to constitute violation of the article.
o When he is asked to leave and refuses to leave, it is unjust vexation.
When he is admitted and he starts to search, the owner must stop him; otherwise, permission is deemed
granted and it will be construed as a consented search.
o If he stops the public officer and the latter continues to search, there is violation of domicile.
When the entry is done surreptitiously and the owner ordered the public officer to leave, refusal would
amount to violation of domicile.
If the public officer is one whose function does not include the duty to effect search and seizure, the
crime is trespass to dwelling.
o If private individual, crime is also trespass to dwelling.
Art 128 will not apply to public officer or employees who entered dwelling of another in hot pursuit. (US
v Valerio delos Reyes)
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
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
13
am+dg
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding
P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee 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.
Cannot be done by culpa. Maliciously obtained nga eh.

Acts punishable:
o Procuring search warrant without just cause
Elements:
Offender is a public officer or employee
Procures a search warrant
No just cause
o Exceeding authority or using unnecessary severity in executing legal search warrant
Elements:
Legally procured a search warrant
Exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same

Art 129 is an EXCEPTION to Art 48 because of the statement in addition to the liability attaching to the
offender for the commission of any other offense.
o Hence, when two crimes are committed, no complex, but treat as separate crimes.
o So when a public officer obtains maliciously a search warrant by submitting a perjurious affidavit,
there are two crimes committed:
Perjury
Malicious procurement of a search warrant

On the second mode
o In United Labs v Shalimar/Isip, the search warrant described property to be seized, but the items
seized were not in the warrant.
Exception: you can seize items even if not in warrant if in plain view.
Like seeing drugs out in the open may be seized.
If not in plain view, he exceeded his authority.

o In United Labs, the plain view doctrine was not applicable because the
boxes seized were actually sealed boxes. The illegality of such were not
readily apparent.
o In enforcing a search warrant, the officer may break open the door if he is refused entry ipon
knocking and identifying himself as an officer. (P v Hua)
Knock and announce rule: knock first before breaking a door
breaking includes lifting a latch, unlocking a hatch, turning knob

o Even with the knock and announce rule, is unannounced intrusions permissible?
Yes! in the following cases:
When the party refuses upon demand to open it
When the party already knew of the identity of the officers and of their authority
and persons
When the officers are justified in the honest belief that there is an imminent peril
to life or limb
When those in the premises, aware of the presence of someone outside, are
engaged in activity which justifies the officers to believe that an escape or the
destruction of evidence is being attempted (P v Hua, list is not exclusive)
Even if both modes are committed, still considered as just 1 crime.
Art 129 does not apply to searches made by employees of the BOC because their authority is based on
Art 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code
o BOC officials do not possess authority to do searches in domicile. 14
14
Sec. 2203. Persons Having Police Authority. For the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, the following persons are authorized to effect
searches, seizures and arrests conformably with the provisions of said laws:
a. Officials of the Bureau of Customs, collectors, assistant collectors, deputy collectors, surveyors, security and secret-service agents, inspectors, port
patrol officers and guards of the Bureau of Customs.
b. Officers of the Philippine Navy when authorized by the Commissioner.
c. Any person especially authorized in writing by the Commissioner.
d. Officers generally empowered by law to effect arrests and execute processes of courts, when acting under direction of the Collector.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
14
am+dg
Policeman filed for application of search warrant with judge. He attached C & Ds affidavit. Police wanted
to extort money from victim. Judge granted, not knowing the purpose of the policeman, C & D. solve.
o Upon procuring, even without enforcement, policeman liable for Art 129.
C & D, private individuals also liable for Art 129 because of conspiracy.
o Perjury for C & D, as PDP.
Subornation of perjury for policeman, as PDI.

o What if during the searching questions, the judge learned of the motive but still issued because
he was bribed? Solve.
Judge liable for:
Bribery.
Unjust interlocutory order (? in my notes, J-Call said judgment rendered

through negligence which is Art 205, so Im not sure!)
Malicious procurement (? As a PIC? Not sure either!)
Policeman who bribed: corruption of public officers

o When policeman went to the victim, the victim refused to give the money and be extorted. So
the policeman hits E, which resulted into less serious physical injuries. Solve.
Policeman liable for:
Less serious physical injuries
Malicious procurement (just 1 count)

o Even if search warrant is maliciously procured and there was excessive
severity in its application (hence, 2 modes), still just 1 crime is
committed. (J-Call)
Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall
search the domicile, papers or other 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.
Elements:
o Armed with search warrant legally procured
o Searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person
o Owner, any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality are not present
Compare 128, 129 and 130
o Art 128: no warrant
o Art 129: public officer is armed with a warrant but it was maliciously obtained
o Art 130: abuse in the implementation of a valid warrant
Section Three. Prohibition, interruption

and dissolution of peaceful meetings
Art. 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings. The penalty of prision correccional
in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer 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 officer 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 officer 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.
e. Any person especially authorized by a Collector, subject to the restrictions stated in the next succeeding section.
Persons exercising the powers hereinabove conferred shall, in the exercise thereof, have the same authority, be entitled to the proper protection, and shall
be governed by the same law, not inconsistent with the provisions of this section, as other officers exercising police authority in general.
Sec. 2204. Place Where Authority May Be Exercised. Persons acting under authority conferred pursuant to subsection (e) of the preceding section may
exercise their authority within the limits of the collection district only and in or upon the particular vessel or aircraft, or in the particular place, or in respect
to the particular article specified in the appointment. All such appointments shall be in writing, and the original shall be filed in the customhouse of the
district where made.
All other persons exercising the powers hereinabove conferred may exercise the same at any place within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs.
Sec. 2205. Exercise of Power of Seizure and Arrest. It shall be within the power of a customs official or person authorized as aforesaid, and it shall be
his duty, to make seizure of any vessel, aircraft, cargo, articles, animal or other movable property when the same is subject to forfeiture or liable for any
fine imposed under customs and tariff laws, and also to arrest any person subject to arrest for violation of any customs and tariff laws, such power to be
exercised in conformity with the law and the provisions of this Code.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
15
am+dg
Acts punished:
o Prohibiting or interrupting or dissolving the holding of a peaceful meeting
o Hindering nay person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings
o Prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any
petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances
Common elements of the three:
o He performs any of the acts mentioned above
Only committed by public officers.
o If done by a private person, it is disturbance of public order.
Must be done by a stranger to the meeting. (P v Calera wherein the accused was the chief of police who
was attending the municipal meeting. He got into a heated argument with someone, the people got
scared and the meeting was dissolved)
o If done by a member of the meeting, it is unjust vexation.
Why wasnt Calera guilty of Art 144 (disturbance of proceedings) instead?
Because it was not a meeting of a municipal council (which is whats covered by

Art 144). It was just a meeting called by the Mayor.
o What if an undercover agent part of the meeting breaks up the peaceful meeting? Not 131, since
he is not a stranger to the meeting. (J-Call)
If the meeting is not peaceful, it can be lawfully broken up.
The assembly must be peaceful and for a legal purpose.
o If it was not for a legal purpose, Art 146 is committed by the assembly-goers.
o If initially it was peaceful but becomes illegal, Art 146 is also committed and the meeting may be
lawfully dissolved.
The right of the government to require permit for regulatory purposes (time and place) is allowed.
Remember the cases of David v Arroyo (Oust GMA!) and KMP v Ermita (calibrated preemptive
response)
Section Four. Crimes against religious worship

Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall
be imposed upon any public officer or employee 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 correccional in
its medium and maximum periods.
Elements:
o Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take place or are going on
o Offender prevents or disturbs the same
Qualified if done with violence or threats
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 religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful.
Elements:
o Acts complained of were performed
In a place devoted to religious worship, or
During the celebration of any religious ceremony

o Acts were notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful
Ridicules or makes light of anything constituting religious dogma, mocks or scoffs, plays with or destroys
any object of veneration
Title Three
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Chapter One
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
16
am+dg
REBELLION, SEDITION AND 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, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of
their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
Elements:
o There is a public uprising and taking arms against the Government
o The purpose is either
To remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws
The territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or
Any land, naval or other armed forces
To deprive the President or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or

prerogatives
Rebellion is committed by rising publicly and taking up arms against the government for any of the
purposes specified in Art 134 which are political in nature.
Gravamen: rising publicly and taking up arms against the government
Rebellion
Object is to completely overthrow and supersede the
existing government
Insurrection
Seeks merely to effect some change of minor
importance, or to prevent the exercise of
governmental authority with respect to particular
matters or subjects
Rebellion is a vast movement of people, it involves multitudes.
It can:
o Cover Any part of the country, or even the whole country
o Be committed by private or public individuals
Rebellion is a continuing crime.
o May be committed by a single or a series of acts for achieving any or all of the purposes stated
in Art 134.
o Hence, no need for warrant of arrest.
o Mere membership in the NPA constitutes rebellion.
No frustrated rebellion.
o Not necessary that the purpose of rebellion be accomplished.
As long as the intent and the overt acts are present, the crime is consummated.
o No need for actual clash with Government forces.
Rebellion is a political crime.
o Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as well as such common
crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose
o The burden to prove the political nature is on the defense.
o As such, it absorbs common crimes.
So, murder, rape, robbery, etc are absorbed by rebellion. You cant charge them
separately or charge them as a complex crime.
Hence, in political crimes, motive is important to determine.

o What about SPLs, does it abzzzorb SPLs?
Yes. all crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere
components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in
rebellion and can not be isolated and charged as separated crimes in themselves. (Enrile
v Amin)
Hence, obstruction of justice (PD 1829) is abzzzorbed by rebellion.

o Does it absorb the crime of unlicensed firearms? Yes. 15
15
RA 8294. "If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
17
am+dg
Does it absorb the crime of unlicensed explosives? No. Because of RA 9516, which amended RA
8294. It removed the part in RA 8294 which talks of use of explosives being absorbed by
rebellion, sedition, attempted coup detat. 16
Hence, use of explosives is NOT abzzzorbed by rebellion.
Can you get convicted of both rebellion and use of unlicensed explosives?
o NO! You can only be convicted of either rebellion or use of unlicensed
firearms. Conviction or acquittal on one will bar conviction based on the
other.17
o But remember that even if common crimes are absorbed by the political crime, there may be
civil liability for these predicate crimes.
There is no longer a crime of subversion.
Relate rebellion to terrorism (see table for differences between terrorism, rebellion, coup detat)
o In terrorism, there must be (elements)
a predicate crime (which includes rebellion)
widespread and extraordinary panic and fear, and
an unlawful demand against the government
this unlawful demand need not be political. It can be purely monetary.

o In rebellion, there is no unlawful demand against the government. The objectives are those
stated in the codal.
o Can there be a crime of terrorism complexed with rebellion? No. Rebellion is a predicate crime.
o Is there frustrated terrorism? No.
o Terrorism is also a continuing crime.
o Terrorism is a crime against national security and the law of nations.
There can be a crime of international terrorism, it is a crime much like international

piracy, where anyone may capture the suspected terrorist anywhere.
o
Article 134-A. Coup d'etat; How committed. The crime of coup d'etat is a swift attack accompanied by
violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic
of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communications network, 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 office of employment with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or
diminishing state power. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
Elements:
o Offender is a person or persons belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or
employment
o Committed by means of a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth
o Attack is directed against
duly constituted authorities of the Philippines, or
16
Section 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition, Importation or Possession of an Explosive or Incendiary Device. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall willfully and unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose, import or
possess any explosive or incendiary device, with knowledge of its existence and its explosive or incendiary character, where the explosive or incendiary
device is capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person, including but not limited to, hand
grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), 'pillbox bomb', 'molotov cocktail bomb', 'fire bomb', and other similar explosive and incendiary devices.
"Provided, That mere possession of any explosive or incendiary device shall be prima facie evidence that the person had knowledge of the existence and
the explosive or incendiary character of the device.
"Provided, however, That a temporary, incidental, casual, harmless, or transient possession or control of any explosive or incendiary device, without the
knowledge of its existence or its explosive or incendiary character, shall not be a violation of this Section.
"Provided, Further, That the temporary, incidental, casual, harmless, or transient possession or control of any explosive or incendiary device for the sole
purpose of surrendering it to the proper authorities shall not be a violation of this Section.
"Provided, finally, That in addition to the instances provided in the two (2) immediately preceeding paragraphs, the court may determine the absence of
the intent to possess, otherwise referred to as 'animus possidendi", in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case and the application of other
pertinent laws, among other things, Articles 11 and 12 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended."
17
RA 9516 "SEC. 3-D. Former Conviction or Acquittal; Double Jeopardy. - Subject to the provisions of the Rules of Court on double jeopardy, if the
application thereof is more favorable to the accused, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case for violation of this Decree shall
be a bar to another prosecution of the same accused for any offense where the violation of this Decree was a necessary means for committing the offense
or in furtherance of which, incident to which, in connection with which, by reason of which, or on occasion of which, the violation of this Decree was
committed, and vice versa.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
18
am+dg
any military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities or other

facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power
o Purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state power
Coup detat may be committed with or without civilian participation
Interesting because it can be done singly
o So one guy can commit coup detat
Also a political crime
Specific intent crime:
o The intent is to diminish state power (i.e. eminent domain, taxation and police power)
Utilities are those which maintain the power of the government.
Remember that coup detat does NOT absorb ALL common crimes
o Rape is not absorbed by coup detat. Rape will not forward the intent of diminishing state power.
o Murder, however, is absorbed since it helps further the intent.
o Illegal firearms also absorbed.
Illegal explosives NOT absorbed. Because of RA 9516. See previously cited footnote.
NO frustrated crime of coup detat.
o The moment there is intent and swift attack, the crime is consummated, even if the purpose is
not achieved.
o There can, however, be attempted coup detat.
In fact, attempted coup detat absorbs illegal firearms.
Crime Against
Purpose
Rebellion (134)
Public order
How?
Overthrow
the
Government
(Political
crime)
Through violence
Number of people
Offenders
Multitude of people
Private or public officers
Ability to absorb common

crimes
Generally, yes. Murder,

rape, robbery absorbed.
Conspiracy and proposal

Inciting
Accomplices?
Illegal
firearms
absorbed.
punished (136)
Inciting punished (138)
All continuing crimes
No accomplices (135)
Terrorism (RA 9372)

National security and law
of nations
Unlawful demand against
the government (need
not be political)
Through predicate crimes
and by widespread and
extraordinary panic and
fear
Can be singly or a lot
Private or public officers
Yes, absorbs predicate
crimes
like
rebellion,
coup detat, murder.
Illegal
firearms
absorbed.
Conspiracy only punished
(Sec
4,
nothing
on
proposal)
Not punished
Accomplices
punished
(Sec 5 of RA 9372)
Coup detat (134-A)

Public order
Diminish inherent powers
of the State (Political
crime)
Need not be through
force or violence, can be
by threat, intimidation,
strategy or stealth
Can be singly or a lot
Public
officers
only
(unless
private
with
conspiracy)
Yes, but must be related
to political purpose. Rape
is not absorbed.
Illegal firearms absorbed.
punished (136)
Not punished
No accomplices (135)
Art. 135. Penalty for rebellion, 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 participates, or executes directions 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, finances, abets or
aids in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
19
am+dg
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).
This article shows that there are no accomplices in rebellion, coup detat or insurrection.
If the leader is not known, the following are deemed leaders:
o Those who directed others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their
name
o
Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup detat, rebellion or insurrection. The conspiracy and
proposal to commit coup detat shall be punished by prision mayor in minimum period and a fine 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 fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by
prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). (As
amended by R.A. 6968, approved October 24, 1990).
Conspiracy to commit rebellion or coup detat is a continuing crime.
Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon public officers 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 offices under the control of the rebels
or shall accept appointment to office under them. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
This only applies to rebellion

o If someone accepts a position in coup detat, you charge them under Art 135
Elements:
o Commits any of the following acts of disloyalty:
Failing to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power;
Continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels;
Accepting appointment to office under them

Acceptance of public position or continuing to discharge functions amounts to disloyalty
Motive of public officer is immaterial
But if he commits overt acts of rebellion, then the crime becomes rebellion, not disloyalty
o Ex: public officer who continues his officer, and then commits malversation to give funds to the
rebels
Can be committed by omission: by failing to resist the rebellion within ones powers
Valid defense: art 12 (fear, force, etc)
Art. 138. Inciting a rebellion or insurrection. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any person who, without taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government, shall
incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified 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).
Elements:
o Offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the government
o He incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion
o The inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other
representations tending to the same end
Writings or speech must be done with intent to induce the readers or listeners to commit rebellion or
insurrection
If the listeners are not incited, they are not guilty of any crime.
o Only the person speaking is guilty of inciting.
Example: Bellatrix gives a passionate speech to rebel against the Ministry. But the people
in the Leaky Cauldron were all just, like, meh, and continued downing some
firewhiskies. Only Bellatrix is guilty of inciting a rebellion.
o But if the listenrs are incited to commit rebellion and commit rebellion, all of them (including the
incited) are all principals for REBELLION.
Inciter (bellatrix) PDI

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
20
am+dg
Listeners (rebels) PDP

Inciting to Rebellion
Here, the inciter has yet to decide to commit
rebellion
Done in public
There is no crime of inciting to coup detat.
Proposal to Commit Rebellion

Here, the one proposing has already decided to
commit rebellion
Usually done in secret
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 officer
thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order;
3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social
class; 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. 140. Penalty for sedition. The leader of a sedition shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding 10,000 pesos.
Other persons participating therein shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and
a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
Elements:
o The offenders rise publicly and tumultuously
o They employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods
o The offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the following objects:
Prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election
Prevent the National Govt, or any provincial or municipal govt, or any public officer
thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any
administrative order
Inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or
employee
Commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private
persons or any social class; and
Despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the
national govt of all its property or any part thereof
Ultimate objective of sedition: violation of the public peace
o It is a crime against public order and the tranquility of the general public.
The key term here is: rising publicly and tumultuously
o Tumultuously: full of public commotion or uproar
The essence of sedition: intent to attain any of the objectives and a tumultuous
appraising
o There is a tumultuous public uprising when more than 3 persons are armed, or have means of
violence. (from Art 153)
But take note that in sedition, it is not an essential element that there be violence. Since
it can be done by intimidation or by other means outside of legal methods.
o In both rebellion and sedition, there is public uprising.
But in rebellion: the purpose is political and they take up arms
In sedition: the purpose can be political or social, no need to take up arms since they do
not intend to overthrow the government.
Can sedition be committed at night?
o Yes. it doesnt matter what time of day it is committed.
o The test is, is it private or public?, or whether or not the actuations may be seen or can be
seen.
o If done during the day, but no one can see it because the perpetrators did it in private or hidden,
then no sedition.
First motive: Prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
21
am+dg
Laws include political laws, even civil and criminal laws; also includes ordinances of municipal
or provincial boards
Second motive: Prevent the National Govt, or any provincial or municipal govt, or any public officer
thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order
o Officers include:
judges, justices, and constitutional officers;
municipal councils, provincial government or board
but does NOT include barangays councils or officials (they are included in the 3 rd
motive)
Third motive: Inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or
employee
o What is an act of hate or revenge?
These will include crimes against persons (murder, physical injuries), property (arson,
usurpation of real rights), special penal laws
o GR: in criminal law, motive is not important, right? But when it comes to sedition (also in
rebellion and direct assault), motive is important.
o If the act was not motivated by hate or revenge, it may be another crime.
o A mayor evicted 100 families from their homes. The families nagwelga and engaged in an
uprising. They killed the mayor while was sleeping. What crimes were committed?
Sedition (because the motive was for revenge)
Direct Assault with homicide
Note: the direct assault here refers to the direct assault in the second form (ie
when a public officer is attacked, etc), not the first form (employing force or
intimidation without a public arising)
o Regarding the 1st form of direct assault, Boado says the crime of direct
assault cannot be committed when there is rebellion or sedition because
public uprising is an element thereof which is required to be absent in
direct assault.
Fourth motive: commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons
or any social class
o Act of hate or revenge applies here as well, but here the victims are private persons or any social
class
o Shows that sedition is not a political crime only, since the acts can be for a social end
For example, farmers rising publicly and tumultuously against landowners

Fifth motive: Despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the national
govt of all its property or any part thereof
o To despoil is to destroy
Important: common crimes like murder, homicide, PI, arson, are NOT abzzzorbed by sedition. (P v
Camlon)
o NEITHER are they complexed. Art 48 will NOT apply.
o They are SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT crimes. (P v Camlon, where the court said that
kidnapping with murder was not absorbed sedition because sedition was a crime directed against
the State, the government and public tranquility, while murder was a crime against the lives of
people)
Thats why those who killed the mayor while he was sleeping were charged with separate
crimes of sedition and direct assault with homicide.
o It is, however, possible to have a complex crime of sedition with prevention of board/Congress
meeting. (Art 143/144)
o What about illegal firearms? Use of illegal firearms is ABSZSZORBED by sedition.
Consummated upon the concurrence of the intent and the overt acts of rising publicly and tumultuously.
Leaders are punished more harshly than their minions. (Art 140)
o
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be
punished by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (Reinstated by
E.O. No. 187).
There is no crime of proposal to commit sedition. (compare to rebellion and coup detat!)

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
22
am+dg
Art. 142. Inciting to sedition. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not
exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of
sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of
speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending 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 officer in executing the functions of his office, 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).
Three acts punished:

o Inciting to Sedition to Accomplish any of its Objects:
Offender does NOT take direct part in the crime of sedition
He incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition
The inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamation, writings, emblems, cartoons,

banners, or other representations tending to the same end
o Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace
o Writing, publishing or circulating scurrilous libels against the government or any of the duly
constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace
Offender does NOT take direct part in the crime of sedition
Commits any of the following acts of sedition either 2 or 3

In the 2nd and 3rd punishable acts, no need to have any of the enumerated purposes of sedition
o Enough that they tend to disturb the public peace
Concealing such evil practices is NOT an act of an accessory in this case, but an act of a principal.
(compare with Art 19!)
Shouting lets chop off [insert public officers name here]s head! in public will get you slapped with
Inciting to Sedition (P v Perez, where he wanted to chop off General Woods head)
o But wearing a shirt that says Oust [insert public officers name here]! is not inciting to sedition,
or sedition (David v Arroyo)
Freedom of speech does not protect inciting to sedition
Chapter Two
CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION
Section One. Crimes against 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 fine 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).
Elements:
o There be a projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its committees or subcommittees,
constitutional committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal
council or board
o The offender who may be any person prevents such meeting by force or fraud
Meeting of barangays council is not included here
o Those who disturb barangays council meetings are liable for grave coercion under Art 286
Any stranger may be held liable for this act
o So public officers or employees who are strangers to such meetings can be held liable under Art
143
Art. 144. Disturbance of proceedings. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine 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.
(Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
23
am+dg
Elements:
o There be a meeting of Congress or any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal
council or board
o The offender does any of the following acts:
He disturbs any of such meetings
He behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt its
proceedings or to impair the respect due it.
Offender must NOT be a member of the body disturbed, he must be a stranger to the deliberative body
o What if hes not a stranger to the meeting?
If those who disturb the proceedings commit crimes of violence like homicide to disturb the meeting, Art
48 will apply
Barangays council meetings are not covered by this provision
o So are meetings called by the mayor but are not municipal council meetings (P v Calera)
Section Two. Violation of 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 officer 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.
Should be read with the 1987 Constitution. Parliamentary immunity only applies up to prision
correctional.18
Two acts punishable:
o Using force, intimidation, threats or frauds to prevent any member of the National Assmebly
from either attending the meetings of the Assembly, its committees, or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from expressing his opinions,
or casting his vote
Elements of first form:
The offender (any person) uses force, intimidation, threats or fraud.
The purpose of the offender is to prevent any member of Congress from:

o Attending the meetings of Congress or any of its committees, etc.; or
o Expressing his opinion; or
o Casting his vote
o By arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress is in regular or speacial session,
except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under the Code by a penalty
higher than prision correctional.
Elements of second form:
He arrests or searches any member of Congress
Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in regular or special session
The member arrested or searched has not committed a crime punishable under
the Code by a penalty higher than prision correctional
If a congressman is in possession of a low-caliber illegal gun, he is protected (since this is up to 6 years
only)
o But if its a high power gun, he is not immune!
They are also immune from searches under this provision.
o But it is not in the Constitution! In the ConCom deliberations, searches do not prevent their
functions. So the Constitution does not protect searches.
Possible thesis topic? Dont care, tapos na tayo sa thesis eh! Woohoo!
18
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be
privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in
the Congress or in any committee thereof.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
24
am+dg
Chapter Three
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
Art. 146. Illegal assemblies. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum 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 firearm, 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, whether in a
fixed place or moving. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
Gravamen: mere gathering for unlawful purpose which must relate to a crime under the RPC
o If the offense is punishable under SPL, the offense of illegal assembly is not committed
Two ways of committing illegal assembly
o Gathering of persons, any or some of whom are armed, for the purpose of committing any crime
under the code
Elements:
there is a meeting, a gathering or group of persons, whether in a fixed place or

moving
that the meeting is attended by armed persons
that the purpose of the meeting is to commit any of the crimes punishable under
the code
o Gathering of persons where the audience is incited to commit treason, rebellion or insurrection,
sedition, or assault upon a person in authority or his agents, even without the attendance of
armed men
Elements:
there is a meeting, a gathering or group of persons, whether in a fixed place or

moving
the audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault (TRISDA)
How many people are required to form a meeting?
o No specific number specified, but Reyes and Senator Francisco say that there must be more than
3 people.
Who are deemed leaders of these illegal assemblies?
o See Art 135, J-Call that also applies.
o Whoever has an unlicensed firearm.
Is this carrier of an unlicensed firearm be liable for RA 8294?
No, because he is committing another crime (illegal assembly!)

In the first form, what if they actually commit the crime they were talking about in the meeting?
o No more crime of illegal assembly. It loses its juridical existence and is considered a mere
preparatory act.
In the second form, all authors agree that inciting to commit such crimes is an element of the second
form.
o But there is disagreement as to the liability of the inciter.
Some say the crime is inciting to rebellion or sedition. However, the problem is, thats
already an element of Art 146, so how can one commit inciting to rebellion or sedition
when its already considered an element?
J-Call: if the inciters not a member of the assembly (a stranger/one who is merely
invited to talk), he is liable for inciting.
if the one inciting is a member, the government has two options:

o charge with illegal assembly as a leader, or
o charge with inciting to rebellion or sedition
o A called 5 people to a meeting to incite them to commit rebellion. The 5 were like, We aint
shufflin to yo beat and didnt do anything.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
25
am+dg
Reyes:
A is deemed leader
5: no crime.
Francisco:
A: inciting to rebellion or illegal assembly
5: illegal assembly (parang mali!)

o A called 5 people to a meeting to commit direct assault. A urged all of them, but they were like
meh!. What happens?
No liability for A, since theres no crime for inciting to direct assault.
No liability for the 5, since no purpose to commit the crime.

o What if the 5 do decide to commit direct assault and in fact, commit direct assault?
A liable for direct assault as PDI.
5 liable for direct assault as PDP.
No illegal assembly since it has lost its juridical existence. (Cuello Callon)
The presence of a person who carries an unlicensed firearm gives rise to two presumptions:
o The meeting, as far as he is concerned, is illegal
o He is a leader or organizer of such meeting
Art. 147. Illegal associations. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a
fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon the founders, directors, and presidents 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.
Gravamen: forming an organization, corporation or association for the purpose of criminal activities
prohibited by the Code or by special laws against public morals or any act prejudicial to public welfare
Two types of illegal associations:
o Associations totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code
o Associations totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to public morals
Persons liable:
o Founders, directors and president of the association
o Mere members of the association
Includes private corporations because purpose can be seen in actions of the associations
Public morality: those which are detrimental or dangerous to conditions for the advancement of society
(Estrada v Escritor)
o Not religious morality, but secular morality
Some illegal associations by SPL:
o RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking Act): associations organized to propagate or promote immoral
doctrines, obscene publications or shows, sex tourism, sexual exploitation, pornography
o RA 9372 (Anti-Terrorism Act): the DOJ may petition to the RTC that an association may be
declared as one composed of those conspiring to commit terrorism 19
o RA 9516 (Illegal Explosives: officers are liable for their associations involved in making illegal
explosives20
Chapter Four
ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE
TO, PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS
19
SEC. 17. Proscription of Terrorist Organizations, Association, or Group of Persons. Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for
the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this Act or to sow
and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand shall, upon application of the Department of Justice before a competent Regional Trial Court, with due notice and opportunity to be heard given to
the organization, association, or group of persons concerned, be declared as a terrorist and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons by the
said Regional Trial Court.
20
"SEC. 3-B. Penalty for the Owner, President, Manager, Director or Other Responsible Officer of Any Public or Private Firm, Company, Corporation or
Entity. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or
private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any explosive or incendiary device or parts thereof owned or
controlled by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding
paragraphs.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
26
am+dg
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 defining 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 official duties, or on occasion of such performance, shall suffer
the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000
pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public officer 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 fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed.
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 governmental corporation, board, 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 election or by appointment 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).
Forms of direct assault

o Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the
purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition
o By attacking, employing force or by seriously intimidating or by seriously resisting any person in
authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on the
occasion of such performance
First form: employing violence or force with the end in view of attaining any of the purposes of rebellion
or sedition, without a public uprising
o Elements:
the offender employs force or intimidation

the aim of the offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of
rebellion or any of the objects of crime of sedition
there is no public uprising

o this form rarely occurs
Second form: attacking or laying hands upon a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority
o Elements:
the offender makes an attack, employs force, makes a serious intimidation, or makes a
serious resistance
the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent
at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the actual
performance of official duties, or that he is assaulted by reason of the past performance
of official duties
the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in
the exercise of his duties
o Who may be liable under the second form? Anyone.
o Seriously qualifies only intimidate and resist but not attack or the use of force. In these
latter cases, mere laying of hands will suffice.
Force or intimidation is sufficient depending on the circumstances of the event.
Intimidation is producing intense fear in the mind of the victim. (P v Alfeche)

o Motive is important when the PIA or agent is not performing his duty, since the reason of the
assault is by reason of his past performance of official duties
o In the second form of direct assault, the assault is done:
While the PIA or agent is engaged in the actual performance of official duties

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
27
am+dg
In P v Recto, a barangay tanod (an agent of a PIA) was hit by a bullet while he
was sitting down. The SC held that there was no direct assault for the injury of
the chief tanod because at the time he was hit, he was a mere bystander. He was
not acting and had no occasion to act in the performance of his official duties.
So when a public officer goes into a locality to solemnize a marriage, and then as
he is going back to his office to work, he was struck on the head, there is direct
assault because going back to work was part of his official duty.
HOWEVER, the public officer must NOT exceed his power in the exercise of his
functions of office. If he does, and then the accused strikes him, it is not direct
assault.
o See in P v Chan Fook, where the accused struck a customs agent who
wanted to search him twice. The SC held that the second search
exceeded the authority of the agent so Chan Fooks actions were an
adequate defense to repel the aggression of the agent. it was a valid
defense of the most highly esteemed of individual rights.
By reason of the past performance of official duties:
Hence, when a district supervisor was struck by the accused because the former
refused to accommodate a friend, the accused was held liable for direct assault.
The impelling motive of the attack was the performance of official duty. (Justo v
CA, where the two agreed to fight but Justo struck first. Even if they fought as
planned, there is still direct assault. The private complainants actions can not
bind the State)
o The person must be aware before or at the time of the assault that the victim was a PIA or an
agent thereof.
Or at least, the person must OUGHT to HAVE KNOWN that the person assaulted was a
PIA or an agent. (because of the uniform of the person, etc)
Mistake of fact is a defense: The offender does not have to know that the victim
is included in Art 152 as long as he knows that is a public officer which is a
question of fact, ignorance of which negatives liability for direct assault but not
for the material result of the assault. (can just be physical injuries instead)
Hence, when an officer in civilian clothes was doing surveillance in a public market and
then he was assaulted, there was no direct assault because the accused did not know
that the police officer was on duty. (P v Villasenor)
o Person in authority: any public officer vested with jurisdiction, recognized in law and clothed with
authority in law, whether individually or as a member of board or corporate body.
Includes a barangays chairman, punong barangays, sanggu barangays members and

members of the lupong tagapamayapa (LGC)
Teachers, lawyers and heads of schools but only for purposes of Art 152 in relation to Art
148 and 151
Hence, if a crime was committed in front of the teacher, the AC of disregard of

public authority will not be appreciated. (P v Tac-an)
Teachers and professors are PIAs when performing their duties for the DDA
o Agent of a person in authority any person who, by direct provision of law, by election of
appointment by competent authority is charged with the maintenance of order and the
protection and security of life and property; and any person who comes to the aid of a PIA
Includes police, municipal treasurer, postmaster, rural policemen, sheriff, BIR agents,
Malacanang confidential agent
o The character of a PIA or agent is not laid off at will, it attaches until one ceases to be in office
(Justo v CA)
o Do you have to actually inflict a wound on the officer?
No. even if you miss, it will still be considered an attack hence DA.
Qualified when:
o Committed with a weapon
o Offender lays a hand upon the PIA (not the agent!)
Important: even if all 3 are present, you dont add them all up. The penalty is still PC max-med.
Qualifying 1: committed with a weapon

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
28
am+dg
Not enough to merely carry a weapon. He must use the weapon to assault the victim.
He doesnt have to fire the weapon. Mere aiming of a gun to a PIA is qualified direct assault
because there is intimidation with use of a weapon.
What if unlicensed firearm? You cant file a separate case for illegal possession of
unlicensed firearm.
Qualifying 2: offender is a public officer or employee
o Is Sarah Duterte liable for qualified direct assault for striking the deputy sheriff? Is the deputy
sheriff a PIA or an agent?
Qualifying 3: lay a hand upon the PIA
o Important: lay a hand only applies to PIA, not to agents of a PIA (see codal)
o Lay a hand means to inflict a physical attack. Can be holding, shoving, with an intent to cause
evil or injury
o Not necessary to ascertain what force the law requires, since the law itself defines the force by
providing the term laying a hand. (US v Gamban, wherein the accused slapped the municipal
president)
There can be a complex crime of direct assault with another felony. (direct assault with murder, etc)
In P v Ladjaalam, the crime was complex: direct assault with multiple attempted
homicide (where the accused fired on the mayor and police officers attempting to serve a
warrant)
Also complex crime of DA with serious disturbance of proceedings. (Villanueva v Ortizz

wherein election inspectors meeting was disturbed by an assault)
o BUT if direct assault is committed and only slight PI results, there is just the crime of direct
assault.
o Solve: A fat mayor was on the way home or going to the office. The accused robbed the mayor
and killed him.
Just robbery with homicide. DA absorbed by robbery with homicide, since robbery with
homicide absobrs crimes committed pursuant to such.
Any person who strikes or assaults an ambassador or a public minister is liable under RA 75 in addition
to the penalties which may be imposed by the RPC.21
Wait! How do you reconcile this provision with Art 265, which provides a distinct penalty if the victim is
PIA?
o In Art 265, the laying of hands upon a person in authority is a qualifying circumstance provided
that the crime committed is not direct assault (meaning it was not by reason of his being a PIA
or on the performance of his functions.) The crime would be qualified less serious physical
injuries.
o If the laying of hands is during or by reason of the performance of duties of a PIA (not an agent)
and results to less serious physical injuries,t he crime is the complex crime of DA with less
serious physical injuries.
Mindmelting problems:
o RTC Judge A was going to read out his decision in court. C (the accused) had his 5 friends there
in the courtroom to support him. Other people were also there watching. While the decision was
being read, the 5 friends simultaneously shouted, Gago ka! Nabili ka na! Mukha ka pang itlog!
and proceeded to assault him. People scampered away and the judge died. What are the criminal
liabilities of the 5 friends?
Direct assault with homicide/murder
Sedition
Serious disturbance under Art 153, qualified by tumults

o There was a city council session. Harry, a private person who had nothing to do with the
meeting, enters the room and fires his gun. Everyone scampers away like rabbits. What is Harry
liable for?
Disturbance of proceedings with discharge of firearms (not sure)

o
o
Art. 149. Indirect assaults. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a
fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make use of force or intimidation
21
Section 6. Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons or in any other manner offers violence to the person of an ambassador or a public
minister, in violation of the law of nations, shall be imprisoned not more than three years, and fined not exceeding two hundred pesos, in the discretion of
the court, in addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
29
am+dg
upon any person coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the commission of any of
the crimes defined in the next preceding article.
Elements:
o An agent is the victim of any of the forms of direct assault defined in Article 148
o A person comes to the aid of such agent
o The offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person coming to the aid of the
authority or his agent
Why only agent? Why not those who come to the aid of PIAs?
o Because of RA 1978, one who comes to the aid of a PIA becomes an agent of authority. So if he
is himself attacked, the crime is direct assault.
o Hence, there is only indirect assault if the private person comes to the aid of the agent of the
PIA.
Accused stabbed policeman B. C, a hero, helps B, but is also stabbed by A. B dies. C gets a mortal
wound.
o As to stabbing B, accused is liable for direct assault with homcide.
o As to stabbing C, indirect assault with frustrated homicide.
Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. The penalty of
arresto mayor and a fine 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 official 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 fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.
Resistance and Serious Disobedience (Par.1):

o A person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order to the offender
o The offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent
o The act of the offender is not included in the provisions of Articles 148, 149, and 150
Simple Disobedience (Par. 2):
o An agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order to the offender
o The offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority
o Such disobedience is not of a serious nature
For one not to be liable for resistance, the resistance must be co-extensive with the excess of authority,
and just sufficient to repel the excess or abuse
Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by
the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. The penalty of arresto mayor
or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine 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 committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional
Commissions and its 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 official, refuses to be sworn or placed
under affirmation 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. The same penalty shall be
imposed upon any 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 official.
Acts punished:
o By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons of Congress, its special or standing
committees and subcommittees or divisions, or by any commission or committee chairman or
member authorized to summon witnesses
o By refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation while being before such legislative or
constitutional body or official
o By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records
in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions
o By restraining another from attending as a witness in such legislative or constitutional body
o By inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
30
am+dg
The President and SC justices are exempt from powers of inquiry. (Senate v Ermita)
Grounds for a justified refusal:
o Wiretapping
o RA 9372 (info secured in violation of the anti-terrorism law is inadmissible in evidence in any
juidicial, qj, legislative or admin proceeding)
o Executive privilege
o Bank records
o Privileged communications
o Informers privilege
o Newsmens privilege
Chapter Five
PUBLIC DISORDERS
Art. 153. Tumults and other disturbance of public orders; Tumultuous 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 fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause any
serious disturbance in a public place, office, 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.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing 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 fine 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.
Acts punished:
o Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment
o Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act
is not included in Articles 131 and 132
o Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public
place
o Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in such place
o Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed
First act: serious disturbance
o Check the gravity, the place, and the intent.
o The disturbance must be serious to fall under this article.
Look at that facts and circumstances surrounding the causing of disturbance and the
effect to the people to determine if its serious
If not serious, it will be alarms or scandals under 155.

o Public places are those open to the public, as distinguished from domiciles which are exclusive
o It can be committed by a public officer who is part of the assembly
o Cannot be committed by culpa
There must be intent to seriously disturb

Second act: interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions or gatherings not covered by 131
(peaceful meetings) or 132 (religious worship)
o There must be a public performance or function which is not under 131 or 132
Hence, this will cover disturbance of court proceedings (P v Adugan) or proceedings held
by the Comelec. (Villanueva v Ortiz)
o Can be committed by anyone, participant or not
o Can be committed by private or public officers
o There was a public rally of Iglesia ni Cristo and there was serious disturbance. What crime do
you charge 131, 132 or 153?
131! Not 132 because its not a religious ceremony. 131 because its a rally. Not 153
because 131 applies already.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
31
am+dg
This is a crime against public order, as against 131 which is a crime against the fundamental law
of the State.
So this really is just for normal gatherings and not those subject to fundamental rights.
o The disturbance is deemed tumultuous if:
Caused by more than 3 armed men or those provided with means of violence.
Presumption wont apply if there is actually a tumultuous disturbance.

Third act: making any outcry tending to incite to rebellion or sedition
o How do you determine if the crime charged should be inciting to rebellion/sedition or Art 153
(tending to incite)?
Intent controls.
For inciting, there has to be intent in the first place. If the person who makes
statements tending to incite the listeners to rise to rebellion or sedition had that
original criminal intent, charge with inciting to rebellion/sedition.
For 153, theres just the tendency to incite.

Fourth act: displaying placards or emblems which disturb the public order
Fifth act: burying with pomp the body of a person legally executed
o Not really applicable because no one is executed now.
Important: Even if there are two or three modes/acts done, there is still just one crime since the law
only gives one penalty.
o So if you seriously disturb a court proceeding (second mode) by shouting stuff which tend to
incite rebellion (third act) and you carry placards which disturb the public order (fourth mode),
you can only be charged of one crime of 153.
Art 48 WILL apply.
o In Villanueva v Ortiz, during election canvassing, someone assaulted the inspector, killed him
thus causing a serious disturbance. Accused charged with serious disturbance with direct assault.
o
Art. 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances. The penalty of arresto mayor and a
fine 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 words, utterances or speeches shall 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 official resolution or document
without proper authority, or before they have been published officially; or
4. Any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or cause to be printed, published, or distributed books,
pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified as
anonymous.
Acts punished:
o Publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of
publication, as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to
the interest or credit of the State
Here, there is no requirement that the act causes damage or injury.
It is enough that it endangers public safety or order
The publisher or person must be aware of the falsity of the news

o By encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising, justifying
or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or by words, utterances or speeches
The acts must pose danger to the public order
In a case where leaflets were distributed encouraging people to disregard the law, this
article was used (P v Arogante)
o By maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document without
proper authority, or before they have been published officially
o By printing, publishing or distributing (or causing the same) books, pamphlets, periodicals, or
leaflets which do not bear the real printers name, or which are classified as anonymous
Art. 155. Alarms and scandals. The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
32
am+dg
1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall discharge any firearm, rocket, firecracker, 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.
Acts punished:
o Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any town or public place,
which produces alarm or danger
o Instigating or taking an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to
another or prejudicial to public tranquility
o Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other
nocturnal amusements
o Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places not amounting to tumults
Not a specific intent crime.
o It is the RESULT, not the intent that controls.
o Calculated to cause alarm or danger is an erroneous translation.
o Hence, can be committed by culpa.
o If there is discharge of firearm but no alarm caused, then there is no crime under Art 155.
What if the firearm was unlicensed? Still cant be charged under RA 8294, since another
crime was committed.
What if you discharge a firearm during a fiesta?
Viada says no 155. (seems wrong!)

Charivari: a mock serenade where the offender actually disturbs the peace by using cans, pans, utensils,
cauldrons.
If youre noisy and annoying, what can you be charged with?
o Alarms and scandals: if you disturb the public at night
o Unjust vexation: if the noise is directed to a particular person or family
o Pagiging kupal.
Boado summarizes the variant crimes that can arise from the use of firearms:
o Alarms and scandals: if discharges in public but not pointed to anyone and produces alarm or
danger
o Illegal discharge of firearms (254): if directed to a person who was not hit if intent to kill was not
proved
o Attempted or frustrated homicide or murder: attempt (if with intent to kill), frustrated (if mortal
wound)
o Physical injuries: person hit but no intent to kill
o Threat: if not discharged but merely pointed to another
o Grave coercion: if threat was direct, immediate and serious and the person is compelled or
prevented to do something against his will
o Illegal possession of firearm: if unlicensed and no other crime was committed by means of such
firearm
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 confined 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.
This article focuses on the person who helps the escaping prisoner. For the liability of the prisoner, see
Art 157.
Elements:
o There is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment
o The offender removes therefrom such person, or helps the escape of such person

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
33
am+dg
The offender is any person who is NOT the custodian of the prisoner.
o Who are these?
Those helping a co-prisoner
Employees of penal establishment, if without custody of the prisoner
Private persons
o If he were the custodian who connived in the escape or was negligent, he is liable for infidelity in
the custody of prisoner either through dolo or negligence. (Art 223-225).
Is it possible that a person with custody of a prisoner be liable for delivery of prisoners
and not infidelity?
Yes, if he was off-duty. (Cuello Callon)

What is punished:
o Any person who
removes from jail or penal establishment a person confined therein, or
helps the escape of such person, by means of violence, intimidation or bribery.
If through other means, lower penalty.
If by taking guards by surprise outside the establishment, lowest penalty.

Who are delivered out of jail?
o Both detention prisoners and convicts.
Read with next article.
Hence, if convict escapes, liable for evasion of sentence.
If detainee escapes, not liable for anything. He is presumed innocent.
Unless he is in conspiracy with the one who helped in his escape.
Unless he commits another crime in trying to escape, he will be liable for that
crime. (If he beats up a guard as he tries to escape)
Those charged with Art 156 are principals under 156 (compare to Art 19)
Cant be done by culpa.
No frustrated delivery from jail.
o But theres attempted delivery from jail.
Crime consummated the moment he steps out of the building where the cell is, however brief it may be.
o Hence, even if prisoner had a change of heart and returned, the deliverer is still liable.
If a mental retardate is transferred to a hospital from a jail, and the mental retardate is delivered from
the hospital, is there a crime?
o Yes. the hospital is an extension of prison.
What if a person is in his house, can there be delivery from prison?
o Yes. House arrest is a form of arresto menor.
If the prisoner who escapes is a detention prisoner, and he is convicted later on for the crime for which
he was detained, is he entitled to ISL?
o No. Disqualified from the ISL are also those who have escaped from confinement.
In the Anti-terrorism act, the custodian who lets the prisoner escape is liable. Applies to both detention
prisoners and convicts.22 (Read with Art 223-225).
o Applies even to culpa, as long as inexcusable negligence.
o A is serving time for terrorism charges. B, his custodian, helped him escape. Solve.
A can be charged with 157. (also 156 if he conspired with B)
B can be charged with RA 9372, Sec 44. But take note of Sec 49, prosecution under RA
9372 is a bar to prosecution under RPC.
If the detention prisoner is found guilty of parricide, and the person delivered him, can the person be
charged as accessory under Art 19?
o Yes. The law provides that a person who helps escape a person who is guilty parricide, murder,
treason, escape, he can be an accessory under Art 19 to parricide, murder, treason. 23
22
SEC. 44. Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons. Any public officer who has direct custody of a detained person under the provisions of this
Act and who by his deliberate act, misconduct, or inexcusable negligence causes or allows the escape of such detained person shall be guilty of an offense
and shall suffer the penalty of: (a) twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, if the detained person has already been convicted
and sentenced in a final judgment of a competent court; and (b) six (6) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment, if the detained person has
not been convicted and sentenced in a final judgment of a competent court.
23
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually
guilty of some other crime.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
34
am+dg
Prosecutor can choose between Art 19 or 156. He can only choose one.
But Art 19s penalty is heavier. So choose 19.

Bribery in this case can be deemed as a means to commit the crime of delivery. Take note of the person
who is being bribed.
If the public officer (who is not the custodian of the prisoner) accepts a bribe to release the detention
prisoner, what are the crimes?
o One giving money corruption of public officers and delivery of prisoners from jail (by
conspiracy/PDI)
o One accepting bribery and delivery of prisoners from jail
Will Art 48 apply to the public officer accepting? No. See Art 210, bribery can be charged
in addition to
What if bribery was towards another prisoner, what is the effect?
o Deemed as a means to commit the crime.
o What about the co-prisoner who helped?
Law says other means, what does it mean?
o Craft, disguise, fraud, etc.
o Effect: lowers penalty to arresto mayor.
If the other means used by the principal of delivery of prisoners is a felony, what happens?
o Art 48 applies.
Ex: direct assault with delivery of prisoner from jail, attempted homicide with delivery,
delivery with use of false name, etc
o So, when does Art 48 not apply?
If the means are already specifically provided in Art 156:
Violence, intimidation, or bribery
Other means that do not constitute crimes by themselves
Slight physical injuries because J-Call says its abzzzorbed!

o
Boado summarizes who can be liable for delivery of prisoners from jail:
Detention prisoners if he participated in the plan to make him escape or at least acquiesced thereto
Convict whose conviction is not yet final or on appeal under the same condition
Person rescuing from jail who is not the custodian. Can be a civilian or a public officer who is not the
prisoners custodian.
Chapter Six
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Art. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
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 final judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken
place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, 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.
Committed by one convicted by final judgment and escapes from prison.

Elements (Tanega v Masacayan):
o Convict by final judgment
o Serving of sentence which consists of deprivation of liberty
o Escaping during sentence
Escape is the unlawful departure from the limits of his custody. One not arrested for
service of fj cannot be held to have evaded service of sentence. (Del Castillo v
Torrecampo)
The prescription of penalties is suspended when one escapes from jail.
Can he be arrested without warrant?
o Yes, on two grounds:
Warrantless arrest is allowed for those who escaped.
Evasion of service of sentence is a continuing crime. 24
24
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
35
am+dg
o Hence, officer arresting can not be charged with arbitrary arrest.

Can one be guilty of evasion of sentence, although not confined in a prison?
o Yes.
o If arresto menor: if he leaves his house (and he was confined there)
o If destierro: if she entered into the prohibited place
o If confined in a hospital which is an extension of the penal institution
If the convict pretends to be insane, is brought to the hospital, and from there, he
escapes. What aggravating circumstance will apply? Deceit.
Is a person serving sentence for an SPL liable for evasion (ie, should the fj be a felony under the RPC)?
o Yes. as long as serving sentence, whether RPC or SPL.
o So dude serving sentence for DDA can be liable for evasion if he escapes.
Under what circumstances may a prisoner not be liable for evasion of service of sentence?
o Detention prisoner
o Deportee who violated deportation order
o Youthful offender under RA 9344, since rehab center is not a penal institution and judgment is
suspended
Supposing one is convicted for DDA, and ordered to suffer imprisonment and then deportation after
serving of sentence.
o If he escapes while serving of sentence, liable for evasion of sentence.
o If he escapes after serving of sentence, but before deportation, not evasion of service but just a
violation of deportation order. (US v Hoe)
If one uses violation or intimidation, it is absorbed by Art 157.
o But if another felony is committed to evade, then Art 48 can apply.
Circumstances qualifying offense:
o Unlawful entry
o Breaking doors, windows, etc
o Using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence, intimidation,
o Connivance with other convicts or employees of penal institution
What are possible aggravating circumstances that can come with this crime?
o Fraud, craft, deceit, disguise
o Window, etc be broken
o Disregard of rank
Problem: Sirius is serving sentence in Azkaban, a penal institution. As he was escaping, he kills the fat
prison warden, a person in authority. What crimes did he commit?
o Evasion of service of sentence
o Direct assault with murder/homicide
Is it possible that conspiracy or connivance be an aggravating circumstance? What is the effect if a coprisoner connives? (Art 157)
o For delivery of prisoners from jail, if there is connivance, it aggravates the punishment. Hence,
this is a third character of conspiracy (aside from mode and crime in itself) it also becomes an
o Whose punishment is aggravated?
The escapee since Art 157 focuses on the escapee.

o A, convicted for murder, pays B, an employee of the penal institution, to help him escape. A
escapes with Bs help. Hence, A is guilty of qualified evasion of sentence.
o What if A was a detention prisoner and pays B, an employee of the penal institution?
A not liable for evasion of sentence since he is merely a detainee. So, the aggravating
circumstance wont apply to him. He could probably be liable for corruption of public
officers and delivery of prisoners from jail (by conspiracy with B).
Art. 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion of disorder, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other
calamities. A convict who shall evade the service of his sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
36
am+dg
shall have been confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion,
or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has not participated, shall suffer an increase of onefifth 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.
Elements:
o The offender is a convict by final judgment, who is confined in a penal institution
o There is a disorder, resulting from: conflagration, earthquake, explosion, similar catastrophe, or
mutiny in which he has not participated
o The offender evades the service of his sentence by leaving the penal institution where he is
confined, on the occasion of such disorder or during the mutiny
o The offender fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation by the chief executive announcing the passing away of such calamity
Riots are not included in the coverage of Art 158.
Mutiny, on the other hand, is included.
So if a convict escapes during a riot, he cant avail of Art 158 if he comes back.
If the convict evaded on circumstances of a catastrophe,
o Doesnt return but gets caught again, increase penalty by 1/5 of the remaining sentence, which
shouldnt be more than 6 months
o Returns within 48 hours, decreases penalty by 1/5 of his total sentence
Convict must not have participated in the catastrophe.
What if a detainee escapes, what will happen, can Art 98 and 99 apply?
o No. Art 98 talks of prisoners who have evaded the service of their sentence. 25
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.
Elements:
o Offender was a convict
o He was granted a conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
o He violated any of the conditions of such pardon
Violation of conditional pardon is a felony.
If the penalty remitted is more than 6 years, serve the balance for the previous crime.
If the penalty remitted is 6 years or less, prison correctional in minimum period.
o Boado says that if the penalty remitted is 6 years or less, it becomes a substantive offense
because of the new penalty imposed.
What do you mean by penalty remitted by granting of such pardon?
o It is the remaining period which he did not have to serve because of the pardon. (Reyes)
o Example: accused was sentenced to a penalty of 6 years and 1 day of PM. He already served 2
years, 5 months and 22 days when he was granted conditional pardon. The term remitted by the
pardon is 3 years, 6 months and 8 days. Hence, he will serve PC in its minimum period.
What is the relation of these penalties for the 3-fold rule?
o Dont know.
Remember that the President has a choice to either order the immediate arrest of the person (under the
Admin Code) or use this article.
A violator of the conditions of pardon is NOT entitled to the ISL.
25
Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. A deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded
the service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 58 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the
issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe to in said article.
Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances
once granted shall not be revoked.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
37
am+dg
Usually, the condition that comes with a conditional pardon is that the accused should not commit
another crime. What if he does?
o He must be convicted of the crime before he is tried or convicted of violation of his conditional
pardon. Its like a prejudicial question because if he is acquitted for the crime, then he cant
really be violating Art 159.
o Example: condition was not to commit another crime. Draco beats Hermione with his wand and
she suffers serious physical injuries. Draco must first be convicted of serious physical injuries
before he is tried for Art 159.
How long does the condition remain?

o The duration of the conditions annexed to a pardon would be limited to the remaining period of
the prisoners sentence, unless an intention to extend it beyond that time was manifest from the
nature of the condition or the language in which it was imposed. (Infante v Provincial Warden)
When do you start counting for prescription purposes from commission of the felony which breaches
the conditional pardon or the conviction of the felony which breached the pardon?
o From the conviction of the felony which breached the pardon.
o So if in 2008, Harry violated his conditional pardon by shooting Draco, and he was convicted of
physical injuries only in 2011, the prescription period will only start in 2011.
Problem: In 2000, Harry was convicted of abduction in Manila. In 2008, he was granted conditional
pardon with the condition that he shouldnt commit any crime. In 2009, Harry murdered Draco in
Batangas and was convicted in Batangas. Where should the information for violation of conditional
pardon be filed in Batangas or in Manila?
o In Batangas.
Parole
Pardon
Minimum sentence must be served
Service not required for grant
Granted by law
By Pres
If violated, convict must serve remainder of sentence If violated, service of sentence will depend on
remitted sentence
Boado summarizes who can be liable for evasion of service of sentence:
Prisoner confined by final judgment
Pardonee violating the conditions of his pardon
Convict sentenced to destierro/arresto menor who enters the prohibited area/leaves his house
Chapter Seven
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE 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 final 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.
Quasi-recidivism is the commission of another crime before beginning to serve the convicts final
sentence or while serving the same.
Quasi-recidivism is not a crime but a special aggravating circumstance.
o Cant be offset!
A quasi-recidivist who is not a habitual criminal shall be pardoned at the age of 70 years if he shall have
already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching said age (unless he
is not deemed worthy of such clemency).
o Upon the age of 70, pardon is for the first crime. (J-Call)
Does the second crime have to be a felony?
o Yes. It cannot be an SPL.
Except if the law uses nomenclature of penalties in RPC.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
38
am+dg
Rapist found selling marijuana in jail is considered a quasi-recidivist because the

DDA follows the nomenclature of the penalties in the RPC.
o What if the second crimes penalty is only reclusion perpetua, is he a quasi-recidivist?
No, since reclusion perpetua does not have a maximum period. Art 160 is not applicable.
He is considered just a recidivist (if the other requisites to be considered such will apply)
(P v Mayuri)
Does the first crime have to be a felony?
o No. it can be an SPL.
If the second crime has an aggravating circumstance, what is the effect to the penalty?
o Since it is in the maximum, then the aggravating circumstance will result into the maximum of
the maximum.
What if he commits another penalty, is he a quasi-recidivist again?
o Yes, he is a quasi-recidivist again and again. If he is not a quasi-recidivist for the second time,
he can commit another crime with impunity. (Justice Regalado)
What if he is a recidivist and a quasi-recidivist?
o Since recidivism is an AC too, it leads to the maximum of the maximum.
Does the law talk of any other offender?
o Yes, Art 62 (5) when one is a habitual offender. (FRETSeL, 10 years, already served)
Can you make quasi-recidivism an aggravating circumstance, given that both have the same element of
committing a crime again?
o Venerable Anj Atadero: Yes. (check this!)
Is a convict who escapes from jail a quasi-recidivist?
o No. The very act of evasion of sentence is an element of the AC of quasi-recidivism. Under Art 62
(1), if the aggravating circumstance in itself constitutes a crime punishable by law, it is not taken
into account. (Justice Regalado)
o The eminent J-Call agrees.
Can one be a quasi-recidivist or recidivist at the same time?
o Yes. A difference is that recidivism can be offset by generic mitigation, quasi-recidivism cannot
be offset.
o Another difference is that in recidivism, the second crime must be from the same title of the
code as the first one.
What if while serving sentence, a convict commits a complex crime, what is the effect?
o Maximum of the maximum of the more serious crime. (Viada and J-Call)
The best evidence to prove prior conviction is the court judgment.
Difference between reiteracion (Art 14, Par 10) and quasi-recidivism:
o Reiteracion: needs final service of two or more lesser crimes, or one graver or equal crime.
Title Four
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Chapter One
FORGERIES
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.
What are forged?

o Great Seal of the government of the Philippines
o Signature of the President
o Stamp of the President
Cannot be committed by culpa.
o There must be knowledge and intent to use the signature or great seal.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
39
am+dg
Presumption: possession of a document bearing the forged signature or seal deemed to be the
one who committed the forgery
What if he forged 1 document in 3 ways he forged the great seal, the signature and the stamp how
many crimes are committed?
o Just 1. 1 crime per document.
o
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.
Elements:
o Great Seal was counterfeited, or signature or stamp of the President was forged by another
o Offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery
o He used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp
Cannot be committed by culpa.
o Can only be committed with criminal intent, because the law uses the word knowingly.
Offender here is not the forger, but the one who uses the counterfeit seal or forged signature, etc.
Mere possession of document with forgery is not enough. This article requires that the possessor must
be aware of the forgery.
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 fine 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 fine 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 fine 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).
Elements:
o There be false or counterfeited coins
o The offender either made, imported or uttered such coins
o That in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connived with the counterfeiters or
importers
Three means to commit the crime of counterfeiting coins:
o Makes
o Imports
o Utters
If foreign currency, amount is immaterial.
If it was legal tender at that time, but is not legal tender anymore, there can still be a violation of Art.
163. (P v Rion)
o So, making a 1-centavo coin can still be punished.
o Hence, no need for it to be legal tender.
If accused imported false foreign currency, he can still be liable. It does not matter if its
still legal tender or not, or the denomination falsified. (P v de Leon)
What is punished is the possibility of the accused causing such in the future.
For the first mode (making), may be frustrated if the imitation is so imperfect, although all acts were
committed.
o Can be attempted, if failed to perform all acts of execution, for reasons except for his
spontaneous desistance.
o Consummated if by its (the coins) appearance, it can be place in circulation.
For the second mode (importing), there is consummation when the boat enters port or the plane enters
airspace, even if they are not unloaded or brought to customs.
o Frustrated if before they cross territorial waters of Philippines, they are caught.
For the third mode (uttering), what does uttering mean?

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
40
am+dg
To offer the forged document, knowing it to be false, whether accepted or not, with
representation that is genuine, with intent to defraud.
o The offender must be any person except the maker.
The maker will be liable under the first mode

o Damage is not an essential element of utterance.
How many crimes are committed if the offender makes 1,000 counterfeit 10-centavo coins and 500 5peso coins?
o Two!
One crime for the 10-centavo coins, and
One crime for the 5-centavo coins

o There are as many crimes as denominations counterfeited. (Cuello Callon)
Can be prosecuted even if done abroad. (Art 2)
o
Art. 164. Mutilation of coins; Importation and utterance of mutilated coins. The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine 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.
Amended by PD 247, which punishes:

o Willful defacement
o Mutilation
o Tearing
o Burning
o Destroying currency notes or coins26
Must be of legal tender
o Only provision in this part that requires legal tender
Mutilation of foreign currency are not included in this article
Art. 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. The person who knowingly, although
without the 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.
There must be knowledge of the counterfeit

Possession includes constructive or physical possession of counterfeit or mutilated coins (P v Umali)
Two acts punished:
o Possession of false/mutilated coin with intent to utter
o Actual utterance of the coin
If the one possessing is also the counterfeiter, this crime is absorbed under Art 163.
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 falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates or
other obligations and securities payable to bearer and the 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 fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the document which
has been falsified, 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, certificates of indebtedness, national bank notes, fractional notes, certificates of
deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers 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 fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or altered
26
1. That it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface, mutilate, tear, burn or destroy, in any manner whatsoever, currency notes and coins issued
by the Central Bank of the Philippines; and
2. That any person who shall violate this Decree shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos and/or by
imprisonment of not more than five years.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
41
am+dg
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 fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or
counterfeited document was issued by a foreign government.
4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine 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 therefore.
Three acts punished:

o Forging or falsification of treasury/bank notes/documents payable to bearer
o Importing false or forged bank notes
o Uttering these in connivance with forgers or importers
A PCSO ticket is a government obligation. If the accused bore a PCSO ticket, wore in ink the number
purported to win, then he is guilty of attempted estafa, because he was not able to encash it before
being caught. (P v Balmores)
Blank forms of postal money orders are not official forms.
o Unless they are filled up.
A treasury warrant is a government obligation and is therefore covered by Art 169. (P v Samson)
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 fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos.
Applies to instruments payable to order.

Elements:
o There be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer
o The offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument
o In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer
Note: utterance here must be in connivance with forgers or importers
o If not, Art 168 will apply.
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 falsified instruments referred
to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.
Elements:
o Treasury/bank note/security payable to bearer or order is forged or falsified by another person
o Offenders know it was it was falsified
o Used or possession with intent to use
Possession must be with intent to use!!!

One may be liable under this provision of fake dollar bills, but it msut be coupled with either actual use
or intent to use the fake dollar bills
Possession alone, without use or intent to use, is NOT a crime under Art 168.
Under the Access Devise Law which penalizes counterfeit of access device 27, any prosecution shall be
without prejudice for liabilities for violations of RPC. 28
For forgery of passports under RA 8239, if the act is also punishable under the RPC and the RPC has
higher penalty, impose the higher penalty.
o But only one crime is committed. 29
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 figures, letters, words or signs
contained therein.
27
Means any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, personal identification number, or other telecommunications service, equipment,
or instrumental identifier, or other means of account access that can be used to obtain money, good, services, or any other thing of value or to initiate a
transfer of funds (other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument)
28
Section 17. Liability under the Revised Penal Code and other laws. Prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation
of any provision of the Revised Penal Code or any other law.
29
In case any of the offenses prohibited in this Act constitutes a violation of the Revised Penal Code and the penalty imposed in said Code is heavier than
that in this Act, the latter penalty shall be imposed.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
42
am+dg
Ways of committing forgery:

o Giving a treasury or bank note or any instrument the appearance of a true genuine document
o Erasing, substituting or counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words, signs
in the instrument
Where does bank note fall under, is it included in Art 166 or 169 of the RPC?
o SC ruled that false bank notes are included in the phrase and other representative of whatever
domination in Art 166.
However, blank forms of postal money orders are not official, public documents, or treasury/bank notes.
They are not certificates of obligations until they are filled up.
Possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines with any figures, letters, or words altered or
erased with full knowledge of such alteration is punishable under 168, in relation to 166.
Difference between forgery and falsification
Forgery counterfeiting of treasury, bank notes, instruments payable to bearer or to order
Falsification legislative, public or official, commercial, private documents, wireless or telegraph
messages
Five classes of falsification
Of legislative documents (Art 170)
A document by a public officer, employee or notary public (Art 171)
Of a public or official, or commercial document by a private individual (Art 172, 1)
Of a private document by any person (Art 172, 2)
Of wireless, telegraph and telephone messages (Art 173)
Section Four. Falsification of legislative, public, commercial, and privatedocuments, and wireless,
telegraph, and telephone message.
Art. 170. Falsification of legislative documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
and a fine 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.
Elements:
o Bill, resolution or ordinance enacted, approved or pending approval by either House or any
provincial or municipal council (includes city council)
o Offender alters the same
o He has no proper authority therefore
o Alteration changed the meaning of the document
Bill, resolution or ordinance altered must be genuine
Offender may be a private individual or public officer.
What if he simulates the bill, and not merely alters it?
o Go for Art 171. Art 170 only refers to alteration (Justice Regalado)
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary
who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify 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 official book.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
43
am+dg
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any 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 falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
Elements:
o Offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public
o He takes advantage of his official position
o He falsifies a document by committing any of acts enumerated
o In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect
to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of
persons
Gravamen: What is penalized is the violation of the faith or trust of the public and the destruction of the
truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
o Revocation of a falsified document is immaterial.
Can falsification be committed through culpa?
o For public documents, yes.
So, when a public officer endorses a check without verifying the identity of the
endorsees, he can be held liable for falsification of public documents. (Samson v CA)
o For private documents, no (since for private documents, there must be an element of intent to
cause damage).
A public officer is any public servant who is performing service to the government or any of its branches
or instrumentality.
He takes advantage of his official position by falsifying to falsify a document when
o He has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise intervene in the preparation of the
document, or
o He has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. (Adaza v Sandiganbayan, wherein
the court said the element of taking advantage of ones position becomes relevant only in the
case, not for the purpose of determining whether the Sandiganbayan has jd, but for purposes of
determining whether the accused should be liable under 171 or 172)
When a Mayor makes it seem that a non-existent position appeared to exist, he is taking advantage of
his public position. (Siquian v People, wherein the Mayor appointed a girl to a position that did not exist)
o Test: if he uses influence, prestige, or ascendancy of his office to commit the crime.
If a public officer or employee falsifies a document, and it is not part of his duties, he does not abuse his
public position.
o He will not be guilty under Art 171, but under Art 172 (falsification by private individuals)
o Hence, if a notary public falsifies a document outside his territorial jurisdiction, he did not abuse
he is not a notary public outside his jurisdiction. Charge him with Art 172.
A document is any writing capable of creating rights or extinguishing obligations. It is something by
which something is proved, established, or set forth. (P v Andaya)
Hence if it is incapable of producing legal effects, it cannot be a foundation of a right and

thus cannot be subject of falsification.
So, a document which contains illegal acts cant be the subject of falsification.
(contract to sell shabu cant be falsified)
Under the German RPC, it includes every inanimate object which may be perceived by
the senses to prove the existence of another thing. (Cuello Callon, a sheet of tin may be
considered a document)
o It must be complete.
Hence, no falsification with respect to documents which are incomplete or unfilled-up

forms.
o Basic rule:
in falsification of private documents, damage or intent to damage is an element;
in falsification of public documents, damage or intent to damage is NOT necessary
unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third
person, for the reason, that the principal thing punished is the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed
o 4 kind of documents:

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
44
am+dg
Private deed between private individuals by which something is proved, evidenced or

set forth and for which a notary public or authorized person has not intervened.
Examples
o cash disbursement receipt (Batulanon),
o document notarized without a commission (but can still be prosecuted
under Art 171 since it is destined to be such Heck v Santos, the
document remains private but the crime is falsification of public
document)
o disbursement voucher (Andaya v People, wherein accused substituted
names in a voucher in order for his friend to get his commission tax-free)
Public private document that has either been notarized or has become part of the
public record
See ROC definition of public and private documents.30
Examples:
o pleadings of parties and papers filed by them which are submitted to the
custody of the court (Vermejo v Bayus),
o roll of attorneys
o notarized deeds of sale
o barangay resolutions (Goma v CA, not sure if this public or official, but
either way, SC here considered it as a public document using the Rules
of Evidence)
Official issuance is mandated by law and in the performance of official duty
Examples:
o Passports
o Daily time reports in government offices (Flores v Layosa)
o Booklets or papers submitted to the CSC (P v Leonidas)
Commercial one that is prepared in accordance with mercantile laws; used by

merchants or business to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions
Example: sales invoice (Monteverde)

o Documents also refer to electronic documents.
o What if the document was falsified before being submitted to the government, as required by
law?
Falsification of a private document before submission may nevertheless by falsification of

public of official documents because it is destined to be such. (Monteverde v People)
If the document is intended by law to be part of the public or official record, the
preparation of which being in accordance with the rules and regulations issued by
the government, the falsification of that document, although it was a private
document at the time of its falsification, is regarded as falsification of public or
official document. (Monteverde)
So, if you falsified the personal data sheet which is required to be submitted to the CSC
for appointment to the public position, the crime committed is falsification of public
documents because the document is destined to be part of public record. (CVC v
Acevedo)
Also, if you falsify stuff in the application for a drivers license before submission, it is
also falsification of public document. The blank form becomes a public document the
moment it is accomplished and submitted to the LTO. (Dava v P)
Layug, Flores, Beragio, XXX, Coral, Heck cases (see footnotes, digests care of Glenn, sir didnt discuss
this with us na eh.)31
30
Sec. 19.Classes of Documents. For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a)The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b)Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c)Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the entered therein.
All other writings are private.
31
Layug: an ordinary government employee has a time record measured through Bundy clock. Layug is a teacher in Davao national high school. He said
in his record that he went to class and taught from 8:30-11:30, 1:30-4:30. But some of the time, he spent in the library. He was charged for falsification,
because he said in his time record that he taught in certain times, but he was just in the library. No question, the time record is a public document. He was
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
45
am+dg
Consummated the moment the genuine public or official document is altered, or the moment the false
document is executed
o Even if the document is not put to illegal use
o Hence, no attempted or frustrated falsification of public/official document
Unless the falsification is imperfect

Can be committed by omission. (P v Dizon falsification by omission by not indicating in the ledger his
purchase of goods)
May someone be convicted based solely on presumptions?
o Yes. One found in possession of falsified document is presumed to be the author. (Caubang v
People, wherein the accused submitted falsified documents to the SEC registration and was not
able to sufficiently explain himself)
o In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one in possession of such is presumed to be the
author thereof.
o HOWEVER, before this presumption will be applied, it is imperative that the document was
falsified (or there was a falsified document) in the first place. The falsification must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. (Monteverde, wherein the Court said that the document in question
was not proven to be falsified in the first place)
Take note that there are as many counts of falsification as documents falsified.
o In Lastrilla v Granda, there were 3 deeds of sale falsified in one occasion. Each deed of sale
contained several parcels of land. But only 3 counts of falsification were charged, since it is
based on the documents falsified, and not the contents therein.
But see Mallari v People, wherein the accused falsified two documents over two parcels
of land as security for loans from two people. He made it appear that the owners of the
land mortgaged the property to the two people from whence he got the loan. The SC
considered it as only one crime because they were done in only one occasion (same
date, place and time). There was only one deceit practiced by petitioner on the two
victims.
P v Pomferada: accused falsified roll of attorneys by inserting three persons in the roll.
Accused held to have committed 3 counts of falsification, even if made on the same roll
of attorneys.
Take note that even if multiple modes were used to falsify a document, only one crime of falsification is
committed because only one single criminal intent moved the falsification.
o In Lastrilla, Lastrilla imitated a signature, made it appear that a dead person participated, and
altered true dates, but was only charged for one count of falsification per document falsified.
The following modes are also applicable to Art 172 the difference lying on two spheres: the offender
(either public officer or private individual) and the type of document (public document or private
document). Hence, the following modes can also be used in falsifying private documents.
charged for falsification of a public document ELEVEN times. But he did not get his salary for the time he was not teaching. QUESTION: Is he guilty
for falsification of public document even if there is no damage to the government?
HELD: Layug was acquitted. In the prosecution of cases involving falsification of time records, there must be proof of damage to the government (e.g.
salary paid for services not rendered). BUT this is weird, because usually, damage is not an element of falsification of public document.
Flores: The falsification of a daily time record automatically results in financial losses to the government because it enables the employee to be paid salary
and earn leave credits for services never rendered.
Contrast: In Flores, damage is not an element, because potentially, the government can be damaged.
Beragio v. CA: J Callejo agrees with this
A COMELEC registrar, who was also a lawyer, was allowed by COMELEC to appear for poor litigants. He submitted a DTR saying that he was in the
office, but he was actually in court attending to poor litigants. He was charged with falsification.
HELD: Even if he was not in the office at that time, the COMELEC allowed him to appear for poor litigants. He was performing a duty authorized by the
COMELEC. There was no falsification.
XXX v. CASpouse is a janitor, but before the janitor died, he received his check. Before the check became due, the janitor died. The widow already
received it. She cashed it, thinking it was leave credits value. The check was worth X amount, though the janitor had leave credits exceeding the amount
of the check. She was charged with falsification. HELD: Acquitted. She was acting in good faith. There was no damage to government; in fact, the
government owed the janitor pa.
P v. Coral
Got a warrant of arrest, falsified signature of the judge, and had his wife arrested. He claimed he was not guilty of falsification because it was a spurious
document in the first place.
HELD: Convicted. There can be falsification even if it is a spurious document. Cannot use own acts of falsification as a defense against prosecution.
Heck v. Santos and Buzon v. Baltazar
The notarization of a lawyer by a private document without requisite commission [meaning, it does not become a public document] is still liable for
falsification of public document.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
46
am+dg
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
Imitating is an inaccurate translation. It should be read to mean feigning

Feigning means the forgery of a signature that does not in fact exist.
Necessary that:
o There be an intent to imitate, or an attempt to imitate, and
o The two signatures or handwritings (the genuine and the fake), bear some resemblance to each
other
Lack of either can result to Par 2 of Art 171.

Not necessary that the imitation of writing, handwriting, or signature be perfect. (P v Rampas)
No falsification of public document unless there is an attempt to imitate the genuine signature of
another. (US v Femur?)
One is guilty of falsification even if he did not imitate the signature of the person in the document, as
long as there is a difference between the genuine signature of another and the falsification. (P v Isla)
Even if the statements are true, one can still be guilty of falsification if the signature is false.
o It is immaterial whether or not the contents set forth in the forged statement were false, so long
as the signature of another was counterfeited. (Caubang v People)
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate;
Requisites:
o Offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a
proceeding, and
o Such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding
Documents include spurious documents made to appear as genuine documents (Goma v CA 32)
o Hence, if an accused makes a false order of release from a judge when faced with a warrant of
arrest, he is liable for falsification.
Seen in the following cases:
o Bernardino v People, wherein the acting committee secretary made it appear that a COA
representative attended a public bidding when in fact, the latter did not.
o Lastrilla v Granda, wherein the accused falsified 3 deeds of sale and made it appear that dead
people sold him the land (see notes above)
Cuello Callon doesnt agree that this paragraph will apply if the people are dead. But our
SC did not agree with him on this point.
o Abubakr v People, wherein the accused was a COMELEC registrar who made it appear that
certain people appeared in the voters list, when in fact, they did not.
Guilty under Art 171 and Omnibus Election Code

o People v Leonidas, wherein the accused paid someone else to take his exam for him. He made it
appear that another person participated in the exam, when in fact, that someone else did not.
o Mallari v People, see notes above.
Crime can be committed to conceal another crime
o In P v Villanueva, Villanueva (a public officer) misappropriated funds of the government. To
conceal his malversation, he falsified receipts to show that people received some money, when in
fact, they did not.
o Guilty of two crimes:
Malversation
Falsification of official documents
Why not complex?

o Because second crime was used to conceal, not to commit it
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact
made by them;
Requisites:
o Person or persons participated in an act or proceeding
32
And it bears to stress that in falsification under Art. 171(2) of the RPC, it is not necessary that there be a genuine document; it is enough that the
document fabricated or simulated has the appearance of a true and genuine document or of apparent legal efficacy.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
47
am+dg
Such person or persons made statements int aht act or proceeding, and
The offender, in making a document, attributed to such person or persons statements other than
those in fact made by such person or persons
See in P v Stella Romualdez, wherein the accused changed the answers of a Bar examinee and then
corrected the answers.
o Bar examinee guilty as an accomplice by knowing that Romualdez committed the crime.
o
o
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
Requisites:
o Offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts
o He has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him
o The facts narrated are absolutely false, and
o Perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third
person (seems like this last requisite is not applicable if what is falsified is a public document, on
the strength of P v Po Giok To)
Narration of facts: merely an account or description of the particulars of an event or occurrence.
(Galeos/Ong v People)
o Compare with conclusions of law, which is the determination of a judge on the law to be applied
to a set of facts.
No falsification in the making of untruthful statements or erroneous statements in a

conclusion of law.
Hence, in P v Yanza, the accused certified that she was eligible for a certain
position when in fact she wasnt. SC said no falsification because eligibility is a
conclusion of law even if it was erroneous or incorrect, and not a narration of
facts.
Legal obligation to disclose the truth means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the
facts narrated.
o Can also be based on rules and regulations promulgated by authorities.
So if an accused falsified a personal data sheet which was required by the rules of the
CSC, she is guilty of falsification (even if she was not hired afterwards) (Lamacanas v
Inta)
o Or an ordinance.
o In P v Go Kiok To, the Chinaman misrepresented his nationality to get a residence certificate. He
was held liable because of Sec 3 of Commonwealth Act 465 which stated that the residence
certificate must contain, among others, the citizenship of the applicant.
What did Justice Albert say in this case?
He said that only paragraphs 1, 5 and 6 can be done by a private individual.
Did SC agree with dear Justice Albert?
It impliedly agreed with Albert. However, they said that a private individual can
be liable for Paragraph 4 as being a principal by direct inducement.
Was the clerk liable for falsification?
No. he had no criminal intent and relied on the Go Kiok To.

If there is colorable truth to the statement, one is not criminally liable.
o Hence, good faith can be considered as a defense.
For example, if you said in a public document that you owned a banca because you really
thought it was yours, hindi pala, you cant be held liable. (US v San Jose)
o There is no falsification of public document if acts of accused are consistent with good faith, even
if it may be false. (Jamora v Sandiganbayan)
o If the document was altered to speak the truth, there is no falsification.
There is alteration, but no falsification.

Includes the omission of material facts.
o In the recent case of Galeos v P & Ong v P (Feb 9, 2011), the accused Galeos left blank certain
questions regarding his relationship with Ong in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth required by law to be submitted by permanent government officers. He did not admit that
he was related to Ong, which was prohibited by nepotism laws.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
48
am+dg
The SC said that as to Galeos, he was guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his
information and personal data sheet because he withheld material facts which would
have affected the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government
position.
As to Ong, he too was found guilty of falsification of public document because by

certifying said SALN, he affirmed the truth of the facts stated therein. He took advantage
of his official position as the appointing authority.
Also seen in Concerned Employees v Generoso, wherein judicial staff officer Generoso falsely stated in
his ITR that he had 2 dependents (to save on tax) when in fact, he only had 1. He claimed that he did it
in good faith because he was eager to have one more son. SC said his defense of good faith was
unavailing he deliberately intended to make untruthful statements.
o Remember that good faith as a defense will only apply if there is colorable truth to the
statements. What Generoso here did was a blatant lie.
5. Altering true dates;
Dates altered must be essential

It must either affect the veracity of the document or the effects thereof.
Seen in Lastrilla, wherein the accused ante-dated the sale to a date when the purported vendors were
still alive and kickin.
Cant be committed by culpa. Intent essential. (Cuello Callon)
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
Requisites:
o Alteration or intercalation (insertion) on a document
o Made on a genuine document
o Alteration or intercalation changed the meaning of the document
o Change made the document speak something false
Alterations consist of erasures, interlineations, additions, substitution of any material matter
o Gives the document a different legal effect; affects the legal identity of the document; affects the
rights/liabilities of the parties involved
If the alteration or intercalation was made to make the document speak the truth, it is not a crime.
Cannot be committed by culpa. There must be criminal intent.
Seen in:
o Garcia v CA (but this was actually a falsification of a private document case), wherein Garcia
altered a receipt for P5,000 to make it appear to be P55,000. Garcia made a down payment to a
vendor of land for P5,000. When the deal went sour, he wanted a refund of P55,000 (which was
obviously altered).
As an aside, the court considered as damage (which is an element in falsification of

private document) the fact that Garcia made it appear that the vendor received P55,000
when in fact he did not.
o P v Romualdez, wherein the Romualdez changed the grades of a bar examinee. (Also liable under
par 3)
o Panuncio, where the MVRR was altered (but under Art 172, falsification of public documents by
private individuals)
Not all alterations are criminal.
o If the alteration does not change the meaning, then its not criminal
o Alterations or intercalations on the face of a document are, in the absence of evidence relation to
them, are presumed to have been made prior to the execution of a document. One making the
alteration must explain the same.
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;
Can only be committed by a public officer (includes diplomatic officers) or notary public who takes
advantage of his official posiition since the authentication of a document can be made only by the
custodian or the one who prepared and retained a copy of the original document.
o Hence, cant be done by a private individual.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
49
am+dg
Two modes under this paragraph:

o Purporting to be a copy of an original when no such original exists
Example: making a copy of a deed of sale, when no deed of sale really existed
o Including in a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original
Example: civ registrar stating in a certified copy of a birth certificate that the person was
legitimate, when in fact, he wasnt
Cant be done by culpa. Done with dolo or deliberate intent.
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
Intercalating must be false and change the sense of the document or official book.
Protocol is the original document kept by the notary public. (recheck)
Failure by the notary public to enter chronologically in the protocol: falsification of public documents.
A word on falsification of passports
There are as many number of crimes as the number of fake passports used.
Making false statements in the application for passports with the intent to induce the issuance of a
passport is a crime.33
So is the forgery or mutilation or alteration of a passport. 34
Do you charge violation of RA 8239 or falsification of official/public documents?

o RA 8239 states: In case any of the offenses prohibited in this Act constitutes a violation of the
Revised Penal Code and the penalty imposed in said Code is heavier than that in this Act, the
latter penalty shall be imposed.
o J-Call says that if one is already convicted with RA 8239, he should no longer be charged with
falsification because the courts are mandated to consider the penalty of falsification under RPC to
determine what the heavier penalty should be. It will be tantamount to double jeopardy if he is
charged again with falsification.
Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article
in any public or official 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 falsification 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 of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next
33
(b) Offenses Relating to False Statements; Penalties. Any person who willfully and knowingly:
1. Makes any false statement in any application for passport with the intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the
Philippine Government, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to this Act or rules and regulations prescribed pursuant hereto shall be
punished by a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) nor more than Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000) and imprisonment of not less than
three (3) years nor more than ten (10) years: or 2. Uses or attempts to use any passport which was secured in any way by reason of any false statements,
shall be punished by a fine of not less that Fifteen thousand pesos (15,000) nor more than Sixty thousand pesos (60,000) and imprisonment of not less that
three (3) years, but not more than ten (10) years; or 3. Travel and recruitment agencies whose agents, liaison officers or representatives are convicted of
offenses relating to false statements shall in addition to the fines and penalties above-mentioned have their license revoked with all deposits, escrow
accounts or guarantee funds deposited or made as a requirement of their business forfeited in favor of the government without prejudice to the officials of
the branch office or of the agency being charged as accessories to the offense and upon conviction barred from engaging in the travel agency business.
34
(c) Offenses Relating to Forgery; Penalties. Any person who:
1. Falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, mutilates or alters any passport or travel documents or any supporting document for a passport application, with the
intent of using the same shall be punished by a fine of not less than Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000) nor more than One hundred fifty thousand pesos
(150,000) and imprisonment of not less than six (6) years nor more than fifteen (15) years; or 2. Willfully or knowingly uses or attempts to use or furnishes
to another for use any such false, forged, counterfeited, mutilated or altered passport or travel document or any passport validly issued which has become
void by the occurrence of any condition therein prescribed shall be punished by a fine of not less than Sixty thousand pesos (60,000) nor more than One
hundred and fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) and imprisonment of not less than six (6) years nor more than fifteen (15) years: Provided, however, That
officers of corporations, agencies or entities licensed in the travel and recruitment industry would be held similarly as their agents, liaison officers or
representatives: Provided, finally, That forgeries of five or more passports or travel documents, would be considered as massive forgery tantamount to
national sabotage and shall be punished by a fine of not less than Two hundred and fifty thousand pesos (P250,000) nor more than One Million pesos
(1,000,000) and imprisonment of not less than seven (7) years nor more than seventeen (17) years.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
50
am+dg
lower in degree.
There are 3 acts punished under 172:

o Falsification of public, official, or commercial document by a private individual
o Falsification of private document by any person
o Use of falsified document
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article
in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document;
Elements:
o Offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who DID NOT take advantage of
his official position
o He committed any of the acts of falsification in 171
o Falsification was done in a public, official, or commercial document
Here, no need for damage or intent to damage.
o Remember, as long as what was falsified was a public document, no need for damage.
Falsification of a private document

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 falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
Elements:
o Offender committed any of the acts of falsification (except par 7) in Art 171
o Falsification was committed in any private document
o Falsification caused damage to a 3rd party or at least done with intent to cause such damage
Gravamen: damage or intent to cause damage to 3 rd party
Damage includes material damage and damage to the credit or honor of a private person (Cuello Callon)
What if the offender did not gain any profit from the falsification, how is intent established?
o There must be evidence independent of the falsification to establish intent.
o This may consist in an attempt to encash or use the document, or verbal or physical acts
indicating intention behind falsification.
Consummated upon falsification of the private document.
o Immaterial if damage actually caused, since intent to cause damage enough.
Take note of the case of Batulanon v People.
o Here, the accused was charged with estafa through falsification of private documents (cash
disbursement receipts). The SC said you cant do that since they share the same element of
damage. Hence, Batulanon was found guilty of:
3 counts of falsification of private documents (she falsified 3 cash disbursement

receipts), and
1 separate count of estafa (because she said she received the money on behalf of her
son, when in fact she didnt, and that she did not falsify her sons signature, hence
nothing falsified)
Use of a falsified document

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 of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next
lower in degree.
Here, the document is any document doesnt matter if public or private document
Important: under this paragraph, the person using the document is NOT the author of the falsification.
o If the falsifier himself uses the document, he is liable for falsification (either under 171 or 172,
Par 1 & 2) and not for the use
o Why? The penalty for use is already integrated in 171 and 172 (Par 1 & 2) (Cuello Callon)
Hence, if a private individual falsifies a public document and then uses it in a judicial
proceeding, he is liable under Par 1 of Art 171, not for the use of such document.
Falsified document is used either in a judicial proceeding or in any other transaction
Elements if used in a judicial proceeding:
o Offender knew that a document was falsified by another person
o False document is embraced in 171 or 172

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
51
am+dg
Introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding
If used in a judicial proceeding, NO need for damage

Elements if used in any other transaction
o Offender knew that the document was falsified by another person
o False document is embraced in 171 or 172
o He used such document (not in judicial proceedings)
o The use of the false document caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent to
cause such damage
o
Art. 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages, and use of said falsified
messages. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon
officer 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 fictitious wireless, telegraph or
telephone message of any system or falsifies the same.
Any person who shall use such falsified dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or with the intent of cause
such prejudice, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree.
Acts punished:
o Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message
That the offender is an officer or employee of the government or of a private corporation,

engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message
That the offender commits any of the following acts:
uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message
falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message

o Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message
same as above
o Using such falsified message
that the accused knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message was
falsified by any of the person specified in the 1st paragraph of Article 173
that the accused used such falsified dispatch
that the use of the falsified dispatch resulted in the prejudice of a 3 rd party, or that the
use thereof was with intent to cause such prejudice
need for intent to cause damage
o can NOT be done by culpa
Section Five. Falsification of medical certificates,

certificates of merit or services and the like.
Art. 174. False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or service, etc. The penalties of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000
pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any physician or surgeon who, in connection, with the practice of his profession, shall issue a false
certificate; and
2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate 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 certificate falling
within the classes mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.
Art. 175. Using false certificates. The penalty of arresto menor shall be imposed upon any one who shall
knowingly use any of the false certificates mentioned in the next preceding article.
Persons liable:
o Physician or Surgeon: for falsifying a medical certificate, must relate to illness/health
applies to both private and public practice.

o Public Officer: for falsifying a certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances
o Private person: for falsifying the certificates above
Includes the instance when a private person represents himself as a doctor and
gives/falsifies a certificate
Dont charge with usurpation of authority or official functions, sir said the penalty
in Art 174 already includes that

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
52
am+dg
The certificates need not be notarized

The one who uses such false certificates must KNOW that the certificates are false.
o If the author uses it also, charge him only as an author, not anymore as a user.
Section Six. Manufacturing, importing and possession of instruments or implements intended for the
commission of falsification.
Art. 176. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification. The penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine 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 in the commission of the offenses of counterfeiting or
falsification 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.
Acts punished:
o Making or introducing in to the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks or other instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification
o Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification
made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person
Need for intention to use for forgery or falsification
What if the instruments imported could not be used for the intended purpose, is it an impossible crime or
a crime under 176?
o Still 176, as long as there was intent to use and there was importation.
Although the Spanish SC says its an impossible crime.

o In P v Santiago (CA case), court said no need to import a complete set. If it can be used
alongside other instruments, there is violation of the law.
o Importing marks or stamps, etc are mere preparatory acts.
Possession includes actual or constructive possession.
Chapter Two
OTHER FALSIFICATIONS
Sec. One. Usurpation of authority, rank, title, and improper use of names, uniforms and insignia.
Art. 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. Any person who shall knowingly and falsely
represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine
Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act
pertaining to any person in authority or public officer 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.
Two acts punished:

o By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine Government or any foreign government
In usurpation of authority, the mere act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself to
be an officer, etc. is sufficient; it is not necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a
public officer
o By performing any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine
Government or of a foreign government or any agency thereof, under pretense of official
position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so
In usurpation of official functions, it is essential that the offender should have performed
an act pertaining to a person in authority or public officer, in addition to other
requirements
Usurpation of authority
o Elements:
Accused is aware he is not a public officer
He falsely represents himself to be such (explicit representation)
Such person has performed an act pertaining to a public officer or agent of PIA

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
53
am+dg
Can only be committed by dolo.
Good faith is a defense.

o Examples:
Notary public who notarizes a document when his commission has expired violated this
provision (P v Baltazar)
A man who pretended to be a public office to officiate a marriage of a girl so that he

could have sex with her was guilty of the complex crime of usurpation of public authority
with seduction
A man who pretended to be a BIR agent and showed a falsified BIR ID was guilty of the
complex crime of usurpation of public authority with falsification
o But take note of:
Art 299-A (4): robbery may be committed through pretense of exercise of public
authority
In this case, no complex crime.
No 177 either since its already an element of Art 299-A (4).
Art 267: kidnapping by pretending to be a public officer.
Again, no complex crime since usurpation of authority is a mode of committing

the crime of kidnapping.
o What if you falsely assume to be a foreign diplomat, what are you liable for?
RA 75, and
Usurpation of public authority
You can be charged with both because RA 75 (Sec 6) says, in addition to (see
comments on direct assault)
o A person pretending to be authorized to issue passports is liable under RA 8239. 35
Remember what J-Call said about the passport act and how the judge should already
consider the penalty in the RPC, hence the accused shouldnt be charged twice. That was
his opinon.
Usurpation of functions
o Person performs functions pertaining to public officer under false pretense of public authority.
Without false pretense, there is no crime of usurpation of authority but mere civic spirit.
This is the reason why civilians who direct traffic to unwind some mess are not
liable under this provision.
o When a public officer or employee has already retired or resigned but continues to do his duties,
is he liable for usurpation of functions?
Yes!!!!
What if he acts outside his jurisdiction?
Still liable. Once outside his jurisdiction, he acts as a private individual. (Cuello
Callon)
o
Art. 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true name. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not to
exceed 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall publicly use a fictitious 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 circumstances shall be punished by arresto menor
or a fine not to exceed 200 pesos.
Two acts punished:

o Using a fictitious name for purposes enumerated
o Concealing his true name or other personal circumstances
First mode: using a fictitious name
o Elements:
The offender uses a name other than his real name
He uses that fictitious name publicly
35
Acting or claiming to act in any capacity of office under the Republic of the Philippines, without lawful authority, grants, issues or verifies any passport
or travel document to any or for any person whomsoever shall be punished by a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) nor more than Sixty
thousand pesos (P60,000) and imprisonment of not less than eighteen (18) months nor more than six (6) years.
In case any of the offenses prohibited in this Act constitutes a violation of the Revised Penal Code and the penalty imposed in said Code is heavier than
that in this Act, the latter penalty shall be imposed.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
54
am+dg
The purpose of the offender is:
to conceal a crime,
to evade the execution of a judgment, or
to cause damage to public interest

o if a person uses a fictitious name publicly, but without these purposes, the same crime is
committed, just under the 2nd mode.
o Publicly includes use in an official or public document
o Damage means damage to the public interest.
Public interest is something which the public, community at large, has some pecuniary
interest by which some legal rights are affects.
o Evasion of judgment includes civil or criminal. Law does not distinguish.
o If I use my fictitious name (Cutie McPoopy) to defraud another, what crime is commited?
Estafa.
o If I use my fictitious name (Handsome McWeewee) to gain entry to the house of another to rob
him, what crime is committed?
Robbery.
Not complex, not separate. Use of fictitious name is mode to commit the robbery.
o If I use my fictitious name (Gorgeous McHearthrob) in a narration of facts in a public or official
document, what crime is committed?
Falsfication of public, commercial, or official document. The penalty of 178 is already

ABZORBED in the former. (Cuello I know everything Callon)
o J-Calls favorite: A is a convict serving sentence in Muntinlupa. B, another inmate, substitutes for
A, to allow A to escape. B took As place and claimed to be A by stating his name to the chubby
warden. What crime did the A commit?
Evasion of service with use of fictitious name.
What if the warden did not ask the name of the replacement? (B was just
sleeping like a baby)
o J-Calls answer:
If no fictitious name used:
A liable for evasion of sentence
B liable for delivery from prison
If fictitious name used:
A liable for evasion of sentence with use of fictitious

name
B liable for delivery from prison with use of fictitious

name
Second mode: concealing his name
o If use was done but not for the enumerated purposes, you use this paragraph
There can be as many crimes as the number of fictitious names used
If a person uses a fictitious name to obstruct justice or uses a fictitious name in a passport?
o Liable under PD 182936 (for obstruction) or RA 8239 (passport)
Can you charge both PD 1829/RA 8239 (as the case may be) and 178?
No! Same logic as explained earlier. Court should impose the higher penalty of
1829/RA 8239 or 178. So J-Call says if already charged with PD 1829/RA 8329,
you cant charge 178 na.37
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 office not
held by such person or to a class of persons of which he is not a member.
Elements:
o That the offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress
o That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the offender or to a class of
persons of which he is not a member
36
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true
name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;
37
PD 1829 If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
55
am+dg
o That said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly

What if you wear the uniform of the Ministry of Magic?
o Not liable. Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office is not punishable (yes, Harry Potter is not
real.)
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 afflictive
penalty; and
4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a correctional penalty or a
fine, or shall have been acquitted.
In cases provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of this article the offender shall further suffer a fine 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 fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the prosecution is for a felony
punishable by an afflictive penalty, and the penalty of arresto mayor in any other case.
Elements (180 and 181):

o There be a criminal proceeding
o The offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein
o The offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false
o The defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or convicted in a
final judgment
180: against the defendant
181: for the defendant
This only applies if the crime is based on the RPC
o But it can also apply to SPLs if it follows the nomenclature of the RPC
If it doesnt, go for 182

There must be criminal intent.
o Only committed through dolo.
GF is a defense.
o How do you prove that he knew that the testimony is false?
Can be determined by the things he states or does, proof of motive to lie, and objective
falsity itself, or proof from other facts.
For 180, 181, and 182, the testimony must be complete.
o Must have been subjected to direct and cross-examination.
Unless other party waived right to cross-examine.

o Once the testimony is complete, the crime is consummated.
Retraction done after his testimony does not extinguish the crime already committed.
Unless it was done in the same testimony.

o (example: he lied during direct, but retracted during cross)
No attempted or frustrated.
But J-Call disagrees. There is attempted, no frustrated. Nag-oath na eh.

Nagsimula na ang overt acts!
The false statement must be related to the subject of inquiry, which legitimately affects the defendant.
o Not necessary that the witnesss testimony directly affects the decision. It just needs to affect a
material fact.
Material fact: related to inquiry or the fact in issue

There must be judgment of conviction or acquittal because penalty depends on the penalty imposed on
the convict.
Does this provision include testimony on qualifying and aggravating?
o Yes! Not only on the merits, but on those circumstances as well! (Cuello Callon)

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
56
am+dg
Will not apply if accused in main case is convicted only for a penalty less than correctional or a fine.
o But the liar can be prosecuted for perjury.
Witness includes the injured party, expert witness, and even state witness (an accused!)
if the accused gave false testimony in favor of himself, is he liable under 181?
o No. (Cuello Callon)
o BUT! Our SC said that he is liable under 181 if he not only disclaimed guilt but pinned the crime
on another. (P v Soliman)
For prescription:
o For 180: period will only begin from the finality of the decision
o For 181: period will begin right after the witness falsely testifies
Relate to RA 6981 (Witness Protection Program), Sec 13: person in WPP who testifies falsely loses
immunity and be liable for Art 180/181 as the case may be.
Relate to RA 9372 (Human Security Act), Sec 47: person who knowingly furnishes false testimony in any
proceeding involving terrorism is NOT liable under 180-182 but for violation of Sec 47
Art. 182. False testimony in civil cases. Any person found guilty of false testimony in a civil case shall suffer
the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine 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 fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy shall
not exceed said amount or cannot be estimated.
Elements
o be given in a civil case
o False testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case
o That the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false
o That the testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues presented in
said case
Civil cases include
o Ordinary actions
o Arbitration
o Special civil actions
o Supplementary proceedings (execution of judgment, prohobition)
Art 182 does not apply to
o Special proceedings
o Naturalization proceedings (Chua v P)
o Petition to annul judgment (rule 47)
In these cases, go for perjury.

Pending determination of the falsity of the subject testimonies of private respondents in the civil case,
the criminal action for false testimony must perforce be suspended. (Ark Express v Judge, read for the
bar!)
Art. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. 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 affidavit, 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 affirmation 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.
Perjury applies in:

o Light felonies
o SPLs which do not follow RPC nomenclature
o Special proceedings
o Non-judicial proceedings (Congress hearings, etc)
o Naturalization (Chua v People)
o Other proceedings not under 180-182
Two ways of Committing Perjury
o By falsely testifying under oath; and

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
57
am+dg
o By making a false Affidavit

Elements
o That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter
o That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath
o That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood; and
o That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law
Must be on a material matter.
Can only be done by dolo.
o Must be with evil intent and malice.
A petition filed court where false statements are made will give rise to perjury.
o NOT falsification. Why?
Because of Padua v Paz, where a verified complaint had false allegations, and Asturias v
Serrano where a petition to annul judgment contained false statements. In both these
cases, the Court considered the crime as perjury.
o Perjury even if said petition was withdrawn. (Chua v P, where the petition for naturalization was
withdrawn)
Prejudicial question doctrine applies. (see 182)
Subornation of perjury (considered as perjury)
o One who induces one to lie: PDI
o One who lies: PDP
Art. 184. Offering false testimony in evidence. Any person who shall knowingly offer in evidence a false
witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding, shall be punished as guilty of false testimony and
shall suffer the respective penalties provided in this section.
Elements
o That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony
o That he knew the witness or the testimony was false
o That the offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding
The party who is liable is the party who offers the false testimony/false witness in evidence
o He must know that the document is false
o The falsity must be made by another
What if the author offers his own false testimony?
He is guilty as a PDP of false testimony or perjury, as the case may be.

o Applies to offering in judicial, quasi-judicial, official, or admin proceedings
Relate to RA 9372, Sec 38: false testimony by law enforcement on terrorism, liable under RA 9372, not
under perjury38
The penalties in 184 are the same as the preceding articles because the one who uses such falsities
knowingly adopts 183.
Chapter Three
FRAUDS
Section One. Machinations, 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 artifice, with intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing auctioned, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine ranging from 10 to 50 per centum of the value of the thing auctioned.
Acts punished and elements

o By soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public
auction
38
SEC. 38. Penalty for False or Untruthful Statement or Misrepresentation of Material Fact in Joint Affidavits. Any false or untruthful statement or
misrepresentation of material fact in the joint affidavits required respectively in Section 12 and Section 32 of this Act shall constitute a criminal offense
and the affiants shall suffer individually the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
58
am+dg
That there be a public auction

That the accused solicited any gift or promise from any of the bidders
That such gift or promise was the consideration for his refraining from taking part in that
public auction
That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned
By attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or any
other artifice
That there be a public auction
That the accused attempted to cause the bidders to stay away from the public auction
That is was done by threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice
That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned
Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial
means free competition in the market;
2. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or shall combine with
any other person or persons to monopolize and merchandise or object in order to alter the price thereof by
spreading false rumors or making use of any other article to restrain free competition in the market;
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or processor of any merchandise or object of commerce
or an importer of any merchandise or object of commerce from any foreign country, either as principal or
agent, wholesaler or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any manner with any person likewise
engaged in the manufacture, production, processing, assembling or importation of such merchandise or
object of commerce or with any other persons not so similarly engaged for the purpose of making
transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or of increasing the market price in any part of the Philippines,
of any such merchandise or object of commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assembled in or
imported into the Philippines, or of any article in the manufacture of which such manufactured, produced, or
imported merchandise or object of commerce is used.
If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food substance, motor fuel or lubricants, or other articles
of prime necessity, the penalty shall be that of prision mayor in its maximum and medium periods it being
sufficient for the imposition thereof that the initial steps have been taken toward carrying out the purposes of
the combination.
Any property possessed under any contract or by any combination mentioned in the preceding paragraphs,
and being the subject thereof, shall be forfeited to the Government of the Philippines.
Whenever any of the offenses described above is committed by a corporation or association, the president
and each one of its agents or representatives in the Philippines in case of a foreign corporation or association,
who shall have knowingly permitted or failed to prevent the commission of such offense, shall be held liable
as principals thereof.
Sir just said to read the following cases to understand monopoly:

Gokongwei v SEC:
o An express agreement is not necessary for the existence of a combination or conspiracy in
restraint of trade. It is enough that a concert of action is contemplated and that the defendants
conformed to the arrangements, and what is to be considered is what the parties actually did
and not the words they used.
o Monopoly is the concentration of business in the hands of a few. Not necessary that prices are
raised, enough that the few have the power to raise such prices.
Rivera v Solidbank (which talked of restraints in contracts and pension plans) 39:
o A restriction in the contract that does not preclude the employee from engaging in competitive
activity, but simply provides for the loss of rights or privileges if he does so is not in restraint of
trade.
o A post-retirement competitive employment restriction is designed to protect the employer
against competition by former employees who may retire and obtain retirement or pension
benefits and, at the same time, engage in competitive employment.
39
the distinction between restrictive covenants barring an employee to accept a post-employment competitive employment or restraint on trade in
employment contracts and restraints on post-retirement competitive employment in pension and retirement plans either incorporated in employment
contracts or in collective bargaining agreements between the employer and the union of employees, or separate from said contracts or collective bargaining
agreements which provide that an employee who accepts post retirement competitive employment will forfeit retirement and other benefits or will be
obliged to restitute the same to the employer. The strong weight of authority is that forfeitures for engaging in subsequent competitive employment
included in pension and retirement plans are valid even though unrestricted in time or geography.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
59
am+dg
Avon v Luna (on exclusivity contracts, here, the SC said the contract was valid, it did not foreclose
competition):
o Contracts requiring exclusivity are not per se void. Each contract must be viewed vis--vis all the
circumstances surrounding such agreement in deciding whether a restrictive practice should be
prohibited as imposing an unreasonable restraint on competition.
o The main objection to exclusive dealing is its tendency to foreclose existing competitors or new
entrants from competition in the covered portion of the relevant market during the term of the
agreement. Only those arrangements whose probable effect is to foreclose competition in a
substantial share of the line of commerce affected can be considered as void for being against
public policy. The foreclosure effect, if any, depends on the market share involved.
If it doesnt really affect competition, then its valid.
Section Two. Frauds in commerce and industry

Art. 187. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or other
precious metals or their alloys. The penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed on any person who shall knowingly import or sell or dispose of any article or
merchandise made of gold, silver, or other precious metals, or their alloys, with stamps, brands, or marks
which fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys.
Any stamp, brand, label, or mark shall be deemed to fail to indicate the actual fineness of the article on which
it is engraved, printed, stamped, labeled or attached, when the rest of the article shows that the quality or
fineness thereof is less by more than one-half karat, if made of gold, and less by more than four onethousandth, if made of silver, than what is shown by said stamp, brand, label or mark. But in case of watch
cases and flatware made of gold, the actual fineness of such gold shall not be less by more than three onethousandth than the fineness indicated by said stamp, brand, label, or mark.
188 and 189 repealed by Intellectual Property Code.

190 194 repealed by the DDA.
DDA lecture notes.
Shabu is a dangerous drug. (Navotas v Judge)
Sec 36 (f) and (g) are unconstitutional in so far as it adds qualifications for Congress and mandates drug
testing to those charged with crimes.40
o Drug testing must be RANDOM and SUSPICIONLESS.
So, constitutional as to students, drivers license applicants and police officers.
DDA is mala prohibita. No need to prove intent.
40
Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing. Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing
laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price of the drug test
with DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing
methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of the drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a
positive screening test. Drug test certificates issued by accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the date of issue which may
be used for other purposes. The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing:
(a) Applicants for driver's license. No driver's license shall be issued or renewed to any person unless he/she presents a certification that he/she has
undergone a mandatory drug test and indicating thereon that he/she is free from the use of dangerous drugs;
(b) Applicants for firearm's license and for permit to carry firearms outside of residence. All applicants for firearm's license and permit to carry firearms
outside of residence shall undergo a mandatory drug test to ensure that they are free from the use of dangerous drugs: Provided, That all persons who by
the nature of their profession carry firearms shall undergo drug testing;
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations as contained
in the school's student handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a random drug testing: Provided, That all drug testing expenses whether in public
or private schools under this Section will be borne by the government;
(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. Officers and employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be
subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the company's work rules and regulations, which shall be borne by the employer, for purposes of
reducing the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a
ground for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law;
(e) Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies. Officers and members of the military, police and other law
enforcement agencies shall undergo an annual mandatory drug test;
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years
and one (1) day shall have to undergo a mandatory drug test; and
(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.
In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be subject to the provisions of Section 15
of this Act.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
60
am+dg
With regard to buy-bust operations, the prosecution must comply with the objective test in buy-bust
operations. They must prove how the operation originated, what took place, and the subsequent seizure
of drugs and the offender.
o Frame-up (instigation) defense are taken with a grain of salt.
Importation from a foreign country is consummated the moment the airplane/ship enters the territorial
air/sea of the Philippines as defined by the UNCLOS. 41
o No need to actually bring into the port.
o Importation can not be done through land since we are an archipelago.
Possession can be actual or constructive. 42
o Constructive: actual control of the house where the drugs are contained/hidden.
If drug is found in ones house, it is presumed that the head of the family is liable.
Possession need not be exclusive. (P v Tira)
o To be guilty of possession (Sec 11):
In possession of a DD
Not authorized by law/authority
Intent to posses
Accused has knowledge that drug is illicit
Possessed freely
o Presumption: one in possession of a DD is presumed to have knowledge that drug is illicit
o Not authorized by law; are their drugs authorized to be possessed?
Yes, those in hospitals. And those possessed by the police for buy-bust purposes.
Accused has burden of prove to show that the he is authorized by law to possess such
drug.
o Two presumptions:
One in possession knows that drug is illicit
No authority to hold such DD

If one is charge of use of DD, can he be charged separately of possession?
o No.43
If one is charged of delivery of DD, can he be charged separately of possession?
o No. Possession already an element in delivery.
Sale of drugs44
o Elements: (P v dela Cruz)
identification of buyer/seller
object of sale
consideration
delivery
o Presumption: one caught selling is presumed to know that the drug is illegal
o Consummated upon the perfection of the contract of sale of illegal drugs. Even if consideration
has not yet been paid.
But better if the drug has been delivered for evidence purposes.
o Prosecution must prove:
41
Section 4. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.- .The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity and purity involved, including any and all
species of opium poppy or any part thereof or substances derived therefrom even for floral, decorative and culinary purposes. xxx
42
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug
in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereofxxx
43
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a
confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the
provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment
ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any
dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
44
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved,
or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. xxx
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
61
am+dg
Corpus delicti
The buy & sell
The drug subject of the sale
Chain of evidence rule (Sec 21)
1st link: drug with the team who caught the dealer
2nd link: drug turned over to the police investigator
3rd link: drug turned over to the crime lab

o in the Alabang Boys case, prosecution failed to show that the drug was
brought to the police investigator, because the drugs were instead
brought to the media
what if no inventory/pictures of the drugs?
Not a problem! As long as the chain is pvoed. (P v Llamado)
Is it necessary to show the buy money or the informant or the surveillance tema in
court?
No.
o Delivery includes constructive delivery
In case, the agreement was to place the drugs in a cabinet. This was constructive
delivery. (P v Lacap)
One who delivered but did not sell the drugs is also liable. (P v Petilla)
Transportation of drugs consummated even if the drugs do not reach the intended destination. (See
footnote on sale)
o But there is also attempt to deliver as was seen in the case of P v Marti, where the courier
opened a box which was to be sent to Europe.
A sold to B kg of marijuana. He had kg left with him. Solve.
o 2 separate crimes:
Sale of drugs
Possession
Sec 27 is peculiar because it gives a specific penalty for the malversation of drugs or other stuff
confiscated. 45
o The RPC provision on malversation will not apply because the RPC does not apply to DDA except
as therein provided.
Planting of evidence is a crime under Sec 29.46
o Sir digressed and talked of planting of evidence under 9516 (illegal explosives) which is also a
crime.
Is there command responsibility under the DDA?
o Under Sec 91, it seems so but only when any member of law enforcement agencies fail to appear
as witnesses. Their superiors are held liable as well if they did not exert efforts to present their
subordinates in court.47
45
Section 27. Criminal Liability of a Public Officer or Employee for Misappropriation, Misapplication or Failure to Account for the Confiscated, Seized
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment Including the Proceeds or Properties Obtained from the Unlawful Act Committed. The penalty of life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00), in addition to absolute perpetual
disqualification from any public office, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who misappropriates, misapplies or fails to account for
confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment including the proceeds or properties obtained from the unlawful acts as provided for in this Act.
Any elective local or national official found to have benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, or have
received any financial or material contributions or donations from natural or juridical persons found guilty of trafficking dangerous drugs as prescribed in
this Act, shall be removed from office and perpetually disqualified from holding any elective or appointive positions in the government, its divisions,
subdivisions, and intermediaries, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
46
Section 29. Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence. Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor
and essential chemical, regardless of quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of death.
47
Employees in Testifying as Prosecution Witnesses in Dangerous Drugs Cases. Any member of law enforcement agencies or any other government
official and employee who, after due notice, fails or refuses intentionally or negligently, to appear as a witness for the prosecution in any proceedings,
involving violations of this Act, without any valid reason, shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), in addition to the administrative liability he/she may be meted
out by his/her immediate superior and/or appropriate body.
The immediate superior of the member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be
penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one (1) day but not more than six (6) years and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if despite due
notice to them and to the witness concerned, the former does not exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
62
am+dg
o Sir digressed again and said that there is also command responsibility under 9516.
Under Sec 98, the RPC does NOT apply unless 9165 says so. 48
o Sample of a situation where RPC will apply:
When the offender is a minor who acted with discernment, the minor is entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Art 68 of the RPC.
Conspiracy and attempted stage are also contemplated by the DDA. 49

o Subsidiary imprisonment does not apply.
Probation allowed EXCEPT:
o In pushing or trafficking, even if less than 6 years. 50
The ISL is also applicable (not sure if this is still true since 9165 reverted back to non-RPC
nomenclature)
Title Six
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Chapter One
GAMBLING AND BETTING
195 199 (gambling stuff) not discussed by J-Call.

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.
Elements:
o Offender performs an act or acts
o Such act or acts are highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs
o The highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling within any other article of the Code
o The act or acts complained of be committed in a public place or within the public knowledge or
view
Offense must be directed to the sense of decency or good customs
o If directed against property (like scattering poo on buildings), not grave scandal
Probably other mischiefs

If committed in a public place, deemed to be committed in public view because of the possibility of being
witnessed by 3rd persons
If done in a private place, the act must be committed in public view (more than one person witnessed
the act)
The member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the preceding paragraphs shall not be transferred or reassigned to any other government office located in another territorial jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in court. However, the concerned
member of the law enforcement agency or government employee may be transferred or re-assigned for compelling reasons: Provided, That his/her
immediate superior shall notify the court where the case is pending of the order to transfer or re-assign, within twenty-four (24) hours from its approval;
Provided, further, That his/her immediate superior shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one (1) day but not more than
six (6) years and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual
absolute disqualification from public office, should he/she fail to notify the court of such order to transfer or re-assign.
Prosecution and punishment under this Section shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any existing law.
48
Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor,
the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
49
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty
prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act:
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical;
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
50
Section 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this
Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as
amended.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
63
am+dg
Hence, if accused and paramour were doing the deed in a private place, without anyone seeing
them, not grave scandal
If act falls under another article of the code, that article must be used
o Two people groping each other lustfully in public: grave scandal
o One person intimidating another and then groping that someone in public: acts of lasciviousness
o
Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. The penalty of
prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and
fine, shall be imposed upon:
(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
(2) (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, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays,
scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those
which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for
violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic 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;
(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are
offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969).
Publicity is essential. Art 201 only applies when there is publicity.

o It must be distributed widespread or to many people, because if isolated, it does not disturb the
law. (P v Tinpongco)
Test of obscenity: whether it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men. Whether the tendency of
the matter is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to those immoral influences. (US v
Kottinger)
Mere nudity in pictures or paintings not an obscenity. Can be a work of art.
o But if theres a woman dancing with almost nothing on, and the people are shouting
nakakalibog! its clear that the dancing was indecent and erotic. (P v Aparici, CA)
o If nude representations are sold for commercial purposes and not the sake of art, it may fall
under Art 201.
What if people decide to have sex in public? Its a crime under this provision, no art involved.
Read with RA 9995 which punishes photo and video voyeurism 51
o Reasonable expectation of privacy person believes that he can disrobe in privacy without being
concerned that she would be captured in photo or video 52
o Private area of the person means the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks
or female breast
o Female breast means any portion of the breast
o The photo or video is inadmissible in evidence53
o Does this mean no more sex tapes or worse yet, Cheater episodes???
Yes. EVER?
No. police can apply to court for an order to take a photo or video of a couple for
investigation and apprehension of those committing this crime. 54
51
Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any person:
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area
of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and
under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without
consideration;
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction
thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or
recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device.
52
(f) "Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being
concerned that an image or a private area of the person was being captured; or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private
area of the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
53
Section 7. Inadmissibility of Evidence. - Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding
sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.1avvphi1
54
Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a
written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
64
am+dg
Break muna.
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; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually
associate with prostitutes;
4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering
in any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without any lawful or justifiable purpose; 5.
Prostitutes.
For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, 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 fine 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 fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the
court.
Vagrants are those who loiter around public or private places without any visible means of support but
who are physically able to work and do not apply themselves to some lawful calling.
o Includes ruffians and pimps who habitually associate themselves with prostitutes.
o Loitering around constitutes vagrancy unless such act is not punishable under other articles of
this code.
o When a person enters the estate of another he may commit:
Vagrancy if the estate is not enclosed or fenced because entry is not prohibited in such
case, hence, trespass is not committed
Trespass to property when the estate or premises is uninhabited and there is manifest
prohibition against entry (Art 281)
Theft when a person enters a fenced or enclosed estate without the consent of the owner
or overseer to hunt, fish, or gather plant products (Art 308)
Prostitution
o Any lascivious or lewd act habitually done for profit by a woman.
o Elements are:
Offender is a woman
Habitually indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, and
Does so for money or profit

o Habitually associating with prostitutes is vagrancy but when the offender engages in the business
or profits by prostitution or enlists the services of any other person for the purpose of
prostitution, the crime is white slavery.
Juvenile Justice Act:
o Persons below 18 are exempt from vagrancy, prostitution or mendicancy
Anti-Child Abuse Act, Sec 5: pimps are liable, and those other persons that procure child prostitutes or
encourage them, and those who engage in sexual intercourse with children, and those deriving profit or
advantage (e.g. owners of establishment) 55
voyeurism: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been
committed or is about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention
of such, crime.
55
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to
the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided,
That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
65
am+dg
VAWC violence against women and their children includes sexual and psychological violence 56
Anti-trafficking of Persons Act covers sex-tourism, qualified trafficking of persons
o Qualified when:
Victim is a child (under 18 or over 18 but has mental or physical defect), the crime is
qualified
If offender is military or law enforcement
If the victim dies, becomes insane, gets AIDS/HIV, is mutilated

o Civil liabilities:
Offender is liable to the trafficked person
If insolvent, take value from those proceeds and instruments derived from
trafficking that are confiscated
There can be independent civil action for civil liabilities under this law
Exempt from filing fees
Title Seven
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Chapter One
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
Art. 203. Who are public officers. 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 official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
To be a public officer, one must be

o Taking part in the performance of public functions in the Gov, or performing in said Gov or any of
its branches public duties as an subordinate official, employee, or agent, of any rank or class,
(SEA-RC) and
o His authority to perform such must be by: (LEA)
Direct provision of the law
Popular election
Appointment by competent authority

Definition is extensive and comprehensive. Embraces all public servants, from highest to lowest. (P v
Maniego)
o Removes distinction between officers and employees.
o Includes:
Contractual, temporary employees of the government
Subsidiaries of GOCCS, created under the corp code or original charters (Agbayani v
Sayo)
Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct
when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna,
disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the
license has been issued to said establishment.
56
B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited to:
a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks,
physically attacking the sexual parts of the victim's body, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the woman or her
child to do indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal home or sleep together in the same room
with the abuser;
b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by force, threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or
other harm or coercion;
c) Prostituting the woman or child.
C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to
intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing or
allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness
pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common
children.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
66
am+dg
GSIS, DBP, Postal Service, Philippine Postal Savings Bank (P v Sandiganbayan)

Corporations, stock or non-stock, vested with function relating to public needs
(governmental or proprietary), owned by the government wholly or partially (P v
Sandiganbayan)
Chapter Two
MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
Malfeasance doing something which in the first place should not be done because it is wrong
Misfeasance performance of an act which the officer may perform but he does so erroneously (miser!)
Nonfeasance omission to do the act which the officer should perform but does not do so
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
disqualification.
Elements:
o Offender is a judge
o Renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
o Judgment is unjust
o Judge knows that his judgment is unjust
Applies only to the judges of the first and second levels (MTC, RTC) (Cortes v Chico-Nazario, In Re:
Borromeo)
o Not to collegiate courts (SC, CA, Sandiganbayan)
Judge must commit breach of positive statutory duty or performance of a discretionary act with improper
or corrupt motive (Valdez v Judge)
To convict, need for actual evidence, not mere speculations (Ang v Aris)
Unjust contrary to law, not supported by evidence, made with conscious and deliberate intent to do
injustice
o Intent and overt act must concur
There must be INTENT on the part of the judge to do the injustice not enough that the
judgment is contrary to law or is not supported by evidence
Hence, can only be done by dolo, not by culpa. (compare with 205)
Good faith a defense.

Judgment must have become final and executory before judge can be charged under Art 204
What proceedings are contemplated?
o There must be a decision of an appellate court, in prohibition/certiorari/appeal, impugning the
validity of the decision, or
o There is an administrative charge against the judge for promulgating the unjust order
Both a criminal and administrative infraction
o However, admin complaint cant be pursued simultaneously with judicial remedies accorded to
the aggrieved by his erroneous order or judgment (like appeals, etc)
o Admin remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is
available to the aggrieved and the same has not been resolved with finality.
o Until there is a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is
manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether judge is administratively liable.
(Tan v Adre)
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 disqualification.
Compare to Art 204: here, a judge may be liable by CULPA

Elements
o Offender is a judge
o Renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
o Judgment is manifestly unjust
o Due to inexcusable negligence or ignorance

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
67
am+dg
Gross ignorance of the law: error must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in evident bad faith
There is inexcusable negligence if the mistake of the judge cannot be explained
Manifest injustice: even a person having a meager knowledge of the law cannot doubt the injustice
Judgment unjust when it is contrary to evidence on record or law
Defenses for judge:
o Good faith, absence of malice or improper considerations (Diego v Castillo)
Mere error of judgment cannot serve as basis for a charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment
where there is no proof or even allegation of bad faith, ill motive, or improper consideration
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.
Elements:
o Offender judge
o He:
Knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree, or
Renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence

or ignorance
Hence, can be done by dolo or culpa.
An interlocutory order does not dispose of the case.
A judge was held to have violated this position when he allowed bail to an accused charged with murder
without any hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt was strong. (Layola v Gabo)
Art. 207. Malicious delay in 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.
Elements:
o Offender judge
o There is a proceeding in his court
o He delays the admin of justice
o Delay is malicious caused by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party
in the case
Only done by dolo. Must be committed with corrupt motives or malice.
Mere delay is not enough, there must be intent to deliberately delay. (Magdango v Judge)
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 officer, or officer of the law, who, in
dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment
of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses.
Prevaricacion
Acts punishable:
o Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law
o Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses
Elements:
o Offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to
prosecute offenses
o Dereliction of duties, meaning he knew of the commission of crime but he does not cause the
prosecution of the criminal or tolerates its commission
o Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law
The officers liable here are either public officers or officers of the law.
o Basically, those in charge of the institution or filing of the criminal complaint against the violators
of the law. Those duty-bound to cause the the prosecution and punishment of the offenders
PDEA, NBI agents, prosecutors, OMB, special prosecutor, chief of police, barrio captain,
etc
o Does not include those charged with enforcement of tax laws
Malum in se! Need for intent! Dolo only!

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
68
am+dg
o Malice needed. (P v Malabanan)

Applies both to violations of the RPC and SPL
Although the crime may be committed by tolerance, the law expressly requires that the public officer
maliciously refrains from instituting or prosecuting violations of the law.
Before the public officer may be charged of prevaricacion, the offender whom the public officer refused
to charge/prosecute must FIRST be prosecuted and convicted for that crime tolerated or let pass by the
public officer. (US v Mendoza, in this case the police office was charged as an accessory to the crime of
arson, but the principal was acquitted, hence he was acquitted as well.)
o This is a condition sine qua non to prevaricacion.
o Take note of this case!
What about public officers and employees not tasked with instituting criminal actions?
o Go for either:
PD 1829 obstruction of justice
Art 19 accessories
Can also go for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law, in addition to liability under Art 208. 57
Does command responsibility apply?
o Yes, under the Anti-Torture Act.58
Can the officer be liable for Anti-Torture and 208?
Yes! Violations of the Anti-Torture Act are separate and independent from the
RPC.59
Prevaricacion is an element of qualified bribery under Art 211-A.
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 fine 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 confidential information from said client in a case, shall
undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client.
Forms:
o Client prejudiced by malicious breach of professional duty or inexcusable negligence or ignorance
of lawyer
o Lawyer reveals secrets learned by him in his professional capacity
o Undertaking the defense of the opposing client without consent of the first client
Prejudice: material or moral damage
Seen in US v Laranja where the lawyer was for the prosecution and the defense (simplified facts)
Section Two. Bribery

57
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
58
Sec 13. The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior public official of the PNP and other law
enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment for any act
or omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by
his/her subordinates. If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his/her subordinates or by others within his/her
area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive or corrective action either before, during or immediately after its commission,
when he/she has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment but failed to
prevent or investigate allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall also be liable as principals.
Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an accessory if he/she has knowledge that torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment is being committed and without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission in any
of the following manner:
(a) By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment;
(b) By concealing the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof in
order to prevent its discovery; or
(c) By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal/s in the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment; provided, that the accessory acts are done with the abuse of the officials public functions.
59
Section 15. Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime. - Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony
committed as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a separate and independent
criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any other criminal liability provided for by domestic and international laws.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
69
am+dg
Art. 210. Direct bribery. Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present
received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [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 officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding
paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional, in its medium period and a fine 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 officer refrain from doing
something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its
maximum period and a fine [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 the penalty of
special temporary disqualification.
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).
Bribery is the crime of the public officer who receives a gift, present, offer or promise by reason or in
connection with the performance of his official duties.
It is the crime of the receiver.
o The crime of the giver: corruption of public officers
Three kinds of direct bribery:
o 1st kind: agreement to perform a criminal act in connection with official duties
o 2nd kind: acceptance of a gift, etc to do an unjust act in connection with official duties
o 3rd kind: acceptance of a gift, etc to not perform an act which the officer is obliged to perform
st
1 kind: agreement to perform a criminal act in connection with official duties
o Elements:
Accused is a public officer
Received by himself or thru another, some gift or present, offer or promise,
Such gift, present, offer or promise has been given in consideration of his commission or
any act not constituting a crime, and
Crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions/duties

o Consummated upon the acceptance of the offer/promise.
It does not matter whether the offered thing is actually given to the officer as long as
there is offer and acceptance, there is consummation.
Acceptance can be express or implied.
Even a wink can show acceptance!

o What if the public officer doesnt do the criminal act?
Still liable. It does not matter if he actually commits the crime or not.
o What if briber told officer to consummate the crime, but PO only attempted?
PO still liable.
o Crime here talks of RPC and SPL. Law doesnt distinguish, then why the hell should we?
o Is it necessary the PO be convicted of the other crime before Art 210 can be charged?
No. The two crimes can be filed simultaneously. (J-Call cites Merencillo, but Merencillo
talks of RA 3019. But codal supports J-Call! J-Call will ask this! He mentioned it in class!)
EXCEPT:
o If the other crime is Art 208 (prevaricacion)
In this case, you need to prove Art 208 first before filing for Art
210. J-Call uses People v Mendoza as his basis.
So, if Harry murders a sad-looking Hufflepuff, and then pays off

Mad-Eye (Public Officer) to turn a blind eye, Mad-Eye can only be
charged with Art 210 after 1) Harry is convicted of murder and 2)
Mad-Eye is convicted of Art 208.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
70
am+dg
Comment: However, P v Mendoza only applies to Art 208.

It never mentioned Art 210. The sine qua non
requirement talked of the conviction of the person who
was set free by the public officer. So, it makes more
sense that once you can charge the officer prevaricacion,
you should also be able to charge 210. The logic of P v
Mendoza should only apply to prevaricacion, not to Art
210. But thats just me. Follow J-Call!
2nd kind: acceptance of a gift to do an unjust act in connection with official duties
o Elements:
accused is a public officer
officer accepts the gift
act in consideration for which the gift, etc was given does not constitute a crime
act of crime relates to the public officers exercise of functions

o For the accused to be liable under this kind, the act does not constitute a crime, but the act
should still be unjust
In Mamba v Garcia, the judge was held to be an accomplice when he allowed the
settlement of a criminal case to be perfected in his chambers.
But if a judge acted as the broker in the bribery, he should be held as a principal
by direct participation. (Velez v Flores)
In Marifosque v People, a cop accepted a bribe in order to recover stolen property of the
victim. This was unjust and he was guilty of direct bribery, 2 nd kind.
J-Call: There was an obligation to return the property. It was his duty to do so,
his refusal to do so is not a crime, but is unjust.
A sheriff who receives a bribe to enforce a judgment is guilty under this kind.
o Whether the unjust act is committed or not affects the penalty (compare with 1 st kind)
o In this kind, the mere promise to give a gift is not sufficient. The gift must have been received
by the public officer. The officer must accept the gift, mere agreement not enough.
3rd kind: the object for which the gifts is received or promised is to make the public officer refrain from
doing something which it is his official duty to do
o If by refraining to do an act he commits a crime, it will be under the 1 st kind.
Hence, if by refraining the public officer commits a crime (which would most probably be
Art 208, prevaricacion), the PO can be liable for both Art 208 and Art 210, subject to the
rules stated by J-Call
The difference between prevaricacion and bribery is that in the latter, there is the
element of gift giving and acceptance
Common stuff:
o In connection with performance of duties
Act ultimately relates or is linked with the public officers functions, duties, or position
If the act to be done by the public officer was not related to his official functions,
what happens?
Not bribery.
Probably estafa.
The giving of the bribe is mere inducement.
Sample case: People v Tady-y accused said he could issue a permit and would
only do so if he was paid money, but in reality, it wasnt part of his powers. He
was not liable for direct bribery.
Accepting a bribe by a fiscal to file an information is bribery under 210, not

under RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The latter will only apply if
the public officer is involved in a contract or transaction. Filing of an information
is not a contract or transaction. (Soriano v People)
o What will constitute a gift or a present? Can it be services?
Yes. the gift or present may be in the form of services to be rendered by the bribe giver.
A promise to do an act that would have pecuniary gain to the PO is a present.
It is enough if a reward or personal advantage would accrue to the PO for the

performance of an act, and that the PO values it highly (Commonwealth v Albert)

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
71
am+dg
But the codal talks of a fine to be computed using the value of the gift, how do you value
if the gift was a service?
The value is the usefulness of the gift.
If the gift is incapable of being measured in a monetary sense, the court need
not impose a fine. (Commonwealth v Albert)
What about acceptance, what will constitute acceptance? (read with indirect bribery)
Mere physical receipt without any other act or sign showing acceptance cannot lead the
court to conclude that bribery was committed.
There must be a physical act indicating acceptance.
There must be clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift and
consider the same as his own property. (Formilleza, which was actually an indirect
bribery case)
Is duration material to determining acceptance?
No. The duration of the possession is not the controlling element in determining
receipt or acceptance. (Peligrino v People, where the accused received an
envelope with marked money, looked inside it, closed it, and then placed it on a
table. His act of receiving lasted only 40 seconds but the SC considered it
receipt)
Usually, the PO will be guilty of bribery, while the private person will be guilty corruption of public
officers
Upon conviction, should he return the gift?
No, it will be forfeited to the government.

Can a private individual be liable for bribery?
Yes, in the case of Acejas v People, the accused was a practicing lawyer who had a
Japanese client. He told the client that there was a complaint against him and that he
had to pay of immigration agents. The immigration agents told the Jap that he had to
pay or else theyll expose his connections with the deadly YAKUZA. The lawyer connived
with the public officers and encouraged his client to give his money. The SC held that the
private person was liable for bribery for acting in conspiracy with public officers.
J-Call: I do NOT agree. The Japanese dude gave his money because he was
afraid to be charged. The crime should be robbery/extortion. There was
psychological force involved.
o Bribery must be given and accepted voluntarily. There lies the difference
with robbery/extortion.
o Bribery (voluntary giving) robbery/extortion (involuntary, through
threat)
So, in the exam, J-Call will be happy if we answer robbery/extortion instead.

o He even assigned a case with similar facts but which bolstered his
enlightened conclusion Sazon v Sandiganbayan, which involved illegal
lumber and a public official who imposed his will to get some grease
money.
Is there such a thing as attempted or frustrated robbery?
Cases would seem to point to the conclusion that yes, there is.
In these cases, the public officer accepts the money/gift but use such as
evidence to charge the giver. The court in these cases came up with attempted
bribery. (See US v Te Tong, and People v Ng Pek)
o It must be noted though that bribery pertains to a public officer, not to
the giver. In these cases, the SC seemed to make a mistake, the crimes
should have been attempted corruption of public officers.
There are as many crimes of direct bribery as the number of times a bribe is offered and
received/accepted.
RA 3019, is demand necessary?
No. Mere receipt of a gift or any other benefit is enough, even without any express demand for
it. The duration of the possession is not controlling. (Peligrino v People)
Can one be charged of RA 3019 and Art 210 simultaneously?
Yes! No double jeopardy. Sec 3 of RA 3019 states that in addition to acts or omissions of
public officers already penalized by existing law
o
o
o
Under
o
o

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
72
am+dg
There is neither identity nor necessary inclusion between RA 3019 and Art 210.
(Merencillo v People)
J-Call did not discuss RA 3019, but he will ask something very basic on this in relation to the
Merencillo case.
Art. 211. Indirect bribery. The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and
public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his
office. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).
Elements:
o He accepts gifts
o Said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office
Mere acceptance of the gift because of his position constitutes indirect bribery.
o If theres a favor for the giver, it becomes direct bribery.
Its a unilateral act by the giver in favor of the public officer. But the public officer must still accept it.
Acceptance is needed/essential. (Formilleza v Sandiganbayan)
o There must be a clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift so offered and
consider the same as his own property from then on, such as putting away the gift for
safekeeping or pocketing the same.
o Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act to show such
acceptance is not sufficient.
To hold otherwise will encourage frame-ups.
Direct
Officer must do or omit the doing or something in
consideration of the gift
If act agreed upon amounts to a crime, mere
agreement consummates the crime
Indirect
None
Public officer must accept the gift to consummate the
crime
Art. 211-A. Qualified bribery If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from
arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which
was not prosecuted.
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death.
Elements:
o Offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement
o Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime
punishable by RP and/or death
o Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration of any promise, gift,
or present
Relate with Art 208
o Using J-Calls theory on Mendoza, the officer must first be convicted for prevaricacion, prior to
conviction for qualified bribery
Will only apply if the crime is based on the RPC, since it uses reclusion perpetua
o EXCEPT if the SPL uses the nomenclature of the RPC
If not RP or death, its Art 208 and Art 210 (Par 1).
If no consideration, its just Art 208.
Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except
those of disqualification 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.
Elements:
o Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer
o That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct or indirect bribery.
Must be by reason of public office.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
73
am+dg
Can there be attempted corruption of pubic officers?

o Yes. When the officer refused to be corrupted.
No frustrated corruption or frustrated bribery because these crimes involve concurrence

of the will of the corruptor and the public officer.
o If the public officer refused to be corrupted, the corruption is merely attempted but there is no
bribery on the part of the officer who refused to be corrupted.
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 fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon any public officer who:
1. In his official 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 officially.
(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 officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the
provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied.
Paragraph 1: by dolo
o Consummated by mere entering into agreement by public officer/employee with interested party
or speculator no need for damage to be proven
Paragraph 2: mere demand of sums different or mere failure to issue receipts
o Paragraph 2 is mala prohibita (Justice Regalado)
o Not required for State to suffer damage
o If accountable officer demands amount in excess of what is due to the government, the amount
due to the government is still public property but the excess is private property
Victim owed P1k to the government. Public officer asked for P2k. He issued a receipt of
P1k. He used the money to watch a movie starring Rene Requiestas. What are the
crimes?
Art 213 for demanding.
Malversation for the P1k.
Estafa for the 1k.
What if he issued a receipt of P2k?
213 for demanding.
Malversation for the P2k. Since the issuance of the receipt over the entire
amount will make it public funds.
May private individuals be liable under Art 213?
o Yes. See US v Ponte, where the private individual janitor was held to be liable with the public
officer.
Art. 214. Other frauds. In addition to the penalties prescribed in the provisions of Chapter Six, Title Ten,
Book Two, of this Code, the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
special disqualification shall be imposed upon any public officer who, taking advantage of his official position,
shall commit any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in said provisions.
Art. 215. Prohibited transactions. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine
ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any appointive public officer who, during his
incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation
within the territory subject to his jurisdiction.
Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
74
am+dg
period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon a public officer who directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or
business in which it is his official 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 property in appraisal, distribution 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 officer who, by
reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or
shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through 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:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its 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 medium and maximum periods, if the 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 disqualification
and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is
chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such
missing funds or property to personal use. (As amended by RA 1060).
Elements:
o He has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office
o The funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable
o He has:
Appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or
Consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted the taking by another

person of such funds or property
An accountable officer is a public officer who, in the discharge of his office, receives money or property
of the government which he is bound to later account for.
o Simply put, by reason of his office, is accountable for public funds or property.
o Any officer of the local government whose duty permits or requires possession/custody of public
funds are accountable officers. (LGC)
A mayor who got cash advances but fails to render an account was held liable under Art
218 because the LGC requires accountable officers to render an account. (Frias v P)
o It is the nature of the duties, not the nomenclature used for, or the relative significance of the
title to, the position which controls in the determination.
Hence, a municipal accountant, although not obliged to received public money, can still
be held liable for malversation if she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates
the same. (Barriga v SB)
Also, a barangay captain can be held liable if he has taken custody of seized logs and
negligently allowed them to be used. (Arriola v SB)
o Art 217 and 220 hold persons who are not accountable officers as such when they are,
nonetheless, accountable for specific public property as when they have a duty to return the
same or to dispose thereof as provided by law or by lawful regulation or orders of their superiors.
Like policemen with their weapons, computer operators for their laptops, etc
o Can a non-accountable public officer or private person be convicted for malversation?
Yes, if he conspired with an accountable public officer.
What if merely profited from the fruits of the malversed funds?

o Liable as an accessory for malversation.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
75
am+dg
Public property or funds, what are they?

o Public funds owned by national government or any of its agencies, including LGUs, GOCCs, under
the custody of the accountable officers
So long as the money in the hands of the disbursing officer, still money of the state. (P v
Enfermo, where there was a double issuance of checks but only one disbursement
voucher)
Under the Admin Code, except as otherwise provided, all money or property officially
received by a public officer in any capacity or in any occasion must be accounted for as
government funds or property.
o Funds or property under custodia legis which are attached, seized, or deposited with private
individuals or public authorities under the law or by orders of the courts or executive officers
even if such funds belong to private individuals
There is a distinction between property in custody and property in custodia legis.
Custody of things means to have them in charge of safekeeping and implies

temporary control.
Property in custodia legis are those which have been lawfully seized and taken by
legal process and authority, and placed in the possession of a public officer.
(Castillo v Buencillo wherein the SC said that P70k settlement money which was
voluntarily deposited to the Clerk of Court was not custodia legis and never
became public funds)
o Money and property is under custodia legis if taken through official
judicial processes.
o Hence, a sheriff can be held liable for malversation for property taken
under his official duties.
Includes fiduciary funds of the courts (like bail bonds, funds from extrajudicial
foreclosure even if destined for a private person since it is momentarily entrusted to the
one conducting public auction)
o Funds and properties of public corporations or special instrumentalities like
the PCSO
the PNRC (Baluyot v Holganza)
However, money loaned to private individuals by GOCCs are private loans and
are therefore NOT public property or funds (Ocampo v P, wherein the governor
was charged for malversation thru negligence for issuing out loans which were
misappropriated by his subordinate. The governor was acquitted on two grounds
first, not public funds since loan to private persons and two, he set proper
safeguards in releasing the loans)
o What about donations made by private individuals to government, are they public
funds/property?
Yes, whether domestic or foreign source, when duly accepted by government (because
these are remitted to the national treasury and for which a general fund is provided for).
Even the proceeds are public funds or property. (Manhit v OMB)
o Bottomline: property or funds impressed with public attributes are public funds or property
(Salamera v SB)
o What about drugs?
See Sec 27 of the DDA, and comments earlier. You can only charge under DDA, not
under Art 217.
To appropriate: to use public funds or property for himself or convert the same for his personal
advantage
o Includes any attempt to dispose of public funds or property without any legal right
Hence, when an old clerk deposited a cash bond after only 5 months and that there was
no proof that he appropriated such amount, he was not guilty of malversation. There was
mere delay in the deposit and no misappropriation. (Aquino v Olivares, but the clerk was
held administratively liable)
But when a court aide brought jueteng money home for safekeeping but used the money
for a family emergency, this was tantamount to malversation. (San Jose v Camurongan,
actually an admin case, Court actually called it theft, but its more like malversation)
To take: concept of taking in malversation is the same concept as taking in theft or robbery

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
76
am+dg
Once a public officer has possession of public property, however brief it may be, and disposes
such, he is liable for malversation.
o The taking of funds is completed and is consummated even if the severance of the funds from
the possession was only for an instant. (Pondevida v SB, where the municipal treasurer issued
checks involving public funds, to the 3 rd parties. Even if he received the money a day after the
checks were encashed, malversation had already been consummated.)
Restitution after the consummation of the crimes is not a ground for acquittal.
What about using public money for the vale system, ie public officer using public funds to give cash
advances to fellow employees?
o The grant of loans through the vale system is a clear case of an accountable officer consenting to
the improper or unauthorized use of public funds by other persons. To tolerate such is to give a
license to every disbursing officer to conduct a lending operation with the use of public funds.
(Chan v SB)
o Compare this to the Rueda v SB case wherein the cash advances were made before municipal
treasurer Rueda received the money. Rueda, instead, received the vales (receipts) which
evidenced the advances. The Court acquitted him on two grounds:
first, the presumption was rebutted because the accounts were fully restituted before the
start of the preliminary investigation, and
second, Rueda did not actually receive the money, but the chits and vales. The money
did not reach his hands, and were therefore not part of his cash accountability.
Take note that whether the malversation was done by dolo or culpa, the penalty is the same.
o No such thing as reckless imprudence resulting to malversation.
Culpa as a mode already part of malversation.
Different from 365 which punishes the mental state. Here, what is punished is
malversation itself.
o The dolo or culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony.
o Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is
involved and conviction thereof is proper.
An accused charged with willful malversation can be validly convicted of the same
offense of malversation through negligence where the evidence sustains the latter mode
of perpetrating the offense.
Restitution of the amount does not affect criminal liability.
o At best, it merely mitigates.
Only the civil liability is erased.

o But it seems, that restitution within a reasonable time (Quizo) or before the preliminary
investigation begins (like in Rueda) will dispute the presumption of malversation.
All that is necessary to prove is:
o Defendant received in his possession public funds
o He could not account for them and did not have them in his possession, and
o He could not give reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the same.
An accountable officer may be convicted even if there is no direct evidence of

misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is shortage of his accounts which he
has not been able to explain satisfactorily.
Condition precedent for any taking, etc to amount to malversation: evidence of shortage
o Hence, if no evidence of shortage, no malversation. (Enriquez v Cruz)
Demand is not an element of malversation.
o It merely raises a prima facie presumption that missing funds have been put to personal use.
o Even without a demand, malversation can still be committed when enough facts are present to
prove it.
The presumption of malversation arises when:
o The audit is complete, accurate and reliable
o The amount of accountability has been duly established (there is shortage)
o Demand is made on the accountable officer, and
o The funds or property is not duly forthcoming and he cannot explain the reason therefore.
Presumption is merely prima facie.
o

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
77
am+dg
Hence if the accused adduces evidence showing that he has not put said funds or property to
personal use, then that presumption is at an end and the prima facie case destroyed. (Quizo v
SB, wherein the accused was able to reimburse the full amount within a reasonable time from
demand)
If one misappropriates different types of property: guns, money, motorcycles, etc, how many crimes are
committed?
o If he did everything in one occasion, just one crime.
o If multiple occasions, as many crimes of malversation as the number of times he
misappropriated.
Abuse of confidence and taking advantage of public position are inherent in the crime of malversation.
Problems:
o There are two officers: one accountable, one not. They used public funds to go to GER and drink
beer. Solve.
Accountable officer: malversation
Non-accountable officer: theft (unless he conspired with the accountable officer)

o Clerk of court had custody of 100k consigned in court. The sheriff stole it when the clerk wnet
out for lunch. Is the sheriff guilty of malversation?
No. He is not the accountable officer.
The sheriff is liable for theft.
If the clerk was negligent, he is liable for malversation through negligence.

Arias case: no malversation because loss (?) was because of the negotiations, so no malversation.
Moreover, high-ranking officers can not be expected to go through every receipt or paper that they have
to sign for. Its just too much. (see Crim 1 notes on this)
o
Malversation
Estafa
Qualified Theft
Can be committed by public officers over public funds, except that in malversation, it cannot be committed
against private property except for private property in custodia legis.
Offender must be accountable Must NOT be accountable
Must not be accountable
over the funds
Taking
of
public
funds
is Taking of public funds is estafa if If the offender who has mere
malversation if the public officer is he
has
acquired
juridical physical or material possession
accountable therefor
possession of it possession and took the property with abuse of
took it with abuse of confidence or confidence
deceit
Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. Any public officer, 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 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 fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Elements:
o That the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom
o That he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property
o That he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the COA, or to a provincial auditor
o That he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered
Used in Frias v SB, there the law which required Frias to account was the LGC and a COA circular
In Campomames v P, there was no law which required him to account. Hence, he was acquitted. (Case
involved disbursement of funds by the Phil Sports Commission to an International Chess Federation).
Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country. Any public
officer who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a certificate from
the Insular Auditor showing that his accounts have been finally settled, shall be punished by arresto mayor,
or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos or both.
Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. Any public officer 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
fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
78
am+dg
damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also
suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.
If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50 per
cent of the sum misapplied.
More popularly known as technical malversation

Elements:
o That the offender is a public officer
o That there is public fund or property under his administration
o That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance
o That he applies the same to a public use other than that for which such fund or property has
been appropriated by law or ordinance
As compared to Art 217, the offender here does not use the money for himself
Gravamen: use or application of funds/property for some other purpose than that provided by law or
ordinance
Separate and independent crime from Art 217 malversation
What if the funds were appropriated by the provincial board, but the offender uses it for a purpose other
than that provided by board?
o J-Call: Should be included under Art 220, because ordinance can include appropriations even
by boards
Does the presumption of criminal intent automatically apply to technical malversation?
o No because disbursement of public funds for public use is per se not an unlawful act. (Abdulla v
P, in this case, accused used public money to pay for employee benefits. She was acquitted
because she used funds from savings and not from appropriations. Court also said that orders by
the DBM are not laws or ordinances as contemplated by Art 220)
Art. 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property. Any public officer 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 fine from 5 to 25 per cent of the sum which he failed to pay.
This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by competent authority to deliver any
property in his custody or under his administration, shall refuse to make such delivery.
The fine shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided that it shall not less than 50
pesos.
Art. 222. Officers 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.
Malversation can be committed by a private person in the following cases:

o Conspiracy with a public officer to commit malversation
o As an accomplice or accessory
o When he was constituted a custodian in whatever capacity even without a public officer involved
and he misappropriated the same
Where the officer was constituted a custodian of the fund or property subject of seizure or attachment,
such becomes custodia legis and impresses the fund/property with the character of public property,
hence the officer can be liable for malversation, not qualified theft.
Does the private individual become a public officer? No. Nowhere is it expressed or implied that a private
individual falling under Art 222 is to be deemed a public officer. (Azarcon v Batausa)
Chapter Five
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section One. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. Any public officer 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 disqualification in its
maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final
judgment to any penalty.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
79
am+dg
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive
shall not have been finally 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 officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall
suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and
temporary special disqualification.
Relate with 156 and 157.

o 156: delivery by a private person
o 223-225: infidelity by an officer-custodian
Here, public officer is liable for the escape of a prisoner, it doesnt matter if detention prisoner or convict.
Infidelity in the custody of prisoners can be committed via dolo (223) or culpa (224)
Infidelity via dolo elements:
o That he had in his custody or charge, a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment
o That such prisoner escaped from his custody
o That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latters escape
Infidelity via culpa
o That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or
prisoner by final judgment
o That such prisoner escapes thru his negligence
Negligence here is one which approximates malice or deliberate non-performance of

duty.
Laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate non-performance of duty example: allowing

prisoner to have lunch with his family when the prisoner was supposed to be in jail
No need for connivance in infidelity via culpa.

But what is the liability of the prisoner who escapes?
o Convict by final judgment 157
o Detention prisoner none.
Can infidelity be committed by private persons?
o Yes, see next article.
Art. 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer. Any private person to whom
the conveyance or custody or a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, 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 officer.
Elements
o Offender is a private person
o The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is confided to him
o The prisoner or person under arrest escapes
o The offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest, or that the escape
takes place thru his negligence
Hence, can be committed through dolo or culpa
If the escape was with consideration, bribery is committed in addition because he was performing a
public function, hence is, at that instance, deemed to be a public officer. (Boado said this, not sure if its
jurisprudence though)
It is not delivering under 156 because at that time, he was performing a public function.
Section Two. Infidelity in the custody of document

Art. 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents. Any public officer who shall remove, destroy
or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage shall have
been caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
80
am+dg
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 disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
disqualification shall be imposed.
Elements:
o Offender be a public officer
o He abstracts, destroys or conceals documents or papers
o Said documents or papers should have been entrusted to such public officer by means of his
office
o Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public interest should have been
caused
Acts punished:
o Removing
o Concealing
o Destroying
Art. 227. Officer breaking seal. Any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property sealed by
proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding
2,000 pesos.
Art. 228. Opening of closed documents. Any public officer 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
disqualification and a fine of not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Breaking the seal (227) and opening without authority closed papers entrusted to a public officers
custody (228) are also forms of infidelity in the custody of documents
Infidelity
Mail matter is entrusted to the official custodian, and
its deemed a document
Crime against public interest
Qualified theft
Mail matter not entrusted; but in the course of the
performance of the duty of the public employee (he
handles mail and he misappropriates the same); mail
matter considered property
Can also be committed by a private person who
takes mail matter, since its considered property
Section Three. Revelation of secrets

Art. 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to him by
reason of his official 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 correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification and a fine 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 disqualification and
a fine not exceeding 50 pesos shall be imposed.
Art. 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. Any public officer to whom the secrets of any
private individual shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer the
penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Chapter Six
OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Art. 231. Open disobedience. Any judicial or executive officer 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 to
prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification in its maximum period and a
fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Elements:
o Offender is a judicial or executive officer
o There is a judgment, decision or order of a superior authority

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
81
am+dg
Such judgment, decision or order was made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior
authority and issued with all legal formalities
o Offender without any legal justification openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or
order, which he is duty bound to obey
Openly refusing: promptly and unreservedly refusing to execute judgment, decision or order
o Clear and manifest refusal
There must be criminal intent to defy superior authority
Disobedience to void or invalid decision is not a crime.
o
Art. 232. Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was suspended by inferior officer. Any
public officer 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 disqualification.
Art. 233. Refusal of assistance. The penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional
in its minimum period, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be
imposed upon a public officer 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
fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been elected by popular election to a public
office, shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.
Art. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused, shall
be imposed upon any public officer 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 inflicting 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 the prisoner,
the offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or
damage caused.
Elements:
o That the offender is a public officer or employee
o That he has under his charge a prisoner or detention prisoner
o That he maltreats such prisoner in either of the following manner:
By overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner

under his charge either
by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or
by inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel and humiliating

manner
By maltreating such prisoner to extort a confession or to obtain some information from

the prisoner (penalty is higher)
Who are the public officers liable here?
o Those with custody or in charge of the prisoner
o Custody must be actual and not just by fiction of law
The victim here can be a prisoner, a detention prisoner, or a convict
If he inflicts physical injuries without intent to kill, or he kills the prisoner, he may be guilty of
maltreatment of prisoners and either PI or homicide/murder, as the case may be
o Two crimes are not to be complexed because the law specified that the penalty for
maltreatement shall be in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused.
Read with RA 9745 (Anti-Torture Act)

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
82
am+dg
Remember, torture under RA 9745 is a separate and independent crime as that of the RPC. So
you can be charged for both RA 9745 and Art 235.60
Section Two. Anticipation, prolongation

and abandonment of the duties and powers of public office.
Art. 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office. Any person who shall assume the performance of the
duties and powers of any public officer or employment without first being sworn in or having given the bond
required by law, shall be suspended from such office or employment until he shall have complied with the
respective formalities and shall be fined from 200 to 500 pesos.
Art. 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers. Any public officer shall continue to exercise the
duties and powers of his office, employment 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 disqualification in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
Art. 238. Abandonment of office or position. Any public officer who, before the acceptance of his
resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment of the public service shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor.
If such office 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 shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, and
by arresto mayor if the purpose of such abandonment is to evade the duty of preventing, prosecuting or
punishing any other crime.
A judge who continues to exercise functions of an abolished position in good faith is a de facto officer
Abandonment must be total and under such circumstances indicating absolute relinquishment.
Section Three. Usurpation of powers and unlawful appointments

Art. 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. The penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period,
temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon any public
officer 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. Usurpation of judicial functions. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period and shall be imposed upon any officer 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.
These three articles cover the usurpation of government department fo the powers of another
o It does not cover the usurpation within the same department. Different provisions cover such
usurpation.
As can be seen, usurpation under 239-241 can NOT be committed by a legislative officer.
o In such cases, Art 171 (usurpation of authority/official functions) will apply.
Art. 242. Disobeying request for disqualification. Any public officer 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 fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
Art. 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority. Any executive officer 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 arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos.
Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public
office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine
60
Section 15. Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime. - Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony
committed as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a separate and independent
criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any other criminal liability provided for by domestic and international laws.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
83
am+dg
not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Elements:
o He nominates or appoints a person to a public office
o Such person lacks the legal qualifications therefore
o The offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the qualifications at the time he made
the nomination or appointment
Offender MUST be aware that the person nominated or appointed does not have the legal qualifications
Good faith is a defense
Recommending is not a crime under 244, only nominating is.
Section Four. Abuses against chastity

Art. 245. Abuses against chastity; Penalties. The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special disqualification shall be imposed:
1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in
matters pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to
or consult with a superior officer;
2. Any warden or other public officer 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 affinity of any
person in the custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall be prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and temporary special disqualification.
Offended here is a woman.

Three ways that crime is committed:
o A public officer solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in
manners pending before such officer for a decision, or with respect to which he is required to
submit a report to or consult with a superior officer.
Here, not required that the solicitation be accepted. Mere soliciting consummates the
crime.
The solicitation is the persistent and threatening kind, implying that he decision will be
adverse if the woman does not comply
o A warden or other public officer 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.
Wont apply if the feeling is mutual. (MU doctrine)

o The jail warden makes immoral advances or solicitation to the wife, daughter, sister or relative
within the same degree of affinity of any person in the custody of such warden or officer.
Prisoner here can be male (if the person object of solicitation is the wife) but the
solicitation is on his female relatives.
Note that the mother of the prisoner is not included.
Offended party in this case can be male.

If a crime against chastity or person (like rape) is committed, then Art 245 is absorbed.
Public authority can be appreciated as an AC.
Title Eight
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Crimes which involve killing and physical injuries are covered by crimes against persons.
o The difference lies with respect to intent to kill. (Killing has intent to kill, PI does not)
o Intent to kill is immediately and conclusively presumed when death occurs for it has been held
that death is the best evidence of intent to kill.
But for the presumption to apply, there must be an unlawful act.

o Intent to kill cannot be manifested by oral threats (papatayin kita, gagoh!). It must be
manifested by overt acts.
When consummated, intent to kill is a general criminal intent which is presumed and hence need not be
established.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
84
am+dg
o
o
When victim does not die, intent to kill becomes a specific criminal intent which must be
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
If not, physical injuries.
When death supervenes, intent to kill is presumed form the voluntary commission of an
unlawful act.
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.
Elements:
o Person is killed
o The deceased is killed by the accused
o The deceased is the:
Father or mother, or
Child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or
A legitimate ascendant or descendant, or
Lawful spouse
of the accused
Legitimacy does not matter except for ascendants or descendants (other than the parents or the child)
Relationship is an essential element of the crime. Its not an alternative circumstance.
o The relationship must be characterized by the following:
Legitimate
Except for parent/child where relationship may either be legit or illegit
Incestuous, sacrilegious relationships included
In the direct line
Either ascending or descending
No parricide in the killing of brothers and sisters, uncles/aunts, nieces/nephews

since those are collateral
By blood
Except for spouses
No parricide in the killing of:

o adopter by adopted or vice versa
o step-father and stepchild
o Important: it is NOT necessary that the offender is aware of the relationship.
o Because relationship is essential, it will only apply to the accused who has a tie with the victim.
The mother of Harry and her brother conspired to kill Harry. They killed him in a
treacherous manner.
Mother: parricide
Her brother: murder

For spouse, the spouse must be the lawful spouse.
o Best evidence: marriage certificate
o But without marriage certificate, oral evidence can be considered.
o If accused admitted himself, its an admission against penal interest.
If the child is less than 3 years old when killed, crime is infanticide.
o Penalties are the same though.
Can be committed by dolo or culpa.
o Culpa: reckless imprudence resulting in parricide
Can be complexed with unintentional abortion. (P v Paycana, Jr, wherein the husband stabbed the wife
who was pregnant at that time. Court said that Art 48 will apply single act resulting into two crimes. JCall likes this case a lot.)
Can also be complexed with murder. (P v Matuldo, wherein the accused threw a grenade to a group of
people, killing both his father and other people)

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
85
am+dg
No such crime as robbery with parricide.

o Always robbery with homicide, since homicide is used in the generic sense.
If the victim did not die, either attempted or frustrated.
If no intent to kill, physical injuries (serious, or less serious, as the case may be)
o Relate to Art 263 (last paragraph) wherein relationship is considered a special aggravating
circumstance to P.I.
Parricide (for babies)

Basis: relationship
Committed only by the relatives enumerated
Conspiracy cannot be applied because relationship is
an essential element
To conceal dishonor of the mother is not mitigating
Infanticide
Basis: age of the baby
Can be committed even by strangers
Conspiracy applicable
To conceal mothers (and maternal grandparents)
dishonor is mitigating
Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted 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 inflict upon them any serious
physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, 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 infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
Defines a felony but there is absolutory/exempting circumstance.

No civil liability as well.
If in arraignment, the accused admits, then he has the burden to prove that 247 will apply.
Requisites:
o A legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person
o He kills any or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter
o He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of this wife or that he has no consented to the
infidelity of the other spouse
Elements, according to J-Call:
o Actual and consensual sex, and
o Injuries committed in flagrante delicto or immediately thereafter
Two time periods to be considered:
o Time of surprising the paramours which must be in the act itself of sexual intercourse
Surprising must be at the moment the sexual congress is taking place
If it is only about to take place or has already taken place, no benefit can be availed
Hence, when the husband saw his wife and her paramour starting to put on their
underwear behind some banana leave, and then killed them, Art 247 will not
apply. (P v Alano)
o Justice Laurel dissents: Um, logic please. Ano pa ba ginagawa nila?
Naglalaba?
o Time of the killing or infliction of the physical injuries which must also be in the act or
immediately thereafter
Killing after discovery is ok, but it must be done immediately thereafter. How long is
immediately thereafter?
Some interval of time, case-to-case provided the killing is the PROXIMATE

RESULT of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse
in the basest act of infidelity (that bitch!). The killing must be the direct byproduct of the outrage of the accused spouse. (P v Abarca)
The accused and the victim spouse must be VALIDLY married.
Sexual intercourse between the spouse and the paramour must be consensual.
o Even if not consensual, Art 247 CAN still apply if the accused acted due to mistake of fact.
Sexual intercourse, what does it cover?

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
86
am+dg
Covers only cases where the penis and the vagina meet and become best friends.
Does not apply to cases covered by sexual assault (like sodomy, fingering, oral sex)
J-Call believes that RA 8353 did not amend Art 247.

Destierro is not a penalty but for the protection of the husband.
Relate with Art 11.
o Offended spouse can invoke Art 11 if he wants.
o Relatives can not invoke Art 247 because it only applies to the offended spouse.
Some cases:
o Husband stabbed paramour, who struck back. The wife tried to save the paramour. So husband
killed wife as well. Art 247 applies for both attacks. (P v Oyanib, although J-Call says that Art
247 shouldnt apply to attack on the wife because the reason the husband attacked her was
because she was protecting the paramour)
o Husband caught wife, told her to leave. Wife went inside to get her jewelry. Husband told her,
umalis ka! Winasak mo na nga ang puso ko, kukunin mo pa yung mga alahas na binigay ko sa
iyo. Umalis ka na, parang awa mo na. Gago! The wife tried to stab the husband, so the husband
stabbed her. Art 247 does NOT apply because he was only protecting himself. Art 11 applies.
As can be seen, Art 11 can be used by the offended spouse. But what should you use? (Exam question)
o Go for Art 11 since theres no penalty. If Art 247, youll get banished pa.
Same rules will apply if the parents catch their daughter having sex with someone else, provided that:
o Daughter is below 18, and
o Living with their parents.
Doesnt apply to parents catching their teenage sons having sex.

Take note that Art 247 cant apply if the accused consented to such sex or pimped his wife or daughter
out. Relate to RA 7610, Sec 5.61
What if while enraged the offended spouse starts shooting and hits some random people in the crossfire?
o Liable to those who were hit for Art 365 (negligence resulting to less serious physical injuries)
(see P v Abarca)
o One committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, but inflicting death under
exceptional circumstances is NOT murder.
o
o
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, fire, 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
scoffing at his person or corpse.
61
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to
the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided,
That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of
Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct
when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna,
disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the
license has been issued to said establishment.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
87
am+dg
Murder: homicide plus one qualifying circumstance under Art 248.

o Killing should be homicide. If parricide or infanticide, then those articles will apply.
o The qualifying circumstances are each an element of murder, depending on the case.
o Only one circumstance will suffice to qualify homicide to murder.
The second circumstance will just be a generic AC.

o Take note that homicide can be upgraded to murder even after the killing like when the
accused outraged or scoffed at the corpse.
o Dwelling and nocturnity are not qualifying circumstances.
However, nocturnity can be a form of treachery. But in that case, treachery will be the
qualifying circumstance, not nocturnity.
Torture and cruelty are different. (?)
o Cruelty is the deliberate and inhumane augmenting of the suffering of the victim.
Chopping of ones head, penis

Outrage: to subject to gross insult the victim or the corpse
Scoff: to show contempt by derisive acts and language
o Killing the victim and throwing the corpse into the river
Is the use of poison treachery?
o If use with intent to kill.
o See the case of P v Galura (CA) wherein the accused use poison to arouse the sexual tendency of
his girlfriend. She eventually died because of the poison. CA held not murder since intent was to
arouse sex, not to kill. CA just considered it as homicide.
The use of explosives in murder is a qualifying circumstance because of the amendments made by RA
9516 on the old firearms/explosives law.
o P v Cumadre did not involve RA 9516.
Remember the lessons of Malngan.
o If intent to burn the building and death is a result, just arson. Resulting homicide is absorbed.
o If intent to kill and fire resorted to as means to kill, murder only.
o If intent to kill (and he has done so) then fire used to cover up the killing, then two distinct
crimes, homicide/murder and arson.
o No such thing as complex crime of arson with multiple homicide.
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.
Homicide is the killing of any person, which does not constitute parricide, murder or infanticide and is
not attended by any justifying circumstance.
No such thing as frustrated/attempted homicide through reckless imprudence because intent is inherent
in frustrated or attempted homicide.
o What crime then? Reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries.
Remember P v Pugay (two guys setting a mental retardate on fire) where one can be guilty of homicide
by culpa and one by dolo on only one victim.
Is euthanasia homicide or murder? Murder. Victim is so helpless and is unknown to him, its treacherous,
so its murder. Its not assistance to suicide either since victim does not want to die.
Sec 10, RA 7610: if the victim of the violence is a child under 12, the penalty is RP.62
Under the VAWC, Sec 6: if there is intent to kill but the victim does not die, the RPC will apply. VAWC
wont apply because it says so itself.63
62
For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No.
3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries, respectively,
shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Article 337, 339,
340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the
offended party, corruption of minors, and white slave trade, respectively, shall be one (1) degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under
twelve (12) years age.
63
SECTION 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children.- The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any
of the following acts:
(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
88
am+dg
Art. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide. The courts, in view of the facts of the case,
may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide, defined and
penalized in the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree than that which should be imposed under
the provision of Article 50.
The courts, considering the facts of the case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under
Article 51 should be imposed for an attempt to commit any of such crimes.
Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. When, while several persons, not composing groups
organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault
each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it
cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall have used
violence upon the person of the victim.
Art. 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. When in a tumultuous affray as referred to in the
preceding article, only serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the participants thereof and the person
responsible thereof cannot be identified, all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the
offended party shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided for the physical injuries so
inflicted.
When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature and the person responsible therefor cannot be
identified, all those who appear to have used any violence upon the person of the offended party shall be
punished by arresto mayor from five to fifteen days.
Article will not apply if the killer is known, even if the fighting was tumultuous.
Elements for 251:
o Several persons involved (more than 2 in each group)
o Do not compose groups organized for the purpose of attacking another
o Persons attack one another in a tumultuous and confused manner
o Cannot be determined who killed the deceased
o Person who inflicted physical injuries to the deceased can be identified
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist
from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of
movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or
child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's
movement or conduct:
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to her/his family;
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's
children insufficient financial support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;
(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or controlling the victim's own mon4ey or properties,
or solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties;
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions;
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force,
physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological
distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will;
(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.
SECTION 6. Penalties.- The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5 hereof shall be punished according to the following
rules:
(a) Acts falling under Section 5(a) constituting attempted, frustrated or consummated parricide or murder or homicide shall be punished in accordance
with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
If these acts resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the Revised Penal Code; those constituting serious physical injuries shall have
the penalty of prison mayor; those constituting less serious physical injuries shall be punished by prision correccional; and those constituting slight
physical injuries shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Acts falling under Section 5(b) shall be punished by imprisonment of two degrees lower than the prescribed penalty for the consummated crime as
specified in the preceding paragraph but shall in no case be lower than arresto mayor.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
89
am+dg
A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons in a confused
tumultuous manner, in the course of which a person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot
be ascertained.
Article will also not apply if the one group so organized attacked another group and the other group only
defended themselves
o All of the members of the attacking group ate liable for all injuries because of conspiracy
Elements for 252:
o That there is a tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding article
o That a participant(s) thereof suffer serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a less serious
nature only
o That the person responsible therefore cannot be identified
o That all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party are
known
Injuries must be serious or less serious.
o If only slight, no crime is committed but if the offender is known, he will be prosecuted for slight
physical injuries.
Difference between 251 and 252:
o Victim of killing in 251: someone can be a participant or passerby
o Victim of physical injuries in 252: participant so no passersby; only participants are victims
Art. 253. Giving assistance to suicide. Any person who shall assist another to commit suicide shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor; if such person leads his assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing
himself, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. However, if the suicide is not consummated, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, shall be imposed.
Acts punished:
o By assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is consummated or not
o By lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extend of doing the killing himself
Person trying to commit suicide does not commit a crime, even if he fails to kill himself
This article will apply to euthanasia if the idea came from the dying person. If the idea to kill was from
the accused without the consent of the dying person, thats murder.
If suicidal person jumps to kill himself, but lands on another and kills that person. Is there a crime?
o Some believe he can be liable. (Art 365 perhaps?)
o Some believe he cant.
Art. 254. Discharge of firearms. Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium 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.
Elements:
o That the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person
o That the offender has no intention to kill that person
Usually, the purpose is to scare another, not to kill or to harm (Dado v P)
o If with intent to kill, it can be homicide or murder at any of its stages
o If no intent to kill, but dude is hit, physical injuries.
If he fires it to the air, it can be Art 153 (alarms)
No distinction between licensed or unlicensed.
o If unlicensed and another crime committed, remember, not guilty under RA 8294!
This article can be complexed with serious or less serious physical injuries
o Dude shot at Draco to scare him. However, the bullet hit Mila who was standing behind Draco.
One bullet, two crimes.
Section Two. Infanticide and abortion.

Art. 255. Infanticide. The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be
imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing
her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if
said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
90
am+dg
shall be prision mayor.
Elements:
o That a child was killed
o That the deceased child was less than 3 days (72 hours) of age
o That the accused killed the said child
Pivotal: age of child, regardless of relationship
o Hence, even if parent kills child, as long as less than 3 days old, infanticide is the crime.
What if woman abandons 2-day old child with intent to kill and child days?
o Infanticide.
If no intent to kill, abandonment of child. (not homicide?)

Father rapes his pregnant daughter. Daughter delivered child and father took it away and buried it alive.
(P v Morales) Solve:
o Rape
o Infanticide with abuse of superior strength (but J-Call says abuse of superior strength inherent in
suicide)
Child must be born alive and viable (capable of independent existence)
o The fetus must already be viable; otherwise, the crime is not infanticide but abortion.
If the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than 7 months and it was destroyed within 24
hours after its separation from the womb, following the Civil Code, it is still abortion.
(Boado)
Extenuating circumstance of concealment of dishonor is available only to the:
o Mother
o Maternal grandparents
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.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have
consented.
o
o
o
Two different kinds of abortion:

o Intentional abortion
Includes abortion practiced:
by the prego or her parents, and
by a physician or midwife
o Unintentional abortion
Elements:
That there is a pregnant woman
That violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the accused otherwise acts
upon such pregnant woman
That as a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her, or any other act of the
accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom
That the abortion is intended

Committed in three ways:
Use of any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman (with violence)
Without using violence, the offender shall act without the consent of the woman (without
violence/without consent)
With consent of the woman
In last two ways, its done by administering drugs or beverages on her

So long as the fetus dies due to violence or drug administered even if the fetus is in full term, it is
abortion. (Viada!)
May there be frustrated abortion?
Yes! (Justice Regalado)

Preggy takes an effective abortive, but the abortion is averted due to medical intervention.
What if lady is not pregnant?
o Impossible crime
If non-pregnant woman suffered PI, then PI.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
91
am+dg
Abortion
Fetus is still drawing life from its mother,
Or not yet breathing on its own,
Or baby had an intra-uterine life of less than 7
months and is killed within 24 hours
Infanticide
Victim is already a person, or
The umbilical cord is already cut and the infant is
breathing on its own, or
The baby had an intra-uterine life of less than 7
months and it is killed after 24 hours.
Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period
shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.
Elements:
o That there is a pregnant woman
o That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion
o That the violence is intentionally exerted
o That as a result of the violence, the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled
therefrom
Important that the abortion is NOT intended.
No unintentional abortion through intimidation.
o Can only be committed from physical violence.
o Pointing a gun against a pregnant woman in a quarrel which caused abortion would give rise to
the crime of other light threats, not unintentional abortion. (but shouldnt Art 4 apply? - Mickey)
Unintentional abortion is:
o By violence (physical) and intimidation, and
o By another person, not by the preggy
May be committed by culpa (P v Paycana)
There can be a complex crime of unintentional abortion and parricide (P v Paycana, see comments on
parricide)
Intentional
With or without violence
By another person or by woman
herself
Offenders knows of the pregnancy
of the woman
Always by dolo
Kaya pa?
Unintentional
With physical violence
By other than the preggy
Offender may or may not know of
the pregnancy
Dolo or culpa
Kaya pa!
Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or
shall consent that any other person should do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor, shall suffer the penalty of prision
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the
consent of said woman for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Art. 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. The penalties provided
in Article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who,
taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause an abortion or assist in causing the same.
Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall dispense any abortive shall
suffer arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
High degree of education is an element of the crime, hence same shall no longer be considered as
generic AC.
Section Three. Duel

Art. 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon
any person who shall kill his adversary in a duel.
If he shall inflict upon the latter physical injuries only, he shall suffer the penalty provided therefor, according
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
92
am+dg
to their nature.
In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, although no physical injuries
have been inflicted.
The seconds shall in all events be punished as accomplices.
Art. 261. Challenging to a duel. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any 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 fight a duel.
Elements
o Previous agreement to engage in combat
o Two or more seconds for such combatant
o The choice of arms and other terms of agreement must be agreed upon by the seconds
Not any pre-agreed fight is a duel because the elements above must be complied with.
Both persons who are part of the duel can be charged.
Pari delicto does NOT apply.
o The State can NOT be bound by the acts of private persons
Both are considered unlawful aggressors.
Chapter Two
PHYSICAL INJURIES
Physical injuries is a formal crime because it is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injury.
o What is punished is the result or consequence and not the stage of execution.
o No attempted or frustrated stage.
Art. 262. Mutilation. The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any
person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or partially, or some essential
organ of reproduction.
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
Acts punished:
o By intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential
organ for reproduction
That there be castration (mutilation of organs necessary for generation such as a penis
or ovarium)
That the mutilation is caused purposely or deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended
party of some essential organ for reproduction
o By intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by lopping or clipping off any part of the body
of the offended party, other than the essential organ for reproduction, to deprive him of that part
of his body.
What if the wife who discovers her husband in the act of making love to a 3 rd party grabs a pair of
scissors and proceeds to cut off her husbands weiner-schnitzel? No liability. Art 247 will apply.
What if victim was a woman or her child? Do you charge the offender under VAWC (RA 9262) or under
the RPC? (Question will come out in the exam)
o Under the RPC!64
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. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the injured person shall
become insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have 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;
64
SECTION 6. Penalties.- The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5 hereof shall be punished according to the following
rules:
(a) Acts falling under Section 5(a) constituting attempted, frustrated or consummated parricide or murder or homicide shall be punished in accordance
with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
If these acts resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the Revised Penal Code; those constituting serious physical injuries shall have
the penalty of prison mayor; those constituting less serious physical injuries shall be punished by prision correccional; and those constituting slight
physical injuries shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Acts falling under Section 5(b) shall be punished by imprisonment of two degrees lower than the prescribed penalty for the consummated crime as
specified in the preceding paragraph but shall in no case be lower than arresto mayor.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
93
am+dg
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted, 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 ninety days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the
physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more
than 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 inflict physical
injuries upon his child by excessive chastisement.
Paragraph 1: victim becomes:

o Insane
Mental disturbance is caused
Includes nervous breakdowns

o Imbecile
o Impotent
Loss of the power to procreate, and not only power to copulate
If castration was done solely to deprive the victim the power of generation then Art 262
will apply (intent to mutilate here was present)
o Blind
Must be complete blindness (either loss of sight or loss of both eyes)
Mere weakness of vision will not go under this paragraph

Paragraph 2:
o Loses the power of speech, hearing or smell
o Loses the uses of an eye, hand, foot, arm or leg
o Loses an eye, hand, foot, arm or leg
If only a single finger was lost, then its not serious PI.
But if its a thumb or 4 fingers lost, then serious PI. (P v Rogelio)

o Permanently incapacitated for the work in which he was habitually engaged
Paragraph 3:
o Deformity
Visible ugliness on the offender which can NOT be repaired by natural healing
So, even if nagpa-Belo after the incident, still serious PI

o Loss of any other part than in par 2 or its use
o Ill or incapacity for work he was habitually engaged in for more than 90 days
Paragraph 4:
o Illness or incapacity for labor more than 30 days
If med cert states that healing period is one month, the crime is less serious physical
injuries. When we speak of month, it is understood to mean 30 days.
Labor should relate to any physical activity, not to gainful employment, otherwise, those who are
unemployed could not be victims under Par 4.
J-Call said not going to school is included.
Qualifying circumstances:
o Victim is any of those of parricide
Except in the case of parents when the injuries are inflicted due to excessive
chastisement
o Presence of any of the qualifying circumstances for murder.
If victim is under 12, RA 7610 makes the penalty reclusion perpetua. See footnote for similar crimes! 65
65
RA 7610, Sec 10. For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263,
paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical
injuries, respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
94
am+dg
Relate physical injuries to robbery with physical injuries under 294 (2-4):
o 294 (2-4) classifies the severity of the crime of robbery with PI vis--vis par 1-4 of Art 263:
Art 294
Art 263
Infliction of injuries
Par 2
Par 1
By reason or on occasion of robbery
3
2
By reason or on occasion of robbery
4
3
In course of execution of robbery
o Significance is that 295 and 296 shall apply if the robbery with PI shall be under paragraphs 3
and 4 of 294 which in turn depends upon the nature of the injury which should fall within
paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of 263. (ano to, choose your own adventure?!)
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 inflict 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.
Elements:
o That the offender inflicted upon another any serious physical injury
o That it was done by knowingly administering to him any injurious substance or beverages or by
taking advantage of his weakness of mine or credulity
o That he had no intent to kill
Injurious substances must be introduced or injected into the body of the victim.
SHOULD result to serious physical injury
o If it only less serious physical injuries are inflicted, Art 265 will apply.
If theres intent to kill, it can be murder, homicide, parricide.
o If there was an intent to kill, but the quantity was not enough to kill: not an impossible crime;
either serious or less serious physical injuries
Can NOT be committed by culpa, since need for intentional introduction of the substance
If the offender not aware that the substance is injurious, can result to reckless imprudence resulting to
serious physical injuries (CJ Aquino)
Art. 265. Less serious physical injuries. Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not
described in the preceding articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for 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 inflicted 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 fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Any less serious physical injuries inflicted 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.
Par 1:
o Injuries not described in 263-264 and
Incapacitates from labor for 10-30 days
Requires medical attendance for same period

Par 2: qualified
o Elements:
there is manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person
there are circumstances adding ignominy to the offense

Par 3: qualified
o Elements:
Victim is the offenders parents, ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers or persons of

rank, or persons in authority
Not direct assault, ie, injury inflicted not on the occasion of the performance of function
of PIA or offender does not know victim is a pubic officer.
o Foreign consul is a person in rank.
Art. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
95
am+dg
party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.
2. By arresto menor or a fine 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 fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat
another by deed without causing any injury.
Par 1:
o Incapacitated the offended party for labor from 1 to 9 days, or
o Required medical attendance during the same period
Par 2:
o Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or
which did not require medical attendance
Par 3: Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury
Problems:
o Accused slapped the victim. Victim did not sustain any physical injury or need any medical
attendance. What crime?
Slight physical injuries. (Art 266, Par 2)
But if purpose was to humiliate the victim, crime is slander by deed.
What if the victim sustains less serious physical injuries?
Then less serious physical injuries (Art 265, Par 2: ignominy)
What if victim sustains serious physical injuries (victim becomes deformed because of
the slap)?
Then serious physical injuries.

o But if the slapping was done with intent to humiliate, then serious
physical injuries with AC of ignominy.
o Accused slapped his teacher, resulting into less serious physical injuries. What crime was
committed?
If teacher in performance of duty, then direct assault with less serious physical injuries
(complex).
If not in performance of duty, then qualified less serious physical injuries.

Injury may not be serious at the onset but later on becomes serious. The crime committed can change
depending on the ultimate injury caused.
Article 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:
Through force, threat, or intimidation;
When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
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 another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Rape is
o
o
o
o
now a crime against persons

The charge may be filed now by the public prosecutor
The consent of the offended party is no longer needed
There is now an impossible crime of rape
Husbands may now be liable of sexual assault of their lawful wives.
The husband has the right to persuade the wife, but he cannot use force, threat or
intimidation
Sexual relations must always be consensual
Wife can resist if they are legally separated or the husband has AIDS
Two acts punished:
o Rape
o Sexual Assault
Rape:

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
96
am+dg
Elements:
Committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
Through force, threat, or intimidation;
When the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
When the offended party is under 12 or is demented even though none of the
circumstances above are present
o Carnal knowledge: sexual intercourse
o Only a man can be a PDP under rape
A woman can be liable, but only as a PDI or PIC.

Sexual assault:
o Elements:
Committed by a person (man or woman)
Through any of the above circumstances
Inserts:
His penis (man) into another persons (man or woman) mouth or anal orifice, or
Any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person (man
or woman)
o May be committed by a man or a woman
o If a man inserts his finger and then his penis into a womans vagina, one count of sexual assault
and one count of rape
o Instrument can be part of the human body (finger, tongue) or other objects
Lewd design is inherent in both crimes. Inherent is the desire of the offender to get sexual gratification
by the insertion of his organ or any instrument into his victim.
No frustrated rape or sexual assault
o Enough that a part of the object or organ pass through the genital, anal orifice, mouth.
o As long as the penis enters/penetrates the labia majoria, already consummated. (bombardment
of the drawbridge doctrine)
Penis must be erect (P v Brioso)

o But touching not enough, the touching must be in relation with the intent to have carnal
knowledge of the woman and there must have been penetration, however slight. Hence, grazing
and mere stroking not enough.66 (P v Campuhan)
Circumstances which bring about rape or sexual assault
o Force or violence (Par 1)
Can be actual or constructive
What is pivotal is the offender was able to achieve his purpose by employing such
Relative to the victim, need not to be so overpowering or irresistible
All that is necessary is that force used was sufficient to consummate the evil purpose
o Fear or threat (Par 1)
Includes fear of death, bodily harm, such as to surrender to the desires of the offender
o Intimidation (Par 1)
Viewed in the eyes of the victim
Must be such as to cause fear in the part of the victim
Like threatening with a knife
Includes moral ascendancy or parental authority
Like when a father raped his daughter and he claims she didnt resist, moral
ascendancy and parental authority were held to have substituted for violence,
threat, etc
Same rule if accused was the uncle, stepfather or common-law husband of the
victims mother
o Deprived of reason (Par 2)
o
66
Touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on
the external layer of the victims vagina, or the mons pubis there must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid
into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
97
am+dg
o
o
o
To be
o
o
o
Intellectually weak to the extent that she is not capable of giving consent
Covers insane, idiotic, mental retardates, mental abnormality
Deprivation of reason need not be complete; borderline mental deficiency is enough

Otherwise unconscious (Par 2)
Covers those who are sleeping or who feel drowsy, whether naturally or artificially
Includes cases where a drug was injected into a womans body; her ability to tresist was
taken away even if the woman was awake at the time of the of intercourse
Fraudulent machinations (Par 3)
Twin brother has sex with his brothers wife by pretending to be the husband
Grave abuse of authority (Par 3)
Teacher on a student; employer on employee; doctor on a patient

Offended is under 12 (statutory rape) or is demented
Even if with the consent of the victim, still rape
So sweetheart defense is immaterial
No need for violence or intimdation
If girl is over 12, but has the mental age of 12, not statutory rape, but can still be
considered rape
Mental retardates are not considered demented, but they fall under Par 2 (P v
Magabo)
held liable under RA 7610 (Child Abuse Act), the following must concur:
The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
2.
The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse.
3.
The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. (Olivarez v CA)
However, if the child victim is under 12, the accused will be prosecuted under RPC. 67
Article 266-B. Penalty. - 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 become
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.
When by reason or on the occasion ofthe 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:
l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity 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 or 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;
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 afflicted with the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired
Immune Deficiency 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 para-military 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 has 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
67
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse;
Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article
336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious
conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period;
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
98
am+dg
crime; and
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.
When by reason or on the occasion of the 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.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/ qualifying
circumstances mentioned in this article.
Qualifying circumstances: only one is needed to qualify the crime.
NOTE: Do NOT use others a generic aggravating circumstance

o Use of a weapon
Any instrument made or designed for the infliction of injury or is likely to produce death
or physical harm
Mere possession not enough. It must be used to intimidate the woman.
Doesnt matter if licensed or unlicensed. Even if unlicensed, still wont be aggravating or

separate because rape (other crime) was committed
o By 2 or more persons
o Victim becomes insane on the occasion or by reason of the rape
o Rape is attempted/consummated and a homicide is committed by reason or on occasion thereof
(see comments below)
o Victim is under 18 and the offender is a
Parent
Ascendant
Step-parent
Guardian
Legal or judicial
Relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3 rd civil degree
Common-law spouse of the parent of the victim
Stepsiblings not included

o Victim is under the custody of the police or military or any law enforcement or penal institution
o Rape committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within
the 3rd civil degree of consanguinity (no affinity!)
o Victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation and is personally known to be such
by the offender before or during the rape
o Victim is below 7 years old
To prove age (same rules as to prove below 12): show birth certificate
Baptismal certificate not enough
Can, however, be stipulated in pretrial
Judicial notice can allowed but hearing must first be conducted.
Basing age on the appearance of the victim is NOT enough

o Rapist has AIDS or STD and is transmitted to the victim
Offender must know he/she has AIDS or STD

o Raped by the police, AFP, paramilitary units, when the offender took advantage of his position
o Victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability
o Offender knew of the pregnancy of the victim
o Offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the victim
Special complex crime of rape with homicide/sexual assault with homicide
o Homicide used in its generic term
No such thing as homicide with murder

o On the occasion: there must be a logical connection between homicide and rape

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
99
am+dg
there must be an intimate relation between the two crimes

examples:
rapist killed the victim to shut her up
rapist had AIDS, and the victim dies long after still rape with homicide
o Homicide must be consummated
If not, separate crimes of rape and attempted/frustrated homicide/murder.

o Two rapists, only one stabbed the victim to death: BOTH are liable for rape with homicide
o Three rapists, each took turns raping the victim, then killed her: all three are liable for 3 counts
of rape with homicide. (P v Dino)
o What if the rapist shoots the victim in order to rape her?
Art 48 will apply. Commission of one crime to commit the other.

Interplay between forcible abduction and rape:
o Intent to rape: simple rape. Taking incidental.
o Intent to take woman against her will with lewd designs: forcible abduction with rape
(information must allege lewd designs)
If multiple rapes, complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, then other rapes file
separately.
o Intent was to kidnap for ransom, but after rape was committed as an afterthought: special
complex crime of kidnapping with rape
How many counts of rape?
o Each penetration equals one count of rape.
Rapist ejaculated twice but never put it out. One count of rape (P v Orilla)
Rapist inserted his penis twice, and inserted his finger twice. Two counts of rape, two
counts of sexual assault. (P v Intong)
See P v Dino above.
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid marriage between 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 not be extinguished or
the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Article 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 266A.
VALID marriage between offender and offended party in rape or sexual assault will extinguish
o criminal liability and
o even the penalty already imposed.
So even if the convict is already serving sentence, marriage with the victim will
extinguish his criminal liability.
o If there are 3 accused: PDP, PIC, and an accomplice, will the marriage between the victim and
the PDP extinguish the liability of the other accused?
Yes. This was the intent of the Senate when they removed the original proviso stating
that the co-principal, etc are not benefited, as manifested by Senator Enriles statement
in SB 950.
o Marriage must be valid. If void, no extinguishment of crim liability. (Upon declaration of the court
that it was void, does the accused go back to prison?)
o What if accused raped multiple victims, but he gets married to one of them? Pardon wont
extinguish rape of other victims. He will have to marry all of them. (How?!?!)
o In rape cases, is the pardon of the parents of the victim without the concurrence of the minor
victim herself effective?
Boado says no. Offended minor must also give her express pardon.
Title Nine
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Chapter One
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
100
am+dg
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 five days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted 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 officer.
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 circumstances above-mentioned were
present in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. (As amended by Sec 8, RA 7659)
Essence: victim must have been restrained or deprived of his liberty, or that he was transported away
against his will with the primary or original intent to effect that restraint
Specific intent crime: intent to deprive liberty of another
Kidnapping: taking of the victim; serious illegal detention: consists in mere deprivation of liberty
What is important to determine and prove is the fact of the seizure.
o Subsequent disappearance of the victim will not exonerate an accused from prosecution therefor.
Elements:
o That the offender is a private individual
o That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty
o That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal
o That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present:
The kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days or;
It is committed simulating public authority or;
Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made; or
The person kidnapped or detained is a minor (except when the accused is any of the
parents), female or a public officer.
Duration or length of time is IRRELEVANT if any of the circumstances in Par 2 to 4 of Art 267
o Length of time only relevant for Par 1
Par 2: If the private individual pretended to be a police officer, it is not a complex crime with usurpation
as the usurpation is a mode of committing the kidnapping Its absorbed.
Par 3: No crime of serious PI and kidnapping as infliction of serious PI is a mode of kidnapping Its
absorbed
Does kidnapped have to be enclosed or trapped?
o Deprivation not only includes lock-up or imprisonment, but deprivation of liberty in whatever
form for whatever length of time
o Spanish version uses the term lockup (encerrar) rather than kidnap (secuestar or raptar).
If at the onset, the victim agreed to go with the offender, but is thereafter prevented with use of force
from leaving the place, and there was deprivation of liberty, there is kidnapping. (P v Picarel)
Qualified when:
o Ransom is demanded
o Victim is killed or dies as a consequence
o Victim raped, or
o Victim is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts
On ransom
o Ransom includes not only money but also things of value, price or condition, even benefits which
may accrue to the kidnapper, even without pecuniary value.
o Mere demand for ransom is enough, no need that it be paid.
J-Call: actually even if without demand, as long as there is intent to demand

o The fact alone that ransom is demanded would not per se qualify the act of preventing the liberty
of movement of the victim into the crime of kidnapping, unless the victim is actually restrained
or deprived of his liberty for some appreciable period of time or that such restraint was the basic
intent of the accused.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
101
am+dg
Even if what is demanded is due to the offender (like debt or rent money), it is still ransom if
predicated on the release of the victim. (P v Tomio)
o If ransom note is late (victim already rescued), crime is still kidnapping, just not qualified.
Special complex crime of KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE or KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE
o There must be a logical connection or intimate relation between the kidnapping and the rape,
homicide, or torture
Even if the rape or killing is merely an afterthought, the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape or homicide is committed (P v Larranaga)
Even if the victim dies of fright, still special complex crime since there is still a logical
connection.
Even if the victim dies because of a firefight between the police and the kidnappers, still
special complex crime. (P v Job)
In fact, it doesnt matter who kills the victim, as long as theres a logical
connection to the kidnapping.
o Even if there are multiple rapes on one victim, still kidnapping with rape.
Excess rapes are absorbed. Not considered as aggravating.

o Homicide or rape must be CONSUMMATED. No kidnapping with attempted rape, or kidnapping
with frustrated/attempted homicide.
Depending on the facts, you can go for either:
Art 48 (kidnapping complex with attempted/frustrated homicide, attempted rape,

as the case may be. Can also be kidnapping with physical injuries) or
Separate crimes (kidnapping and attempted/frustrated homicide or attempted

rape)
o for example, kidnapper inflicted injuries on victim with intent to kill, but
victim did not die.
o May one be liable for murder and kidnapping as separate crimes? (aside from the example given
above)
Yes. In P v Baldogo, kidnapper murdered the father of the victim, kidnapped the victim
and then sold the victim. Baldogo liable for 1) murdering the father and 2) kidnapping.
o If two or more persons were killed by reason or on the occasion of the kidnapping, there are as
many crimes as there are the number of persons kidnapped.
So if there are two persons kidnapped, and both died, then two counts of kidnapping
with homicide.
o Problem: Kidnapper A and Kidnapper B took Clara and Dora and deprived them of their liberty. A
raped Clara. B killed Dora. What is A and B liable for?
They are EACH liable for kidnapping with homicide (for Clara) and kidnapping with rape
(for Dora).
o Problem: A kidnapped and raped a pregnant woman. Pregnant woman had an abortion. What
crime/s were committed?
Kidnapping with rape and unintentional abortion (?)

o If someone dies or is raped and the victim was taken away beforehand, is this automatically
kidnapping?
No. Primary purpose of the offender is material in determining the crime.
If deprivation is merely incidental to other criminal intents, then the deprivation is

ABSORBED by that other crime.
If primary purpose is killing/rape, murder/rape;

o Girl locked up in a room to rape her? Then rape.
If deprivation of liberty then killed victim, kidnapping with homicide.

o
Kidnapping with Rape

Special complex crime
At the outset, NO lewd designs
Rape here not a separate crime, but a QUALIFYING
circumstance
Even if there are multiple rapes on same victim, only
one kidnapping with rape. Excess rapes are
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
Forcible Abduction with Rape

Complex under Art 48 since forcible abduction
necessary means to commit rape
At the outset, there is LEWD design
Rape here is also a crime, not merely qualifying
There are multiple rapes on one victim, only the first
rape shall be complexed. Other rapes will be treated
102
am+dg
absorbed.
If rape was merely attempted, two separate crimes.
as separate crimes.
If rape merely attempted, there is only forcible
abduction. The attempt to rape is deemed merely a
manifestation of lewd designs.
Torture or dehumanizing acts

o Removing qualities of human compassion (?)
Handcuffing, gagging, blindfolding them, forcing them to dance naked (P v Larranaga)

What if numerous qualifying modes committed?
o Just choose one to charge them with. Same penalty anyway. (J-Call)
o Kidnapper demanded for ransom, raped the victim, and then killed her.
Choose kidnapping for ransom, kidnapping with rape or kidnapping with homicide.
For the special complex crimes of kidnapping with homicide, rape, or torture, the kidnap victim himself
was killed, raped or tortured.
o Compare with robbery with homicide where it does not matter whether it is the victim or one of
the robbers who is killed.
o If the one killed were a third person, there will be two separate crimes and if such third person is
a policeman rescuing the victim, the second crime will be direct assault with homicide.
Remember: there are as many crimes of kidnapping as the number of victims kidnapped.
When a person is prevented from leaving or going to another place, the crime could either be kidnapping
or grave coercion.
o The difference would depend on whether or not there is an actual confinement or lockup of the
victim. (P v Astorga, wherein the accused led the victim to another town. Victim child wanted to
leave but accused did not let her.)
Relate with PD 532:
o To be under 532, the seizure must be directed not only against specific or preconceived persons,
but against anyone. Remember, PD 532 applies to INDISCRIMINATE kidnapping, robbery, or
piracy.
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 fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos.
Elements:
o Offender is a private individual
o Kidnaps or detains another or otherwise deprives him of liberty
o Detention illegal
o None of the circumstances in 267
Day=24 hours of deprivation
Escape or rescue of victim is not an exempting circumstance
Voluntary release is not an exempting circumstance, only serves to reduce the penalty
In 267, voluntary release does not reduce the penalty

o Requisites for voluntary release:
Release should have been made within 3 days from the start of the detention
Release must be made before the offender has accomplished his purpose, and
Must be made before criminal prosecution has been commenced
Crime should only be slight illegal detention

Person who furnishes place of detention is an accomplice
If ransom is demanded, automatically 267.
Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
103
am+dg
therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.
Purpose must be made for delivering the person arrested to the proper authorities but was made without
any reasonable ground therefore.
Elements:
o That the offender arrests or detains another person
o That the purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper authorities
o That the arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground therefore
Offender:
o private persons and
o public officers other than those tasked to arrest
Thats the distinction with 124.

If the offender did not turn over the arrested to the judicial authority, the crime will be kidnapping
because the element of turnover of the victim to the judicial authorities is missing.
Proper authorities are those authorized to arrest another and file the appropriate charges
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.
Elements:
o That the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor
o That he deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians
Gravamen: deliberate failure or refusal of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents
or guardians
o Refusal must be deliberate, premeditated, obstinate, headstrong, foolishly daring, intentional or
malicious
Does not amend Art 267 (4) because intent is different
o Intent here is the deliberate refusal or failure to return the minor to his parents or guardian
o Different from 267 because here, the offender is entrusted with the care of the minor
Can only be committed by DOLO
Can also be committed by parents if they are NOT vested by law for custody
Example: offender tasked to bring the child to the hospital, but he refused to give the child back until he
was paid or given assistance.
Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding seven hundred pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home
of his parent or guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.
If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall be the father or the
mother of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding three hundred pesos, or both.
Art. 272. Slavery. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine 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 traffic, 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 fine 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. The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in
order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as
household servant or farm laborer.
Chapter Two

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
104
am+dg
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 find in an uninhabited place
wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless
such omission shall constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or
injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to
the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.
Different kinds of abandonment:

o Failure to render assistance to a person found in an uninhabited place
o Abandonment of ones own victim in an accident
o Failure to render assistance to a child below 7 years
If child is 7 years old or over, the liability of the offender will be under RA 7610 (Child
Abuse Law)
Art. 276. Abandoning a minor. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any one who shall abandon a child under seven years of age, the custody of which is incumbent
upon him.
When the death of the minor shall result from such abandonment, the culprit shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods; but if the life of the minor shall have been in danger only,
the penalty shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs shall not prevent the imposition of the penalty
provided for the act committed, when the same shall constitute a more serious offense.
Art. 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents. The penalty
of arresto mayor and a fine 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 financial conditions permit.
Art. 278. Exploitation of minors. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and a fine 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 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 office 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.
Art. 279. Additional penalties for other offenses. The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the
preceding articles, shall not prevent the imposition upon the same person of the penalty provided for any
other felonies defined and punished by this Code.
Section Two. Trespass to dwelling
Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
105
am+dg
the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to 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, nor
shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to
humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the
same are open.
Art. 281. Other forms of trespass. The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon a ny person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, while
either or them are uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser has not secured the
permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
Elements:
o That the offender is a private person
o That he enters the dwelling of another
o That such entrance is against the latters will
How do you determine if its trespass to dwelling or trespass to property?
o Look at the condition of the place.
o As long as inhabited: trespass to dwelling
o If not inhabited at time of trespass: trespass to property
Even if residential area, as long as not inhabited, trespass to property. (vacant

apartment, etc)
A store used as dwelling will not give rise to trespass to dwelling if the store is open for
business. But if the portion used as dwelling is separate, entry therein will give rise to
trespass to dwelling.
Against the will: prohibition against entering
o Need not be express
o Like whenever one enters through an opening not intended for entering
Even if occupant only a tenant, boarder or lessee, still trespass.
If he enters dwelling to commit a crime, and commits such crime, no trespass to dwelling. Dwelling is
treated as an AC.
o All depends on intention.
If intent was to kill: murder, dwelling considered AC
If he entered and then decided to do a crime while he was inside: crime committed and
trespass to dwelling/property (not complex ah!)
When is entering not a crime?
o If the entrance to anothers dwelling is made for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to
himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a 3rd person
o If the purpose is to render some service to humanity or justice
o If the place where entrance is made is a caf, tavern, inn, and other public houses, while the
same are still open
If caf, taverns, etc are closed and entry was made, crime is trespass to property (not
trespass to dwelling)
If someone enters a house, what crimes may be committed?
o Violation of domicile
But if public officer is not authorized to serve a warrant of arrest or search warrant or to
enter the place, trespass to dwelling
o Unjust vexation or light coercion
o Theft
If purpose was to fish or harvest stuff

o Vagrancy
If the property is not fenced and no prohibition to enter
Section Three. Threats and coercion

Art. 282. Grave threats. Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction 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
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
106
am+dg
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 fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made
subject to a condition.
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.
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 fine 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.
Gravamen: existence of threat or intimidation for FUTURE harm

Acts punished:
o By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his family
of any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or imposing any other condition, even
thought not unlawful, and the offender attained his purpose
That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latters person,
honor or property, or upon that of the latters family, of any wrong
That such wrong amounts to a crime
That there is a demand for money or that any other condition is imposed, even though
not unlawful
That the offender attains his purpose

o By making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose
o By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his family
of any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not being subject to a condition
That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latters person,
honor, or property, or upon the latters family, of any wrong
That such wrong amounts to a crime
That the threat is not subject to a condition

Grave threats are those made with deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the victim a belief that
the threat will be carried out.
Intimidation here is conditional, and not necessarily personal. It may be coursed through an
intermediary.
o If theres no condition, the threat must be serious and deliberate.
If grave threats used to intimidate in order to commit another crime, said threats are absorbed.
o Like threatening a girl in order to rape her, the grave threats are abzzorbed in rape
o Relate nga to 312! Sige nga! Relate mo nga!
Grave threats compared to robbery/extortion
o Grave threats: used to obtain a certain end or goal in the future
o Robbery with extortion: used to get property on the spot
Remember Fortuno v People (silent policeman who got watch of two people)? That was
robbery/extortion.
Number of counts of grave threats depends on the number of people threatened
o So if accused threatens two people, he is guilty of two counts of grave threats
Art. 286. Grave coercions. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine 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

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
107
am+dg
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.
Elements:
o That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law, or that he
compelled him to do something against his will, be it right or wrong
o That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, threats or intimidation
o That the person that restrained the will and liberty of another had not the authority of law or the
right to do so, or, in other words, that the restraint shall not be made under authority of law or in
the exercise of lawful right
o If it is compulsion, even if the offender has the right to compel the doing of the act, there could
be coercion. (Lee v CA)
Two kinds of grave coercion:

o Preventive: offender uses violence or intimidation to prevent the victim from doing what he
wants to do
Act prevented is NOT prohibited by law. (P-NOT)
If the act prevented is prohibited by law, there is no grave coercion, but some
other crimes may be committed (PI or unjust vexation).
o Compulsive: offender uses violence or intimidation to do what he does not want to do
Act compelled may or may not be prohibited by law
If the act compelled is prohibited by law, grave coercion is still committed.

o Whether act is prohibited or not is immaterial.
Coercion may NOT be in writing since it must be direct, immediate and personal.
o Only threats can be in writing since threat is inherently future and conditional.
Coercion
Threat
Threatened harm is immediate, personal and direct
Threatened harm is future and conditional
Cannot be done by intermediary or in writing
May be done through an intermediary or in writing
Committed by violence, although it may be brought Committed by means of intimidation which is future
about also by intimidation if serious enough, direct, and conditional
immediate, and personal.
Threat is not future and conditional.
Coercion
Serious Illegal Detention
No intent to deprive another of his liberty
Intimidation and deprivation of liberty
What different crimes can arise from intimidation?

o Robbery, if the intimidation is immediate but conditional coupled with demand for money or any
consideration
o Threat, if it is future or conditional
o Coercion, if it is direct, immediate, and personal or serious enough like threatening with a gun
o Disturbance or prevention of peaceful meeting, if used to prevent people from seeking grievance
or peacefully assembling
o Usurpation of real rights over real property, if threatened owner of property with the intent to
take the real property away from him
o Forcible abduction, if there is lewd design
Man went up to another and pointed a weapon to him and told him to give him his wallet. Guy didnt
have a wallet. What crime? 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 fine 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 fine ranging from 5 pesos to
200 pesos, or both.
Crime of dolo.
Elements:
o That the offender must be a creditor
o That he seizes anything belonging to his debtor

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
108
am+dg
That the seizure of the thing be accomplished by means of violence or a display of material force
producing intimidation
o That the purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the payment of the debt
Seizure of the property of a debtor may amount to:
o Light coercion, if by means of violence, the property is applied to the debt.
o Robbery, if the value of the property seized is greater than that of the debt and violence or
intimidation is employed.
o Estafa, if there is no obligation on the part of the offended but was only feigned. Deceit
employed.
Unjust vexation is a form of light coercion. It is any form of annoyance of another person.
o Crime against personal security and not against property.
Malicious mischief is a crime against property.

o The unjust vexation must not amount to dishonor of another, otherwise, the crime is slander by
deed.
Other light coercions and unjust vexation includes human conduct which, while not leading to physical
harm or without use of force or intimidation, is annoying, irritating or disturbing to the victim.
Unjust vexation or acts of lasciviousness may be deemed preparatory acts for rape.
Big J kisses his crush in public, what are the possible crimes for this public display of unwanted
affection?
o Unjust vexation if the purpose is to annoy his crush
o Acts of lasciviousness if with lewd intent
o Slander by deed if the purpose is to humiliate the victim
o
Art. 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means of
tokens.) The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon any person, agent or officer, 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 firm 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 fine 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. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any private
individual who in order to discover the secrets of another, shall seize his papers or letters and reveal the
contents thereof.
If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos.
The provision shall not be applicable to parents, 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 spouses
with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine 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.
Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine 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.
Elements:

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
109
am+dg
That offender is a person in charge, employee or workman of a manufacturing or industrial

establishment
o That the manufacturing or industrial establishment has a secret of the industry which the
offender has learned
o The offender reveals such secrets
o That prejudice is caused to the owner
Includes revelation of trade secrets:
o A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound known only to its
owner and those of his employees to whom it is necessary to confide it
Extends to a secret formula or process not patented, but known only to certain
individuals using it in compounding some article of trade having a commercial value.
A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information
that: (1) is used in one's business; and (2) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain
an advantage over competitors who do not possess the information.
Generally, a trade secret is a process or device intended for continuous use in the
operation of the business, for example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list or
catalogue or specialized customer list. (Air Phil v Pennswell)
o
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 person, or using force upon anything shall
be guilty of robbery.
Robbery and theft are analogous crimes involving taking with intent to gain of personal property.
o Hence, for the basic points of Art 293 (like taking, intent to gain, when consummated), keep in
mind that this apply to Theft as well.
It is robbery if committed:
o With violence against or intimidation upon person; or
o With force upon things.
Absent these two, it is theft.

Note: robbery if there are acts of violence or intimidation before asportation, to enable the person to
take the property.
o If violence/intimidation done after possession was taken, only liable for theft, grave coercion, or
physical injuries as the case may be. (theft for stealing, then another crime of PI if thief hurts
the victim after)
EXCEPT: in robbery with homicide and robbery with rape (will be discussed later)
Asportation is the taking of personal property out of the possession of the owner, without his privity and
consent and without animus revertendi. (essence of robbery/theft)
o It is present once the property is in fact taken from the owner.
o The element of taking or asportation is completed once the property is in fact taken from the
owner, even for just an instant.
Taking need not be permanent.
Even brief possession consummates the crime.

o The subsequent disposition of the property taken, or the failure to dispose of the same, is of no
moment.
Hence, a person can still be held guilty of theft/robbery even if the ting stolen is not
offered in evidence. It can be destroyed for all we know. As long as the corpus delicti is
proved (the unlawful taking of the personal property), one can be guilty. (P v de Jesus)
In robbery or theft, once the offender takes complete control of the property, the crime is consummated.
o There is complete control when the offender ahs acquired and substituted his will over the
property.
o It is not necessary that the offender has taken away the property or used the same.
o NO FRUSTRATED THEFT/ROBBERY.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
110
am+dg
What can be stolen? What does personal property include? Does it include services?
o Yes! In Laurel v Judge Abrogar, accused placed overseas call to Japan, connected through
Philippines (ex. PLDT).
The accused set up a corporation and put implements on the
underground cables to divert the call, so they wouldnt pass through the PLDT, and instead pass
through the corporation.
o What is taken here are services provided by PLDT. The deprivation is for services to collect cost
of calls.
What else can be stolen?
o As long as personal property (Not included in the enumeration of real properties) and capable of
appropriation
o Includes electricity, phone services, cell phone load, commercial documents like promissory
notes,
o Can drugs be subject to theft/robbery?
Before the DDA, yes.
J-Call: Even with the DDA, its still possible to be subject of theft.
In that case, the thief/robber will be guilty of possession of drugs under DDA and
theft/robbery.
o Can property already stolen be stolen too?
Yes.
Does the offender need to use his hands for the taking?
o No. it can be done using mechanical devices (like in Laurel) or access devise cards (credit cards)
or the diversion of overseas calls, etc.
o It can even be done using jumper cables in the theft of electricity. Usually done by placing a
jumper between the meters of the consumer and the place where the electricity is to be
diverted. Thats theft, boys.
Can an owner of the property be liable for theft or robbery?
o Yes, if the property is in the custody of a bailee.
Can a non-owner be the victim of theft or robbery?
o Yes. Not necessary that the person divested be the owner of the property.
Actual possession of the property by the person dispossessed thereof suffices.

Intent to gain is presumed from taking another persons property without consent.
o Not necessary that offender actually gains from the taking, because mere intent to gain is
enough.
Thats why a momentary taking already consummates the crime.

What is love? Baby dont hurt me, dont hurt me, no more.
What is gain?
o Not limited to just pecuniary benefit, but also utility, satisfaction, enjoyment, and pleasure.
o Even mere use of property taken is already gain under the law.
Ex: Gasoline boy took a parked car and went on a joy ride. He claimed that he did not
intend to take it. But here, there was gain because there was enjoyment, utility,
satisfaction, and pleasure.
Stealing something to conceal a crime is theft/robbery.

o
Gain rebutted by evidence that he took property because he claims to be the owner of the
property. The person is exempt from theft or robbery, even if it turned out not to be his.
If the claim is made in BF, then it is theft or robbery.
If claim made in GF, it is just coercion.

Intimidation is unlawful coercion, duress, or putting the owner/possessor in fear
o Attempt to take property of another with threats of bodily harm
o No requirement of material violence it is NOT indispensable for there to be intimidation
Is snatching theft or robbery?
o Depends if there was violence or intimidation involved.
Presumption: One in possession of recently stolen property is presumed to be the author of the crime of
theft/robbery. (Mabunga v. P) How recent is recent? case-to-case.
o Possession may be actual or constructive. The property may be in the actual physical control of
the offender or in the possession of another, but under the control of the offender.
Ex. I stole something but pinatago ko sa kaibigan ko

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
111
am+dg
Accused must not be able to explain his possess satisfactorily
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery
with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, when or if by reason or on
occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision I of Article 263 shall have been
inflicted.
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical
injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been
inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period, 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 inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by
subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other
cases.
Acts punished:
o Robbery with homicide
o Robbery with rape
o Robbery with intentional mutilation (because of RA 7659)
o Robbery with arson
o Robbery with physical injuries under
Art 263 (1)
Art 263 (2)
Art 263 (3-4)

o Robbery in other cases or simple robbery where the violence against or intimidation of persons
cannot be subsumed by or where it is not sufficiently specified so as to fall under the first four
paragraphs
First 5 are special complex crimes (not Art 48 complex). Fifth is just considered as robbery.
o The above order should be observed.
If both homicide and rape/arson are present, crime is robbery with homicide. The rape is
NOT aggravating. No such thing as robbery with homicide and rape/arson
Important: As long as there is homicide, it is ALWAYS just robbery with homicide.
If no homicide, but there was rape and arson, should be robbery with rape (arson
absorbed)
If robbery accompanied by intentional mutilation and then arson? Robbery with

intentional mutilation (arson absorbed). [J-Call]
If robbery accompanied by arson and then intentional mutilation? Robbery with arson
(IM absorbed). [J-Call]
o Important: All elements MUST be consummated. If not, Art 48 or separate crimes will be
considered.
Art 48: robber tried to kill victim to get watch. Watch stolen but victim survived. Robbery
complexed with attempted homicide.
Separate crimes: robber tried to kill victim. And as victim was lying conscious, decided to
steal the watch. Robbery and attempted homicide.
o Primordial consideration: there must be an INTENT TO ROB, even if its not the sole motive of
the accused
Robbery with homicide
o As long as there was an intent to rob and someone dies, its robbery with homicide.
o Homicide is used in its generic term.
There is no robbery with infanticide, parricide, murder.
Absorbs physical injuries committed together with homicide on the occasion or by reason
of the robbery.
o Important: Extra killings are NOT aggravating. Its just robbery with homicide.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
112
am+dg
There is no robbery with multiple homicide.

Homicide can be done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
What do you mean by reason of the robbery?
The homicide/other constituent crime was not committed in the course of robbery, or
shortly thereafter, but there is a LEGAL connection, intimate relation in the commission
of robbery
It doesnt matter if the killing happens before, during, or after
Killing the victim to prevent the person from reporting to the authorities
Killed noisy neighbor who shouted magnanakaw!
A group of robbers were robbing in Makati. One of the robbers was shot. There
was a chase all the way to Laguna, where a shoot out happened. Another robber
got shot by the police. SC said robbery with homicide EVEN IF the shoot out
happened in some other place, it was intimately connected to the robbery. Also,
it does not matter that it was a robber that got killed.
o Who must be killed?
It doesnt matter.
It can be the robber, the victim, a bystander, or a policeman.
If policeman was killed, the robber is liable for robbery with homicide (Direct
Assault is ABSORBED by robbery with homicide)
o Who must the killer be?
It doesnt matter either.
For example, police came to help, and the police shot the robber, but killed the victim.
Police not liable because doing his duty
Robbery still liable for robbery with homicide.

o Must intent to gain be the sole purpose in order that robbery with homicide can be appreciated?
No. There can be another motive (like revenge). As long as there is intent to rob, even if
there are other motives, it is robbery with homicide. (People v Alberca)
See: P v Tidong - X is employee of Juan, who fired him. X seeks to recover

unpaid wages; Juan refused. X said kung di mo ako bayaran, sasaksakin ko
anak niyo. X got the money, then killed the child. SC said Robbery with
homicide, because there was intent to rob.
o J-Call does not agree because the wages are his in the first place.
o If homicide is committed by one robber, ALL of them are liable for robbery with homicide.
Any crime committed by the conspirator incidental to the execution of the common
design is included in the crime.
Even look-out is a PDP under conspiracy rules.
EXCEPT: when one of the robbers overtly attempts to prevent the killing. Even if
UNSUCCESFUL in his attempt, he is still just liable for robbery.
Applies also to robbery with rape, physical injuries, etc

o Is there theft with homicide? No, silly!
o Is there a crime of robbery with force upon things complex with robbery with homicide/rape? No.
Its absorbed by the special complex crimes.
o Dwelling can be appreciated in robbery with homicide, since its inherent only in robbery in an
inhabited house.
o What if theres treachery, can it be used as a generic aggravating circumstance?
Yes. It becomes robbery with homicide, with the generic AC of treachery. (P v Escote) 68
Robbery with rape
o AS LONG AS THE ORIGINAL intent is to rob
o Even if the rape was committed even before asportation
o The intention to rob must precede the rape, even if the actual robbery comes after.
o
o
68
In fine, in the application of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide, the law looks at the constituent crime of
homicide which is a crime against persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against property. Treachery is applied to the
constituent crime of homicide and not to the constituent crime of robbery of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its classification as a crime against property or as a special complex and single and indivisible crime
simply because treachery is appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Treachery merely increases the penalty for the crime conformably with
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code absent any generic mitigating circumstance.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
113
am+dg
Thus, if the accused raped the victim and just he took the jewelry as a memento, there
are two crimes of theft and rape (since intimidation/force pertained to the rape, not to
the taking)
But if intent to rape, raped the girl, then as an afterthought punched the girl to
get her watch, then two crimes of robbery and rape.
o Sexual assault is absorbed by robbery with rape.
In P v Suyo, accused robbed the victim, raped her twice, then inserted his finger in her
vagina. SC said robbery with rape. Second rape and insertion of the finger are
abzzzzorbed! Sexual assault (fingering!) absorbed. (Will be asked in the exam)
o Even if there are multiple rapes, it is just robbery with rape.
Extra rapes NOT aggravating or separate.
Compare with forcible abduction with rape. (extra rapes considered separate
crimes)
Even if each of the accused raped the victim, there is only one crime of robbery with
rape.
No robbery with multiple rapes.

o GR: even if rape is in a place other than the situs of the taking, its still considered robbery with
rape (J-Call)
Except: In P v Angeles, where three robbers took victim of robbery in a taxi, went to
Quiapo. One robber made the other two go down, then he took the woman to a motel.
SC said all of them were guilty of robbery. The other one is also liable for rape,
separately. If the place of the rape is far from the situs of the robbery, there are TWO
crimes, but not robbery with rape. (Will be asked in the exam)
o No crime of attempted robbery with rape.
Robbery and rape must BOTH be consummated. (Compare to robbery with homicide
which has attempted robbery with homicide (297))
Robbery with intentional mutilation
o Both must be consummated
o There must be an intent to mutilate, for if mutilation merely resulted as a consequence of the
injury inflicted, the crime would be robbery with SPI.
Robbery with arson
o There must be violence and intimidation upon persons first, and thereafter, the premises are
burned, and there is no killing, rape, or mutilation.
o If robbery with force upon things and then house burned down to cover, two crimes are
committed:
Robbery
Arson
Not robbery with arson because that special complex crime only applies to
robbery with violence and intimidation, not robbery with force upon things
Robbery with SPI
o Must be serious
o In par 4, the SPI covered by Art 263 (3 and 4) must be inflicted when robbery was not yet
consummated. (note in the course of its execution)
If inflicted after the robbery was consummated, two separate crimes:
Art 294 (5) simple robbery
SPI
o If what was inflicted is less serious or slight PI, absorbed by simple robbery.
o GR: doesnt matter who gets killed or injured, right?
EX: par 4 because law says injuries should be inflicted while robbery is not yet
consummated and on the persons not responsible for the crime.
So if robber gets injured under Par 4, no robbery with PI

Boado mind benders:
o Bad man raped then killed the girl. Then decided to rob the place.
Rape with homicide
Robbery
o Evil person raped, then killed the girl, and took her jewelry and her cellphone.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
114
am+dg
o
o
Rape with homicide
Theft (since a dead person can no longer be intimidated; taking was an afterthought)
Wicked human robbed, raped, then killed the girl.
Robbery with homicide (rape absorbed)

Awful imp raped, robbed then killed her.
Robbery with homicide (rape absorbed. Unless force or violence was no longer applied to
perform the taking as the victim is no longer capable of resistance then rape with
homicide and theft)
Zombie eats brains.
Yummeh.
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of
firearm on a street, road or alley. If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the next
preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by a band, or by attacking a moving
train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passenger's compartments in a train or, 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 firearm, 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. Definition 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 firearm, 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 firearms.
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 qualified when committed

o in an uninhabited place, or
o by a band, or
o by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or
o by entering passengers compartments in a train, or in any manner taking the passengers
thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances
o on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of firearms
Qualifying circumstances here only apply to robbery with physical injuries under Par 3, 4, and 5 of Art
294.
Qualifying so it cant be offset by generic mitigating.

o Hence, not qualifying circumstance under robbery with homicide, rape, intentional mutilation,
arson and lesiones gaves resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness.
In those cases, the qualifying circumstances (like by a band) would only be a generic
aggravating circumstance which can be offset by generic mitigating circumstances.
Band: more than 3 armed malefactors
o If a member of the band prevents or tries to prevent the robbery, he is not liable for robbery,
even if he is not successful.
Uninhabited place should actually read uninhabited house (P v Jaranilla)
Art 296 provides that if any of the firearms used is unlicensed, the penalty is the maximum period.
o This has been amended by RA 8294. The unlicensed firearm then will NOT increase the penalty
to its maximum period anymore. Not aggravating.
Relate to PD 532 (Highway Piracy, etc)
o In PD 532, there must be evidence of indiscriminate robbery. (no specific victims in mind) (P v
Puno)
But see the stray case of P v San Juan, where robber accosted a girl, poked her with a
gun, took her money, and then left. Afterwards, he came back to steal more of her stuff.
He also poked her again this time not with his gun, but with his penis, i.e. rape. SC
said PD 532 for the first incident and then robbery with rape for the 2 nd incident.
J-Call: PD 532 should not apply. No indiscriminate robbery in the first instance
should just be robbery. For the second instance, PD 532 can apply but theres
need for evidence.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
115
am+dg
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.
No more frustrated robbery.

Homicide must be consummated.
o J-Call says that homicide is used in its generic form.
o Boado, however, says no. If its murder, parricide or infanticide, must consider it as separate
crimes because of the phrase unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty
under the provisions of this Code.
Follow J-Call for the exam.

Who should the killer be?
o Must be one of the robbers. (unlike Art 294)
o Art 297 says the person guilty of such offenses
The deceased, however, can be anyone.

P v dela Cruz: accused barged into the house, demand money but the people refused, so he shot people
death and others sustained PI. SC: attempted robbery with double homicide and slight physical injuries.
o J-Call does not agree. Should be attempted robbery with homicide only. But he said to follow the
SC.
P v Dagundung: accused entered the property, killed victim but did not find any property there. Not
frustrated robbery but attempted robbery wala naman nakuha eh.
Art. 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation. Any person who, with intent to defraud
another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute or deliver any public
instrument or documents, shall be held guilty of robbery and punished by the penalties respectively
prescribed in this Chapter.
Covers public documents only. (J-Call said private documents included but codal says public instrument
or document)
Elements:
o That the offender has intent to defraud another
o That the offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or document
o That the compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation
If document is void, is it still robbery since he wont lose anything? No more, its grave coercion.
o But if he inflicts PI, still governed by Art 298 in relation to Art 294 (3-5).
o If victim dies, still governed by Art 298 in relation with 294 (1).
Difference with estafa: estafa is done by deceit and to defraud another.
Difference with usurpation of real rights: usurpation of real rights treats of actually taking possession of
real property; here, it specifically deals with the mode of defrauding another by making the victim sign,
execute or deliver
Section Two. Robbery by the use of force upon things

Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. Any armed person
who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice 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 floor or breaking
any door or window. 3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools. 4. By using any fictitious 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
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
116
am+dg
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.
69
Elements of (a):
o That the offender entered (a) an inhabited house, or (b) public building, or (c) edifice devoted to
religious worship
o That the entrance was effected by any of the following means:
Thru an opening not intended for entrance or egress, or
By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window, or
By using false keys, picklocks, or similar tools, or
By using fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority
That once inside the building, the offender took personal property belonging to another
with intent to gain
Elements of (b):
o That offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious worship,
regardless of the circumstances under which he entered it;
o That the offender takes personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, under any of
the following circumstances:
by the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle
by taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of
the robbery
Boado clears the whole mess up. Three ways of committing robbery under this Article.
o Offenders entered the premises where personal property were taken and in entering the same,
they used constructive force (like entering through an opening not intended for ingress/egress,
use of fake name) or actual force (like breaking down walls, roofs)
Basis: mode of entering
Whole body must be inside!
If guy breaks a window and slips his arm inside to steal an iPhone on the table,
only theft.
o Entered without force but while inside, he broke stuff to extract personal property. Inside, actual
force is required, not constructive.
Hence, if picklocks and similar tools were used inside the house, theft only. Use of such
tools will be robbery only if used to enter the premises.
o Brought of the premises locked or sealed receptacles for the purpose of breaking them outside.
The mere bringing out of the furniture consummates the robbery since force will necessarily be
employed to open it.
Outside of these three situations, there will only be theft.
These will apply when the place robbed is an:
Inhabited house
Public building
Edifice devoted to worship (IPE)

o If not any of those buildings, go for Art 302. The circumstances there are
the same except there is no simulation of authority or use of fictitious
name.
If entry under Art 302 was effected through simulation of public

authority, the crime is theft only. (dude entering a warehouse to
get goods by pretending he was a customs official)
Picklocks and fake keys include using the master key.69
In the use of a fake name, do you apply Art 48 in relation to Art 178? No. Its already an element powz.
o Using the fake name must have been the necessary means to enter the premises. Use thereof
inside the premises will not elevate theft into robbery.
On the Master Lock! WWE reference right there.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
117
am+dg
What if your sibling breaks your cabinet to steal your diary, what crime is committed?
o Robbery with force upon things, not qualified theft because what qualifies the taking is the force
upon things.
o Robbery is committed not only by strangers but also by household members.
Distinction is significant because of Art 332 which only covers theft and not robbery.
o When the taker is a domestic servant, the crime is qualified theft unless the taking is
characterized by violence under 299 (b), in which case, it shall be robbery with force upon
things.
Art. 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band. The robbery mentioned in the next preceding
article, if committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty provided therefor.
Note the use of and so uninhabited place AND by a band should concur. (Different with robbery with
violence and intimidation)
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 edifice, 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.
Inhabited House any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling or one or more persons even
though the inhabitants thereof are temporarily absent there from when the robbery is committed
Dependencies are all interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries or enclosed places contiguous to
the building or edifice, having an interior entrance connected therewith, and which form part of the
whole
Not Included as Dependencies orchards or 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
Public Building every building owned by the government or belonging to a private person but used or
rented by the government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same
Art. 302. Robbery is 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 first 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, flour or outside door or window has been broken.
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 specified 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.
Same circumstances as Art 299 EXCEPT use of fictitious name or simulation of authority
Uninhabited place should be read to be uninhabited house
Art. 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an uninhabited place or private building. In the cases
enumerated in Articles 299 and 302, when the robbery consists in the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood,
the culprit shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.
Art. 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools. Any person who shall without lawful cause have in his
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
118
am+dg
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 to prision correccional in its minimum period.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall make such tools. If the offender be a
locksmith, he shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
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.
306 307
These articles have been amended by PD 532.
In PD 532, the number of robbers is no longer essential, as long as the robberies are done in an
indiscriminate manner.
o The accused are organized specifically for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately.
o Indiscriminate means that the victim is not predetermined and that the malefactors have been
habitually engaged in depredation of innocent inhabitants who travel from place to place.
o If purpose is only a particular robbery, crime is only robbery or robbery in band (if 4 or more
armed participants).
o See notes on piracy for more on PD 532.
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 field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish 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.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is
more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its 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 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 fine 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 five preceding subdivisions shall be
made applicable.
8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine 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 difficulty
of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family.
Elements:
o That there be taking of personal property
o That the said property belongs to another

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
119
am+dg
That the taking be done with intent to gain (animus lucrandi)

That the taking be done without the consent of the owner
That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things
GR: there must be no violence or intimidation or force upon things in theft.
o EXC: when the violence committed was not for the purpose of taking the thing.
Like when a person was killed first, then as an afterthought the criminal took the
property. (But isnt the guy dead already? Yes, but the items should have gone to his
heirs so its still tehft) separate crimes of homicide and theft
If a lady is sashaying her way down the mall and the accused grabs her, hurts her and
steals her watch, its robbery. Theres violence.
Modes to commit theft:
o Taking another persons property without his consent
o Finding lost property and not returning it to the owner or the local authorities
Only by dolo. There must be deliberate refusal to return or deliver to authorities.
Generic term: includes misplacing stuff, even when the thief loses the stolen goods
Returning the property will negate any intent to gain.
Property must have an owner or claimant. No theft if res nullius.

o Maliciously damaging the property of another and then removing or making use of the fruits or
objects of the damage caused by him
o Entering an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden, or without the consent of the
owner, and then hunting, fishing or gathering.
Read Art 293 (Robbery) for stuff on intent to gain, gain, taking, when consummated, presumption of
theft, what can be taken (gas, electricity, promissory notes, etc).
Man steals bread to give to his hungry daughter. SC: Sorry, its theft.
Man steals a gun to conceal a crime. SC: Theft.
Relate with estafa
o In theft: only material or physical possession (de facto possession) is given to the transferee
who takes it
o In estafa: both material and juridical possession is given to the transferee who takes it
Juridical possession gives the transferee the right over the property which the transferee
can set up versus the transferor
o A bank teller receives a deposit, and instead of giving it to the bank, she takes it. Solve.
Theft. As a mere employee of the bank, she only got de facto possession of the deposit.
(Galang v People why not qualified theft?)
o Person receives property to be used for a specific purpose. He does not return it. Thats theft.
Problem (will be asked in the exam!!!): Clerk of court was given custody of money as evidence in a case.
He left in on his table and went out for lunch. The court janitor came in the room and stole the money.
Solve. (San Jose v Camurongan)
o Janitor: theft
o Clerk of court: malversation by culpa, since he was in the custody of such money
Mang Jun owns a car, he delivers it to a repair shop to have it fixed. The repairman sells it. What crime?
o Theft. Only de facto possession.
But doesnt the repairman have a lien over it? No, he hasnt worked on it, he just sold it.
SC said estafa but J-Call doesnt agree.

o With the enactment of the Anti-Carnapping Law, it should be considered carnapping (but Im not
sure!)
In relation to finding lost property.
o Mellistrode saw a cellphone on the street and did not know who owned it. She gave it to the
policeman who stole the property. What is the crime of the cop?
SC said theft. (P v Avila)
J-Call: Malversation, since cop was an accountable officer who had custodia legis over
the property. (Answer this and youll get full credit!)
o
o
o
Art. 310. Qualified theft. The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees
than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
120
am+dg
grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of
coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is
taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance.
Theft is qualified when:

o Committed by domestic servant
o Committed with grave abuse of confidence
o Property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle (see Anti-Carnapping Act), (b) mail matter, or (c) large
cattle (see Anti-Cattle Rustling Law)
o Property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation
o Property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery
o Property taken is on occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance
This article has been amended by the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law and The Anti-Carnapping Law
Grave abuse of confidence: there must be a special relation of intimacy, a position of UTMOST TRUST
o Examples:
Branch manager or bank teller stole the jewelry under his custody.
Guy being helped by another guy steals from the good guy. (P v Flores)
Cashier/entrusted teller of a corporation stealing (P v Rebucan)
Compare to a commission salesman, only simple theft since no confidence

reposed by employer on him since commission salesman lang. (P v Maglaya)
o Not enough that the offender and victim are housemates, the relationship must be characterized
by dependence, confidence, and vigilance.
o If there is conspiracy, but one is a trusted employee and the other is not, what is the crime?
Trusted employee: qualified theft
Not trusted employee: theft
Grave abuse of confidence applicable only to the person to whom confidence is

reposed (exception to the rule of conspiracy: act of one, act of all)
Mail matter: Any matter that is deposited with the Phil. Postal Corporation which are delivered through
postal service. Includes mail matters, parcels, money orders, printed materials, etc.
o Even if private postal corporation
o Mail matter, regardless who stole it, even if private individual.
Theft of coconuts:
o If the coconuts are taken when they are still on the tree, or deposited on the ground the crime is
qualified theft.
o If any other place, simple theft.
Carnapping, RA 6539
Elements:
o Taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another
o Taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons or by using force upon things, and
o Done with the intent to gain70
Basically follows the same principles as theft/robbery, but the object of the crime is different: a motor
vehicle
Carnapping is a malum prohibitum.
There are two kinds of penalties provided by the law.71

o Those which follow the RPC nomenclature: RP to death if special complex crime of carnapping
with homicide or rape. 72
70
"Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.
71
Section 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective
of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and
four months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not less than
seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any
person, or force upon things; and the penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor
vehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping.
72
Boado actually calls this qualifying but J-Call called it special complex. So Im following J-Call.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
121
am+dg
Those which do NOT follow the RPC nomenclature: qualified carnapping and simple carnapping
Hence, the RPC will only have suppletory effect when the special complex crime is
present.
Someone committed qualified carnapping (14 y 7 17 y 4 penalty) and then sold

the car to another person. Is he an accessory under Art 19 of the RPC?
o NO. The nomenclature does not follow the RPC. Hence, cant apply
suppletorily.
o But he can be a principal for FENCING.
Will the ISL apply? Yes. Because the ISL will apply if there is a range for the penalty. (P v
Bustinera)
If there is no person killed or raped, and there is only PI or attempted/frustrated homicide or murder or
rape the crime is QUALIFIED carnapping
There is special complex crime of carnapping with homicide or rape or murder. It is a single and
indivisible offense. Here, the owner, driver, or occupant of the car is killed or raped.
o Just once counrt regardless of how many people killed or raped.
o If committed on the occasion of the carnapping, even if the principal crime here is an SPL crime
o If the person killed is anyone other than the owner, driver, or occupant of the car, then it is a
separate crime. (Ex. Bystander)
o IMPORTANT: For this to committed, the homicide, murder, or rape must be CONSUMMATED.
If the homicide or murder is merely attempted or frustrated, then the crime is qualified
carnapping.
o Like robbery with homicide/rape, the original intention must be to CARNAP in order for the
special complex crime to be appreciated.
Immediately after a taxi stopped, the accused poked his gun at a passenger so the
victim gave him his wallet. He then killed the passenger. He boarded the taxi and
ordered the driver to drive him to the next province to escape. Solve.
Robbery with homicide, and
Carnapping
o Taking of the car was a mere afterthought
o DO NOT apply Art. 48 of the RPC.
Motor vehicle is any vehicle propelled by any power apart from muscular power using the public
highways73
o Motorcycle, tricycle included. Pedicabs and bicycles are not (theft yan!)
o There are other vehicles which are expressly exempted. These are subjects of either
theft/robbery. See footnote.
Value of the vehicle is NOT important. The penalty depends on the injuries inflicted on the driver.
If the initial possession is lawful (like a rented the car), by killing the driver of the car and then taking it
for their own, it is carnapping with homicide. Even if the car was taken from the driver and not the
owner, it is still taking because there is no consent by the owner.
In P v. Bustinera, the accued was hired as a taxi driver to drive the car for a fixed period of time. He did
not return it. The taxi was found abandoned in a place. HELD: Although there was initially lawful
possession, it transformed to illegal possession when he abandoned it in a secluded place: carnapping.
o Crime is consummated even if the carnappers abandoned the car after.
The offenders stole a truck and the personal effects contained therein. What is the crime?
o Two crimes:
Carnapping as to the truck
Theft as to the personal effects

o The SC was wrong here, because it said qualified theft.
o
Cattle Rustling (PD 533) yee-haw!
Cattle rustling is taking any large cattle. It includes killing cattle or taking its meat or hide without the
consent of the owner/raiser.74
Malum in se.
73
"Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars,
street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles, which run
only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of
wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.
lawphi1

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
122
am+dg
May there be cattle rustling even if cattle is not taken?

o Even if large cattle is not taken, there can be cattle rustling if it is killed and its meat is taken.
There may be a special complex crime of cattle rustling with homicide if a person is killed on the
occasion of cattle rustling. 75
o Boado said killing is absorbed, but it seems like hes wrong.
RPC has suppletory application cattle-rustling since penalties follow nomenclature of the RPC.
Forestry Code (PD 705)
Malum prohibitum.
Offenses under Sec 68 of PD 705:

o Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest products from any forest land,
or timber from alienable or disposable public land or from private land, without any authority;
and
o Possession of timber or other forest products without legal documents required under existing
forest law regulations.76 (Merida v People)
Remember Tigoy? Court applied conspiracy even if malum prohibitum.
What if whats removed is lumber, not timber?

o Insofar as possession of timber without the required legal documents is concerned, Section 68 of
P.D. No. 705, as amended, makes no distinction between raw or processed timber (which is
lumber).
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 fine 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 fine 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 fine of from 200 to 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Crimes punished:
o Taking possession of real property of another
o Usurping any real rights in property of another
The article provides of a two-layered penalty:
o Penalty of fine for the usurpation, and
o The penalty for the acts of violence.
74
Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of the above-mentioned animals
whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes the
killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.
75
Section 8. Penal provisions. Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved, be
punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period if the offense is committed without violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things. If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, the penalty
of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion
of the commission of cattle rustling, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.
When the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition to the foregoing penalty, be disqualified from voting or being voted upon in
any election/referendum and from holding any public office or employment.
When the offender is an alien, he shall be deported immediately upon the completion of the service of his sentence without further proceedings.
76
Section 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license. Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, or remove timber
or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable and disposable public lands, or from private lands, without any authority under a
license agreement, lease, license or permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal
Code; Provided, That in the case of partnership, association or corporation, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering or collecting shall be liable, and
if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
123
am+dg
If the usurpation was committed with killing or PI, the penalty for robbery with homicide
or robbery with SPI will be imposed in addition to the fine. (Penalty will be imposed, not
charging of a different crime.) (P v Alfeche)
The Court called this two-tiered penalty incremental penalty.77

Intimdation or violence is a way of accomplishing the crime and should NOT be considered as a separate
crime.
o Not a complex crime under Art 48 either because the article itself provides that the fine for
usurpation will be in addition to the PENALTY for the consequence of violence or intimidation
committed.
o Not a special complex crime either because no single penalty for the resulting crime is given.
o It is uniquely one crime with two penalties corresponding to the usurpation and its result.
Hence, only one information must be filed.
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 fine not exceeding 100 pesos, or both.
Chapter Five
CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
Art. 314. Fraudulent insolvency. Any person who shall abscond with his property to the prejudice of his
creditors, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor, if he be a merchant and the penalty of prision correccional
in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, if he be not a merchant.
Chapter Six
SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow 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 maximum period to prision correccional 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:
Elements of Estafa in General:

o That the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence or (b) by means of deceit; and
77
Article 312 may also be considered as defining and penalizing the single, special and indivisible crime of occupation of real property or usurpation of
real rights in property by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. It is likewise not a complex crime as defined under Article 48. However,
while Article 294 provides a single penalty for each class of crime therein defined, Article 312 provides a single, albeit two-tiered, penalty consisting of a
principal penalty, which is that incurred for the acts of violence, and an additional penalty of fine based on the value of the gain obtained by the accused.
This is clear from the clause " in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him ." For want of a better term, the additional
penalty may be designated as an incremental penalty
What Article 312 means then is that when the occupation of real property is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the
accused may be prosecuted under an information for the violation thereof, and not for a separate crime involving violence or intimidation. But, whenever,
appropriate, he may be sentenced to suffer the penalty for the acts of violence and to pay a fine based on the value of the gain obtained. Thus, if by reason
or on the occasion of such occupation or usurpation, the crime of homicide, or any of the physical injuries penalized in either subdivisions 1 or 2 of Article
263 is committed; or when the same shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation; or when, in the course of its execution, the offender
shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of Article 263; or
when it is committed through intimidation or through the infliction of physical injuries not covered by subdivisions 1 to 4 of Article 263 of the Revised
Penal Code, i e ., physical injuries penalized under Articles 265 and 266 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused may be convicted for the violation of
Article 312. However, he shall be sentenced: (a) to suffer the penalty for homicide, rape, intentional mutilation and physical injuries provided under
subdivisions 1 to 4 of Article 263, other physical injuries or for the intimidation , which may fall under Article 282 (Grave Threats) or Article 286 (Grave
Coercion) of the Revised Penal Code, as the case may be, and (b) to pay a fine based on the value of the gain obtained by him, which shall be an amount
equivalent to 50 to 100 per centum of such gain, but in no case less than seventy-five (P75.000) pesos, provided, however, that if such value cannot be
ascertained, the fine shall be from 200 to 500 (P200.00 to P500.00) pesos
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
124
am+dg
That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or 3 rd
person
Basically, there are two forms or ways of committing estafa:
o With abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness (under no 1 of 315); and
o Through deceit or false pretense (under 2 and 3 of 315)
Both involve damage
Damage is not limited to material damage; any disturbance or prejudice is

constitutive of damage
Lets tackle abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness first
o
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, 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.
Three modes of estafa through abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness

o Altering substance of anything with value that offender should deliver based on an obligation
o Misappropriation or conversion of property received in trust
o Taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank
Mode 1: altering the subtance of anything with value that the offender should deliver based on an
obligation
o Elements
Offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value
He alters its substance, quantity or quality
Damage or prejudice is caused to another

o Law applies even if the property the offender is bound to deliver something illegal/obscene
For example, altered drugs to the prejudice of the obligee. Estafa (and also liable under
the DDA)
Mode 2: misappropriation or conversion of property received in trust
o Elements:
That money, goods, or other personal property be received by 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
That there be misappropriation/conversion of such money or property by offender, or

denial on his part of such receipt
That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another
That there is demand made by the offended party to the offender

o There must be a FIDUCIARY relationship between the offender and the offender party. (in trust,
or on commission, or for administration)
There must be an agreement to return the same thing or money
Doesnt matter if the obligation is guaranteed by a bond or not
Without this relationship, no estafa
The duty to return the same is based on either MUTUAL AGREEMENT or by LAW
o Any obligation to make delivery of or to return
It refers to contracts of bailment, lease of personal property, deposit, commodatum
Under any of these provisions, there is JURIDICAL POSSESSION by the

depositary.
The transaction must not transfer ownership to the offender
Here, the one in possession must return the SAME thing/money borrowed.
o So in a loan of money, no estafa since you dont have to return the exact
bills or coins, just the amount. Also, in a loan transaction, ownership of
the borrowed cash is transferred to the borrower.
o No estafa in the following cases:

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
125
am+dg
Money market placements

Bank deposits
So if the teller misappropriates bank deposits, theft
Earnest money (since part of the purchase price)
Cash advances (failure to liquidate only gives rise to civil liability)
But malversation if by an accountable officer (remember

the vale system)
See notes on robbery/theft for difference between juridical possession and

material possession
o Robbery/theft: material possession only
o Estafa: juridical possession
Conversion: presupposes that the thing has been devoted to a purpose or use different from that
agreed upon
Using or disposing of anothers property as if it were ones own

Misappropriating: includes not only conversion to ones personal advantage, but also every
attempt to dispose the property of another without right
to own, to take something for ones own benefit

Offender need not actually have gained.
Even a temporary disturbance constitutes misappropriation. Does not need to be

permanent. (Salazar v People)
Example of conversion and misappropriation:
In bank loan transactions, usually, the borrower is required to produced show money to
establish that she can repay the loan. But in Acejo v People, she borrowed the show
money from someone else. She used it for her own benefit. SC held she was guilty of
estafa. It was received in trust for a particular purpose, and there is obligation to return.
By misappropriating it, she is guilty of estafa.
Does the owner have to be the offended?
No. Law says prejudicial to another so it can be another person, as long as there is
damage caused.
Demand need not be used to show that demand had indeed been made upon the person
charged of the offense.
A query as to the whereabouts of the money is tantamount to demand.
In fact, demand is NOT essential as long as there is proof that the goods were
misappropriated.
What if it is the sub-agent which misappropriated or converted the goods?
GR: Agent not liable
EXCEPT:
o Conspired with the sub-agent, or
o There was a prohibition against the agent and he did not follow it
Examples: A person was assigned jewelry to sell, with commission. He was not
prohibited from appointing a sub-agent, so he got one. The sub-agent stole the jewelry.
SC said that the agent was acquitted because he did not convert or misappropriate the
jewelry. Moreover, there was no abuse since there was no prohibition in appointing a
sub-agent. Also, NO estafa by culpa. (Serona v CA)
Accused was assigned jewelry to sell by commission again. He asked a friend to sell
jewelries to act like a sub-agent. The sub-agent stole the jewelry. SC said the agent
was acquitted because he did not profit or gain. (Lim v CA)
NO ESTAFA BY CULPA
More examples of estafa by misappropriation/conversion:
Guy delivers his car to a motor shop for repairs. Repairman repaired car. Guy hasnt
paid, so repairman misappropriated it. Estafa because he had juridical possession of the
car (lien for the payment of the repairs). (Libuit v CA)
If he had material possession only, is it carnapping? Seems like it.
Accused was a sales agent selling residential lots on behalf of a corporation. He was
authorized to sell the lots, but NOT collect the monthly amortizations from the lot buyers.
o
o

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
126
am+dg
However, he received these and worse, he failed to remit these. HELD: Accused is guilty
of two sets of estafa:
As regards the lot buyers, he committed estafa through fraud or

misrepresentation because he claimed that he could receive monthly
amortizations.
o As many counts of estafa as the number of times he collected from the
lot buyers.
As regards the employer, estafa with abuse of confidence, because he did not
remit. (Ilagan v CA)
o As many counts of estafa as the number of times he was obliged to
account to his employer.
Collection agent who was obliged to remit did not. Estafa (Pucay v CA)
o How many counts of estafa?
GR: depends on number of offended parties/victims.
BUT if committed on different dates or occasions, there are as many counts of

estafa as the number of transactions.
See Ilagan v CA.

o Returning the money will not free the accused from criminal liability.
o Rleate to PD 115 (Trust Receipts Law) will be asked in the exam
A trust receipt transaction imposes upon trustee to give the price sold if sold, or if the
goods are not sold, return them to the entrustor.
Penal clause includes the failure of the offender to return to the bank the
component parts of the equipment covered by the trust receipt. (Ching v CA) 78
Violation of the TPL constitutes estafa.79
It is malum prohibitum. The only thing to be established: prejudice caused to another.
Mere failure to deliver already constitutes the criminal offense. (Metrobank v Tola)
When a person participates in the commission of a crime, he CANNOT escape liability due solely to the
fact that he was acting as an agent of another party. The NCC provisions on agency do not apply to
criminal cases.
Mode 3: taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank documents
o Elements:
Paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank
Offended party should have delivered it to the offender
Above the signature of offended party a document is written by the offender without
authority to do so
Document so written creates a liability of, or causes damage to, the offended party or
any 3rd person
Now, lets tackle estafa through fraud
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud:
78
The Court takes judicial notice of customary banking and business practices where trust receipts are used for importation of heavy equipment,
machineries and supplies used in manufacturing operations. We are perplexed by the statements in the assailed DOJ resolution that the goods subject of the
instant case are outside the ambit of the provisions of PD 115 albeit covered by trust receipt agreements ( 17 February 1988 resolution) and that not all
transactions covered by trust receipts may be considered as trust receipt transactions defined and penalized under P.D. 115 (11 January 1988 resolution). A
construction should be avoided when it affords an opportunity to defeat compliance with the terms of a statute.
xxx......xxx......xxx
"The penal provision of P.D. 115 encompasses any act violative of an obligation covered by the trust receipt; it is not limited to transactions in goods
which are to be sold (retailed), reshipped, stored or processed as a component of a product ultimately sold."
79
Section 13. Penalty clause. The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust
receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were
not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article
Three hundred and fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act Numbered Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised
Penal Code. If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty provided for in this
Decree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the
civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
127
am+dg
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness 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
sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or
holder that said check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency 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.
The acts covered in estafa through fraud share the same elements:
o That there must be false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
o That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud
o The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means,
that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means
o As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage
The acts punished are:
o Using fictitious name, falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, etc, or by
means of other similar deceits
o Altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to art or business
o Pretending to have bribed any government employee
o Postdating a check or issuing a check knowing that he had no funds in the bank or the funds
were insufficient
o Obtaining food or accommodation in a hotel, inn, restaurant, etc without paying therefor with
intent to defraud, or obtaining credit, or surreptitiously abandoning or removing luggage from
the establishment without paying
Fraud: anything calculated to deceive
o Includes all multifarious means
Deceit: false representation of a fact whether by conduct, false allegations or concealment that should
have been disclosed
o Ill mortgage you my land, it has lots of mangoes, wala pala. (Vasquez v P)
o I will sell you my property. It wasnt mine. (Arecheta v P)
Complainant must have suffered the deceit or fraud by the accused
Act 1: Using fictitious name, falsely pretending to possess power, influence, or by similar means
o Accused must have actually made false representations which caused the victim to part with his
money.
o The fraud must be alleged to have been personally committed by respondent prior to or
simultaneously with the payment or delivery of money.
If there be no such prior or simultaneous false statement or fraudulent representation,

any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent or suspicious it may appear,
cannot serve as basis for prosecution for that class of estafa. (RCL Feeders v Perez)
Act 2: Altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to art or ones business
o Caveat emptor doctrine does not apply. You cannot invoke the fact that the victim was himself
negligent. It doesnt apply to criminal cases.
Act 3: Pretending to have bribed a Government employee
Act 4: Postdating a check or issuing a check knowing that he had no funds in the bank or the funds were
insufficient
o Elements

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
128
am+dg
A check is drawn or postdated in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the

check was issued
No funds sufficient to cover the check
Payee sustains damage thereby

The check must be issue concurrently with, and in exchange for, a material gain to make it
punishable.
The fraud must be committed prior to or upon the issuance of the check.
It is necessary that the payee would not have release his consideration for the check if not for
the check issued.
Important: If the issuance of the check was to pay a pre-existing obligation, no liability
under RPC. Why? Since the obligation sought to be settled is already incurred and
outstanding before the check is issued.
So when the goods have already been delivered, no estafa, since when a seller
parts with his goods even without the payment, it is a credit accommodation.
Must the check be negotiable?
Negotiability of a check is NOT the gravamen of the crime, but the fraud or deceit in
knowingly issuing a worthless check.
Who can be liable?
Drawer
Indorser or even a co-conspirator

Post-dating of a check, as long as when it is due, there are funds, is not estafa, even when there
are no funds at the time it was issued.
If the check is issued as a guaranty to secure a loan, there is no estafa.
Issuing a check in exchange for cash: estafa, because you received something in exchange
How do you prove knowledge that there were no funds?
Direct evidence
Notice of dishonor from drawee bank duly received by the drawer of the check and
failure to deposit money to cover the amount
Depositing required amount within 3 days of notice of dishonor no liability
What is the effect of failure to deposit within 3 days? Failure to deposit the amount will
give rise to presumption of deceit. (Vallarta v CA, wherein accused argued that her check
was for a pre-existing sale, but SC said no meeting of the minds, so it was actually to
incur an obligation)
In closed accounts, is demand necessary?
In P v Ojeda (2004, Third Division), Court said yes.
Here, the accused drew and delivered several post-dated checks in payment of
the goods, at that time that the check was issued, the account was closed but
didnt disclose this. There was a notice of dishonor, the accused paid the amount
by installment (Ninoy died, so the economy was crazy), then charged w/ estafa.
Defense: acted in good faith, because paid on installment, said not receive any
notice of dishonor as required by law and which deprived of opportunity to pay
w/in 3 days
SC said: the accused acted in good faith, from date of check, tried to pay by
installment, though not able to complete the same, because of the havoc on the
economy. Also said there was no notice of dishonor and this failure of the bank
deprived the petitioner of the chance to pay the amount of the check. Since
deprived because of absence of notice, there can be deceit under the
circumstances.
SC: even if the account is closed, still need to issue notice of dishonor to allow
person to pay, if not given notice, fatal! Accused was acquitted.
In Lopez v People (2008, First Division), Court said no.
Here, a check was issued but the account had already been closed.
Court said: if the account is already closed, there is no more need to issue a
notice of dishonor.
The drawer of the check had no right to be given a copy of the notice because
there was no use of giving it since there was no deposit in the first place.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
129
am+dg
Court also said: all the 3-day notice does is raise the presumption of deceit. It is
not an element of the crime. Prosecution can prove deceit in another manner. In
this case, the check was issued 2 months after the account was closed. So he
was convicted.
o BP 22
Estafa
BP 22
Check issued concurrently and reciprocally in Even if check issued for pre-existing obligation,
payment of the exchange consideration
liability is incurred
Damage to the offended and deceit of the accused Damage or deceit immaterial
are essential
Crime against property
Crime against public interest
Not only drawer can be liable, even the indorser if he Only drawer is liable, or the officer of the company
were aware at the time of the indorsement of the who signed. Indorser not liable
insufficiency of funds
3 days from notice of dishonor to make good the 5 days from notice of dishonor to make good the
cash value
cash value
Malum in se
Malum prohibitum
o One can be charged under estafa and BP 22, no double jeopardy
o Requirements for presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds to arise:
Check presented within 90 days from date of the check
Notice of dishonor given
Fails to pay, or make arrangements to pay within 5 full banking days

o Under BP 22 check is stale after more than 90 days, is there a need to issue a notice of dishonor
at the time it was presented for payment?
Only consequence is no prima facie presumption of knowledge of no funds, still be held

liable if able to prove had knowledge (Bautista v People)
o Notice of dishonor must be in writing. Oral notice is not sufficient.
o BP 22 is a continuing crime.
Venue is determined by the place where the elements of making, issuing or drawing of
the check and delivery thereof are committed.
Act 5: Obtaining food or accommodation in a hotel, inn, restaurant, etc without paying therefor with
intent to defraud, or obtaining credit, or surreptitiously abandoning or removing luggage from the
establishment without paying
And the third way of committing estafa

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, office files, document or any
other papers.
So you can be charged with estafa, even in gambling!

Break muna!
Art. 316. Other forms of swindling. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium period and a
fine 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 fictitious 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 fulfillment of such obligation.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
130
am+dg
Selling without disclosing the encumbrance would not give rise to estafa per se. What brings about
criminal liability is the deceit in selling the property.
o Gravamen of the crime is the disposition of legally encumbered property w/ express
representation that property was not encumbered.
There must be express representation; without which, no estafa

o In Mallari v People, the SC considered estafa through falsification of public documents a delito
continuado because there was a singularity of the criminal impulse when Mallari defrauded two
victims on the same date, same place, and same occasion.
Under the 3rd paragraph, the owner can be guilty of estafa involving his own property.
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 fine 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 fine 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 profit 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 fine not
exceeding 200 pesos.
Elements:
o false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than those in the preceding articles;
o such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; and
o as a result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice.
Catch-all provision for estafa.
Seen in Guinhawa v People, penned by J-Call himself (so remember this!), wherein Guinhawa was found
guilty as the owner of an establishment selling cars. He displayed the car, making it seem brand new and
kept quiet of its damaged past. The car was in fact an old damaged car that had already figured in an
accident. He did not tell the buyers that the van was already old and damaged.
o There was fraudulent nondisclosure here.80
o Also showed that caveat emptor does not apply.
Fortune telling is a crime!
Chapter Seven
CHATTEL MORTGAGE
Art. 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property. The penalty or arresto mayor or a fine 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 office of the Register of Deeds of the province where such property is
located.
Art. 320. Destructive Arson. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon any person
who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as a result of
simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or where people usually
80
Fraudulent nondisclosure and fraudulent concealment are of the same genre. Fraudulent concealment presupposes a duty to disclose the truth and that
disclosure was not made when opportunity to speak and inform was presented, and that the party to whom the duty of disclosure, as to a material fact was
due, was induced thereby to act to his injury.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
131
am+dg
gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not limited to, official governmental function or
business, private transaction, commerce, trade, workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to
a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops
or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in said building or
edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for
public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the
service of public utilities.
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another
violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from
insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more
persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the
building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordnance, storehouse, archives
or general museum of the Government.
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials.
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article, death results, the
mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed
Read with PD 1613 (see footnote)81

81
Section 1. Arson. Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall be punished by Prision Mayor.
The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property under circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of another.
Section 2. Destructive Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is
any of the following:
1. Any ammunition factory and other establishment where explosives, inflammable or combustible materials are stored.
2. Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any edifice devoted to culture, education or social services.
3. Any church or place of worship or other building where people usually assemble.
4. Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft, or conveyance for transportation of persons or property
4. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial, administrative or other official proceedings.
5. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing tenement, shopping center, public or private market, theater or movie house or any similar place
or building.
6. Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated in a populated or congested area.
Section 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the
following:
1. Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies;
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
4. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and
5. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse.
Section 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson. The penalty in any case of arson shall be imposed in its maximum period;
1. If committed with intent to gain;
2. If committed for the benefit of another;
3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burned;
4. If committed by a syndicate.
The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is planned or carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons.
Section 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall
be imposed.
Section 6. Prima Facie evidence of Arson. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima facie evidence of arson:
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or establishment.
2. If substantial amount of flammable substances or materials are stored within the building note necessary in the business of the offender nor for
household us.
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or materials soaked therewith or containers thereof, or any mechanical,
electrical, chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire, or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of the
burned building or property.
4. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the time of the issuance of the policy.
4. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance policy more than two fires have occurred in the same or other premises owned or under the
control of the offender and/or insured.
5. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the effects insured and stored in a building or property had been withdrawn from the premises except in
the ordinary course of business.
6. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration was made before the fire in exchange for the desistance of the offender or for the safety of the
person or property of the victim.
Section 7. Conspiracy to commit Arson. Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished by Prision Mayor in its minimum period.
Section 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. The building which is the object of arson including the land on which it is situated shall be confiscated and
escheated to the State, unless the owner thereof can prove that he has no participation in nor knowledge of such arson despite the exercise of due diligence
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
132
am+dg
Arson is the destruction of property by fire.

o As long as fire or pyrotechnic material is used to destroy any property, arson yon!
Corpus delicti: fire and of its having been intentionally caused
There is reckless imprudence resulting to arson (man burns trash, then fire gets blown to other areas
because of a strong wind)
No frustrated arson.
o As soon as the fire occurs, no matter how small, consummated.
The property burned may be the offenders or owners.
o Arson is committed even if offender burned his own property if burning was made under
circumstances which exposed the property or life of another to danger.
A person acting under one criminal impulse who burns several buildings commits not distinct arson but
only one crime of destructive arson.
o Only one crime of arson, no matter how many houses were burned.
Remember the lessons of Malngan.
o If intent to burn the building and death is a result, just arson. Resulting homicide is absorbed.
o If intent to kill and fire resorted to as means to kill, murder only.
o If intent to kill (and he has done so) then fire used to cover up the killing, then two distinct
crimes, homicide/murder and arson.
o No such thing as complex crime of arson with multiple homicide or arson with homicide.
Discussion on RA 8294 (putting this here since J-Call said hell ask questions on 8294 and 9516):
Unlicensed Firearms
Homicide or murder
Special AC
Political crimes
Absorbed
Used in other crime
Not AC, not even separate
offense
o Take note that if unlicensed firearm is used to commit murder or homicide, it is merely an
The murder or homicide must be consummated. If crime merely attempted or frustrated,

this AC does not apply.
Take note of the phrase that no other crime was committed. This means that if an
unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime (not murder or homicide since
it has its own paragraph), there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession
of firearms.
Hence, if the crime was direct assault and multiple attempted homicide, the
accused can no longer be charged with the separate offense of illegal possession
of firearms, even if its penalty is heavier than direct assault. (P v Ladjaalam)
Nor can use of an unlicensed firearm be used as an AC against him (since it only
pertains to murder and homicide). But the use of arms can be used against him
homicide with use of weapon. (P v Ladjaalam)
Moreover, an accused may evade conviction for illegal possession by using such
weapons in committing an even lighter offense, like alarm and scandal or slight
physical injuries. Remedy is with Congress.
Note that the person must first be convicted for that other crime, before this anomaly in
the law can be used by the accused.
Murder or homicide includes parricide or infanticide. (P v. Mendoza, where husband

shot wife. But can be argued that the broad interpretation is wrong. Interpretation of
doubts must be always for the accused.)
What if robbery with homicide? The use of illegal firearms is not an AC. Only considered if murder or
homicide. Thats it. (P v. Sabadao)
o But in People v. Abdul (2000), the SC 1 st division affirmed the RTC ruling which considered it as
an AC. This is wrong.
o In People v. Domacyong (2003), the SC ruled that that the AC of illegal possession can be
considered in robbery with homicide. This is wrong. (The Court was right though for acquitting
them of the separate charge of illegal possession)
on his part.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
133
am+dg
Security agency has license to possess firearm, guard does not. Guard uses gun to commit
murder. AC? Yes, guard has no license to possess that firearm, only the employer. (Catalina v
Decano, Pursuant to Section 1 in relation to Section 5, the firearm used in an unauthorized
manner shall be considered an aggravating circumstance. We are in agreement that even if the
firearm used was properly licensed to the security agency, its unauthorized use by the appellant
aggravated his offense.)
Compare to Cuenca v People (1970), where security guard was charged for illegal
possession. He did not know that agency did not have the proper license. He was
acquitted.
o Does the firearm have to be presented during trial?
No! The corpus delicti is the possession of the firearm. Not the firearm. You just have to
prove possession without license. You can do this through a certification from the PNP
that accused did not have a license.
o Are paltiks covered? Yes.
o You have a license, but no permit to bring it out of your house, and then you bring it out. What
happens? Liable ka boy. (Pastrano v CA)
o Accused in possession of two guns, one high-powered and the other low-powered. Can he be
charged for 2 crimes? Yes! Different penalty for high-powered and low-powered eh!
What if he has 3 high-powered guns, can he be charge for 3 crimes? No, just 1 crime.
Since it only has one penalty!
o Gun ban during election, right? Accused brings out his unlicensed firearm. Solve.
Not AC (not murder or homicide) and not even considered separate (used in other crime
eh!)
Guilty of violating the gun ban.

RA 9516
o Covers unlicensed explosives
o No longer absorbed by political crimes (see comments on political crimes)
o Can now be considered aggravating even if no one died since RA 8294 was amended in this
respect. (Correct?)
o
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:
1. By prision correccional in 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 medium and maximum periods, if the 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 fine 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.
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.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
134
am+dg
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 fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both such fine 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 affinity 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.
Those exempted from certain crimes

o Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line
Should include stepparents and stepchildren (since affinity)

o Widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the
same shall have passed into the possession of another
The property belongs to deceased spouse
It has not passed into the possession of a 3rd person

o Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together
Includes illegitimate and half-siblings

Not applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.
Exempted from what crimes?
o Theft (including qualified theft) but not robbery
o Estafa but if complexed with other crimes (falsification of public documents), no exemption
o Malicious mischief.
But if relative burns something, thats arson. No exemption.
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 correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the
offended spouse, the penalty next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall
be imposed.
Elements:
o That the woman is married
o That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband
o That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be married
The man who knows she is married is also guilty of adultery.
Effect of acquittal by one does not mean other one should be acquitted.
o Like when guy does not know that the hot woman he just slept with was married.
What if the girl just slept with the guy because she was having a sad marriage where her
husband just cares about his work and neglects her everyday? Still adultery.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
135
am+dg
Married woman may be liable for adultery even if marriage is declared null and void after commission of
adultery because nullity of marriage after adultery does not affect criminal liability of accused. By time
judgment final, adultery already committed.
Adultery not continuing crime.
Each sexual intercourse consummates crime.
o Single impulse test NOT applicable. Sex 5 times, adultery 5 times.
o Every sex, 1 adultery.
No frustrated adultery.
o Attempted adultery? Yes. (Caught in the hotel undressing)
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.
Acts punished:
o By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; or
o By having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his
wife; or
o By cohabiting with her in any other place
Elements:
o That the man must be married
o That he committed any of the said acts
o That as regards the woman, she must know him to be married
Woman who knew guy was married is also liable
Cohabitation or living together as husband and wife means not only residing under one roof, but also
having repeated sexual intercourse.
o Means more than sexual intercourse, especially when one of the parties is already old and may
no longer be interested in sex. At the very least, cohabitation is the public assumption by a man
and a woman of the marital relation, and dwelling together as man and wife, thereby holding
themselves out to the public as such. (Arcaba v Bataocael)
In adultery or concubinage, the complaint must come from the offended spouse.
o Complainant must be a spouse at the time of the complaint.
Married man sleeps with a married woman in a scandalous manner. What crimes are committed by the
married man?
o Adultery
o Concubinage
Scandal any reprehensible word or deed that offends public conscience, redounds to the detriment of
the feelings of honest persons, and gives occasion to the neighbors spiritual damage or ruin
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 punished by prision
correccional.
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.
Elements of acts of lasciviousness:

o That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness
o That the act of lasciviousness is committed against a person of either sex
o That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
By using force or intimidation
When offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
When offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented

Difference from attempted rape: in attempted rape, the intent was to lie with the woman. (Remember
Lizada v P, where guy was naked, but had not yet put his thing into the girls vajayjay. That was
attempted rape because of the clear intention to sleep with her.)

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
136
am+dg
Lewd design: something indecent, obscene, designed to incite crude sexual design
Relate with 7610:
o RA 7160 penalizes acts of lasciviousness with a minor as child abuse. For prosecution under the
special law, the elements of acts of lasciviousness must be proved as well as the elements of
sexual abuse under Sec 5 of RA 7610:
Accused commits the act of lascivious conduct
Said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse
The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

o If the child is under 12, the offender shall be prosecuted under the Code but the penalty shall be
reclusion temporal instead of prision correccional.82 (Remember this when sir asks if victim under
12, what law shall apply?) (Laudes v People)
Elements of consented acts of lasciviousness:
o That the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness
o That the acts are committed upon a woman who is a virgin or single or widow of good
reputation, under 18 years of age but over 12 years, or a sister or descendant regardless of her
reputation or age
o That the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence, relationship, or deceit
Acts of lasciviousness
Committed under circumstances of rape (without
consent, etc)
Victim male or female
Female need not be a minor or virgin
Fight!
Consented acts of lasciviousness

Committed under circumstances of seduction, hence
with consent secured by deceit
Victim female
Female victim must be a minor over 12 or under 18
years and a virgin, or at least of good reputation
Break muna!
Chapter Three
SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS
AND WHITE SLAVE TRADE
Art. 337. Qualified 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 prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be 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.
Two classes of qualified seduction:

o Seduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age by certain persons, such as, a person in
authority, priest, teacher, etc.
o Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her age or
reputation
First mode: elements of qualified seduction:
o That the offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation
o That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age
o That the offender has sexual intercourse with her
o That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender
Virginity not physical but moral - virginity includes a virtuous woman of good reputation
If child is under 12, thats statutory rape
82
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse;
Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article
336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious
conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period;
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
137
am+dg
o If 12 18 with force or intimidation: rape

o If 12 18 with cajolery: qualified seduction, provided virgin
o If exactly 12 through cajolery or deceit: Child Abuse Law
Second mode: if the offender is a brother or an ascendant, the age and moral reputation of the girl is not
material
Abuse of confidence is inherent, not AC
Simple seduction elements:

o That the offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age
o That she must be of good reputation, single or widow (not sure if widow still applies as you cant
get married under 18)
o That the offender has sexual intercourse with her
o That it is committed by means of deceit
Qualified Seduction
Simple Seduction
Virgin
Single (or a widow) of good reputation
Offender is public authority, priest, house servant, Offender may be any person
domestic, guardian, teacher or any person entrusted
with the education or custody of the woman seduced
When the offender is the brother or an ascendant, Victim cannot be over 18
victim may be over 18
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 officer or employee, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall also
suffer the penalty of temporary absolute disqualification. (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
profit 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
Elements of forcible abduction:

o That the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation
o That the abduction is against her will
o That the abduction is with lewd designs
Different intent:
o Arbitrary detention: detain without legal grounds
o Kidnapping: deprive of liberty
o Forcible abduction: lewd designs
Interplay with rape:
o If the intent was to rape, and the victim was brought to a place to rape her, no complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape. Only rape. Abduction is absorbed by rape. (P v Almanzor)
Victim was abducted and brought to a grassy area near her house. She was raped.
Abduction was absorbed. (P v Mojerada)
Victim brought 600m from her house where she was raped. Abduction still absorbed by
rape. (P v Godinez)
o But when is it not absorbed?!
Abducted to place 100m from her house. Court said forcible abduction with rape. (P v
Abarquez)
o Main determinant is the specific intention of the offender, and not the distance.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
138
am+dg
What if there was abduction (which was necessary to commit the rape) and then there were
three rapes done after?
The moment the first rape was committed, then forcible abduction with rape was
consummated. The second and third rapes were separate crimes. Hence, one complex
crime of forcible abduction with rape, and then two separate simple crimes of rape. (P v
Garcia, P v Caraang)
Rules to follow (this looks familiar because it was in the Crim 1 notes and already cited above. But just
for repetition because its important:
o Intent to rape: simple rape. Taking incidental.
o Intent to take woman against her will with lewd designs: forcible abduction with rape
(information must allege lewd designs)
If multiple rapes, complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, then for the other rapes
file separately.
o Intent was to kidnap for ransom, but after rape was committed as an afterthought: special
complex crime of kidnapping with rape
o
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
filed 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 filed 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 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.
RA 8353 did not repeal this article, merely amended it.

o Rape can now be filed even without the consent of the victim (since now private crime.)
GR: Pardon must be given before the prosecution of the crime.
o EXC: in rape, because not a crime against person and RA 8353 states that the penalty imposed
shall be remitted, meaning that pardon is effective even if judgment had already been rendered 83
For rape, see notes on Rape.
Adultery or Concubinage bars prosecution of crime
o Must be made:
Before the institution of the criminal action, and
Both offenders must be pardoned by both parties

Acts of Lasciviousness, Seduction and Abduction bars prosecution of crime
o Must be EXPRESS
o Before the institution of criminal action
Only offended party may pardon
o Pardon of offended party who is a minor must have concurrence of parents (except: when she
has no parents)
Condonation is not pardon in concubinage or adultery; any act of infidelity subsequent to condonation
constitutes a new offense
o Since it is only the offended spouse can file the complaint, condonation or consent to the illicit
affair of the other spouse will bar prosecution. But wont apply to acts of infidelity after such
condonation.
Who should file?
o Adultery or Concubinage
83
Article 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 not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
139
am+dg
Only offended spouse can file the complaint
Both parties, if both alive, must be included in complaint
Both parties must be included even if one of them is not guilty

Seduction, Abduction or Acts of Lasciviousness
The right to file action granted to parents, grandparents or guardian shall be exclusive of
all other persons and shall be exercise successively
It is exclusive, because if the parent, for example, refuse to file, the grandparents cannot
file the complaint
When offended party is a minor, her parents may file complaint
When offended party is of age, and she is complete possession of her mental and
physical faculties, she alone can file the complaint
The father, if living, is not necessarily preferred to the mother in filing the complaint
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.
Civil liability for rape, seduction or abduction:

o Indemnify the offended woman
o Acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from doing so
o In every case, support the offspring
Acts of lasciviousness not included
In rape, no more need to acknowledge the offspring as seen in P v Magtibay:
o With the passage of the Family Code, the classification of acknowledged natural children and
natural children by legal fiction was eliminated and they now fall under the specie of illegitimate
children.
o Since parental authority is vested by Article 176 of the Family Code upon the mother and
considering that an offender sentenced to reclusion perpetua automatically loses parental
authority over his children, no further positive act is required of the parent as the law itself
provides for the childs status. Hence, rapist (even if married) should only be ordered to
indemnify and support the victims child. However, the amount and terms of support shall be
determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing in accordance with Article 201 of the
Family Code.
o No more need for the prohibition against acknowledgment of the offspring of the offender who is
a married man which would vest parental authority in him. (P v Bayani)
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 confidential 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.
Teachers or other persons in any other capacity entrusted with the education and guidance of youth, shall
also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special
disqualification.
Any person falling within the terms of this article, and any other person guilty of corruption of minors for the
benefit of another, shall be punished by special disqualification from filling the office 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 fine of not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
140
am+dg
The same penalties shall be imposed upon 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 officer who, in violation of the duties of his profession or office, 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 disqualification.
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 correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed.
Simulation of birth must be made in the birth certificate.

o If in another document, thats falsification.
Under RA 7610, child trafficking is the crime if the parents agree to the adoption of their child for a
consideration, or when the physician falsely made it appear in the record of birth that the supposed
parents are the natural parents.
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.
Elements:
o That the offender has been legally married
o That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the CC
o That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage
o That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity
There must be a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before contracting another. (Mercado
v Tan)
o If none or it comes subsequent to the marriage, bigamy.
o Bigamy consummated upon the celebration of the 2nd marriage. (Tenebro v CA)
Must there be a declaration of presumptive death?
o Yes! (Manuel v People, where the other spouse was absent for 21 years and was used as a
defense. It didnt work. SC said you need the declaration of presumptive death. On the argument
that he had no malice, SC said he was presumed to have acted with malice when he married the
2nd wife because ignorance of the law excuses no one.) 84
If no marriage ceremony was not held before a solemnizing officer and the parties merely signed a
marriage contract, no valid first marriage in fact, no semblance to a valid marriage and thus needs no
declaration of nullity. So if couple marries again to different people, not bigamy since 1 st element not
met. (forgot name of case, Dean Del mentioned it before)
For prescriptive purposes, there is NO constructive notice by registration (unlike in case of real
property).
o Prescribes in 15 years.
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 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.
Elements:
o That the offender contracted marriage
o That he knew at the time that:
o the requirements of the law were not complied with; or
o the marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment
Bigamy
Illegal Marriage
Subsequent marriage must be perfectly valid except Subsequent marriage is annullable or void even if
84
Justice Callejo was the ponente of this one and he brought about the big guns citing Viada, Cuello Callon and Albert all in one decision!

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
141
am+dg
that it is bigamous
Refers only to contracting a second marriage before
the former one has been legally dissolved or before
the absent spouse has been declared presumptively
dead
there is no first marriage

Covers all marriages which are otherwise voidable or
void for causes other than bigamous marriages
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 fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon 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.
Art. 352 (a). Marriage to a Zombie Any person who shall marry a zombie shall suffer the penalty of brains
being eaten.
If this reviewer has helped you in any way whatsoever, please pay it forward by donating to the
Ateneo Blue Plate Feeding Program. For just P11, youll be feeding a child and your soul.

Justice Callejo
No stamping please!
142

Crim Reviewer 2

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

Crim Reviewer 2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

am+dg

Levies war against the government, or

Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort

How come? Because of allegiance to the country, whether temporary (aliens) or

Are dual citizens liable for treason?

So if youre a Filipino-Malaysian who helps Malaysians during a war between the

Mere conspiracy is not enough

The capability to overthrow is NOT important, the probability is immaterial

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

Both must concur. He must translate his adherence to overt acts.

Cannot refer to rebels under Art 135.

This mental act need not be testified to by 2 witnesses

The overt act must be testified to by 2 witnesses

No accomplices or accessories in treason.

Either a single act, or a series of acts impelled by one criminal intent.

Extra-judicial confessions NOT enough.

Unless you do other acts to show sympathy to the enemy

J-Call DISAGREES. This should fall under aid and comfort.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

Unless you yourself tortured the Filipinos.

Aid and comfort may be made by speech

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Conspiracy or proposal to commit treason is a crime in itself. (Relate to Art 8)

Section Two. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war

Prohibited by the Government, or

Carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or

Containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

Notice or information might be useful to the enemy, and

Two modes of committing piracy:

Attack or seize the vessel, or

Yes. Under Art 2.

Violation of the common right of nations

Moreover, piracy is an exception to the rule on territoriality. Regardless of the law

Relate piracy with terrorism.

It says so in Sec 2 of RA 9372.

Distinguish Art 19, PD 1612, PD 1829 and Art 122/123.

Will apply to Art 122

Will apply to Art 122

Take note that MUTINY is also punished

Essence: robbery where the taking is the seizure of

Essence: to protest or to go against the lawful

Piracy is qualified when:

Can the use of unlicensed firearms be used as an aggravating circumstance to piracy?

No. It can only be aggravating in homicide or murder.

No. There were no pirates. It sank because of an iceberg.

So you can have piracy with direct assault.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

PNP, NBI, even judges acting in official capacity

punong barangays, members of the sangguniang barangays, members of the lupong

barangays captains, barangays councilmen, barrio policemen (because of Art 152)

district foresters authorized to enforce the Forestry Code

but are limited to violations of the Forestry Code

If not, he acts in his private capacity, hence crime is illegal detention

Yes, if he connives with a public official/person in authority. (Cuello Callon)

o Detained a person legally

Not to the SC or CA as they are not trial courts

Boado, however, says otherwise. He says included CA or SC. Follow J-Call.

The clock will still keep ticking.

Clock will still keep ticking.

Ascertain the identity of the officer and the arrested person

Determine the circumstances behind the arrest